UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

Garrison,

You're missing the point there. I estimated the distances years ago with a local map of the area and a set of dividers.

It doesn't really matter if you measured the distances five minutes ago with vernier calipers. All you're doing is measuring the distances between arbitrary points where you, and you alone, claim that something was located one night 40 years ago.

Getting a digital readout now from the same locations doesn't do anything but make the figures a bit more precise.

That's exactly right. It's the same as revising a story about the metre-long Muskie that got away to one where it was really 103.625cm. Heaps more accurate - exactly the same amount of actual fish.

How I was able to guage the distances in the first place has been the issue of contention, and that hasn't changed either.

No, it hasn't. It was a WAG to start with and so it remains.

The firefly issue keeps coming up and I've explained over and over why that would not be possible.

No you haven't. You've come up with some reasons that you don't want to believe it, but that's not the same thing as showing that it's not possible.

To tell the truth, I personally have no particular reason to think it was a firefly, since there's no way to eliminate a whole host of other possibilities, but if push comes to shove then there's no way I'm going to reject the known-to-exist firefly explanation in favour of the no-such-thing "OMG . . .aliens!" solution.

But it keeps getting ignored so that people here can invoke it as an explanation. That is not responsible skepticism. Changing someone's story to suit yourself is just plain wrong.

Changing your own story to suit yourself isn't that great a look either, olog

 

[RoboTimbo]

That mountain peak is almost 8 Km from where I was. So explain how I could have seen a firefly at that distance.

Why would anyone want to do something as idiotic as that? Since you're the only one proposing it, maybe you should explain it.

 

[ufology]

It doesn't really matter if you measured the distances five minutes ago with vernier calipers. All you're doing is measuring the distances between arbitrary points where you, and you alone, claim that something was located one night 40 years ago ...

Akhenaten,

I already know your position. I have no proof. There you go. Ignore the story from now on. You can assume I'm not addressing you when I answer other people's questions, and you can skip taking time to prepare the same response over and over again.

 

[R.A.F.]

I'm not unreasonable.

You are not in a position to make that determination.

 

[ufology]

Why would anyone want to do something as idiotic as that? Since you're the only one proposing it, maybe you should explain it.

Timbo,

I never proposed fireflies as an explanation, the skeptics here did. I'm pointing out why it's not possible and reminding the skeptics that changing my story to suit the firefly explanation makes their skepticism pointless because it constitutes changing the information provided by the witness to suit themselves.

 

[R.A.F.]

I have no proof. There you go. Ignore the story from now on.

If we do that, you'll just continue to post the same old garbage you already have...why should we ignore your irrationality? Do you think it will be easier for you if we stop critically examining your claims?

So sorry, but we (at least "I") see no need to make your stay here any easier.

 

[Akhenaten]

Akhenaten,

I already know your position. I have no proof.

Evidence. You have no evidence. Proof is for rum.

There you go. Ignore the story from now on.

No, I'll take every opportunity to point out that it's just a story with no evidence to back it up.

You can assume I'm not addressing you when I answer other people's questions, and you can skip taking time to prepare the same response over and over again.

No problem. It takes me but a few seconds while I'm waiting for the other civs to make their moves.

And it's not much good complaining that the responses seems repetitive when you're the one making the same tired old claim in post after post.

 

[Paul2]

Akhenaten,

I already know your position. I have no proof.

Strawman.

Skeptics Rationalists are saying that your evidence is not good enough to warrant your conclusion. Proof is a much higher standard.

Do you understand the difference between proof and a warranted conclusion?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Timbo,

I never proposed fireflies as an explanation, the skeptics here did. I'm pointing out why it's not possible and reminding the skeptics that changing my story to suit the firefly explanation makes their skepticism pointless because it constitutes changing the information provided by the witness to suit themselves.

You've dishonestly misrepresented one suggestion that was put forward. Why did you dishonestly say it was a firefly at 8km? Has your memory failed you again? Either post a link to any post saying that it was a firefly at 8km or admit that your dishonesty won out over common sense again. You should stop your dishonest misrepresentation of others' statements.

 

[Akhenaten]

Timbo,

I never proposed fireflies as an explanation, the skeptics here did. I'm pointing out why it's not possible and reminding the skeptics that changing my story to suit the firefly explanation makes their skepticism pointless because it constitutes changing the information provided by the witness to suit themselves.

logy,

Pointing out that you can't see fireflies from 8km away and that therefore they can't be the explanation is quite dishonest of you.

You know full well that the firefly explanation simply invokes the very reasonable proposition that you have no way of estimating the size and distance of an unknown light in the night sky.

And your religious adherence to the principle that information provided by yourself as the only witness to this alleged event is sacrosanct does you no favours either.

 

[Akhenaten]

Strawman.

Skeptics Rationalists are saying that your evidence is not good enough to warrant your conclusion. Proof is a much higher standard.

Please allow me to express my pleasure and appreciation at your drawing the distinction that you have.

It was a point that was completely lost on Mr Fology when I attempted to make it earlier in the discussion.

Do you understand the difference between proof and a warranted conclusion?

Again, an important distinction.

You're very good with details, Paul.

 

[ufology]

Strawman.

Skeptics Rationalists are saying that your evidence is not good enough to warrant your conclusion. Proof is a much higher standard.

Do you understand the difference between proof and a warranted conclusion?

Hey there Paul,

You might want to double check with Akhenaten on that because one time when I called him a skeptic his response was, "I aint no steenkin' skeptic!" ... so I'm not sure how he would feel being lumped in with all them there "Rationalists". He might get reeel narsty with ya unless he's regarded as anything other than an Egyptian living man-God.

Also you might want to address those here who have said that the information I have provided doesn't even constitute evidence. I think those are the "scientific skeptics".

I wasn't aware anyone here considered themselves to be a Rationalist. A quick review of Rationalism looks like it's based more on logic than material evidence. But perhaps you could clarify what you mean exactly. If my observations don't count as evidence then I understand why they aren't sufficient. If they do count then I don't see what elements aren't logical. Please explain.

 

[Marduk]

Timbo,

I never proposed fireflies as an explanation, the skeptics here did.

Actually I proposed fireflies as an explanation, and for the record I'm a critical thinker
this is what I said in response to your claim then that you wouldn't be able to see a firefly 3km away at night

you can if its right outside the window and your perspective is false
they even do figure eights as part of their mating dance

isn't that exactly what you claimed you saw, glowing orbs doing figure eights ?

clearly if your memory isn't good enough to recall something that was written down for you 6 weeks ago then how accurate is your memory after 36 years


now as youve been told elsewhere, you're just trolling, you have submitted your evidence, thanks for that, its pretty worthless but thanks anyway, now the rest of us would like to get back to the subject of this thread which is written at the top of the page in case you don't recall it

 

[Akhenaten]

Hey there Paul,

You might want to double check with Akhenaten on that because one time when I called him a skeptic his response was, "I aint no steenkin' skeptic!" ... so I'm not sure how he would feel being lumped in with all them there "Rationalists". He might get reeel narsty with ya unless he's regarded as anything other than an Egyptian living man-God.

Already answered, logy. You really should read what people post rather than what you want to believe they've posted.

Also you might want to address those here who have said that the information I have provided doesn't even constitute evidence. I think those are the "scientific skeptics".

I can only gather from this that your answer to the question:

Do you understand the difference between proof and a warranted conclusion?

is "No, I don't have a clue."

I wasn't aware anyone here considered themselves to be a Rationalist. A quick review of Rationalism looks like it's based more on logic than material evidence.

I swear I just saw a little light bulb above your head flicker on for a second, from 14,000 kilometres away.

But perhaps you could clarify what you mean exactly. If my observations don't count as evidence then I understand why they aren't sufficient. If they do count then I don't see what elements aren't logical. Please explain.

But then it went out again.

 

[GeeMack]

Questions raised after the fact were also answered rationalized with fabricated responses after the fact.

Fixed that for you.

I'm not unreasonable.

Your space alien tale certainly is.

 

[Marduk]

Your space alien tale certainly is. (unreasonable)

The space Alien tale is reasonable, when its compared to the others he claims to have experienced

 

[Paul2]

Hey there Paul,

You might want to double check with Akhenaten on that because one time when I called him a skeptic his response was, "I aint no steenkin' skeptic!" ... so I'm not sure how he would feel being lumped in with all them there "Rationalists". He might get reeel narsty with ya unless he's regarded as anything other than an Egyptian living man-God.

Also you might want to address those here who have said that the information I have provided doesn't even constitute evidence. I think those are the "scientific skeptics".

I wasn't aware anyone here considered themselves to be a Rationalist. A quick review of Rationalism looks like it's based more on logic than material evidence. But perhaps you could clarify what you mean exactly. If my observations don't count as evidence then I understand why they aren't sufficient. If they do count then I don't see what elements aren't logical. Please explain.

Puhleeze.

1. The difference between "not evidence" and "not sufficient evidence to warrant an conclusion" is trivial and not worth our time here. And, in any event, that difference won't make a UFO and IFO.

2. Let's not start the WWII of the Redefinition Wars over the difference between Rationalism and my capitalizing the first word of a sentence which is an everyday, common word "(UFO"s anyone?).

3. I would never presume to question the motives that might lead a real honest-to-goodness Egypt-shine god to nastiness. Praise Ra. And Praise Ra-men.

 

[ufology]

Actually I proposed fireflies as an explanation, and for the record I'm a critical thinker this is what I said in response to your claim then that you wouldn't be able to see a firefly 3km away at night

clearly if your memory isn't good enough to recall something that was written down for you 6 weeks ago then how accurate is your memory after 36 years


now as youve been told elsewhere, you're just trolling, you have submitted your evidence, thanks for that, its pretty worthless but thanks anyway, now the rest of us would like to get back to the subject of this thread which is written at the top of the page in case you don't recall it

Marduk,

I've never changed my story from the first day that the object had come up from behind the mountain. You cannot justify changing my story to suit your hypothesis. Otherwise you are just fabricating your own evidence to suit yourself ... hardly critical thinking. As for being able to recall old memories, once memories have become part of long term memory they can be retained for a lifetime. It isn't good enough to say that because memory can fail that it has failed. And because one or two irrelevant details of an incident don't match perfectly doesn't mean the whole memory is false. As a critical thinker you should already know these things.

 

[ufology]

The space Alien tale is reasonable, when its compared to the others he claims to have experienced

Marduk,

Oh sure ... I agree. I've had all kinds of weird experiences, which is why I don't write them off when other people say they've had them. The thing is, I didn't come here to talk about them and I think we've done my sighting to death now. So how about some opinions on this paper written by Astrophysicist Massimo Teodorani, Ph.D.

http://www.zeitlin.net/OpenSETI/Docs/EuroSETI2002_OSI.htm

Note: Offhanded dismissal and wise cracks will be ignored.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Marduk,

I've never changed my story from the first day that the object had come up from behind the mountain.

Here you are misrepresenting what you yourself have said. You have changed details and embellished your account from the beginning.

You cannot justify changing my story to suit your hypothesis.

No, that's what you've done. You've changed your story to justify the conclusion you started with and you've been changing it since as the inconsistencies in your unfalsifiable anecdote have been pointed out.

Otherwise you are just fabricating your own evidence to suit yourself ... hardly critical thinking.

It's as if you live in the same Opposite Land where Rramjet claims citizenship.

As for being able to recall old memories, once memories have become part of long term memory they can be retained for a lifetime.

And yet it seems that you've forgotten your lessons in the fallibility of memory, yours in particular. You have no logical basis to claim that you have an infallible memory since you have no evidence to back it up.

It isn't good enough to say that because memory can fail that it has failed. And because one or two irrelevant details of an incident don't match perfectly doesn't mean the whole memory is false. As a critical thinker you should already know these things.

It is definitely good enough to say that because your memory is so fallible and your story has changed so much over such a short period of time, it is quite correct to question what other elements of your story have changed over the last few decades. You claim that a point of light is aliens. You started with your believer conclusion and simply wanted a point of light to be aliens.