Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

[dlorde]

I am quite familiar with ALL sorts of craft and how they operate in flight.

Wow - even the Skunkworks guy said there were black budget research craft he hadn't seen...

 

[Sledge]

Really? Why?

I am quite familiar with ALL sorts of craft and how they operate in flight.

What I saw did NOT operate like our craft do, it was NOT human in form or function.

Because there is no way you are familiar with ALL sorts of craft and how they operate in flight. People who work in the aeronautical industry wouldn't make such a blatantly stupid claim. Consider that you're now claiming to be familiar with the secret aircraft projects of all nations on Earth. And you expect anyone to believe that?

 

[carlitos]

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

Cool. Please scan this written description and post it so that we can see it. Then we can evaluate your written description vs. your revealed details here, and draw our own conclusions.

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

That's utter garbage.

What hubris you (and "Knowers/Believers") demonstrate with this type of crap. Everyone's memory is fallible. Yours too. Confabulation exists. I can think of a half-dozen political candidates who had stories that they had told so often that they believed were true. Bill Clinton convinced himself that he flew from London into LaGuardia while he was on a Rhodes scholarship.

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

Yes. But some people, when they see something they can't recognize, assume God / aliens / bigfoot.

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.

Birds, fireflies, stars, reflections - none of these are human. How did you eliminate these things from possibilities?

 

[EHocking]

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

You go SO close with this statement, and then,

'I' saw something that was not human, in form or function.

Dropped the ball.

I think the problem with this incident is that you've become too defensive about it and see it as backing down if you are seen to concede that your recollections are not as accurate as you would like.

I've been a birdwatcher since I was a kid. I'm pretty good at searching the bush for wildlife and spotting it before most people I'm with. This includes an expert African wildlife guide while on safari.

Because of that experience I KNOW how easy it is for my brain to deceive my eyes.
I have no problem with admitting I'm occassionally fallible and accepting that somethings are not as I recall.

ETA: As you know from previous postings, I have witnessed 2 aerial anomalies in my life, and while I can think of a plausible explanation for one of these occurrances and one was reported in an national newspaper (so I know I'm not going mad), they will both still remain UFOs, since I will (probably) never witness them again, so will never definitively identify the source of these sightings.

 

[dlorde]

Bill Clinton convinced himself that he flew from London into LaGuardia while he was on a Rhodes scholarship.

And Hillary Clinton thought she had entered Bosnia under sniper fire...

 

[LashL]

I've split the discussion about fairies in punshhh's photograph to a separate thread here.

Posted By: LashL

 

[Crocoshark]

Neither side is winning. They're both losing.

People see strange things in the sky. We have a gap in our knowledge of what exactly these things are.

Some people fill the gaps in their knowledge with aliens, postulating something extraordinary that's never before been reliably documented, despite little to no hard evidence to support said conclusion. They call themselves believers or in your case "knowers".

Some people fill in their gaps with the speculation that it's something we already understand well, like flares or planes, postulating a close to the case despite not actually being there.

It could be something mundane and understood through and through, it could be known phenomena doing something we didn't know it could do, it could be an undiscovered meteorological or psychological event, it could be an optical illusion we didn't know could happen, it could be the Russians making great strides in air craft technology and not telling us, it could be an undiscovered intelligent earth species that hails from the sea like in James Cameron's The Abyss, exploring the air-world with robot probes, it could be aliens. These possibilities are very roughly ordered from most to least likely. But at the end of the day, I'm not afraid to say that we just don't know.

Forced to pick sides; the skeptics are winning. Definitely. The reason I say they're both losing is because neither are really bringing up things other then the false dichotomy of "aliens vs. something well known and understood"

ETA: On second thought when I refer to the skeptic side as losing, I should narrow my focus and say that only a certain percentage do as I described; rationalize away any unknowns as being caused by nothing of interest. There's a good slice of skeptics that don't do this.

 

[Stray Cat]

Forced to pick sides; the skeptics are winning. Definitely. The reason I say they're both losing is because neither are really bringing up things other then the false dichotomy of "aliens vs. something well known and understood"

You do see a difference between the possibility of aliens v the possibility of mundane though right?

Afterall we are dealing in possibilities here. Only the UFOlogists deal in conclusions.

 

[aggle-rithm]

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?

They can SEEM to do that, yes.

I am sorry, but this is beyond ridiculous.

Nevertheless, it is far more likely than little green men.

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

Not really, no. We know that semi-trucks exist, so there's no reason to doubt such a claim.

These were not birds.

Possibly not. But the likelihood that is was something mundane is greater than the likelihood that it was a sign of an unknown intelligence.

 

[tsig]

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.

Could we at least pear at "beyond all reasonable doubt" standards."

 

[EHocking]

I'm all for raisin the expectations to "beyond all reasonable doubt".

 

[King of the Americas]

Who exactly is "qualified" in this situation?

Someone who knows the difference between a satellite and a U.F.O., and of the 'most' qualified end air traffic controllers.

 

[Nonpareil]

Were one, not you or anyone else in particular, to stand on a railroad track, and IGNORE that your senses are telling you that emanate death approaches...

It isn't going to end well for you.

Our senses help us interpret our world, and navigate it successfully. They CAN be trained and trusted.

No. They can be trusted up to a point. This is the thing that you don't seem to be understanding, so I'll try to explain it here.

Yes, our senses can and do make reasonably reliable statements about the world we live in on a regular basis. But they are not always this reliable.

For example, at the moment I am laying on my bed and typing this on my laptop. I know that I have several board games and RPG sourcebooks in my closet. I know that Arkham Horror is in there somewhere, as are Thud and Operation: TANNHAUSER. But I doubt very much that the mental image I have of the closet is correct. I remember seeing Thud on the second shelf down, on the left.

I just came back from checking the closet. Thud was on the second shelf down, on the right. My memory was wrong.

That's a fairly simple example. I remembered general things - which games were in there, roughly where they were, et cetera - but failed when it came to fine details.

Coming back to your example of an approaching train, once one gets off the train tracks and reports the experience to a friend, odds are that the story is going to be somewhat different from reality. You might remember that the train had the number 77 painted in red on its engine, for example, when that number was actually on the third car down, or in a different color. You might remember the train being of a slightly - or even wildly - different shape than it actually was.

And these are all fairly mundane examples, referencing situations where we have clear views of the objects, and the situations appear entirely mundane. What if I told you that it was very dark when I saw the train? Would my description of it be more or less trustworthy? What if I told you that I had seen a Boeing 747 up above me at night in a fog? Would you trust that I had actually seen a Boeing 747, or would you say that it was probably a different model of plane that I didn't get a clear look at and subsequently described as a 747?

These UFO stories you and Rramjet report are certainly interesting, and, if they were verified to be entirely accurate, would provide a lot of evidence in favor of extraterrestrial visitation (or, at the very least, something very weird). But they haven't been verified to be accurate, and without verification, we have no reason to think that they are actually accounts of extraterrestrials rather than lies, misrememberance, or a misperceived mundane occurrence.

 

[Resume]

KotA. You're what, an aircraft designer? Test pilot? Head of R&D for Boeing?

Jesus! I have to fly in three days!

 

[King of the Americas]

Wow - even the Skunkworks guy said there were black budget research craft he hadn't seen...

First, I didn't say "all". Second, those unknown or development craft wouldn't be flying over North Texas doing stunts for the locals.

Lastly, I have some knowledge about general flight, and how planes move. This does not mean I've ever seen a Stealth Bomber stall. I am sure that flight pattern may well look very abnormal. That said, I am familiar with most common planes' operational capabilities and the envelope in which they operate.

What I saw exceeded anything I've ever seen by performing what I deemed to be impossible feats, by human standards.

 

[RoboTimbo]

First, I didn't say "all". Second, those unknown or development craft wouldn't be flying over North Texas doing stunts for the locals.

Lastly, I have some knowledge about general flight, and how planes move. This does not mean I've ever seen a Stealth Bomber stall. I am sure that flight pattern may well look very abnormal. That said, I am familiar with most common planes' operational capabilities and the envelope in which they operate.

What I saw exceeded anything I've ever seen by performing what I deemed to be impossible feats, by human standards.

Why would the feats you remember seeing be impossible for pilotless craft?

 

[King of the Americas]

Cool. Please scan this written description and post it so that we can see it. Then we can evaluate your written description vs. your revealed details here, and draw our own conclusions.


...


Yes. But some people, when they see something they can't recognize, assume God / aliens / bigfoot.


Birds, fireflies, stars, reflections - none of these are human. How did you eliminate these things from possibilities?

First, "No." I will not scan in pages from my personal journal. Those pages are mine, and for me alone.

So, by your definition, NO ONE can, could, or has ever seen gods/U.F.O.'s or bigfoot...?

I've seen all of those things before. I am indeed familiar with common arial artifacts that one would expect to see. I do NOT expect objects/lights to make right angle turns while maintaining a constant speed, or starting and stopping on a dime, and I've never seen any physical object, much less a flying one, "combine with another and make a 4-fold larger version of themselves".

If you take 2 clay balls weighing 1 lb each and combine them to make one 2 lb ball, the resulting ball doesn't look 'twice' as big. When two of these U.F.O.'s combined they made a MUCH larger version of themselves, which was what was especially surprising.

My friend described it as "making a big ass version of themselves".

I arrived at U.F.O. 'after' failing to find a human craft capable of these feats.

 

[Nonpareil]

I've seen all of those things before. I am indeed familiar with common arial artifacts that one would expect to see. I do NOT expect objects/lights to make right angle turns while maintaining a constant speed, or starting and stopping on a dime, and I've never seen any physical object, much less a flying one, "combine with another and make a 4-fold larger version of themselves".

The question is, though, did you see a UFO do this? Or are your memory and perception playing tricks on you?

 

[carlitos]

First, "No." I will not scan in pages from my personal journal. Those pages are mine, and for me alone.

So the evidence I have that your story hasn't changed in the intervening years is _____________. That's not very persuasive. That's not evidence.

So, by your definition, NO ONE can, could, or has ever seen gods/U.F.O.'s or bigfoot...?

No, by the common definition of "evidence," no one has shown me evidence for the existence of gods, UFOs or bigfoot.

I've seen all of those things before. I am indeed familiar with common arial artifacts that one would expect to see. I do NOT expect objects/lights to make right angle turns while maintaining a constant speed, or starting and stopping on a dime, and I've never seen any physical object, much less a flying one, "combine with another and make a 4-fold larger version of themselves".

OK.

Please list the ways in which you eliminated hallucination, lights, optical illusion, or reflections from your list, because I believe that you have assumed "physical object" since your story took place.

Also, why didn't you honestly respond to the link about optical illusions, instead of giving us a silly story about standing on train tracks?

If you take 2 clay balls weighing 1 lb each and combine them to make one 2 lb ball, the resulting ball doesn't look 'twice' as big. When two of these U.F.O.'s combined they made a MUCH larger version of themselves, which was what was especially surprising.

Yes. That's your story. If I took two flashlights and waved them around, I could create this effect on the floor, provided I varied the height and angle a bit.

I arrived at U.F.O. 'after' failing to find a human craft capable of these feats.

• First you assumed human.
• Then you assumed craft.
• This is not a very skeptical thought process.

 

[King of the Americas]

You go SO close with this statement, and then,
Dropped the ball.

I think the problem with this incident is that you've become too defensive about it and see it as backing down if you are seen to concede that your recollections are not as accurate as you would like.

I've been a birdwatcher since I was a kid. I'm pretty good at searching the bush for wildlife and spotting it before most people I'm with. This includes an expert African wildlife guide while on safari.

...

So if you were out in the wild, bush, brush, or otherwise...spotting game.

You've seen EVERY species in this region, known to science. Then, there is a rustle in the treeline, and a bright pink cube bounces out into the clearing. It bounces up and down, then shoots straight into the air. You look over at your cohort and ask, "Did you just see a bright pink cube bounce out of that treeline...?" Then the other witness finishes, "...then bounce up and down before shooting up into the air?" Yeah, I say that.

How would you go about processing that observation.

Surely you'd start by asking other visitors to the area, if they too had seen the 'pink dancing cube'? Maybe you'd google 'pink bouncing cubes'? Maybe you'd get you and your co-witness' eyes checked?

OR

Maybe you would settle with the fact that you and your friend didn't see anything all, you just had a random hallucination and or a complete psychotic break with reality.

The 'problem' is that you've just witnessed something completely abnormal and certainly NOT what you have been trained to identify.

Did you see something or nothing?