The Proof for ETI

[Persol]

Those are not high-ranking people, you say? Let's see now, NASA, CIA, NSA, USAF, UN(Navy), Astronaughts, scientists. It is astounding, how you can deny their positions. Your credibility is now questionable, itself.
You do know how to read, correct? I said "mostly not high level people as you claim". And being in the USAF or Navy does not in itself make you high ranking.

So how is this evidence, that he made it up?
A sergant saw ET craft 3 times, because he 'happened' to be in the right place at the right time? The chances of that happening are astronomical unless the rate of crashes are incredibly high, in which case it wouldn't be much of a secret.

The link does not even work.
Well then here is one that does
http://web.archive.org/web/20030621131653/http://www.ufoworld.co.uk/v14.txt

From the link you posted, the claims was not made by him, but were misrepresented by others, for which he filed a law suit as well.
He has said specifically "Intelligent beings from other planets regularly visit our world in an effort to enter into contact with us." Which he has been completely unable to backup. When it gets down to it, he admits himself that it has no substance except at heresay.

He makes a claim of a free energy machine, as usual, there are sceptics, tearing him apart. Much like sceptics have tore angi-gravity machines apart, but now are actually being proven.
LMAO. The 'anti-gravity' currently being researched is nothing like those presented by kooks who claimed to have invented it. And his claim is ripeed apart because it has been COMPLETELY unreproducable by several labs.

Yet cold fusion research rakes in millions, and some very compelling results are produced
So does homeopathy and theft.

Independent laboratories have duplicated all of these methods, and the reasons for failure when using commercial palladium metal are now understood.
Hehe. ONE scientific link that claims this would be sufficient.

Simply saying, such and such, says it's not possible, does not mean evidence.
No, but saying 'reputable labs can not reproduce this' is sufficient evidence.

Where is the evidence? For Hare's claims of shadows?
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/coverup045.html
http://www.sharedanmark.dk/multimedia/disclosure/share_international.htm

Also note that the important part of her claim that astronauts saw an alien craft on the moon, is only heresay supposedly from "a man who had been quarantined with the astronauts."

Oh please, the opinions of Klass?
Kaufmann: 5 bodies [p. 10]
Ragsdale: 3 bodies [p. 103]
Mortician Dennis: 3 bodies--2 of them badly mutilated [p. 22]
Frankie Rowe: 2 bodies + 1 live ET [p. 17]
Anaya Montoya: 3 bodies + 1 live ET [p. 19]
Mary Bush: 1 body [p. 18]
Barbara Dugger: 3 bodies + 1 live ET [p. 35]

I don't know about you... but if I saw aliens... I'd think I'd remember how many. It goes down hill from there. Regardless of his style of writing, his sources are verifiable.

A sceptic using a pro- sceptic web site to debunk something he is sceptical of, is like me using a pro-christian web site to debunk atheistic arguments.
Well, if your pro-christian web site pointed out documented contradiction in the atheistic arguments, then that would be perfiectly all right.

Anyway, let's say, I give you the benefit of the doubt, and say 4 of the ones you talked about, cannot be trusted
Lol... benefit of the doubt? Do you expect us to investigate each and every person on that list? I think not.

Do you expect to make a case for the integrity of DP as a whole, by considering under 5% of the witnesses?
Absolutely. That site is aware of the problems with the stories of the 10 people listed. Yet it continues to use them, even when asked to be removed from the site. If this isn't a sign of their integrity I don't know what is.

 

[SkinWalker]

I have proofs, and arguments, that I am willing to share, and put their durability to the test.

I skimmed through this thread after reading the first few posts and I must say that I was thoroughly disappointed. I saw only your arguments and none of your proofs. Have you anthing that can be measured or examined beyond the volume of anecdotal accounts?

If not, then you have nothing. The Disclosure Project, as Persol has throrougly pointed out, is but a collection of believers of various hierarchical positions and strata within various societies espousing their beliefs and their "testimony" in much the same way as religious devotees and cult followers do. In fact, it seems fairly clear to me that the UFO/ETI movement is but a loosely defined cult movement with various sects.

Scepticism is always good. I myself, am a very sceptical person. If we are not sceptical, our intellectual faculties do not develop. However, this vicious denial, and attacking, character assassination, the predisposition to branding anyone who attests to the belief in Aliens a loony/crakpot; is not scepticism; it's fanaticism masquerading as scepticism.

There are those for whom characters need "assassinating," particularly when they subvert the critical thinking abilities and habits of the less informed (ironically, by "informing" them). A flip-side to your last statement above would be "the predisposition to branding anyone who rejects the belief in Aliens a fanactic masquerading as a skeptic; is but a loony/crakpot response."

But back to the anecdotal "proofs:" humans have a long history of bearing witness to the supernatural and testifying to the importance of the metaphysical. But when it comes to falsifiability, they all fall into the same category. They cannot be falsified. Therefore, they remain in the realm of pseudoscience and baloney. I'm speaking of religious "miracles" and the belief in astrology as two examples. Both of these beliefs have people in various "high-ranking" positions within societies (Reagan reportedly used astrologers, though I don't have a reference to cite). The "rank" of a believer is insufficient to provide credibility by itself.

While on the subject of "rank" and authority, I find it fascinating that the UFO/ETI cultists are quick to denounce government authority as non-credible in the various "conspiracy" theories that emerge, particularly when an authoritative figure provides a reasonable explanation. Once an "authority figure" becomes a cult follower as well, however, the credibility value changes.

One last comment I like to make is on the spurious correlation that you offered about the so-called "bridge" in the Palk Straits and it being created by an intelligence. The landform that we see in the Palk Straits is known as a tombolo. The basement structure of the Palk Straits is a result of rifting of a fault with transcurrent movements (Nityananda & Jayakumar, 1981). This undoubtedly creates a convenient place for the sediment to collect and create the tombolos and associated islands.

It was also believed that the chain of tombolos and islands was once completely above water and stretched from Southern India to Sri Lanka, but was broken during a major storm at around 1480. Since that time, efforts have been made to cut passable channels at points in the shoal.

During the creation of the trombolo in the Palk Straits, there was no civilization with the necessary technology (approx. 2 mya). This was the time of Australipithecus robustus and A. boisei. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this is an artificially created feature. I'm sure that some Ramayana mythology exists about the trombolo, as it was as more prominent feature in antiquity, but the earliest archaeological evidence of Ramayana in this region dates to about 400 B.C.E., long, long after the trombolo came into existence.

But this is what the UFO/ETI cultists are good at: providing spurious evidence and spurious correlations in attempt to justify claims that have no testability or phyiscal evidence that can be measured or examined. They're also proficient at accusing the "skeptics" of being on the government payroll.

Speaking of which... @ Persol: the director said the paychecks are in... but you forgot to fill out your expense report for mileage on the chopper... you know, the black one.


Nandini Nityananda and D.Jayakumar (1981). Proposed Relation between Anomalous Geomagnetic Variations and Tectonic History of South India.Phys.Earth Planet. Inter.Elsevier. Vol. 27, pp 223-228.

 

[Lemming3k]

Simple, at least it should be. Because, the claims they have made, is about seeing droppings, and tracks, or something run past their eyes, which does not provide any conclusive evidence of big foot. Now look at above, and see why they are different.

Actually i think u'll find they are incredably similar, saying you saw something run infront of you is not a different claim to saying you worked on a project to do with aliens/alien technology, since neither are backed up with anything other than the words of a person and all people are born with the ability to lie regardless of job or rank or anything for that matter.

When you have 400, credible witnesses, making a case. You do not reject their claims, you investigate into them, and attempt to prove them wrong. Which is, what I'm asking you to do. Otherwise just simply admit, that you do not like the evidence, but don't make exuses, that it's not viable evidence, because it is, and recognised.

Your still spewing that rubbish that things are right until proven wrong, why have their claims not been investigated to prove them either way? Why dont you investigate the bigfoot claims and PROVE them wrong, and i'll say until you do they are right, or you can simply admit you dont like the bigfoot testimonies, despite them being on the same level as your ET testimonies as far as PROOF goes.

Saying you've seen a guy from the back, who is Elvis, and saying, you've worked on UFO's, and have been given death threats, to not reveal it, makes a world of difference.

Now many of the testimonies arnt about seeing someone from behind that looks like elvis, i've seen plenty of people that look like him from the back, but i dont go round and claim he exists, Why does saying you've worked on UFO's carry more weight, its still a claim no matter what the claim is about its a claim, also the death threat can be a claim, it sort of intensifies the atmosphere around the claims and makes people more likely to believe it, how do you know he did not write a threat to himself or get his mum to do it to add to his 'evidence', simple fact is you dont know.

If not, then you have nothing. The Disclosure Project, as Persol has throrougly pointed out, is but a collection of believers of various hierarchical positions and strata within various societies espousing their beliefs and their "testimony" in much the same way as religious devotees and cult followers do. In fact, it seems fairly clear to me that the UFO/ETI movement is but a loosely defined cult movement with various sects.

I think thats pretty much what i've been trying to say all along except you said it better(though i never really thought of it as a cult before). I thankyou for it.

But this is what the UFO/ETI cultists are good at: providing spurious evidence and spurious correlations in attempt to justify claims that have no testability or phyiscal evidence that can be measured or examined. They're also proficient at accusing the "skeptics" of being on the government payroll.

Quite true, and that is exactly what is in this thread, an attempt to justify claims that have no physical evidence(and the main reason he still accepts them as true is because we cant conclusively say they are wrong, its like asking us to prove god does/doesnt exist).

 

[crazymikey]

but the earliest archaeological evidence of Ramayana in this region dates to about 400 B.C.E., long, long after the trombolo came into existence.

That is blatently incorrect.

 

[crazymikey]

In conclusion, Lemming and Persol, as you making irrational arguments, and spewing damn right rubbish, ignoring the evidence, and are determined not to believe, I am not going to argue with you any further. It's a waste of my time, and I'm sure yours as well. You are free to take this, which ever way you want.

I will provide further proofs, I am already in the midst of compiling my next one.

 

[crazymikey]

I skimmed through this thread after reading the first few posts and I must say that I was thoroughly disappointed. I saw only your arguments and none of your proofs. Have you anthing that can be measured or examined beyond the volume of anecdotal accounts?

Welcome. I hope you can provide more sensible arguments than the former. You seem to have a habit of jumping to conclusions, let's examine them:

If not, then you have nothing. The Disclosure Project, as Persol has throrougly pointed out, is but a collection of believers of various hierarchical positions and strata within various societies espousing their beliefs and their "testimony" in much the same way as religious devotees and cult followers do. In fact, it seems fairly clear to me that the UFO/ETI movement is but a loosely defined cult movement with various sects.

Interesting theory, though farily inaccurate. Why? They are not beliefs - they are witness accounts. Each witness has a claim, and evidence to support it, and has professed to testifying the same in front of congress. That was easy.

Let's look at an anaology. If 400 witnesses(key word) witness the crimes of subject A, and congregate to testify against subject A, does that mean they are a cult following? No, but it sure does mean, your logic is false.

But back to the anecdotal "proofs:" humans have a long history of bearing witness to the supernatural and testifying to the importance of the metaphysical. But when it comes to falsifiability, they all fall into the same category. They cannot be falsified. Therefore, they remain in the realm of pseudoscience and baloney. I'm speaking of religious "miracles" and the belief in astrology as two examples. Both of these beliefs have people in various "high-ranking" positions within societies (Reagan reportedly used astrologers, though I don't have a reference to cite). The "rank" of a believer is insufficient to provide credibility by itself.

Again, you are mixing beliefs with claims. Nor are ETI - the supernatural

While on the subject of "rank" and authority, I find it fascinating that the UFO/ETI cultists are quick to denounce government authority as non-credible in the various "conspiracy" theories that emerge, particularly when an authoritative figure provides a reasonable explanation. Once an "authority figure" becomes a cult follower as well, however, the credibility value changes.

On the basis, that the government has too much to gain, by covering the ETI agenda. On the contrary, our 400 high ranking officials, who have served the nation of US, in the cold war, gulf wars, and are respected, have little to gain, and too much to lose.

One last comment I like to make is on the spurious correlation that you offered about the so-called "bridge" in the Palk Straits and it being created by an intelligence. The landform that we see in the Palk Straits is known as a tombolo. The basement structure of the Palk Straits is a result of rifting of a fault with transcurrent movements (Nityananda & Jayakumar, 1981). This undoubtedly creates a convenient place for the sediment to collect and create the tombolos and associated islands.

I did not say it was created by an intelligence - you see, this is exactly why, skimming, is not the best method of reading. I said, that it warrants further investigation.

As for the theory of transcurrent movements. It is a theory, not evidence, that this is actually what happened. Nor am I against this theory.

During the creation of the trombolo in the Palk Straits, there was no civilization with the necessary technology (approx. 2 mya). This was the time of Australipithecus robustus and A. boisei. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this is an artificially created feature. I'm sure that some Ramayana mythology exists about the trombolo, as it was as more prominent feature in antiquity, but the earliest archaeological evidence of Ramayana in this region dates to about 400 B.C.E., long, long after the trombolo came into existence.

As I told you, Ramayana dating from 400 B.C.E is blatetly incorrect. The Ramayana was referred to as ancient, by the Mahabharata, which according to historical and scientific estimates, occurred 5000 years ago. Indian civilization is more than 10,000 years old. The Ramayana dates from the Treta yuga, which is almost exactly the time this bridge existed, and it documents a war fought between India and Sri Lanka. Hence, why I suggest - further investigation.

But this is what the UFO/ETI cultists are good at: providing spurious evidence and spurious correlations in attempt to justify claims that have no testability or phyiscal evidence that can be measured or examined. They're also proficient at accusing the "skeptics" of being on the government payroll.

How do you obtain physical evidence for a stealth B-52? How do you obtain physical evidence for the witness of a murder? Your demand is irrational, I hope you realise.

I am not accusing the sceptics of being on government payroll, and nor have I said such a thing, anywhere.

 

[Lemming3k]

I will provide further proofs, I am already in the midst of compiling my next one.

That is exactly what we are after, we arnt determined to believe aliens havnt made contact, we simply dont believe you have provided enough evidence yet to prove it, i told you i can be swayed by the right evidence, if i believed in claims/testimonies i would believe in god/elvis still being alive/bigfoot etc i see no physical evidence for them so i dont believe, your ET proof is on the same level, that is all i was getting at, you just dont like i work the opposite way in that i find things are there to be proved right with physical evidence, if they were there to be proved wrong we would be here forever trying to prove god doesnt exist. Thats why i find my way works best for me, yours may very well work best for you, its a matter of personal opinion.

 

[Lemming3k]

In conclusion, Lemming and Persol, as you making irrational arguments, and spewing damn right rubbish, ignoring the evidence

LMAO You have provided us no evidence other than claims, and i have already proved how foolish it is to believe people on a claim alone, thousands of people claim to have seen god, so i must assume you believe these claims, or you are a hypocrite(and yes you are as neither set of claims would be backed up by further evidence). You dismiss perfectly good statements because you dont like them and they dont suit you, 400 witness accounts are in the minority of the world, even the minority of the worlds respected people and government employees, likewise the people that claim they have seen their religions god are in the minority, i dont think 400 witness accounts that god exists made by very respectable religious leaders would convince everyone god exists, only those who feel a claim is enough evidence to believe, i dont, its as simple as that and is not rubbish so kindly remove your head from your arse(and yes thats where your heads been ever since you said all claims are right until proven wrong) and provide something more for the rest of us, or tell me you believe in all these other claims that arnt backed up with other evidence so we know you arent being a hypocrite.
In conclusion, you have provided claims and asked us to prove them wrong, yet you havnt proved them right to begin with, all claims are not right until proven wrong, otherwise there are flying pigs, pink elephants, bigfoot etc because the claims have not conclusively been proved wrong, i believe claims need to be investigated and proved either way and i choose not to believe something until i feel convinced of its truth, these claims have not been investigated openly and have not been proved right or wrong, so until further proof i wont believe them, argue all you like but to me claims alone are not enough, since i would not send someone to jail on claims alone. Like i said a while back its a difference of opinion and some people believe things easier than others, especially when its something they want to believe.(not that i blame you since the possibilities once we've made contact are endless and very exciting)

 

[crazymikey]

Physical evidence for the existence of ETI UFO's

What is a UFO sighting:

A UFO sighting, is the sighting of an unidentified flying object, usually flying objects, of unconvential shape, the most commonly reported, being the saucer shape, that appear to be travelling at astonishing, beyond supersonic speeds mach 4, to mach 250 and could abruptly come to stops in mid-air, for long durationa of time, and change directions, and is capable of maneouveres that no conventional air craft can execute, and which would create G forces that would crush a living organism.

There have been hundreds of thousands of UFO sightings all over the world, some that also been captured on celluloid and video, and some that have been witnessed by groups. Over 11% of these sightings remain unexplained, that means tens of thousands of sightings of UFO's CANNOT be explained.

The cases that have been explained, have not necessarily been explained correctly. All that has been done, is the simple explanation has been adopted. Most sightings are disregarded, as astronoimcal phenomenal(e.g. seeing planet venus) weather baloons, neon lights, optical illusions, delusions, conventional air craft, classified aircraft, atmospheric effects, fribees, and hoaxes. No doubt, that some sightings, are indeed caused by the aforementioned explanations? But, can we say all of them?

The "skeptics", are content, in just throwing these explainations about. They are a unique breed of people, much like those creationists, that regurgitate absolutely anything that favours their line of thought. Even though most scientists and physicists don't buy them.

If the previously explainations are true, then conventional craft would not be able to chase them through the sky, and witness their astonishing speeds, and change of speeds. YET THEY DO

- If the previously explainations are true, then UFO's would not appear on radar, both ground-based, and airborne radar, or recorded on radar, and be seen simutaneously, and even be chased by conventional craft, simutaneously - YET THEY DO

- If the UFO was a conventiona craft, it would produce a sonic boom when it attains supersonic speed. It would be extremely noisy. YET IT DOESN'T

- Then EM effects would not take place at the UFO sightings and nor would motor interference. - YET IT DOES

Let's summarize the main hypothesis:

A- Astronomical phenomena(seeing planet venus)
B- Weather balloons
C- Neon lights
D- Optical illusions
E- Delusions
F- Hoaxes
G- Frisbees, or baloons
H- Mikstaken conventional aircraft
I- Sighting of classified aircraft
J- Atmospheric effects
K- ETI UFOs

From the above explainationa, A-G could only attempt to explain ground-based eye witness accounts

H-I - Would explain the existence of a physical craft, but it would not explain:

1: The lack of sonic boom, and extreme noise
2: Speeds in excess of Mach 1 in the 50's, and Mach 3 today
3: Sudden stop in mid-air, for long durations and/or sudden accelerations instantly to supersonic speeds

J - A far-fetched theory, that attempts to explain UFO's as temperature inversions, mirages etc. Yet donesn't explain any specific case, and the following:

1: Travelling in a path
2: circling a conventional air craft
3: Changing directions
4: stopping in mid-air
5: being recorded on radar
6: Being chased by aircraft
7: causing electromagnetic effects on nearby air craft
8: Physical traces

Thus no explainations can account for the UFO's we see, other than, ETI UFO's:

Which produce all those physical effects as we'll now see:

Let's examine each case of physical evidence.

Review, the following documents: Most of these articles are huge, so I am only producing small excerpts from them, for all to see.

EM EFFECTS

NATIONAL AVIATION REPORTING CENTER ON ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA
Abstract
This preliminary report presents the findings of a comprehensive review of over fifty years of pilot reports in which permanent or transient electro-magnetic (EM) effects occurred on in-flight aircraft systems allegedly as a direct or indirect result of the relatively near presence of one or more unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP). From a total of 1,300 reports sixty four (5%) were found that involved E-M effects. Of these, thirty three (3 %) case reports contained 58 different E-M effects that fit the authors’ level 1 (highest) acceptance criteria. Of these cases, the (fundamental) aircraft system most frequently affected was electrical (46 cases; 79%) followed by power plant (4 cases; 6%), on-board radar contact (4 cases; 6%), and miscellaneous (3 cases; 5%). Of the forty six electrical system interference cases the radio’s function was affected most often (18 cases; 39%) followed by compass reading errors in 12 cases (26%). In general, it was found that general aviation aircraft were more likely to be affected than commercial or military type aircraft. The most commonly reported UAP shape is round or oval. Interestingly, most of the E-M effects occurred when the UAP was nearby the aircraft. These findings are potentially important and deserve further in-depth study and confirmation by obtaining additional high quality aviation reports.

Read more here: http://www.narcap.org/REPORTS/Emcarm.htm

UFO INTERFERENCE WITH VEHICLES
AND SELF-STARTING ENGINES

Disruption of automobile engines by UFOs is a familiar phenomenon. Less well known are instances where an engine that had been killed comes back to life again when the UFO departs, that is, the engine restarts itself without assistance from the driver. Twenty- seven such cases are summarized. A key observation by a mechanic whose engine had been stopped by a UFO suggests a mechanism by which self-starting might be understood. Should a non-firing engine come to rest with one cylinder past top-dead-center, it would entrap a suitable mixture of fuel and air to be ignited by the next arriving spark thereby cranking the engine. Such an event might result from collapse of a gaseous discharge across open breaker points in the distributor. If the discharge had been sustained by ionization of the atmospheric gases caused by the UFO, it would collapse shortly after departure of the UFO.

Read more here: http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/ufointerf.htm

A REVIEW OF SELECTED AERIAL PHENOMENON SIGHTINGS
FROM AIRCRAFT FROM 1942 TO 1952
Richard F. Haines, Ph.D.
Copyright 1985

ABSTRACT
Sightings of so-called anomalous phenomena made from the air have the same fundamental features as phenomena reported by ground witnesses. This conclusion is based on a previous review of 69 cases from aircraft for the period 1975 to 1978 (reference 1). It is significant in that several prosaic explanations offered are either totally or partially eliminated because of it (e.g., radio controlled models, birds, balloons). The present review of an earlier period seeks patterns in the data that may be diagnostic in understanding something about the core identity of UFO phenomena. A total of 285 aircrew reports are reviewed for the period 1 January 1942 to 31 December 1952. It was found that 93 percent involved American and 7 percent foreign aircraft. Of the total 68 percent were military, 20 percent commercial, 11 percent private, and 1 percent unspecified. Twenty-nine cases (10.2 per cent) involved some form of electro-magnetic effect; they are reviewed in some detail. General statistics on temporal, spatial, and other factors are provided.

Read more here: http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/83rsaps.htm

RADAR AND RADAR-VISUAL

Gordon D. Thayer, Journal of Astronautics and Aeronautics; September 1971, UFO Subcommittee of the AIAA
Summary: with two highly redundant contacts -- the first with ground radar, combined with both ground and airborne visual observers, and the second with airborne radar, an airborne visual observer, and two different ground radars -- the Bentwaters-Lakenheath UFO incident represents one of the most significant radar-visual UFO cases.

UFO ENCOUNTER II -- Sample Case
Selected by the UFO Subcommittee of the AIAA
(American Institute for Astronautics and Aeronautics):
The Lakenheath, England, Radar-Visual UFO Case, August 13-14, 1956


Account of Observations
The four events at Bentwaters GCA took this order:

1. At 21:30Z a URE (No.1 in map) was picked up on the Bentwaters AN/MPN-11A GCA radar about 25-30 mi. to the ESE. (Note that Z time -- zero meridian time --, or GMT, is also local time in the Lakenheath-Bentwaters area.) This URE moved steadily on a constant azimuth heading of 295 deg until contact was lost about 15-20 mi. to the WNW of Bentwaters. The radar operator estimated the apparent speed of the URE as 4,000 mph; but the transit time of 30 sec yields an estimate of 4,800-6,000 mph, and the operator's estimate of 5-6 mi. covered by the URE between PPI sweeps (2 sec apart) gives an estimate of 9,000-10,800 mph. "The size of the blip when picked up was that of a normal aircraft target. [It] diminished in size and intensity to the vanishing point before crossing the entire radar screen."

2. A "few minutes later," say roughly 21:35Z, a group of 12-15 UREs was picked up on the PPI about 8 mi. SW of Bentwaters (No. 2 in map). These echoes "appeared as normal targets," and "normal checks made to determine possible malfunctions of the GCA radar failed to indicate anything was technically wrong." These URE's appeared to move as a group toward the NE at varying speeds reported as 80-125 mph. The group covered a "6-7-mi. area" on the scope. These echoes "faded considerably" at a point 14 mi. NE of Bentwaters, but were tracked to a point about 40 mi. NE of Bentwaters when they merged into a single strong echo "several times larger than a B-36 return under comparable conditions." This single echo remained stationary at the point 40 mi. NE of Bentwaters for 10- 15 min., then moved to the NE for 5-6 mi., stopped again for 3-5 min., and finally moved out of range (50 mi.) of the radar at 21:55Z. The average apparent speed of the URE group for the time it was in motion can be readily calculated as between 290 and 700 mph (58 mi. in 5-12 min -- again differing from the operator's estimate.

3. At 2200Z another URE (No. 3 in map) was picked up about 30 mi. east of Bentwaters and tracked to a point about 25 mi. west of the station; the tracking period was about 16 sec. The radar operator estimated the apparent speed of this URE to be "in excess of 4000 mph" but the time and distance figures indicated a speed of roughly 12,000 mph. All the returns "appeared normal, except for the last, which was slightly weaker than the rest." The radar operator indicated that the "[return] disappeared ... by rapidly moving out of the GCA radiation pattern." No further UREs are mentioned in the Bluebook report on the Bentwaters incident; and considering the confusion prevailing in reported times in Bluebook reports and the similarity of the reported tracks and speeds, possibly this URE and No. 4, which instigated the phone call to Lakenheath, may in fact be the same.

4. According to the Bluebook report on the Lakenheath incident, the Bentwaters GCA radar, at 22:55Z, picked up a URE 30 mi. east (of Bentwaters) moving to the west at an apparent speed of "2000 to 4000 mph." In the map shown at right, the track of the URE appears identical with No. 3 except for the vanishing point. This URE then "disappeared on scope 2 mi. east of station and immediately appeared on scope 3 mi. west of station ... it disappeared 30 mi. west of station on scope." If the word "immediately" means that the URE was picked up on the same PPI sweep, after 180 deg. rotation from east to west, it would imply that the apparent motion covered 5 mi. in 1 sec, an inferred speed of some 18,000 mph. At this rate the URE would have covered the 60 mi. track in about 12 sec (6 PPI sweeps). As pointed out, this may have been URE No. 3 from the Bentwaters Bluebook report, which is estimated at 12,000 mph, although the reported times are different .

Read more here: http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/leath.htm

PRECIS: At 2305 a 2-seat F-61 Black Widow night-fighter was flying off the NW coast of Kyushu, 50 miles at 330 degrees from Fukuoka, when the radar operator picked up a target, range 5 miles at 12 o'clock & slightly below the aircraft (a/c). The a/c speed was between 200 & 220 mph; that of the target was 200 mph, range slowly closing. The aircrew thought they had a friendly fighter. Then the target showed a "slight" change in azimuth and "rapid" closure, appearing at the same time to dive below the a/c. The pilot attempted to follow in a 3500 fpm dive at 300 mph, but air intercept (AI) radar did not immediately reacquire the target. Shortly the radar operator called a second contact, but the target outdistanced the a/c with "a burst of speed dead ahead". On a third intercept the pilot called a visual at 60 degrees to port; the object was visible in clear silhouette against moonlit cloud and the radar acquired a target crossing ahead of the a/c from 45 degrees to port, range 3000' at -5 degrees elevation. The pilot turned to starboard to head off the object, but the radar target put on a "burst of speed" and was lost at 9-10 miles (maximum radar range was 10 miles). At this time the pilot decided that the object he had seen was unfamiliar and queried his ground control station, who reported that there were no known aircraft in the area. The fourth intercept again began with a pilot visual, the object passing above and from the rear. AI radar again picked up the target slightly above at 12 o'clock, range 5 miles, but again it was lost off the set at 10 miles. The fifth and sixth intercepts were similar: The target was picked up at > 9 miles range at 200 mph, the a/c closing with a speed advantage of 20 mph to a range of 12,000', at which point the target pulled ahead to the maximum radar range of 10 miles in about 15-20 seconds.

Read more here: http://www.narcap.org/REPORTS/TR6pt1.htm

What Radar Tells About Flying Saucers

U.S. Air Force and civilian radar experts know enough about temperature inversion to be sure that it doesn't explain the strange objects they've seen on their scopes in Washington, and in other places. And the official Air Force gun - camera photos reproduced here for the first time back them up
BY DONALD E. KEYHOE
In a new investigation of the flying saucer, TRUE Magazine has secured Air Force confirmation of these important facts:
1. Since 1947, hundreds of unidentified aerial objects have been tracked by radar operators of the Air Force, Navy and Civil Aeronautics Administration.
2. More than 300 times, Air Force interceptor planes have chased mysterious lights and unidentified objects revealed by radar scopes.
3. Strange round objects have shown on interceptors gun camera pictures and on photographs from the ground at a missile testing range.
4. The "temperature inversion" or mirage answer to radar sightings widely publicized by Dr. Donald H. Menzel of Harvard has failed to satisfy Force investigators because he has not attempted to explain any specific "saucer" cases in official files.

Read more here: http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/whatradar.htm

James McDonald, Statement on UFOs to U.S. House Committee on Science and Aeronatics, 1968 Symposium on UFOs
Summary: With so much radar equipment deployed all over the world, and especially within the United States, it seems sensible to expect that, if there are any airborne devices maneuvering in our airspace, they ought to show up on radars once in a while. They do indeed, and have been doing so for all of the two decades that radar has been in widespread use.

1. Case 35. Fukuoka, Japan, October 15, 1948:
A very early radar-UFO case, still held as an official Unidentified, involved an attempted interception of the unknown object by an F-61 flying near Fukuoka, Japan, at about 11:00 p.m. local time on 10/15/48. The official file on this incident is lengthy (Ref. 42); only the highlights can be recounted here. The F-61 (with pilot and radar operator) made six attempts to close with the unknown, from which a radar return was repeatedly obtained with the airborne radar. Each time the radarman would get a contact and the F-61 pilot tried to close, the unknown would accelerate and pass out of range. Although the radar return seemed comparable to that of a conventional aircraft,

"the radar observer estimated that on three of the sightings, the object traveled seven miles in approximately twenty seconds, giving a speed of approximately 1200 mph."
In another passage, the official case-file remarks that

"when the F-61 approached within 12,000 feet, the target executed a 180 degree turn and dived under the F-61."
adding that

"the F-61 attempted to dive with the target but was unable to keep pace."
The report mentions that the unknown

Read more here: http://pgrsel.100megs13.com/books/mcdonaldhcsa68radar.htm#doc

PILOT SIGHTINGS:

Jason Cowland, Victorian UFO Research Society, Australia 1998
Summary: A Review of a lecture by Richard Haines. Dr. Richard Haines is a Senior Research Scientist at the NASA-Ames Research Centre. He is best known for his work with pilots and their UFO sightings. Over the last 30 years he has been investigating the subject, he has amassed over 3000 pilot sighting reports.

Dr. Richard Haines is a Senior Research Scientist at the NASA-Ames Research Centre. He is best known for his work with pilots and their UFO sightings. Over the last 30 years he has been investigating the subject, he has amassed over 3000 pilot sighting reports. During his introduction he mentioned that his research has taught him a lot more about Science, Engineering, Optics and Human behaviour He has also investigated photographic evidence of UFO's but stresses that UFO photos are easily faked, however, points out that there are good UFO photographs.

Read more here: http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc731.htm

REVIEW OF SELECTED SIGHTINGS FROM AIRCRAFT
FROM 1973 TO 1978
RICHARD F. HAINES Copyright 1979

Introduction
There are five major reasons for reviewing sightings of anomalous phenomena from aircraft. First, pilots and other crew members tend to be educated, stable people who are taught to recognize a wide variety of meteorological and other aerial phenomena; they are also trained to be observant - to see and be seen during flight. As pilots accumulate more and more flight time they also have an opportunity to see and identify unusual illusory effects in nature (Minnaert, 1954; Wood, 1968). These factors tend to enhance their reliability as witnesses This is not to say that pilots are not as subject to certain motion- induced (and other) visual illusions as observers on the ground but, rather, that pilots are more likely than not, to be good eye witnesses.

Read more here: http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/79ssfa.htm

PHYSICAL TRACES

Australian UFO Physical Trace Cases - A Review
Bill Chalker
Summary: The physical trace phenomenon is an enduring aspect of the UFO mystery, having manifested for the entire duration of the modern era of the UFO controversy. And like the UFO phenomenon itself, it is global in its extent. This range of events appears to substantiate the contention that UFOs possess a physical dimension.


Compiled and ©1998 by Bill Chalker

INTRODUCTION

The physical trace phenomenon is an enduring aspect of the UFO mystery, having manifested for the entire duration of the modern era of the UFO controversy. And like the UFO phenomenon itself, it is global in its extent.

This range of events appears to substantiate the contention that UFOs possess a physical dimension.

"Physical traces," particularly ground traces, can be defined by "those UFO cases in which definite physical changes in the immediate vicinity of a UFO sighting have been reported: marks and surface changes on the ground, damage to vegetation, residues..." (Phillips, 1975).

I have had a long term interest in UFO physical trace events. I have undertaken both Australian and international reviews of the UFO physical trace experience (Chalker, 1979 & 1987), and have investigated numerous physical trace events, in particular focusing on cases that appear to display clear correlations between UFO close encounters and physical traces, i.e. close encounters of the second kind (CE2) (Hynek, 1972)

On the basis of the physical trace evidence and the collective evidence contained within the whole spectrum of UFO evidence, I contend that a physical dimension to the UFO phenomenon has been substantiated. We now need to conclusively establish whether or not this physical evidence is consistent with a true "alien" reality. The well-supported study of UFO-related physical trace events could make a crucial contribution to the resolution of this challenge.

Read more here: http://www.project1947.com/bctrace1.htm

Conclusion:

Not only are there hundreds and thousands of cases of UFO's eye witness accounts. Not only are there eye witness account, and claims related to UFO's by high ranking, and high level people. There is also mountains of physical evidence, radar, radar-visual, physical traces, EM effects, pilot sightings, and pilots intercepting UFO's in mid-air. Near conclusive proof, UFO's exist, and they are not, or not originally from from this world.

This the 3rd proof of many. Next post, I will discuss famous cases, keep watching.

 

[SkinWalker]

Welcome. I hope you can provide more sensible arguments than the former. You seem to have a habit of jumping to conclusions, let's examine them:

Persol's arguments are all valid in my eyes. Moreover, they each made sense. Also, I jump to few conclusions in life without first examining the evidence or application of critical thinking. I'll comment on "jumping to conclusions" again near the end of this post.

They are not beliefs - they are witness accounts.

That's a very Baptist way of putting it.

Each witness has a claim, and evidence to support it,

Blatantly untrue. Each witness has a claim. None have yet to support these claims with any evidence that I've seen.

and has professed to testifying the same in front of congress. That was easy.

I don't easily fall for the Appeals to Authority fallacy. The simplest person of the most humble position in life could convince me of anything if they had the evidence to demonstrate it.

Let's look at an anaology. If 400 witnesses(key word)

Witness testimony is useless without physical evidence, of which there has been none to date. You asked Persol what they had to gain. I contend that they have the same thing to gain as the devotees to any other cult or religion: status among their peers; salvation; hope in the face of world rejection; answers to "life questions;" etc.

Their fanatical devotion has created the same belief structure found in the archaic stage of Religious Development as outlined by Bellah (1964). The UFO/ETI cult has priests, prophets, sacrifices (albeit those of personal wealth in the form of time, money, prestige, social-standing in the non-UFO/ETI realm), and the distinction between men and gods (the ETI). World-rejection and salvation are themes more present at the historic stage, according to Bellah, but are also seen as motifs in the UFO/ETI cult.

witness the crimes of subject A, and congregate to testify against subject A, does that mean they are a cult following? No, but it sure does mean, your logic is false.

If we were speaking of "crimes," perhaps. But we are speaking of a belief system, which is clearly outlined by irrationality and unfalsifiability of the core tenants of the UFO/ETI cult. In fact, your seventh or so post in this thread made this case for me. You wasted perhaps a hundred lines or so with a post that started, "the proof against ETI." You could have saved your time and used it elsewhere as there is no proof against ETI. ETI is unfalsifiable since it is impossible to visit each world in even our own galaxy to check under every rock for intelligent life.

But this is the basis of all religions and cults. Faith must be had in the deity (or deities) without physical proof. The evidence is in the "witnesses" who have spoken with the deity, who have "witnessed" the miracles, seen the "light," etc.

Again, you are mixing beliefs with claims. Nor are ETI - the supernatural

Perhaps not. But they are certainly metaphysical.

On the basis, that the government has too much to gain, by covering the ETI agenda.

Interestingly enough, conflict between the sacred (UFO/ETI) and the secular (government) is also religious in nature.

On the contrary, our 400 high ranking officials, who have served the nation of US, in the cold war, gulf wars, and are respected, have little to gain, and too much to lose.

Again, their rank is of little consequence. Appeals to authority doesn't work in this case. When people get their minds set in what they believe, very little can change them. Critical thinking is lost to blind faith in the metaphysical and supernatural. This is what's happening with the UFO/ETI cult movement. This is why "high ranking officials, who have served the nation of US, in the cold war, gulf wars, and are respected" consult oracles, diviners and astrologers, not to mention priests, ministers, chaplains, bishops, popes, etc.

I did not say it was created by an intelligence - you see, this is exactly why, skimming, is not the best method of reading. I said, that it warrants further investigation.

What you said was: "It may not be an alien civilization, it could be a lost technical civilization on our own planet. However, it more likely to be an alien civilzation, than a human civilzation. So many cultures around the world, have myths, of celestial beings, and witnessing wonderous technology. Sometimes one wonders, if it's actual history."

I think the implication is pretty clear. You believe that something metaphysical occurred in the creation of this feature. Despite the evidence to the contrary. This feature existed long before any people on the planet had technology even close to creating it. The natural geology of the region provides ready explanation. Past observation of the formation of other, smaller tombolos provide examples for testing the hypothesis.

Also, in your last two sentances above, you support my hypothesis (you were incorrect when you suggested that it was a theory, by the way) that the UFO/ETI movement is a religion.

As for the theory of transcurrent movements. It is a theory, not evidence, that this is actually what happened. Nor am I against this theory.

If you're not against it as a theory, I can respect your willingness to change your position in light of evidence. That demonstrates critical thinking ability. But the passage I quoted above clearly implies that you thought it was created by forces other than nature (metaphysical/supernatural). If that wasn't your intention, at least we cleared that up. As to the "transcurrent theory," it is a theory in the true sense of the word. A hypothesis was formed then tested along with alternative hypotheses. The original hypothesis withstood the test and the theory was formed. To read in detail, you'll have to obtain the journal article, but the testing involved making some geologic predicitons based on past tombolo formation and sediment deposition observed elswhere then finding the predicted features in the Palk Straits.

As I told you, Ramayana dating from 400 B.C.E is blatetly incorrect.

I'm not going to bother with quoting the remainder of that paragraph, because you clearly misunderstood what I said. I said, "the earliest archaeological evidence of Ramayana in this region dates to about 400 B.C.E. While epigraphical evidence is certainly not to be disregarded out of hand, it hardly provides the evidence that an in situ artifact can. If you know of any artifactual evidence that has been dated prior to 400 B.C.E. and is of the Ramayana in the region of the tombolo, particularly on the Sri Lanka side, point me to it. I'd be interested in reading what they found.

How do you obtain physical evidence for a stealth B-52?

Go to an airshow

How do you obtain physical evidence for the witness of a murder?

You cannot. The witness is only offering what he/she believed was observed or what he/she wants others to believe was observed. Which is why murder trials rely heavily on physical evidence (DNA, tire tracks, fingerprints, ballistics, etc., etc.)

Your demand is irrational, I hope you realise.

Your contention is irrational. My demand is quite rational: test hypotheses before jumping to conclusions.

I am not accusing the sceptics of being on government payroll, and nor have I said such a thing, anywhere.

Nor have I stated that you did. But, nevertheless, the comment was made by one of your fellow cultists in this very thread. (I skimmed, but I skimmed thouroghly ).


Bellah, Robert (1964). "Religious Evolution," American Sociological Review. Vol 29, pp. 358-374.

 

[SkinWalker]

I find that I actually laughed out loud in checking the author of one of your "abstracts."

One of the first things I do in bibliographical research on a topic is to see what else an author has published, so I noticed that there was an author with a PhD: Richard F. Haines. In looking at the usual places, academic databases like Ebsco Host, etc. I could only find a sociologist in London and it looked like the wrong Haines. So I tried google instead so I could figure out what discipline the PhD was in then go back to the right database....

The very first google link gives me the guy:http://4dreamland.com/host/hainsbio.html This link itself points to the good doctor's CD-ROM, which can be had for $54.95 if you act now.

I know, I know.... character assassination, right? But the guy's PhD is in "experimental psychology."

Nevertheless, the paper to which was linked is basically a compilation of data obtained through anecdotal account. His conclusions are basically that there is a high instance of unexplained arial phenomena as told by "witnesses."

Conclusion:

Not only are there hundreds and thousands of cases of UFO's eye witness accounts.

Which mean little when one considers that these are from "believers" of a cult movement.

Not only are there eye witness account, and claims related to UFO's by high ranking, and high level people.

Didn't you just say that?

There is also mountains of physical evidence, radar, radar-visual, physical traces, EM effects, pilot sightings, and pilots intercepting UFO's in mid-air.

Which of those is physical evidence?

Near conclusive proof, UFO's exist, and they are not, or not originally from from this world.

A belief, not a testable hypothesis.

This the 3rd proof of many. Next post, I will discuss famous cases, keep watching.

If the rest is at the "quality" of what you've given so far, why waste your time? You have yet to provide anything that could be considered proof of anything beyond the fact that a lot of people believe in the supernatural/metaphysical.

 

[crazymikey]

I like your style, of slicing sentences, and putting them stand alone, and sometimes out of context. Very professional

Persol's arguments are all valid in my eyes. Moreover, they each made sense. Also, I jump to few conclusions in life without first examining the evidence or application of critical thinking. I'll comment on "jumping to conclusions" again near the end of this post.

Well, what can I say, he's preaching to the converted.

That's a very Baptist way of putting it.

No, actually. It is the logical way of putting it:

"I believe in God" - a belief
"I have seen God" - a claim

Blatantly untrue. Each witness has a claim. None have yet to support these claims with any evidence that I've seen.

That hilarious, before, you were talking about, the witnesses, have beliefs Well, you have not really investigated their claim, and the evidence they are providing, have you. You've presumptiously come to the conclusion, that they are a cult, spouting nonsense. Very professional again.

I don't easily fall for the Appeals to Authority fallacy. The simplest person of the most humble position in life could convince me of anything if they had the evidence to demonstrate it.

They've come out and said it, in front of the media, that they will testify in front of congress. If they falter on this promise, you do realise, what's in store for them. Of course, you will not think about those implications, you are content with the unsubstantiated conclusion you've already made, "They're all fanatics"

Witness testimony is useless without physical evidence, of which there has been none to date. You asked Persol what they had to gain. I contend that they have the same thing to gain as the devotees to any other cult or religion: status among their peers; salvation; hope in the face of world rejection; answers to "life questions;" etc.

Witness testimony is useless, without physical evidence? Yet, much of our history is made up of witness testimony. Witness tesitmony, is also considered very significant in a court of law. I don't have to explain that, it's obvious, to anyone who is literate.

Their fanatical devotion has created the same belief structure found in the archaic stage of Religious Development as outlined by Bellah (1964). The UFO/ETI cult has priests, prophets, sacrifices (albeit those of personal wealth in the form of time, money, prestige, social-standing in the non-UFO/ETI realm), and the distinction between men and gods (the ETI). World-rejection and salvation are themes more present at the historic stage, according to Bellah, but are also seen as motifs in the UFO/ETI cult.

I find it amusing, how you can be so sure of them being a fanatical devotional group, when you have not even investigated their claims, who they are, their individual motives, what they gain, and lose, what evidence they are providing. Zilch. You have completed your journey, without even undertaking it. It's also called foolishness.

If we were speaking of "crimes," perhaps. But we are speaking of a belief system, which is clearly outlined by irrationality and unfalsifiability of the core tenants of the UFO/ETI cult. In fact, your seventh or so post in this thread made this case for me. You wasted perhaps a hundred lines or so with a post that started, "the proof against ETI." You could have saved your time and used it elsewhere as there is no proof against ETI. ETI is unfalsifiable since it is impossible to visit each world in even our own galaxy to check under every rock for intelligent life.

And you've just proved, what I said in my first post, the predisposition to branding anything to do with UFO's, the work of loons and immense irrationality. Fanatical cults exist in all walks of life, and all job description and all fields, that does not mean, the walk of life, the job description, or field, is irrational and false. You are clearly showing prejudice against people who deal with the UFO phenoema. Of I could, quite easily, give you your own medicine, and say, you are a anti-UFO fanatic, and should not be trusted. Like that do you.

But this is the basis of all religions and cults. Faith must be had in the deity (or deities) without physical proof. The evidence is in the "witnesses" who have spoken with the deity, who have "witnessed" the miracles, seen the "light," etc.

Again, how do you know it's a cult? Is it because you say so? Very encouraging

Perhaps not. But they are certainly metaphysical

How is that? Is an unborn child, metaphysical?

Interestingly enough, conflict between the sacred (UFO/ETI) and the secular (government) is also religious in nature.



Again, their rank is of little consequence. Appeals to authority doesn't work in this case. When people get their minds set in what they believe, very little can change them. Critical thinking is lost to blind faith in the metaphysical and supernatural. This is what's happening with the UFO/ETI cult movement. This is why "high ranking officials, who have served the nation of US, in the cold war, gulf wars, and are respected" consult oracles, diviners and astrologers, not to mention priests, ministers, chaplains, bishops, popes, etc.

You have very poor logical thinking my friend. Those are systems of belief, astrology, religion, and pervade all social systems. Meanwhile, the disclosure project is not offering beliefs, but claims, of 400 top ranking people. You want to reject that, as "400 fanatics" yet you are the one trully showing the fanatacism. A scientific and logical person, would test their claims.

What you said was: "It may not be an alien civilization, it could be a lost technical civilization on our own planet. However, it more likely to be an alien civilzation, than a human civilzation. So many cultures around the world, have myths, of celestial beings, and witnessing wonderous technology. Sometimes one wonders, if it's actual history."

I think the implication is pretty clear. You believe that something metaphysical occurred in the creation of this feature. Despite the evidence to the contrary. This feature existed long before any people on the planet had technology even close to creating it. The natural geology of the region provides ready explanation. Past observation of the formation of other, smaller tombolos provide examples for testing the hypothesis.

You have a very distorted understanding of the word "metaphysical" I am suggesting "something physical COULD have happend - ETI, is not a metaphysical phenomena. You are again jumping to conclusions, about my beliefs. I am saying it's a hypothesis - you know - an idea that can be tested, that does not mean I believe it. You really are not a good logical thinker, are you. Try to transcend your in-the-box thinking.

Also, in your last two sentances above, you support my hypothesis (you were incorrect when you suggested that it was a theory, by the way) that the UFO/ETI movement is a religion.

If you're not against it as a theory, I can respect your willingness to change your position in light of evidence. That demonstrates critical thinking ability. But the passage I quoted above clearly implies that you thought it was created by forces other than nature (metaphysical/supernatural). If that wasn't your intention, at least we cleared that up. As to the "transcurrent theory," it is a theory in the true sense of the word. A hypothesis was formed then tested along with alternative hypotheses. The original hypothesis withstood the test and the theory was formed. To read in detail, you'll have to obtain the journal article, but the testing involved making some geologic predicitons based on past tombolo formation and sediment deposition observed elswhere then finding the predicted features in the Palk Straits.

So, you want me to accept the theory, as that sounds? Much like how we once accepted the theory of the big bang, and what wiped out the dinasours, and are now uncovering new evidence to suggest neither is true. I am sorry, but I do not jump to conclusions, like yourself.

epigraphical evidence is certainly not to be disregarded out If you know of any artifactual evidence that has been dated prior to 400 B.C.E. and is of the Ramayana in the region of the tombolo, particularly on the Sri Lanka side, point me to it. I'd be interested in reading what they found.

They have recovered the city of Dwarika, which is more than 9000 years old, and is spoken about in the Mahabharat. Thus, that means Ramayana is much before that. If you click on the link, I provided for the bridge, you will find the evidence.

Go to an airshow

Thank you for proving my point. Without seeing one, how do we prove it's existence - yet that does not mean it does not exist.

You cannot. The witness is only offering what he/she believed was observed or what he/she wants others to believe was observed.

Thank you again. So if a witness, did see something, then it cannot be proved physically. Yet their testimony is still heard, and has a bearing on the case.

Your contention is irrational. My demand is quite rational: test hypotheses before jumping to conclusions.

"No you are" kindergarten argument. Your demand is rational? yet you've just conceded physical evidence cannot be produced for witness testimony. Tripped over, I see.

Nor have I stated that you did. But, nevertheless, the comment was made by one of your fellow cultists in this very thread. (I skimmed, but I skimmed

How do you know he's a cultist. Seems like anyone, who has anything to do with UFO's, is a cultist. Very small mind, my friend. I think you just lost your credibility.

 

[Persol]

No, actually. It is the logical way of putting it:

"I believe in God" - a belief
"I have seen God" - a claim
A claim CAUSED by the belief. You can replace 'God' with UFOs, ET, bigfoot, Elvis, whatever.

Well, you have not really investigated their claim, and the evidence they are providing, have you.
Well see... that's the funny part. You haven't presented any evidence, only claims. How exactly are we supposed to investigate these?

 

[crazymikey]

I find that I actually laughed out loud in checking the author of one of your "abstracts."

One of the first things I do in bibliographical research on a topic is to see what else an author has published, so I noticed that there was an author with a PhD: Richard F. Haines. In looking at the usual places, academic databases like Ebsco Host, etc. I could only find a sociologist in London and it looked like the wrong Haines. So I tried google instead so I could figure out what discipline the PhD was in then go back to the right database....

The very first google link gives me the guy:http://4dreamland.com/host/hainsbio.html This link itself points to the good doctor's CD-ROM, which can be had for $54.95 if you act now.

I know, I know.... character assassination, right? But the guy's PhD is in "experimental psychology."

Nevertheless, the paper to which was linked is basically a compilation of data obtained through anecdotal account. His conclusions are basically that there is a high instance of unexplained arial phenomena as told by "witnesses."



Which mean little when one considers that these are from "believers" of a cult movement.



Didn't you just say that?



Which of those is physical evidence?



A belief, not a testable hypothesis.



If the rest is at the "quality" of what you've given so far, why waste your time? You have yet to provide anything that could be considered proof of anything beyond the fact that a lot of people believe in the supernatural/metaphysical.

ROFLMAO

You are so fanatically opposed to UFO's, it's funny! I mean come on, even for you, that was pathetic. So basically, any written or spoken evidence, is either the beliefs of a fanatic or the fabrication of a fanatic? They're all lying fanatics LOL You're being ridiculous

Anyway, seeing as no evidence is going to convince you, other than a handshake with an alien perhaps, LOL, I guess you just have to wait for the day when the are made public, and feel stupid about it.

 

[Persol]

How do you know he's a cultist. Seems like anyone, who has anything to do with UFO's, is a cultist. Very small mind, my friend. I think you just lost your credibility.
Possibly because of his statement about me working for the government?

If someone walks up and says "Tommorrow is the end of the world. Here, drink this posion. It will save your soul"... do you consider them a cultist?

So basically, any written or spoken evidence, is either the beliefs of a fanatic or the fabrication of a fanatic?
Before you knock his explaination, explain why you do not take written and spoken evidence of demon abductions/possesion, bigfoot, God, the Greek/Roman gods, the Jersey Devil, and Elvis being alive as good evidence?

 

[SkinWalker]

I like your style, of slicing sentences, and putting them stand alone, and sometimes out of context. Very professional

Thanks. It just seems to be the most efficient way to address individual points. But if I've taken something out of context, please point it out.

Quote:
That's a very Baptist way of putting it.

No, actually. It is the logical way of putting it:

No, sir, it was more Baptist: far from logical in the sense that testimony is given with the express purpose of trying to convince the non-believers of the "truth of the gospel" regarding UFO/ETI. All the while, reinforcing beliefs and faiths within the group.

Well, you have not really investigated their claim, and the evidence they are providing, have you. You've presumptiously come to the conclusion, that they are a cult, spouting nonsense. Very professional again.

Why should the burden of investigation be upon me? You are presenting a hypothesis, ostensibly, for critique and discussion (as this is a forum to discuss pseudoscience, a.k.a. fake science). IF the investigative work relies on anyone, it is you. Not that I'm saying you haven't provided your best arguments. I'm just saying that as part of your hypothesis' audience, I should have the luxury of reading the points you feel support your hypothesis, while offering critique. I shouldn't need to consume more than cursory research time (perhaps giving a look at cited sources) in order to construct an opinion as to the validity of your hypothesis.

Of course, you will not think about those implications, you are content with the unsubstantiated conclusion you've already made, "They're all fanatics"

While I did use a root of the word fanatic in this thread, I'm sure I didn't say "they're all fanatics." What I am saying is that people have always held fantastic beliefs of the supernatural and metaphysical throughout history ?and en masse. Whole populations once believed that gods like Hera and Zeuss ruled the cosmos and many claimed to see mythical beings such as centaurs and minotaurs in support of these beliefs. Large numbers of people they're witnesses to miracles ranging from faith healings to appearances of the virgin mother and various patron saints. People even share the belief that they've witnessed chupacabras in the southwest and Mexico.

You wanted an explanation for why so many people might be willing to offer testimony about UFOs ?400 "high ranking" people you said. I offered the reasons above as why people have in the past and contend that the myths of antiquity were related to the largely unknown universe of our planet (the centaurs and minotaurs). But now we can explain the mundane (what causes the seasonal changes, for instance) and we no longer blame extraordinary meteorological phenomena on the anger or pleasure of gods. The planet is largely conquered and there are few unknowns compared to that which existed for pre-historic and archaic periods of human history. Our new mythologies stem from the last of the unknowns: space. UFO/ETI is but a manifestation of this and humans, accustomed to the ritual and hierarchy of religion, turn to cult activity to worship the ETI. The UFO/ETI cult movement has all the earmarks of archaic and historic stage religions as described by Robert Bellah (see the citation in my previous post).

Yet, much of our history is made up of witness testimony. Witness tesitmony, is also considered very significant in a court of law. I don't have to explain that, it's obvious, to anyone who is literate.

Significant perhaps, but witness testimony is rarely the sole evidence that convicts. Rather it is used to corroberate and provide context to physical evidence. In fact, a recent study commissioned by the California District Attorney's Association indicates that eyewitness testimony is generally too prejudiced to be allowed in the court. However, the "value of eyewitness testimony" is a common fallacy among UFO/ETI believers. Now, my literary proficiency notwithstanding, it is quite obvious that if physical evidences were not necessary in a criminal case, prosecutors would obtain convictions on the testimony of eyewitnesses alone and "expert witnesses" who testify as to the validity of physical evidence would be unneeded.

I find it amusing, how you can be so sure of them being a fanatical devotional group, when you have not even investigated their claims, who they are, their individual motives, what they gain, and lose, what evidence they are providing. Zilch. You have completed your journey, without even undertaking it. It's also called foolishness.

They are clearly fanatical in their devotion. It was an observation based upon their behavior. Perhaps not an empirical observation, but I certainly have no desire to track down this so-called "400 highly-ranked" individuals and test their claims. If their claims are significant (or even testable), the evidence can be presented by them. I don't think that they have "individual" motives so much as they have "collective" motives, however.

And you've just proved, what I said in my first post, the predisposition to branding anything to do with UFO's, the work of loons and immense irrationality.

I will not disagree that there is a "predisposition" opposed to the UFO/ETI hypothesis, but I think that it is probably deserved. I, for one, would love to discover that an alien intelligence is (or has been) visiting our civilization. But until such time as hard, incontrovertible evidence is presented, the probability remains very, very low.

Fanatical cults exist in all walks of life, and [in] all job description and [in] all fields, that does not mean, the walk of life, the job description, or field, is irrational and false.

I agree. The Jehovah's Witness member that checks me out in the cashier line of Wal-mart is doing rational and true work. She just happens to be part of a cult. The same is true for the born-again Christian flipping my burger or the Wiccan girl that pours my Kenya AA at Starbucks. I respect the work of each of these individuals and, moreover, I like them in spite of their fanatical beliefs.

You are clearly showing prejudice against people who deal with the UFO phenoema.

I'm only prejudiced in regard to the phenomenon and the beliefs that surround it. It demonstrates a clear lack of critical thinking and a willingness to accept the pseudoscientific.

Of I could, quite easily, give you your own medicine, and say, you are a anti-UFO fanatic, and should not be trusted. Like that do you.

Wouldn't a more apt descriptor be "heretic?"

Quote:
But this is the basis of all religions and cults. Faith must be had in the deity (or deities) without physical proof. The evidence is in the "witnesses" who have spoken with the deity, who have "witnessed" the miracles, seen the "light," etc.

Again, how do you know it's a cult? Is it because you say so? Very encouraging

I realize that the idea of referring to another's beliefs as cultic or even as "beliefs" rather than "fact" is unacceptable. In fact, my Christian and Muslim friends consider it heresy. Their "beliefs" are the dogma and, therefore, the accepted "facts" of their culture.

I "know" that the UFO/ETI movement is cultish and religious-like because of the religious tenets outlined by people like Durkheim, Campbell, Levi-Strauss, Mayfield-Lewis, Bellah and Van Gennep to name a few. Actually, I don't profess to "know," I merely have a hypothesis. I could be wrong.

Quote:
Perhaps not. But they are certainly metaphysical

How is that? Is an unborn child, metaphysical?

I'm not sure how to infer that, but I'm assuming that you are implying that the unborn child is unseen and therefore taken on faith that it exists. If so, that is empirically untrue. But, as I said, I?m not sure how to take this statement

You have very poor logical thinking my friend. Those are systems of belief, astrology, religion, and pervade all social systems. Meanwhile, the disclosure project is not offering beliefs, but claims, of 400 top ranking people.

But my contention is that these claims amount to eyewitness testimony, which is based on the beliefs of the witnesses as well as the prejudices that they already had regarding UFO/ETI.

You want to reject that, as "400 fanatics" yet you are the one trully showing the fanatacism. A scientific and logical person, would test their claims.

"Testing their claims" is not an option. Their claims are not falsifiable. That is the whole point. How many would say, "I know what I saw and you can't tell me it was of this earth?" Of course we can't. We didn't see it, nor can we recreate the observation to test for measurement or analysis. The best that we can do is set up equipment and wait for the event to occur again. But in every properly documented instance in which this was done, no conclusive results could be obtained.

You have a very distorted understanding of the word "metaphysical" I am suggesting "something physical COULD have happend - ETI, is not a metaphysical phenomena.

Metaphysical - without material form or substance; "metaphysical forces"

This very aptly applies to UFO/ETI. If not, show me a physical artifact.

You are again jumping to conclusions, about my beliefs. I am saying it's a hypothesis - you know - an idea that can be tested, that does not mean I believe it. You really are not a good logical thinker, are you. Try to transcend your in-the-box thinking.

There is no box. If I've inferred your beliefs incorrectly, please accept my apologies. I'm only going by what you've written in this thread, which indicates you support the hypothesis that there is an ETI explanation for UFO. You go to lengths to appeal to authority and make use of science-like explanation, but in the end, the hypothesis is non-falsifiable, and therefore cannot be tested as it relies on the so-called "400 high-ranking" witnesses of the Disclosure Project. These witnesses offer no physical evidence that can be tested.

One of my main contentions with the UFO/ETI movement has always been that they rely too much on this sort of thing and have too many "extreme members," which are tolerated at functions, meetings, as spokespersons, etc. Instead, reliance should be on solid scientific method and the status-seeking, self-serving members should be minimized or kept in check. Search in this forum for posts by Orrman (Oreman?), UFOTheatre and Craterchains to see what type I'm talking about.

So, you want me to accept the theory, as that [the tombolo in the Palk Straits] sounds? Much like how we once accepted the theory of the big bang, and what wiped out the dinasours, and are now uncovering new evidence to suggest neither is true. I am sorry, but I do not jump to conclusions, like yourself.

The tombolo theory of the Palk Straits is based upon sound, scientific method. As is the Big Bang theory and the Asteroid theory of the dinosaur extinctions. I'm not very well-versed in astronomy, so I can't comment on the Big Bang, but I see no reason to discount it. As to the Cretaceous Asteroid, this is still the most viable and logical explanation for the mass extinction of dinosaurs. The evidence you refer to (if it is the recent discovery of thicker strata within the Kt asteroid crater) is spurious and has been refuted.

They have recovered the city of Dwarika, which is more than 9000 years old, and is spoken about in the Mahabharat. Thus, that means Ramayana is much before that. If you click on the link, I provided for the bridge, you will find the evidence.

First, the underwater city that was discovered has not been confirmed to be Dwaraka, though there are some big debates occurring in the Indian Archaeological community. Second, even if it was, absolute dating (via thermoluminescence of pottery) has only suggested a date of about 1500 B.C.E. Relative dating (very relative, considering the tectonic activity of the region) has suggested a max of 5000 years before present, or about 2950 B.C.E.

Third, epigraphical account in a text that may very well be the fiction of Sage Ved Vyas rather than an actual account is certainly to be taken with a grain of salt. I won't deny that even if fiction, texts like the Mahabharat can offer some valuable insights into the cultures of antiquity. Homer's Odyssey and the Iliad both offer cultural details that have helped explain many archaeological finds, perhaps even Troy itself (though even that ancient city's identification is open to debate). But one also must realize that many of the early written texts originated in oral stories that were passed down from generation to generation and even from culture to culture. Embellishments occur with frequency proportional to the number of "pass-downs" that occurred.

Fourth, I was very clear in my wording in the other post. In the region of the Tombolo, particularly on the Sri Lanka side, artifactual evidence doesn't show Ramayana as a story that exists prior to about 400 B.C.E. It was around that time that Valmiki writes Sanskrit Ramayana with Rama as an "ideal human hero, embodiment of chivalry, loyalty, patience and justice." Rama was supposed to have been born 5k to 800k years ago, but again, here we have a likely example of mythology and oral tradition lending itself to the written account.

Thank you again. So if a witness, did see something, then it cannot be proved physically. Yet their testimony is still heard, and has a bearing on the case.

I touched on that already above, but I don't think I ever suggested that a witness' account could not be proved or verified with physical evidence. In fact, I said quite the opposite. Witness testimony alone, however, is circumspect, likely prejudiced by bias and untestable. Therefore, it should be discounted, disregarded, and rejected unless or until physical evidence is produced to validate, corroborate or confirm.

Quote:
Your contention is irrational. My demand is quite rational: test hypotheses before jumping to conclusions.

"No you are" kindergarten argument. Your demand is rational? yet you've just conceded physical evidence cannot be produced for witness testimony. Tripped over, I see.

In spite of your weak attempt at insult, I stand by my statement above. And I made no concession regarding physical evidence being produced for witness testimony. I'm saying that witness testimony is only useful if to confirm or provide context to physical evidence. Alone, it's useless.

How do you know he's a cultist. Seems like anyone, who has anything to do with UFO's, is a cultist. Very small mind, my friend. I think you just lost your credibility.

Ad hominem remarks notwithstanding, I believe my credibility would be suspect to anyone who's belief system my opinions and hypotheses threatened. I use the word "cultist" to differentiate between a mere believer and a person willing to go so far as to engage in irrational beliefs based on supernatural/metaphysical explanations then apply a religion-like hierarchy and structure (Greer, Freidman, Hyneck, Hoagland, et al, being the priests, while the less noticeable are the laity). Rituals and ceremonies exist, though not as clearly defined as that of a religion like Catholicism, but undergoing so-called regression hypnosis, attending MUFON conferences, pilgrimages to Marfa, etc. There is even a doctrine, a dogma and scripture in the form of rhetoric, core beliefs (conspiracies, Roswell, etc.), and documents like Majestic 12 etc.

And now, thanks to you, I'm the anti-christ of the UFO/ETI religion!

Anyway, seeing as no evidence is going to convince you, other than a handshake with an alien perhaps,

As long as I can get a DNA sample in the process?.

I guess you just have to wait for the day when the[y] are made public, and feel stupid about it.

Sounds like Revelations and the Second Coming to me? Judgement Day!

Ebbesen, Ebbe B. and Konecni, Vladimir J. (1997). Eyewitness Memory Research: Probative v. Prejudicial Value Expert evidence: The international digest of human behaviour, science, and the law. Vol. 5, pp 2-28

 

[crazymikey]

SKEPTICAL ARGUMENTS ARE ILLOGICAL:

With all this nonsense being spouted here by the so called Skeptics, it has prompted me, to deal with this nonsense head on:

I have identified the "Skeptical" problem. It's called Pessimism. They are too absorbed with the negativity, as one can see, when they draw parallels to previous cases of fanaticism and unsubstantiated beliefs to substantiate their denial.

There are 3 main(perhaps more) logical fallacies with your arguments:

1: Comparing Apples to oranges
2: Incorrect application of the philosophy "extraordinary proof requires extraordinary evidence"
3: Incorrect application of Occam's Razor

1:You see, while comparative analysis, is a good tool, for understanding a particular case, it does require the qualities to be equal, have a common denominator, and be relatable - I am sure this phrase is familiar - "Apples to oranges" this phrase embodies the antithesis of comparative analysis, when one compares qualities that are unequal.

This is exactly what Skeptics are doing, without little shame:

"What about Elvis? What about Big foot? What about Zeus, Gods etc"

On this basis, they are apprehensive of yet another "extraordinary" claim, this time, ETI and UFO's, in fact, they're farily convinced this is yet another unexplained fad, with an "ordinary" scientific explanation.

Here is, what they don't realize, and it is very obvious too, and this is where this phrase originates from:

Each case, is different; each case has a different origin, and explanation, motivations, actions, and it is unfair to generalize, and clump them into one category. It is only fair to treat each case on a case by case basis.

This is what happens, if we compare apples to oranges:

I am going to use some common examples:

A Muslimt terrorist group commits an atrocity:
Apples to oranges -
1- Muslims are evil

A boy fails his exam
Apples to oranges: He will never pass

A scientist's theory is proven wrong "Earth is flat"
Apples to oranges: Science is always wrong

This is clearly false, as we know, irrespective of which, I am going to point out anyway:

1:A Muslimt terrorist group commits an atrocity:
Apples to oranges -

A- Muslims are evil
B - Not all muslims are evil

2: A boy fails his exam

A- He will never pass
B - He might pass next time

3: A scientist's theory is proven wrong "Earth is flat"

A - Science is always wrong
B - Not all scientific theories are wrong

You see, the apples to oranges approach, is undeterministic, it generalizes and it results in fallacy ultimately.

2: The, philosophy, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, is a valid demand. If something extraordinary occurs, that is beyond our physical laws, thus the ordinary, then extraordinary evidence is required. This does not imply, the extraordinary does not occur, however once we can explain it, it is no longer extraordinary - it's ordinary.

For instance: If I were to tell someone a few centuries ago, that in the future, there will be weapons, that only destroy people, and leave the infrastructure in place, or there will be machines that could look inside our bodies; it would be an extraordinary claim to make, but as we know today, it is ordinary phenomena.

Using this logic, we could say, ghosts, demons, time travel etc, are ordinary phenomena, that we are yet to understand. Perhaps - and leaving a window open for this "perhaps" is healthy for the growth of ones intellectual faculties, but at the same time, perhaps ghosts, demons and time travel will never be possible. If we base on our current scientific understanding, or even extrapolate from it, we cannot support the claims of ghosts, demons and time-travel. Thus we cannot consider these hypothesis legitimate.

Now lets consider the UFO and ETI phenomena, that has been wrongly clumped into the metaphysical or paranormal category.

Skinwalker, called it a metaphysical phenomena. His reasoning, you better ask him yourself.

I asked him a logical question in a rebuke to him - "Is an unborn child metaphysical" - for if an unborn child is metaphysical, then metaphysical phenomena is taking place every sec all over this world, which thus is real and physical, and thereby, cannot be metaphysical.

Most of us, including skeptics, accept, the incredibly high probability for the existence of ETI - which I will extend, to mathmatical certainity for ETI. Thus in this vast expanse of this universe, there are zillions of instances of ETI, and as I have already proven in my 2nd proof that falsifies the "LOW PROBABILITY FOR LIFE" argument - our current understanding of science, allows this, not just that, but the existence of parallel universes - supported by String theory and M theory.

Thus there existence is like an unborn child in a branch of cosmic evolution. As we've already estalibhsed - An unborn child is not a metaphysical or extraordinary phenomena. Therefore, how can ETI be called an extraordinary or metaphysical phenomenon?

If ETI is not extraordinary, thus the demand for extraordinary evidence is unjust. If the universe is teeming with ETI, then them visiting us, is most definitely not extraordinary phenomenon, and most certainly not metaphysical. Unless of course, our trips to the moon, and our planned trips to Mars, is metaphysical. No? Thus my point is made.

Thus, this irrational demand for every form of evidence, is fallacious. Understably one needs evidence to prove a claim, and there is mountains of it for ETI, but skeptics reject it outright, not because it's not substantial, because they don't like the evidence, and instead exercise the fallacy, ad hominem, against the subject providing the evidence. As we have frequently seen:

Character assasination attempts; outright denial of source; malicious labelling, and as we can see, there emphasis is not on the evidence, but on the entity providing the evidence. This is Philip Klass's, major Skeptic moron's expertise.

3: Occam's razor is not favoured among philosophers. However, this is the most used and abused tool of the skeptics. They claim to know they understand it, and how to use it, but as we'll now see, they don't have the slight clue.

Occams Razor simply says this: Do not multiply quantities unnecessarily.

This is how Skeptics use it:

A UFO has been spotted by a witness, the witness once stole sweets when he was 12 - thus he cannot be trusted.

A UFO has been spotted on radar. The radar has a 99.9% chance of failing, therefore it must have failed to work correctly for every case it recorded.

A man has been abducted by aliens and subjected to probing - the man must have been a closet homosexual, and the abduction experience was a fantasy he imagined.

This satirical mocking(and I kid you not, these are actual arguments Skeptics use) of the Sceptic application of Occam's razor is to illustrate this - Skeptics, adopt the simplest musing and consider it proven and explained.

This is not what Occam's Razor says at all. It says, do not multiply quantities unnecessarily:

Here is a valid use of Occam's Razor:

1: God exists
2: God is beyond logic and comprehension

Therefore

3: God cannot be disproved

Here many quantities are being multiplied unnecessarily: The assertion 1: That god exists: 2: The assertion that God is beyond logic and comprehension. Thus this argument can be discarded with Occam's Razor. Simply, because the 1 and 2 are unsubstantiated.

Now in the case of a person witnessing a UFO:

The argument of it being ETI has substance, as the existence of ETI is logical and scientific. Thus, without falsifying this hypothesis, one cannot proceed to the next less complex hypothesis.

This does not deter sceptics however, who immediately seek the least complex explanation, and if they have no success, they seek the next most complex, what could be called the bottom-up approach - and almost always they will have a conventional explanation, and they adopt it as the defacto explanation, without substantiating it. This is a gross violation of Occam's razor; some popular examples:

Philip Klass tried to pass of all UFO sightings as some exotic plasma phenomena, and considered it explained beyond a reason of doubt. Only to be received coldy by actual plasma scientists.

Dr. Donald Menzel who tried to pass of all Radar UFO sightings as temperature inversion or atmospheric effects and considered it apt, yet could not explain any specific case when invited by the Air force.

In fact, what you will find very amusing, that even the most fanatical of skeptical organization, like CSOPI, that proclaim 95% of UFO cases can be explained, and 5% can't, say that in time, even the 5% could be explained.

All they have done is, ruled out the hypothesis of ETI completely, and have adopted the simplest explanation to explain all UFO phenomena, and one of those explanations is not even an explanation, but a faith in finding an explanation(lol)

Thus this is the 3rd fallacy of the skeptical argument, which is more accurately, a refusal to accept ETI as a viable hypothesis, because they say it is unscientific, when it's not the hypothesis that is unscientific, it's them, who are unscientific.

Thus let's conclude this. What we are witnessing here -

"What about Big foot, Elvis"
"All UFO's can be explained, and the others will be later"
"They're all fanatic or irrational"
"UFO phenomena is just another cult/movement"
"There is no evidence"
"Testimony is not evidence"
"Why have I have not seen one"

- Is NOT skeptical reasoning, but skeptical stupidity. None of these arguments are scientific and logical, in fact they violate every principle of the methodologies logic and science, and irony of it is, they call it science and reason.

So, I recommend that you be skepitical of UFO and Aliens, and what not, you should be, but don't be stupid, like these skeptics, who are not really skeptics, just self-legitimized idiots. An oxymoron.

With this proof against UFO skepticism I have dealt and debunked, and debunked successfully, every point that has been made against the evidence I have provided.

We can now see, the very weak-minded case, and in a way their case is stupidity being legalized, and as the evidence for UFO's is extremely compelling and irrefutable, and the skeptics have failed to refute this evidence and deal with it head on, and as
all counter-arguments till now have been fallacious. They can safely be discarded with Occam's razor. Not that bad a tool, after all

I have thus made an extremely convincing case for ETI, and I have worked hard to locate, compile and and present it. Nonetheless, I will, still provide much more evidence. However, I am not going to engage in useless banter over stupid, fallacious points, as they honestly do not deserve discussion.

 

[SkinWalker]

[Logic is] ILLOGICAL:

With all this nonsense being spouted here by the so called Skeptics, it has prompted me, to deal with this nonsense head on:

And yet, all you did was dance around after all.

Now lets consider the UFO and ETI phenomena, that has been wrongly clumped into the metaphysical or paranormal category.

Not at all. There is no physical or "normal" evidence to support UFO/ETI and much evidence to support a cult movement. Therefore, UFO/ETI can safely be regarded as metaphysical and paranormal when discussed as a factual set of occurrances. Discussed as a possible set of occurrances, however, it can be considered science.

Skinwalker, called it a metaphysical phenomena. His reasoning, you better ask him yourself.

I've explained it. Why should anyone wish to ask? Perhaps I was wrong to make a link out of the word "metaphysical." (pssst...Hey mikey... that little blue underlined effect links to another site) Metaphysical - without material form or substance; highly abstract and over-theoretical; About or beyond the physical Do you have a fingerprint, DNA sample, in-flight magazine, etc. of a UFO/ETI?

I asked him a logical question in a rebuke to him - "Is an unborn child metaphysical" - for if an unborn child is metaphysical, then metaphysical phenomena is taking place every sec all over this world, which thus is real and physical, and thereby, cannot be metaphysical.

Okay... now that I understand that you have no concept of "metaphysical" I understand why the question seemed ignorant. It was. The answer is, of course, no. An unborn child is not metaphysical. It can quite easily be measured as a physical entity.

there are zillions of instances of ETI,

How many zeros follow a "zillion?"

Thus there existence is like an unborn child in a branch of cosmic evolution. As we've already estalibhsed - An unborn child is not a metaphysical or extraordinary phenomena. Therefore, how can ETI be called an extraordinary or metaphysical phenomenon?

Because it cannot be measured or examined as a physical entity. It apparently exists as a concept in the minds of the ignorant (of scientific method, mainly).

If ETI is not extraordinary, thus the demand for extraordinary evidence is unjust. If the universe is teeming with ETI, then them visiting us, is most definitely not extraordinary phenomenon, and most certainly not metaphysical. Unless of course, our trips to the moon, and our planned trips to Mars, is metaphysical. No? Thus my point is made.

Very illogical reasoning indeed. The distance to our moon pales in significance to the distance to the nearest star, which, mathematically, isn't likely to harbor ETI. Energy is the primary obstacle to ETI visitation of our planet, not the probability that the exist elsewhere in the universe, which is admittedly very high. THAT is the main fallacy of the UFO/ETI cultist.

...there is mountains of it for ETI, but skeptics reject it outright, not because it's not substantial, because they don't like the evidence, and instead exercise the fallacy, ad hominem, against the subject providing the evidence. As we have frequently seen:

First, one cannot 'exercise the fallacy, ad hominem against' an idea. Ad hominem is Latin for "to the man," not "the idea/concept/argument." This, in itself, is the fallacy of the UFO/ETI proponent: attacking the subject is equal to attacking the individual since the belief system is personally ingrained. Ironically, you support my hypothesis that UFO/ETI is a cult movement, since this is the same effect that religious zealots like christians experience when the dogma of the religion is attacked.

Second, there isn't "mountains of evidence." There is only the so-called "witness testimony" to go on along with occasional spurious and inconclusive graphic imagery. Hardly to be considered as "evidence," and this is another fallacy of the UFO/ETI cult movement: mountains of anecdote equals mountains of evidence. In spite of the fact that mountains of anecdote exist for many fanstastic and very unlikely concepts.

Character assasination attempts; outright denial of source; malicious labelling, and as we can see, there emphasis is not on the evidence, but on the entity providing the evidence. This is Philip Klass's, major Skeptic moron's expertise.

Another fallacy of the UFO/ETI cult movement: criticism of UFO/ETI is character assasination/ad hominem; but character assasination/ad hominem of skeptics is criticism. I don't recall referring to any UFO/ETI cultists as "morons."

A man has been abducted by aliens and subjected to probing - the man must have been a closet homosexual, and the abduction experience was a fantasy he imagined.

Actually, Newman & Baumeister (1996) suggested that many abduction claims were the result of a difficulty accepting that they lack control in their day-to-day lives and even go so far as to create fantasies of "alien abduction," much in the same fashion that people of similar problems create S&M fantasies where they submit to a dominant sexual partner.

Thus this is the 3rd fallacy of the skeptical argument, which is more accurately, a refusal to accept ETI as a viable hypothesis, because they say it is unscientific, when it's not the hypothesis that is unscientific, it's them, who are unscientific.

But the ETI hypothesis is not invalid, it's just not falsifiable and therefore discarded until such time as solid evidence or method of testing is available. Why dwell on the metaphysical? Unless it's your religious belief.

"What about Big foot, Elvis"
"All UFO's can be explained, and the others [may] be later"
[Many are] fanatic or irrational"
"UFO phenomena is [probably] just another cult/movement"
"There is no evidence"
"Testimony is not [sufficient or measurably valid] evidence [by itself]"
"[last argument disregarded - illogical]"

- Is NOT skeptical reasoning, but skeptical stupidity. None of these arguments are scientific and logical,

They are with my modifications.

So, I recommend that you be skepitical of UFO and Aliens, and what not, you should be, but don't be stupid, like these skeptics, who are not really skeptics, just self-legitimized idiots. An oxymoron.

To counter this nonsensical argument, I suggest that you (assuming that there are lurkers who have not formulated solid, unwavering biases to either side on this topic) invoke good critical thinking skills and compare the fanaticism of the UFO/ETI to religious belief systems and decide, based on actual evidence what you choose to think is possible and probable rather than spurious fact.

Also consider that the pseudoscience proponent, whether he/she be religious and cultish in belief or not, will always invoke "science-like" explanations to support the wild claims that are made. This is called "spurious evidence" and fallacy: Throw the terminology of science, scientific method, and logical positivism back at the critical thinkers; accuse them of being skeptics and debunkers as if these are evil occupations rather than healthy habits for all intellectuals; and above all, never give in to the criticism and revise a hypothesis as do real scientists. These are the traits of the pseudoscientist.

With this proof against UFO skepticism I have dealt and debunked, and debunked successfully, every point that has been made against the evidence I have provided.

You have proved pitifully little beyond supporting my UFO/ETI cult movement hypothesis and provide nothing in the way of evidence beyond wild claims.

... the evidence for UFO's is extremely compelling and irrefutable, and the skeptics have failed to refute this evidence and deal with it head on,

I have yet to see any evidence. Perhaps you can summarize what you think was evidence in the posts you'v made, as the points you intiated have been successfully refuted, mostly as not actually being evidence at all.

I have thus made an extremely convincing case for ETI,

Perhaps if one is already a "believer."

and I have worked hard to locate, compile and and present it.

And preached only to your church's choir.

Nonetheless, I will, still provide much more evidence.

I'd like to see you start providing evidence. Which brings me to the last UFO/ETI fallacy for the night: the belief that anyone who is critical of UFO/ETI beliefs is automatically opposed to having aliens visit our planet. On the contrary, every person I've ever known that was skeptical of UFOs and alien abductions, etc. has always maintained that they would love to have extraterrestrials visit our little world.

Newman, L., Baumeister, R., 1996. Toward an explanation of the UFO phenomenon: hypnotic elaboration, extraterrestrial sadomasochism, and spurious memories. Psychological Inquiry, Vol 7, No. 2, 99-126.

 

[crazymikey]

Still at it eh - ok nice and brief:

Not at all. There is no physical or "normal" evidence to support UFO/ETI and much evidence to support a cult movement. Therefore, UFO/ETI can safely be regarded as metaphysical and paranormal when discussed as a factual set of occurrances. Discussed as a possible set of occurrances, however, it can be considered science.

See sceptical analysis
See Physical evidence for the existence of UFO's

much evidence to support a cult movement.

Show; don't tell

Do you have a fingerprint, DNA sample, in-flight magazine, etc. of a UFO/ETI?

Fallacy 2: Demand for irrational evidence.

Note: You've already conceded it is impossible to obtain physical evidence for: Eye witness testimony, and for stealth B52. Learn from your mistakes.

It was. The answer is, of course, no. An unborn child is not metaphysical.

Yes, a unborn child, is not metaphysical. Thank you.

How many zeros follow a "zillion?"

See dictionery.

Because it cannot be measured or examined as a physical entity. It apparently exists as a concept in the minds of the ignorant (of scientific method, mainly).

See Physical evidence for the existence of ETI UFO's
See Low probability of life

Note :The physical universe - not the physical world. Empirical evidence, is not the only form of evidence, nor is science the only form of method. All methods have their limitations.

First, one cannot 'exercise the fallacy, ad hominem against' an idea. Ad hominem is Latin for "to the man," not "the idea/concept/argument." This, in itself, is the fallacy of the UFO/ETI proponent: attacking the subject is equal to attacking the individual since the belief system is personally ingrained.

Fallacy 2: Ad hominem (Duh, I know what it means)

Hardly to be considered as "evidence," and this is another fallacy of the UFO/ETI cult movement: mountains of anecdote equals mountains of evidence.

Fallacy 2: Denial of evidence

In spite of the fact that mountains of anecdote exist for many fanstastic and very unlikely concepts.

Fallacy 1: Comparing Apples to Oranges.

Actually, Newman & Baumeister (1996) suggested that many abduction claims were the result of a difficulty accepting that they lack control in their day-to-day lives and even go so far as to create fantasies of "alien abduction," much in the same fashion that people of similar problems create S&M fantasies where they submit to a dominant sexual partner.

Fallacy 1: Comparing Apples to oranges
Fallacy 2: Denial of evidence.
Fallacy 3: Unsubstantiated hypothesis

They are with my modifications.

Let's examine one:

"UFO phenomena is [probably] just another cult/movement"

Now let's examine what you really think in this post:

THAT is the main fallacy of the UFO/ETI cultist.

invoke good critical thinking skills and compare the fanaticism of the UFO/ETI to religious belief systems

You have proved pitifully little beyond supporting my UFO/ETI cult movement hypothesis

Ironically, you support my hypothesis that UFO/ETI is a cult movement

Another fallacy of the UFO/ETI cult movement: criticism of UFO/ETI is character assasination/ad hominem; but character assasination/ad hominem of skeptics is criticism. I don't recall referring to any UFO/ETI cultists as "morons."

UFO and ETI is synonymous with cults and fanatacism to you. As I've said before, you are fanatically opposed to ETI and UFO's and you make it very obvious.

I have yet to see any evidence. Perhaps you can summarize what you think was evidence in the posts you'v made, as the points you intiated have been successfully refuted, mostly as not actually being evidence at all.

Fallacy 2: Denial of evidence

In conclusion, as you are quite obviously a anti-UFO fanatic, and persist to make fallacious points, and deny all evidence, you have proved yourself to be unreliable and irrational and thus have foresaken your credibility, and I see little reason, to continue discussion with you on this, as it would be a waste of my time. Thank you.

 

[SkinWalker]

Fallacy 2: Denial of evidence

What evidence? You've yet to present any.

In conclusion, as you are quite obviously a anti-UFO fanatic, and persist to make fallacious points, and deny all evidence, you have proved yourself to be unreliable and irrational and thus have foresaken your credibility, and I see little reason, to continue discussion with you, as it would be a waste of my time. Thank you.

I've only proved that I disagree with your contentions and refuse to accept your claims at face value. I've proven that I'm willing to question your contentions and provide critique and discussion that a true researcher would use to strengthen an argument for a hypothesis rather than continue to re-state it over, and over, and over.....