Spektator
Is that right?
Not to derail, but phenomenon is singular, phenomena plural.
- Status
Cool. You figured out the ignore function. (on edit - and the edit function!) Next stop - Quote button.
You really "don't care" whether there are freaking alien-piloted space ships in the sky? You don't care about that? Say what you will about RoboTimo; he's right. It's a bizarre statement from someone who lives on planet Earth.tomi71 said:
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
That's certainly easier than facing reality and answering questions.
No they are at best 'unidentified', that is there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion as to what was seen but given that in every case where adequate evidence was available a mundane answer was found then the assumption is the same holds true for the unidentified cases. The onus in on those who believe in alien spacecraft to come up with the evidence to overturn that position.
Well, that's a relief...
What's this "gas" about Robo? Seems to me he is asking tough questions regarding the authenticity of visiting aliens.
He appears to be as "tired" as I am of ignorant people posting nonsense.
He should be commended, not ignored.
What is it you don't understand about aerial phenomena which may have not been "discovered" yet?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
carlitos has now been successfully added to your ignore list. You will now be returned to where you were.
I am moderating this myself now. I am sure there a lot of people who I can discuss in more polite manner. Thanks
Well done, tomi71! You're discovered the "La La" argument!
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
And it would have taken all of twenty seconds on google to find out about the mundane explanations.
It's funny when you say you don't care if they are mundane or not, and ask what they are, perhaps you should have looked. And found out the word "Mundane" is the simplest answer.
A week on holiday, and as far as evidence is concerned this thread has progressed by zero degrees.
Are you once again saying that it must be aliens because noone has evidence for a mundane explanation? Didn't work well for Rramjet and it sure won't work well for you either.
Rather than flinging a bunch of cases at the wall and hoping something sticks, choose one and present the facts.
Last edited:
What do you mean you "don't care if they are alien crafts"?
If we actually found an alien civilization with the technology to travel from their planet to Earth, then study us without us knowing for decades, this would be the biggest change in our own civilization ever.
Just the fact that they thought we were important enough to study would be huge.
How can you not care about that? How can you not care, but then argue about it so strongly?
Archer17
Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2003
- Messages
- 174
tomi71:
If you can't or won't understand what posters here mean by the null hypothesis when it comes to UFOs being anything more than unidentified aerial objects then you are wasting your time here. Ditto if you think trying to play Stump The Board with some ufologist's Top 10 UFO sightings somehow is going to assign legitimacy to the argument that UFOs in general and your cherry-picked list in particular are actually non-mundane events. I told you earlier about respecting the 'U.' That means that if something is unidentified then there is insufficient data with which to conclusively identify the object. If we can't establish what that object actually was then we can't know if it was mundane or not. Only when someone puts forth the argument that a particular UFO is non-mundane (ET-controlled for instance) does the 'null hypothesis' that you seem to loath kick in. It's up to the non-mundane peddler to falsify that null hypothesis. Deal with it.
I respect the 'U' and know there will always be "UFO" reports, some a product of the very real human fallibilities of observation, others embellishments and fabrication, with all that don't involve the latter a result of insufficient data. I can live with that, why can't you?
To simply infer that a "UFO" is non-mundane because it wasn't identified by the observer and it's description and/or characteristics earned the 'U' for one reason or another as you seem to be doing won't cut it here. If you feel a UFO event validates the ETH or whatever non-mundane pet notion you have then, like Jocce proposes above, cite the incident in question and make your argument. If you can't or won't then you're stuck with being frustrated by concepts and folks you can't seem to understand which, so far at least, has you acting like a child.
If you can't or won't understand what posters here mean by the null hypothesis when it comes to UFOs being anything more than unidentified aerial objects then you are wasting your time here. Ditto if you think trying to play Stump The Board with some ufologist's Top 10 UFO sightings somehow is going to assign legitimacy to the argument that UFOs in general and your cherry-picked list in particular are actually non-mundane events. I told you earlier about respecting the 'U.' That means that if something is unidentified then there is insufficient data with which to conclusively identify the object. If we can't establish what that object actually was then we can't know if it was mundane or not. Only when someone puts forth the argument that a particular UFO is non-mundane (ET-controlled for instance) does the 'null hypothesis' that you seem to loath kick in. It's up to the non-mundane peddler to falsify that null hypothesis. Deal with it.
I respect the 'U' and know there will always be "UFO" reports, some a product of the very real human fallibilities of observation, others embellishments and fabrication, with all that don't involve the latter a result of insufficient data. I can live with that, why can't you?
To simply infer that a "UFO" is non-mundane because it wasn't identified by the observer and it's description and/or characteristics earned the 'U' for one reason or another as you seem to be doing won't cut it here. If you feel a UFO event validates the ETH or whatever non-mundane pet notion you have then, like Jocce proposes above, cite the incident in question and make your argument. If you can't or won't then you're stuck with being frustrated by concepts and folks you can't seem to understand which, so far at least, has you acting like a child.
You big meanie. I'm putting you on ignore.
23_Tauri
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2010
- Messages
- 4,927
carlitos has now been successfully added to your ignore list. You will now be returned to where you were.
I am moderating this myself now. I am sure there a lot of people who I can discuss in more polite manner. Thanks
Wow, what's up, Tomi71? You come here looking for answers to UFO questions, two of our well regarded posters give you answers to those questions, and you promptly put them on ignore!
If you carry on like this you'll be talking yourself in this thread. Did you come here looking for explanations for the Top Ten List from dailygrail.com or not? We've already given you explanations for two of the ten, (Rendlesham and McMinnville); now, would you like us to move on to the others?
carlitos has now been successfully added to your ignore list. You will now be returned to where you were.
I am moderating this myself now. I am sure there a lot of people who I can discuss in more polite manner. Thanks
Why do you want to discuss people, in any manner, polite or not? This is supposed to be a thread about evidence.
Archer17
Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2003
- Messages
- 174
Regarding Rendlesham many might be unaware that the dubious claims by the various players involved back then got even more dubious over the years. Linda Moulton Howe's website used to have a free link to Sgt. Jim Penniston's claim that he actually touched the "craft" and received a "download" in "binary" form that established the craft was ours...from the future. A future where things apparently are so bad 'they' (or 'we' in future-tense I suppose) need to go back in time to use 'us' as genetic "band aids" (Penniston's term). If one wants to lose some brain cells there's more info on this hokem a google or two away.
23_Tauri
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2010
- Messages
- 4,927
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Unknown.
Wait, well-regarded? I resent that.Wow, what's up, Tomi71? You come here looking for answers to UFO questions, two of our well regarded posters give you answers to those questions, and you promptly put them on ignore!
- Status