Are You A Quack?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magical Realist said:
Oh..and yes it was a squirrel. You know how I know? I saw it right in front of me.
Click to expand...
OK but that is exactly the reply I got from the lady seeing the devil.
I am not saying we must go thru life questioning what we see but I am suggesting that someone seeing a UFO needs more.
I have seen a UFO which turned out to be a reflection from a jet illuminating a cloud. I ceased to be a UFO when I worked out what was going on.
Now there are folk who may do the initial take and run off and say they saw a UFO ..
There are others who will say they saw a UFO and attribute their sighting as evidence of visitors from another planet.
And I don't think ones profession excludes one from getting it wrong.
There are folk who present as intelligent and reasonable who believe all sorts of crap.
That lady I mentioned..well read, intelligent on the face of it and yet her eye witness account would seem incorrect.
I don't think it is unreasonable to ask of folk who see UFOs for something more if they go on to claim that what they saw was a visitor from somewhere else.
If folk can get so confused witnessing a man crack his head on the ground is it not reasonable to think folk believing UFOs are from another planet could have got the bull by the foot.
Yes I question these eyewitness accounts and still think you only saw a brown paper bag and not a squirrel.
Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
OK but that is exactly the reply I got from the lady seeing the devil.
I am not saying we must go thru life questioning what we see but I am suggesting that someone seeing a UFO needs more.
I have seen a UFO which turned out to be a reflection from a jet illuminating a cloud. I ceased to be a UFO when I worked out what was going on.
Now there are folk who may do the initial take and run off and say they saw a UFO ..
There are others who will say they saw a UFO and attribute their sighting as evidence of visitors from another planet.
And I don't think ones profession excludes one from getting it wrong.
There are folk who present as intelligent and reasonable who believe all sorts of crap.
That lady I mentioned..well read, intelligent on the face of it and yet her eye witness account would seem incorrect.
I don't think it is unreasonable to ask of folk who see UFOs for something more if they go on to claim that what they saw was a visitor from somewhere else.
If folk can get so confused witnessing a man crack his head on the ground is it not reasonable to think folk believing UFOs are from another planet could have got the bull by the foot.
Yes I question these eyewitness accounts and still think you only saw a brown paper bag and not a squirrel.
Alex
Click to expand...

We have more. Hundreds of photos and videos and multiple witness accounts. You just need to look into the field itself like every other subject. I'm not really interested in derailing this thread with this topic any further. Review the accounts. They will convince you as they convinced me. As for the squirrel I saw today, you can speculate whatever you want. I don't really care.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/
 
Magical Realist said:
Ask me if I care...
Click to expand...
if you didn't care you wouldn't be attempting to justify your conspiracist ideation

Perhaps you should re-read this part from Xelasnave.1947:
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Look you believe what you want I really don't care but you have never presented anything that I have read that contained anything compelling in support of any of the matters you raise.
Click to expand...


Magical Realist said:
I simply demonstrate that seeing is far more reliable than it is unreliable or we wouldn't get thru our day.
Click to expand...
actually, you've not "demonstrated" anything other than intentional delusion and perhaps a touch of narcissistic Dunning-Kruger.

as i noted (and proved with actual evidence): just because you think you see it doesn't mean it's there or even real

Magical Realist said:
Only when I present eyewitness accounts of ufos and ghost do people suddenly bring up the 1 in a thousand times they didn't see something they thought they saw. And that's disengenous.
Click to expand...
no
the actual point is: if you can't provide evidence that can be validated then you're a quack and likely believe in something that is not capable of being proven
you know, with reputable evidence that isn't shooped, altered, hoaxed, maladjusted or intentionally lied about

as i noted (and proved with actual evidence - those studies you apparently didn't bother to even read): just because you think you see it doesn't mean it's there or even real

Magical Realist said:
It is so reliable we never even question it.
Click to expand...
except i proved that wrong with those studies...
hell! our problems with interpreting and blatant visual brain failures is well known and documented!
you can see this in any "optical illusion" or MC Escher drawing

as i noted (and proved with actual evidence - those studies you apparently didn't bother to even read): just because you think you see it doesn't mean it's there or even real

Magical Realist said:
Hundreds of photos and videos and multiple witness accounts.
Click to expand...
1- you didn't read a single link i sent about mass hysteria and mass delusions, did you?
those people all "saw" or "felt" the same thing as well... and it was proven to be a mass delusion or hysteria
get it yet?

2- I also noted that your "reliable site" included known hoax pictures...

http://listverse.com/2009/02/16/top-10-most-famous-ufo-hoaxes/

http://www.instructables.com/id/UFO-Hoax-Picture/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UFO-related_hoaxes
Magical Realist said:
Review the accounts. They will convince you as they convinced me.
Click to expand...

it is really hard to be "convinced" when the site lists known hoaxes as legit

and therein lies the rub

when you mix pseudoscience with science all you will get is Pseudoscience! you know ... quackery
LOL
 
sideshowbob said:
Actually, no. The question would be: How many people didn't see it? If there are dissenting opinions, then one opinion is not "compelling" - unless you have already presupposed that the observation is a "craft".
Click to expand...

How many people didn't see a meteor over Oregon a few weeks ago? I didn't. Alot of people didn't. But it doesn't effect the fact that many people DID see it.
 
Mod hat:
Okay, lets clamp down on this now:

If you take personal umbrage with things being said here, report it. This is not one of the woo-woo sub forums, and such behavior will be dealt with. The fact that some members appear to have a guilty conscience does not excuse this behavior.
 
Magical Realist said:
How many people didn't see a meteor over Oregon a few weeks ago? I didn't. Alot of people didn't. But it doesn't effect the fact that many people DID see it.
Click to expand...
To clarify: How many people DID see X but DIDN'T interpret their observation as a "craft"? What other interpretations are possible? If you seize onto one interpretation to the exclusion of other possibilities, you're a quack.
 
sideshowbob said:
To clarify: How many people DID see X but DIDN'T interpret their observation as a "craft"? What other interpretations are possible? If you seize onto one interpretation to the exclusion of other possibilities, you're a quack.
Click to expand...

There were no other interpretations of the triangular craft seen over Phoenix. There WERE flares that were dropped 60 miles away on the horizon an hour later, but nobody mistook these for a directly overhead triangular craft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights

If you seize onto one interpretation to the exclusion of other possibilities, you're a quack.
Click to expand...

So the people who seized on the interpretation of meteor when seeing a firey ball flying thru the sky were quacks?
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
How many people didn't see a meteor over Oregon a few weeks ago? I didn't. Alot of people didn't. But it doesn't effect the fact that many people DID see it.
Click to expand...
And it doesn't effect the fact that meteors are a well know common occurrence with much physical evidence even for those that actually did not see it.

Again the general gist of the OP is the fact that cranks, quacks, and other assorted gullible, impressionable, agenda laden people are those that proceed with preconceived notions about what they "believe" and ignoring any and all evidence supporting some other explanation, generally that accepted by mainstream.
The reasons are many and varied...an anti mainstream bias...delusions of grandeur and their beliefs they know more then the professionals.....religious agendas....conspiracy adherents and a belief that governments, and authorities etc are always hiding the truth, etc
Those same cranks and quacks will nearly all the time, ignore professional scientific papers and links, refuse to support their own stated version with professional citations etc, and with a few sciency sounding words, perhaps some facts, then fabricate or concoct some other solution that they then expect the forum as a whole to swallow.
The final fact remains indisputable: No one that fits any of the above descriptions, will ever invalidate, or falsify any incumbent theory from the realms of a science forum.
If any professional has formulated some aspect of cosmology he believes invalidates the incumbent model, he will obviously go through the proper procedures with a paper and reputable publishing company and undergo professional peer review.
 
The final fact remains indisputable: No one that fits any of the above descriptions, will ever invalidate, or falsify any incumbent theory from the realms of a science forum.
Click to expand...

So how do flying saucers "invalidate or falsify any incumbent theory from the realms of a science forum"?
 
Last edited:
paddoboy said:
If you chose to believe in saucers that fly, that's your own problem.
I'll stick with science thank you.
Or are you intent on derailing this thread to suit your own agenda?
Click to expand...

So it doesn't invalidate any of the theories of science, and certainly can't be said to invalidate any of the science of the next thousand years.
 
Magical Realist
Magical Realist said:
How many people didn't see a meteor over Oregon a few weeks ago? I didn't. Alot of people didn't. But it doesn't effect the fact that many people DID see it.
Click to expand...
more to the point: it was measured in more than one way with more than one device by more than just one person who can validate it with replication and or validation from secondary sources

hence it's empirical evidence is far more powerful and compelling than simply saying "i saw [insert claim here]"

Magical Realist said:
So how do flying saucers "invalidate or falsify any incumbent theory from the realms of a science forum"?
Click to expand...
saucers don't.

the fact that they can't be proven and you've chosen to accept their existence without evidence does
(which is, by definition, a faith, or the belief in something without evidence. this, in turn, is one of the cornerstones of Quackery and Pseudoscience)

Magical Realist said:
So it doesn't invalidate any of the theories of science, and certainly can't be said to invalidate any of the science of the next thousand years.
Click to expand...
neither does the belief that "faerie farts cause hurricanes" ... it does, however, influence the gullible and scientifically illiterate, which DOES influence science

the fight against the spread of pseudoscience or delusional behaviour is not victimless - this is best demonstrated by idiot so-called adults who refuse to vaccinate their kids but can also be seen in the much-publicised so-called "debate" on Climate Science. the evidence is overwhelmingly against the denier camp, but it doesn't stop them from believing because [insert excuse for delusion here] (see also:
)

... it also directly affects any science or evidence based thread or discussion when said believer states, sans any reputable verifiable evidence, that said faerie farts are real and if you go to http://faeriefartscausehurricanes.org then you will see for yourself

it's spreading false (or non-valid) information and can actually stimulate mass delusions or hysteria (need i link those studies to you again, Magical Realist ?)
See also: http://phys.org/news/2015-06-pseudoscience-conspiracy-theory-victimless-crimes.html

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-proof-pseudoscience.html

http://phys.org/news/2014-11-scientists-distinguishes-science-pseudoscience.html

a good rule of thumb to guard against being suckered: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

some red flags to spot the quackery (and a fun Bingo styled game to play with fellow science advocates): http://sci-ence.org/red-flags2/

something very, very relevant about "ufo's" and "eyewitness testimony" as well as evidence by Dr. Tyson:
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Re eye witness accounts.
I was at a party. A chap was playing up. I called him out. We near came to blows. As he backed away from me he fell and received a cut to the head. No blows were exchanged. I stayed out of town for a month and when I finally presented a month later everyone was coming up to me saying in effect."I hear you beat xxxx up".
No no never touched him.
Folk who were there saw me beat him senseless.
If he had died from his head hitting the ground I don't know how I would have been found inoccent given all saw me beat him so badly.
Eye witnesses account mmmm.
They would have loved to see him beaten up and so that is what they saw.
Alex
Click to expand...

That is the best analogy I've ever read about this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top