Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by EHocking
I have to admit, initially I thought you were having a laugh . . . . until your follow up posts.



You're not seriously claiming these are ET, or even UFO, are you?

I don't know what they are. I didn't do the filming, and I have seen no breakdown or still shots.

That's a pretty poor attempt at backpedalling, here's a better one.


You're original response to my post was (my emphasis);

They showed up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZMYyNFjxDM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQPbsCEo_44

They just never landed...

You seemed pretty sure that these were video of them and even attempted to defend that position.
Now you're saying you don't know what these were?
And even after that admission you take your usual default position - assume ET.

Oh, and analysis?
First one is dust in front of the lens inside The Eye capsule.
Second one is in a different country at a different time.

It would take little analysis to determine either case, but no, your default position is to lock away critical thinking that conflicts with your ET beliefs.

 

[dafydd]

How did you arrive at those conclusions?

By looking.

 

[dafydd]

I have to admit, initially I thought you were having a laugh . . . . until your follow up posts.



You're not seriously claiming these are ET, or even UFO, are you?

I don't think so,he is just trolling now.

 

[King of the Americas]

I don't think so,he is just trolling now.

Your use of the term "trolling" in reference to me is misplaced.

I would like to AGAIN encourage you to cease such baseless accusations.

---

ETA

I'd just like to point out that 'I' started this thread, and YOU are the one attempting to derail discussion with baseless name calling.

 

[GeeMack]

Your use of the term "trolling" in reference to me is misplaced.

I would like to AGAIN encourage you to cease such baseless accusations.

It is absolutely not a baseless accusation. Baseless would mean there is no supporting evidence for the argument. There is, however, very much evidence to suggest your argument has devolved into a simple attempt to elicit argumentative responses and no longer has anything to do with describing or supporting your position. That is definitively trolling.

 

[King of the Americas]

I 'd like this thread to consist of "who's winning" the debate...

The skeptics/debunkers or those who believe/know they saw 'something' that wasn't a man-made and a human piloted craft.

This is a "skeptic's forum", James Randi fancies himself a debunker and even a hoaxer. I've always felt a little like so much chum being tossed into an already shark infested pool. I guess I'd say I felt more attacked than welcomed, but this being where it is, it was expected. That said, I've felt the tide turn lately (thank you ramjet & jakesteele)

I have seen 'things' I still have yet to identify, or have a plausible explanation offered by an aviation expert. And too I've opened several threads, and or taken part in many discussions, debates, and or deliberations here upon this, all ending in the same way...

'I' think the skeptics' thinking is skewed, and their methodology flawed, in arrival at "debunked claim". I am sure they are equally convinced of 'their' winning the logical argument.

So, I want to hear from those "on the fence", those who haven't made up their mind as to which group is 'probably' correct.

IS there 'something' around/up there/in the heavens that ISN'T us?

OR

Are ALL such reports merely a product of identification error?

---

Which camp has offered YOU the strongest argument(s)?

I just want to remind those active within this thread, what the OP was...

 

[RoboTimbo]

I just want to remind those active within this thread, what the OP was...

You are correct to bring it back on topic.

The creduloids lost.

 

[GeeMack]

I just want to remind those active within this thread, what the OP was...

I 'd like this thread to consist of "who's winning" the debate...

The skeptics/debunkers or those who believe/know they saw 'something' that wasn't a man-made and a human piloted craft.

This is a "skeptic's forum", James Randi fancies himself a debunker and even a hoaxer. I've always felt a little like so much chum being tossed into an already shark infested pool. I guess I'd say I felt more attacked than welcomed, but this being where it is, it was expected. That said, I've felt the tide turn lately (thank you ramjet & jakesteele)

I have seen 'things' I still have yet to identify, or have a plausible explanation offered by an aviation expert. And too I've opened several threads, and or taken part in many discussions, debates, and or deliberations here upon this, all ending in the same way...

'I' think the skeptics' thinking is skewed, and their methodology flawed, in arrival at "debunked claim". I am sure they are equally convinced of 'their' winning the logical argument.

So, I want to hear from those "on the fence", those who haven't made up their mind as to which group is 'probably' correct.

IS there 'something' around/up there/in the heavens that ISN'T us?

There is no objective evidence to suggest that some kind of space/Earth alien craft is "up there".

OR

Are ALL such reports merely a product of identification error?

This is a false dichotomy, usually dishonestly presented to force a reply in a debate by offering only a limited set of choices when in fact there are other valid choices which have not been offered.

Which camp has offered YOU the strongest argument(s)?

The only arguments in support of the OP's space/Earth alien conjecture have been arguments from incredulity and ignorance. As far as strength of argument, those particular logical fallacies carry no weight at all. The skeptical position, that there is not enough evidence to draw a particular conclusion, is still the only position, when considered rationally and logically, that carries any weight.

 

[ehcks]

Oh, and analysis?
First one is dust in front of the lens inside The Eye capsule.
Second one is in a different country at a different time.

No, the first was an insect. Didn't you see it, at the top, flying to the left?

I guess it could be a bird, but I am sticking with insect.

 

[EHocking]

No, the first was an insect. Didn't you see it, at the top, flying to the left?

I guess it could be a bird, but I am sticking with insect.

Nope, didn't see it. How many seconds into it are we looking? All I see is the "orb" near the start and the two jets at the 50sec mark.

 

[King of the Americas]

No, the first was an insect. Didn't you see it, at the top, flying to the left?

I guess it could be a bird, but I am sticking with insect.

So, what kind of bird, do you have a picture you can refer to?

 

[RoboTimbo]

So, what kind of bird, do you have a picture you can refer to?

I guess you're going to ignore your own advice about sticking to the topic. Oh well....

What kind of aliens were they?

 

[yodaluver28]

Picture 1 is a screenshot of the object(s) from the first video.

Picture 2 is a screenshot of the RAF flyover from a distance as the planes approached the palace.