This thread is a good example of the kind of lack of critical thinking which so typically characterises believers that UFOs represent alien spacecraft. The problem is not that the believers concoct stories or invent facts, but more that they draw unreasonable conclusions from the agreed facts. They also fail to question the accuracy of disputable facts, instead preferring to uncritically adopt the interpretation which best supports their prejudice that UFOs must be alien objects.
In the present case, we have some recorded sightings of <i>something</i>, along with radar observations and so on. But it doesn't take long at all to go from that to a detailed discussion of "vehicles" and unknown technologies. The problem is that an assumption is made very early on, and conclusions are drawn which are not actually mandated by the data. To show you what I mean, I will extract a few quotes from recent posts.
In addition, <b>spookz</b> has attempted to ridicule the people who dare to question his conclusion. He asks:
<i>perhaps you wanna the president to sign off on the doc? the un? you? perhaps we got have the mighty jamesr as the final arbiter of all things?</i>
No, spookz, I'm not the arbiter of all things. It's much simpler than that. You see, I am willing to suspend judgment on this information until there is data which points us inevitably towards one conclusion or another. You, and the other believers, want to prejudge the case and jump to the conclusion that these observations represent alien spacecraft. I have said before that argument from authority is a very weak form of argument, but apparently you missed that. I don't care what the President believes regarding this data. What I want is not somebody in authority to tell me what to believe, but good enough data to be able to draw my own conclusion.
<b>spookz</b> writes:
<i>it is interesting how the belgian airforce is held to be incompetent in order to support argument for a prosaic explanation. radar operators/pilots/analysts competence is held to be questionable. it is simple arrogance and denial.</i>
I don't think anybody has suggested that the Belgian airforce is incompetent, so this is a straw man argument. What I <i>have</i> suggested is that people can sometimes make mistakes, which is a different thing altogether.
<b>VRob</b> writes:
<i>The evidence has been layed out.
1. Multiple radar detections.
2. Visual sighting from the ground and from the air.</i>
Yes, something was seen and detected. We don't know what. And that's what makes your next statement problematic:
<i>3. Vehicle performance that our current level of technology considers to be impossible.</i>
How do we know we're dealing with a vehicle here? Where's the evidence of that? You and the other believers are making a very big jump in going from lights in the sky to vehicles.
<i>4. A genuine Government of this planet providing the facts. Not some UFO web sit, or organization.</i>
Governments consist of people. They are not infallible.
<i>Facts:
There was a vehicle in the Air over Belgium.
It performs manuevers unknown to our technology.
The only question remains is who's vehicle is it. Ours, or theirs.</i>
No. You're getting way ahead of yourself. The skeptics are stuck back at "There was a vehicle...", while you've accepted that and moved on to speculate on where the aliens come from. It's not just you - this kind of logical leap is typical of UFO believers.
<i>Stating that it could be some unknown atmospheric phenomena is as rediculous as the UFO kooks who scream UFO everytime they see a bird or a plane in the air.</i>
Why ridiculous? What rules that out as a possible explanation, other than your own prejudice? Trying to belittle those who disagree with you is also a logically invalid method of argument, since it appeals to emotion rather than fact.
<i> think our Mililtary would be much more likely to test an experimental craft over foreign ground than they would over an American city.
It's much easier for them to maintain control of the information that comes from an overseas report.</i>
Think about this for a minute. Are you serious? Do you think that the US government has more control over the foreign press than over their own press? What a strange thought.
----
Next, we have another side of the UFO believer psyche - the conspiracy theorist, as demonstrated by <b>Ives</b>:
<i>Remember, our government is not what it seems. In the 50s, we were spraying our own cities with biological agents to test germ warfare capabilities, giving LSD to servicemen and committing other attrocities. Today we incarcerate people without lawyers or trials, or even charges. The government asks mail carriers to spy on us, and wishes to track which websites we visit. We have a vice president continuing to receive income from a large corporation receiving preferential treatment in a bidding process for rebuilding a country which we bombed, yet we pretend this isn't obviously crooked on its face.</i>
...and therefore any light in the sky must be an alien spaceship which the government is covering up. Give me a break.
<b>ScRaMbLe</b> is quick to jump on this bandwagon...
<i>Wouldn't it make more sense that the reason the US government denies the existance of UFOs is because they are not theirs but someone elses and they dont want to cause panic by admitting it?
Japan said it would never use the bomb, you think they havent tried to develop alternatives? God only knows what toys the Russians have developed...</i>
Yes, the US is not really the only superpower left in the world today. Other countries are secretly much more advanced, even though they never show it. And the US government, instead of telling people or trying to gain the technology via espionage or by diplomatic or trade efforts, keeps it under wraps.
<b>VRob</b> takes another jab at the skeptics:
<i>Why can't you fathom a technology above our own?</i>
Obviously, if such a technology existed, we would be working in the dark. It would be like showing a digital watch to somebody from the 17th century and asking them to provide a possible explanation for its workings, all without actually allowing them to open it up or examine it in any way except superficially.
If we gained access to more advanced technology, I'm sure it wouldn't take too long to reverse engineer it. But we're unlikely to develop an interstellar drive, if such a thing exists, by examining lights in the sky.
<i>The velocity & manueverability of these vehicles is what makes most of us consider the ET hypothesis. Since you disregard the entire event because of impossible(by our standards) speeds, it's quite obvious that you're incapable of thinking outside of the box.</i>
There's the assumption again - two assumptions actually. First, that we are talking about "vehicles" here, which is a logical leap. Second, that anybody who asks sensible questions must be closed-minded and ignorant.
It seems the UFO believers have an axe to grind with the skeptics. Apparently, it is wrong to ask questions. Instead, we are supposed to accept without question any wacky conclusion the UFOlogist wants to throw our way.
