The Thing about UFOs...

Origin of UFOs

  • Extraterrestrials

    Votes: 10 20.0%

  • Man-made

    Votes: 10 20.0%

  • Both

    Votes: 21 42.0%

  • Neither

    Votes: 9 18.0%
  • Total voters
    50
Ophiolite said:
My apologies yet again. You are just deluded.
[IGNORE]
Click to expand...

Immature much?

Electrafix has done nothing wrong to no one. Read only has a go at him, and then you jump on the bandwagon.

Can no idiot round here make a decision for themselves anymore, without the influence of some moon-unit fool?
 
SkinWalker said:
Evidence of Hoagland debunked as the pseudoscientist he is: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/index.html

More evidence of Hoagland debunked as the pseudoscientist he is: http://members.aol.com/garypos2/Hoagland.html

Still more evidence of Hoagland debunked as the pseudoscientist he is: http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/DMPyramid.html

Guess what? MORE evidence of Hoagland debunked -this time showing that he very likely lied by manipulating images!: http://www.irupert.com/mars/hoaxland.html


Truly? A "RENOWN scientist" (sic)? Tell us: what was his degree and what was it's discipline?



Wow. You have kewl wikipediaz skillz.

Also, could you cite the most compelling 1 or 2 examples from your "plethora" of evidence which exists in the "orchard" of non-human UFO evidence?

You truly are a winner. As a prize, you can join this new club we started.
Click to expand...

I have read through several of the links you provided, and so far, NOTHING. Not one irrefutable FACT proving Hoagland a liar or a fraud. Just opinion from those in disagreement with Hoagland expressing the LIKELIHOOD (according to them) of him being preposterous. No surprise eh? I will keep reading however, maybe it will yield some REAL scientific evidence and not just opinion.
 
Reiku said:
Immature much?

Electrafix has done nothing wrong to no one. Read only has a go at him, and then you jump on the bandwagon.

Can no idiot round here make a decision for themselves anymore, without the influence of some moon-unit fool?
Click to expand...
Much as I enjoy a lot of what RO posts, I really couldn't give a flying wombat whether or not he attacked Electrafix. Electrafix has posted illogical nonsense throughout this thread.

I sincerely hope I had a go at electrafix before RO: RO has confessed to being old. He must also, therefore be jaded and slow. I am also old, but if can't be even more jaded and slow than RO by a large margin, then I shall be susbtantially less slow and jaded, which means getting the boot into imbeciles like electrafix that much earlier.

You say electrafix has done nothing wrong to no one. (You realise that is literally the opposite of what you meant to say?) He has done immense wrong to himself. By refusing to use his brain, his education and his powers of reason he has deluded himself. End of story.

Go look at my exchanges with btsimah. You'll see I've been berating idiots about UFOs and the like for several years.
 
Electrafixation,

Could you cite the most compelling 1 or 2 examples from your "plethora" of evidence which exists in the "orchard" of non-human UFO evidence?
 
Ophiolite said:
Much as I enjoy a lot of what RO posts, I really couldn't give a flying wombat whether or not he attacked Electrafix. Electrafix has posted illogical nonsense throughout this thread.

I sincerely hope I had a go at electrafix before RO: RO has confessed to being old. He must also, therefore be jaded and slow. I am also old, but if can't be even more jaded and slow than RO by a large margin, then I shall be susbtantially less slow and jaded, which means getting the boot into imbeciles like electrafix that much earlier.

You say electrafix has done nothing wrong to no one. (You realise that is literally the opposite of what you meant to say?) He has done immense wrong to himself. By refusing to use his brain, his education and his powers of reason he has deluded himself. End of story.

Go look at my exchanges with btsimah. You'll see I've been berating idiots about UFOs and the like for several years.
Click to expand...


Electrafix can have a debate without the need of calling someone stupid.

There is a difference.
 
Ophiolite said:
Much as I enjoy a lot of what RO posts, I really couldn't give a flying wombat whether or not he attacked Electrafix. Electrafix has posted illogical nonsense throughout this thread.

I sincerely hope I had a go at electrafix before RO: RO has confessed to being old. He must also, therefore be jaded and slow. I am also old, but if can't be even more jaded and slow than RO by a large margin, then I shall be susbtantially less slow and jaded, which means getting the boot into imbeciles like electrafix that much earlier.

You say electrafix has done nothing wrong to no one. (You realise that is literally the opposite of what you meant to say?) He has done immense wrong to himself. By refusing to use his brain, his education and his powers of reason he has deluded himself. End of story.

Go look at my exchanges with btsimah. You'll see I've been berating idiots about UFOs and the like for several years.
Click to expand...

You are a simpleton and an egotist without anything of value to contribute. I used my educated brain to logically determine that. Thereby proving you are wrong. Next.
 
Yep. I just looked through each of your posts in the thread and those examples aren't there.
 
He is obviously pissed off with the behaviour he has retreived from his posts. Even if he has no credible evidence, we should not deter from the posts original meaning and intention.
 
He shouldn't let his emotions cloud his thinking or willingness to continue discussion with those that aren't calling him names.

I'm truly interested in the question I asked. He may have mentioned already the most compelling 1 or 2 examples from your "plethora" of evidence which exists in the "orchard" of non-human UFO evidence, but those mentions aren't accompanied with any indication that these are the ones he considers to be most compelling or convincing.

By the way, the words in quotes are his own in case anyone was wondering.
 
Reiku said:
Electrafix can have a debate without the need of calling someone stupid.

There is a difference.
Click to expand...

It's really not so much the name calling as it is the resort to name calling. You see, name calling is great if you back it up with something of value to say. It's when RO & O call names that they do it because they know they are wrong and are terrified to admit it to anyone else, but mostly, themselves. They call names out of frustration rather identification. These are the same guys that couldn't get laid in college or university. It's their nature to be frustrated and thus have carried out their life's mission in such a way as to be consistent with it.

Can you imagine going with one these people to buy something like a car?

Salesperson: "Good afternoon Sir, How can I help you"?

RO & O "I would like to purchase an automobile"

Salesperson: "Well, how about this red one over here"?

RO & O: "Red...that's not red"

Salesperson: "Sir, I can assure you this vehicle is in fact red and the vehicle next to it is white".

RO & O: "White, that automobile is NOT white".

Salesperson: "Perhaps there is another car and color that you have in mind more to your liking"

RO & O: "No, matter of fact there is not. I would like a RED automobile and that's final".

Salesperson: "Well Sir, the vehicle we were originally looking at a moment ago was very much in fact RED".

RO & O: "That vehicle is NOT RED!".

Salesperson: "Sir, I assure you that this vehicle is very much red in color"

RO & O: "PROVE IT!!"

These folks are impulsively doomed to go nowhere constantly. They ask the same questions over and over (SkinWalker) and despite getting specific answers to those very questions they keep asking them because they don't get the answer back that they wanted. It's tragic and funny all at once.
 
electrafixtion said:
It's really not so much the name calling as it is the resort to name calling. You see, name calling is great if you back it up with something of value to say. It's when RO & O call names that they do it because they know they are wrong and are terrified to admit it to anyone else, but mostly, themselves. They call names out of frustration rather identification. These are the same guys that couldn't get laid in college or university. It's their nature to be frustrated and thus have carried out their life's mission in such a way as to be consistent with it.
Click to expand...


You've committed two logical fallacies in your argument here. First, it doesn't follow that because they resort to ad hominem fallacy in their arguments that this implies you're right and they're wrong, only that they're poorly constructing their arguments. It also doesn't follow that using a logical fallacy means that your conclusions are wrong, only that one or more of the premises are flawed.

If the remaining premises are sound and the conclusion isn't dependent upon the soundness of the fallacious premise, then the ad hominem simply becomes a distraction to the argument in general.

Your second logical fallacy is the use of ad hominem yourself, commenting on the ability of others to "get laid" etc, in a resort to juvenile attack rather than addressing the issues of substance within the discussion.

These folks are impulsively doomed to go nowhere constantly.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but you've not demonstrated this to be the case.

They ask the same questions over and over (SkinWalker) and despite getting specific answers to those very questions they keep asking them because they don't get the answer back that they wanted. It's tragic and funny all at once.
Click to expand...

I'll stop asking once you give the answer. Not once have you answered my last question: what are the most compelling 1 or 2 examples from your "plethora" of evidence which exists in the "orchard" of non-human UFO evidence?

If you have, please cite the post # that includes my quoted text along with the anwer. Simple

Do that and I'll apologize to you here. Fail (FAIL) to do this, and it will be accepted by all who read this thread that you've conceded the point and have retracted it.

Momentum7 appears to be about as impartial as they come on this forum. I ask that he evaluate our posts and judge whether or not it is true that you've already answered and I'm just "repeating."
 
Last edited:
Why don't you all stop?

And let us go back to where things obviously detached from normal communication?
 
SkinWalker said:
You've committed two logical fallacies in your argument here. First, it doesn't follow that because they resort to ad hominem fallacy in their arguments that this implies you're right and they're wrong, only that they're poorly constructing their arguments. It also doesn't follow that using a logical fallacy means that your conclusions are wrong, only that one or more of the premises are flawed.

If the remaining premises are sound and the conclusion isn't dependent upon the soundness of the fallacious premise, then the ad hominem simply becomes a distraction to the argument in general.

Your second logical fallacy is the use of ad hominem yourself, commenting on the ability of others to "get laid" etc, in a resort to juvenile attack rather than addressing the issues of substance within the discussion.



Perhaps, but you've not demonstrated this to be the case.



I'll stop asking once you give the answer. Not once have you answered my last question: what are the most compelling 1 or 2 examples from your "plethora" of evidence which exists in the "orchard" of non-human UFO evidence?

If you have, please cite the post # that includes my quoted text along with the anwer. Simple

Do that and I'll apologize to you here. Fail (FAIL) to do this, and it will be accepted by all who read this thread that you've conceded the point and have retracted it.

Momentum7 appears to be about as impartial as they come on this forum. I ask that he evaluate our posts and judge whether or not it is true that you've already answered and I'm just "repeating."
Click to expand...


ROTFLMAO!!! Man, they ONLY thing you have proven here is that you are too big of a nerd to have fun and interesting conversation with. You are no one my man. No one at all. (by your own admission) So what in the world makes you think that you might win an argument that I already have won. It's done Sir. All done. Expert testimony is in fact clearly evidence of the highest and most irrefutable order. Disprove that and I will retract. Don't give me conjecture and opinions like you did in the case of MR. Hoagland. Give me facts and tell me why exactly that expert testimony, that is most definitely honored in HUNDREDS of other cases where questioned reality is being determined, does not "work" in this case. Because you say so? I don't think so.
 
I've already refuted the validity of "expert" testimony and Hoagland. There were some very pointed and logical refutations in the links -I can't be responsible for your inability to comprehend or understand them.

Indeed, this comprehension is problematic for you as demonstrated by your continued use of and inability to recognize fallacies in logical arguments.

Meanwhile, you childishly and prematurely herald your success and achievement in the "argument." Argumentation being one of your worst skills, this hardly seems possible much less probable.

The sad thing that has been shown, however, is that significanc-junkies, mystery-mongers, woo-woos, cranks and crackpots (a population to which you belong, unfortunately) are gullible and easily duped.

What I find fascinating is that you don't see the embarassment of boasting this and seem proud of it.

We, therefore, accept your miserable concession to the argument, fallaciously claiming a "win" where not is evident and wish you a good time.

From here on out, I declare the thread rightfully hijacked and as good a place as any to criticize the woo-woo in his natural habitat since the opposing side is only interested in ending the discussion with "I won, woo-woo! Look at me, woo-woo!"

My next post will be a critique of significance-junkies and mystery-mongers in general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top