Merged Their Return

[King of the Americas]

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

I wrote about it on message boards both the THSMB and JREF both have been erased by time itself. All that we have are my recollections here from the past several years. Wherein my discrepancies were "5" to "6", in my numbering them.

(*I have a journal entry, written within days of the event. It is in a storage locker, as I have yet to find it in any of my home storage boxes. That said, I will NOT provide it here, in whole or in part, period. My journal is my own.)

 

[King of the Americas]

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.

Didn't I say THAT U.F.O. was "balloon-like"...?

Or are YOU misremembering things now?

In the video I remember, a helicopter DOES pursue the object. Is there more to that video?

 

[King of the Americas]

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.


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


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.

So your argument is if we can't test whether or not you've seen U.F.O.'s, then we don't know how good you might be at spotting them?

That you literally think there is NOT ONE reliable, tested, experienced pilot and or spotter, CAPABLE identifying all known aircraft is willful ignorance...

LOTS of people who have reported U.F.O.'s are of a credible experienced nature, and you discount ALL of those, for merely being potentially wrong.

So you dismiss EVERY class of reporter, and every report made.

That's crazy, man...

It is "wrong-headed", fallacious,...it's willful ignorance at its finest.

STOP DOING THAT.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

So your argument is if we can't test whether or not you've seen U.F.O.'s, then we don't know how good you might be at spotting them?

That you literally think there is NOT ONE reliable, tested, experienced pilot and or spotter, CAPABLE identifying all known aircraft is willful ignorance...

LOTS of people who have reported U.F.O.'s are of a credible experienced nature, and you discount ALL of those, for merely being potentially wrong.

So you dismiss EVERY class of reporter, and every report made.

That's crazy, man...

It is "wrong-headed", fallacious,...it's willful ignorance at its finest.

STOP DOING THAT.

No one here is dismissing ANYTHING. Personal observations such as your own have been made for hundreds of years. I, personally, don't doubt what you BELIEVE you have seen, but I, as an individual, require more proof than what you vehemently espouse as "truth."

 

[TheGoldcountry]

It isn't "willlful ignorance" either. Most of the posters here are open-minded about different subjects, but some of us need more evidence than your own eyesight observations.

 

[Sean84]

Hello again, thread that will not die. Anything new?

Looking up = Aliens

Sorry, that's just plain dumb.

Ta!

 

[Stray Cat]

So your argument is if we can't test whether or not you've seen U.F.O.'s, then we don't know how good you might be at spotting them?

No. Spotting UFO's is really really easy. All you have to is look upwards and spot something you can not identify. There is no training you could ever need in order to accomplish such a simple task. No one person is better than another person at doing this as the only criteria required is that the person can not identify the object they see flying.

That you literally think there is NOT ONE reliable, tested, experienced pilot and or spotter, CAPABLE identifying all known aircraft is willful ignorance...

Again no. That some people are quite capable of identifying flying objects is very apparent when you take into the consideration all the flying objects that people see everyday, that they positively identify as planes, clouds, planets, blimps, birds, satellites, search lights, balloons, chinese lanterns etc.
What you are dealing with is a very small minority of cases where the information was not good enough to positively identify what object was flying or where the observer could have perceived the situation incorrectly, or could have been hallucinating or many other complications that would need ruling out. Having ruled all these out, you would still only be left with an object that hadn't been identified. This still does not make it an alien flying saucer.

LOTS of people who have reported U.F.O.'s are of a credible experienced nature, and you discount ALL of those, for merely being potentially wrong.

No one is any more credible than anyone else at spotting something they can not identify.

So you dismiss EVERY class of reporter, and every report made.

That's a slight misrepresentation.
I look into the cases to see how they could possibly be confirmed as positive sightings. When they can not, I dismiss them, but I'm still looking for the one that might be verified as genuine.

It is "wrong-headed", fallacious,...it's willful ignorance at its finest.

It's not willful ignorance at all.
How can using science method be willful ignorance?

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm only using what we know scientifically and applying it to these reports.
You on the other hand are having to ignore what we know about the fallibility of human perception and memory and applying a case of special pleading in order that people lower their standards of evidence in order to accept these cases where there wasn't enough information to make a positive identification in order to arrive at a conclusion that is made upon so many assumptions that it's about as unscientific as you could get.

 

[EHocking]

Hello again, thread that will not die. Anything new?

Looking up = Aliens

Sorry, that's just plain dumb.

And it'll drown your turkeys.

 

[GeeMack]

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

And less than 10 hours later...

I wrote about it on message boards both the THSMB and JREF both have been erased by time itself. All that we have are my recollections here from the past several years. Wherein my discrepancies were "5" to "6", in my numbering them.

Let the record show that the witness cannot credibly remember an incident or event for even 10 hours. Any claims to have a clear memory of an incident some years ago are rejected.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I wrote about it on message boards both the THSMB and JREF both have been erased by time itself. All that we have are my recollections here from the past several years. Wherein my discrepancies were "5" to "6", in my numbering them.

(*I have a journal entry, written within days of the event. It is in a storage locker, as I have yet to find it in any of my home storage boxes. That said, I will NOT provide it here, in whole or in part, period. My journal is my own.)

That's a good plan. I recommend you not look at it even in private, unless you want to find out your memories are far more fallible than you think they are.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

... alien flying saucer.


No one is any more credible than anyone else at spotting something they can not identify.


That's a slight misrepresentation.
I look into the cases to see how they could possibly be confirmed as positive sightings. When they can not, I dismiss them, but I'm still looking for the one that might be verified as genuine.

...

First, I do not believe in 'aliens', please don't assert that I do. "E.T.'s" are fine, but I'd prefer technologically advanced non-humans.

Someone who makes a living identifying, and understanding the vector and approach speeds of various aircraft, WOULD BE MORE QUALIFIED, to say what was and wasn't a U.F.O., compared to someone who's never been to an airport.

If you, to date, have not seen convincing evidence, then you are ignoring the stuff that's been presented to you.

To arrive at 'they don't exist', you'd have to dismiss EVERY account from EVERY source, EVER.

EVERY mention, video, photograph, and EVERY class of witness, from every corner of history.

That seems terribly ignorant, to me. That doesn't seem reasonable or logical.

 

[King of the Americas]

No one here is dismissing ANYTHING. Personal observations such as your own have been made for hundreds of years. I, personally, don't doubt what you BELIEVE you have seen, but I, as an individual, require more proof than what you vehemently espouse as "truth."

So, what was it that I saw? What has been seen, in our heavens, since history itself began?

Are we seeing clouds, falling stars, advanced military aircraft?

Have you read the description I gave?

If that is what I saw, what would it represent to you?

Do you disagree with the "technologically advanced non-humans" label? Did I see "God", instead?

What in your head, would or could 'combine with another, to form a 4-fold larger version of themselves'...?

If THAT is what I saw, what does that mean?

 

[King of the Americas]

It isn't "willlful ignorance" either. Most of the posters here are open-minded about different subjects, but some of us need more evidence than your own eyesight observations.

What does the "2" '52 D.C. sightings mean to you?

 

[Cuddles]

-My U.F.O. account didn't "change dramatically"

Yes it did, as demonstrated in this thread and others.

-My memory of seeing my sister pick up A Hope Diamond was also accurate.

No it wasn't, since you remembered it being part of a collection that it was never in.

Edit: And I should add there that since there is exactly zero actual evidence that such a thing ever happened, you certainly cannot claim it was accurate. Your memory is not evidence of your memory being accurate. In order to show that you would need actual evidence that you and your sister were ever even there, and that she actually picked anything up. Of course, this is exactly the same as your claims of aliens - you have nothing other than a single memory with no supporting evidence. You believe this to be more than enough despite plentiful evidence, and your own admission, that your memory is simply terrible. No-one else does. The only difference is that it is at least plausible that you have a sister, and that said sister might have touched some fake jewels once, since both of those things are know to exist. On the other hand, your alien claims don't even make sense, let alone have anything to suggest that they could be vaguely plausible.

You are misrepresenting the facts, and are making unfounded assertions about me and the record I have presented.

YOU ARE LYING.

Please stop.

You do realise that just yelling "liar" over and over again in response to people pointing out your own lies and flawed claims really isn't going to convince anyone you're vaguely rational. Most people grow out of this kind of behaviour by the time they're in their teens, so it's really rather sad to watch coming from a grown man. Obviously I am not lying, as anyone capable of actually reading this thread can see. However, since one of your main problems is your inability to actually remember what has been posted, or to go back and check even just one page previously, I can see why you're having trouble there. Unfortunately for you, this just reinforces the point that your memories are totally unreliable.

 

[King of the Americas]

Yes it did, as demonstrated in this thread and others.



No it wasn't, since you remembered it being part of a collection that it was never in.



You do realise that just yelling "liar" over and over again in response to people pointing out your own lies and flawed claims really isn't going to convince anyone you're vaguely rational. Most people grow out of this kind of behaviour by the time they're in their teens, so it's really rather sad to watch coming from a grown man. Obviously I am not lying, as anyone capable of actually reading this thread can see. However, since one of your main problems is your inability to actually remember what has been posted, or to go back and check even just one page previously, I can see why you're having trouble there. Unfortunately for you, this just reinforces the point that your memories are totally unreliable.

First, please explain to me how "6" becoming "7" is dramatically changing my story? See I don't understand that. Saying that ONE mistake, given the whole of the story told, represents a "dramatic change" is a clear mis-representation of the truth of the matter. It is utterly FALSE to say or suggest that my story has "dramatically changed". That said, maybe I am wrong... Could you qualify what is and is not a dramatic change?

Second, I misnamed the collection, this particular Hope Diamond replica was a part of. The point of my story, was to demonstrate that my extreme long-term memory IS intact. I saw my sister handle 'A' Hope Diamond. I had previously held the memory as a fiction, or dream that I had. THIS WAS NOT THE CASE. My memory was of an actual event, even if my 5-6 year old eyes were incapable of identifying a faux.

ETA: What I can and can't prove on a message board is meaningless. I have been honest, straight forward, and willing and able to answer any and all serious queries about both my memories and my experiences. That 'you' don't value my anecdote doesn't bother me in the least. Your unwillingness to accept other people's reports about this world and the things in it, is all on you... Willful ignorance won't serve your search for truth. In fact, it will only hurt those endeavors. That said, if you are unable to believe me, get out of my thread. I have no use for you here.

The last thing I'll say to you, is that I don't agree with how you conduct yourself, as a debater. I think that your arguments are mis-representations of what I really said, and what I repeatedly posted. You can call your behavior whatever you like, but when you mis-represent other people's statement, that's lying in my book.

 

[bruto]

I think that it's interesting, and telling, that KotA uses as his example of how reliable his memory can be, a prime example of how unreliable even a good memory can be when it comes to interpretation.

People are very good at this. It's hard wired into us, I think, to be able to jump to conclusions from insufficient evidence. It allows us to drive cars down a busy street, to recognize old friends, and so forth. If we (or our ancestors) saw a movement in the weeds, the penalty for thinking it's a tiger and running like hell when it's really just a gust of wind is very small compared to the penalty for stopping to analyze when it really is a tiger. That's all fine, until we get to the post-event analysis. That's when we have to remember that what we think we saw may not be what we did see.

KotA, you thought you saw the Hope diamond, but you did not. You are providing us with the perfect example of an accurate memory leading to error, because you continue to be unable or unwilling to separate the truth of the visual information you receive from the inference of what it actually represents.

 

[Psiload]

Didn't I say THAT U.F.O. was "balloon-like"...?

Or are YOU misremembering things now?

In the video I remember, a helicopter DOES pursue the object. Is there more to that video?

No, that's the video in its entirety. I have seen it myself on various UFO documentaries. It's obviously the video you were referring to- Mexican air show in the early 90's, formation of helicopters, balloon-looking object.

Your refusal to accept the fact that your memory of the events shown in the video is extremely flawed speaks volumes.

 

[aggle-rithm]

That 'you' don't value my anecdote doesn't bother me in the least. Your unwillingness to accept other people's reports about this world and the things in it, is all on you... Willful ignorance won't serve your search for truth. In fact, it will only hurt those endeavors. That said, if you are unable to believe me, get out of my thread. I have no use for you here.

Name one great discovery that was made on the basis of anecdotes alone.

Heck, you can even throw in videos and etchings if you want.

Did Columbus discover America by going to the king and queen and saying he heard a bunch of stories about it? No, he WENT there.

Did Newton formulate his theory of gravity by going around and asking people about their experiences? No, he made direct observations.

Was the Big Bang theory worked out by examining old creation stories from primitive cultures? No, a bunch of physicists got together, looked at the data, did the math, and came up with the only explanation that fit.

Anecdotes are useless. They may occassionally point us in the right direction, but it is senseless to come to any kind of conclusion based only on unverifiable stories that may or may not be true.

 

[Stray Cat]

First, I do not believe in 'aliens', please don't assert that I do. "E.T.'s" are fine, but I'd prefer technologically advanced non-humans.

Well if you want to call them that then that's fine by me. I'll call them what I want too... deal?

Someone who makes a living identifying, and understanding the vector and approach speeds of various aircraft, WOULD BE MORE QUALIFIED, to say what was and wasn't a U.F.O., compared to someone who's never been to an airport.

No. A UFO is an object not identified. If anything, a member of the public is more qualified to not identify something they see flying.

However, i suspect you are now referring back the the Washington case. In which I would point out that they were looking at a 1952 basic radar sweep screen and not the modern LDC high res screen they have now showing Aircraft ID tags, altitude and other such information.
They were reporting mostly non aircraft AP returns and even said so themselves. Most of the Radar operators had less than 12 months experience. Some of the solid returns were in fact identified as other commercial aircraft (all this is on those blue book reports).
If you, to date, have not seen convincing evidence, then you are ignoring the stuff that's been presented to you.

To arrive at 'they don't exist', you'd have to dismiss EVERY account from EVERY source, EVER.

The point being that to arrive at the conclusion their was just one single accurate report, you'd have to eliminate every mundane possibility because the burden of proof is on you to prove they exist.
Everytime a case is brought forward for examination, there have always been major flaws in the evidence, the way the evidence has been variously reported, the UFOlogists conclusions over reaching the evidence and mostly the UFOlogists either misrepresenting the original documentation or simply accepting it word for word without allowing for witness perception issues (and in cases such as Roswell, Iran, Trent's photos and most recently Rendlesham Forest, memory failure and blatant dishonesty from witnesses).

EVERY mention, video, photograph, and EVERY class of witness, from every corner of history.

If only one of the various unidentified objects had been later identified as an alien flying saucer (or technologically advanced non human craft), sadly every time (without fail) an object originally recorded as a UFO which has later been identified has been of mundane origin. No photo or video had ever been conclusively shown to be positively identified as an alien craft and we know that witness alone are not good enough quality evidence to reach a conclusion on.

That seems terribly ignorant, to me. That doesn't seem reasonable or logical.

I'm reasonable and logical enough to easily change my opinion as soon as reliable, verifiable evidence is presented that contradicts what I say. Are you?

 

[Cuddles]

First, please explain to me how "6" becoming "7" is dramatically changing my story? See I don't understand that. Saying that ONE mistake, given the whole of the story told, represents a "dramatic change" is a clear mis-representation of the truth of the matter. It is utterly FALSE to say or suggest that my story has "dramatically changed". That said, maybe I am wrong... Could you qualify what is and is not a dramatic change?

You know the really funny thing here? I never used the word "dramatically". It's almost as though you're, what's the phrase, clearly mis-representing the truth of the matter.

Second, I misnamed the collection, this particular Hope Diamond replica was a part of. The point of my story, was to demonstrate that my extreme long-term memory IS intact.

Indeed. It's so intact that you got the details wrong.

I saw my sister handle 'A' Hope Diamond. I had previously held the memory as a fiction, or dream that I had. THIS WAS NOT THE CASE. My memory was of an actual event, even if my 5-6 year old eyes were incapable of identifying a faux.

Except that, as I already noted, you have no idea if that is actually the case. You think you remember an actual event, but you have no evidence the event actually took place other than the memory you're using the event as evidence to prove its accuracy. A beautiful textbook case of circular reasoning.

What I can and can't prove on a message board is meaningless.

Well, in the greater scheme of life, the universe and everything, yes it's meaningless. In the not so great scheme of you arguing with people on message boards, what you can and can't prove on message boards is really quite relevant.

That said, if you are unable to believe me, get out of my thread. I have no use for you here.

What you have use for is meaningless. Also, it's not your thread and you have no authority to tell anyone to do anything. Although perhaps it would be worth once again pointing out this:

lets pretend

Since you are unable to actually stick to the topic of the thread, perhaps you are the one who should get out of it?

The last thing I'll say to you, is that I don't agree with how you conduct yourself, as a debater.

Of course you don't, you don't agree with anything that contradicts your religious belief in aliens. Fortunately, your agreement is not required.

You should probably stop the swearing and all caps ranting about liars though, since it's painfully obvious to everyone actually capable of reading the thread that no-one other than yourself has told any lies, and we do have rules about that sort of thing.