• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Their Return

King of the Americas said:
Willful ignorance is a common 'false notion' or an INCORRECTNESS of reasoning...

In fact, I'd say it is the very definition of an absence of logic and reason.

After all that has been presented, to arrive at "They DON'T exist.", requires lots of it.

We can argue as to 'what' specifically 'they' are or are not, but to claim non-existence???

The ONLY way you could arrive there, is discounting, rejecting, or otherwise ignoring a lot of evidence.
Click to expand...


On the contrary. When the term "they" has been used to describe some particular thing(s), and when those claiming those particular things exist have failed completely and unequivocally to support the claim, it is reasonable to say, "They DON'T exist." And when the claim continues, wholly unsupported as it is, the willful ignorance, not to mention abject dishonesty, is on the part of those who continue to claim "they" exist.

UFO believers, like 911 Truthers, Bigfoot hunters, and those who believe they see kidneys through flesh and skin, create arguments that are generally immune to sane, intelligent reason. Willful ignorance is, out of necessity, a staple in the construction of their arguments.
 
Didn't you find Atlantis last year on google maps?
I am pretty sure you confused an oceanografic surveyor irregularity with a street map.

Perhaps some big depth charges would be more effective at getting attention that looking up at the Olympics?
 
You are engaging on a daily basis with people who pride themselves on evidence based truth, championing a ridiculous master plan based on your own personal insight, and you think you're not a troll? What is it you hope to accomplish here, persuading someone to agree with you?
 
King of the Americas said:
Radar images aren't anecdotes.
Click to expand...
No, they're not, but I don't see any radar images. I only see stories of radar images we cannot confirm.
Stop willfully ignoring evidence. Don't you know that's a fallacy?
Click to expand...
In the usual sense of the word, it is not. If you are adopting a new, personal definition of the word you should probably share it with others.
 
King of the Americas said:
How do you think humanity might get a technologically advanced race, to descend from our immediate heavens?
Click to expand...


The intelligent approach would be to first demonstrate that a technologically advanced race exists in our immediate heavens. Then it would require determining how those aliens communicate. Without that, it would be irrational to consider methods for luring them in from the heavens. That's the gist of what all the sane people in this thread have been saying for almost 2000 posts now. So the question, although it has been answered reasonably and intelligently within the context of the fantasy, is ridiculous to even ask if one is applying it to reality.
 
King of the Americas said:
Willful ignorance is a common 'false notion' or an INCORRECTNESS of reasoning...
In fact, I'd say it is the very definition of an absence of logic and reason.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think my point is that there are better ways to describe it, other than as a fallacy. Willful ignorance goes beyond the boundaries of many fallacies in it's self. I doubt anyone would say there should be a 'Incorrectness of reasoning fallacy' simply because the application of incorrectness of reasoning isn't specific enough to be pin pointed as to exactly what that incorrectness is. It could be a combination of one or more of the many already well established fallacies.
It's the same with Wilfull ignorance, the logical acrobatics that someone displaying willful ignorance would have to go through would cover a gamut of individual fallacies.

King of the Americas said:
After all that has been presented, to arrive at "They DON'T exist.", requires lots of it.
Click to expand...
Actually, I would strongly disagree with this. Someone who is willfully ignorant will refuse to look at contrary evidence or simply not search for it for themselves. The people around here are more than willing to look at and examine any evidence anyone provides and there is a 200+ page thread to prove it.

King of the Americas said:
We can argue as to 'what' specifically 'they' are or are not, but to claim non-existence???
Click to expand...
Though every now and then someone does simply say "they do not exist" this is based upon a full examination of the evidence (for and against) and then concluding on the strength of all the evidence that "they don't exist" is the most likely conclusion (at least until further evidence arrives to allow them to alter their conclusion).

King of the Americas said:
The ONLY way you could arrive there, is discounting, rejecting, or otherwise ignoring a lot of evidence.
Click to expand...
Sorry, the evidence that is discounted is discounted for sound logical reasons (explained over and over again on this forum) and not simply because people refuse to look for it or at it.
The amount of times certain UFO events are brought up on this forum where a UFO believer posts an event and claims it is the bees knees without being aware of all the information available about it sums up the illogical manner in which this 'belief' operates. You yourself did this as recently as yesterday when you posted the video of the UFOs over Washington. You presented the 1952 Washington UFO flap as an open and closed case, by leaving out very important points that contradict the story usually written up by UFOlogists (who follow the same selective methods of deciding which bits suit their belief and ignoring those which don't).
 
bruto said:
No, they're not, but I don't see any radar images. I only see stories of radar images we cannot confirm.In the usual sense of the word, it is not. If you are adopting a new, personal definition of the word you should probably share it with others.
Click to expand...

There's no need for you to personally 'reconfirm' that there were indeed radar returns.

---

I am the first to identify and name a common 'fallacy' practiced by most skeptics.
 
King of the Americas said:
There's no need for you to personally 'reconfirm' that there were indeed radar returns.
Click to expand...
Indeed, from the official and original documentation from the event, we can reach a fairly sound conclusion that there were radar returns. Even though we have no way of verifying what the radar operators interpreted at the time.
These do not in any way allow anyone to reach a conclusion that "they exist" ('they' being aliens/gods/whatevers). All the radar returns allows us to conclude is that something was seen on a radar screen.

When we look at the statements from the time (as catalogued in Blue Book), we see that no pilot confirmed any of the radar returns and the radar operators clearly state that the returns acted like AP (anomalous propagation). With only a very few instances looking anything like real solid returns. Further you claim that pilots couldn't catch the UFOs. Well the radar operators reported that the vast majority of the radar returns were moving at 30 to 40 mph, hardly fast enough to escape from a jet fighter.

King of the Americas said:
I am the first to identify and name a common 'fallacy' practiced by most skeptics.
Click to expand...
You may well be the first person to use willful ignorance in order to invent a fallacy about willful ignorance... Way to go.
 
Last edited:
I still don't get why you ignore the whole body of evidence for elves.
And the Atlantis idea is much better that your skyward nonsense.

See for yourself here.
 
King of the Americas said:
*I OBJECT heartily to being called or referred to as a "troll".

GET OUT OF MY THREAD!
Click to expand...
No.

King of the Americas said:
How do you think humanity might get a technologically advanced race, to descend from our immediate heavens?
Click to expand...
Hmm, let's see:
GeeMack said:
The intelligent approach would be to first demonstrate that a technologically advanced race exists in our immediate heavens. Then it would require determining how those aliens communicate. Without that, it would be irrational to consider methods for luring them in from the heavens. That's the gist of what all the sane people in this thread have been saying for almost 2000 posts now. So the question, although it has been answered reasonably and intelligently within the context of the fantasy, is ridiculous to even ask if one is applying it to reality.
Click to expand...



King of the Americas said:
I am the first to identify and name a common 'fallacy' practiced by most skeptics.
Click to expand...
You are on the frontier of discovery. You are the revealed truth.

All praise teh 'ONE'...
 
King of the Americas said:
There's no need for you to personally 'reconfirm' that there were indeed radar returns.
Click to expand...
No, but if nobody can now see them, nobody can now evaluate them. If you said "I have a picture of a UFO," I would be entitled to be skeptical of what it shows unless I could see the picture, right?
---

I am the first to identify and name a common 'fallacy' practiced by most skeptics.
Click to expand...
No you're not, and you apparently do not know, or care, just what distinguishes a fallacy from other sorts of errors.

If being king of your own dunghill satisfies you, so be it, but speaking your own version of the language moves the likelihood of rational discourse here from negligible to negative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom