UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[23_Tauri]

Could be 'it has' - just needs a few commas.

Because a Leopard can't change,
It's spots
But a kitten can change,
it's batteries.

Well, I'm 42 years old and had an eddicayshun but I still haven't got that "it's" and "its" thing.

 

[carlitos]

Carlitos:

So your response is to project your own fear of playing fair onto me by name calling and refusing to define what you ask for. Typical tactics for the skeptics here. Do you act this way in real life too?

If someone in real life asked me for a disctionary definition of "evidence" before he/she were willing to provide supporting evidence for their flying saucer tale, I'd tell them to **** off, yeah. You have a whole thread full of evidence for your dishonest form of argumentation, and thanks to google it is linked to your full name. Congrats.

 

[Aepervius]

olog,

You have failed to comprehend something as simple as the null hypothesis which has been explained to you many, many times. There is no surprise that my points flew right over your head like a firefly.

And it did not even take the time to enlighten him .

 

[23_Tauri]

Tauri:

Whether or not you were there doesn't justify changing people's stories around to suit yourself. Why? Because no futhering of truth can be attained by fabricating your own evidence.

folo:
I haven't changed your story at all. I've had an opinion on what you might have seen, but I'm not the one telling the story so how can I change it? Oh, hang on, were you talking to yourself there?

It is fair minded to either accept a story for the sake of inquiry and discussion or simply reserve judgement.

Why aren't I entitled to an opinion?

If you accept the story for the sake of inquiry and discussion, then it's perfectly reasonable to ask people how they are so certain of what they saw, how they judged the distances and so on, and look for clues within their stories.

I know the reason why you're so certain that you saw an alien craft, but it's not the same reason as the reason that you hold for believing you saw an alien spaceship.

As for clues, we've had quite a few. It was dark, which would impair your judge of distance, there were several highways in the direction you were facing, fireflies are common in that area of British Columbia, etc etc.

If they are unsure of why they believe some particular aspect, then it's fair to propose something else that is possible and fits the story.

There's been plenty of that.

But as soon as you start injecting your own assumptions into things people are sure about and have good reasons for being sure about, then you are injecting your own bias and your skepticism becomes useless.

For you maybe, but maybe you are the one being biased because you refuse to accept any other explanation, no matter what evidence was offered. You even stated this categorically right here on this forum: "nothing that anyone can say will make me change my mind that I saw an alien craft that night" or words to that effect. You said that, folo, not me. You're the one that's biased and closed minded.

Simply put, if you choose to examine a case, you need to establish the key factors and find logical counters to the reasons people give you, not change their stories to suit yourself.

Haven't changed your story.... unlike some...

 

[ufology]

If someone in real life asked me for a disctionary definition of "evidence" before he/she were willing to provide supporting evidence for their flying saucer tale, I'd tell them to **** off, yeah. You have a whole thread full of evidence for your dishonest form of argumentation, and thanks to google it is linked to your full name. Congrats.

carlitos:

Now in addition to your projection reactions you add trivial criticisms of my typos ... nobody is buying into your diversion. You were the one who asked for evidence, so define "evidence" for us and provide your references. Since you have a built in spell checker and are so intellectually elite, it should be really easy for you. So let's have it.

 

[Paul2]

Well, I'm 42 years old and had an eddicayshun but I still haven't got that "it's" and "its" thing.

Say to yourself "it is" instead of "it"s or "it's." If "it is" works, then use "it's." If "it is" doesn't work, then use "its."

I have no idea for a mnemonic for that, though. Your on your own for that one.

That should be "You're," not "Your."

 

[ufology]

If someone in real life asked me for a disctionary definition of "evidence" before he/she were willing to provide supporting evidence for their flying saucer tale, I'd tell them to **** off, yeah. You have a whole thread full of evidence for your dishonest form of argumentation, and thanks to google it is linked to your full name. Congrats.

carlitos:

Now in addition to your projection reactions you add trivial criticisms of my typos ... nobody is buying into your diversion. You were the one who asked for evidence, so define "evidence" for us and provide your references. Since you have a built in spell checker and are so intellectually elite, it should be really easy for you. So let's have it.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I think we all have an idea what evidence is not. This thread is full of that.

ETA: You have to admit the "disctinary" thing was funny.

 

[Garrison]

Tauri:

Whether or not you were there doesn't justify changing people's stories around to suit yourself. Why? Because no futhering of truth can be attained by fabricating your own evidence.

The sheer cheek of that statement is, You've sought to redefine words, assigned a ridiculous value to your own memories that you admit to having 'refined' and you accuse others of fabricating evidence?!

 

[ufology]

Say to yourself "it is" instead of "it"s or "it's." If "it is" works, then use "it's." If "it is" doesn't work, then use "its."

I have no idea for a mnemonic for that, though. Your on your own for that one.

That should be "You're," not "Your."

Paul:

When you use the apostophe it's a contraction of "it is" or "it has" and when you don't, it's indicates a possessive. I always had trouble remembering if there are two Cs and two Ss or one C and two Ss or two Cs and one S in the word "necessarily".

 

[Belgian thought]

Paul:

When you use the apostophe it's a contraction of "it is" or "it has" and when you don't, it's indicates a possessive.

Finally - evidence ! ... (although apostrophe was incorrect).

 

[23_Tauri]

Timbo:

You've missed the entire point, misrepresented my position, and offered up your usual offhanded judgmental biased opinons and proclaimations. Try again.

How has RoboTimbo misrepresented your position? You are one who has proclaimed that no one and no thing can ever change your fixed mindset that you saw an alien craft that night. You change the details of your story over and over in order to back engineer it to fit your fantasy.

And you accuse RoboTimbo of biased opinions and misrepresentation? Ouch.

 

[ufology]

The sheer cheek of that statement is, You've sought to redefine words, assigned a ridiculous value to your own memories that you admit to having 'refined' and you accuse others of fabricating evidence?!

Garrison:

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please provide an in context example so that we can make a proper comparison.

 

[Garrison]

Garrison:

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please provide an in context example so that we can make a proper comparison.

I think others are perfectly well aware of what I'm talking about, if you aren't that just makes your memory even more suspect.

 

[23_Tauri]

Say to yourself "it is" instead of "it"s or "it's." If "it is" works, then use "it's." If "it is" doesn't work, then use "its."

I have no idea for a mnemonic for that, though. Your on your own for that one.

So it's just like any other noun?

 

[carlitos]

carlitos:

Now in addition to your projection reactions you add trivial criticisms of my typos ... nobody is buying into your diversion. You were the one who asked for evidence, so define "evidence" for us and provide your references. Since you have a built in spell checker and are so intellectually elite, it should be really easy for you. So let's have it.

I do not dance to the jig of dishonest, manipulative people. You wish to distract from your lack of evidence with semantics. My answer is simple. No.

 

[Belgian thought]

So it's just like any other noun?

yes and no, but grammar/semantics aside, we are back to the less linguistic based abilities, rather to those logical ones.

It's a UFO
:
:
:
:
:
They are aliens...

Now we have had (enough of) evidence of semantics, can you Ufology please provide 'alien' evidence?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Garrison:

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please provide an in context example so that we can make a proper comparison.

Garrison is talking about your redefinition fallacies, your falsely attributing superhuman memory abilities to yourself and your likely fabrication of evidence.

That you can't remember these items even when you could easily review this thread for a memory refresher puts your "superhuman" memory abilities in context.

 

[remirol]

Or, more accurately, no.

Well, ****. See you in another 10,000.

 

[ufology]

How has RoboTimbo misrepresented your position? You are one who has proclaimed that no one and no thing can ever change your fixed mindset that you saw an alien craft that night. You change the details of your story over and over in order to back engineer it to fit your fantasy.

And you accuse RoboTimbo of biased opinions and misrepresentation? Ouch.

My position is here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7606288&postcount=13051

His misrepresentations of my position are here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7606319&postcount=13054

He starts by indirectly stating that I fabricate evidence and quoting my position out of context as if it in some way supports it.

His next comment ignores that the context is " If you accept the story for the sake of inquiry and discussion ...", and he responds as if I had made the assertion that you should simply accept a story at face value, which was not my position at all.

His next comment misrepresents my position by implying that my story has "evolved" or changed substantially. This is not true. I wasn't asked to lay out my whole story all at once. I was asked individual questions about it as the thread progressed, and I answered them all as we went along. In this sense it was unveiled ... but it didn't evolve. I only made a couple of minor mistakes in recall and precision, but they aren't relevant to the essential events anyway.

Then he goes on to reiterate the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" mantra, which is nothing but biased rhetoric, and doesn't even apply to the context, that again being the point that if you are going to accept a story for the sake of discussion and inquiry, then you can't go changing it by fabricating your own evidence and inserting it into the story to suit your own agenda.

The skeptics here constantly engage in this type of misrepresentation of their opponent combined with self serving false logic.

Now if you want to be honest, go back to my sighting account and point out how the reasoning that I used to calculate the distances doesn't make sense. Then you'll have something meaningful to say. Simply saying it isn't possible doesn't count. Changing the story to suit your own purposes doesn't count either because that is fabricating evidence to suit your analysis.