Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

[King of the Americas]

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.

Thank you so very much for your response. It is greatly appreciated. It is far too seldom that people simply respond to an OP, in an honest and straight forward manner.

Be well, sir

---

I for one don't know what U.F.O.'s are.

But I would say that 'I' KNOW that there is something in our heavens that is intelligent, not us, and revealing themselves to some as U.F.O.'s.

I KNOW that they aren't random reflections off Venus, hallucinations, or stars.

'I' for one have never postulated aliens...

 

[King of the Americas]

... was something mundane is greater than the likelihood ...

Mundane...?

(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mundane)...?

But when you take into account ALL the cave art, religious writings, photo and video-graphic evidence one COULD argue that "U.F.O.'s" are mundane, or part of our common world.

The question is really, why should we disregard ALL the tales of 'heavenly agents'...?

By the hand of history, these things ARE mundane.

 

[King of the Americas]

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

Orange you glad I didn't say banana?

 

[Stray Cat]

Mundane...?

(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mundane)...?

But when you take into account ALL the cave art, religious writings, photo and video-graphic evidence one COULD argue that "U.F.O.'s" are mundane, or part of our common world.

Here is a fine example of possibly unreliable individual accounts being used to prove a whole general area as reliable.

And I'm sure you know the context which the word 'mundane' is used in relation to UFO sightings. We don't need another semantics thread, we've got ECREE for that.

 

[Correa Neto]

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.

Well, you accept that you may have been mistaken. You should also accept that your memories might not be exact.

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.

Remember my previous post?

Do you think trained millitary observers would confuse a cargo ship with a carrier during a reccon mission? Why do you think this would happen? How would you rank yourself compared to these guys?

And what about the F-16 with canards in Europe back in the mid-50's? How would you explain this?

The key to your sighting might lie in the word "common". Uncommon, actually. Uncommon observing conditions, perspective, etc.

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.

Actually you recall seeing something which you are interpretating and/or remembering to disobey "the laws of flight". As for shape, well, IIRC you described them previously as "stars". Stars are point lights, the have no shape and now you are talking bout shapes. Later at this thread, you said they changed color. Please note that some stars do display the exact colors you described -red, white and blue. And yes, I´ve seen people getting excited with one of them and believing it was an UFO and it was at a millitary ship (you can find my "report" throught the search function). Do you think your observation skills are better than those from the folks which were fooled? What do you think were the conditions which led to their mistake (night sky, ship at the ocean far from the shore, no clouds, no commercial flight routes nearby, no lights other than the dim navigation lights)? Yes, you can find some answers at my posts if you care looking for them. What about trying to apply these conditions to you sighting?

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.

No, its your interpretation of the event.

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

Sure. I have no problem with that. I just think that maybe you both were fooled by uncommon observation conditions.

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.

There were clouds in the sky right? Ever considered the effect moving clouds may have? Static stars may seem to move if you (involuntarily) pick a cloud as refference.

You don't accept that what you saw was real- you believe that what you saw was real and no misinterpretation happened.

Oh, no, I have no idea of what you saw (yes, I have some loose ideas, but I'll keep them to myself sicne I can't back them properly). Your descriptions are rather vague and frankly they seem to change, since every now and then you add new details or omit some details. Actually maybe even with the complete transcription of your sighting plus local and date I would not be able to build an idea. Not enough details, I wasn't there. If I were maybe I would be with my jaw on the floor untill now or maybe I would have slapped your face and said "get a grip, thats just a..." What I know is that I would be very carefull before jumping to the non-alien extraterrestrial skygods conclusion.

At this, that a skeptic would continue to argue, "swamp gases bouncing off Venus" or some other non-sense is absolutely laughable, to me.

IMHO, the "I can't be wrong" and "I know" lines are absolutely laughable.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

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.

These 'stories' ARE accounts of realities.

The reality is that you like RPG games, a lot, from the sound of it. Do you have Axis & Allies? (*I love that game.) Do you know without looking?

What are the chances of it being there without you knowing?

You are at least somewhat familiar with the contents of you closet, so if you saw a board game in there that wasn't yours, would you think you 'imagined' the extra game?

I don't know how you verify U.F.O. reports as 'accurate' other than to compare different witness reports of the same or similar events. Which Rramjet HAS done repeatedly...

 

[King of the Americas]

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

The question is in your mind about your perceptive skills, not mine.

 

[Nonpareil]

These 'stories' ARE accounts of realities.

Not necessarily. They could be lies. But for the sake of argument, I'll agree. That was never my objection. If you read my posts, you'll see that I'm not questioning that these accounts deal with actual experiences. I'm questioning whether or not these accounts are accurate representations of these experiences.

That's what you need to prove if you want these anecdotes to carry any weight.

The reality is that you like RPG games, a lot, from the sound of it.

Yes. I play games of all kinds - board, card, video, RPG - very frequently, and I plan to make a profession out of making them after I graduate.

Do you have Axis & Allies? (*I love that game.)

I used to. It was a very, very old copy, though, and eventually got so beat-up and lost so many pieces that I tossed it out.

Do you know without looking?

Yes.

What are the chances of it being there without you knowing?

Very low.

You are at least somewhat familiar with the contents of you closet, so if you saw a board game in there that wasn't yours, would you think you 'imagined' the extra game?

If I went back and couldn't find it, and no one else had seen it, then yes. It's actually happened several times. I thought I had seen Pandemic on one of the shelves after one night of gaming. I don't own the game myself, so I thought that it must have been left here. However, the next time the person who actually owned it came over, I went down to retrieve it and it wasn't there. He confirmed that he had taken it home, and even played it the previous night. My perception was incorrect; Pandemic had never been on my shelf.

I don't know how you verify U.F.O. reports as 'accurate' other than to compare different witness reports of the same or similar events.

There are plenty of ways, but that's not one of them. A group of people with an entirely consistent story between them is not evidence. It provides a consistent narrative, yes, but merely being consistent isn't enough. You still need evidence to back the story up, because talking about the experience with each other - and review of what little hard data there may be on the situation - can alter the group's memories of what happened so that they all fit.

To confirm that the memory is accurate, you need hard data on the experience. You need to know exactly where and when it took place. You need to know the prevailing conditions. You have got to have photographs or video or some other verifiable record of the occurrence. And then you have to look for an explanation - one that doesn't contradict any of the data that you have, and which doesn't violate Occam's razor.

This makes verifying extraterrestrial visitation (or your "intraterrestrial visitation" idea) very difficult, because there will always be mundane explanations which can't be ruled out. That's why anecdotes can't be used as evidence of alien craft. There's no way to know that it wasn't something totally ordinary. To prove that it was aliens, you need something more.

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

The question is in your mind about your perceptive skills, not mine.

What? Are you saying that your perception is infallible?

 

[King of the Americas]

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.


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

...

I posted the event from my journal here, some years ago. Neither it, now my journal in its original pen before your very eyes would be accepted as "evidence", so let's not kid ourselves.

So by your definition, things don't 'exist' unless you personally see direct proof of it?

A scientist who claims to have seen a new species of glowing fish DIDN'T anything at all unless he captures an actual specimen...? He report or sketches are utterly useless in regards to evidence of an actual reality...?

The problem is that reality isn't contingent upon your having proof of if.

The first man to go to the bottom of the ocean, reported all manner of glowing and or angelic creatures at depth. Some said he was crazy or suffering hallucinations.

They were wrong to dismiss his reports...

 

[King of the Americas]

...


IMHO, the "I can't be wrong" and "I know" lines are absolutely laughable.

I am likely NOT wrong about seeing 'something' perform arial feats beyond that of human technology. I have no idea what, who, or how they managed these feats, but I KNOW I saw something rather than nothing.

*I posted a full account of the event HERE, somewhere... I have no desire to repeat myself.

 

[Nonpareil]

So by your definition, things don't 'exist' unless you personally see direct proof of it?

How did you get that from this?

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

All carlitos is saying is that he hasn't seen evidence of gods, aliens, or Bigfoot, so he doesn't believe in them. What about this is so hard to understand?

A scientist who claims to have seen a new species of glowing fish DIDN'T anything at all unless he captures an actual specimen...?

No. It's possible that he didn't see anything, of course, but it's also possible that he actually saw the fish, or that he saw something else in the water and was mistaken. If he wants to prove that he saw the fish, then yes, he has to capture a live specimen, but not having one doesn't automatically invalidate his story as a lie. It just means that there's no real reason to believe it.

He report or sketches are utterly useless in regards to evidence of an actual reality...?

Unless he can find the fish as proof, then yes. It provides a reason to look into the matter further, but it isn't proof that the fish exists.

The problem is that reality isn't contingent upon your having proof of if.

No one said it was. It's just that having no proof of it leaves us with no reason to believe it.

The first man to go to the bottom of the ocean, reported all manner of glowing and or angelic creatures at depth. Some said he was crazy or suffering hallucinations.

They were wrong to dismiss his reports...

Those who automatically assumed that he was crazy were wrong, yes. But very few people actually did that. They saw his reports as a reason to go back down there and look for these things themselves.

His reports were a motive, not evidence.

 

[Nonpareil]

I am likely NOT wrong about seeing 'something' perform arial feats beyond that of human technology.

How do you know?

I have no idea what, who, or how they managed these feats, but I KNOW I saw something rather than nothing.

No one is disputing that you saw something. We are trying to explain to you that your memory of the event - and your perception of it - are possibly incorrect.

 

[tsig]

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

Yes, all peas should reach "beyond all reasonable doubt".

 

[carlitos]

Maybe someone with better google-fu than I possess can find KoTA's journal entry that he posted here long ago? I share the skepticism of others that note the changing / evolving details of the story that are posted here, and I would be genuinely interested in seeing it.

KoTA, you seem determined to continue arguing against straw men rather than what I am saying. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't do that.

Also, the spelling is aerial. Arial is a font, which is probably why that spelling is top of mind. Not that your mind is fallible!

 

[Nonpareil]

Maybe someone with better google-fu than I possess can find KoTA's journal entry that he posted here long ago?

I've been trying to find it using the forum's search function, but no dice. KotA, what thread did you post it in? When?

ETA: Google also doesn't know where it is.

 

[The Man]

I don't understand.

Are people capable of making accurate reports of observations, or not?

Again, as I said “Sure people are capable of making accurate observations” but they are also quite capable of making inaccurate observations. The former takes considerably more effort, knowledge, skill, and expertise than the latter.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

Also, the spelling is aerial. Arial is a font, which is probably why that spelling is top of mind. Not that your mind is fallible!

THANKS, seriously, I really appreciate the correction.

I knew it looked weird, but the spell check missed it...

 

[King of the Americas]

I've been trying to find it using the forum's search function, but no dice. KotA, what thread did you post it in? When?

ETA: Google also doesn't know where it is.

No clue...but would likely have been one of the first things I posted.

I was sent here from the "THSMB" as the place to post my U.F.O. experience. It was a sheep to the wolves sort of thing, I would find.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

Those who automatically assumed that he was crazy were wrong, yes. But very few people actually did that. They saw his reports as a reason to go back down there and look for these things themselves.

His reports were a motive, not evidence.

Yet we see skeptics who'd rather claim crazy or incapable of accurate reporting RATHER than launching serious investigations.

Reports here motivate ridicule, not calls for scientific investigation...

 

[Nonpareil]

Yet we see skeptics who'd rather claim crazy or incapable of accurate reporting RATHER than launching serious investigations.

Reports here motivate ridicule, not calls for scientific investigation...

No, they don't. The report itself merits nothing more than a "that's not evidence, and if you want it to be you need to find something to verify it". That's what we've been saying all along.

What has motivated ridicule is your stubborn insistence that your account is one hundred percent factually correct, and that it should be accepted as evidence, despite the mountain of evidence against you.