Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

[carlitos]

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.

Despite your characterization above, I would be very interested in seeing your original account and comparing it to what you say now.

I don't know how to make the search function find more than the most recent 275 posts. Even the most basic google search like this one just can't find it. Weird.

 

[GeeMack]

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?

Good to see those arguments from incredulity we've heard so far still leave room for mundane explanations. That's skepticism. Did you get a thorough psychiatric evaluation after/since your hallucination? Complete toxicology workup within a couple hours/days?

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

Why do you believe the feats you remember seeing to be beyond that of human technology?

 

[GeeMack]

Why do you believe the feats you remember seeing to be beyond that of human technology?

It's more exciting than giving credence to the myriad mundane possibilities.

Of course it could be some god or gods created a vision just for a couple of people as a sort of practical joke. Those gods are reading this thread, and are still getting a good laugh out of it to this very day. Why not? After all, there is exactly as much evidence to suggest that it true as there is to suggest some kind of technologically advanced beings were responsible for the alleged sighting.

 

[Crocoshark]

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.

Have I not seen skeptics "concluding" that UFOs are known phenomena?

 

[Stray Cat]

Have I not seen skeptics "concluding" that UFOs are known phenomena?

Got any links to verify what you've seen?

Maybe you've seen sceptics concluding that possible known phenomena haven't been ruled out... which is completely different.

 

[Nonpareil]

Got any links to verify what you've seen?

Maybe you've seen sceptics concluding that possible known phenomena haven't been ruled out... which is completely different.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure that some poster here has, at some point, concluded that UFOs are all entirely mundane phenomena. It's just not what the majority do, and it's certainly not what skepticism is supposed to be about.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

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.



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.



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


...

Someone witnessed a glowing fish, something completely unheard of and or 'alien' to them. Certainly no one had ever seen something like this first hand, much less recorded its existence. This lone witness held an accurate report of real creatures.

It would take years for him to be vindicated and were someone to claim they had seen glowing fish, a marine biologist might ask him to describe it, so that he could name it for him.

The REALITY is that these fish have probably existed for billions of years, only in the past 100 has anyone known of their existence. They existed BEFORE science recognized them, but the tip of the explorative sword held the truth the whole time.

We dismissed an account of truth regarding a new discovery, to our detriment.

---

*If a King, upon hearing of an approaching army, sent out a scout to bare witness to this invading army and what types of armaments they planned to employ, AND to take pictures.

The scout witnesses that the invaders have only a series of catapults, no calvary, archers, and only a few infantry men. Sadly all the pictures were lost, over-developed, rendered useless. The King has to develop a defense strategy and looks to his war counsel. The 'skeptics' argue that the scout COULD be wrong, that maybe he just didn't 'see' the calvary and archers, and that ANY defense plan should ignore any report of catapults without pictures of them. The scout himself argues that a small team of demolition assassins should be sent out to destroy the looming artillery...

Should the King take the word of a single man, or should the skeptical argument win the day? Should he send out a small demolition team, or empty out his own calvary and archers to make a full defense?

There is a war on, and every unit is invaluable...

'I' heed my scout's report.

Be as skeptical as you'd like. It won't deliver you timely truth.

 

[carlitos]

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.

 

[King of the Americas]

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.

The facts reported are 'accurate'.

Now, I probably couldn't tell you what I was wearing, or if the cattle gates were all open or closed. But I'd have no problem describing the event, its characters, and how they behaved.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The facts reported are 'accurate'.

Now, I probably couldn't tell you what I was wearing, or if the cattle gates were all open or closed. But I'd have no problem describing the event, its characters, and how they behaved.

Why do you believe the things you remember are beyond the capabilities of terrestrial technology?

 

[King of the Americas]

Why do you believe the things you remember are beyond the capabilities of terrestrial technology?

2 things really...

-right angle turns
-combining to make a "big ass version of themselves"

This atop their over maneuvers and origin was enough to push it out of our realm of possibility.

---

This forum's archive only goes back to 2010...???

 

[GeeMack]

The facts reported are 'accurate'.

Now, I probably couldn't tell you what I was wearing, or if the cattle gates were all open or closed. But I'd have no problem describing the event, its characters, and how they behaved.

So you don't remember the event especially well. Do you remember if you got a thorough psychiatric evaluation shortly after the hallucination? A physical exam? Did you remember getting a complete toxicology workup within a couple hours/days?

 

[GeeMack]

The facts reported are 'accurate' to the best of my admittedly incomplete memory.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Stray Cat]

This forum's archive only goes back to 2010...???

No it goes back much further than that.

I've found threads you started in 2005

However, I remember the thread with your sighting being the quite long one about Astronauts UFO sightings and can not now find any reference to it. Maybe you didn't start that thread? Neither did Rramjet, I checked his threads too.
Though snippets of your story are liberally spattered through the first half dozen pages of this thread I can not find any reference in this thread to where you posted it originally. The conversation here looks like everyone brought it over from another thread so it had already been discussed prior to Sept 2009.

 

[Stray Cat]

To be fair, I'm pretty sure that some poster here has, at some point, concluded that UFOs are all entirely mundane phenomena.

Yes you're probably right... but they weren't true Scotsmen.

It's just not what the majority do, and it's certainly not what skepticism is supposed to be about.

Indeed, that's not scepticism at all, it is just a different coloured belief.

My point (which I know you already understand so sorry if it sounds like I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs here ), is that UFOlogists often paint a picture of sceptics as if the sceptics had all concluded that all sightings are mundane, when in most cases, the most anyone can do is conclude that the object remains unidentified but the possibility of a mundane explanation had not been ruled out.

There are of course some cases which have been cleared up upon further investigation and in those cases, evidence leans heavily towards certainty.

 

[King of the Americas]

No it goes back much further than that.

I've found threads you started in 2005

However, I remember the thread with your sighting being the quite long one about Astronauts UFO sightings and can not now find any reference to it. Maybe you didn't start that thread? Neither did Rramjet, I checked his threads too.
Though snippets of your story are liberally spattered through the first half dozen pages of this thread I can not find any reference in this thread to where you posted it originally. The conversation here looks like everyone brought it over from another thread so it had already been discussed prior to Sept 2009.

When I clicked on my name, then the statistics tab, it only showed the material back to 2010...?

 

[Stray Cat]

When I clicked on my name, then the statistics tab, it only showed the material back to 2010...?

Nope, it goes all the way back to January 2003... 7 pages worth of threads you've started.

 

[Correa Neto]

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.

First of all, I think its actually a step forward you admiting there's a chance you might be wrong about your interpretation. Note also that we (at least most of us) are not disputing the fact that you saw something. We merely think you may have been mistaken. That's not a heresy or offense, AFAIK.

I also would like you to ponder about the examples I presented. All of them could have ended with the "I was not mistaken" line. Ponder about what built the "sightings", which factors were present to create the mistakes.

Here they are again:

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?

Someone recalls seeing a craf looking like a F-16 with canards in Europe back in the mid-50's? How would you explain this?

Part of a Brazillian Navy ship's crew being fooled two consecutive nights by a star, believing an UFO was following the ship.

You are also very fond of bringing the "I saw something" line as support for your beliefs. The details keep changing every post, so its natural for us to want more detail and check for clues and inconsistencies. Please don't fall in to the trap our resident mystics felt in to.

 

[King of the Americas]

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?

Someone recalls seeing a craf looking like a F-16 with canards in Europe back in the mid-50's? How would you explain this?

Part of a Brazillian Navy ship's crew being fooled two consecutive nights by a star, believing an UFO was following the ship.

You are also very fond of bringing the "I saw something" line as support for your beliefs. The details keep changing every post, so its natural for us to want more detail and check for clues and inconsistencies. Please don't fall in to the trap our resident mystics felt in to.

Confusing two similar sized type of sea vessels would indeed be easier, than mistaking a pink bouncing cube for a dyed loin. Things with common traits COULD easily be mistaken for something else. It is when ALL the familiar cues are absent that one is left reaching for the U.F.O. tag.

What has changed about my story?