skeptics - the inner workings

Status
Not open for further replies.
whats the verdict in this situ? no body no murder ?

When I said, ‘where is the body?’ – I meant where is the alien?

when the object exibits the kind of motions it did, how can one not label it a craft?

Easy, you do not know if it is a craft, therefore you cannot label it such.

by the process of elimination....

So, by the process of elimination, the resultant cause of anything unexplained MUST be aliens. Of course, aliens stole my Danish this morning.

this is not a conclusion but merely one of a few scenarios that appear plausible

Flying polka-dotted dragons are therefore equally plausible based on speculation.

when a description of a ufo cannot be matched up to an object or phenomena known to occur locally, what other alternative explanations are there?

Oh, I don’t know – how about a local object not usually known to cause the phenomena? Or perhaps misinformation, disinformation, illusions, delusions, etc. The point is that there are far more plausible explanations then not. Non-terrestrial is a stretch of the imagination.

i find it amazing that anyone can willingly choose to shut their brain down simply because descriptions of unknown phenomena prove to be a challenge

I find it equally amazing how anyone can willingly choose to shut their brain down and wildly speculate that which has never been shown to exist.

leaving shit unexplained without trying out a few hypotheses seems retarted. the simplest explanation aint always the right one.

When 90% of the explanations turn out to be inconsequential to anyone, it stands to reason that the unexplained may not be worth the effort. Obviously, the 90% was not worth the effort.

probability of life occuring offplanet? strong? weak?

I’d say strong. Probability of same life traveling to Earth to play hide and seek – extremely weak.

the question of ufos becomes pretty much moot ja?

Ja.
 
Q, you statements suggest assumptions as unjustified as those you criticize. Really, you are not practicing skepticism here, but advancing vague explanations of your own with no supporting evidence. At least the craft theory, for whatever its shortcomings, proposes a theory to explain behavior. Yours conveniently does not.

Consider the words of Marcello Truzzi, Founding co-chairman of CSICOP, from his outstanding essay "On Pseudo-Skepticism":

The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis -- saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact -- he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof. Sometimes, such negative claims by critics are also quite extraordinary -- for example, that a UFO was actually a giant plasma . . .

You appear to be making such a claim, as evidenced by your own words:

Oh, I don't know - how about a local object not usually known to cause the phenomena? Or perhaps misinformation, disinformation, illusions, delusions, etc. The point is that there are far more plausible explanations then not. Non-terrestrial is a stretch of the imagination.

Your "local object" has a remarkable resemblance to "giant plasma", except that "plasma" for all its ambiguity and vagueness, is actually more specific than your "object" offering. Thanks for narrowing that down for us.

"Local object" sounds like a claim; a "negative hypothesis" as it were. Have you immunized yourself from the burden of proof by self-proclamation? Or are you prepared to present evidence, or, as the UFO proponents have done, at least construct a theory to explain the specific characteristics observed?

Perhaps your answer will help answer whether you are a skeptic or a pseudo-skeptic.
 
Last edited:
You appear to be making such a claim, as evidenced by your own words…

Your "local object" has a remarkable resemblance to "giant plasma", except that "plasma" for all its ambiguity and vagueness, is actually more specific than your "object" offering. Thanks for narrowing that down for us.

That’s quite a far-fetched stretch of logic you’re trying to pitch.

Giant = large, plasma = electron-free-gas. These appear to be well defined.

Local = near, object = something. This could be anything terrestrial.

A ‘local object’ is simply defined as something that is near as opposed to something that is far.

"Local object" sounds like a claim… are you prepared to present evidence… Perhaps your answer will help answer whether you are a skeptic or a pseudo-skeptic.

So, the fact that I consider the phenomenon, as ‘something that is near as opposed to something that is far’ constitutes a claim that somehow distinguishes me between a skeptic and a pseudo-skeptic?

And of course, the fact that over 90% of the explanations were caused by ‘something that is near as opposed to something that is far’ does not preclude that distinction?

Quite frankly Ives, I’m rather disappointed with your latest attempt at an argument. That was by far your feeblest effort.
 
I see. You, like the UFO proponents, propose possible explanations for your claim. Further, you take not an agnostic position towards the UFO proponent's theory but ridicule it as though it is disproved. Yet you offer nothing to back up your claim. I noticed you conveniently ignored discussion of true skepticism. I would have thought you would have, at the least, some ballpark of the kind of phenomenon you propose. Anything. But no, you continue to make affirmative claims with no support whatsoever.

There are valid arguments against the UFO. Your's isn't, frankly. This is consistent with much of what you write in regards to UFOs, such as summarily writing off even respected professionals, including physicists and astronomers, as "nutters". If your position was so obviously in the right, you wouldn't feel the need to resort to this. Spookz refered to you as a valued poster; I'm still waiting to see why. You seem to pay a lot of reverence to science. I would agree that science and its method have greatly benefited the human race. But modern "science" can be fairly viewed as an insitution, in the same way that government itself, law, and organized religion can be. A human being struggling to find his or her way through life with an eye out for truth discovers that insitutions aren't in the truth business, their in the self-interest business. While many of the great advances is science were made by individuals unimpressed by orthodoxy, the insitution of science does not reward unconventional thinking. Science is built on grants, reputation, the status quo. I have little reason to trust it in this matter, since professing just an open mind towards UFOs is not a smart move for the career of a mainstream scientist.

Yet there are individuals out there, Q, who write in a fashon to suggest they know more than you do. Many of them seem to think the matter is worth further study. So far on this board, you have failed to provide any basis for taking your ridicule over their studied opinions.
 
You, like the UFO proponents, propose possible explanations for your claim. Yet you offer nothing to back up your claim.

What claim?

I would have thought you would have, at the least, some ballpark of the kind of phenomenon you propose. Anything. But no, you continue to make affirmative claims with no support whatsoever.

Again, what claims?

There are valid arguments against the UFO. Your's isn't, frankly.

What argument are you referring?

summarily writing off even respected professionals, including physicists and astronomers, as "nutters".

Who are you referring?

While many of the great advances is science were made by individuals unimpressed by orthodoxy, the insitution of science does not reward unconventional thinking. Science is built on grants, reputation, the status quo. I have little reason to trust it in this matter, since professing just an open mind towards UFOs is not a smart move for the career of a mainstream scientist.

It was wondering when you would get around to the ‘science’ conspiracy theories. You’ve shown us you believe in aliens, are paranoid to government UFO conspiracies and now you believe in science conspiracies.

You’ve just topped your feeblest argument with another and have re-confirmed your position as a fanatical believer.

BTW – you’re attempt to turn this around at me is thinly veiled.

Yet there are individuals out there, Q, who write in a fashon to suggest they know more than you do. Many of them seem to think the matter is worth further study.

That's fine as long as funding for these projects does not come out of public coffers - I could care less what the nutters do with their own money.
 
whats the verdict in this situ? no body no murder ?
answer the question please.

When I said, ‘where is the body?’ – I meant where is the alien?

in that case, the incontrovertible conclusion is that you are a certifiable loon
why the fuck are you talking about aliens? the dispute is over a craft and not aliens. focus. we are discussing a specific case.

again; you assert..Since the incident remains unsolved, then it is quite possible to deny or disprove....what exactly is unsolved? explain again (dig yourself further into the hole) what is it you wanna deny due to the lack of a solution

a remote island. a plane flies over. kid sees it. tells dad, q is his dad. q says if i cant see it as well, it does not exist. beats kid. calls him a nutter. kid recants.

pathetic!

Easy, you do not know if it is a craft, therefore you cannot label it such.

bullshit. look at the attributes assigned to the ufo and tell me why such a basic and ambiguous term cannot be applied.

So, by the process of elimination, the resultant cause of anything unexplained MUST be aliens.

no. that is what you assert. see here....."this is not a conclusion but merely one of a few scenarios that appear plausible" how does this imply "must"? could it not be a top secret project? a brand new weather phenom?

you are being disingenuous and attributing shit that i did not state. that is disrespectful. i will retaliate. i have a feeling i can troll better than your ass;)

Of course, aliens stole my Danish this morning.

of course, you freak!

Flying polka-dotted dragons are therefore equally plausible based on speculation.

see the santa clause gambit in opening post. amateur!

Oh, I don’t know – how about a local object not usually known to cause the phenomena?

such as? come up with something q. explain the radar, the visuals blah. do not fail. do not engage in quakery

Or perhaps misinformation, disinformation, illusions, delusions, etc.

perhaps but unlikely in this instance. apply one or more of these factors to the case discussed and give me your version.

Any definite claim, positive or negative, requires definite support. Merely refuting or arguing against an opponent's position is not enough to establish one's own position.. In other words, you can't win by default. (see shifting the burden... )

get on it and spin away. failure to do so is gonna open you up to more ridicule on my part ;)

The point is that there are far more plausible explanations then not.

why the fuck do you think this is under dispute? what part of "over 90%" do you not understand

Non-terrestrial is a stretch of the imagination.

a stretch for your limited brain not mine.

I find it equally amazing how anyone can willingly choose to shut their brain down and wildly speculate that which has never been shown to exist.

bah your superlatives are so trollish. pa fucking thetic

When 90% of the explanations turn out to be inconsequential to anyone, it stands to reason that the unexplained may not be worth the effort. Obviously, the 90% was not worth the effort.

what is this garbage? inconsequential to anyone? worth the effort? what a staid and boring mind you have. a fucking waste!

so lets eyeball frikking q waddling along a country road, birds chirping, crickets cricketing, to the left, peripheral style, an object appears, q notices but shrugs it away (speck in eyeball). ufo moves further into vision, q steadfastly avoids looking directly but yet knows it is strange and unusual. the tard shivers with fear tho still resolute in his dogmatic conviction that the explanation is gonna be so inconsequential to him and everybody else that it is more productive to just ignore it. q stops, turns around and flees

I’d say strong. Probability of same life traveling to Earth to play hide and seek – extremely weak.

ahh... we have something here. you appear to have some idea on alien behaviour and codes of conduct. elaborate
 
Last edited:
Great debating style you have there Q! State claims, fail to back them up, exempt yourself from the burdens you place on your opponents, and then deny making claims at all. Wow!

how about a local object not usually known to cause the phenomena? Or perhaps misinformation, disinformation, illusions, delusions, etc. The point is that there are far more plausible explanations then not.

So were you making a "point" without making a claim? Perhaps it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

You propose a local object. You propose disinformation and illusions and delusions. How about backing some of these up with some study, some research, anything? Perhaps something to show that there clinicaly documented history of delusions that include UFO sightings? Like most debunkers, you like throwing "delusions" around without really knowing what it means, and with no psychiatric evidence to support it. Yet you castigate others for making assumptions?

How about The point is that there are far more plausible explanations then not.

Oh, that's the point. "There are far more plausible explanations than not." Far more? Plausible? Have you explained this plausibility? Nope. In fact, Spookz offers far more "plausible" reasoning based on the actual data.

I can see why you resort to ridicule. It is all you have.

"What claims?" Oh, goodness gracious me. I'm sure you're just shocked, SHOCKED! that I would accuse you of such a thing.
 
Spookz, to Q:

you are being disingenuous and attributing shit that i did not state

Looks like I'm not the only one to be on the receiving end of this. Your methods are being noticed, Q.


It was wondering when you would get around to the ‘science’ conspiracy theories. You’ve shown us you believe in aliens, are paranoid to government UFO conspiracies and now you believe in science conspiracies.

You were wondering were you? You're so clever. Yes, we should look at science and government in concrete terms, that they are what they present to us. Why don't you show some courage and explain why conspiracies don't exist? I know its fun to throw that out, but there is not much substance to it. And as Q noticed, you are "attributing shit I did not state". I did not claim there was a science conspiracy, you did. That's your method, re-state the opponent's position as one you can easily mock. I've yet to see a single argument of merit from you Q.
 
why the fuck are you talking about aliens? the dispute is over a craft and not aliens. focus. we are discussing a specific case.

No, you’re discussing aliens remember?

what exactly is unsolved?

The case under examination remember?

what is it you wanna deny due to the lack of a solution

I’ve denied nothing. You claimed it was a craft without a shred of evidence.

a remote island. a plane flies over. kid sees it. tells dad, q is his dad. q says if i cant see it as well, it does not exist. beats kid. calls him a nutter. kid recants.

pathetic!

Is there some point to your rant?

look at the attributes assigned to the ufo and tell me why such a basic and ambiguous term cannot be applied.

I’ve looked and it may only be applied if confirmed. Is it confirmed to be a craft? If so, what typed of craft? Note that your label is only your speculated opinion.

how does this imply "must"? could it not be a top secret project? a brand new weather phenom?

That is the conclusion drawn from UFOlogists. They aren’t interested in weather.

such as? come up with something q. explain the radar, the visuals blah. do not fail. do not engage in quakery

What would be the point, my guess is as good as anyone. The difference though is that I would not engage in fantasizing aliens.

get on it and spin away. failure to do so is gonna open you up to more ridicule on my part

No thanks; I’m not interested in you shifting the burden of proof onto me. You may ridicule all you want, but your points are still moot.

why the fuck do you think this is under dispute? what part of "over 90%" do you not understand

Huh? What are you talking about?

bah your superlatives are so trollish. pa fucking thetic

How long did it take you to come up with this gem?

what a staid and boring mind you have. a fucking waste!

Thanks. I suspect you’re not very well read; you use the same adjectives time and again.

so lets eyeball frikking q waddling along a country road… blah…

It appears you’re running out of things to say and are now posting daydreams. Try sticking to the subject, please. Maybe you need a coffee… and then again, maybe you shouldn’t drink coffee.

You’re posts are turning into puerile rants. You can’t seem to write anything without adding juvenile explicative. I’m having a difficult time reading and comprehending your sixth grade syntax.
 
Ives

State claims, fail to back them up

Again I ask, what claims? Please clarify.

You propose a local object. You propose disinformation and illusions and delusions. How about backing some of these up with some study, some research, anything?

Did you not read the link I posted from Project Blue Book?

You want sites that propagate disinformation, illusion and delusions? There are many, take a look at a few here:

http://www.crank.net/et.html

Here’s one that fills all criteria:

http://www.theprojectatearth.com/

Disinformation:

http://www.aliensthetruth.com/

Perhaps something to show that there clinicaly documented history of delusions that include UFO sightings?

As someone who claims to work with the mentally handicapped, you should know this information does not get published. One can only find articles describing general clinical delusion that includes aliens along with other irrationalities.

Like most debunkers, you like throwing "delusions" around without really knowing what it means, and with no psychiatric evidence to support it. Yet you castigate others for making assumptions?

That’s ridiculous, there are plenty of books and articles discussing delusion, why would you think I don’t know what it means?

Have you explained this plausibility? Nope. In fact, Spookz offers far more "plausible" reasoning based on the actual data.

He stated it was incontrovertibly a craft. That may be a plausible explanation, but it certainly isn’t incontrovertible. As I stated to him, my guess is as good as his or yours, but my guesses would only include terrestrial phenomena, unlike his or yours.

"What claims?" Oh, goodness gracious me. I'm sure you're just shocked, SHOCKED! that I would accuse you of such a thing.

And you have yet to specify any claims, blowhard.

Why don't you show some courage and explain why conspiracies don't exist?

Typical. When the believer introduces conspiracy theories, he cannot explain himself and must shift the burden of proof to the negative. Why don’t you simply explain yourself, blowhard.

I did not claim there was a science conspiracy, you did.

That’s a lie. You stated it here:

But modern "science" can be fairly viewed as an insitution, in the same way that government itself, law, and organized religion can be. A human being struggling to find his or her way through life with an eye out for truth discovers that insitutions aren't in the truth business, their in the self-interest business. While many of the great advances is science were made by individuals unimpressed by orthodoxy, the insitution of science does not reward unconventional thinking. Science is built on grants, reputation, the status quo. I have little reason to trust it in this matter, since professing just an open mind towards UFOs is not a smart move for the career of a mainstream scientist.
Click to expand...

You advocate that science is an institution not in the truth business, that you have little reason to trust science. You think that believing in UFO’s is not a good career move in the scientific community due to these reasons.

As well, you’re under the delusion that an open mind and the belief in UFO’s are one and the same and that mainstream science does not reward this kind of unconventional thinking. Science does reward unconventional thinking but it does not reward delusions.

You have sucessfully constructed a conspiracy theory against science.

I've yet to see a single argument of merit from you Q.

Yes, I know – as those books and articles will explain to you, the delusional mind would not detect merit in rationality.
 
No, you’re discussing aliens remember?

now you try to plant thoughts into my mind? weak!
there is a methodology that is employed here. first we deal with what has been actually observed. namely a ufo. speculating on the inhabitants come later and is perhaps irrelevant to this case. it was a craft and not alien life forms that were observed

The case under examination remember?

the only thing under dispute is origin not whether there was a sighting. you appear to dispute that anything was there. stop fudging and lets hear your thoughts on the matter.

I’ve denied nothing. You claimed it was a craft without a shred of evidence.

liar. read the fucking report and tell me how the evidence does not measure up. step by step explain why it fails to pass your test. form your own conclusion and present it here. i can actually make a good case for the craft being manmade but that is really your job as a skeptic . try out some scenarios for once and put some weight behind the cliched shit that you spout

Is there some point to your rant?

yes. perhaps you are unaware but that is your modus operandi. if you cannot see it or touch it, it does not exist

I’ve looked and it may only be applied if confirmed. Is it confirmed to be a craft? If so, what typed of craft? Note that your label is only your speculated opinion.

garbage. so you want a model number now? manufacturer? exactly what does "confirmed" mean? give me the criteria used. you are now guilty "raising the bar" (see first post). what are your standards of evidence?

That is the conclusion drawn from UFOlogists. They aren’t interested in weather.

why the fuck do you keep harping about ufologists? keep ranting and i will rant right back at your ass! we are talking about the belgian govt's assessment of a sighting.

What would be the point, my guess is as good as anyone. The difference though is that I would not engage in fantasizing aliens.

meaning you would have ruled out a particular conclusion (et origin) before the investigation has begun. very scientific i must say. your guess will be worse than most with this procedure

this is the crux of the matter q. you lack imagination. whatever happened to the spirit of scientific investigation? isnt it rather odd that i have to remind you of this? what if you were the belgian pilot and were obligated to investigate? would you turn away and ignore it? your fear is palpable

No thanks; I’m not interested in you shifting the burden of proof onto me. You may ridicule all you want, but your points are still moot.

liar! i am doing no such thing. i repeat...."Merely refuting or arguing against an opponent's position is not enough to establish one's own position.. In other words, you can't win by default. "

Huh? What are you talking about?

you said..."The point is that there are far more plausible explanations then not."

i said.... "why the fuck do you think this is under dispute? what part of "over 90%" do you not understand"

which refers to...."over 90% of sighting can be explained to be local shit, the rest remain unidentified to varying degrees."

comprende? you are making a point that is not disputed

How long did it take you to come up with this gem?

no time at all. you have already indulged in 3 of the obvious gimmicks that amateur skeptics use and that doesnt appear to faze you one bit. very crude and amateurish

Thanks. I suspect you’re not very well read; you use the same adjectives time and again.

i find it fits the situ quite well. i notice you employ slurs in your dialogue. i respond in kind

It appears you’re running out of things to say and are now posting daydreams.

you didnt like? i now wanna mock and humilate you mr q. i see now that it is what you do

Try sticking to the subject, please.

ahh the temerity! i am actually trying to draw you out and discuss the case but you refuse to do so!

You’re posts are turning into puerile rants.

you mean like this?

*look at all the UFO kooks and nuttesr still running loose.
*we have mental institutions for the fanatics.
*what are you, a trial lawyer for the mentally ill?
*Yet, you appear to have all the symptoms of a classic fanatical believer
*Flying polka-dotted dragons are therefore equally plausible based on speculation.
*That was by far your feeblest effort. You’ve just topped your feeblest argument with another and have re-confirmed your position as a fanatical believer.
*I could care less what the nutters do with their own money.

good showing troll.
 
Last edited:
Again I ask, what claims? Please clarify. (q)

you claim disinfo, illusions, delusions. you claim it can be explained by a terrestrial phenomenon. research the data and spin it into sonething we can buy. lets bury this baby once and for all. are you up to the task or do you prefer to remain here flinging accusations? try these links but beware, i might be biased;)

http://www.chez.com/lesovnis/htm/belgium.htm
http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/flying_saucers_from_andromeda/belmatch.html

edit: fixed link
 
Last edited:
it was a craft and not alien life forms that were observed

Again, that is only your speculated opinion.

you appear to dispute that anything was there.

I do not dispute something was there.

i can actually make a good case for the craft being manmade but that is really your job as a skeptic .

That’s funny, the report concluded it was not an aircraft.

so you want a model number now? manufacturer?

Yes, if you claim it was a craft, there must be some reference to your claim.

you lack imagination. whatever happened to the spirit of scientific investigation?

Sorry, what does imagination have to do with scientific investigation?

isnt it rather odd that i have to remind you of this?

You need to explain it first.

what if you were the belgian pilot and were obligated to investigate? would you turn away and ignore it?

What does that have to do with anything?

you have already indulged in 3 of the obvious gimmicks that amateur skeptics use and that doesnt appear to faze you one bit. very crude and amateurish

Yeah, sure, whatever you say.

i respond in kind

No you don’t, you use explicative in an attempt to make your argument appear credible.

i now wanna mock and humilate you mr q

Give it your best shot.

*yawn*
 
try these links but beware, i might be biased

You mean those sites are NOT pro-UFOlogy and unbiased?

:rolleyes:
 
Again, that is only your speculated opinion.

what is yours? i am merely parroting the official verdict given by the belgians. you squirm and wriggle like a useless troll

I do not dispute something was there.

well? what could be this something be? speculate, you fear ridden troll. keep on hedging and you will lose any credibilty you had

That’s funny, the report concluded it was not an aircraft.

funny? like i said, you have no imagination. to be manmade and be capable of executing the maneuvers observed, i introduce......reverse engineering a recovered alien craft ala roswell (thought i was gonna bail your ass out eh?)

Yes, if you claim it was a craft, there must be some reference to your claim.

elaborate. be specific. exactly what is it you want? (i know you are trolling-raising the bar). the physical description... triangular/lights... were given.

You need to explain it first.

imagination=open mind. should you not be neutral about the subject matter when embarking on a scientific investigation? are you really this doltish?

What does that have to do with anything?

everything.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say.

i will attempt categorize and match your statements on this thread to the debunking methods quoted. await the expose.

No you don’t, you use explicative in an attempt to make your argument appear credible.

i aint that easy. i cuss when faced with dispicable trolls like yourself. your tactics with ives sickens me

Give it your best shot.

thanks i will
 
SUMMARY REPORT ON OBSERVATIONS 30-31 MARCH 1990 - Belgium

BACKGROUND

1. Starting early Dec 89 the BAF has been contacted on several occasions by eyewitnesses who observed strange phenomena in the Belgian airspace. On some occassions they described the phenomena as a triangle-shaped platform up to 200 feet wide with 3 downward beaming projectors, hovering at +- 100 m above the ground and making only a very light humming noise. Some witnesses saw the object departing at very high speed after a very fast acceleration. All observations were made in the evening or during the night.

2. The radar stations which had been alerted by eyewitnesses could not definitely determine a correlation between the visual observations and their detections on radar. On two occasions the BAF scrambled 2 F16 during the evening hours. a.On the first occasion the F16 arrived +- 1 hour after the visual detection. Nothing was observed. b. On the second occassion, pilots could identify a laser-beam projector on the ground. After investigation it appeared however that the description of the observations totally differed from previously described phenomena.

3. Consequently the Belgian Airforce, anxious to identify the origin of the phenomena, authorised F16 scrambles if following conditions were met: a. Visual observations on the ground confirmed by the local police. b. Detection on radar.

4. On 30 Mar 1990 at 23.00 Hr the Master Controller (MC) of the Air Defence radar station of Glons received a phone call from a person who declared to observe three independant blinking lights in the sky, changing colours, with a much higher intensity than the lights of the stars and forming a triangle. Meteo conditions were clear sky, no clouds, light wind and a minor temperature inversion at 3000 Ft.

5. The MC in turn notified the police of WAVRE which confirmed the sighting at +- 23 30 Hr. Meanwhile the MC had identified a radar contact at about 8 NM North of the ground observation. The contact moved slowely to the West at a speed of =- 25kts and an altitude of 10.000 Ft.

6. The ground observers reported 3 additional light spots which moved gradually, with irregular speeds, towards the first set of lights and forming a second triangle.

7. At 23.50 a second radar station, situated at +- 100 NM >from the first, confirmed an identical contact at the same place of the radar contact of Glons.

8. At 00.05 Hr 2 F16 were scrambled from BEAUVECHAIN airbase and guided towards the radar contacts. A total of 9 interception attempts have been made. At 6 occasions the pilots could establish a lock-on with their air interception radar. Lock-on distances varried between 5 and 8 NM. On all occasions targets varied speed and altitude very quickly and break-locks occured after 10 to 60 seconds. Speeds varied between 150 and 1010 kts. At 3 occasions both F16 registered simultaneous lock-ons with the same parameters. The 2 F16 were flying +- 2 NM apart. No visual contact could be established by either of the F16 pilots.

9. The F16 flew 3 times through the observation field of the ground observers. At the third passage the ground observers notified a change in the behaviour of the light spots. The most luminous started to blink very intensively while the other disappeared. Consequently, the most luminous spot started to dim gradually.

10. Meanwhile the head of the police of WAVRE had alerted 4 other police stations in the area. All four, seperated +- 10 NM from each other, confirmed the visual observations.

11. The aircraft landed at 01.10 Hrs. The last visual observation was recorded at +- 01.30 Hrs.

CONCLUSIONS

The BELGIAN Airforce was unable to identify neither the nature nor the origin of the phenomena. However, it had sufficient elements to exclude following assumptions: a. Balloons. Impossible due to the highly variable speeds (confirmed visually and by radar). b. ULM. Same as for balloons. c. RPV. Impossible due to the hovering characteristics. d. Aircraft (including Stealth). Same as for RPV. No noise. e. Laser projections or Mirages. Unlikely due to lack of projection surface (no clouds). Light spots have been observed from different locations. Light spots moved over distance of more than 15 NM. Form of inlighted part of spots has been observed with spectacles. Laser projections or mirages can not be detected by radar.

{signed}
W. DE BROUWER
Kol Vl SBH
 
i introduce......reverse engineering a recovered alien craft ala roswell

Now you lost me.

keep on hedging and you will lose any credibilty you had

You just lost yours, again.
 
Did you not read the link I posted from Project Blue Book?

No. Perhaps I missed it. I do not believe it was in response to my post. Please re-post it and save me the trouble of reviewing all your posts on this board. Does it address the incident we are discussing?

aliens along with other irrationalities.

Are you advancing the argument that belief in life elsewhere is an irrationality? Or are you advancing the argument that belief that such life is visiting Earth is an irrationality? Please specify, with an explanation of precisely how such belief reaches irrationality.

That’s ridiculous, there are plenty of books and articles discussing delusion, why would you think I don’t know what it means?

I don't doubt you have some idea of what it means. But delusions rarely occur as just a sighting of something that isn't there. Perhaps as well, you like many, and this is not really a criticism, are confusing "delusions" with "hallucinations". Think of it this way; hallucinations are distortions in perception, while
Delusions are distortions in thinking. Delusions are false beliefs, usually quite strongly held, that are inconsistent with evidence to the contrary. This term is almost exclusively used to describe such beliefs as a symptom of mental illness. A particular hallucination may or may not be related to the delusional belief system. Both delusions and hallucinations are indications of severe mental illness, although hallucinations of a sort can occur for other reasons, such as substance abuse. But for the most part, delusions and hallucinations occur in the context of a mental illness that manifests itself quite obviously. I’ll grant you that your “delusions” explanation may in fact occur from time to time; it would be silly to argue that such a delusion never occurs. However, to suggest that UFO sightings are caused by these explanations is problematic. First, with regards to individual UFO sightings, you would have to present at least some evidence that the individual(s) involved suffered from a mental illness. The cases I find interesting and credible have multiple witnesses, and other corroborating evidence if available. All of the witnesses would have to be suffering from the same disorder. As I said, symptoms of this magnitude would present from a clearly mentally ill person, including other symptoms. So what about in the large scale, as an explanation for UFO sightings in general? Well, given the numbers of people credibly reporting an event of some kind, you would be suggesting a very widespread undiagnosed and untreated mental illness affecting thousands, if not millions of people, all with the same, strangely particular delusions and hallucinations. It strains credulity to suggest that this widespread mental illness exists. You might reasonably argue that UFO sightings in the general sense are misperceptions, but not distorted perceptions in the sense used for hallucinations, where the distortion is the result of mental functioning. All in all, a few isolated UFO sightings might be explained by your offering. But it does not appear to reasonably have value as a solution to the UFO question, certainly not enough value to be mentioned as often as you do.

He stated it was incontrovertibly a craft. That may be a plausible explanation, but it certainly isn’t incontrovertible. As I stated to him, my guess is as good as his or yours, but my guesses would only include terrestrial phenomena, unlike his or yours.

Your own attempt at logic escapes you. You appear to admit that “craft” is a plausible explanation. The incident involved does not appear to be a terrestrial craft, from any reasonable interpretation of the available evidence. So a non-terrestrial craft would also appear to be a plausible explanation. Yet you summarily rule that out from consideration. I can only guess that this position is based on a belief that inter-stellar travel is impossible. This in turn must be based on your understanding of the present state of physics. Yet, science has often advanced because someone was willing to look at data which didn't fit with the known paradigms. Don’t feel bad, it is common for both institutions and individuals to hold on to long held beliefs despite evidence to the contrary, until that evidence becomes incontrovertible. I would actually agree with you that the evidence is not currently “incontrovertible”, but those who ignore the data as it builds usually look foolish in the end. You’re already looking foolish, and anti-empirical.

And you have yet to specify any claims, blowhard.


Nice. Does this work for you in your private life? Sadly, you contradict yourself again, since you have labeled me a “believer” – in what, if I have made no claims? According to you, I am claiming that UFOs are occupied by aliens, which I have not claimed. In one post, I admitted that I had a hunch this was so, but was intellectually honest enough to admit that it was a leap unjustified by the evidence. Having admitted that, I restrict my discussion on the issue to the evidence, and the reasonable inferences and speculations that can be drawn from it. Having that hunch doesn’t mean I can’t think reasonably about the subject, Q. Many people also believe in God, but that belief doesn’t prevent them from separating that belief from their analysis of life’s actual events. Even the Catholic Church works to debunk alleged “miracles” through empirical analysis prior to endorsing them as miracles. Subtlety of thought seems to escape you.

As for your accusation that “that’s a lie” – do you know what conspiracy means? My discussion did not describe a conspiracy, and given your ignorance or mistake, “lie” is a pretty strong word. But it allowed you the convenience of not responding with specificity to one thing in the passage you quoted. Typical of you, Q. If you’re going to criticize the passage, why not take it sentence by sentence?

As well, you’re under the delusion that an open mind and the belief in UFO’s are one and the same and that mainstream science does not reward this kind of unconventional thinking. Science does reward unconventional thinking but it does not reward delusions.

Thanks for explaining my position to me again. How did I get along without you to clarify my thoughts? Except that you’re wrong, again. Do you think that anyone is impressed by your continual mischaracterizations of those you debate? I have never said, or implied, that an open mind and a belief in UFOs are one and the same. That is another straw man you construct so you can attack it, rather than responding to what I actually say. That's a demonstration of the weakness of your position, not mine.

I will admit that my statement that “science does not reward unconventional thinking” was too broad; certainly unconventional thinkers are responsible for many advances in science, and such thinking is rewarded. One for you. However, the resistance of science to different ways of thinking is hardly an unknown. In fact a “futures market” of sorts has evolved around the idea that unconventional thinking that does end up shunned by peers in a given field might be worthy of investment. There is an article at the link on this.
hanson.gmu.edu/ifwired.html
 
Now you lost me.

yes , in matters that require a bit of reasoned thought, you always will be "lost". you also lack a sense of humor. it was a "tongue in cheek" attempt at a solution. if you dont get it, you never will

You just lost yours, again.

document the statements that support your allegation. show me how i am being disingenuous. do not fail

in addition to the first expose i shall make a post documenting all points raised and responses requested in this thread that you have not responded to.

i am gonna bury your trollish ass, charlatan! frikkin pseudo skeptic!

thanks
spook
(the super troll - there can be only one!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top