Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

I don't quite understand your question...

What I saw disobeyed the laws of flight and physics as I understood them.

Maybe you don't understand them.

Also you saw something, that in your eyes, disobeyed the laws of physics.. Do the laws of physics not apply to aliens?
 
Last edited:
I make four right angle turns going to work in the morning.

So, tell me again, HOW you ruled out the usual ways our senses can be fooled?

ETA: And by "again" I mean "for the first time since you didn't answer previously."

If you 'flew' to work in a star like object and made those right angle turns without slowing down, then I'd be impressed.

HOW I ruled out the usual ways my senses can be fooled...?

The 'usual' ways, I guess.
 
So in what specific ways did you ensure that your senses weren't fooled as so many others' have been?

This senses thing pops up with about every KotA thread....

I can remember we even did a few experiments from Wiseman's Quirkology and he still held steady that his senses did serve him rightly....
 
If you 'flew' to work in a star like object and made those right angle turns without slowing down, then I'd be impressed.

HOW I ruled out the usual ways my senses can be fooled...?

The 'usual' ways, I guess.

By careful and fearless examination of your own beliefs?

Good.

Let me ask you this: If what you witnessed was NOT of extraterrestrial origin, then how would you know?
 
By careful and fearless examination of your own beliefs?

Good.

Let me ask you this: If what you witnessed was NOT of extraterrestrial origin, then how would you know?

hes already stated several times that he doesnt believe they are extra terrestrial, hes more into the "lost advanced race" or "dimensional traveller" explanations

he knows because he believes it, though doesnt recognise the distinction.
;)
 
hes already stated several times that he doesnt believe they are extra terrestrial, hes more into the "lost advanced race" or "dimensional traveller" explanations

he knows because he believes it, though doesnt recognise the distinction.
;)

Sorry, I wasn't paying close enough attention...

I guess I should rephrase that...

"If what you witnessed had a mundane explanation, then how would you know?"
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I wasn't paying close enough attention...

I guess I should rephrase that...

"If what you witnessed had a mundane explanation, then how would you know?"

He's covered that in the past too, he was offered quite a few mundane explanations but refused to examine any of them.
so he knows because he has no objectivity.
Subjective experiences often do that. Its what hes claimed afterwards to shore up his "belief" thats unsupportable.
;)
he also rarely responds to difficult questions
if you have any more questions you'll probably find out all you need to know in this thread
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155070
:p

bear in mind he claims never to have heard of the x files when it was pointed out that what he saw was identical to something that happened to Fox Mulder.
How does someone into UFO's miss the X files ?
 
Last edited:
First, I don't presuppose anything about the origin of what I saw.

My conclusion is merely that they were non-human craft.
Didn't anyone get the blatant contradiction in these two consecutive sentences?

To say that a craft is "non-human" is to make a claim about their origin.
 
What I saw disobeyed the laws of flight and physics as I understood them.

Hmmmm. I do see where you're coming from, but what do you do when what you saw doesn't violate the laws of flight and physics as understood by everyone else? I've seen a lot of weird stuff, and a lot of it taught me that the world is a strange and non-intuitive place, but nothing has ever defied explanation after sufficient study.

A
 

Back
Top Bottom