- Status
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
Very Funny.
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
I thought he was someone who wasn't around anymore ... oh ya and on the issue of opinions not counting as evidence ... sure, I know all about that. That's why I moved these posts over here. Where you can have your opinion without providing me with any evidence.
j.r.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. At least now you are admitting that Gen. Twining's opinion based on the anecdotes he read really has no basis in reality? It has no force whatsoever against the null hypothesis.
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
Actually I don't know the above, and neither does the above poster. In fact I think the above poster is wrong and that the reports that led to the conclusions were very real, which means that there was some reality. I also think that the reports that led to the conclusion were based on real events and not merely fabricated, and I would go so far as to say that the pilots who reported chasing the objects were telling the truth to their superiors. Which means they must have seen something ... which apparently were real structured metallic craft, circular or elliptical in shape, flat on bottom and domed on top ... hmm ... sounds pretty real to me.
What might the skeptics suggest they really were? Perhaps a spontaneously congealed mass of tin foil wrappers that could outfly real aircraft ... or maybe a firefly ( a really big one made of metal and shaped like a UFO ) ... or maybe swamp gas ... there are millions of "mundane" objects they could have been ... maybe even granny's underwear ... or maybe all the pilots suddenly went nuts and all started hallucinating the same thing ... c'mon let's hear some more goodies ...
j.r.
Last edited:
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 13,714
You are wrong again.
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 13,714
No, accurate.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Oh, yeah, lets hear more goodies...
Like tens of human-like alien species are buzzing erratically around in flying saucers and giant mother ships propelled by anti-gravity, crashing every now and then, abducting humans, mutillating cattle, having sex with humans, their ships concentrate at hotspots and flaps... And they manage to do all this never leaving reliable evidence of their presences. Just anecdotes which fuel pseudoscience, cultish behavior, snake oil sales of several sorts and fictional works.
Good goodie?
Like tens of human-like alien species are buzzing erratically around in flying saucers and giant mother ships propelled by anti-gravity, crashing every now and then, abducting humans, mutillating cattle, having sex with humans, their ships concentrate at hotspots and flaps... And they manage to do all this never leaving reliable evidence of their presences. Just anecdotes which fuel pseudoscience, cultish behavior, snake oil sales of several sorts and fictional works.
Good goodie?
Available on ET-bay for $9.99.RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Actually, you are wrong and you and I both know it. You just don't like facing reality.
That is simply your opinion because it is based on nothing. Yes, the reports are very real. There is definitely some reality. The reports at Campeche were very real. The reality was not structured craft.
The reports probably were based on real events. We just don't know what those events were. You seem to believe it was something from Uranus that came to enter Earth's atmosphere.
Here's where you go wrong because you don't listen or you can't comprehend.
So do oil well fires. So are lightning bugs.
The null hypothesis is:
"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"
It doesn't matter which mundane origin, you may freely take your pick.Did you have something to falsify the null hypothesis?
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
So I said the pilots must have seen something ... and the comeback for that was that I'm wrong because I can't comprehend ... um ... comprehend what exactly? That pilots have excellent vision or that they are pursuing a structured metallic obect that looks like a flying saucer? What's so hard about comprehending either one? Seems pretty straight forward to me. Maybe it's the skeptics that are having the hard time comprehending. In fact it seems their minds just short out and replace what the pilots say they actually saw with ... what was it again ... lightning bugs or oil flares ... that for some reason looked like large stuctured metallic flying disks with domes on top that performed evasive maneuvers ... hmm ... nope ... I don't think so. I think it's more reasonable to believe that the pilots who reported and chased those objects saw exactly what they said they saw.
j.r.
j.r.
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 13,714
See below.
Last edited:
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 13,714
No. Your request will go ignored, just as many others have, but you tried. It's a thankless task, trying to educate the uneducable, but remember your plight is shared by thousands, nay, millions of teachers every night (except for the 180 days a year that they are on holiday) all over the civilized world, except Japan.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
You can't (or more likely won't) understand that anecdotes are unfalsifiable. We don't know what they saw. It may have been a floater in their eye. We don't know. Let me repeat it in case you missed it. We don't know. Anecdotes are unfalsifiable. That's what you won't comprehend. That anecdotes are unfalsifiable. Because anecdotes are unfalsifiable. Which ones saw a floater in their eye and which ones didn't? We don't know. Because anecdotes are unfalsifiable. That's what you don't want to comprehend.
No, it's you who won't comprehend what you don't want to. That anecdotes are unfalsifiable.
Nope. See? You don't want to comprehend because it destroys your illusion. The null hypothesis is:
"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"
because anecdotes are unfalsifiable. You may freely choose any mundane explanation you like, though. It doesn't matter which one.Of course you don't. You have bleever blinders on. You want to believe in aliens.
Like Captain Mantell?
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 13,714
I predict that more evidence of his/her unwillingness or inability to understand you will be coming shortly.
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
Last edited:
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
So the skeptics are still harping on how high ranking military commanders in the Air Force can't tell the difference between oil flares, lightning bugs and large metallic disks with a domes on top. They also keep harping about needing hypotheses and how those hypotheses need to be falsifiable. Sorry but this isn't the evidence thread, it's knowers and believers vs the skeptics. When intelligent well informed people know from the evidence of their own unimpaired senses, that they have had an extraordinary experience ... all the skeptical rhetoric in the universe designed to convince them otherwise is meaningless. The fact about this world is that weird unexplainable things do happen and some people expereince them.
j.r.
j.r.
Last edited:
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
Why is it so hard for you to understand this?
Not unexplainable. Perhaps unexplained.
It is not the same thing.
I know you don't like this, but keep in mind the null hypothesis, and look to disprove it.
That air force general that you cited wrote a CYA memo based on second and third-hand information. So you are full of crap in claiming that the "intelligent, well-informed" general knew a thing based on his "unimpaired senses." That's dishonest. But you know that. Liar.
- Status