Are You A Quack?

[paddoboy]

So you can count on your hands the times when you mistook something visually, compared to the millions of times you have seen exactly what was there. And that makes seeing just so unreliable, and especially with ufos, because you just know for a fact that they don't exist. Got it..

Except of course with the amount of impressionable, gullible people and other assorted nuts wandering around among us, that any mistaken, misinterpreted, or illusionary sighting are far more likely.
Particularly from those that put so much faith into videos, photographs and such.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Yes

So you can count on your hands the times when you mistook something visually, compared to the millions of times you have seen exactly what was there. And that makes seeing just so unreliable, and especially with ufos, because you just know for a fact that they don't exist. Got it..

Yes ...is my approach unreasonable.
And for the record I am not saying anything exisits or not.
I am pointing out that "eye witness" accounts can be unreliable.
You suggest they are flawless and it is that aspect I find the problem.
If there are so many sightings one could expect some physical evidence and yet there seems to be none.
I would think if there are folk from other worlds dropping in they would choose to be seen and introduce themselves or remain hidden.
Look at the lights the young astronomer identified as an aircraft ...the mob would not have it...why?
There are folk who wallow in intrigue and mystery who refuse to be enlightened by inconvenient reality.
And so you will say I miss the reality and I say fine but as I said physical evidence could solve the question.
I am only trying to help you consider why folk treat "eye witness" accounts as not taken as evidence.
If you are legitimate in your beliefs I would think you would like to not be taken in by reports that may be flawed.
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

Getting away from MR's predicted need to discuss his own personal nonsense and onto quacks and cranks in general.....
the main points are as follows......
Paranoia: No one will listen to their self-contradictory claims; therefore there must be a world-wide web of conspiracy, lasting generations....
Delusion/denial: For some unclear reason (religion? artistic taste? lack of ability or motivation?) they reject well-established science, & replace it with something of their own invention that they find more satisfying.
Grandiosity: Their theory could never be wrong; therefore everyone else's must be. They want only to talk and not to listen. Their pride blinds them to their incompetence:
Projection: They accuse scientists of all of these obvious failings of their own, before their victims get a chance to respond. After all, it's only 1 person's word against another. (In common terms, this is known as, "He who smelt it, dealt it.") Thus, all established scientists are scientifically incompetent, ignorant, derisive, religious fanatics, mentally ill, etc.. It's a wonder that society has managed to advance @ all[from the OP link]

Some of the claims they make and which I'm sure most will be familar with as applied to those same cranks, quacks on this forum are as follows.......again from the link in the OP:

1. "My theory is prettier than the accepted one."
   Take it to an art dealer.
   
   
   
2. "But Einstein/Feynman/... himself said that a theory must be pretty."
   You have already admitted you reject their theories.
   
   
   
3. "My theory is better philosophically".
   Take it to church.
   
   
   
4. "My theory agrees with the Bible/Quran/..."
   The author of that book has not written any papers with testable predictions. Furthermore, many of the claims of that book are disputed (quite violently) in most parts of the world.
   
   
   
5. "My theory cures the common cold".
   Take it to the hospital. (You now qualify as a quack in the strictest sense.)
   
   
   
6. "My theory makes more sense."
   What could possibly make more sense than to have a theory that agrees with nature, as determined by experiment? If your theory only makes you feel better about its subject, it is a placebo, not a cure.
   
   
   
7. "Experimental verification isn't important in science."
   Look up "scientific method" in the dictionary. Science is the study of the real world. If you make a claim in court, you need real evidence to back it up. If you make a bet, you have to provide a way to test that bet in a way that is unambiguous. It must be either right or wrong; there is no third alternative for a meaningful statement.

 

[Magical Realist]

I am only trying to help you consider why folk treat "eye witness" accounts as not taken as evidence.

And I am saying you have absolutely no grounds to dismiss the thousands of multiple and corroborated eyewitness accounts, videos, photographs, EMF effects on the skin, charred areas in fields, etc. that are all compelling evidence of the reality of ufos. I already gave you a site chock full of this evidence, and you laughed at it. So you'll excuse me if I don't buy your sincerity in really looking into this field objectively. You've already made up your mind like all skeptics about a subject you remain totally ignorant of. Which is fine, but don't presume to tell me that seeing isn't reliable. Because I've already proven it is. You wouldn't even be alive if it wasn't.

 

[Magical Realist]

Getting away from MR's predicted need to discuss his own personal nonsense and onto quacks and cranks in general.....
the main points are as follows......
Paranoia: No one will listen to their self-contradictory claims; therefore there must be a world-wide web of conspiracy, lasting generations....
Delusion/denial: For some unclear reason (religion? artistic taste? lack of ability or motivation?) they reject well-established science, & replace it with something of their own invention that they find more satisfying.
Grandiosity: Their theory could never be wrong; therefore everyone else's must be. They want only to talk and not to listen. Their pride blinds them to their incompetence:
Projection: They accuse scientists of all of these obvious failings of their own, before their victims get a chance to respond. After all, it's only 1 person's word against another. (In common terms, this is known as, "He who smelt it, dealt it.") Thus, all established scientists are scientifically incompetent, ignorant, derisive, religious fanatics, mentally ill, etc.. It's a wonder that society has managed to advance @ all[from the OP link]

Some of the claims they make and which I'm sure most will be familar with as applied to those same cranks, quacks on this forum are as follows.......again from the link in the OP:

1. "My theory is prettier than the accepted one."
   Take it to an art dealer.
   
   
   
2. "But Einstein/Feynman/... himself said that a theory must be pretty."
   You have already admitted you reject their theories.
   
   
   
3. "My theory is better philosophically".
   Take it to church.
   
   
   
4. "My theory agrees with the Bible/Quran/..."
   The author of that book has not written any papers with testable predictions. Furthermore, many of the claims of that book are disputed (quite violently) in most parts of the world.
   
   
   
5. "My theory cures the common cold".
   Take it to the hospital. (You now qualify as a quack in the strictest sense.)
   
   
   
6. "My theory makes more sense."
   What could possibly make more sense than to have a theory that agrees with nature, as determined by experiment? If your theory only makes you feel better about its subject, it is a placebo, not a cure.
   
   
   
7. "Experimental verification isn't important in science."
   Look up "scientific method" in the dictionary. Science is the study of the real world. If you make a claim in court, you need real evidence to back it up. If you make a bet, you have to provide a way to test that bet in a way that is unambiguous. It must be either right or wrong; there is no third alternative for a meaningful statement.

Again, you should probably use quotation marks and cite your source so you don't get slammed for plagiarizing..Just saying..

 

[paddoboy]

Again, you should probably use quotation marks and cite your source so you don't get slammed for plagiarizing..Just saying..

all[from the OP link]


.......again from the link in the OP

Clear enough imho.

 

[Magical Realist]

all[from the OP link]


.......again from the link in the OP

Clear enough imho.

You still have to cite your source in each post and use quotation marks. It's part of the rules.

"Where you reproduce part of a work in a post, you must include a link to the original source, along with appropriate acknowledgement – at a minimum the author’s name and the name of the original publishing source, but consider also supplying the original date of publication and other relevant information (e.g. ‘US shares fall further’ by A.Writer, New York Times, 11 September 2015.)"

 

[paddoboy]

And I am saying you have absolutely no grounds to dismiss the thousands of multiple and corroborated eyewitness accounts, videos, photographs, EMF effects on the skin, charred areas in fields, etc. that are all compelling evidence of the reality of ufos.

Piffle!
Extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence:
And of course......
[1] Why only always single individuals or small groups of people that are witnessed to such events?
[2] Why most in out of the way places?
[3] why never ever any hard evidence? you know, bodies, excrement, other unearthly artifacts.
[4] Such Alien beings would be far in advanced of us and certainly not fearfull of us, so why the general "secret"type of visitations?
[5] Considering [4] why after so many thousands of sightings, have they not made their visitations official? [you know, appearing in front of the White House or Sydney Harbor Opera House forecourts]
[6]Why all the flittering in then flittering out again without any further contact?
[7] Considering [6] these beings have obviously travelled many light years, so again, why just flitter in then flitter out again, until the next so called visitation, when again, they flitter in and flitter out again.
[8]Why all reported Aliens are of the usual "Hollywood style"body shape and colour? You know, big head with big eyes, grey colour etc
That's just off the top of my head.....yeah certainly one great big fat yawn!

cue: The usual conflations and obfuscations and semantics.

 

[paddoboy]

You still have to cite your source in each post and use quotation marks. It's part of the rules.

I have despite your usual irrelevant semantics.

 

[Magical Realist]

Piffle!
Extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence:
And of course......
[1] Why only always single individuals or small groups of people that are witnessed to such events?
[2] Why most in out of the way places?
[3] why never ever any hard evidence? you know, bodies, excrement, other unearthly artifacts.
[4] Such Alien beings would be far in advanced of us and certainly not fearfull of us, so why the general "secret"type of visitations?
[5] Considering [4] why after so many thousands of sightings, have they not made their visitations official? [you know, appearing in front of the White House or Sydney Harbor Opera House forecourts]
[6]Why all the flittering in then flittering out again without any further contact?
[7] Considering [6] these beings have obviously travelled many light years, so again, why just flitter in then flitter out again, until the next so called visitation, when again, they flitter in and flitter out again.
[8]Why all reported Aliens are of the usual "Hollywood style"body shape and colour? You know, big head with big eyes, grey colour etc
That's just off the top of my head.....yeah certainly one great big fat yawn!

Why are there are only 4 forces in the Universe? Why does gravity pull but not push? Why did the Big Bang happen? Why doesn't time go backwards? See? Anyone can play that game..

 

[DaveC426913]

The common term for (relatively) large meteors that enter the atmo, sometimes breaking up, is fireball.

They're not all all like the yearly recurring meteor showers, but they would be different from the Skylab breakup only in scale.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I already gave you a site chock full of this evidence, and you laughed at it. So you'll excuse me if I don't buy your sincerity in really looking into this field objectively.

I apologise for laughing at the site.
For your information years ago I read everything I could get my hands on re UFO,s
I would love to think we have visitors but I have yet to find anything conclusive.
I admit we have things we can not explain but there's the thing...we can not explain..so why jump to any conclusions.
If we don't know why make stuff up.
Maybe my time in law and real estate hardened me and left me thinking most humans fabricate stuff to suit themselves but notwithstanding I think of myself as reasonable and open to new stuff.
If you have seen a UFO I would like to hear about it but I am indeed wary of reports when I hear how the mob would not take the young astronomers explanation.
If you provided your eye witness account I would hear you out and discuss it.
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

Why are there are only 4 forces in the Universe?

That's just the way it is.

.Why does gravity pull but not push?

Because gravity is the curvature/warping of spacetime, plus of course depending on trajectory/velocity etc, gravity can be made to push [gravity assist space flight]

Why did the Big Bang happen?

We don't know and at this time have no evidence giving us any clue as to why and/or how.

Why doesn't time go backwards?

[/QUOTE]
That's harder to answer so here's a link....
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150309-why-does-time-only-run-forwards

See? Anyone can play that game..

What game are you talking about?
I gave you a series of reasons/questions as to the ridiculious assumptions that Aliens regularly visit us. If you can't answer them, then just say so.
Science/cosmology of course is unable to answer all of the questions as yet, but it doesn't hide from that fact.
Let me again say, could we have been visited by Aliens? Quite possibly, but we have no hard conclusive evidence to attest to that.

 

[Magical Realist]

If you provided your eye witness account I would hear you out and discuss it.

If you dismiss all the thousands of eyewitness reports including the hundreds in Phoenix that night, then my eyewitness report won't matter at all. You already dismiss seeing as unreliable, remember?

 

[Magical Realist]

Science/cosmology of course is unable to answer all of the questions as yet

OMG! You mean there's open questions yet to answer in science just as there is in the field of ufo research? Must not be true then!

 

[paddoboy]

OMG! You mean there's open questions yet to answer in science just as there is in the field of ufo research? Must not be true then!

Your pretentious nonsense is expected.
While science is a discipline in progress and with questions to answer, UFOology is mainly the realm of cranks and quacks, that are obviously either highly impressionable and gullible individuals, believing in all manner of reports, videos, and u tube links that they can find, and all lacking the ability to answer the questions as I have put to you, that lead to the conclusion/s, that we do not have convincing evidence to claim UFO visitations as likely at this stage.
In fact, highly unlikely due to the reasons I have listed.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If you dismiss all the thousands of eyewitness reports including the hundreds in Phoenix that night, then my eyewitness report won't matter at all. You already dismiss seeing as unreliable, remember?

In the interest of meeting your preconceptions,....
I would hear you out and only then would I dismiss it.
You know give the guy a fair trial and then hang him.
MR you seem like a nice chap and I wish you all the best with your enquirey.
Alex

 

[Magical Realist]

Bernard Haisch, astrophysicist, UFOSkeptic.org

“I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic. One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers. The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism. If a competent witness reports having seen something tens of degrees of arc in size (as happens) and the scoffer -- who of course was not there -- offers Venus or a high altitude weather balloon as an explanation, the requirement of extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim falls on the proffered negative claim as well. That kind of approach is also pseudo-science. Moreover just being a scientist confers neither necessary expertise nor sufficient knowledge. (I wish it did, sigh.) Any scientist who has not read a few serious books and articles presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual honesty refrain from making scientific pronouncements. To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science.”

http://www.ufoevidence.org/NewSite/Papers/UFOQuotes.htm

 

[DaveC426913]

...there's open questions yet to answer in science just as there is in the field of ufo research?

It is an understatment to say there are open questions in the field of UFO research.

There are no working models of UFO phenomena. No, proposed sources, no technology, no motives, no means. There's no working hypothesis at all.
We are no closer to solving whatever mystery there might be now than we were 60 years ago.

It is far more accurate to say there are no closed questions.

Unfortunate, but that's just the way it is.

 

[Magical Realist]

There are no working models of UFO phenomena. No, proposed sources, no technology, no motives, no means. There's no working hypothesis at all.
We are no closer to solving whatever mystery there might be now than we were 60 years ago.

You've never even researched this field for yourself. You have no idea what hypothesises there are, what motives, or what means. And no, we haven't solved the mystery, anymore than scientists have solved the mystery of what came before the Big Bang, what dark energy is, and how to make gravity mesh with quantum mechanics. Science is always progressive, as indeed it is as well in the case of ufo research.