• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
ufology said:
I saw an alien craft ...
Click to expand...

You can make this claim until the cows come home, and that's all it will ever be, a claim. You'll have to pardon my skepticism in regard to your unevidenced claim, given I can come up with a number of alternate scenarios, all of which are demonstrable phenomena.
 
wollery said:
Do you think that superglue shouldn't be used for sticking broken pottery back together?

Do you think that Teflon shouldn't be used for non-stick frying pans?

Do you think that the general public shouldn’t have access to the internet?

Do you think that cassette tapes should only be used for recording dictation?

Do you think that CCDs should only be used as data transfer devices?

Do you think that rockets should only be used as a form of weaponry?

Because that’s what you seem to be arguing above, that things should only be used for the purpose for which they were originally intended, even if they have other applications.
Click to expand...

You are right. That is the inadequate argument he was making.

Hypothetically, Mr Ufology, you might think that Teflon should not be used for non-stick frying pans but people are going to want to hear the argument. Let's hear yours. Why should the null hypothesis be used only in statistical applications?
 
Resume said:
You can make this claim until the cows come home, and that's all it will ever be, a claim. You'll have to pardon my skepticism in regard to your unevidenced claim, given I can come up with a number of alternate scenarios, all of which are demonstrable phenomena.
Click to expand...


I bet I could come up with a much better hoax, too. More believable, more interesting, more exciting. I could write a piece of I-saw-aliens fiction that wouldn't have so many contradictions, that was well coordinated so people couldn't so quickly figure out that parts of it are fabricated, and that was internally consistent. It would be planned thoroughly enough that I wouldn't have to stutter and stammer and make up new pieces as I go along when people ask about it. I bet I could make one so good that even hard core credulous alien believers and "ufologists" would ooh and ahh about it.

Pardon my skepticism, too, but as far as claims about seeing aliens go, the J. Randall Murphy UFO hoax is pretty mediocre, at best a 4 out of 10. And if it's supposed to be taken as a true story, not even a 1 out of 10. "I saw an alien craft. I really, really did," indeed. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I don't know if this has been discussed but here:
A UFO encounter with occupants in Socorro, New Mexico took place on April 24, 1964, and involved policeman Lonnie Zamora. This encounter is one of the best documented events with physical trace evidence.
Click to expand...

http://ufos.about.com/od/bestufocasefiles/p/zamora.htm

http://ufocasebook.com/Zamora.html
The symbol has been used in the past by the Mayans.
I find that odd since they used it in the same context.
More here on the symbols:
http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1106/aliensymbols.html
 

Attachments

  • zamora3.jpg
    zamora3.jpg
    39.3 KB · Views: 3
  • z1.jpg
    z1.jpg
    17.7 KB · Views: 153
ufology said:
Robo Robo Robo ...

It's the same old, same old, same old, with you every time. You have no evidence I've hoaxed anything. Simply because someone started asking questions about my UFO sighting and I took the time to address individual questions instead of slapping down a 20000 word response is not evidence of fabrication. I saw an alien craft ... you haven't. Maybe someday you will, but probably not. In the meantime your lack of belief doesn't give you justification to label witnesses as hoaxers.
Click to expand...

Let's apply some UFOlogic to the claim that your sighting is a hoax:

1. Multiple independent witnesses who all claim the same thing - your sighting is a hoax. Since anecdotes are evidence for themselves, this is evidence of the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax. Are you now saying that anecdotes are not evidence?

2. A concatenation of trace evidence in the form of your own postings here that show without any doubt whatsoever of the hoax's evolution over time in response to criticism about its internal inconsistencies.

3. The hoaxer himself denying the hoax, exactly as you would expect a hoaxer to do.

4. Using a process of elimination, I've eliminated all non-mundane explanations for your alleged sighting, leaving HOAX as the only remaining explanation.


Are you saying that there is some flaw with the methods of UFOlogic?
 
ufology said:
Paul,

Perhaps you are right, just like the definition of addition is the process of calculating the sum of two numbers. Maybe you would like to loosen up that one as well. It would certainly help at the bank, or when I'm paying my credit card bills.

Look, I didn't create the article, but I see no reason to doubt it is accurate, so don't argue with me about it, go take it up with Wikipedia ... explain to them how you need it to be more vague to suit your bias in this debate. For all you know, the article isn't even locked and you can just go in and change it to suit yourself. I'm sure Carlitos would be glad to help you with that Grade 7 definition.
Click to expand...

Your argument above is the same as this:

"You can't loosen up your belt, because your pants will fall off, so you can't loosen up the Wikipedia definition of null hypothesis beyond statistical studies.

Would you care to actually engage the intellectual issues with regard to how the null hypothesis is useful in studies not statistical? Your analogy with addition is not an argument, unless you can show that the aspect of addition that makes it inappropriate from whatever type of loosening up you're imagining is the same aspect of the null hypothesis that would make the null hypothesis inappropriate for non-statistical studies.
 
Akhenaten said:
How much time did you spend checking to see whether it had been discussed?

Perhaps you could actually read the thread, starting about here, before barging in:

Click to expand...

So this is it with one responce?
Zamora Incident - No physical evidence, prototype balloon company nearby, already covered recently.
Click to expand...
So how does a balloon scorch the ground with people in it?
It seems more likely that the insignia was changed to something else after they got the information since Dr. J. Allen Hynek worked for them.

Lonnie Zamora Project Blue Book Report

http://www.ufocasebook.com/Zamorareport.html

He said it was fast, not slow like a balloon would be if air bourne.
 
wollery said:
Do you think that superglue shouldn't be used for sticking broken pottery back together?

Do you think that Teflon shouldn't be used for non-stick frying pans?

Do you think that the general public shouldn’t have access to the internet?

Do you think that cassette tapes should only be used for recording dictation?

Do you think that CCDs should only be used as data transfer devices?

Do you think that rockets should only be used as a form of weaponry?

Because that’s what you seem to be arguing above, that things should only be used for the purpose for which they were originally intended, even if they have other applications.
Click to expand...


It's another genetic fallacy. Not only that, but I'm pretty sure he's being entirely disingenuous about it.

He's had the purpose, theory, and proper usage of the null hypothesis described to him enough times now that I am fairly certain he comprehends it just fine. I don't think we're dealing with an idiot here, but with a cowardly yet cunning liar who fears losing control of the argument when backed into a corner. I believe his ignorance is willful and deliberate.

He refuses to entertain the notion because he knows damn well what it implies. It would mean admitting that the burden of proof is stuck squarely upon his shoulders. As long as he refuses to entertain the notion (even so far as playing along with RoboTimbo's entreaties to demonstrate his understanding) he thinks he can stave off the inconvenient truth that he'd rather ignore. So he just sticks his fingers in his ears and goes, "Lalalalalalalala... doesn't apply... lalalalalalalala..."
 
Last edited:
edge said:
I don't know if this has been discussed but here:

The symbol has been used in the past by the Mayans.
I find that odd since they used it in the same context.
More here on the symbols:
http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1106/aliensymbols.html
Click to expand...

LOL, from your own link!

Quoting Guy Tarade: “These initials constitute an old writing, the alphabet of a primitive language, which we can interpret as: “We are the Mothers of the Universal Temple fertilized by an Unknown God” (or first cause).

Indeed, the half-circle means the letter “M” which, in all languages, refers to the mother. Always having the same meaning, this symbol still exists in the Berber language.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
carlitos said:
All languages? Dude.
Click to expand...

Words for "mother" from various world languages:

Aayi, Abatyse, Ahm, Aitl, Ama, Amai, Amma, Amma, Ammee, Ana, Ana, Anne, Anya, Bata, Biang, Dai, Daya, Eadni, Eh, Eje, Ema, Ema, Emak, Emo, Ewe, Fu, Haakui, Haha, Ibu, Iloy, Inahan, Induk, Kantaati, Nai, Nana, Nanay, Nay, Nene, Nyokap, Okaasan, Omm, Pabo, Panjo, Partino, Reny, Satenitino, Taica, Tina, Uma, Valide, Vieja.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom