The real cost of real UFOs

Q,

Is there no point too low for you to make? Honestly, there are decent debunkers out there. You're not one of them.

So what? Has it ever occurred to you that these guys are in for the money? They take advantage of the uniformed and uneducated in order to make a buck. They got you hook, line and sinker.

Screw you, Q. Your brand of debunkery doesn't even have integrity. I've seen this hollow argument before; any author who disagrees with you on UFOs must be in it for the money. You have zero evidence for that, yet you chide "believers" for making unsubstantiated claims. It's pretty easy to throw out that kind of bullshit as though it means anything, when all it represents is another smear tactic when you can think of nothing with substance to say.

Pathetic. I'm done with you.
 
If you're unable to attack the facts of the case, attack the participants--or the journalists who reported the case. *Ad- hominem* arguments, or personality attacks, are among the most powerful ways of swaying the public and avoiding the issue. For example, if investigators of the unorthodox have profited financially from activities connected with their research, accuse them of "profiting financially from activities connected with their research!" If their research, publishing, speaking tours and so forth, constitute their normal line of work or sole means of support, hold that fact as "conclusive proof that income is being realized from such activities!" If they have labored to achieve public recognition for their work, you may safely characterize them as "publicity seekers." (daniel drasin)

;) how unoriginal q
 
Ives

I’ve offered to answer questions regarding the science behind space travel yet you refuse to ask. You must know well enough that if you do begin understanding these issues, you’re belief system will begin falling like a house of cards. It is quite obvious you prefer to remain oblivious to reality and ignorant to the facts and would much rather choose to wallow in fantasy. It is little wonder you and your ilk are patronized for your beliefs.

It truly is pathetic when people don’t want to learn anything. You have my pity.
 
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
There is no basis for this conclusion. The most interesting and credible reports do not indicate that this could be the explanation. I look to some other rare and incredibly energetic natural phenomenon for a non-ET solution.
Click to expand...

Then we have to rather define what we mean by FLYING I think, and OBJECT. Naturals solutions should avoid the UFO bracket. We know lights in the sky are sometimes observed before earth quakes, for instance, as the rock inside the eart can generate large potential differences thanks to the piezo effect, and this causes luminescent disharges into the atmosphere. So perhaps you are looking at Geological solutions?


No, this is how the skeptics produce ad hominem arguments to avoid the issue and to discredit the good evidence, and mostly anything they don't like. I don't have to prove the existence of interstellar travel in order to consider military reports of UFOs.
Click to expand...

Well, not if you're not claiming that UFOs are ETs! But can you define more concisely what you consider to be the cause of UFO sightings? Let's not lump all of this into one rather poor term, UFO, let's break it down into the possibles. Natural phenomenon, man made, extra terrestrial, spiritual, and assess each one on likelyhood, cause, and how well we can fit the data to hypotheses, shall we? I think the term UFO is far from helpful.

There could be some completely unknown phenomenon that meets none of the above requirements.
Click to expand...
Invisible pink space giraffes again? ;-) Yep, but let's not keep that mind too open, brains falling out problem, etc etc.


I think the mystery goes beyond the mundane and is worth knowing. No way do military craft account for the evidence.
Click to expand...

Depend what you call evidence, but I agree. I don't see why the military would abduct people and shove probes up their arseholes. See, we're back to selecting evidence, and I'm sure you are a dismissive of some of it as I am. I just dismiss a little more than you, that's all.
 
Hmm

Spookz I am against your views for the fact that you seem intent on believing ET's have come here.
Q I am against your views for the fact that you put all UFOlogists in the same catagory.
We are NOT all the same.
 
And while I don't always agree with Manmade, I think he makes a good point about tarring all those interested in UFOs with the same brush.

The debunkers don't seem to think that a proponent's beliefs could evolve or change, and that we're all closet proponents of the ETH. This is not only insulting, but self-defeating in the long run. Debunkers would have a better understanding of proponents if they examined the actual content of what the proponents are saying.

I have to say that at least I understand where proponents of the ETH are coming from, given the history of sightings at large. A very high number of credible sightings involved "objects" (for want of a better word) that fit our expectations of what "craft" might look like.

I personally don't think that's enough to jump to ET. I don't think that's a justifiable inference. I think that hypothesizing that intelligence is behind some incidents is a reasonable inference. I've had posters here jump on me for that one, and I'll admit there are gaps in that theory. But the evidence is intriguing enough to justify looking further. I didn't find responses that other causes could account for the better UFO sightings; someone here said that 'ball lightening" could account for course changing UFOs (but provided no authority for this assertion) and also pointed out how weather balloons can "jump" out of the way of airplanes. These are convenient explanations to throw out that are inapplicable to the cases that I find interesting.

I think that once we surmise that intelligence is behind some examples of the phemonenon, anything is on the table for the core identity. For if we hypothesize something as exotic as interstellar propulsion, we have entered a realm where we cannot really calculate what unknown is more or less likely than any other unknown. For example, if we're going to claim that a craft-appearing UFO is piloted by ET, then how is that claim more or less valid than saying that it is some unknown, non-physical form of intelligence projecting how it wants to appear for us? Or that it is a non-physical yet visible form of intelligence onto which we project our expectations of what non-human intelligence should look like? Now, I'm not advancing those theories. I know they sound silly. I'm simply using them to demonstrate that there may be flaws and unjustified assumptions in the thought processes that lead to the ET conclusion. And I think that bogs the discussion down unnecessarily.
 
Manmade

Q I am against your views for the fact that you put all UFOlogists in the same catagory.
We are NOT all the same.

Fair enough. Perhaps you can explain the various categories within the UFOlogist’s camp and their positions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top