Merged Their Return

[Waterman]

In both cases, my detractors were wrong.

I saw 'something', that was made to look exactly as my memory captured it. I saw the Hope Diamond, and some surrounding stones.

That my 5-6 year old eyes and memory 'captured' that accurately, was and is astonishing to me.

I HAD written it off, simply because it should have been impossible, that I saw what I did. That diamond has been in the Smithsonian, and well beyond arms reach for some time.

That my memory was 'confirmed', NOT debunked, is my observation.

It was NOT a fiction, dream, or hallucination.

That a 5 or 6 year old was unable to recognize a 'fake' is hardly relevant.

Actually this is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier. Separting interpretations of the event from the events themselves. While you were there I am sure that you were accompanied by one or more adults and they probalby were discussing the collection and in that conversation I am sure that it came up that it was a 'display only' and that it would be OK for kids to handle. You memory of the event is not perfect enough to include that conversation (unless the adults were playing up tht it was ral for the effect on the kids). As the memory of the event comes back you have only partial recollection and "knew" that she handled the actual Hope Diamond. OK so the visual took place but your interpetation of it was false and was demonstrationed to be false as the diamond was fake.

That was what people are trying to say, you witnessed something in the past and that memory of that event cannot be complete or perfect. You have extrapolated from what was observed to imply more than what you actually witnessed. Lights moving in a funny way does NOT equal intelligently piloted craft.

 

[Waterman]

In order to arrive at highly unlikely, you'd HAVE to first discount, debunk, or otherwise discredit ALL of the anecdotes LIKE MINE, and the hundreds of thousands that have happened throughout the ages.

Personally, I think it is highly unlikely that ALL of these anecdotes, observations, pictures, video, and paintings are all pure fiction.

THAT is a leap of faith, I am simply not willing to take.

So, the ONLY thing that leads you to this conclusion, is that 'they' are good at not being found and studied...

That pretty weak, buddy.

Actually the burden of proof is on the people claiming something previously unknown. We have depictions of objects in the sky that could be intended to prepresent any number of things, gods, comets, spirits, cool cloud formations, designs the painter liked or just interpreations of randoms shapes. I looked at one of your links and noted several that were really really stretching to be considered to be the depiction of a scaucer shape craft.

We also cannot assess on what percentage of the old impages can be considered as non-human powered craft (NHPC) until we can extablish a relationship between the sightings of confirmed mundane phenomenon and confirmed NHPC (after eliminating all the entires of insufficient information available to make a determination). So far the confirmed NHPC list stands at exactly 0.

 

[King of the Americas]

I agree that this is highly unlikely. However, no one is making that argument.

Some of the anecdotes, observations, etc., undoubtedly do indeed represent actual events, just not described accurately due to misperception or failure of memory, which are very well-understood phenomena.

Some are products of the imagination that were never intended to be understood in any other way.

Some are outright lies.

In any event, it is fallacious to say that the only two options are: 1) Every story about unexplained lights in the sky is fiction, and 2) Heavenly agents live among us. It's a false dilemma.

And some anecdotes are made by professional spotters, pilots, and even astronauts that depict the reality of an advanced technology intelligently controlled, in our heavens.

That you failed to list this last, fully reasonable, and most likely scenario means that you were again employing the "Willful Ignorance Fallacy".

You CAN and SHOULD discount the discountable.

But you haven't, can't, and likely won't do so with 100% of the reported sightings.

And it is the most experienced, knowledgeable sightings that you're IGNORING.

That %, whatever the number represents THE reality, that there are indeed advanced beings, just beyond arms' reach...

 

[aggle-rithm]

And some anecdotes are made by professional spotters, pilots, and even astronauts that depict the reality of an advanced technology intelligently controlled, in our heavens.

Professional spotters, pilots, and astronauts can be wrong. In fact, they can be spectacularly wrong.

This is a far more likely explanation than some unknown intelligent race. After all, we KNOW people can be wrong, even professionals.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

... Lights moving in a funny way does NOT equal intelligently piloted craft.

I did NOT see 'lights move in a funny way'.

I saw "star-like objects move in 'coordination' with one another, and at one point two vectored toward each other, and then 'combined' to form a 4-fold larger version of themselves"...

What I saw weren't random or 'funny' movements.

Please stop misrepresenting what I witnessed.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Please stop misrepresenting what I witnessed.

You don't know what you witnessed, you only know what you remember. What you remember can be wrong.

Did you write down your experience somewhere recently after it occurred, so you have something to compare your memory to?

 

[King of the Americas]

Professional spotters, pilots, and astronauts can be wrong. In fact, they can be spectacularly wrong.

This is a far more likely explanation than some unknown intelligent race. After all, we KNOW people can be wrong, even professionals.

Yep, they CAN be wrong.

LOTS of people CAN be wrong.

Some are LESS likely to be wrong than others, especially if they receive training in that field.

Your side REQUIRES that you discount 100% of ALL the anecdotes, even among the most highly trained and experienced pilots and aircraft spotters.

Rather than suggest that NO ONE is capable of making an accurate report, I think the simplest answer is that we've misinterpreted the reports.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Your side REQUIRES that you discount 100% of ALL the anecdotes, even among the most highly trained and experienced pilots and aircraft spotters.

Easily done!

Anecdotes are stories that may or may not be true. Therefore, they are useless as evidence.

Therefore, 100% of anecdotes are discounted.

 

[King of the Americas]

You don't know what you witnessed, you only know what you remember. What you remember can be wrong.

Did you write down your experience somewhere recently after it occurred, so you have something to compare your memory to?

All that we have available are the account(s) I've provided here, over the years.

The ONLY change that has occurred were the total number of objects changed from "6" to "7".

 

[King of the Americas]

Easily done!

Anecdotes are stories that may or may not be true. Therefore, they are useless as evidence.

Therefore, 100% of anecdotes are discounted.

This is a perfect example of the "Willful Ignorance Fallacy"...

 

[aggle-rithm]

All that we have available are the account(s) I've provided here, over the years.

The ONLY change that has occurred were the total number of objects changed from "6" to "7".

How many years after the event was the first account recorded?

 

[aggle-rithm]

This is a perfect example of the "Willful Ignorance Fallacy"...

There's nothing fallacious about willfully ignoring poor evidence.

 

[carlitos]

I looked for that journal, but was unable to find it, which means it is in storage.

I really don't know...

I mean, it 'seems' as though I posted the story there initially. Then one of the posters there told me about this place.

And, I do know where my journal, or rather that edition of it, is. It is in a box marked personal books, in the back left corner of a storage locker, atop an old manual sewing machine.

I wrote down the events within a few days of the occurrence so I am not relying solely on long term memory.

I haven't seen that journal for years...

Good times.

There's nothing fallacious about willfully ignoring poor evidence.

What would be good if someone could name the fallacy where the poster makes up a fallacy, puts it in quotes and then quotes themselves referring to their made-up fallacy.

 

[bruto]

What would be good if someone could name the fallacy where the poster makes up a fallacy, puts it in quotes and then quotes themselves referring to their made-up fallacy.

The fa-la-la-la-lallacy. Often accompanied by fingers in ears and loud humming.

 

[Psiload]

I did NOT see 'lights move in a funny way'.

I saw "star-like objects move in 'coordination' with one another, and at one point two vectored toward each other, and then 'combined' to form a 4-fold larger version of themselves"...

What I saw weren't random or 'funny' movements.

Please stop misrepresenting what I witnessed.

And did a helicopter break formation and chase the star-like object only to be left in the dust when the object rapidly accelerated? Oh wait, sorry. That was the other thing you witnessed and then misrepresented.

 

[EHocking]

I do not hold that my memory is infallible.

Read just above, where I said as much.

While my memory may be flawed, it is still quite reliable.

My response to this post, considering those that followed, is for all and intents superfluous, but what the hell...

 

[Stray Cat]

Yep, they CAN be wrong.

LOTS of people CAN be wrong.

Some are LESS likely to be wrong than others, especially if they receive training in that field.

It's odd how you seem to be able get some sort of grip on the probability of people being wrong (even if it's a distorted one), and yet you fail to see that unless you can verify which people are wrong and when they are wrong compared to when they are right, their testimonies are useless. Because there is no criteria we can use objectively to determine an eye witnesses account on it's own (without some sort of physical corroboration), then anything they say has to be treat with caution. Especially when what they say is going against what science knows and understands already.

Your side REQUIRES that you discount 100% of ALL the anecdotes, even among the most highly trained and experienced pilots and aircraft spotters.

Shifting the burden of proof again. ("Your side" needs to provide just one single conclusive account).
And the appeal to authority too.

Rather than suggest that NO ONE is capable of making an accurate report, I think the simplest answer is that we've misinterpreted the reports.

No one is suggesting that no one is capable of making an accurate report.
What people are suggesting is that there is no way of knowing if someone had made an accurate report or not. That may be good enough to shore up your belief driven system that allows for ET/Sky Gos/Whatevers, but science doesn't work like that and ultimately, UFOs flying around in our sky is a matter for science that should be investigated in a scientific manner.

 

[Toke]

Your side REQUIRES that you discount 100% of ALL the anecdotes, even among the most highly trained and experienced pilots and aircraft spotters.

I recall something about how even a really big pile of manure will not turn to gold, or maybe I got it wrong.

 

[GeeMack]

Yep, they CAN be wrong.

LOTS of people CAN be wrong.

Some are LESS likely to be wrong than others, especially if they receive training in that field.

Your side REQUIRES that you discount 100% of ALL the anecdotes, even among the most highly trained and experienced pilots and aircraft spotters.

When the most highly trained and experienced pilots and aircraft spotters see something, or think they see something, and don't know what it is, the only reasonable interpretation of their anecdotes is that they saw something, or believed they saw something, and didn't know what it was. It would not be sane or intelligent to make any more of it than that.

Rather than suggest that NO ONE is capable of making an accurate report, I think the simplest answer is that we've misinterpreted the reports.

The simplest thing to make of a report of something the witness can't identify is that the witness saw, or believed he/she saw something which they were unable to identify. It is not rational to make a leap from unidentified to any particular thing.

Oh, and the silly argument that anything, 100% or otherwise, is required to be interpreted a certain way is dishonest.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I think that must of us here recognize the POSSIBILITY of extraterristrial life, yet we personally require more evidence than one person's observation. Please respond, I want other arguments.