UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

You elaborately claim that the giant talking rabbit was actually there.
Again, for a six year old to make such a claim is okay, but for an adult to maintain that claim, not so much.

Why is that exactly? Perhaps we adults are so conditioned to think that nothing extraordinary is possible that we reject it before actually looking at what may be obvious.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Krikkiter,

<snipped juvenile repetition of Rredefinition fallacy>

So what do you call something that is Unidentified to the observer, appears to be Flying, and appears to be a physical Object?

 

[ufology]

ufology,

So you have uncertainty about whether you really were at lake Windemere?

Ultimately I'm not certain of anything other than that I'm uncertain about everything.

 

[Daylightstar]

Why is that exactly? Perhaps we adults are so conditioned to think that nothing extraordinary is possible that we reject it before actually looking at what may be obvious.

[qimg]http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/Graphics/ACOM-01a.png[/qimg]​

ufology,

And what, according to you, may have been obvious about your adult memory of the giant talking rabbit you believe you encountered when you were just six years old?

 

[ufology]

So what do you call something that is Unidentified to the observer, appears to be Flying, and appears to be a physical Object?

RoboTimbo,

You could simply call it a flying thing or a flying object or even an unidentified flying object, but not a UFO unless it was in some way extraordinary.

 

[John Albert]

Again, for a six year old to make such a claim is okay, but for an adult to maintain that claim, not so much.

Why is that exactly? Perhaps we adults are so conditioned to think that nothing extraordinary is possible that we reject it before actually looking at what may be obvious.

Perhaps it's because most people manage to learn quite a few fundamental things about the nature of reality between the ages of 6 and 46. Maybe it's because most people learn social skills that indicate that other people feel it's insulting to their intelligence when a person tells blatantly obvious lies and expects to be taken seriously.

The fact that you're an adult expecting other adults to believe this nonsense seems to indicate a serious personality disorder. It appears you're either mentally incapable of discerning reality from fantasy, or else you're extremely dishonest and arrogant. In other words, it's a difference between a schizoid personality or an antisocial one, or maybe a little of both. Considering the dishonest and manipulative nature of your discussion tactics here, as well as the calculated manner in which you misrepresent yourself elsewhere on the Internet, I'm leaning toward the latter.

 

[Daylightstar]

Ultimately I'm not certain of anything other than that I'm uncertain about everything.

ufology,

And still, as an adult, you unreservedly maintain a claim of encountering a giant talking rabbit when you were six years old.

Again, for a six year old, okay. For an adult, not so much.

 

[Paul2]

Paul,

I don't subscribe to the whole of any particular philosophical or theological system. If what I say fits part of some label, then that part is shared with that belief system or world view, but that does not by extension mean that I also subscribe to the rest of that or any other such system or view.

This is such a strawman, and an irrelevancy. It doesn't matter if you subscribe to whole of anything, it is accurate to label your words above as solipsism. Look it up.

The problem with solipsism is that it can't do anything. It doesn't matter if we have figured out the true nature of objective reality, whatever that means, and those words don't even mean much. All that matters is whether our theories work. The theory of gravity works, for instance, and anything else doesn't matter, ultimately.

Was it an objective reality? I don't know.

You have just POE'ed yourself. Skeptics could very easily say that a person under the influence of woo could still cling to the idea that a giant freaking talking rabbit could be real.

What on earth makes you think that what you saw was what it appeared to be? Don't you remember all the information we've given you about how people can be mistaken? It's far more likely that you were mistaken, rather than you saw the rabbit, no matter how vivid the memory.

 

[Garrison]

ufology,

And still, as an adult, you unreservedly maintain a claim of encountering a giant talking rabbit when you were six years old.

It would be doubly bad if he thought he saw it at Disneyland...

 

[ufology]

ufology,

And what, according to you, may have been obvious about your adult memory of the giant talking rabbit you believe you encountered when you were just six years old?

Daylightstar,

Please note that the rabbit I encountered as a child was not "giant". It was about as tall as I was and I was not very tall then. So this rabbit was in reality about the size of a large hare. As for the rest of the question, I don't know what you are getting at.

 

[GeeMack]

If I were to label myself as anything, it would be something like "truth seeker".

I don't think you'll find anyone here who would agree, certainly not any of these cooperative skeptics who have been trying to help you learn a bit about the truth. A truth seeker wouldn't be so steadfastly resistant to applying the scientific method and considering objective explanations for things they don't understand. Well, unless maybe "truth seeker" is going to find its way onto the list of words and phrases that you've redefined to suit your own agenda.

In simplest terms, I view the concept of truth as a direct correspondence within identical contexts between what is posited and what is actually the case.

Aside from that being gibberish to start with, it becomes entirely meaningless given your definition of "truth" is different than that of normal mortal English speaking humans...

To be precise, the request above is ill conceived. Truth and reality are two seaparate issues. Therefore truth itself doesn't correspond to objective reality or any other reality.

By your own admission, seeking the truth has nothing to do with reality.

 

[RoboTimbo]

RoboTimbo,

You could simply call it a flying thing or a flying object or even an unidentified flying object, but not a UFO unless it was in some way extraordinary.

No, that's an idiotic idea. Calling it a flying thing or flying object doesn't account for it being Unidentified. Even the other believers make fun of that idea. Try again.

What do you call something that is Unidentified to the observer, appears to be Flying, and appears to be an Object? Maybe there's some way we could shorten that whole string of words.

 

[RoboTimbo]

If I were to label myself as anything, it would be something like "truth seeker".

I don't think you'll find anyone here who would agree...

You'd better get his Rredefinition of the words "truth" and "seeker" to see what he means by them. If it's anything like his other Rredefinition fallacies, it means the opposite of what it means to everyone else.

It's the only thing that makes sense in this context.

 

[GeeMack]

Please note that the rabbit I encountered as a child was not "giant". It was about as tall as I was and I was not very tall then. So this rabbit was in reality about the size of a large hare. As for the rest of the question, I don't know what you are getting at.

Please note that one of the largest hares is the European Hare which might get to 11 pounds. A Flemish Giant can weigh as much as 22 pounds. A 22 pound child would be less than a year old, maybe even closer to six or eight months. So your above comment is simply nonsense.

​

 

[John Albert]

It's far more likely that you were mistaken, rather than you saw the rabbit, no matter how vivid the memory.

IMO it's even far more likely that he's a pathological liar who gets off on all the attention he receives from telling ridiculous stories and then arguing with people who try to maintain a level-headed discussion about them.

We're all dancing around the elephant in the room which nobody seems to want to acknowledge, because it's too impolite in mixed company to just come out and tell somebody they're totally full of ****.

Really. We all know it. He even knows it. The evidence is right there, when he comes out with things like:

In the end we don't know anything is an objective reality.

and

Ultimately I'm not certain of anything other than that I'm uncertain about everything.

This guy is lying right through his teeth and he knows it. He just can't get enough of the attention it brings him. He's obviously been doing it all his life, and he doesn't even care if people know that he's doing it.

 

[ufology]

... It doesn't matter if we have figured out the true nature of objective reality, whatever that means, and those words don't even mean much. All that matters is whether our theories work. The theory of gravity works, for instance, and anything else doesn't matter, ultimately.

Paul,

Human experience "works". We are born with sensory and processing abilities and we sense things and process billions of bits of sensory information daily. This process gives rise to our consciousness and this is about as close to reality as we can get. On the other hand, theories don't do that, they are just ideas and abstract concepts expressed in symbolic form. They don't exist is the real world. They merely try to describe or mimic the real world. They are useful in a practical way, but not everything we experience needs to be practical in order to have value or meaning ... in fact I would contend that contrary to your opinion, it is the non-practical unquantifiable things that matter most because it gives meaning to all our practical efforts. Beauty, pride of accomplishment, love, trust, longing, anticipation and fulfillment don't require theories. They simply exist and without them our lives become shallow and meaningless in a way no mere "theory" can compensate for.

 

[Daylightstar]

ufology,

... I was not very tall then. ...

How tall were you when you were six?

... As for the rest of the question, I don't know what you are getting at.

I think you do know that this:

Why is that exactly? Perhaps we adults are so conditioned to think that nothing extraordinary is possible that we reject it before actually looking at what may be obvious.
...

^{Bolding by Daylightstar}is what I'm getting at.

 

[ufology]

ufology,

How tall were you when you were six?
I think you do know that this:

^{Bolding by Daylightstar}is what I'm getting at.

Daylightstar,

We're getting off topic here ... I was about as tall as the average 6 year old ... about as tall as the tall grass in the field. I don't have any records. What's the point you are trying to make? What does it have to do with UFOs and the research or the evidence?

 

[Daylightstar]

ufology,

... Beauty, pride of accomplishment, love, trust, longing, anticipation and fulfillment don't require theories. UFO's, alien space ships, giant large talking rabbits, MIB ...etc. They simply exist and without them our my livfes becomes shallow and meaningless in a way no mere "theory" can compensate for.

Don't be afraid. Say what you really want to say. Don't beat around the bush. Let it all out.

 

[Garrison]

Paul,

Human experience "works". We are born with sensory and processing abilities and we sense things and process billions of bits of sensory information daily.

Yes but not in the way you assert. It's a subjective process of interpretation subject to internal editing caused by any number of factors, and often without the individual being aware its happening. Until you grasp this you will never make any progress with understanding why extraordinary eyewitness claims should not be treated as treated as fully factual accounts.