i saw one Continued !!!

Originally posted by Persol
No, the claims were also investigated. The vast majority were caused by weather or man made aircraft. People who witness UFOs are saying nothing besides "I don't know what that is". There is no reason to put worth into their claims that it was alien, unless they have some kind of evidence.
Click to expand...

Persol,

There's one very important element that you're ommitting from your Project Blue Book analysis.

Any report deemed to have National Security implications was not forwarded on to Project Blue Book. Translation: Nearly every report made by military or airline Pilots never made it to Project Blue Book. Along with most of the unexplained reports.
 
Originally posted by Xevious
You're just upset that I pointed out you're a hippocrit. YOU go read it all again and realize that your own conduct is far worse than mine.
Click to expand...

Upset? Who's upset? This is debate, we don't get emotionally involved in debate, it clouds the issue.

My conduct, that I have an issue with badly written prose, with little content, is bad conduct is it? Being firm, is bad conduct?

I didn't question your conduct, I just said you were sore because I called you childish. You returned a phrase I used, rather than showing any wit or creativity, which is what children do.

Nope, I just notice you seem to love beating up on people and attacking other peoples character while yourself behave far worse than you accuse others. Martyer for lost cause? Hardly... Taste for jail bait? Nope but hhere you go... you've shown again how you resort character assination, insults, and slander. If you were really a "skeptic" you would say very distinctly and in ONE statement "I cannot confirm AlienAlli's claim" and leave, and NONE of those kinds of statements would be nesassary. But, that isn't what you're doing. You're showing high levels of emotionalism and thus displaying that your thought process no matter how you claim to be "skeptical" is in fact filled with emotional reactions.
Click to expand...

There you go again. Completely ignoring the part about not keeping a mind so open that my brains fall out. Being a skeptic, let's look that word up, shall we;

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=skeptic

skep·tic also scep·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skptk)
n.
1, One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2, One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
Philosophy.
often Skeptic An adherent of a school of skepticism.
3, Skeptic A member of an ancient Greek school of skepticism, especially that of Pyrrho of Elis (360?-272? B.C.).

...hmmm I think 1 fits me perfecty, and I think I have demonstrated exactly those attributes on this thread. Note, the definition of the word makes no mention of an inability to draw conclusions or make inferences from data. That would be agnosticism;

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnostic

ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

1, One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2, One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
3,One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.


Point three nails it.

It doesn't say I must be accepting of all viewpoints. That would be liberalism;

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal

lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

1, Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2, Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
3, Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

That would be point two.

So the problem you have is that you attach more to skepticism than there really is. Like I already said, but which you chose to ignore, you are getting skepticsm, liberalism, and agnosticism confused, assuming all are intertwined.

If you want to keep the opinion Allie is a liar that's fine, but if you are presenting that opinion AS FACT, which is what you are doing, then you bear a burdon of proof in your own right. You are going to say "But I SAID it was an opinion", and that's true, but you are not PRESENTING it as an opinion. Rather, you are still here trying to convince everyone else that she is a liar. You wouldn't need to continue posting if you had made your opinion and left it at that.
Click to expand...

This is debate, need I underline that again? Unless I state something as being fact, or list sources, it's all opinion. I listed my reasons for drawing my conclusion. If you want to debate, rather than carry on this duel, make whatever point is it you are trying to make, and list the supporting evidence.

I should have thought the point you should make, is why alienalleis post is a quality reporting of a UFO sighting. Try that one, it'll be fun!
 
You cannot wrap yourself in dictionary definitions to avoid the issue of how you have treated the other members of the forum. Quit side-stepping the issue, and explain your statements, as I mentioned. You were asking why I was so eager to defend her, and resorted to statements like "taste for jailbait" to suggest what my motives were.

Am I claiming her post is a good one? Hardly... rather, I have mantained she saw something she can't explain, and you are stating she is lying. If that is your opinoin, FINE... but your statements are again, not indicative of rational debate. As a skeptic you are required to show more of a burdon of proof than simply "I think she is lying." What do you know about her? Have you met her? Do you talk to her on a daily basis? Yeah, I'm making the same kind of blind judgement call, but the point is the motives you seem to ascribe to Allie and myself are issues of character which you are NOT qualified to make, and theirfore bad conduct.
 
Oh man, just shut up all of you. She's probably gone to talk to someone who will listen to her.
 
My last post on this issue.

Xevious, you stated what my responsibilites were as skeptic. I'm not wrapping myself up in dictionary definitions, rather, I'm not allowing myself to be defined on your terms, which are incorrect, according to the dictionary at least.

"You were asking why I was so eager to defend her, and resorted to statements like "taste for jailbait" to suggest what my motives were."

Those were questions, not statements. I was asking if those were your motives, not stating they were. You seem to have a problem telling the difference between statements of opinion, fact, and questions. I'll give you a clue, questions end with a question mark.

My conclusion was rational, I explained exactly why I came to the conclusion she was lying:

quote me:"Taken alongside the vague reporting of this incident, and the lack of a decent description, I have to come to the conclusion it's a great big lie."

Now you agree the account isn't a good one, and I've tried asking for more info, I set out a list of questions, most of which were ignored. I've tried getting the information from her, but she's being evasive, or lazy.

Again, as a skeptic, I have no burden of proof, quite the opposite, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You're expanding the definition of skeptic to being a person that solves other people's riddles now.

I haven't ascribed any motives to AleinAllies post, btw, just asked why you defended her. You're building a straw man, saying I did things and tearing into them, when I did nothing of the sort.

As for character, and judging it. Here, you are judged purely on what you write, and how you write it. That's how I come to my conclusions. Oh, and this 'bad conduct' thing. That's just your opinion, and just another thing you are wrong about.

Anyway, that's enough of this. If you want to continue, drop me a private message with your email, and we'll spare the rest of the folks here the pain.
 
Hmm

I have decided I believe the 13 year old. Why the hell would the person lie? And I think It is easy to tell the difference between a metal disk and a plane.
 
Okay,
-it didnt make any sound
-it was pretty high in the sky so from a distance it looked small
-I could see it
- my friend could see it
 
sorry...

Sorry for being so late.......I havent been on latly. But ive checked the past posts. And I have noticed that i have basically tried my hardest to explain to the members of sciforums what had happened. I have told all that i have remembered. And if you doubt me then ....... thats basically up to you. But its the truth. I have never had any intention to sign up as a member and post on sciforums just so i can lie to the other members. Thats wrong . And maybe others have come on here and done exactly that . But that does not mean that " a certain someone" ( im not mentioning the member) has to discrimanate agaignst me for others wrong doing. Another thing........just because i am alot younger then the other members does not mean at all that i am a liar, stupid , or has bad grammer. I didnt think I was bothering anyone by the way I was typing when I joined , but after some complaints I have done my best to improve the way I type online. Thats what I wanted to say. please respond
 
AleinAllei

i think one of the key issues is that people find greater understanding in things that are similar to other things they are already familiar with

i think to remain true to what you have so far discribed is to suggest that what you saw at the time was a U.F.O
as you could not identify it

however the nature of what it is, is maybe more along the lines of a phenominon bassed on your lack of memory to be able to define the specifics of what it could be clearly discribed as

THIS BY NO MEANS suggests it is any less valid or not what you might think it could be...
just that you have had an experience that is unable to be defined by the nature of what precisely it was that you witnessed

more often than not people tend to catorgarise these events into something that they find acceptable to their own perspective/religion/beliefes
the key issue is to try not to make immediate assumtions that it could or could not be any one thing in particular

thats how i would define it on a scientific level anywho... :)

groove on :)
 
ripleofdeath is absolutely correct.

What you saw may very well be from out of this world, but it could also be of a very mundane explanation.

In today's research, there's been thousands of sightings reported, and each of them do nothing in the grand scope of things. Individually, it may have changed your life to see such a thing. But, without more concrete evidence, it'll get listed right along side the other tens of thousands of unknowns. Personally, I envy your sighting. I've never seen anything that's made me think it might be from somewhere else.

If you really saw what you say you saw, then don't worry about the skeptics. You know what you saw, and they can't take that away from you. Someday, hopefully, we'll all know the truth.
 
Okay,
-it didnt make any sound
-it was pretty high in the sky so from a distance it looked small
-I could see it
- my friend could see it
Click to expand...

Cool, okay. Was there any light?

I don't have any reasonable explanation for what it is, since aircraft that can hover in one place are always very noisy. Distances can sometimes be deceiving in the dark, but most things that would be closer to you, like moths and bats, are pretty easy to identify.

First of all, anything that was far enough away that you couldn't see it very well is probably not a danger to you personally, so you don't need to worry about your safety.

Second, when an object is far enough away that you can't identify it clearly, sometimes its nature will remain forever unknown; some observations can't be explained just because you don't have enough information.

Third, if you have any feeling that you might see the thing again, or anything else weird for that matter, do yourself a favour: get yourself a digital camera, preferably one with optical zoom. That way, if you see a weird thing, you can take a picture and blow it up real big on your computer and get a better look at it.
 
Manmadeflyingsaucer said:
And I think It is easy to tell the difference between a metal disk and a plane.
Click to expand...

You sure jumped in with that fast. I don't think she's lying either, but I don't seem to remember her mentioning a metal disk. Given your sig, I think you're probably jumping to a conclusion that's not warranted.
 
Relax, Allie. If there is something you ought to know, it is that this forum is one of the most controversial here... not just because of the topic matter, but because there is a point in the world where science is found to be fallable. The very nature of this phenomenon is not readily testable by science.

Keep posting here though. You'll learn a lot. I certanly have.
 
Thank you to the believers. I really appreciate you not jumping to the thought "IM LIE'N' thank you
Click to expand...

Except for a few cranks, no one lies about UFOs. Most people are like you, they see something, and they say "I saw something and I don't know what the hell it is." No one can be more honest than that. Whether or not there is a plausible explanation for what it was, you still saw it.
 
Flying Saucers

I believe that flyingsaucers (as my name indicates) are man-made electrical machines that the government owns and controlls.(not to be confused with UFO) And that NASA is a big a** money laundering cover up. (not to say they didn't go to the moon) The cost for space ships of the "NASA type" are very VERY expensive.

Anyhow, I have seen many a sightings. But none compare with the two times I heard (I think the only reason I heard them was because of how incredibly low they were)while camping on a nearby mountain to my home. The first was in the middle of the day in which I and another friend mistaken for a "bullet richochete" (sp?) sound. At which we left right after thinking some one was shooting at us. Weeks later after really thinking about it I realized there was no gunshot. Anyhow I go to that same place a month later with another person. We stay up till 4:00 am talking. At around that time I heard the same sound at four in the morning and as again in the same place. Dif time, no gun shot again. VERY curious I say.
--Manmade
 
Yeeees, but no one was talking about flying saucers until you showed up. We were asking AleinAllei about something that she saw that she doesn't know what it is.

No one said anything about a flying saucer except you, manmade...
 
i dont know .......

I dont exactly know what it was. okay so im saying it is a fyling saucer . But i know its nothing controlled by a human. I mean i got a funny feeling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top