The Definitive UFO Discussion

[Stryder]

Now before you start flaming this thread, please note this particular one is going to be Moderated to not have any personal discussion in it at all.
(If you don't feel happy about that, then don't post in this thread)

Quite simply the rule is this:

Take one, JUST ONE axiom (truth) of your standing on UFO's. Decide if that standing is "FOR" them being related to exoscience (i.e. beings from another world) or "AGAINST" (i.e. being manmade or natural phenomona)

This thread is not about entering into discussion.

place that Axiom as a singular Statement:
(State FOR - or AGAINST - at the beginning of your post)
i.e.

FOR - I saw one with flashy lights and whiry sounds and it spooked me and all the horses in the field nearby.

AGAINST - A television show proved the number of falacious occurances of UFO sightings not just by creating one, but also paying viewers at home if they spotted one.

In the above arguements both lack "Evidence", for instance:

With the "FOR" arguement you could get pictures from a Veternarian that has taken pictures from the horses if they have inflicted self-injuries by being spooked. (Although in this particular instance if someone posts just this type of incident, I would suggest the horse injuries to be investigate for the pretense that someone might of halmed them to prove their UFO's existed)

With the "AGAINST" which television Channel was it?, is there supporting media (newspaper articles) about the occurance? or other publicised data that also suggests their findings?.

If you can generate a thread in this forum with this particular structure (and without it needing to be moderated too often) I will lessen the Strictness of Moderation to just these type of posts (although old posts will be locked if they are dug up from the archives, whats buried should remain so.)

Class this as an exercise in Philosophical debate, with Debate being castrated.

Attempted discussion points:
Gustav -
Point: "your for and against are not axioms"
Response: "They are axioms to those that are either "believers" or have researched known truths. Discussion about such points however should be made in a seperate thread".

 

[Cottontop3000]

FOR, though I have no evidence. The Shag Harbor incident in Canada is one of the most compelling I know of. I wish I could prove it though. I want to believe!!

 

[Qorl]

FOR [add this - Stryder]

I researched to known the truths about alien life. I am For aliens or as I call them God's Grays my family.
Proof the I learn is on this links, it shows a pictures and a massage of alien crop circle that human is not able to duplicate - at all. I have others profs that are beyond your or anybody's imagination, but I can not prove it.
One of the significant discoveries in this site are;

Copy from the net;
Image;
-The image is similar to what you see on a TV screen, rather than on a black and white photograph in a news paper.

A link;
http://mmmgroup.altervista.org/e-crab.html
Disk message;
"Beware the bearers of FALSE gifts & their BROKEN PROMISES. Much PAIN but still time. EELRIJUE. There is GOOD out there. We OPpose DECEPTION. Conduit CLOSING [bell sound]"

Disk binary decoding link;
http://thecropcirclewebsite.50megs.com/page56.htm

Two crops appeared year before;
http://comunidad.ciudad.com.ar/argentina/capital_federal/modemhelp/child.htm

Don't believe in statements that are show in this link. If SETI send a message than crop circle should not appear 20 years latter. You will get a message first. It was not a right time if you ask me.

Another site that explain about things that are unable for biologist's to understand.
Copy from the net;
-Beams of light filmed prior the crop circle at same site. One beam was witnessed by local resident.
-The plants appear to be subjected to a short and intense burst of heat which softens the stems to drop just above the ground at 90º, where they reharden into their new and very permanent position without damage. Plant biologists are baffled by this feature, and it is the singlemost method of identifying the real phenomenon.

A link;
http://www.lovely.clara.net/education.html

Here is another link that explains multiple evidences that are not shown to people by governments.
Copy from the net;
-Thousands of witnesses, including dozens of gendarmes (national police) and officers of the Belgian Air Force, have described triangular-shaped vehicles flying slowly over rooftops, hovering, shooting searchlights and performing incredible maneuvers. The objects have been captured on some 25 videotapes and tracked on both ground and airborne radar by the military.

Link;
http://home.pacbell.net/joerit/docs2/world/belgium.htm
I do not need to study those links because I know the truth, but is for you to think and to be open about unexplainable.

If you call this a delusion that you're calling thousands Belgian mental sick and all others who experienced something similar.
Mystery like a Bible, but true.
Peace,
Qorl

 

[Light]

AGAINST

I do believe in UFOs - flying things that have not been identified.

But as to them being piloted by aliens, no. Despite all the popular press reports (and the web sites with seriously doubtful credibility) it would seem that no one has yet produced even one tiny piece of evidence. Videos and still-shots are NOT evidence. Both classes of images can be too easily faked or simply misunderstood as to what was actually photographed.

One primary thing that leads me to this conclusion is the full half-century these things have been being reported and yet there is still no solid evidence whatsoever.

It's also my opinion that the vast majority of "believers" are simply people who WISH it to be true.

 

[leopold]

uncertain about extraterrestrials

against crop circles being formed by aliens

against ufos being real

in short i beleive et's are a very real possibilty
i also beleive that they are not here on earth or in the sky

 

[Ophiolite]

Against: Pattern forming behaviour, a predeliction for classification and a tendency to distort memory, are all persistent characteristics inherent in the human brain. Consequently unusual events or objects, or commonplace events and objects observed in an unusual setting, are liable to be misinterpreted. In many cases such misinterpretations are interpreted by some observers to be alien spacecraft, yet are subsequently shown absolutely to be normal events or objects.
The small percentage of remaining events could be categorised as either an unproven normal event/object, or a alien craft. Application of Occam's razor favours a bias to the former, and requires that exceptional evidence be provided to justify the exceptional claim. To date, this appears to be lacking.


Note: I believe I have adhered to Stryder's instructions. Nobody else appears to have done so. I wonder why.

 

[Light]

Against: Pattern forming behaviour, a predeliction for classification and a tendency to distort memory, are all persistent characteristics inherent in the human brain. Consequently unusual events or objects, or commonplace events and objects observed in an unusual setting, are liable to be misinterpreted. In many cases such misinterpretations are interpreted by some observers to be alien spacecraft, yet are subsequently shown absolutely to be normal events or objects.
The small percentage of remaining events could be categorised as either an unproven normal event/object, or a alien craft. Application of Occam's razor favours a bias to the former, and requires that exceptional evidence be provided to justify the exceptional claim. To date, this appears to be lacking.


Note: I believe I have adhered to Stryder's instructions. Nobody else appears to have done so. I wonder why.

I actually thought I had too. What did I misunderstand and do/not do?

 

[superluminal]

Stryder:

Class this as an exercise in Philosophical debate, with Debate being castrated.

Please clarify. Are we to understand that debate in this forum is now banned? That we are to present cold statements of fact (to the best of our ability) to represent our opinions? We attack the presented 'facts' of another by providing counter 'facts' and additional support for our position?

Thanks.

 

[Stryder]

I'm going to show you how unbiased I am, I'm going to lock my own thread.

The reason for this is purely my realisation that this wasn't an easy exercise to undergo with without more forethought and in doing so it's become a "right pigs ear".

My intention was to try and perhaps amount a Collective FOR and AGAINST list of statement posts, a collage of evidence (should people provide it) without the flames that so easily appear in the forums. However my methods obviously undermined my motives.

I did however learn a few things from the exercise like the majority of you geniunely wants to discuss things in the forum, I also got a clue as to who the real "trolls" are (don't get paranoid guys I know who I mean).