Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

Rramjet said:
Ah yes, ridicule. Derision even. How predictable – and yet we have skeptics here who argue that such a thing NEVER occurs (arthwollipot?)
Click to expand...
I have never claimed that ridicule and derision never occur. In fact, I challenge you to produce the post where I said anything of the sort.

Rramjet said:
If I have made invalid assumptions then you should point to exactly where I did that. Merely stating I did so doesn’t make it true that I did. (oh where are you now arthwollipot?)
Click to expand...
Right here. I have a life, you know, and actually do things on weekends. :)

Let me approach this from a slightly different angle, if you will permit me the indulgence. You have said repeatedly, over and over again, that you are not claiming aliens.

Exactly what are you claiming? Please enlighten us all on exactly what is bringing you back to this thread (and the other one) to argue so forcefully for... well, I don't know. I don't know what you're claiming, RR. Please make this clear so that I have something that I can address. So far all you have done is complain about how we do things.

I've tried to explain to you how your perceptions and interpretation thereof could be innocently mistaken, and all you've had to say is "oh, no, it wasn't that." Even when I'm just providing a general example, you say "it wasn't that". So I'm not going to bother any more. As I said before, you'll never change your mind. So for curiosity's sake (and if it isn't considered off-topic for this thread), please tell us exactly what you are claiming. Not "it wasn't this" and "it wasn't that". You clearly have an agenda of some kind, and "it's unknown" isn't it - otherwise why would you be arguing so vehemently against those of us who are saying "it's unknown". We agree on that. Why are you here, posting in this thread?
 
King of the Americas said:
No.

From all the research I've done, I find that 'they' have always been 'here', at least as long ago as man could carve on walls. There have been 'things up there' for as long as 'we' have been here.

I've found nothing that requires or leads be to believe they are "aliens", time travelers, or any other such far off thing.

They are as native as we are.
Click to expand...

This is intriguing. What do you think they and their craft are? What do you think they are doing?
 
heed said:
You said no skeptic here would dispute the existence of UFOs. I said that's wrong. You said i should shut up or bring evidence for that. I quoted some people who said there is no evidence for UFOs. You are still ignoring what i wrote in my posting:
.
Click to expand...

then show me where anyone stated that there is no evidence for unidentified objects and youve proven your case
anyone reading your last post can clearly see you are having trouble differentiating between people saying "there are no ufos" and "the ufos arent alien space ships", you provided plenty of evidence of the latter but none of the former which was what you claimed in your first post at this forum

so please, provide some evidence that youre not just another deluded "aliens are here" nut who can't comprehend basic logic
mind you this will be your third failure to do so
:D
 
Last edited:
Marduk said:
mind you this will be your third failure to do so
:D
Click to expand...

I absolutely don't understand why you still insist on that i don't know what a UFO is. Let me explain again what i talked about in my postings, when i use the term "UFO":

Imagine 100 sightings of people. After a scientific investigation, 50 sightings can be explained as chinese lanterns, 20 can be explained as meteorological phenomena, 23 don't have enough data to conclude something useful. What's left are 7 cases of sightings, that cannot be explained. And all the time i am only talking about these 7 cases. When i say "UFO", i am talking about "UFOs" that fall into this category of the 7 cases, that are left after further investigation. I still have to use the term "UFO" even for these 7 cases because it is the only common known conceptualization of this phenomenon.
And in conversations i had, it was always clear to the interlocutor what i mean by saying "UFO", because the first thing i did was to say: "From now on lets agree upon only talking about cases where UFO = unidentifiable object after investigation and not "unidentified flying object"". I hope it's clear now. If not, we can use kitakazes term VEFI from now on.
 
arthwollipot said:
Kitakaze's "VEFI" and your "UFO" are two very different classes of object.
Click to expand...

I know, but i don't see another way how to get back to the things i wanted to talk about here. And that is not a pettifogging linguistic discourse.

But what i would like to know is the arguments on how the skeptics here can so easily dismiss the evidence that i mentioned in my first post.
 
heed said:
(snip) If not, we can use kitakazes term VEFI from now on.
Click to expand...

Visitation to Earth by foreign intelligences - VEFI

Foreign intelligences visiting Earth - FIVE

Whichever sticks.

I want to examine these hypothetical seven VEFI candidates. I know it was just made up but heed, please hit me with the top of the list when you are talking about these cases the have the potential to be reliable evidence for VEFI. Let's leave aside the semantic quibbles and get into a real discussion here. I think you're keen to do that.
 
Rramjet said:
All good things come to those who wait...
A good skeptic "knows his enemy" so to speak.
In my humble opinion, the BEST skeptic will be able to argue convincingly that his opponent is actually correct.
If you don't understand your opponents arguments, how can you effectively argue against them?
So soon StevenC... all I ask is a little patience while we argue about the veracity of evidence for UFOs a little more, then... well, we'll see.
Click to expand...

This sounds suspiciously like it translates as 'once you submit to my voice of authority and accept without evidence, I'll provide the evidence.'

A.
 
Marduk. With all due respect, and sorry for butting in like this. But I feel there's really not much good you're doing this thread by your bickering (same goes to Rramjet, but he's trying to quit it where you keep feeding the flames). Insults and rude pokings will only derail us from the core of the discussion. You seem to reply quite quickly to posts...I wonder how many times you bother to read before posting? What is it you're after? Do you really think your conduct in this thread is leading you there?

Also, there's a statement you made earlier:

(in response to Rramjet's links)
what evidence, where, did you mean the hub cap shaped ufo, how clever of those aliens to disguise their ships as everyday objects, their intergalactic flying pie dish was a stroke of genius
Click to expand...

Marduk, I'm a guy still sitting on the fence on this subject, but with both of my feet on the side of not believing UFO's are of alien intelligent design, so to speak. Now, if you could provide me with reasonable critique over the Rogue River case and other stuff Rramjet and/or heed has provided, maybe I could think of jumping down for good. As to this point it seems you're simply a big mouth, but I'd like to think you have some actual facts to support your position...could you give me a hand here? Thanks.

-------------------

Rramjet. Kitakaze and heed (<- welcome to the forums!:)) have joined the discussion and sparked it up a bit. If it's ok to you, I'd like to focus on some of the latest posts in the thread and leave our beginning of discussing 'qualia' etc. to a later time. This is not saying I'm not interested in continuing with those subjects, but more like right now I'd be interested more in jumping aboard on this new stuff, whilst also leaving you more room to debate the most recent arguments. Ok?
 
Last edited:
Tapio said:
Now, if you could provide me with reasonable critique over the Rogue River case and other stuff Rramjet and/or heed has provided, maybe I could think of jumping down for good.
Click to expand...

Not addressed to me, but this what I was looking for, a specific place to start. Tapio, I will get googly on this Rogue River case you mention and see what my thoughts on it are. I will make it perfectly clear that I have little hope that it will indicate reliable evidence for VEFI, but I will be completely open and forthright with whatever I find there. If someone wants to give me a link I missed, that owuld be helpful, as well.
 
Last edited:
Oh sweet African wild ass, this thing is huge. Oh my dear goodness, what have I gotten myself into? OK, I am going to wade into this monster and see what I can see...

Rogue River sighting.

Hopefully, there is some VEFI at the bottom of this self-flagellation. More soon (?).
 
Kitakaze, wonderful!

I have such a tiny amount of 'internet' or 'reading' time on my hands, that it's fairly frustrating detective wise...so thanks in advance for your input! If you find something worth mentioning, please post it up!
 
heed said:
Of course a hard evidence would clear things up; but the question is, if a hard evidence is still needed to accept that this phenomenon exists.
Click to expand...

That wasn't my point. You claimed in your post to have definitive evidence (even if you didn't realize it :)), so I offered you luck in getting it on the table.

Let me explain... so were crystal clear.

If as you say:

heed said:
There is an extremely huge amount of indirect evidence that only allows the conclusion that a foreign intelligence[1] has visited and is still visiting the planet.
Click to expand...

Then you have evidence, where the the only conclusion reachable is foreign intelligence. Now I note your list of possible explanations does not include mundane sources.

heed said:
  • Extra terrestial hypothesis
  • Time travel hypothesis
  • parallel universe hypothesis
[/COLOR][/FONT]
Click to expand...

So if things of the above type are the only conclusion reachable from evidence, you may not be able to distinguish exactly which one just yet, but it would be definitive evidence of something very exciting. As long as its the only conclusion reachable from the evidence, and not simply you feel this more likely than mundane or unknown factors.

That would be enough to show a phenomena.
(Hence why I was referring to you getting definite evidence on the table)

We still would have to use an argument from ignorance to get to VEFI (Cheers kitakaze!) however at that point.

But as I said, and why I said, I don't have expertise in the the fields of radar etc you mentioned (I have a feeling these will be the most interesting) , I wouldn't know noise from a signal, so am ill equipped to help you go over it. As I assume that it is details in the data that you will content are what place these UFO's in the above category and not simply that they are unknown which categorizes them as that would be an argument from ignorance.

I never thought I'd write so much to explain two lines that I meant to simply welcome you :) I did actually read your post :)
 
Last edited:
heed said:
But what i would like to know is the arguments on how the skeptics here can so easily dismiss the evidence that i mentioned in my first post.
Click to expand...
What, you mean these?

heed said:
  • radar images
  • eye-witness accounts
  • physical injuries of humans and animals
  • photographs
  • videos
  • Landing traces
  • electromagnetic effects
  • higher radioactivity
  • other tracks (this is no complete list)
Click to expand...
If you would like to point out which of these has been demonstrated to be an alien spacecraft, then we can start talking about evidence. "There's something weird here" is not evidence.

It's been said before, but it's worth saying again: the plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence".

At the risk of repeating myself (again), the fact that a particular sighting has not been identified tells us absofreakinglutely nothing about what caused it. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Nothing.

There are unexplained sightings out there, yes. Nobody is denying that. We cannot draw any conclusions from that. We cannot move from "unidentified" to anything whatsoever unless the object is first identified. And out of all the unidentified sightings in the history of the world, 100% of those that have been identified have turned out to be not mysterious. 100%. Every. Single. One.

Cue Rramjet with some condescendingly arrogant remark about the methods of skeptics in 3... 2... 1...
 
I have an idea - how about using UFO to mean flying objects that haven't been identified? I know - silly idea. Just wanted a giggle.
 
Burning Beard said:
???

What, like these: http://sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_eng.htm ????
Click to expand...

Indeed. These images are quality examples of historic artists featuring 'things' up there/'in the heavens', that had qualites, meanings, or positions that the artist or his benefactor looked up to.

The main image atop the page you linked was painted by whom?

And what did the artist actually 'say' about the reason for the placement of the object in the sky and the man and his dog looking up to it?

My understanding is that they attribute it to Sebastiano Mainardi or Jacopo del Sellaio...?

If we DON'T know who painted it, how can we begin to know what the unknown elements in the painting were???

Granted I have no training in this field, I look at every piece of art the same way, "What is the artist trying to 'say' or 'show'?" What 'I' see is that the artist attempts to show 'something' looking over/down on a child and a mother figure, and that a man and his dog were witnesses to it. One could certainly argue that it was an angel/agent of god, hovering over the Christ Child and the Madonna. Given that none of us have a solid definition of "God, god, angels, or agents thereof", I think my analysis of 'something up there' is as accurate as saying "it's an image of god".

I don't know what I saw, I don't know what this artist attempted to portray, and I don't know 'what' God/god/angels are. But I HAVE seen 'something' up there, that seemed 'better/more capable' than we are...

How is this finding different that the images portrayed in the link you provided?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom