Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

[King of the Americas]

Only after I dredged up all of this.

Before that, you ridiculed the idea that your memory wasn't 100% right. You told stories about standing on a train tracks and "ignoring your senses at your own peril," but really that has nothing to do with your mis-remembering the number and color of the lights you think you saw.

Not to mention, there are a zillion mundane explanations for seeing lights through a windshield in the night sky. Assuming aliens or whatever is an argument from incredulity.

I read through all that, and I don't see any real difference or deviation...

6 became 7, which I admit is a problem. I conceded that.

Star-like objects emit light...

The blue thunderless lightening was a different event.

 

[carlitos]

The star-like objects didn't have different colors in 2003 or 2005 though. Not until late 2008 on this thread did they become red, blue and white. Which seems to me to be an indicator of confabulation (just an opinion). As always, I'd be happy for you provide evidence that would prove me wrong.

I get your point on the lightning; I only found that story in an effort to prove that your story hadn't changed.

 

[Stray Cat]

Point conceded.
Now 'I' don't think that error means squat.

In light of the pointed out inaccuracy, I was just wondering how much more of your story could be wrong. For all we know, without looking at the original, it could all have been slightly altered over the years.
Although the one inconsistency pointed out doesn't automatically mean the rest of the story is inaccurate, it does graphically show how anecdote can not be relied upon.
We are still at a point where the only verification of your present story is your own memory, which has now been shown to be fallible.

 

[King of the Americas]

The star-like objects didn't have different colors in 2003 or 2005 though. Not until late 2008 on this thread did they become red, blue and white. Which seems to me to be an indicator of confabulation (just an opinion). As always, I'd be happy for you provide evidence that would prove me wrong.

I get your point on the lightning; I only found that story in an effort to prove that your story hadn't changed.

If I mention that some wore a sweater, then later remarked what color the sweater was...my recollection didn't change.

 

[King of the Americas]

In light of the pointed out inaccuracy, I was just wondering how much more of your story could be wrong. For all we know, without looking at the original, it could all have been slightly altered over the years.
Although the one inconsistency pointed out doesn't automatically mean the rest of the story is inaccurate, it does graphically show how anecdote can not be relied upon.
We are still at a point where the only verification of your present story is your own memory, which has now been shown to be fallible.

If the box of books were not located directly in the corner of the storage locker, does that lead you to believe there is no box of books?

 

[carlitos]

If I mention that some wore a sweater, then later remarked what color the sweater was...my recollection didn't change.

You are starting to sound like DOC explain the gospel inconsistencies in the new testament. This is not an encouraging sign.

 

[King of the Americas]

You are starting to sound like DOC explain the gospel inconsistencies in the new testament. This is not an encouraging sign.

By this reasoning every time I didn't provide every detail of the account, I have given an inaccurate statement, which is complete manure.

 

[GeeMack]

By this reasoning every time I didn't provide every detail of the account, I have given an inaccurate statement, which is complete manure.

Your memory, by evidence provided several times in this thread and by your own admission, is not reliable. See this post...

We've already demonstrated that my memory failed me, in my changing the number from "6" to "7"...

You and others were and are correct, memory lapses happen, and more frequently than any of us would like.

And your memory is all you've got to support your claim about seeing aliens/gods/whatever you want people to call "them" so you don't get offended. I repeat, your admittedly flawed memory is all you've got. Your credibility is nil, zero, nonexistent. There is no evidence. Your claim, at every level, has failed.

 

[Stray Cat]

If the box of books were not located directly in the corner of the storage locker, does that lead you to believe there is no box of books?

No, it would mean that if you insisted that the box of books were in the corner and also insisted that your memory was infallible, as a result of which you refused to look anywhere else except in the corner, you wouldn't find the box of books.

 

[Stray Cat]

If I mention that some wore a sweater, then later remarked what color the sweater was...my recollection didn't change.

No, it would mean that your original story wasn't reported fully and accurately. Which in turn raises doubt about the detail you did mention.

 

[Correa Neto]

By this reasoning every time I didn't provide every detail of the account, I have given an inaccurate statement, which is complete manure.

Here are some of the problems with what you wrote:

1. Your accounts, posted at different times, not only contain different ammounts of information but the informations themselves sometimes are also contradictory.

2. A detailed, definitive (or initial) version of it is not available. We only have scattered bits of information and a claim that your memories are precise and detailed versions are available somewhere else.

3. You are building a false dichotomy (again).

4. You say you do not wish to show the first account of it (which is supposed to be quite detailed) neither to discuss you claimed sighting in details. However, you raise it frequently to back your claims about UFOs and to bring you the special "knower" status. This is incongruent, incompatible with a discussion forum like this one. The way I see it, you've got two options- Do not use your sighting as an argument OR use it as an argument providing detailed information as required. The Limbo-like behavior is lame.

 

[King of the Americas]

No, it would mean that your original story wasn't reported fully and accurately. Which in turn raises doubt about the detail you did mention.

So by your line of reasoning, so long as the earliest was the most complete, it would be all good?

I would argue now, that it was. Ask those who remember my first few posts. It was literally the reason I came here.

If subsequent retellings were less complete, so be it.

*Administrators: "Is there ANY way to recover the earliest of my material?"

 

[Stray Cat]

So by your line of reasoning, so long as the earliest was the most complete, it would be all good?

Not really. The earliest regardless of later additions is the version we would use to compare against later versions to see how much your story had been embellished or changed over the years. This is not to validate your sighting but only your reporting of the sighting.

I would argue now, that it was. Ask those who remember my first few posts. It was literally the reason I came here.

No one can remember though, which is why we are asking for verification from your original source.

If subsequent retellings were less complete, so be it.

It's not "less complete" that's a problem. When mentioning your sighting in passing, it is inevitable that you don't tell the whole thing in detail. The problem comes when you mention detail that wasn't included in the original. Because these details may be simply a response mechanism to someone's explanation and not actually a part of the original report. Then when next discussed the response mechanism additions become part of your memory of the event.

*Administrators: "Is there ANY way to recover the earliest of my material?"

I have already told you and shown you that your posts go right back to 2003 already.

There is no need to get admins to do anything. If you were genuinely interested in providing the original, you could do so.
Or I have offered to contact Dr Ivan on your behalf to see if the report on that other board could be found.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

If you were genuinely interested in providing the original, you could do so.
Or I have offered to contact Dr Ivan on your behalf to see if the report on that other board could be found.

'I' am not interested in proving anything. I am simply not equipped to do so here.

If you'd like to show me and my stories to be in error, a misidentification of a common occurrence, or an over-embellishment over the years, THEN PROVE IT.

I have provided, at length, here and other places the whole story.

Of which the ONLY difference that has occurred was "6" became "7", a difference that would indeed be expected over a decade!

Other than that 'I' would argue that my story has remain very consistent.

 

[carlitos]

Actually, only the topics started by KotA go back to 2003. The "find all posts" only shows the latest 275. Is there any way to change that? I've tried just about every combination of words I can on google, and I can't find any more versions of the tale than the ones I've posted.

 

[Stray Cat]

'I' am not interested in proving anything.

And therein lies the problem. You constantly refer to your sighting as if it is proof of something and yet you are not interested in proving your proof.

If you'd like to show me and my stories to be in error, a misidentification of a common occurrence, or an over-embellishment over the years, THEN PROVE IT.

The burden of proof is on you.

I have provided, at length, here and other places the whole story.

Of which the ONLY difference that has occurred was "6" became "7", a difference that would indeed be expected over a decade!

Another truth claim that you are not interested in proving?

Other than that 'I' would argue that my story has remain very consistent.

Of course you can argue that whilst not being interested in backing it up with any proof.

 

[Stray Cat]

Actually, only the topics started by KotA go back to 2003. The "find all posts" only shows the latest 275. Is there any way to change that? I've tried just about every combination of words I can on google, and I can't find any more versions of the tale than the ones I've posted.

I was presuming (not always a good approach) that KotA would have started his own thread to discuss his own sighting.

I seem to remember from a few year back, a thread about NASA astronaut UFO sightings where KotA went into some detail about his own sighting. However, although I'm quite certain either he or Rramjet started that thread, I can not find it.

 

[carlitos]

Hmm. If it was this one, I don't see the detail. - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119398

I guess I could slag through the "UFOs, the research, the evidence" thread, but I don't relish it. Most of KotA's points there were akin to "Rramjet sure is pwning you skeptics" or something. I could be wrong; maybe I'll have another look.

His first threads started were in politics or general discussion in 2003. The "general skepticism and the paranormal" sub-forum only goes back to 2003. Maybe the forum was structured differently in 2001-2002.

 

[Correa Neto]

KotA quite often hijacks threads mentioning his sighting. Here are some issues I found at his accounts:


1.The "cloud" appears at some accounts, not at others. Its shape seems to be actually an interpretation.

2. The color changes IIRC were only recently described.

3. "No less than seven" means at least seven; it means 8, 9, 10 or maybe more. A far cry from 6.

4. Changing size after melding is also not present at many of his accounts.

5. The exact meaning of "star shaped" is unclear, since he claims they were not point lights (as stars are). So, would that actually means objects shaped like a pentagram or David's stars?

6. Many accounts also are not clear about if they were walking or driving a car.

7. Estimated distance and elevation from the lights are also absent.

8. No indication of how long the alleged sighting happened.

9. The lights were travelling at clear sky (the "mothership") was the only cloud around or they were sometimes covered by clouds?

 

[Stray Cat]

Hmm. If it was this one, I don't see the detail. - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119398

I remember the thread I'm thinking of being a lot longer than that and going into some amount of detail about ambiguous (red) blobs as seen from the space shuttle.
But as we've already concluded memory is fallible (even mine), so I may be wrong.

I guess I could slag through the "UFOs, the research, the evidence" thread, but I don't relish it. Most of KotA's points there were akin to "Rramjet sure is pwning you skeptics" or something. I could be wrong; maybe I'll have another look.

It's possible, but I don't envy anyone having to look through that mammoth thread. If there is mention, it'll be in the first 30 pages though.
But Rramjet didn't introduce NASA footage/pics until a few months ago.