Meteors are measured in many tens of kilometers per second. If they had been meteors, the people observing them would have known they were. To suppose these qualified observers could not have distinguished a meteor... especially since that WAS a consideration going into the study, is stretching the limits of credulity. Simply the observers were highly qualified reliable people conducting an operation using instruments they were trained to use - and whose accuracy was intimately relied upon by the military. If they has thought in ANY way that their observations were in ANY way inaccurate, they would have no qualms in stating so...
- Status
Meteors are measured in many tens of kilometers per second. If they had been meteors, the people observing them would have known they were. To suppose these qualified observers could not have distinguished a meteor... especially since that WAS a consideration going into the study, is stretching the limits of credulity. Simply the observers were highly qualified reliable people conducting an operation using instruments they were trained to use - and whose accuracy was intimately relied upon by the military. If they has thought in ANY way that their observations were in ANY way inaccurate, they would have no qualms in stating so...
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
All you have produced is evidence of UFOs. Nobody has denied this is the case. You have NOT produced a single shred of evidence that these UFOs are aliens. You have not proven your claim. Declaring yourself the "winner" demonstrates you are being dishonest with people here and yourself. All you have demonstrated is you are a very bad scientist (I am beginning to have serious doubts about this claim as well).
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
There's your argument from ignorance and incredulity again, Rramjet. You're wrong, as usual, and Stray Cat is right. There is only evidence to show someone thought it could.
I'm curious, since this thread has now gone over 1800 posts, has anyone at all seen the alien proponents offer a single shred of evidence that was anything other than arguments from incredulity, ignorance, and lies? You would think they'd start with more than that if they hope to actually support the claim. That is, unless their understanding of evidence and the scientific method is so abysmally lacking that they think ignorance, incredulity, and lies can actually support a claim.
Can anyone point out where any legitimate evidence has been provided?
Yes, I DO claim it is indicative of "aliens" and have provided the evidence for it (no earthly technology has such capabilities - but if you can think of any, then please present it for discussion or possible refutation of my evidence... No? I did not think so).
I make NO claims beyond that. So you asking me to prove aliens have access to that technology... is not only tautological* (thus fallacious) it is also going beyond what I claim.
* Obviously if it IS an alien then by definition they have access to the technology that they use - and that they have "bases" that allow them to use that technology to get here - because they are here!
Oh, how do you know? Argument from incredulity.
Interesting claim, care to show evidence for this assertion? Nope, didn't think so. All air and big words, not so much substance.
Sometimes I think he's just pulling our collective legs. Noone can be this thick.
Finally, someone has admitted I have presented evidence for UFOs.
Moreover I have repeatedly asserted that this was my current "mission" and that I have not really begun to present evidence for "aliens".
Now, if I can get a majority to agree with you that the evidence for UFOs is solid -THEN we might move on to the evidence for aliens.
I declared myself the "winner" in the debate simply because people had stopped posting anything even resembling rational argument focused on the evidence. As soon as people do that they are conceding defeat by default.
Now, as for the alien bit, if I move too early, people will merely go back to arguing the existence of UFOs and that would lead us nowhere. BUT I HAVE presented the Iranian UFO case which at the very LEAST is indicative of something beyond the bounds of earthly technology.
As was the White Sands case by the by, because at the height calculated... we had NOTHING at the time that could have been up there... but that is much too "subtle" a point for most here I suspect. So I have to "hit them over the head" with shape-shifting and intelligent control.
Nobody is saying much about that I notice...
Now you might be intelligent enough (in fact I am sure you are) to realise by now that "something is up" and it aint us! But most here don't have your training or expertise... so we'll just have to move slowly I am afraid, until the basic concepts begin to sink in.
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
Isn't it just!
Now please show us some evidence that aliens exist... if you can do that successfully, you'll have a higher chance of making your case that UFO's may be of alien origin. Thanks.
LissaLysikan
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 209
What part of this confuses you -
UFO means Unidentified.
Unidentified does NOT mean alien - they are unrelated words.
You have proven what we all knew before you started this - UFOs exist.
You have shown nothing for "alien".
No, changing the definition of Unidentified is NOT an option.
UFO means Unidentified.
Unidentified does NOT mean alien - they are unrelated words.
You have proven what we all knew before you started this - UFOs exist.
You have shown nothing for "alien".
No, changing the definition of Unidentified is NOT an option.
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
OK, so there is evidence that some people thought that they saw it shape shift... much better that.
Okay, then if we DO have such capabilities, then there is a massive cover-up and these people have placed us at risk of an all out war with Iran - and who knows where THAT might end. The people responsible (or should I say unbelievably irresponsible) should therefore be brought to account for placing all our lives in such peril.
Why do you then not stand up - as your patriotic duty - to defend your country and its citizens and demand a full and open inquiry into the incident then? That is of course if you actually BELIEVE we have such technological capabilities...
OK, so there is evidence that some people thought that they saw it shape shift... much better that.
What makes you doubt the eyewitness accounts?
LissaLysikan
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 209
Thank you. I knew you were just kidding with us - no one could be as stupid as you were acting.
This bit of CT woo gave you away, though.
Amusing.
1. First you rely on that the report is accurate, not a hoax or a result of an optical illusion.
2. Even if it was accurate you fail to account for the unknown mundane. Just like you can't know the existence of classified technology. Therefore you can't say something is alien until one has a properly examined sample.
But Lissa, you have already disqualified yourself from the argument by claiming that you are not qualified to comment on the evidence. So how can you know WHAT a good or propoer definition of a UFO might consist of.
I contend that A UFO is such in light of the knowledge we have today and in light of all the research that has been conducted on any case or group of cases.
Do you object to that definition? And if you do, WHY do you?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
ok, so there is evidence that some people thought that they saw it shape shift... Much better that.
Star Trek: Deep Space 9
Good job on dodging the main point of my post that other manmade objects than balloons could be up that high. I know it's your tactic to just avoid commenting when you're called on your bluffs but it's getting pretty obvious.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Last edited:
- Status