You can suppose what you want but I think you need to provide some proof for these assertions or admit you just pulled them out of some body orifice.
So in summary:
How do you come to 10%?
How do you conclude that it is a large margin?
- Status
You can suppose what you want but I think you need to provide some proof for these assertions or admit you just pulled them out of some body orifice.
So in summary:
How do you come to 10%?
How do you conclude that it is a large margin?
Who's talking about baloons and how high they can go? Building strawmen are we? There are other objects that go high ya know.
Meteors travel too fast? How much faster then the measured speed of the observed object? Oh right, they couldn't measure the speed...
LissaLysikan
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 209
See? I don't need to know the technical aspects of the speeds and accelerations. All I need to know is that the arguments presented do not stand up when someone that DOES know throws spitballs at them.
I read it and noticed that you just ignored the fact that USNR had active blimp bases within flying distance from Rouge river.
And again we have to accept that UFO means alien (since you exclude mundane causes from the definition). Won't happen just because you say so.
And finally… if YOU contend (claim) an alien explanation, then you MUST provide evidence that it is a plausible explanation.
Search and replace mundane with alien.
LissaLysikan
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 209
Which isn't really needed, since mundane must be presumed when lacking any other evidence. If we had to "prove" mundane explanations every time something mundane happened we'd have given up on science and stayed with subsistence living. No one wants to do the same proof over and over again simply because some nitwit comes along and says "The rock fell on my foot because a vicious little brownie was mad at me for not leaving milk at the back door - it had nothing to do with gravity".
Oh - and another reason for just assuming the mundane. It makes it easier on the challenger. He doesn't have to disprove all mundanes, he just has to prove his claim. This is the part that Rramjet seems to have missed - instead of trying to prove his claim he's trying to disprove the mundane. Which will be a waste of time because even after he has disproved all the mundane, there are still tons of exotics he will have to disprove. Kind of silly to use the "if I disprove all possible explanations then you will have to accept my theory" method of argument, but I think I can keep enough silly theories going to amuse us til the end of the forum.
Oh - and another reason for just assuming the mundane. It makes it easier on the challenger. He doesn't have to disprove all mundanes, he just has to prove his claim. This is the part that Rramjet seems to have missed - instead of trying to prove his claim he's trying to disprove the mundane. Which will be a waste of time because even after he has disproved all the mundane, there are still tons of exotics he will have to disprove. Kind of silly to use the "if I disprove all possible explanations then you will have to accept my theory" method of argument, but I think I can keep enough silly theories going to amuse us til the end of the forum.
Last edited:
I think you will find I asked for EVIDENCE for your beliefs, not mere statements of belief. Surely if your contentions are correct, then you can find SOME evidence to support them.
Alternatively, if you present them, as you seem to do for no reason at all (ie; " None of these “alternatives” for UFO’s are my contentions so I can‘t and don‘t provide any credible evidence to support them). Then you have given up on rational argument and thus provide me with further evidence that many members of the JREF cannot mount a rational argument when it comes to this topic of UFOs and aliens.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
And this matters to anyone in what way?
LissaLysikan
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 209
It's quite simple, actually. We're here to point at the holes in your theory. In this case, we're looking for the theory amongst the holes.
Instead of trying to disprove everything known to man, how about trying something new - provide some evidence for your assertions.
"Unknown" does not equal "Alien" no matter how many times you say it or how you say it or if I even bothered to look at the physics. "Unknown" will always mean "unknown" until you ADD TO the evidence presented so far.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Oh, right. Yeah. I knew that.
LissaLysikan
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 209
aw - it's more amusing without the bold
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Very well said.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
JREF concedes...
Hoo boy.
So, finally I have won the great UFO and aliens debate.
People in the JREF finally have nothing at all rational to say about the evidence for UFOs and aliens.
…and all it took was TWO primary UFO cases – and they just cave in! Just TWO!
Wow! I never expected it to be THIS easy.
I have argued the once mighty JREF into submission…
JREF now concedes that:
First: that UFOs exist
Second: that aliens exist.
They do this by default because they can no longer mount any rational arguments against the evidence I present. They don’t even pretend to try to address the evidence now!
… and I presented evidence for just TWO primary cases.
For those that are interested in the cases that won the debate for me they are as follows:
The Rogue River Case (24 May 1949)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver.html)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)
(http://www.nicap.org/docs/rogue490524docs3.htm)
Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
(Supporting documentation and discussion)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident)
The secondary case I presented was:
The Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter (21-22 Aug 1955)
(http://www.nicap.org/kelly-hendry.htm)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/kelly55.htm#witness)
And I WAS going to present the following case:
Brazilian UFO Night (19 May 1986)
(http://www.ufo.com.br/documentos/night/Occurrence Report - Translated.pdf)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/brazilianairforceadmits.html)
(http://www.allnewsweb.com/page9299893.php)
(http://www.cohenufo.org/BrazilianUFODocumentsReleased.htm)
(http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0909/declassified.php)
But I guess that is totally unnecessary now.
I will make a summary of the arguments and post them ASAP.
WOW. JREF has no more rational arguments against UFOs or aliens!
Well, next I will have to go after Randi to get him to change his encyclopaedia entry on UFOs to reflect the fact that his own JREF members now concede that UFOs exist and that aliens exist.
See you all soon with that summary!
ETA: Oooo in my excitement I forgot a critical case:
White Sands: Twinkle, Twinkle Little Craft (April-May 1950)
(http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm)
(http://www.project1947.com/gfb/twinklereport.htm)
...sorry...
Hoo boy.
So, finally I have won the great UFO and aliens debate.
People in the JREF finally have nothing at all rational to say about the evidence for UFOs and aliens.
…and all it took was TWO primary UFO cases – and they just cave in! Just TWO!
Wow! I never expected it to be THIS easy.
I have argued the once mighty JREF into submission…
JREF now concedes that:
First: that UFOs exist
Second: that aliens exist.
They do this by default because they can no longer mount any rational arguments against the evidence I present. They don’t even pretend to try to address the evidence now!
… and I presented evidence for just TWO primary cases.
For those that are interested in the cases that won the debate for me they are as follows:
The Rogue River Case (24 May 1949)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver.html)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)
(http://www.nicap.org/docs/rogue490524docs3.htm)
Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
(Supporting documentation and discussion)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident)
The secondary case I presented was:
The Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter (21-22 Aug 1955)
(http://www.nicap.org/kelly-hendry.htm)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/kelly55.htm#witness)
And I WAS going to present the following case:
Brazilian UFO Night (19 May 1986)
(http://www.ufo.com.br/documentos/night/Occurrence Report - Translated.pdf)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/brazilianairforceadmits.html)
(http://www.allnewsweb.com/page9299893.php)
(http://www.cohenufo.org/BrazilianUFODocumentsReleased.htm)
(http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0909/declassified.php)
But I guess that is totally unnecessary now.
I will make a summary of the arguments and post them ASAP.
WOW. JREF has no more rational arguments against UFOs or aliens!
Well, next I will have to go after Randi to get him to change his encyclopaedia entry on UFOs to reflect the fact that his own JREF members now concede that UFOs exist and that aliens exist.
See you all soon with that summary!
ETA: Oooo in my excitement I forgot a critical case:
White Sands: Twinkle, Twinkle Little Craft (April-May 1950)
(http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm)
(http://www.project1947.com/gfb/twinklereport.htm)
...sorry...
Last edited:
But there are plenty of people who see Unicorns, they are in the mental hospital with all those people who keep seeing Aliens.
But none of the Alien photos/footage has been verified, because its unidentified.
There are plenty of eyewitnesses in the distant past.
So where is this physical evidence, if you say cropcircles, I will have some unicorn tracks to show you.
Last edited:
LissaLysikan
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 209
Rramjet,
Serious reading comprehension problems, I see.
You offered to produce evidence of aliens.
We said fine, let's see it.
You gave a few anecdotes and a drawing of an elf.
We said, "let's see the evidence of aliens. We aren't arguing any more about your silly diversions."
You declare a win.
I really hope the people that accuse you of being a 12 year old jr high student are correct, because if you're an adult you missed a LOT of education.
Serious reading comprehension problems, I see.
You offered to produce evidence of aliens.
We said fine, let's see it.
You gave a few anecdotes and a drawing of an elf.
We said, "let's see the evidence of aliens. We aren't arguing any more about your silly diversions."
You declare a win.
I really hope the people that accuse you of being a 12 year old jr high student are correct, because if you're an adult you missed a LOT of education.
If you refuse to deal with the evidence I present then of course I declare a win.
I present the evidence.
You have no rational arguments to counter that evidence
I win.
Simple.
Here is some evidence
“However, through binoculars he could see many details of the shape and color. “It was rectangular in shape at a height of about 6,000 ft.” The right end was blue, the left end was blue, and in the middle was a red light making a circular motion. He thought that the object was probably cylindrical. “It reminded me of the flashing light of an ambulance, this one (red light) was not flashing. The circular motion of the red light was not continuous. Every 90 degrees or so, it paused for a fraction of a second.” He estimated that it took a second or two to make a complete circle. The object was also oscillating or tilting like a see-saw.”
(…)
“Suddenly it appeared at another position one mile further on.” That is, it was slowly traveling north but suddenly it disappeared and a few seconds later appeared at a further north location. Pirouzi also said it moved southward at times. “I could see it this time as bright as a sun. It was all yellow, like a star, but much bigger. Then it appeared to me to be like a starfish.”
(…)
“Pirouzi gave the binoculars to the others present and “they saw the object as a half-circle, in the same colors, blue, range, red and yellow.” The object seemed to change it’s shape. While Pirouzi over several minutes watched the apparent shape seemed to change from cylindrical, with blue ends and a red light going around the middle, to a fan like shape with drooping blades (“starfish” shaped) with fuzzy edges. The “blades” were dark orange near the hub changing to yellow at the tips. “The hub itself was made up of two concentric areas of color. There seemed to be a large green surface and then a smaller core which glowed like a piece of red hot coal.” One of the trainee witnesses compared it to an orange-red horseshoe with a blue area in the enclosed space of the horseshoe.”
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
“However, through binoculars he could see many details of the shape and color. “It was rectangular in shape at a height of about 6,000 ft.” The right end was blue, the left end was blue, and in the middle was a red light making a circular motion. He thought that the object was probably cylindrical. “It reminded me of the flashing light of an ambulance, this one (red light) was not flashing. The circular motion of the red light was not continuous. Every 90 degrees or so, it paused for a fraction of a second.” He estimated that it took a second or two to make a complete circle. The object was also oscillating or tilting like a see-saw.”
(…)
“Suddenly it appeared at another position one mile further on.” That is, it was slowly traveling north but suddenly it disappeared and a few seconds later appeared at a further north location. Pirouzi also said it moved southward at times. “I could see it this time as bright as a sun. It was all yellow, like a star, but much bigger. Then it appeared to me to be like a starfish.”
(…)
“Pirouzi gave the binoculars to the others present and “they saw the object as a half-circle, in the same colors, blue, range, red and yellow.” The object seemed to change it’s shape. While Pirouzi over several minutes watched the apparent shape seemed to change from cylindrical, with blue ends and a red light going around the middle, to a fan like shape with drooping blades (“starfish” shaped) with fuzzy edges. The “blades” were dark orange near the hub changing to yellow at the tips. “The hub itself was made up of two concentric areas of color. There seemed to be a large green surface and then a smaller core which glowed like a piece of red hot coal.” One of the trainee witnesses compared it to an orange-red horseshoe with a blue area in the enclosed space of the horseshoe.”
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
Last edited:
- Status