No, Rramjet, you are incorrect. I have no compunction to own a definition from a source you yourself brought into the discussion of a word that you claimed in your OP to provide evidence for. Your source, you own it. You believe in otherworldly aliens. Admit it.
Wow… YOU brought the definition to the table, I do NOT support that definition, YOU brought it, YOU take responsibility for it.
THIS is what YOU stated in reference to “alien”:
“Defitnition: extraterrestrial being: a being from another planet or another part of the universe, especially in works of science fiction” (sic)
I am contending that definition is too
narrow. While of course “alien” COULD mean what you state (ie; it is
possible you are correct), I
don’t believe we have enough direct
evidence to enable us to draw such a conclusion.
Yes I stated that I would provide evidence for “aliens” in my OP – and I have done so! (Father Gill, Lonnie Zamora, Travis Walton and yes, even the Hopkinsville case)
However, to contend that these “aliens” represent
“extraterrestrial beings: (that is) a being from another planet or another part of the universe” is, while perhaps a seemingly
compelling conclusion, is nevertheless, in my opinion, based on the
evidence, not a
supportable conclusion.
And yet now you hold that alien means "not of this world". Is this another bait and switch on your part?
No baiting or switching involved. It is actually quite simple. I use the term “alien” to mean something that is foreign to our way of conceptualising the world. For example UFOs seem to defy the natural laws of physics as we conceptualise them. UFOs also seem to represent a “technology” not available to us. If UFOs are thus “outside” our current concepts of the natural and technological world, then they ARE ALIEN to our way of thinking.
That dies NOT mean that they are ETI or that UFOs DO “break” the laws of physics OR that they DO represent “technology” of some sort.
The UFO debunker trick here is to attempt
narrow the definition of “alien” so that the only possible meaning left is ETI – THEN they can say that there is no evidence for that and that physics makes interstellar travel “impossible”, etc, etc.
It is interesting to note that UFO debunkers try to do the
opposite when it comes to proposing their own explanations for UFOs. That is, they try to
broaden the definition of what it takes to have a valid explanation so that mere
possibility is acceptable – even if their explanation is
implausible (counter to the evidence – which they then irrationally claim is “wrong” – evidence cannot BE wrong, only our interpretation of it)
So the “trick” of the UFO debunkers is to NARROW and LIMIT explanations on the UFO proponent side of the ledger, while trying to BROADEN and DELIMIT their own explanations.
Oh and
RoboTimbo: what happened to all that carry on about the Campeche case? Did you suddenly realise that perhaps there WERE UFOs involved after all and that you had better drop your questions to me about the case because when the actual
evidence is examined the whole “oil-well fires” explanation suddenly becomes more tenuous and
doubtful? LOL. Come on … you pressed and pressed me for an analysis of the case in post after post… and now I have done as you asked – you are suddenly
silent on the issue? Ha! See my reply to you in this post:
Separately, could one of the "UFO Debunkers" (whatever that may be) confirm my last query on the blimp. I'm actually serious in wanting to know. Did they really only draw the photos that look like a blimp from a few angles, or did they also draw a "circular craft?" I have only found photos that look like a blimp to me. Thanks in advance!
Rramjet, please ignore this question. Thanks.
How CAN I “ignore” it when you have a misconception about the
evidence that I am presenting?
If you are “serious” then you would look at the
evidence for yourself – rather than rely on the demonstrably biased
opinions of the UFO debunkers.
The
evidence is that the witnesses observed and described a
circular object (like a coin or pancake). Do you honestly believe that after observing and describing a
circular craft, they would then draw a shape that they did NOT observe and describe?
The key is to recognise that the drawings are a 2-dimensional representation of a 3-dimensional object. The upper drawing represents a view of a (the)
circular object when seen from below and at an offset angle. It is a drawing of a circular craft
as they would have seen it – thus elliptical. This drawing has
perspective: That is, the upper edge is
closer to us (coming out of the page) than the lower edge (receding into the page).
The bottom drawing is more of a a plan-drawing. It represent a
direct side view of the object. However, it STILL represents a
circular object. The midpoint of the drawing is “closer” to us than the ends – and this is represented to us by the “shading” the witnesses included in the drawing.
It is
absolutely disingenuous of Stray Cat to include photos of blimps beside the witness drawings and then claim that because the two LOOK similar then they ARE in fact one and the same! This would be like me placing a top view drawing of a coin next to a photo of the earth and claiming that because we know the coin is circular and flat, so then must the earth be circular and flat!
This is just getting ridiculous.
Rramjet, do you really not understand the difference between, "I can't think of a mundane explanation", and, "There is NO mundane explanation"?
Do you claim to know everything about this world? Do you seriously contend that you can consider all possible mundane explanations?
Oh but it is NOT just ME
alone that cannot come to any mundane conclusion – it is also YOU. Moreover, these cases I am presenting are in some instances
decades old and have been
thoroughly researched by UFO proponents, UFO debunkers and qualified scientists alike – and STILL no mundane solution is apparent!
Besides, there is only a
limited set of
possible mundane solutions that we have to work with. First it is “flying” – so “Is it a bird, is it a plane…? Meteorite, plasma ball, Venus …?” “Illusion, hoax …?” Very quickly we DO run out of possible mundane explanations!
I stated:
My logic is quite simple really:
P1: If something is not mundane (of this world) then by definition it is “alien”.
P2: The UFO cases I am presenting have NO mundane explanation,
C: Therefore UFOs are “alien”.
My conclusion follows logically from my premises.
That logic might be fine but if you reach your conclusion from false premises it's worth nothing. P2 has not been, and can't be, proven true.
Because of this you enter some kind of fuzzy "plausability" into the equation which is not reflected in your premises. Also, when you do that, you have to state the outcome with a certain degree of uncertainty and thus you're reasoning fails.
P2 is NOT false if there ARE no mundane solutions. P2 is true
as far as we know and that means that the conclusion will hold true until a mundane solution has been found. In science (and logic) we cannot
withhold conclusions based on the fact that at some time in the future there
might be another solution found – even though we
cannot think of any right now. If we followed that dictate, then Science (and logic) would quickly become utterly unworkable.
No, simply based on the
evidence that we DO have, the premises are true and given the logic is sound, the conclusion naturally follows.
Nowhere in my train of logic is the concept of
“plausibility” introduced. However I do not see how the properties inherent in “plausibility”(ie; validity, believability, truthfulness, credibility, etc) do ANYTHING except to
help us in our determinations. You act as if the concept of plausibility is a
hindrance to rational enquiry! This is an anti-rational position to take.
You claim eyewitness testimony is evidence. Eyewitnesses can lie. Thus your claim here is false.
Yes, eyewitnesses CAN lie. They CAN also misperceive and they CAN be deluded, but that does NOT mean that they are ALWAYS lying, mistaken or deluded.
In the cases I am presenting I am contending that, based on the
evidence, the probability of the witnesses IN THESE CASES lying or being mistaken or deluded is remote. Of course there is always the
possibility that they are, but given the
evidence that possibility is very unlikely.
Lets face it, I have presented some very strong cases here. I have presented these cases
because they are NOT cases where we might consider “lying, misperception or delusion” to be reasonable conclusions.
