UFO Crash Site

FOCLMFAO at skinny.
Nice response Starman, accurate and most adequate.

See? Those with some intelligence and normal human common sense just don’t take your crapola you try to dish out. That may work on your little juvenile delinquents, not in public though.

As skinny always comes up with “others” ideas and thoughts one tends to wonder at what sort of imaginative capacity may be lacking. Non-lateral thinkers just can’t seem to put 2 and 2 together with out a dozen books about how to.
 
Starman said:
So if I understand you corectly no matter what someone tell you even if it is the president of the United States you would not believe what thy have said unless they can hand you somthing to hold in your hands that you can measure.
Click to expand...

You're suggesting a non sequitur. That I find an extraordinary claim by someone, even a President, to be without credibility doesn't imply that I'll find non-extraordinary claims to be incredible as well.

Starman said:
It is the job of a Skeptic to be a non believer,
Click to expand...

It is the job of one who is skeptical to question.

Starman said:
as in this case a true Skeptic would not believe even if an Alien Spacecraft landed on the head of the Skeptic.
Click to expand...

No. One who is skeptical would not "believe." Either the evidence of the landing would be convincing or it wouldn't. Being skeptical doesn't mean that one is not willing to accept new ideas, it merely implies that one questions the beliefs that exist without tangible evidence or testable hypotheses.

Starman said:
The fact is the testimony of Credible whitnesses can not be dismised for it is considered Credible.
Click to expand...

Simply saying a witness is credible doesn't make he/she so. People are fallible. Their beliefs and pre-conceived notions and biases influence their testimony.

Starman said:
So I present this to you in the form of Credible Fact.
Click to expand...

Sorry... it's only incredible speculation. A fact is a concept whose truth can be proved. At best, that an alien spacecraft crashed in Roswell (or anywhere else) is an hypothesis. But an hypothesis that cannot be tested.
 
SkinWalker said:
You're suggesting a non sequitur. That I find an extraordinary claim by someone, even a President, to be without credibility doesn't imply that I'll find non-extraordinary claims to be incredible as well.



It is the job of one who is skeptical to question.



No. One who is skeptical would not "believe." Either the evidence of the landing would be convincing or it wouldn't. Being skeptical doesn't mean that one is not willing to accept new ideas, it merely implies that one questions the beliefs that exist without tangible evidence or testable hypotheses.



Simply saying a witness is credible doesn't make he/she so. People are fallible. Their beliefs and pre-conceived notions and biases influence their testimony.



Sorry... it's only incredible speculation. A fact is a concept whose truth can be proved. At best, that an alien spacecraft crashed in Roswell (or anywhere else) is an hypothesis. But an hypothesis that cannot be tested.
Click to expand...

The argument is the test. There is no evidence that Scott Peterson murdered his wife yet the arguments of the court has rendered a guilty verdict. If we can put somone to death by an argument with no physical evidence then I submit that Credible People can establish fact by testimony alone.
 
The Scott Peterson case is based solely on physical evidence. There are no witnesses to the murder itself. I haven't followed the case, but I believe there was something about trace evidence and admission by Peterson that several "homemade" anchors existed that are unaccounted for; gasoline soaking a tarp; hairs from Laci in a pair of pliers on the boat; etc.

But the most important physical evidence is the body itself. It proves that the event occurred, even if it doesn't make clear who caused the event.

In the case of the alleged "saucer crash," there are no bodies. No saucers. No rubbings of the spaceship's license plate... nothing. Nothing except the personal bias of several people who want there to be aliens. There is no phyiscal evidence that can conclude that there was a "saucer." There is physical evidence to prove that Laci Peterson is dead.

The argument itself cannot possibly be the "test," since there is no way to falsify the argument. Any test for a hypothesis must be falsifiable.
 
You could take that arguement and submit that if such a case had hard evidence applied to contradict the verdict, then the current verdict would be re-evaluted.

Skeptics are more then likely to state that Roswell was nothing more than recovery of some blackops project material, and that people identified what was going on wrongly, However their verdict would be altered and re-evaluted if there was real evidence.

The sort of evidence I'm suggesting is like having material sent to multiple labs that all know nothing of the material and having the results all coming back the same and then for that material to be placed somewhere public where anyone could go and see it, to find out how real it really is. Anything less than this would be wasting your time attempting to contest something that contains so little evidence of this kind.

"There is no point flogging a Dead horse"-Unknown
 
Starman, ones like SkinWalker, walk through there life in a fantasy land not seeing what is going on around them, not seeing evidence as evidence and is akin to ones like Phlogger whose job it is to argue and dismiss all proofs. All attempts of discussion with ones of this type are fruitless.
:D
 
SkinWalker said:
The Scott Peterson case is based solely on physical evidence. There are no witnesses to the murder itself. I haven't followed the case, but I believe there was something about trace evidence and admission by Peterson that several "homemade" anchors existed that are unaccounted for; gasoline soaking a tarp; hairs from Laci in a pair of pliers on the boat; etc.

But the most important physical evidence is the body itself. It proves that the event occurred, even if it doesn't make clear who caused the event.

In the case of the alleged "saucer crash," there are no bodies. No saucers. No rubbings of the spaceship's license plate... nothing. Nothing except the personal bias of several people who want there to be aliens. There is no phyiscal evidence that can conclude that there was a "saucer." There is physical evidence to prove that Laci Peterson is dead.

The argument itself cannot possibly be the "test," since there is no way to falsify the argument. Any test for a hypothesis must be falsifiable.
Click to expand...

You are correct Skinwalker the Scott Peterson case was a poor example.

If it is Physical Evidence you want here it is.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/physicalevidence.htm
 
ufo photo site said:
Not seen when photo was taken, we just see it when looking at
photo taken 29 mars 2003.

Taken through front window of a car.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the answer: it's one the windshield of the car. A chunk of snow.
 
There are plenty of data that could be considered evidence for ufo's, just none that would be considered evidence for alien spacecraft.
 
SkinWalker said:
And therein lies the answer: it's one the windshield of the car. A chunk of snow.
Click to expand...

Also I thought this was intersting.

Good writes that according to information supplied to science journalists, NASA may be in possession of physical evidence relating to extraterrestrial materials. In 1974 a Polish biophysicist and engineer contracted to NASA, was a member of an international team of English, French and Italian scientists which was given some odd metallic and plastic-like material, supposedly originating from the Soviet Union, to analyse. Under analysis with an electronic microscope, the team found small pyramid structures in the nanometre range (ie: one thousand millionth of a metre), showing a kind of super reflectivity. They found alloys that could only have been made in conditions of weightlessness. Other tests showed traces of unusual Kapton and Kevlar-type synthetics. This was in the early 1950s and those materials had not existed at that time. The melting point of the metal samples was above two thousand degrees centigrade, and tests using helium, neon and ruby lasers had no effect. The foil seemed to possess a ‘memory’, like current memory metals, but to a factor of one thousand or better. (Several witnesses of the Roswell crash described a metal with similar qualities.)
 
What were the results of the independent lab studies conducted of the materials and in what peer-reviewed journal might these results have been published?
 
Either they're lying, ignroant, misled, delusional, or just have such a will to believe that they simply see what they expect to see... or they saw an alien spacecraft. But there is far more physical evidence for the former five than the latter one.

Another possibility, even a probability, is that their accounts are being misrepresented by UFO-ETI apologists in the same manner that christian apologists promote miracles and creation "evidence" as factual.

In the end, they're just people. Only a fool is impressed by social status alone and relies on this as the single best evidence of credibility.
 
SkinWalker said:
Either they're lying, ignroant, misled, delusional, or just have such a will to believe that they simply see what they expect to see... or they saw an alien spacecraft. But there is far more physical evidence for the former five than the latter one.

Another possibility, even a probability, is that their accounts are being misrepresented by UFO-ETI apologists in the same manner that christian apologists promote miracles and creation "evidence" as factual.

In the end, they're just people. Only a fool is impressed by social status alone and relies on this as the single best evidence of credibility.
Click to expand...

In Washington, D.C., on May 9, 2001, a major press conference was held at the National Press Club, one of the world's premier journalistic organizations, to launch the Disclosure Project campaign. More than 20 military, government and corporate witnesses gave testimony about unambiguous UFO and extraterrestrial events. Many witnesses provided official documentation to support their claims. The goal of the Disclosure Project is to get immunity so that these witnesses can testify freely in open congressional hearings.

Ok I guess you are going to comment that the National Press Club is not credible either. There comes a point where ignorance takes place and you can hide your head in the sand but the world isn't going to go away.

I have repeatedly argued the case with credible sercomstantial and physical evidence from many sources and you make every effort to disprove all evidence. Maby you are afraid of the possibility that there are other advanced civilizations that have visited our planet. Well wether you choose to except it or not the evidence can not be ignored.

This is the scandal of our lifetime. Our government is not telling the truth to the people and therefore has commited acts of fraud, and they are making dicisions on a theological, moral and ethical basis that they no right to keep from the people.
http://www.disclosureproject.org/npcwebcast.htm
 
Last edited:
Yes - yes. Dr. Greer and his "hundreds of highly-placed eyewitnesses..."

In the end, all they did was talke about what they saw, believed they saw, or concocted in their heads about what they saw since their individual events. NONE of them offered any tangiable evidence to provide context. The one guy that came close was the Air Traffic controller who spoke of "radar tracks," but conveniently didn't offer the data in its original form.

Anecdotal account is not evidence.... it only provide cooberation for evidence. It puts evidence into context.
 
SkinWalker said:
Yes - yes. Dr. Greer and his "hundreds of highly-placed eyewitnesses..."

In the end, all they did was talke about what they saw, believed they saw, or concocted in their heads about what they saw since their individual events. NONE of them offered any tangiable evidence to provide context. The one guy that came close was the Air Traffic controller who spoke of "radar tracks," but conveniently didn't offer the data in its original form.

Anecdotal account is not evidence.... it only provide cooberation for evidence. It puts evidence into context.
Click to expand...

Maby you were asleep when they put Forword Video Tape Audio Tape and Drawings not to mention many official documents.

It must be realy hard for you to read a News Paper when you do not believe any of the text because you have now stated you do not believe the press.
 
"Video Tape Audio Tape and Drawings...." right.

And to be sure, I take what I read in the news with a grain of salt as well. That's not to say I discount everything in the news, but I believe in the axiom "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Unfortunately, what goes on in the news is often very ordinary and commonplace. But even the news story about a local restaurant that was infested with cockroaches and rats supplied more evidence than the entire disclosure project. I ask you, which is more extraordinary of a claim?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top