Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

[GeeMack]

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

Fixed that for you.

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 fact that the stories have been uh... modified... has been shown time and again. It has happened right here in the space of this thread. No need to be concerned with "over the years" when the credibility of the witness is demonstrably non-existent.

I have provided, at length, here and other places the whole story several conflicting versions of the story.

Fixed that for you.

Of which the ONLY difference that has occurred was "6" became "7" many differences are obvious, a difference that would indeed be expected over a decade if I were making this whole thing up from scratch!

Fixed that for you.

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

... but you'd be wrong.

 

[King of the Americas]

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.

To my recollection, the pre-2003 archives got wiped out...?

Am I wrong?

 

[King of the Americas]

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.


The burden of proof is on you.


Another truth claim that you are not interested in proving?


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

My sighting was proof 'to me'. I saw what I saw, and I interpret those events, in a manner consistent with how I identify all things in my life.

Never before have my senses led me unto death's bed. If I see danger headed for me, I step, or roll aside. I rely on my sight and reason to guild me through this world, and thankfully neither has failed me.

I have provided an account of an event, which I have no real explanation for, other than to say it was "U.F.O.'s piloted by non-human intelligence."

This is my finding, after how I interpreted what I saw. As the guy INSIDE the diving bell, it isn't MY duty to prove anything to you. You can accept my report as evidence of a reality you've not yet witnessed, or you can deny it. 'I' am confident that eventually you'll see and bare witness to the same.

Now you want ME to prove to you that my story hasn't changed drastically enough to equal complete confabulation??? Get bent.

You can accept that there is a reality beyond your direct knowledge, or you can't. 'I' have no power therein.

 

[Stray Cat]

My sighting was proof...[twaddle snipped]...therein.

All people are asking for is verification of your many claims:
Accurate perception of original event
Accurate reporting of original event
Unchanging repetition of story over the intervening years.

There's no need to get 'on one' about it.
Either put up or shut up.

 

[King of the Americas]

All people are asking for is verification of your many claims:
Accurate perception of original event
Accurate reporting of original event
Unchanging repetition of story over the intervening years.

There's no need to get 'on one' about it.
Either put up or shut up.

I have provided unto you and others 'my report', in part and in whole over the years.

That YOU can't, won't, or are general unable to accept it, isn't ON ME.

Accept it, or go away. 'I' have nothing more for you.

 

[Stray Cat]

I have provided unto you and others 'my report', in part and in whole over the years.

But it was you who boldly claimed that your 'original report' would validate what you are saying. Now you aren't interesting in 'providing' that report.

That YOU can't, won't, or are general unable to accept it, isn't ON ME.

I totally accept what you say (within the boundaries of what we know about perception and memory fallibility), but it is unreliable so it can't be taken as anything more than an unreliable story told by someone with such an investment in it's veracity that no amount of potential mundane explanations are ever going to be accepted.

Accept it, or go away. 'I' have nothing more for you.

If that is all you have, then please stop over reaching about what we should all conclude from it.

 

[King of the Americas]

But it was you who boldly claimed that your 'original report' would validate what you are saying. Now you aren't interesting in 'providing' that report.

...

No I didn't.

I said check ALL my reports and see if 'you' can find an inconsistency.

I also claimed that my earliest account would have been the most detailed, but I have no way of retrieving it, nor any interest in doing so.

The guy in the diving bell saw U.S.O.'s...we know them now to be bio-luminescent fish.

I saw U.F.O.'s...we'll have to wait and see what kind or sort of life they turn out to be, but you do yourself a disservice to discard my report.

 

[GeeMack]

My sighting was proof 'to me'. I saw what I saw, and I interpret those events, in a manner consistent with how I identify all things in my life.

This is arguably one of the most interesting, and most revealing comments made yet in this thread.

 

[Stray Cat]

No I didn't.

I said check ALL my reports and see if 'you' can find an inconsistency.

Without trawling back to see exactly what you did you say over the past few days, you do seem to be side stepping the issue that it was you who said your original report could be used to check how your story hadn't changed over the years (at that point you were still maintaining you had an entirely accurate recollection of it).

I also claimed that my earliest account would have been the most detailed, but I have no way of retrieving it, nor any interest in doing so.

You have been given several options of how you could try and retrieve it
(Including going to your storage locker and getting your journal).
The fact that you are not interested in doing so is more relevant here than your claimed impossibility to retrieve it.
So the reality is that you introduced your original report to the present discussion as some sort of validation and now you're not willing to provide it to validate what you are claiming it is a validation of.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

You have been given several options of how you could try and retrieve it
(Including going to your storage locker and getting your journal).
The fact that you are not interested in doing so is more relevant here than your claimed impossibility to retrieve it.
So the reality is that you introduced your original report to the present discussion as some sort of validation and now you're not willing to provide it to validate what you are claiming it is a validation of.

What part of, "I am not interested.", do you not understand?

Even if I provided THE journal for 'your' eyes to see, it wouldn't be 'proof' of anything to you or anyone, here.

You have my report, do with it as you will.

 

[Stray Cat]

What part of, "I am not interested.", do you not understand?

I understand the "you're not interested" bit.
It's the bit where you use what you are not interested in anymore to bolster up your own belief that's the sticking point.
So let's have no more mention of it eh?

 

[Nonpareil]

Even if I provided THE journal for 'your' eyes to see, it wouldn't be 'proof' of anything to you or anyone, here.

Actually, yes, it would. I can't speak for the others, but it would certainly suffice as proof to me. It would tell us exactly what your original story was. Thus it would either be proof of the fact that your memory is one hundred percent correct or that it is not.

 

[King of the Americas]

Actually, yes, it would. I can't speak for the others, but it would certainly suffice as proof to me. It would tell us exactly what your original story was. Thus it would either be proof of the fact that your memory is one hundred percent correct or that it is not.

And when the original story says the same thing as the rest of the accounts, sans the "7" count, YOU are ready to accept my original account as truth- that what I witnessed were U.F.O.'s piloted by non-humans?

OR

Are you saying that it would merely prove to you that my memory of the event hasn't changed sans the "7" count?

If it is merely the later, I'm not interested, given 'I' don't find that my story has changed substantially.

 

[GeeMack]

And when the original story says the same thing as the rest of the accounts, sans the "7" count, YOU are ready to accept my original account as truth- that what I witnessed were U.F.O.'s piloted by non-humans?

​

 

[Correa Neto]

"No less than seven"... That's what was wrote. Should it actually be read as seven?
And what about the other parts, what about the frequent baiting with bits about the alleged sighting, containing different information?

Why the hell are you telling people about it at a discussion forum if you are not willing to discuss it?
A credo? Declaration of faith? Spread the good news? Attention whoring?

 

[Nonpareil]

And when the original story says the same thing as the rest of the accounts, sans the "7" count, YOU are ready to accept my original account as truth- that what I witnessed were U.F.O.'s piloted by non-humans?

No. Read my post again. I would be willing to accept that your accounts were or were not accurate.

Are you saying that it would merely prove to you that my memory of the event hasn't changed sans the "7" count?

Yes.

If it is merely the later, I'm not interested, given 'I' don't find that my story has changed substantially.

Everyone else does. If you want to prove otherwise, all you have to do is present the journal entry.

 

[King of the Americas]

"No less than seven"... That's what was wrote. Should it actually be read as seven?
And what about the other parts, what about the frequent baiting with bits about the alleged sighting, containing different information?

Why the hell are you telling people about it at a discussion forum if you are not willing to discuss it?
A credo? Declaration of faith? Spread the good news? Attention whoring?

I have conceded that 'the number' changed, and the change was small enough to be within the expected margin of error. ALL of you have said mis-remembering is common, so how is what I have provided anything but exactly what you'd expect???

That's the only real difference you've managed to point out...

I came here initially for the sole purpose of sharing my entire story, with every detail I could muster. I have answered most if not all serious questions regarding the sighting, ad even after that initial exchange I have continued to provide the tale, in part and in whole throughout the decade or so that I have been an active member.

You can either accept what I have offered as evidence of a truth, or you can cling to ignorance under the badge of skepticism.

I'll only warn you that the later course will not deliver unto you timely truth.

 

[Cuddles]

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.

If you go to advanced search, search for all posts by a user, choose "any date", and sort by ascending order, you can find the oldest posts. For KotA, I get this one, from July 2002. As KotA says, the older archives were lost. As far as I can see, that means everything from before August 2003, with that thread presumably surviving because it was still active after that point. So we can't see what KotA posted when he first arrived. However, we've already established that he remembers posting here during the 9/11 attacks, despite not joining until over two months later, so the evidence suggests that what he claims he posted is unlikely to be what was actually posted.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

Everyone else does. If you want to prove otherwise, all you have to do is present the journal entry.

You have my report. That you are unable or unwilling to accept is it YOUR deficiency.

 

[King of the Americas]

If you go to advanced search, search for all posts by a user, choose "any date", and sort by ascending order, you can find the oldest posts. For KotA, I get this one, from July 2002. As KotA says, the older archives were lost. As far as I can see, that means everything from before August 2003, with that thread presumably surviving because it was still active after that point. So we can't see what KotA posted when he first arrived. However, we've already established that he remembers posting here during the 9/11 attacks, despite not joining until over two months later, so the evidence suggests that what he claims he posted is unlikely to be what was actually posted.

Too bad neither a single poster or your archives can verify any such claim of 'inconsistency'.

You guys claim no one is capable of remembering things 100% accurately. Then when someone does mis-remember, you use it as evidence that NOTHING can be remembered by that person.

How very efficient...

I watched the 2nd plane hit the second tower, while posting on a message board. That board must have been the THSMB, and not this one. Now you propose that this 'suggests' that I am incapable of remembering what I initially posted here...?

Cuddles, can you tell me who you sat next to in each of your classes during high school? You CAN'T??? Oh, this must mean you were never IN high school...

You people have turned Skepticism into the 'art of ignorance'.