Anyone ever seen a UFO?

[whynot]

Really? How?


No TV show is worth watching for science. They're subject to too many other considerations.


Far more than you, apparently.


And this is why you persistently go for the non-scientific "explanation"?

non scientific explanations? hahahaha! what do you mean by this? you mean come up with another explaination. that has been what I have been looking for as I've said many times. ufo just means unidentified. that is all have said it is.

I asked if you had an explaination on your scientific beliefs and yet you have come up with nothing.

as for how I check out validity. it has to do with a group of multi collaborators who have witnessed the same thing. if they can collaborate on the same telling with different view points but come up with the same conclusion we don't know what it is but it isn't from what we do know. than its a unknown. and unless someone comes forth with an explaination than it remains just that an unknown phenomena.

As for persistently going for anything I go persistently for answers and that is all I do. i am very open to alternative ideas of what could of taken place with each case. so are those doing the documentaries alot of the times they are still in shock about it all. this show is not just a show but a documentary if you read up on how the cases were found. a very good episode. I think that ufo hunters would like this case alot with the helicoptor chase ufo episode.

 

[whynot]

Oh dear. How do you know that what is presented is fact, rather than hyped-up nonsense?


Hmm, let me see. You claimed that "she helped the police find out what had happen to this lady who went missing and crashed her car along the side of the road. with this lady's help the car was found and the son was still alive after several days missing. if it wasn't for her his life would possibly be gone. these are actual accounts with police and others involved like family who can testify as to what occured and how they believe she was able to help them."
Yet we also have this:

Here.

See also this and this.

Tell me again about "facts" from TV shows.

your giving links to discriptions I know all ready about and dont' need a dictionary about it. what is your arguement because you have not said anything in a arguement that makes any sense to me on this.

I have no idea what your attacking on and how you would just throw it all out the window as hype is rediculous to me.

 

[Dywyddyr]

your giving links to discriptions I know all ready about and dont' need a dictionary about it. what is your arguement because you have not said anything in a arguement that makes any sense to me on this.

It doesn't make sense to you that police forces themselves deny your claim that psychics help them, thus making your claim invalid?

I have no idea what your attacking on and how you would just throw it all out the window as hype is rediculous to me.

Yeah, like I'm worried by some crank that prefers to believe a TV programme rather than the actual sources.

 

[AlexG]

Yeah, like I'm worried by some crank that prefers to believe a TV programme rather than the actual sources.

You're talking about the guy who blows ants back to life.

 

[Ellis]

blows ants back to life?? how does he get his head in between their tiny legs?

 

[leopold]

blows ants back to life?? how does he get his head in between their tiny legs?

:roflmao:

oh fuck ellis, that was superb !

 

[whynot]

It doesn't make sense to you that police forces themselves deny your claim that psychics help them, thus making your claim invalid?


Yeah, like I'm worried by some crank that prefers to believe a TV programme rather than the actual sources.

Oh you mean that the police don't believe in her claim about what she is. they just believe she pointed them in the exact area she was found.

hahaha!

that doesn't make it a invalid claim that just means they collaborated on the cliam and are hostile witnesses. lol!

 

[whynot]

It doesn't make sense to you that police forces themselves deny your claim that psychics help them, thus making your claim invalid?


Yeah, like I'm worried by some crank that prefers to believe a TV programme rather than the actual sources.

look stop calling me names and keep it nice here ok. or I'm sure the moderators like name calling around here and hostile posters.


or is that a sign of your maturity coming out. and the fact you really keep an open mind. yeah right!

 

[whynot]

You're talking about the guy who blows ants back to life.

thats chick to you. and yeah I do cliam it because it happen.

 

[whynot]

blows ants back to life?? how does he get his head in between their tiny legs?

now your just being funny. I certainly wouldn't blow on you.

 

[Ellis]

not even if I was dead? that's not very nice. Here's an article on zombie ants you may like.... http://www.livescience.com/5631-zombie-ants-controlled-fungus.html

I checked out Jim Marrs and although he's written some interesting stuff on the Kennedy assassination, he has seemingly become either greedy and moved on to a "fiction-posing-as-journalism" period to sell books or gone batshit crazy.

 

[Dywyddyr]

look stop calling me names and keep it nice here ok.

Then start showing some sense. Preferably soon.

or is that a sign of your maturity coming out. and the fact you really keep an open mind. yeah right!

Maturity?
This from someone who dismisses an actual report from the police while believing a TV programme that states otherwise?

 

[whynot]

Then start showing some sense. Preferably soon.


Maturity?
This from someone who dismisses an actual report from the police while believing a TV programme that states otherwise?

I'm not dismissing the report at all it collaborates what is happening!

Your missing the important points here and that is the police officer went out to the area only because of this lady seeing the women laying in the road. This women the police officer reports could not be the same one because she was dead in the car several days ago.

This only collaborates that something unusual happen. but I thought I was talking about the helicoptor chase and the police officers all report seeing and being chased by a ufo. so I think we went off the thread here.

you know evidence what evidence is based on! Data and observation.

Data evidence and observation>

eye witnesses accounts
physical evidence
video, pictures, lingering physical evidence
multi collaborating eye witness accounts

Belief of not enough of data and observational evidence based on belief:

not enough physical evidence or belief in physical evidence based on some fakes
belief that people are either, mental, faking for what ever reason, or fooled
belief that there is not enough physical evidence left behind

ignore burns left behind on victims
ignore all the video's and pictures as fakes
ignore all people with accounts because in view they were fooled or wanting attention or mental
ignore multi accounts of eye witnesses because they were all fooled

auto matically assuming a person is in the last catagory leaves no room for proof

yes people have been fooled. no doubt fakes are out there. no doubt there are mental cases out there. not doubt there are people just wanting attention.

but you do not just assume that all these beliefs of no evidence or too lacking in evidence is the case with ufo's when you combine all the data you can find.

that is being immature to name call on the basis that i'm not able to think for myself and draw a conclusion based on your belief. I'm still looking for answers and its not a closed thing for me. I just know what I seen in not a missil, a ball of lightening.

You know why its not a ball of lightening I had seen? Because if it was it would of been attracted to the appliances and electrically things in the apartment complex. It would not of just speed off horizontal and than went into the ground.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'm not dismissing the report at all it collaborates what is happening!

I think you mean corroborates.
Okay, please tell me how:

No police department reported any instances of a psychic investigator providing information that was more helpful than other information received during the course of a case

Or

psychics actually hinder effective investigations.

Or

Despite claims to the contrary, there is not a single documented case of a missing person being found or recovered due to psychic information

(One quote from each source) even begins to support your claim that psychics helped the police.

Your missing the important points here and that is the police officer went out to the area only because of this lady seeing the women laying in the road

See above.

This only collaborates that something unusual happen.

Agreed. But what you are failing to realise is that the "unusual" thing that's happening is that you're not actually reading what is written.

 

[Arioch]

Hell, if they're so smart and want to send us a message then why don't they just broadcast it on TV? Surely radio waves and language translation must be within the power of a species that can cross at least intergalactic distances.

 

[whynot]

I think you mean corroborates.
Okay, please tell me how:

Or

Or

(One quote from each source) even begins to support your claim that psychics helped the police.


See above.


Agreed. But what you are failing to realise is that the "unusual" thing that's happening is that you're not actually reading what is written.

I did not fail anything. I actually watched the show so its clear what the police was saying.

I know what your saying about the ufo's. which you avoided. about explaining something away in a rational way which means anything that has nothing to do with ufo's because as people have made clear that is believed irrational thinking.

Lets go to some cases here such as the Flatwood monster case for instance.

The government explained it away in a rational explaination so they think and made every witness irrational.

For example:

They explain the accounts like this. A group of people were frighten by a meteor crash. so frighten that they had shock and illness from said trauma of seeing a meteor crash and the vapor cloud had the appearance of a man figure. The flight pattern was like a barn owl.

So what was it? A meteor or a barn owl these people saw?

the foliage must of created the illusion of a pleated green skirt.

hysteria and heighten state caused the illness from the metorite crash.

yet the investigators only found some oil on the ground that was most likely from a truck that was there to check out the area.

so where is the meteor? and were is the impacted area of said meteorite?

why when they had a search light , the witnesses could not tell it was a barn owl?

is this really rational explainations when there are so many holes in it?

the same with mothman!:shrug:

so everyone who see's something that does not fit with rational (there is no such thing as ufo's) or irrational (something unknown was seen).

It's not about evidence or whose rational. its about observation and data and keeping it as that and not with prejudices about what is rational, but what is the facts.

 

[whynot]

Hell, if they're so smart and want to send us a message then why don't they just broadcast it on TV? Surely radio waves and language translation must be within the power of a species that can cross at least intergalactic distances.

who says they are trying to send us a message?

we have no idea who they are or what!

the good evidence and most popular sound like crashes to me. :shrug:

such as Rosewell. the flatwood monster, ect.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I did not fail anything. I actually watched the show so its clear what the police was saying.

One more time: it was a TV show. These are programmes designed to hold an audience and are not necessarily truthful.

I know what your saying about the ufo's. which you avoided. about explaining something away in a rational way which means anything that has nothing to do with ufo's because as people have made clear that is believed irrational thinking.

Then you don't know what I'm saying.

Lets go to some cases here such as the Flatwood monster case for instance.
The government explained it away in a rational explaination so they think and made every witness irrational.

Empty claim.

It's not about evidence or whose rational. its about observation and data and keeping it as that and not with prejudices about what is rational, but what is the facts.

Correct.

 

[whynot]

Lets go to some cases here such as the Flatwood monster case for instance.
The government explained it away in a rational explaination so they think and made every witness irrational. ”

Empty claim.

How is it a empty claim?

The government came out and did an investigation. They accused the eyewitnesses of not knowing a barn owl or meterite. Shoot, I've come a cross a horned owl in the middle of the woods. I ended up standing in its way for some kitten , who was probably dinner. I could tell what it was and I did not need a search light to know it was a bird.

if it was a meteor, than why is there nothing but a foul smell left behind and no sign of a crashed meteor? just a spilt oil leak.

as far a a t.v. show being nothing but lies. when it comes to a documentary I take it with a grain of salt. you can weed out the personal mumbo jumbo and still get what is evidence. like this last episode.

not about ufos but still. it was clear some people do let their fear get in the way and blow things out of porportion. no different than "Taps" and spiders and spider webs, lol. They think something is touching them. it is. muahhahha!

but it doesn't mean nothing was happening. some of the things like flying objects across the room. well that is hard to explain away.

oh and I had a person come in along time ago to spray for pests, they ran out of the place too. but with spiders all over them. they get fed alot by the ants probably have somemore spiders lurking.

 

[Dywyddyr]

How is it a empty claim?

Because, once again, you provide no sources. And you have already shown a predilection for choosing to believe "popularised" versions of events over facts.

as far a a t.v. show being nothing but lies.

Not what I said.

when it comes to a documentary I take it with a grain of salt.

Yet you choose to believe the TV programme over actual statements from police forces. Statements where they directly contradict the claims of the TV programme.

you can weed out the personal mumbo jumbo and still get what is evidence. like this last episode.

A TV programme is not evidence.