• 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.
carlitos said:
AlaskaBushPilot said:
I don't check in here much, but when I do it is to find the ufologist using deception, very much like a magician.
Click to expand...

Like a magician with ten thumbs.
Click to expand...


Indeed. Not very much like a good magician. Even most amateur magicians I've known have been able to fool some people with some of their tricks. I don't think any "ufologist" in this thread has been able to fool anyone... other than themselves of course.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Mr Ufology, your answer misses the very obvious point that what is deemed sufficient varies with the nature of the claim.
Click to expand...


Sideroxylon,

Actually, my answer ( that sufficient evidence is all that is needed ) doesn't miss the point at all because in my original post I gave an example of how a seemingly extraordinary claim in the past isn't seen as extraordinary at all now, and neither is the evidence. This whole business of what constitutes extraordinary is based purely on the relative knowledge of those considering the problem, and those without the knowledge are more apt to think something is "extraordinary" when in fact it's not.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
Ordinary claim: There's a shed at the bottom of my garden
Extraordinary claim: There are fairies at the bottom of my garden

Sufficient evidence for ordinary claim: the claimer's word
Sufficient evidence for extraordinary claim: A jar containing a captured fairy which I can examine at my leisure.
Click to expand...


Pixel,

Let's try that again, this time removing the bias:

Claim 1: There's a shed at the bottom of my garden
Claim 2: There are fairies at the bottom of my garden

Sufficient evidence for claim 1: A shed at the bottom of the garden.
Sufficient evidence for claim 2: A fairy at the bottom of the garden.
 
Hmm.

So, ufology's claim that Cargo Cults are amazed by modern transport, ergo humans being amazed at "alien craft" is logical. I think I'd actually concede that point, if he would just stop saying "UFO" when he means "alien space ship."

Anyway, this being the "UFOs: The Research, the Evidence" thread means that we probably shouldn't argue about semantics, when we are meant to be discussing research and evidence regarding UFOs, eh?
 
ufology said:
Pixel,

Let's try that again, this time removing the bias:

Claim 1: There's a shed at the bottom of my gardenClaim 2: There are fairies at the bottom of my garden

Sufficient evidence for claim 1: A shed at the bottom of the garden.Sufficient evidence for claim 2: A fairy at the bottom of the garden.
Click to expand...

You really wouldn't believe that someone had a shed unless you saw it yourself? How do you reconcile that with believing that a trucker "lost time" due to a possible alien abduction based on his word alone? That's not logically consistent.
 
ufology said:
Sideroxylon,

Actually, my answer ( that sufficient evidence is all that is needed ) doesn't miss the point at all because in my original post I gave an example of how a seemingly extraordinary claim in the past isn't seen as extraordinary at all now, and neither is the evidence. This whole business of what constitutes extraordinary is based purely on the relative knowledge of those considering the problem, and those without the knowledge are more apt to think something is "extraordinary" when in fact it's not.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. It's all just special pleading to try to legitimatize the "UFOs = alien craft" fantasy. And it is, unsurprisingly, dishonest.

Also, since nobody, especially you, actually knows what an alien craft looks like, it's impossible for you to rationally claim any knowledge that might allow you to make an assessment of some alleged evidence that is somehow more valid than anyone else's assessment. Your argument fails.
 
ufology said:
Pixel,

Let's try that again, this time removing the bias:

Claim 1: There's a shed at the bottom of my garden
Claim 2: There are fairies at the bottom of my garden

Sufficient evidence for claim 1: A shed at the bottom of the garden.
Sufficient evidence for claim 2: A fairy at the bottom of the garden.
Click to expand...

Claim 3: UFOs ( witches ) exist

Sufficient evidence for claim 3: Witches being convicted in courts of law ( triers of fact )

You still need to answer the question, olog: With the incredible amount of evidence for UFOs ( witches ), do you believe UFOs ( witches ) exist or not?
 
Ufology,

Since you claim to know, why do you not simplify everything and tell everyone what "alien craft" look like?

That way we will all know them when we see them, right?
 
carlitos said:
You really wouldn't believe that someone had a shed unless you saw it yourself? How do you reconcile that with believing that a trucker "lost time" due to a possible alien abduction based on his word alone? That's not logically consistent.
Click to expand...


Again, we need to back up to my original statement, which was that all claims requiring evidence require sufficient evidence, and that such evidence may or may not be extraordinary, depending on the bias of those considering the claim. In some cases I may believe there is a shed at the bottom of someones garden. But it's no secret that many people have claimed to own things they didn't. Therefore I may or may not take their word for it depending on how well I know them and what's at stake.
 
ufology said:
Again, we need to back up to my original statement, which was that all claims requiring evidence require sufficient evidence, and that such evidence may or may not be extraordinary, depending on the bias of those considering the claim. In some cases I may believe there is a shed at the bottom of someones garden. But it's no secret that many people have claimed to own things they didn't. Therefore I may or may not take their word for it depending on how well I know them and what's at stake.
Click to expand...

You still need to answer the question, olo:

With all of the evidence making UFOs ( witches ) a virtual certainty, do you believe they exist, YES or NO?
 
ufology said:
Again, we need to back up to my original statement, which was that all claims requiring evidence require sufficient evidence, and that such evidence may or may not be extraordinary, depending on the bias of those considering the claim. In some cases I may believe there is a shed at the bottom of someones garden. But it's no secret that many people have claimed to own things they didn't. Therefore I may or may not take their word for it depending on how well I know them and what's at stake.
Click to expand...
It's also no secret that people have claimed to have been abducted by aliens when they haven't... and yet, you're willing to suspend your disbelief in an unevidenced story (because "what's at stake" is your belief in aliens).
 
ufology said:
. In some cases I may believe there is a shed at the bottom of someones garden. But it's no secret that many people have claimed to own things they didn't.
Click to expand...

Who would claim to own a shed who does not?

(Asked in the voice of Sean Connery.)
 
abaddon said:
Ufology,

Since you claim to know, why do you not simplify everything and tell everyone what "alien craft" look like?

That way we will all know them when we see them, right?
Click to expand...


Back at the dawn of the Modern Era in ufology, alien craft were obviously different from manmade and natural phenomena by their appearance and performance characteristics. In other words they didn't look anything like an airplane and they could outmaneuver and outpace any technology of the time. Today however, our technology has evolved to the point where the gap between alien craft and manmade craft has closed to the point where the two are not as easily distinguishable from one another. But so far as I know we still don't have craft that can instantly accellerate or deccellerate to and from very high speed, or instantly and radically change direction while at high speed, but do we really know that for sure? I'm not nearly as certain about that now.
 
ufology said:
Back at the dawn of the Modern Era in ufology, alien craft were obviously different from manmade and natural phenomena by their appearance and performance characteristics. In other words they didn't look anything like an airplane
Click to expand...

So they started out looking like tossed hubcaps or garbage can lids and now they sort of resemble . . . I don't know, really fast Volksblimps?
 
Resume said:
Who would claim to own a shed who does not?

(Asked in the voice of Sean Connery.)
Click to expand...



Q. Who would claim to own a shed who does not (Asked in the voice of Sean Connery)?

A. Someone who wants you to believe they own a shed when they don't ( Spoken in the voice of David Caruso ).
 
ufology said:
Pixel,

Let's try that again, this time removing the bias
Click to expand...
What bias?

Bottom line is that the most likely explanation for someone claiming that there's a shed at the bottom of their garden is that there's a shed at the bottom of their garden, but the most likely explanation for someone claiming that there are fairies at the bottom of their garden is NOT that there are fairies at the bottom of their garden. There are plenty of more likely explanations from pranks to serious brain damage, misperceiving dragon flies to having accidentally eaten some magic mushrooms. Explanations which you wouldn't even consider in the case of the first claim, but which would certainly cross your mind in the case of the second.

Of course you would require more evidence for fairies than you would consider sufficient for a shed. It's absurd of you to pretend otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom