The Thing about UFOs...

[SkinWalker]

"Poor stupid mindless creature", "ass holiness", "fecking retard", and accusations of "drinking at 10:00 am" are un-called for.

You may see the label of "woo-woo" as license to speak the way you wish, but you'll notice that this characterization was both quantified and qualified and made available for debate or refutation.

Moreover, such a label lacks the vile intent to insult and demean which comes from a loss of control and emotion in a debate the way the ablove comments were intended. So my use of the "woo-woo" characterization of your arguments and position is not a justification for such vile behavior.

Furthermore, Read-Only was correct in that you have lied. You very clearly stated on more than one occasion that you believe the explanation for UFOs is "non-human intelligence." If not alien or extraterrestrial, what, then, does this mean?

 

[electrafixtion]

Fair enough, but woo woo is what got us here to begin with! You are both (SkinWalker & Read-Only) egotistical hypocrites of the largest order. I have lied about NOTHING. Ban me. Truth is, it's YOU BOTH that should be banned.

 

[SkinWalker]

I accept that hypocrisy is a possibility with me, however, you've not demonstrated this to be either true or very likely. I do, however, admit to having egotistical tendencies, but more than anyone else also hasn't been demosntrated to be true by you.

With regard to "banning," you haven't done anything close to warranting such actions. You certainly haven't demonstrated why *I* should ban myself.

This is a science board, and while some think that making pseudoscientific arguments and woo-woo claims should be ban-able offenses, this isn't the case here.

But you *have* lied. You stated on more than one occasion that you think UFOs are alien. Now you're saying that you never stated that. This is called a lie where I come from.

Throughout the thread, several questions have been asked of you and your claims, but you continue to dodge these until sufficient time passes then claim you've already answered.

Then, when it becomes clear that you cannot compete with a logical and reasoned discussion, you make the self-aggrandizing claim of being a "winner."

I would say you are a "winner" of the "largest order," but the contest isn't the one you might hope it to be.

 

[electrafixtion]

But you *have* lied. You stated on more than one occasion that you think UFOs are alien. Now you're saying that you never stated that. This is called a lie where I come from.

Please quote me where I "stated" (it's wrote, not"stated"BTW) that I believe "UFOs are alien". Please, I'll be waiting. Don't try any of your paraphrased BS either cause that is NOT gonna fly.

What I did CLEARLY contend, as I still most certainly do, is that SOME UFOs are without question that which constitutes "non human technology"

Gordon Cooper and others just as notable as himself stated, and indeed swore for the record before the United Nations, that what they observed was clearly not human technology. To them it was considered "of extraterrestrial origin". I could care less about that aspect of their speculations. I took from their expert testimony the only logical contribution within their undeniable status as experts in the field. Namely, that what they had been witness to was not human based technology. PERIOD. They have the right to make that absolute distinction because they are in fact undeniable experts in what was at the time the very most cutting edge of human technology with respect to flight as well as space travel.

So if we could get you and your little merry band of fraternity house pseudo skeptics to acknowledge the fact, that in REALITY, experts like Gorden Cooper and several others were MOST ASSUREDLY able to make that distinction, the case is CLOSED.

TRUTH IS: All you can do is dance SkinWalker. In your ever egotistical fashion and in fact (be dishonest) in your assessed conclusions of that expert testimony relating to the state of human or non human technology concerning UFOs. What is and what is not human technology is most assuredly determinable based on expert testimony. There is no denying that.

 

[Read-Only]

Listen your ass holiness, the expert testimony is based on the observation of non human technology you fecking retard. GET IT RIGHT! No one has to be an expert on Aliens, or Bugs Bunny cartoons for all it matters, to make that legitimate claim. The man just had to be an expert on what was cutting edge human engineered and developed flight/space travel based technology at that time. Read-Only, I'm sorry but you are pathetic. Can't you get your irrational ass under control? Quit drinking at 10:00am and you might stand a chance. I know that sounds mean, but dude, you got a SERIOUS problem.

I have no problems at all. I'm not the one suffering from fantical delusions OR guilty of lying.

Time to get your own house in order, Bub!

Incidentally, I don't drink at 10am or any other time. I gave that up when I got out of the army. I discovered that I didn't need any escape from reality because my life is just fine.

On the other hand, it's you that has serious problems dealing with reality. Have you ever considered getting professional help with that?

 

[Gustav]

/giggle

well?
what do you say to that, electrafixtion?

 

[Gustav]

But you *have* lied. You stated on more than one occasion that you think UFOs are alien. Now you're saying that you never stated that. This is called a lie where I come from.

uhh
quotes please

 

[SkinWalker]

Please quote me where I "stated" (it's wrote, not"stated"BTW) that I believe "UFOs are alien".

You clearly haven't the education to correct my grammar. You'd do well to avoid embarrassing yourself further than you have already. I mightn't have pointed this out, but it contributes to my assessment of your overall ignorance and educational level, which, in turn, gives rise to the woo nature of your claims. In other words, they're grounded in ignorance and assumption without application of critical thought and reason.

The usage of the verb form for to state in the context I created was appropriate. The definition of to state is "to express in words." Surely, you are aware that "words" can be written.

I could easily quote several of your posts where you made the claim that UFOs are alien in origin, but I'll stray no further than your most recent:

What I did CLEARLY contend, as I still most certainly do, is that SOME UFOs are without question that which constitutes "non human technology"

"[W]ithout question" "non human (sic) technology."

In that very statement, you've implicitly stated that UFOs are of alien/extraterrestrial origin in your belief.

We need only a short logical argument to demonstrate this. The following argument assumes that technology is that which is more advanced than the use of simple tools like sticks for termiting with non-human primates:

• On Earth, only humans have technology.
• Technological artifacts are evidence of human activity.
• "Non-human technology, therefore, isn't of Earth.

If the above syllogism is wrong, you need only demonstrate the existence of technology among non-humans that exceeds the use of twigs and stones by non-human primates.

Good luck with that.

 

[Gustav]

heh
have you taken leave of your senses?

I could easily quote several of your posts (skin)

quote cos the most recent does not work for me

 

[SkinWalker]

And yet the syllogism inferred from his statement is still sound and cogent.

It need not work for you for it to be so.

 

[Gustav]

If the above syllogism is wrong, you need only demonstrate the existence of technology among non-humans that exceeds the use of twigs and stones by non-human primates.

Good luck with that.

knowing skin, he probably want primates to smelt iron before he is satisfied but this outta work for most reasonable and rational skeptics. twigs in his instance means snapping shit off foliage. allow me to demonstrate how it is considerably more complicated than that


*The use of tools by animals to solve natural problems, especially in foraging, is well-known natural history. The manufacture of tools, rather than merely using found objects, is far less common, being restricted to great apes and a few bird species. Only chimpanzees and orangutans have tool-kits, that is, repertoires of different tool-types, that vary across populations 3., 4. and 5.. Now comes the first report of customary use of tool-sets – two or more different types of tool used in sequence to achieve a single goal – by a community of wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in the Congo Basin. The finding emerged from the innovative use of modern technology in field primatology: ‘spy-cams’ to monitor shy apes in the jungle.

*Further field studies revealed that chimpanzees spontaneously use tool-sets: a sequence of two or more tools needed to accomplish a single task. The first, anecdotal description was of an A-B-C-D sequence, in which a stout chisel-stick (A) was used to batter the entrance to a bees' nest containing honey. After this, a more pointed chisel-stick (B) weakened the barrier at a single point; then a bodkin-like stick (C) pierced the barrier; and finally a slender, flexible probe (D) dipped out the honey. Tool-sets are cognitively demanding, in that a correct ordering is required: thus, a dipstick is only useful once the honey reservoir has been made accessible by a bodkin. Late reports of tool-sets elsewhere emerged, but behavioral data were scarce, with most information coming (quasi-archaeologically) from the tools left behind

Primatology - Advanced Ape Technology (PDF)


5) Tool use is defined as "the use of an external object as a functional extension of mouth, beak, hand, or claw, in the attainment of an immediate goal". Although many birds, primates, and other animals use tools, it is not clear whether any of these species appreciate how tools work and the forces underlying their function. Perhaps the most convincing candidates are New Caledonian crows, who display extraordinary skills in making and using tools to acquire otherwise unobtainable foods. In the wild, they make two types of tools. Hook tools are crafted from twigs by trimming and sculpting until a functional hook has been fashioned and are used to poke out insect larvae from holes in trees using slow deliberate movements.

The mentality of crows: convergent evolution of intelligence in corvids and apes. (PDF)

 

[SkinWalker]

you need only demonstrate the existence of technology among non-humans that exceeds the use of twigs and stones by non-human primates.

Neither of the rudimentary and, probably, innate or instinctive examples of tool use above involves anything that significantly exceeds the use of twigs and stones. Indeed, only in orangutans and chimps (as well as, perhaps, bonobos) has it been demonstrated that tool use (mostly termiting and dropping stones from heights to crack open food) is taught.

But even if chimps and crows were teaching their young to build catapults and flintlock rifles, the technology needed to duplicate the alleged effects of UFOs that are alleged to be observed far, far exceeds their capabilities.

And I don't think I need to point out that non-human primates and birds are not engaging in any significant tool use.

Therefore, my syllogism is sound and cogent. Both its premises and its conclusion.

 

[SkinWalker]

Since no example of non-human technology has been shown to exist in a form that significantly exceeds twigs and stones, it remains clear that the only explanation that the woo-woo's are adhering to is alien/extraterrestrial.

QED.

 

[Gustav]

ufo's are et in origin

in that statement we could very well make the case that it is indeed implicit that all ufo's are et since it is not qualified otherwise

if however....

some ufo's are et in origin

...then it is implicit that the rest are not

iow.....some ufo's are ___________ in origin

What I did CLEARLY contend, as I still most certainly do, is that SOME UFOs are without question that which constitutes "non human technology"

well i guess since you are not forthcoming with the other alleged quotes, you are lying about him lying.
shame on you.
you disappoint me and embarrass me.
as it stand i cannot infer "all" from "some"

it is kinda mindblowing i have to state that.

poor pathetic sci
aint even got a penny to scratch that itch

oh
dear skin
repeating yourself does not magically make illogic, logic

 

[Gustav]

Indeed, only in orangutans and chimps (as well as, perhaps, bonobos) has it been demonstrated that tool use (mostly termiting and dropping stones from heights to crack open food) is taught.

uhh
italics?
whats your goddamn point?
are we not "taught"

But even if chimps and crows were teaching their young to build catapults and flintlock rifles, the technology needed to duplicate the alleged effects of UFOs that are alleged to be observed far, far exceeds their capabilities.

/rotfl

what did i tell you, sci? fuck smelting iron. we have......"flintlock rifles"

 

[SkinWalker]

My syllogism still logically stands.

It rests on the hypothetical truth value of "UFO's are ET," which can be shown thus:

• UFOs are ET if some UFOs are ET.
• Some UFOs are ET.
• Therefore, UFOs are ET.

OF course, the second premise isn't sound since it is not demonstrated. But the first premise *is* sound and the conclusion *does* follow if the second premise is assumed true.

You can see this in a Venn Diagram. Let UFOs be S and ET be P. Some S are P:

The key thing is to note that, in the same way you're quick to point out that I didn't use the "some" qualifier that electrafixtion used, neither did I use the "all" qualifier.

I simply said UFOs are ET, which is supported by the Venn Diagram and the syllogisms above (assuming the hypothetical, of course, that ET both exist and are visiting our tiny, tiny point of light in the vastness of the universe.

Interestingly enough, and I *do* hope its an educational point for electrafixtion -if nothing else, the obverse is also true: ET are UFOs since some P are S is equally true.

@ EndLightEnd, you're getting all this. Chime in and comment on this very basic philosophy. You do, after all, have "philosopher" in your User Title.

 

[Gustav]

Watch your ego burdoned mouth.

bow, maggot

/beats electrafixtion over the head with a dead fish

 

[Gustav]

Gordon Cooper

why dont you outline the pertinent details of the 3 incidents and comment on them?

i would like to have the opportunity to go to town on your ass
thanks

being a woo woo is most excellent
being a sloppy woo woo is unacceptable

 

[EndLightEnd]

@ EndLightEnd, you're getting all this. Chime in and comment on this very basic philosophy. You do, after all, have "philosopher" in your User Title.

You really dont have anything left do you. Pointing the most trivial of matters. I have tried to keep this thread on course many times but I am ignored and instead BOTH sides have resorted to name calling and now the thread is completely off topic.

Since this is a UFO thread, I dont really see how philosophy plays ANY role in this. And since there is not a branch of philosophy in "astrophysics" it really doesnt make much sense anyway does it smartass. So can you please stop diverting from the topic of UFOs with your pathetic attempt to undermine me? I would expect more from a mod, but not from you.

My most recent purpose has been trying to direct the conversion away from ET UFOs and instead focus on man-made UFOs for this exact purpose: so you children have nothing to call us woo woos for it will no longer be an extraterrestrial subject. Of course the mob of trolls have completely ignored this which is no surprise to anyone.

So let me ask again, why is it so completely impossible that our very own government has developed this technology of anti-gravity? Why is it so hard to conceive for you the possibility that this phenomena is based on human actions alone? I say you are narrow minded because you are incapable of even remotely accepting ANYTHING that doesnt fit in with your personal experience.

After all Tesla (the founder of the technology of the modern world) had plans for the "perfect flying machine" capable of "accelerating to at least 9000mph" in a matter of seconds. He died in 1943, and then Roswell happened in 1947. After four years of development I guess they didnt have it all figured out. That whole alien twist that got spun on the story is nothing but misdirection for the precise reason which you have focused on aliens instead of human technology in this thread: misdirection and slander. Aliens=crazy for you guys after all, right? And theres no easier way of discrediting someone then saying they are "woo woos". (even though Im sure none of you have a degree in psychology, so please keep your opinions to yourselves)

And as nietzschefan has pointed out several times already (which you are either incapable of understanding or deliberately ignoring by calling us woo woos)

The feeling that no matter how honest scientists think they are, they are still influenced by various unconscious assumptions that prevent them from attaining true objectivity. Expressed in a sentence, Fort's principle goes something like this: People with a psychological need to believe in marvels are no more prejudiced and gullible than people with a psychological need not to believe in marvels

 

[Ophiolite]

So let me ask again, why is it so completely impossible that our very own government has developed this technology of anti-gravity?

I think it is entirely possible. However it not very likely; is an uneccessary explanation for events more easily explained by the mundane; is without any significant supporting evidence.

Why is it so hard to conceive for you the possibility that this phenomena is based on human actions alone?

The phenomenon is multi-sourced. I don't know how often we have to keep saying this. Some of the sightings are man-made - misinterpretations of aircraft; secret government tests, such as the stealth bomber. Anti-gravity devices are not necessary as an explanation.

I say you are narrow minded because you are incapable of even remotely accepting ANYTHING that doesnt fit in with your personal experience.

I almost wholly reject personal experience as having any relevance to the issue, so I am puzzled that you would make this accusation.