10 rules for true believers to follow

river said:
It is you pad that mentions a cap pad , not MR .

Your post #37 .
Click to expand...
Sure!! I suggested to MR, in relation to the OP, that if the cap fits he should wear it. ;) Are you trying to be deliberately stupid or obtuse? :rolleyes:
It was also suggested to him in a different fashion that if the shoe fits he should wear that.
You see all any member needs to do is raise any thread subject that dare show the supernatural, paranormal, Alien origin UFO's, Bigfoot, etc to be unscientific nonsense and crazy, and he quickly admits liability by claiming people were/are talking about him. :smile:
Here's another one that I raised a while back....
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/are-you-a-quack.157899/
That thread was cess pooled and closed after he again grabbed the cap for a pefect fit.....
the final post in that thread being.....
"Mod Note

Last I checked, this was the General Science and Technology forum. In the science section of the forum.

What this means is that unscientific, trying to prove aliens exist, does not actually belong in this sub-forum.

Magical Realist, I understand that you seem somewhat personally invested in this subject. Taking personal offense to the OP is not permission to then go on to try and prove to everyone that UFO's are proof of aliens visiting Earth. We have the Fringe UFO sub-forum for you to post that there. Posting the same, well, bullshit, youtube videos that you spam the Fringe forums with in the Science forum (ie in this thread) is not permissible.

People who are posting in this thread and forum wish to actually discuss science. In this case, quackery in regards to "science" in particular. This does not include or involve UFO sightings. 17 pages and the majority of it has been people wishing to discuss science and 'quacks' in science, instead having to deal with your trolling a science forum thread with your intent to prove UFO's are real, not to mention your other trolling of it. Really, how many times have I and the other moderators and admin informed you that posting this rubbish in the Science Forums are not acceptable and against this site's rules? Filing reports when people become naturally cranky at your filling this thread up with unscientific rubbish is not going to work well in your favour.

As it is, I will be closing this thread and moving it to the Cesspool. Because there is nothing worth salvaging in this thread at this point, because it has been trolled with unscientific rubbish from the start.

If paddoboy wishes to re-open this thread, or repost his OP to discuss 'quackery' in science, he is welcome to because this thread was trolled and flamed to kingdom come with unscientific and the very definition of quackery fringe subjects.

But keep it within the realms of science. In other words, posting youtube videos of UFO sightings and articles about UFO's being aliens is not for this thread or this or any of the other science sub-forums".
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

As yet, I have not taken up the offer of restarting it :)

Thank you again river for showing exactly how the OP does seem to fit MR by his very own actions in grabbing the cap, or shoe if you like.....:D;)
 
paddoboy said:
Sure!! I suggested to MR, in relation to the OP, that if the cap fits he should wear it. ;) Are you trying to be deliberately stupid or obtuse? :rolleyes:
It was also suggested to him in a different fashion that if the shoe fits he should wear that.
You see all any member needs to do is raise any thread subject that dare show the supernatural, paranormal, Alien origin UFO's, Bigfoot, etc to be unscientific nonsense and crazy, and he quickly admits liability by claiming people were/are talking about him. :smile:
Here's another one that I raised a while back....
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/are-you-a-quack.157899/
That thread was cess pooled and closed after he again grabbed the cap for a pefect fit.....
the final post in that thread being.....
"Mod Note

Last I checked, this was the General Science and Technology forum. In the science section of the forum.

What this means is that unscientific, trying to prove aliens exist, does not actually belong in this sub-forum.

Magical Realist, I understand that you seem somewhat personally invested in this subject. Taking personal offense to the OP is not permission to then go on to try and prove to everyone that UFO's are proof of aliens visiting Earth. We have the Fringe UFO sub-forum for you to post that there. Posting the same, well, bullshit, youtube videos that you spam the Fringe forums with in the Science forum (ie in this thread) is not permissible.

People who are posting in this thread and forum wish to actually discuss science. In this case, quackery in regards to "science" in particular. This does not include or involve UFO sightings. 17 pages and the majority of it has been people wishing to discuss science and 'quacks' in science, instead having to deal with your trolling a science forum thread with your intent to prove UFO's are real, not to mention your other trolling of it. Really, how many times have I and the other moderators and admin informed you that posting this rubbish in the Science Forums are not acceptable and against this site's rules? Filing reports when people become naturally cranky at your filling this thread up with unscientific rubbish is not going to work well in your favour.

As it is, I will be closing this thread and moving it to the Cesspool. Because there is nothing worth salvaging in this thread at this point, because it has been trolled with unscientific rubbish from the start.

If paddoboy wishes to re-open this thread, or repost his OP to discuss 'quackery' in science, he is welcome to because this thread was trolled and flamed to kingdom come with unscientific and the very definition of quackery fringe subjects.

But keep it within the realms of science. In other words, posting youtube videos of UFO sightings and articles about UFO's being aliens is not for this thread or this or any of the other science sub-forums".
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

As yet, I have not taken up the offer of restarting it :)

Thank you again river for showing exactly how the OP does seem to fit MR by his very own actions in grabbing the cap, or shoe if you like.....:D;)
Click to expand...

You will be closing this thread , pad ?

Science is about evidence , where evidence is found . And the Truth is , is that the thousands of witness show you wrong , the evidence is clear .

This thread is about UFO'S pad . Not your personal objection to the evidence .

The facts are the facts pad , your personal ignorance of the evidence has been noted .
 
river said:
Science is about evidence , where evidence is found . And the Truth is , is that the thousands of witness show you wrong , the evidence is clear .
Click to expand...
No river they show nothing of the sort, other then the impresionable gullible nature of some.
UFO's are UFO's Unidentified Flying Objects.
The truth is of course, as yet no evidence exists for any ETL.
But hey, stay around, I'll keep checking and see if that changes! ;)

river said:
The facts are the facts pad , your personal ignorance of the evidence has been noted .
Click to expand...
The facts are obvious river.....They were the reason you have just had a holiday. ;)
 
paddoboy said:
No river they show nothing of the sort, other then the impresionable gullible nature of some.
UFO's are UFO's Unidentified Flying Objects.
The truth is of course, as yet no evidence exists for any ETL.
But hey, stay around, I'll keep checking and see if that changes! ;)
Click to expand...


And there is no evidence that UFO's are not ETL.
 
river said:
And there is no evidence that UFO's are not ETL.
Click to expand...
paddoboy said:
No river they show nothing of the sort, other then the impresionable gullible nature of some.
UFO's are UFO's Unidentified Flying Objects.
The truth is of course, as yet no evidence exists for any ETL.
But hey, stay around, I'll keep checking and see if that changes! ;)


The facts are obvious river.....They were the reason you have just had a holiday. ;)
Click to expand...

Stay around pad .
 
A great rundown by Neil De-Grasse Tyson on the gullible impressionable and idiotic nature of UFOologists and delusional claimants....:D

 
billvon said:
If they were once a scientist, pilot or other expert, even better - you can claim immediate expert cred. (Warning - this can backfire if one of the people reading is one of those experts, so use sparingly!)
Click to expand...
The previous Neil DeGrasse-Tyson video amply covers that aspect in a humouress way....
:wink:;)
 
The citizen hearing on full discloser full video

Then go to any video you like

To start Oct. 21 , 2013 .

Youtube
 
billvon said:
Not having much luck convincing other people that you've seen UFO's? Having trouble convincing those loser, mundane "realists" that we are regularly being visited by space aliens? Fear not. True believers can follow this simple list of rules to use when trying to prove your latest ambiguous sighting is, in fact, evidence that space aliens are regularly visiting us. In your face, realists!

1) Always introduce new sightings with as much drama as possible, preferably in the context of some realist denying it. This "rallies the troops" and gets true believers feeling that they are being oppressed.

2) Obscure the meanings of words. Claim that UFO's are alien ships; then, when a UFO is proven to not be an alien ship, claim that of course you knew that; UFO just means "unidentified." Duh. That puts the "realists" on the defensive right off the bat.

3) Pre-emptive attacks! Remember, a good offense is often the best defense. If you are regularly called a troll for your attempts to be divisive and irrational, accuse them of being trolls FIRST. That way, when they call you a troll later, you can say "I said it first."

4) Be nimble. If presented with weak evidence that your latest fave UFO is a fake, then be ready with your lists of claims. If presented with strong evidence, be ready to abandon that argument and immediately post a claim about a new object, in hopes no one will notice in all the turmoil.

5) Claim that the absence of evidence is, itself, evidence. If you find a blurry photo of a light in the sky from 1960, post an assertion that it is a UFO - and if it wasn't, why hasn't anyone debunked it after 50 years? And if there is evidence debunking it, demand to know where the evidence PROVING it went. If there's no evidence proving it - who removed it? Government coverup, anyone?

6) Remember that once news media coverage leads the public to believe that UFOs may be in the vicinity, there are numerous natural and man-made objects which, especially when seen at night, can take on unusual characteristics in the minds of hopeful viewers. Capitalize on this; search local papers, forums and tweets to see if anything unusual pops up. If it does - more 'evidence!'

7) Everyone wants to be famous. If you communicate with someone who thinks they have seen a UFO, encourage them to embellish the story, explaining that this will get them on TV - or at least be more popular on-line.

8) If you are losing an argument, make sure to play it off as a big joke. Use LOL! LOL! a lot to prove that you're not really that serious about this argument, unlike your other bulletproof arguments.

9) Remember that people cannot accurately determine distances or sizes of aerial objects. Use this to your advantage; claim that even when a pilot (for example) identifies the UFO as an unusual aircraft like an Osprey, it could still be the size of the Hindenburg, since he cannot estimate the size accurately. And Ospreys aren't the size of the Hindenburg; therefore, it must be a UFO. QED.

10) Personality is king. Most UFO sightings are short on physical evidence, but often you can link the sighting to a famous, beloved personality. Then you can link the two - "oh, so you think the Pope is an immoral liar!" If they were once a scientist, pilot or other expert, even better - you can claim immediate expert cred. (Warning - this can backfire if one of the people reading is one of those experts, so use sparingly!)

11) (Bonus rule!) If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit - lots of it. Post dozens of sightings and claim that they can't all be "explainable." Use new terms and reference lots of woo - then demand that realists debunk every single bit of woo you post before you will listen to them. Or make up terms, and if the realists ask them what your term "UFologism" means, say "well, if you are that ignorant, how can you claim to know what's going on with UFO's?" Remember, the more the better here - get ready to Gish Gallop!

By using the above list, you'll be able to post reams of material about the "reality" of UFO's, and avoid the numerous (and sometimes uncomfortable) questions from realists. So get posting, and don't let the realists win!
Click to expand...
Along with your points in your excellent OP billvon, the following is a necessary supplement.....
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

The Crackpot Index
John Baez


A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:
  1. A -5 point starting credit.


  2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.


  3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.


  4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.


  5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.


  6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.


  7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).


  8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".


  9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).


  10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.


  11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)


  12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.


  13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.


  14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.


  15. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".


  16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.


  17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".


  18. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).


  19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".


  20. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)


  21. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.


  22. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).


  23. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.


  24. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.


  25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)


  26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.


  27. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".


  28. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".


  29. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)


  30. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.


  31. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).


  32. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.


  33. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.


  34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.


  35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.


  36. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)


  37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable prediction
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top