so you are "above" providing what you demand from others? All this is just more of your "because I said so" BS SkinWalker. Repeatedly, you have NOTHING to offer but denial itself. Very weak.
No, I'm not above the same demands placed on anyone else that is making a positive and extraordinary claim. I'm not making a positive and extraordinary claim. Therefore I have no burden of proof.
You, however, are claiming that events observed by fallible human beings is something other than what we know already exists. You're saying that at least
some of the UFOs people have alleged to see over the years
are space aliens. You first need to demonstrate that space aliens exist then demonstrate that there is any likelihood that they're visiting our small, insignificant little planet.
You have a burden of proof, a requirement to demonstrate the validity of your claims that I do not. I'm not making your claims.
BTW, your name calling is becoming of someone with a very limited intellect. Is that how you wish to be perceived? Childish and assumptive?
"[N]ame calling?" If your screen name is electrafixtion, is this considered "name calling?" If you're ignorant, are you also shallow and egotistical that I'm not allowed to point this out? I'm assuming that "ignorant" is the "name calling" you're crying about here. I'm sorry, but your ignorance is the elephant in the room with this thread.
Naturally people mistakenly report seeing UFOs and they turn out to be aircraft. So what? Show me one that moves at incalculable speeds from a stand still. Show me one that splits in two.
You UFO that "moves at incalculable speeds" may not be an aircraft. It might be an insect near a camera lens, a bit of frost bumped off the Shuttle's hull, or a headlight or reflection on a cloud. You're making (gasp) an
argument from ignorance by implying that because
you can't explain something, the fantastic explanation of space aliens must, therefore be the case.
As a side note and a little education for you SkinWalker:
"Skeptic" from the dictionary: One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
I would say that according to the above definition, I am the skeptic and you are the one touting the "generally accepted conclusions"
I doubt there's much education you can provide for me, but allow me to provide a bit more for you:
Skeptic said:
Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are false. Other claims, such as hypnosis and chaos theory, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion. The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity.
Take whatever definition you want. You're a mystery-monger and a significance-junkie. This isn't "name calling" but, rather, a description of the fallacious nature of your arguments and your lack of critical thought. Your positions are irrational and unreasoned.
You simply CANNOT escape the fact that your BELIEFS are as based on perception as mine. For that, you are the epitome of fore drawn conclusions and bias. The opposite of a true skeptic you are.
You haven't demonstrated enough qualifications to evaluate anyone's beliefs, perceptions, and biases. You can continue to say what you want, we can continue in an ad hominem line of argumentation, and so on. But in the end, you'll still not have a shred of
valid and
testable evidence to back your extraordinary claims.
You will doubtless continue to attempt a shift of the burden of evidence, but this reveals more about your fallacious argumentation and lack of critical thinking than me or anyone that questions your claims.
To sum up:
You've made extraordinary claims. You say evidence exists but show none. You then shift the burden of evidence to the skeptics, project your bias on the the skeptics, attempt to assume the skeptical role and all because you seem to, at least, understand that the skeptical role is the high ground.
Good luck with all that pal.
How 'bout we get the topic back on track. I listed some suggested topics of discussion and some lines of inquiry that might even be helpful for the UFO enthusiast, even significance-junkies like yourself (you do, after all, see undo significance in things that are, in all probability, mundane). Go back and read those and then get back with us.
You might even brush up on argumentation. I linked to a logical fallacy above. That site probably has several others listed and, if nothing else, you'll learn how to form an argument that doesn't get as poked full of holes in the way I've impaled yours.
