• 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.
Pixel42 said:
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.
Click to expand...



Pixel,

If I required any evidence at all, I would only require sufficient evidence, and what might seem extraordinary to another may be something I've known all along.
 
Last edited:
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 an alien craft across the lake. But it's no secret that many people have claimed to own see 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...


Nobody knows you well enough to take your word as support for the otherwise unsupported assertion that alien craft exist or that you saw one.

Your argument, as always, fails.

And if you're even remotely interested in knowing why (which I seriously doubt, because in "ufology" faith is more important than honesty), it might do you some good to go read the first 9/10 of this thread where Rramjet also tried that dishonest ploy of redefining extraordinary to mean anything-except-the-aliens-I-believe-in. :p
 
ufology said:
If I required any evidence at all, I would only require sufficient evidence, and what might seem extraordinary to another may be something I've known all along.
Click to expand...
You fooled yourself into believing something when you were a kid on the basis of evidence which was far from sufficient (though you can be forgiven for not realising that at the time). You then emotionally invested in that belief to the point where you are now incapable of abandoning it, and must keep trying to defend it no matter how easily, and how many times, your arguments are shot down in flames.

It's really quite sad.
 
ufology said:
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...

How many sheds have been known to exist?
How many fairies?

Given the answers to these two statements, which statement are you more likely to take at face value, presuming that you're down the pub and some guy you've just met is telling you this?

Exactly. This is why alien craft require extraordinary evidence. Precisely zero alien craft have been known to exist up to this point. Sheds, on the other hand, can be safely presumed to exist -- whether the speaker owns such a shed is another thing entirely, but there is no point in questioning his premise in Claim 1 -- there _are_ sheds and we've all seen them.
 
Last edited:
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 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.
Click to expand...

You are comparing imaginary things to real things. This is just complete invention on your part.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Which other cases are similar to the 1952 Washington DC one?
Click to expand...


Just do a search for UFO RADAR/Visual and you can study them for yourself. The Ellsworth AFB radar multiple visual case may be of some interest. I'm not going to go through them all for you here. I've got my own website to take care of. For a skeptical viewpoint on one popular case you may also want to review Astro's last edition of SUNlite.
 
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 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.
I don't know
Click to expand...

ftfy
 
carlitos said:
You are comparing imaginary things to real things. This is just complete invention on your part.
Click to expand...


carlitos,

Remind me again just how you are so completely certain of your assessment, keeping in mind of course that absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence.
 
remirol said:
How many sheds have been known to exist?
How many fairies?

Given the answers to these two statements, which statement are you more likely to take at face value, presuming that you're down the pub and some guy you've just met is telling you this?

Exactly. This is why alien craft require extraordinary evidence. Precisely zero alien craft have been known to exist up to this point.
Click to expand...
additionally, precisely zero aliens are known to exist
precisely zero craft capable of interstellar travel (within a reasonable amount of time) are known to exist
precisely zero non-earth planets are known to have any life (let alone life capable of building spacecraft)

the extraordinary claim is actually many claims rolled into one, and they must all be accepted as fact for the claim "i saw an alien craft" to be accepted as true
 
ufology said:
carlitos,

Remind me again just how you are so completely certain of your assessment, keeping in mind of course that absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence.
Click to expand...

It equates to there ain't no evidence, is how it equates.
 
ufology said:
Just do a search for UFO RADAR/Visual and you can study them for yourself. The Ellsworth AFB radar multiple visual case may be of some interest. I'm not going to go through them all for you here. I've got my own website to take care of. For a skeptical viewpoint on one popular case you may also want to review Astro's last edition of SUNlite.
Click to expand...

Once again, you expect others to do your research.

Present YOUR evidence, not some crazy ghost hunting exercise that you impose on others.
 
ufology said:
The Ellsworth AFB radar multiple visual case may be of some interest.
Click to expand...

No, that isn't similar. That one was in North Dakota while the Washington DC one was in Washington DC.

I want you to present one that is similar to the 1952 Washington DC case since you were the one who found so many differences between cases (Campeche and Washington DC) that they couldn't be compared. You need to present the ones which are similar so that we may see how similar and dissimilar cases end up having the same explanation for you.

Also, do you believe in UFOs ( witches ), YES or NO?
 
RoboTimbo said:
No, that isn't similar. That one was in North Dakota while the Washington DC one was in Washington DC.

I want you to present one that is similar to the 1952 Washington DC case since you were the one who found so many differences between cases (Campeche and Washington DC) that they couldn't be compared. You need to present the ones which are similar so that we may see how similar and dissimilar cases end up having the same explanation for you.

Also, do you believe in UFOs ( witches ), YES or NO?
Click to expand...


What you need to do is go back and explain why the differences I pointed out between the D.C. incident and the Campeche case aren't relevant rather than asking me to do your homework for you. And continuing to stuff that mocking question on my beliefs up there is only earning you ignore points.
 
ufology said:
Just do a search for UFO RADAR/Visual and you can study them for yourself. The Ellsworth AFB radar multiple visual case may be of some interest. I'm not going to go through them all for you here. I've got my own website to take care of. For a skeptical viewpoint on one popular case you may also want to review Astro's last edition of SUNlite. I'm avoiding admitting that there is no objective evidence to support the claim that some UFOs are alien craft.
Click to expand...


Fixed. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom