Fanatical Debunkers VERSUS Woo-woo's

[Persol]

how far is "VERY" far?... regardless. it seems strange that phenomenon that has yet to be thoroughly investigated is so quickly relegated to the realms of myth and legend

Um, it has been investigated for a good while. Maybe one day they'll find something... but they haven't yet... hence the reason it is VERY far from proven reality.

is it fair to assume your issue is with visitations not with the existence of et's?

Absolutely. None of us really have a very educated clue about the number of probable ET species. But then even assuming you have a large number of alien planets, you still need to average in the chance opf them being intelligent, the chance of lasting long enough to develop technology to reach us, how much of the galaxy they can actually reach (population basically), the chance that they are 'exploring' at this point in time, and that they are actually interested in us. Each one of these can only be guessed at, and with any reasonable guesses the chance of them visisting is pretty small... even if you have tons of planets.

THE SANTA CLAUS GAMBIT: This trick consists of lumping moderate claims or propositions together with extreme ones. If you suggest, for example, that Sasquatch can't be completely ruled out from the available evidence, the skeptic will then facetiously suggest that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny can't be "completely" ruled out either. "

It is a completely valid point that nothing can be completely ruled out. What it is meant to tell you is that a lack of evidence against something doesn't mean it is true. Something that doesn't exist doesn't leave evidence of it's non-existance.

In science lack of evidence against something doesn't make something true. You actually need evidence to support it.

A better example would be vampires and witches in the past. The UFO/ET phenomena mirrors it almost exactly.

 

[Roman]

A better example would be vampires and witches in the past. The UFO/ET phenomena mirrors it almost exactly.

So in 600 years there will be greasy teenagers pretending to be aliens and give themselves names like Yog-Sothoth, Zeratul or Mulder?

 

[Persol]

I take it you slept through Halloween this year...

 

[A Canadian]

I'll try again. My post clearly establishes that your view of debunkers is wrong. If you 'had nothing to say about it' that suggests you found the arguments irrefutable, or you didn't understand them. Which was it?

All your post is telling me the difference between skeptics and debunkers....

Stuff I already knew...

And I still find your post faulty in some areas.

I did not reply because you did not ask me a question directly. If that offends you... I'm sorry?

And if I have nothing to say I am not going to say it.

"Wise men talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something."

Unless you had some hidden point to your post, the next time I want to know the difference between skeptic and debunker... I will look in the dictionary.

And for my additional comment: A debunker does not necessarily have to have any scientific background what so ever. A skeptic, debunker, believer or non-believer, can be from any walk of life with any type of education. There are pretty much the same number of scientific minds believing in UFOs, then there are people who try to debunk them.

Happy?

Merry X-mass.

 

[Persol]

There are pretty much the same number of scientific minds believing in UFOs, then there are people who try to debunk them.

Once again, stop confusing the issue by talking about UFOs and not ET. Nobody can rightfully claim that they can identify every object in the sky. So for your sentance to actually have any meaning you'd have to have said:

There are pretty much the same number of scientific minds believing in alien UFOs, then there are people who try to debunk them.

This is just plain wrong. As far as science is concerned the ET explanation is a myth. It's almost as bad as saying 'god did it' because you don't know what it is.

 

[A Canadian]

Once again, stop confusing the issue by talking about UFOs and not ET.

It was not meant to confuse anyone. Just a simple mistake.

Thanks for the correction comrade.

 

[Gustav]

Something that doesn't exist doesn't leave evidence of it's non-existance.

how about if i insist if my cat is not in your room? would a thorough search of your room utilizing all available tech, convince you of my cat's non-existence in your room?

It is a completely valid point that nothing can be completely ruled out. What it is meant to tell you is that a lack of evidence against something doesn't mean it is true.

am i to then infer that anything that could be mentally constructed thru the exercise of ones imagination, for instance, a invisible, pink bitemesaurus, can possibly be proved to actually exist?

imo, that is extreme and utterly nonsensical claim that has no other purpose but to ridicule.

lets contrast with...

July 20: mid-evening.
Air Force radar operators at Andrews AFB weather tower tracked 10 UFOs for 15-20 minutes. * Objects approached runway, scattered, made sharp turns and reversals of direction. * (UFOE, p.160, based on detailed report to NICAP from AF weather observer.)

July 26: 2115 EDT (to 0020 EDT July 27).
Sharp UFO targets on ARTC radar at National Airport.* Civilian pilots saw glowing white objects on four occasions, including a United Airlines pilot near Herndon, Va., and two CAA pilots over Maryland. * National Airlines pilot near Andrews AFB at 1700 ft. saw a UFO "flying directly over the airliner." * (AFOSI;* AF Int; * UFOE, p. 159-162;* Ruppelt, p. 218-221.)

July 1952 - Washington, D.C., Area Radar-Visual Sightings and Related Events.

it is quite a reach to extend and delegate these reports to the realms of mythology simply because a definitive conclusion could not be reached with regards to the nature of the aerial phenomena

why?

why is witchcraft (mental phenomena) lumped with ufo's and et (physical phenomena). could et really be the devil?

 

[A Canadian]

UFOs driven by ET is supported by no more proof than the lochness monster, angels and mind readers. I suppose you are willing to believe these things as well?

If all UFO sightings are experimental air crafts:

1: Why haven’t these experimental air crafts been used to aid in the capture of known terrorists? Such as Osama. Why would these crafts even be detectable by the human eye in the night sky? Does not seem like a smart way to go about making a secret high tech air craft.

2: Why is the phenomenon still world wide?

 

[Ophiolite]

The large majority of UFO witnesses are unskilled obervers.
The large majority of UFO sightings are misinterpreted planes, birds, planets, lightning, aurora, etc.


And how would you use a stealth bomber to capture a terrorist?

 

[A Canadian]

I wouldn't use a stealth bomber, I would use my flying saucer that is faster, silent, better maneuverability and comes equipped with various high tech equipment.

 

[btimsah]

Please re-read my last post. I have demonsrated that the claim a UFO is an experimental craft is unusual - and OK, I'll let you call it extraordinary for the moment - but which is more extraordinary [I can't believe it. You have me so demented I am qualifying absolutes!], alien craft or experimental secret? One which we know examples of exist and one which we do not know with certainty exists? The greater burden of proof lies with the more [may Fowler forgive me] extraordinary.

Next, returning to your description of the sighting of an experimental craft as extraordinary, how can you claim this.
We know experimental craft exist.
We know they fly secretly.
We know that occasionally people see them.
It is unusual, uncommon, rare, of limited frequency, but it is not extraordinary, unless in the sense that I might say, "that was an extraordinary meal we had last night". You have either deliberately misunderstood Sagan's meaning, which is a cheap debating tactic, or you do not grasp what is meant by an extraordinary claim.

I agree that saying it's an alien craft is more extraordinary, however, you still have provided NO extraordinary evidence to suggest it is a top-secret experimental craft. You can't have it both ways. I would call that a cheap debating tactic. Claiming something is a top secret aircraft requires evidence, if not extraordinary amounts of it. Hell, provide me with any evidence. I would listen.

There seem's to be an interesting double standard here. When you need to use a top secret experimental aircraft theory to debunk a UFO story as non-alien it's completely plausable. However, when I or someone else suggest's that the existance of ETI is top-secret and covered up, you don't "buy" it.

 

[btimsah]

I don't know anything about a "war" video... but after looking at the video you linked to, which I had never seen, it fit exactly what I was referring to as an "expected effect" related to fuel ice particles following a thruster burn.

Question: did this so-called UFO occur following a thruster burn? If so, how long after?

I contend that this is not an unknown object at all, but one that is simply a result of the shuttle's thrusters. These particles will happen during and following burn quite often. They're nothing to get excited over.

No, it does not fit that ridiculous answer you tried to give. I see no light from a thruster burn, furthermore the object pulsates in a sequential manner. This, is, I believe from a isolated camera on the Hubble Telescope. My only problem with this video is the lack of information I can find about it. I think this illustrates the seperation between me and a debunker, I just do not understand you're response at all.

 

[btimsah]

My question is why do debunkers FEEL they need to debunk? Belivers only want to share, debunkers want to disprove.

Believers propagate disinformation. Debunkers propagate information.

See the difference?

No, not really.

Believers and debunker's BOTH selectively use or ignore information. They are just opposite in which story, claim or explanation they wish to believe or prove. Typically, the believer disregards information which lead's to a more mundane explanation - even when the evidence is overwealming. The debunker on the other hand will lean toward a more mundane explanation, or non-ETI explanation - even when the evidence is lacking.

Before everyone goes crazy thinking believers are crazy, in reality almost everyone of us are believers. Even debunker's believe in God. Which is the ultimate of belief without evidence. I only use the term's woo-woo's and debunker's because that's how we identify with them.

 

[btimsah]

I'll try again. My post clearly establishes that your view of debunkers is wrong. If you 'had nothing to say about it' that suggests you found the arguments irrefutable, or you didn't understand them. Which was it?

OMG, you two are funny to watch.

Canadian: Aliens exist and have been visiting us for year's, why can't you see??

Ophiolite: Prove it.

Canadian: I have proven it, you just don't listen or debunk it. Get laid, now.

Ophiolite: None of the information you've given me has anything to do with aliens visiting us. You've proven nothing. I am smarter than you.

Canadian: There were no weapon's of mass destruction. I hate Bush.

Ophiolite: What? My IQ is bigger, so shutup.

Canadian: Did you ever get laid?

 

[btimsah]

BTW, Mr Canadian guy.

I, or most American's did not support the war because "Bush told us they had weapon's". He was not personally flying over Iraq gathering intelligence. The military, CIA and other org's were. As every President, he used the intelligence he had to remove Saddam on that intelligence. Maybe the intelligence stunk or was mislead, as of now we do not know for sure. Maybe we will never know. However, in the end Saddam could have simply proven it. He never did so now he's gone.

When it comes to the evidence that Iraq was trying to build WMD'S our intelligence at the time suggested he was. Do you have other intelligence which suggested otherwise?

 

[craterchains (Norval]

Yes, I have to agree that the "tactics" that are being used here at scifoolems forum are highly questionsble.

 

[(Q)]

Typically, the believer disregards information which lead's to a more mundane explanation - even when the evidence is overwealming.

Unfortunately, the serious flaw in that statement that also makes your argument invalid is the fact that no such evidence, overwhelming or otherwise, exists.

The debunker on the other hand will lean toward a more mundane explanation, or non-ETI explanation - even when the evidence is lacking.

The debunker has not been convinced simply because no evidence exists. Debunkers know only to well that believers have leapt to conclusions of ETI based on their own want to believe and not something even remotely tangible.

Even debunker's believe in God.

Yet another bold statement that you want to believe.

 

[Persol]

am i to then infer that anything that could be mentally constructed thru the exercise of ones imagination, for instance, a invisible, pink bitemesaurus, can possibly be proved to actually exist?

imo, that is extreme and utterly nonsensical claim that has no other purpose but to ridicule.

lets contrast with...

Problem here is that there IS proof of UFOs. There is NOT proof of UFOs flown by ET (or invisible pink elephants).

If all UFO sightings are experimental air crafts

Um, nobody say they all are.... I'm not quite sure where you got that. Some UFOs are planets, some are clouds, and some are probably an odd atmospheric condition.

But then we are left with a bunch we can't explain. You wish to simply say 'ET did it'? That's the most unscientific thing you could do. Is ET a possibility; absolutely. Is ET likely; absolutely not.

Your ONLY argument right now is that we don't know what all UFOs are, so some must be ET. This is a load of BS, and is the same logic that was used with witches and vampires.

 

[Gustav]

A better example would be vampires and witches in the past. The UFO/ET phenomena mirrors it almost exactly.

i infer that ufo phenomenon is a myth as is the et phenom

Problem here is that there IS proof of UFOs.

i infer that the ufo phenom is NOT a myth

will the clarification be ufo's piloted by et's? if so, what is the parallel b/w a witch? perhaps you refer to broomsticks piloted by a witches?

heh

 

[btimsah]

Typically, the believer disregards information which lead's to a more mundane explanation - even when the evidence is overwealming.

Unfortunately, the serious flaw in that statement that also makes your argument invalid is the fact that no such evidence, overwhelming or otherwise, exists.

The debunker on the other hand will lean toward a more mundane explanation, or non-ETI explanation - even when the evidence is lacking.

The debunker has not been convinced simply because no evidence exists. Debunkers know only to well that believers have leapt to conclusions of ETI based on their own want to believe and not something even remotely tangible.

Even debunker's believe in God.

Yet another bold statement that you want to believe.

Though I do not understand much of anything you wrote above, I was not trying to say all debunker's believe in God. Merely that some who would call themselves debunker's can also be believers.