q says: "ET visiting Earth ideas are contradicted by physics."

Lol... if you can show that the guys car can actually go 400mph and the radar detector works, then case closed.

shit no! the point i am trying to make is that cars do not go 400 mph (forget rocket powered cars or i am gonna have to jack up the speed). the guy still got a reading of 400mph

what about the other questions. there is a logical progression right into the corner;)
 
Well you said "did that" to the request of showing it going 400mph. That's the end of the issue. If you decide you can't show it going 400mph, then it's unexplained, and once again the end of the issue.

I'd go for a radar gun fluke... regardless of the number of radar guns present. It could be anything from ambient background noise to the material the car is coated with.

The cop was either mistaken, lying, or drugged up:)

HERE IS THE ISSUE:
If a cop walked up to you, even a group of cops, all holding radar guns which said 400mph and pointed to a car parked on the street, would you believe that the car actually went 400mph. I sure hope not. You've heard the 'extraordinary claims require...' line before.
 
persol

Well you said "did that" to the request of showing it going 400mph. That's the end of the issue. If you decide you can't show it going 400mph, then it's unexplained, and once again the end of the issue.

how very dull! what no quest for an explanation, no hypos formed? what if there is a nobel waiting for you?

HERE IS THE ISSUE:
If a cop walked up to you, even a group of cops, all holding radar guns which said 400mph and pointed to a car parked on the street, would you believe that the car actually went 400mph. I sure hope not. You've heard the 'extraordinary claims require...' line before.

nope. you just created a situation that has zero ambiguity. in a case like this you know the radar guns are faulty. the science behind the tech is simply not that flaky. the situation will never happen unless the guns are rigged. you might as well wish your fave dinosaur to appear
 
Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and just say "I rest my case."

anyone who has invested much time in art bell should know about this. there are a group of individuals who claim that you can basically fully control a person's mind using some Electromagnetic whatzamajig. i have no idea if it is plausible or not, but to me it's more plausible than ET actually being here. (wes)
 
Re: persol

Originally posted by spookz
how very dull! what no quest for an explanation, no hypos formed? what if there is a nobel waiting for you?
I do have a hypothesis. The cop and radar gun did not see what they thought was a car doing 400mph. Much lake every other hypothesis though, I have no proof of that. Why exactly am I going to make some far fetched explaination up when the cause is most likely mundane.

nope. you just created a situation that has zero ambiguity. in a case like this you know the radar guns are faulty. the science behind the tech is simply not that flaky.
Why do we KNOW they are faulty? It's not a matter of being 'flaky', but of probability and batch production.

the situation will never happen unless the guns are rigged.
Or they came from the same batch.

you might as well wish your fave dinosaur to appear
Lol, have you been reading the thread about aliens being dinosaurs?
 
Originally posted by spookz
Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and just say "I rest my case."

anyone who has invested much time in art bell should know about this. there are a group of individuals who claim that you can basically fully control a person's mind using some Electromagnetic whatzamajig. i have no idea if it is plausible or not, but to me it's more plausible than ET actually being here. (wes)
Click to expand...

A troll out of control. Eat it dipshit. Wallow in it.

EDIT:

Did you notice your accusation is an attack on my intent, rather than my words?

If you reread what I said really carefully (and you are rational) you'll notice that it does not at all meet the criteria specified in your quoted text.
 
Last edited:
I do have a hypothesis. The cop and radar gun did not see what they thought was a car doing 400mph. Much lake every other hypothesis though, I have no proof of that. Why exactly am I going to make some far fetched explaination up when the cause is most likely mundane.

persol
once the gun and copper checks out ok, that hypo is no longer logically available. holding out for some unknown error is as much of a stretch as immediately saying it was et. what was it you said......

You have a radar detector that does one thing, and does it well.

you wanna retract?
 
Originally posted by spookz
once the gun and copper checks out ok, that hypo is no longer logically available. holding out for some unknown error is as much of a stretch as immediately saying it was et. what was it you said......
I disagree. Talk to anybody who has worked ina manufacturing plant. 'Unknown errors' are very common, and are often intermittent and non-reproducible.

You have a radar detector that does one thing, and does it well.
you wanna retract?
Just because it does it well doesn't mean it is perfect. Do you think that a 400mph car is more likely then the radar gun being wrong?

This is STILL a matter of extraordinary claims.

All you are doing here is trolling and completely ignoring comments that you can not argue against.
 
Last edited:
All you are doing here is trolling and completely ignoring comments that you can not argue against.

comments you made? what are the comments that cannot be argued with.
i mean you rap an appeal to authority? appeal to logic?

I disagree. Talk to anybody who has worked ina manufacturing plant. 'Unknown errors' are very common, and are often intermittent and non-reproducible.

there are no unknown errors, merely faulty humans and their imperfect designs. the limitations are known. there is no magic in technology. perhaps you wanna tell me how it works?

secondly a relatively simple mechanism (radar) compared to the complexity of a factory is not quite appropiate.
 
Originally posted by spookz
appeal to logic?
Would you rather I appeal to something else?

there are no unknown errors, merely faulty humans and their imperfect designs.
Just like radar.

the limitations are known.
Never all of them

secondly a relatively simple mechanism (radar) compared to the complexity of a factory is not quite appropiate.
A radar gun is not a 'relatively simply mechanism'. They are now arguably more complex due to the ICBs being used. They only look simple because people think the gun sends a signal the gun recieves a signal, and then this small board does all this math stuff. Regardless, where do you think they make them? That would be a factory.
 
1) Well, if you actually looked into the theories that YOU brought up, you would know that most of them are mutually exculsive and that they CAN'T all be right.

2) Currently, it is a leap of faith to say that FTL travel is possible. It is another to say that aliens exist and have developed this technology. It is yet another to say that they randomly came to our planet. It is yet another to think that they decided we were interesting enough to stick around.

3) There is not enough evidence in any of these theories to point to anything extraordinary.

4) You have been arguing just to argue, completely leaving logic behind. Somebody makes a good point, and suddenly the thread gets redefined.
 
Would you rather I appeal to something else?

once logic is claimed, it is a small step to claim authority.
anyway no. logic works for me (tho you might beg to differ);)

Just like radar.

ok so you seem to agree. i guess then we can say "we know where it breaks down but have no idea on how to fix it. deal with it"?

Never all of them

it is though a dynamic situation. also some fields have a higher level of confidence than others
 
Originally posted by Persol
2) Currently, it is a leap of faith to say that FTL travel is possible. It is another to say that aliens exist and have developed this technology. It is yet another to say that they randomly came to our planet. It is yet another to think that they decided we were interesting enough to stick around.
Click to expand...


i prefer to work with statistical probabilities rather than this leap of faith nonsense
 
Originally posted by spookz
i prefer to work with statistical probabilities rather than this leap of faith nonsense
Click to expand...

it's this lack of comprehension that cripples your brain.

what do you think is the probability that FTL is possible spookz?
 
Originally posted by spookz
i prefer to work with statistical probabilities rather than this leap of faith nonsense
Click to expand...
Well you can give us a call back when you find probabilities on FTL travel.
 
i have a hypothesis for the 400mph radar reading

booneville speedway, 2002 world finals, nolan white's chutes failed at 412mph. he now goes around the country fucking with cops and their radar guns


statistical shit....
hmm lets see, tho flawed, drakes equation deals with the et issue
secondly you assumed i included ftl as something that could be calculated to occur within a period of time. not so. that reeks of promissory materialism and i dont play that. ie someday we will do this or that. the fact is there are no real gaurantees. however, i note a trend. way back we were walking. at that time it was a leap of faith to imagine rocketships. now it is routine. there is most likely no forseeable end to our tech advancement barring of course a catostrophe. i do not see why ftl problem cannot have a workaround. but then again what do i know;)

coolness wes
welcome to the darkside!:D
 
you do understand that ftl doesnt have to be necessary cos et, if alive and kicking, could be right next door ja? the guy could cruise at sub light speed and still get to do anal probes on both yer skanky "i smell blood" asses

hehe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top