• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

At which point it becomes reasonable to ask what your credentials are in the aeronautical industry, KotA. You're what, an aircraft designer? Test pilot? Head of R&D for Boeing?
 
Sledge said:
At which point it becomes reasonable to ask what your credentials are in the aeronautical industry, KotA. You're what, an aircraft designer? Test pilot? Head of R&D for Boeing?
Click to expand...
Even if he were one of these, being mistaken would still be a possibility. No human is foolproof.

Ask a pilot if he/she has ever been mistaken judging location, speed and identifying things in the sky, especially at night.
All it takes to create an UFO sighting is a single unrecognized mistake.
 
King of the Americas won't reply to the substance of my posts. Draw your own conclusions.
carlitos said:
Which sort of answers one small part of one of my questions.

Again, you are sharing your memory of your perception of events. I guess you aren't even willing to acknowledge this, after all this time. It's clear to everyone else, anyway, unless you provide some other evidence for what you claim to remember seeing.

And again, can you please share what means you have used to ensure that:
- your memory of the event is accurate, or even the same as it was that night?
- your impressive ability to gauge distance of light sources in the night sky is accurate?

Lastly, your response that started the trouble about the rule violation completely ignored UncaYimmy's point when he posted the optical illusions thing. If you viewed those with an open mind, you would grasp how vision canot be trusted.
Click to expand...
 
Correa Neto said:
At last but not least, I must say that fireflys can indeed cause mistakes when flying directly above your head, especially if they are say, 10 or 20 meters away and there are no visual refferences clues. No, I am not saying you saw fireflys. I have no idea of what you actually saw. I just think that jumping to "aliens" is a hell of a jump.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of a video I saw online that appeared to show four or five objects maneuvering at high speeds over distant hills. Their apparent accelerations & velocities were extraordinary, but there was something familiar about their movements. It eventually clicked that the video was a slo-mo, camera was near ground level and the focus was set so flies nearby were blurred enough to appear as featureless blobs that appeared to be flying over the hills. Crude, but effective at first.
 
Correa Neto said:
There are a number of problems with this line of reasoning. The main one is that it completely ignores the possibility of you ever being mistaken. It means you are absolutely, completely aware of all situations capable of creating confusion and absolutely completely aware of all conventional crafts and natural phenomena above you. You are never mistaken, not even by an odd angle or weird observing conditions. The way I see it, it doesn't matter how small the odds of you being mistaken are. The odds are always there and all it takes to create an UFO sighting is it happening a single time. Deny this and you will be completely close-minded and/or deluded.

...
Click to expand...

Given this isn't a criminal trial, 'I' see no need to apple "beyond all reasonable doubt" standards.

This is a preponderance of the evidence sort of thing.

While I accept that I might have been mistaken, I think the possibility is small that I am.

I was in an area very familiar to be, from both the ground and the air, and I was also very familiar with ALL the kinds and sorts of aircraft common to the area. What I saw was most certainly NOT anything I had ever seen. Not in this area, and not near any of the bases I have lived near.

What I saw disobeyed the laws of flight as I understand them, and were a shape and lit unlike any other craft I've seen.

These were NOT fixed points of light, nor did they travel in lines or arcs. They flew from one point to another, made right angle turns, and at one point joined with another to make a 4-fold larger version of themselves before separating again.

While I don't know what exactly I saw, I know what it wasn't humanly piloted, and it showed every sign of intelligence.

So either me and my friend had the exactly same hallucination, or we saw something.

I was sober, it was a clear evening, and having never suffered a psychotic break with reality, I accept that what I saw was real, and not a misinterpretation of a common thing.

At this, that a skeptic would continue to argue, "swamp gases bouncing off Venus" or some other non-sense is absolutely laughable, to me.
 
At which point it becomes reasonable to ask what your credentials are in the aeronautical industry, KotA. You're what, an aircraft designer? Test pilot? Head of R&D for Boeing?
 
Sledge said:
At which point it becomes reasonable to ask what your credentials are in the aeronautical industry, KotA. You're what, an aircraft designer? Test pilot? Head of R&D for Boeing?
Click to expand...

I'd call myself a novice at airplane ID, and an amateur astronomer.

I have lived near 2 military bases, and I grew up within eye shot of a small craft airstrip that hosted annual air shows.

That said, I am by no means an expert incapable of error.
 
In which case
While I don't know what exactly I saw, I know what it wasn't humanly piloted, and it showed every sign of intelligence.
Click to expand...
Is a ridiculous statement to make.
 
aggle-rithm said:
At dusk, a flock of white birds high in the sky reflect the sunlight eerily...where they are, the sun hasn't set yet.

But, I suppose you see what you want to see.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you are arguing that white birds can appear to oscillate in red white and blue colors, while making right angle turns, AND can meld together with others to make a large version of themselves?

I am sorry, but this is beyond ridiculous.

This is akin to saying, "You didn't see a semi-truck, you saw a large cardboard box with tires standing beside it."

These were not birds.
 
King of the Americas said:
Right. No one is capable of making accurate observations. I get it. I just think it is hogwash.
Click to expand...
That's not what I'm saying and your avoidance of what I am actually saying is supporting my contention that human's are fallible.

Fallibility does not mean 'always wrong' btw, that has it's own word to describe it (at present that single word descriptor is 'Rramjet' :D)
 
King of the Americas said:
Right. No one is capable of making accurate observations. I get it. I just think it is hogwash.
Click to expand...


If you think that it is "hogwash" then why do you assert such a claim? Oh, and where did you in fact “get it” other than just from yourself?

Ever heard of a strawman?

This would be a demonstration of an inaccurate observation, seeing only what you would have liked to have seen (but was not written) in what others did write.

Sure people are capable of making accurate observations and those that generally are capable of making such accurate observations usually already understand their capability to make inaccurate observations. Like simply seeing what they would have liked people to have said as opposed to what they did in fact say.
 
carlitos said:
King of the Americas won't reply to the substance of my posts. Draw your own conclusions.
Click to expand...

I wrote down the events within a few days of the occurrence so I am not relying solely on long term memory.

But I understand your argument, "People mis-remember all the time, so you must be too."

That's utter garbage.

People ARE capable of making observations AND making accurate reports of those observations.

MOST people DON'T see things that aren't there, but I will concede that some mis-identify things.

'I' saw something that was not human, in form or function.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
If you think that it is "hogwash" then why do you assert such a claim? Oh, and where did you in fact “get it” other than just from yourself?

Ever heard of a strawman?

This would be a demonstration of an inaccurate observation, seeing only what you would have liked to have seen (but was not written) in what others did write.

Sure people are capable of making accurate observations and those that generally are capable of making such accurate observations usually already understand their capability to make inaccurate observations. Like simply seeing what they would have liked people to have said as opposed to what they did in fact say.
Click to expand...

I don't understand.

Are people capable of making accurate reports of observations, or not?
 
Stray Cat said:
That's not what I'm saying and your avoidance of what I am actually saying is supporting my contention that human's are fallible.

Fallibility does not mean 'always wrong' btw, that has it's own word to describe it (at present that single word descriptor is 'Rramjet' :D)
Click to expand...

So, when Rramjet offers you and the board dozens of qualified eye witness reports of non-human piloted craft, it means what to you exactly?

That they are ALL wrong, that some are, or that there IS a reality being observed and reported of E.T.'s...?
 
King of the Americas said:
So, when Rramjet offers you and the board dozens of qualified eye witness reports of non-human piloted craft, it means what to you exactly?

That they are ALL wrong, that some are, or that there IS a reality being observed and reported of E.T.'s...?
Click to expand...

Who exactly is "qualified" in this situation?
 
King of the Americas said:
So, when Rramjet offers you and the board dozens of qualified eye witness reports of non-human piloted craft, it means what to you exactly?

That they are ALL wrong, that some are, or that there IS a reality being observed and reported of E.T.'s...?
Click to expand...
The little dig at Rramjet was a joke. As signified by the 'mr green' emoticon :rolleyes:

But what Rramjet offers are not 'qualified eye witness accounts' nor are they proven to be 'non-human piloted craft'

It doesn't mean all the reports are 'wrong' no. It means that there is a possibility that they are individually wrong. In which case, they can not be used collectively to support something being right.

So to get around this problem, we need to know how UFOlogists have managed to determine how exactly they have been able to distinguish an accurate report from an inaccurate report as human fallibility and how it manifests it's self is not always apparent and is regularly overlooked by UFOlogists (and obviously by you too).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom