Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

[King of the Americas]

No. They are not.

My anecdote of my encounter with an Extraterrestrial creature in a back alley is far from being evidence of anything.

I can provide you more made up anecdotes if you like.

I disagree.

It's evidence that you saw 'something', OR it's evidence that you see things that aren't there...

 

[LissaLysikan]

I disagree.

It's evidence that you saw 'something', OR it's evidence that you see things that aren't there...

False dichotomy .. again.
other options:
He lied
He was drunk
He wasn't wearing glasses he needs to see clearly
He was upset with his significant other and leapt to a conclusion
He likes thinking about anal probing so it was the first thought in his head when he saw something unusual
He's paranoid and imagined it
....
I would go on, but the idea that there are only two explanations is so ludicrous I nearly wet my chair giggling.

ETA: Before you say "something" covers those ... putting it in quotes implies that it was unusual. Not to mention (okay, I'll mention it), using the literal interpretation of "he saw something" simply says he was awake, since even with our eyes closed we see things. Not meaningful things, but we see them.

 

[King of the Americas]

This is intriguing. What do you think they and their craft are? What do you think they are doing?

I don't know what the are...nor what their real motive is...

They 'seem' to be interested in studying/looking after us, but there's no way to know or test that.

 

[King of the Americas]

False dichotomy .. again.
other options:
He lied
He was drunk
He wasn't wearing glasses he needs to see clearly
He was upset with his significant other and leapt to a conclusion
He likes thinking about anal probing so it was the first thought in his head when he saw something unusual
He's paranoid and imagined it
....
I would go on, but the idea that there are only two explanations is so ludicrous I nearly wet my chair giggling.

ETA: Before you say "something" covers those ... putting it in quotes implies that it was unusual. Not to mention (okay, I'll mention it), using the literal interpretation of "he saw something" simply says he was awake, since even with our eyes closed we see things. Not meaningful things, but we see them.

ALL of these:

He was drunk
He wasn't wearing glasses he needs to see clearly
He was upset with his significant other and leapt to a conclusion
He likes thinking about anal probing so it was the first thought in his head when he saw something unusual
He's paranoid and imagined it

=

He sees things that aren't there.

Although I'll agree that I should have offered the third "he's lying" option.

 

[LissaLysikan]

ALL of these:

He was drunk
He wasn't wearing glasses he needs to see clearly
He was upset with his significant other and leapt to a conclusion
He likes thinking about anal probing so it was the first thought in his head when he saw something unusual
He's paranoid and imagined it

=

He sees things that aren't there.

Although I'll agree that I should have offered the third "he's lying" option.

That is the whole point, though. There is no reason to leap to "higher order beings controlling craft humans don't currently make" when looking at "something". Since all of those things I listed, plus many many more, have turned out to be the explanation for the ones explained so far, why leap to something that has no basis in history, science, or logic, for the few that haven't been explained yet?

ETA: No, I'm not a hardcore skeptic - I'm a Christian *grin*

 

[King of the Americas]

That is the whole point, though. There is no reason to leap to "higher order beings controlling craft humans don't currently make" when looking at "something". Since all of those things I listed, plus many many more, have turned out to be the explanation for the ones explained so far, why leap to something that has no basis in history, science, or logic, for the few that haven't been explained yet?

ETA: No, I'm not a hardcore skeptic - I'm a Christian *grin*

But 'I' didn't just see a something, sitting there.

I saw airborne objects, perform feats beyond that of 'our' craft or pilots...

My sighting DOES have a basis in history, as well as logic. They've managed to avoid scientific detection, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[RoboTimbo]

But 'I' didn't just see a something, sitting there.

I saw airborne objects, perform feats beyond that of 'our' craft or pilots...

Why would the feats you believe you saw be beyond our pilots and craft and not beyond 'theirs'?

 

[LissaLysikan]

But 'I' didn't just see a something, sitting there.

I saw airborne objects, perform feats beyond that of 'our' craft or pilots...

My sighting DOES have a basis in history, as well as logic. They've managed to avoid scientific detection, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Except you've already been shown that optical illusions, particularly of the sort you have described here, are quite common. Unless you have observers from multiple angles you have no reason to take the extraordinary explanation over the mundane. Two people at virtually the same location can interpret the visual the same way - and probably will. That doesn't rule out optical illusion. It doesn't even rule out swamp gas (I'm in the deep south - my neighbors believe in ghosts).
To properly account for an extraordinary event you have to show, to yourself as well as others, that no ordinary explanation exists. I have seen in this thread where you chose your explanation over an ordinary one simply because "coincidence" was too great for you to accept (that there would be two similar aircraft performing in such a way as to suddenly appear to merge as they turned to head directly toward you). I find the coincidence more likely, since that has been known to happen, while your alternative hasn't held up to scrutiny.
My main purpose to interjecting here is that you keep pushing false logic -"either or" when there are many more options than the ones you allow. Try to debate honestly, even when you feel attacked.

 

[King of the Americas]

Why would the feats you believe you saw be beyond our pilots and craft and not beyond 'theirs'?

Because I 'know' what 'we' are capable of...

...while I know of none of 'their' limitations.

I'm like a native american who just saw a conquistador get off of a ship and shoot an animal with a gun, and my arrow literally bounced off his armor.

His technology was beyond my own. This is all that I can conclude, without further investigation.

 

[kitakaze]

I don't know what the are...nor what their real motive is...

They 'seem' to be interested in studying/looking after us, but there's no way to know or test that.

Fair enough. Would you care to surmise what they are and why they study or look after us? It seems odd to me that they would be studying us and looking after us based on what you said presumably before we were even a species.

 

[King of the Americas]

Except you've already been shown that optical illusions, particularly of the sort you have described here, are quite common. Unless you have observers from multiple angles you have no reason to take the extraordinary explanation over the mundane. Two people at virtually the same location can interpret the visual the same way - and probably will. That doesn't rule out optical illusion. It doesn't even rule out swamp gas (I'm in the deep south - my neighbors believe in ghosts).
To properly account for an extraordinary event you have to show, to yourself as well as others, that no ordinary explanation exists. I have seen in this thread where you chose your explanation over an ordinary one simply because "coincidence" was too great for you to accept (that there would be two similar aircraft performing in such a way as to suddenly appear to merge as they turned to head directly toward you). I find the coincidence more likely, since that has been known to happen, while your alternative hasn't held up to scrutiny.
My main purpose to interjecting here is that you keep pushing false logic -"either or" when there are many more options than the ones you allow. Try to debate honestly, even when you feel attacked.

What optical illusion would account for right angle turns?

...even if two F-22 Raptors WERE playing chicken, before pulling away at the last minute, to vector right at us?

Moreover, when they joined together, they became one big version of the two. The object did not continue to grow, like it would have done, if it were F-22's heading toward me with their landing lights on.

The only things I've rejected are explanations that offer details inconsistent with what I saw.

I really don't understand how you can suggest that I am being dishonest...?

 

[kitakaze]

That is the whole point, though. There is no reason to leap to "higher order beings controlling craft humans don't currently make" when looking at "something". Since all of those things I listed, plus many many more, have turned out to be the explanation for the ones explained so far, why leap to something that has no basis in history, science, or logic, for the few that haven't been explained yet?

ETA: No, I'm not a hardcore skeptic - I'm a Christian *grin*

Woops, sorry. Just goes off like that sometimes. Please continue.

 

[King of the Americas]

Fair enough. Would you care to surmise what they are and why they study or look after us? It seems odd to me that they would be studying us and looking after us based on what you said presumably before we were even a species.

I wouldn't care to surmise what they are or why they do what they do.

Why do OUR scientists care for, study, or look after wild animals?

 

[kitakaze]

Because I 'know' what 'we' are capable of...

...while I know of none of 'their' limitations.

I'm like a native american who just saw a conquistador get off of a ship and shoot an animal with a gun, and my arrow literally bounced off his armor.

His technology was beyond my own. This is all that I can conclude, without further investigation.

I think one of the first things that comes to my mind is this problem...

You believe that another species of sentient beings native to this planet, who have been coexisting with us since the dawn of our species, shares our planet with us and has technology far in advance of ours.

Why in all our study of the natural world around us have we not found archaeological evidence for another species evolving, becoming technoligically capable, and developing far beyond us? I mean, if you think they're a real species of beings, does it not follow that they are subject to the same facts of life as we are?

 

[Marduk]

I really don't understand how you can suggest that I am being dishonest...?

ok then just for you, as apparently you are the only one here who doesnt realise that you are dishonest
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5194596&postcount=414

ok now carry on

 

[LissaLysikan]

What optical illusion would account for right angle turns?

...even if two F-22 Raptors WERE playing chicken, before pulling away at the last minute, to vector right at us?

Moreover, when they joined together, they became one big version of the two. The object did not continue to grow, like it would have done, if it were F-22's heading toward me with their landing lights on.

The only things I've rejected are explanations that offer details inconsistent with what I saw.

I really don't understand how you can suggest that I am being dishonest...?

"Right angle turn" - in 3D you cannot know that without two observers at wide angle from where the turn took place. Play "Flight Simulator" with multiple aircraft on screen for examples. Flight Simulator does a pretty decent job of simulating the necessary banking for changing direction in flight.
You cannot even be sure of the angles they were flying, from a single observation point. You simply do not have enough information to know what you saw. Gradually moving left to right then suddenly moving toward you could be any angle that was slightly sideways to directly on and you have NO information to tell you what it was, unless you know the exact size and speed of the objects.
In plain English, again, It is NOT POSSIBLE to make such judgments from a single observation point. It CANNOT BE DONE.
The dishonesty is with statements such as "It's evidence that you saw 'something', OR it's evidence that you see things that aren't there..." knowing the implications and using them to attack the other argument when you don't have a direct rebuttal. Dishonesty doesn't just mean telling lies - intentionally hiding the truth is still dishonest.

 

[kitakaze]

I wouldn't care to surmise what they are or why they do what they do.

I also find it intriguing that you say you don't care to surmise what these beings are or why they do what they do. There is a sentient race of beings native to Earth, and far in advance of us, sharing our world and you're not interested in surmising their nature and purpose?

Why do OUR scientists care for, study, or look after wild animals?

Many, many reasons. You know, no offence intended, but I can't help but see some cognitive dissonance happening here. The animals you mention are not sentient, self-aware beings able to contemplate their own existence or why the scientists are studying and/or caring for them as we are. We are such beings who can think deeply about such things. We can surmise why we are being studied and/or cared for by an advanced species sharing our world with us. You use animals that can not surmise anything as an analogy for why you won't surmise something. See how that doesn't quite make sense?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Because I 'know' what 'we' are capable of...

How long have you been privy to secret experimental aircraft?

...while I know of none of 'their' limitations.

But you 'know' that they are here. Interesting.

I'm like a native american who just saw a conquistador get off of a ship and shoot an animal with a gun, and my arrow literally bounced off his armor.

His technology was beyond my own. This is all that I can conclude, without further investigation.

Are you sure you want to use that comparison? You're saying that you are simply unaware of advanced technology?

 

[King of the Americas]

I think one of the first things that comes to my mind is this problem...

You believe that another species of sentient beings native to this planet, who have been coexisting with us since the dawn of our species, shares our planet with us and has technology far in advance of ours.

Why in all our study of the natural world around us have we not found archaeological evidence for another species evolving, becoming technoligically capable, and developing far beyond us? I mean, if you think they're a real species of beings, does it not follow that they are subject to the same facts of life as we are?

Because we haven't looked everywhere, they are capable of detecting and avoiding our detection efforts, and most of the real scientific community treats this subject like a joke.

Are native americans who live on reservations subject to the same 'facts of life' that say Donald Trump is?

 

[Marduk]

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.

last remaining blimp hanger in the U.S.
http://bp2.blogger.com/_vgj_Qq8OxoE...k/sash2uektC4/s1600-h/blog+-+blimp+hnager.jpg
this was part of a large anti submarine blimp base in portland around 200 miles from the rogue river, blimps would head to the coast from portland and then follow the coastline north and south on training missions. The rogue river is directly south of the blimp base
a blimp heading towards an observer appears to be a disc
sideways on it look like this
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/K_class_blimp.jpg
this is the rogue river ufo
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/pictures/thumbs/May1949.jpg
the rogue river sighting was in 1949
the navy used blimps up into the 1950s
so are you surprised that there would be a very common aircraft that matches all the descriptions of the rogue river ufo and was known to be operating in that area at the time, or would you still like to pretend that this is the most mystifying ufo of all time ?