Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Unlike your statement about Santa Claus, River's is a true statement. And you're the one asserting things about Santa's sleigh. Why don't you tell us what it looks like?
10 rules for true believers to follow
- Thread starter billvon
- Start date
Unlike your statement about Santa Claus, River's is a true statement. And you're the one asserting things about Santa's sleigh. Why don't you tell us what it looks like?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Exactly. Yet vacuous.
River isn't wrong; he's merely oblivious to the logic.
No evidence for something not existing is not evidence for it existing (thus the Santa reference).
And for those who don't understand the distinction (I leave it to you to decide whether you include yourself), it is damning to their credibility.
It is imaginary.
See how that works? See why that informs the discussion about ETL?
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
1. 'There is no evidence that UFO's are not ETL'
I think that it's probably true. Once again, the disagreements arise when we try to infer things from it.
It certainly seems to cause problems for those who insist on the truth of this proposition:
2. 'UFOs are not ETL'.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
No he isn't. It's entirely logical and is an argument against claiming that ETL doesn't exist.
It is also irrelevant because ETL isn't imaginary. In fact most scientists agree ETL exists out there.
Last edited:
No, in reality you are being rather silly and illogical, as we often see with the likes of river and MR.
I believe the universe is relatively full of ETL, and I would dearly love the convincing evidence of it to be revealed before I kick the bucket...the same obviously also implies to any Alien visitation that has ever taken place.
So, certainly show me the convincing evidence and I will certainly be convinced.
Your own problem is more deep seated though then river's and MR's.
You see yourself more as a "Knight in shining armour" rescuing a pair of rather gullible individuals that you see as underdogs.
As usual the only thing in their favour, and your own of course, is that you are in the fringes.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Logic that applies equally to Santa's sleigh.
While it is true that there's no evidence Santa's sleight doesn't exist, it is not a good basis for building a rational view of our world.
OK, show me some.
Yes. Also not evidence of its existence.
Don't get me wrong; I think there's ETL out there too. But my thinking it isn't evidence, and doesn't make it more likely.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
If Santa's sleigh existed. But you already admitted it doesn't.
It is a good basis for not claiming ETL doesn't exist.
All based on the overwhelming probability of it. We believe lots of things based on probability without evidence. The sun will rise tomorrow. Yes.. Evidence? No..Probability? Overwhelming.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
So, you see the comparison to ETL then.
Like Santa's sleigh.
A data point of one does not make for probability.
We have 5,000 years of recorded history that it came up every day, and several billion years of fossil record before that.
In case we don't like history, we have about 500 billion points of evidence in our galaxy alone that says the sun will still be shining tomorrow.
We have 2000 points of evidence that planets will continue to turn, 8 of which are in our solar system.
This is what I mean by oblivious. You're simply compounding River's obliviousness about critical thinking and logic.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
No..unlike Santa's sleigh which you admit doesn't exist.
The probability is overwhelming that of the 10 to the 24 planets in a hundred billion galaxies that intelligent life has evolved on many of them. It is simply undeniable. Deal with it.
Last edited:
There is a massive amount of evidence that objects claimed to be UFO's are, in fact, not extraterrestrial life. There is a good example right here in this thread.
Indeed, there is far more evidence for Santa's sleigh than for extraterrestrials.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Wow..a massive amount you say? Go ahead and cite it then..Where's my popcorn?
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Then you have no concept about what evidence is..
Sure, and you are most certainly aware of them, since they have been quoted to you many many times, but as per the cranks/quacks style, and one of the many valid points in the OP, you chose to ignorantly ignore it.
So says our gullible friend, who chooses to take the word of any Tom, Dick, and Harry over scientific explanations, and puts religious like faith into u tube videos....Quite a comic!
Nitpick here - that was actually a satellite. (Which made it even more likely to be mistaken for a UFO, of course.) Cool story about that:
==========
In the early hours of 28 October 1959, five days after the close of the first NASA inspection, people up and down the Atlantic coast witnessed a brilliant show of little lights flashing in the sky. This strange display, not unlike that of distant fireworks, lasted for about 10 minutes. From New England to South Carolina, reports of extraordinary sightings came pouring into police and fire departments, newspaper offices, and television and radio stations What were those mysterious specks of light flashing overhead? Was it a meteor shower? More Sputniks? UFOs? Something NASA finally managed to launch into space?
Several hours later, the press was still trying to solve the mystery. At about three o'clock in the morning, a night watchman roused NASA Langley rocket engineer Norman L. Crabill from a sound sleep in a dormitory near the launchpads on Wallops Island. The watchman told Crabill that a long-distance telephone call was waiting for him in the main office. A reporter for a New York City newspaper wanted a statement about, as he put it, "the lights that you guys had put up." Crabill, an irascible young member of Langley's PARD, had not been able to celebrate his thirty-third birthday properly the night before because of what had happened, and now he had gotten out of a warm bed, put on his pants, and taken a walk in the cool night air just to explain the situation to some newspaper guy. "My statement is, 'It's three o'clock in the morning,' " growled Crabill, slamming the receiver down. As he would later remember, "It was the only time I, a government employee, ever told off the press and got away with it."
Given the events of that evening, Crabill's anger was understandable. Although the disaster that had occurred was minor, it was big enough to potentially damage Crabill's NASA career. The initial test of a 110-foot-diameter inflatable sphere for the Echo 1 Passive Communication Satellite Project had ended abruptly with the sphere blowing up as it inflated. Floating back into the atmosphere, the thousands of fragments of the aluminum-covered balloon had reflected the light of the setting sun, thus creating the sensational flashing lights.
===========
Another UFO! No doubt "Crabill" (oh like that's a real name) was engaged in a big coverup to keep the press from discovering the alien invasion in progress!
What? You never heard of this before? That's because the information has been suppressed. (See Rule 5.)
Realists are caught up in this " believing of UFO's " .
Those that experience UFO's never describe what they see as something they "believe " they saw .
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Well said.
Those that believe they saw UFOs are unable to skeptically examine their own experience. They just take it at face-value and believe the whole thing,
This is why it requires a third-party objective analysis.
I do argument from ignorance everyday!
The dog did it.
The dog did it.
Of course they do. If you don't believe you saw it, then you didn't see it.
