Why does the government hide UFO's?

[Yazata]

I hope you're not getting the impression from me that discussion of those subjects is unwelcome. I assure you that I do not ordinarily involve myself in discussions here that don't interest me in some way (other than when I need to pay attention for reasons to do with moderating the forum).

I think that you are typically a voice of reason in these threads and I would like to see you participate more. My question to you wasn't about your behavior in the threads so much as it was about why Sciforums even has a 'Ufos, Ghost and Monsters' forum if anyone who dares to argue in favor of ufos, ghost and monsters is insulted, flamed and becomes subject to calls for their banning. Not by you, but by some of the other board participants. Frankly, I think that the bad-actors need to be reined in a little by your moderators. (Unfortunately, moderators are sometimes included among the bad-actors.)

For me, the value in having such discussions here, which is not available in many other forums, is that claims of the paranormal are typically not accepted uncritically.

I agree. I'm a philosopher by training, and that's why I'm often found in the 'religion' and 'fringe' fora. In any area of thought, the most interesting issues arise when considering problem cases. On Sciforums the 'religion' and 'fringe' fora are perfectly positioned for introducing problem cases.

Obviously nobody's ideas should be immune from criticism, as long as the criticism and the replies to criticism remain thoughtful and civil.

At sciforums, real scientists and educated people (such as yourself) mix with true believers in pseudoscience. I find (some of) those interactions interesting.

I most definitely agree. That's why I participate in them.

There are plenty of pseudoscience sites out there that never examine claims critically, but act more as cheer squads and mutual-support societies.

My worry is that Sciforums is headed that way too. The 'religion' forum is already kind of a clubhouse for atheists, and this forum is in danger of becoming a clubhouse for 'pseudoskeptics', or 'debunkers' as I call them. People who think they already know the truth even before discussion begins, that ufos, ghosts and monsters are not only bullshit, but dangerous bullshit. So that anyone who argues for the reality of those kind of things is not only mistaken, but evil as well, deserving of anything they get.

Admittedly, MR can be kind of a mirror-image of that. He appears to have an a-priori belief that ufos are, if not extraterrestrial spaceships, then something else that's amazing and to him transcendent. That sense of transcendence is important to him. It's what he fights so stubbornly to protect and why he favors non-mundane explanations of these kind of things. He wants them to be true, much as believers in religious miracles want them to be true. (And for similar reasons, too.)

I'm sympathetic with MR's search for transcendence, since I share it somewhat. Ever since I was a child, I've intuitively felt that the universe around us is more mysterious than we know, and perhaps more mysterious than we can know. That's what attracted me to the study of philosophy and it is the source of my fundamental agnosticism about deepest metaphysics. I'm certainly not reflexively dismissive about the possibility of anomalous events popping up that don't fit into our current belief systems.

Having said that, unlike MR I find the philosophical mysteries lurking in almost every aspect of life sufficient. I don't feel any need to top that off with ufos, ghosts or 'psi' phenomena. I'm far more skeptical about those than he is. But I try not to veer into being a pseudoskeptic or a debunker. It's a fine line sometimes and it doesn't win me many friends from partisans on either side.

Exposing people who frequent such sites to some critical thinking can only be a good thing. It's not all one way, either. As a skeptic, I am always interested to hear directly from those who believe, so I can better understand their position.

I entirely agree.

 

[Magical Realist]

No, evidence of a phenomena is evidence of the phenomena, but what that phenomena actually is is what is debated.
It might be an alien-origin UFO, it might be an experimental aircraft, it might be a model, something thrown into the air, or simply cgi/photoshopped image.
What you seem to be saying with your statement above is that the evidence is evidence of the truth of what someone has already interpreted/claimed it to be. This is therefore an a priori assumption on your part of what the evidence is of.

An experimental aircraft is not a phenomenon. A model isn't a phenomenon. A cgi image isn't a phenomena. When we eliminate all these non-phenomenal explanations, we infer the phenomena itself as real and so a plausible explanation for all future cases.

First, science is not a court of law.

Evidence is evidence, whether it is in a trial, in a crime investigation, or in a lab.

Second, using your example, let us assume that the method of murder that the person is being accused of is so unlikely (so that it is an extraordinary assertion) and that the only evidence the prosecution have is a the witness. There is no corroborating evidence that you might expect. I very much doubt it would have even gone to trial, as the jury, being reasonable, would see due to the extraordinary assertion that it is more likely the witness is not necessarily lying but simply mistaken in their interpretation of what they saw.

It is a metaphysical assumption on your part, made from inside your own physicalist worldview, that the phenomena we seek to understand is too extraordinary to exist. That's not a foregone conclusion. When we want to know if a new phenomena is real or not, we must put aside our presuppositions about it's probability or likelihood held in the framework of current worldview because that is what we are trying to determine. Whether the phenomenon is UNextraordinary enough to actually occur. Hence the need for total agnosticism on the issue. Is the ufo real? I don't know. Is the ufo unreal? I don't know. Show me the evidence so I can decide that.

Actually the DNA test does need explaining, so that the jury would know that there is only a remote possibility of the DNA belonging to someone else. It might be assumed to be known, but you can't dismiss that it needs to be known.

No..doubt about the DNA test is only raised based on some fact or evidence presented by the defense. Is the DNA tester a known fraud? Have his results been contaminated in the past? It is not sufficient to call the DNA test into question based the mere possibility it is not accurate or fake. A claim always needs to be supported. "Calling for speculation" is immediately overruled.

In the case of anecdotal or photo evidence presented to support UFOs, the evidence is not "these are photos and stories of UFOs" but "these are photos and stories..." and the jury must decide whether they support the assertion of them being UFOs or whether they think it more likely they are of something else.

But if you make a claim that the photos aren't real, then you need to support that with evidence. Just saying it is possible it is fake isn't sufficient to call the evidence into question.

You, however, present the photos and stories as a fait accompli with regard what they are evidence of, yet all you should be doing is presenting them as evidence for the case that UFOs exist. It is up to others to determine whether they think they are of UFOs or not, whether they are convinced or not. That is how evidence works. Not your style of "these are proof of UFOs, now prove me wrong!"

If you make a claim about the evidence not being real or erroneous, then you need to support that with facts. You are the one making the assertion that they aren't real. The burden is on you to prove that.

If it is more likely to someone that the photos are shopped, or faked in some way, you - as the one presenting the case for UFOs - must counter those concerns, not merely dismiss them.

We have no idea if it is likely that the photos are faked. We have no idea if the phenomenon is unlikely either. That's presumably why we are scrutinizing the evidence. Groundless assertions of plausibility or implausibility from within the framework of a preexisting metaphysical worldview don't count as evidence.

Have you provided any unbiased examination?

I provided 10 cases that stand out as well-examined and compelling accounts of the ufo phenomenon in posts #119 and #120. Take your pick.

This is true of rational thinkers. The more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the case needs to be to support it. And if faced with a paranormal explanation rather than an unlikely but possible normal explanation, I know where my money lies. Given that the paranormal has never been proven to exist, the paranormal as an explanation should always come below an unlikely normal explanation in the pecking order of acceptability.

Well I'd certainly disagree with your claim that the paranormal hasn't been proven to exist. Observing hundreds of investigations and reading hundreds of eyewitness accounts over the years, it's pretty much well established at this point. If you had examined as much of this evidence as I have I would find your claim more credible. But you haven't have you? Because for you it is all fakery based on your faithheld assumption that the paranormal is too extraordinary to ever occur. But if it IS occurring and being witnessed all the time by people all over the world, then it is not that extraordinary. You only assume what you pretend to conclude from examining the evidence. Is the paranormal too extraordinary to occur? Well let me see the evidence for it. Oh but this can't be REAL evidence because the paranormal is too extraordinary to occur!

This isn't saying the specific normal explanation is therefore correct, but just that it is more acceptable to the rational than the paranormal one.

If the paranormal occurs in specific and typical ways that make it an identifiable, physically detectable and measurable phenomena, then it IS more rational to invoke it as an explanation after we have eliminated all the mundane possibilities. And that's what parapsychologists and investigators do all the time in thousands of cases.

 

[Magical Realist]

Admittedly, MR can be kind of a mirror-image of that. He appears to have an a-priori belief that ufos are, if not extraterrestrial spaceships, then something else that's amazing and to him transcendent. That sense of transcendence is important to him. It's what he fights so stubbornly to protect and why he favors non-mundane explanations of these things. He wants it to be true, much as believers in religious miracles want them to be true. (And for similar reasons, too.)

I have some sympathy for MR's search for transcendence myself, since I share it somewhat. Ever since I was a child, I've intuitively felt that the universe around us is more mysterious than we know, and perhaps more mysterious than we can know. That's what attracted me to the study of philosophy and it is the source of my fundamental agnosticism about deepest metaphysics. I'm certainly not reflexively dismissive about the possibility of anomalous events popping up that don't fit into our current belief systems.

For the longest time ufos and the paranormal were just areas of interest I vaguely acknowledged as possible in an exciting "what if?" sense. But with the internet and the flood of paranormal documentaries on TV over the past 17 years I have since become convinced that they are real domains of reality that remain mysterious if not completely irrational. Now ofcourse I'm a big fan of logic and rationality. I like my experience to be orderly and predictable just like everybody else. And I too get my transcendence fix from philosophy as well as from Taoist aesthetic sensitivity to the mystical nature of Being. If anything ufos and the paranormal rise up as more of a thorn in my backside, defying my ambition towards understanding reality monistically as all one harmonious thing. These phenomena suggest the disturbing existence of multiple realities and a fluidity to what we call real that if anything makes me less certain and secure. My faith then, to the extent that I allow myself that luxury, is that it will all turn out ok in the end. That reality is something of a game we are all playing around in, and that the answers will come only after we die. Or not. But that's ok too.

 

[Sarkus]

An experimental aircraft is not a phenomenon. A model isn't a phenomenon. A cgi image isn't a phenomena. When we eliminate all these non-phenomenal explanations, we infer the phenomena itself as real and so a plausible explanation for all future cases.

Your anecdotal or pictoral evidence also is not a phenomenon. The question is what the photo or anecdotal evidence is actually of - not what it is claimed to be but what it actually is. It may be that the claim matches the reality but if it is possible that things can be mistaken for the claimed phenomenon, no matter how implausible, then one must weigh up which is more unlikely. And to a rational person the phenomena of alien-origin UFOs is right at the bottom of the list of "what is likely".

Evidence is evidence, whether it is in a trial, in a crime investigation, or in a lab.

No its not: witness testimony is deemed evidence in a courtroom but not in a lab. Only reproducible results are evidence in science.

It is a metaphysical assumption on your part, made from inside your own physicalist worldview, that the phenomena we seek to understand is too extraordinary to exist.

Where have I said that it is too extraordinary to exist? Please don't put words in my mouth. The position taken is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - and anecdotal and pictoral evidence that could be of something more likely than what it is claimed to be is not extraordinary evidence.

That's not a foregone conclusion. When we want to know if a new phenomena is real or not, we must put aside our presuppositions about it's probability or likelihood held in the framework of current worldview because that is what we are trying to determine.

Why put aside assessments of probability or likelihood? It is the overwhelming weight of lack of evidence thus far that leads to those assessments, and one blurry picture, or even 100 blurry photos, or photos that could be something else, are not going to overturn that with regard what is the rational position to hold.

Whether the phenomenon is UNextraordinary enough to actually occur. Hence the need for total agnosticism on the issue. Is the ufo real? I don't know. Is the ufo unreal? I don't know. Show me the evidence so I can decide that.

And you have shown us the evidence, repeatedly, and each time we are left either concluding that it is possibly something that has been repeatedly seen before (CGI, a model, experimental aircraft, clouds etc) rather than something for which no scientific evidence yet exists.
This is not saying that it is definitely NOT the phenomena you are claiming it to be, just that the evidence is not convincing.

No..doubt about the DNA test is only raised based on some fact or evidence presented by the defense. Is the DNA tester a known fraud? Have his results been contaminated in the past? It is not sufficient to call the DNA test into question based the mere possibility it is not accurate or fake. A claim always needs to be supported. "Calling for speculation" is immediately overruled.

In a court of law, yes. In science one must demonstrate that the testing is sound, not assume it is until people prove otherwise. That is why one must always document the testing methodology, so that people can examine it and raise concerns or conclude it is sound. If concerns are raised then the onus is on the person making the claim to correct those concerns.

But if you make a claim that the photos aren't real, then you need to support that with evidence. Just saying it is possible it is fake isn't sufficient to call the evidence into question.

Yes it is. If it is more likely to be a fake than to be the phenomena claimed, then what is the rational conclusion I'm going to reach? Hint: it's not that the phenomena exist. It will be that the evidence presented is unconvincing, and I will hold onto the position I find rational - that until something is actually proven to exist, I will assume it doesn't.

If you make a claim about the evidence not being real or erroneous, then you need to support that with facts. You are the one making the assertion that they aren't real. The burden is on you to prove that.

Please take your head out of the law courts and into science. In science the one making the claim must do all the work, must demonstrate that the evidence is what it is saying it is. The other side has to do nothing but be skeptical. There is no prosecution and defence both submitting evidence to support their own positions: there is simply one side making claims and trying to convince others - and if they aren't convinced due to what they see as flaws or weaknesses in the evidence then the burden is on the claimant to address those weaknesses.
That a photo can be faked IS a weakness, and the claimant of it being a photo of a UFO must overcome that weakness, for example.

We have no idea if it is likely that the photos are faked. We have no idea if the phenomenon is unlikely either.

We know photos have been faked in the past. We have no scientific evidence of the phenomena. Guess which is considered more likely.

That's presumably why we are scrutinizing the evidence. Groundless assertions of plausibility or implausibility from within the framework of a preexisting metaphysical worldview don't count as evidence.

The one reviewing the claim don't need to present evidence to support the "no it isn't!" case. It is a matter of the "yes it is!" camp providing convincing evidence.

Well I'd certainly disagree with your claim that the paranormal hasn't been proven to exist. Observing hundreds of investigations and reading hundreds of eyewitness accounts over the years, it's pretty much well established at this point.

So you believe. But there is a difference between paranormal and simply unexplained but mundane.

If you had examined as much of this evidence as I have I would find your claim more credible. But you haven't have you?

Haven't I?

Because for you it is all fakery based on your faithheld assumption that the paranormal is too extraordinary to ever occur.

Not "to ever occur" - just that it would take extraordinary evidence to convince, due to the extraordinary nature of the claim.

But if it IS occurring and being witnessed all the time by people all over the world, then it is not that extraordinary.

If - yet there is no scientific evidence, no scientific paper that has stood up to scrutiny, that supports the notion of it being "witnessed all the time", or that it even exists in the first place.

You only assume what you pretend to conclude from examining the evidence. Is the paranormal too extraordinary to occur? Well let me see the evidence for it. Oh but this can't be REAL evidence because the paranormal is too extraordinary to occur!

Again, I'm not saying it's "too extraordinary to occur" but that at present there is no substantive convincing or scientific evidence that it does. Come up with something substantial - a ufo witnessed by multiple news crews, for example, that is clearly of alien origin.

If the paranormal occurs in specific and typical ways that make it an identifiable, physically detectable and measurable phenomena, then it IS more rational to invoke it as an explanation after we have eliminated all the mundane possibilities. And that's what parapsychologists and investigators do all the time in thousands of cases.

If the "paranormal" occurs in such a manner then it is hardly paranormal, is it.
Only the explanation of what the phenomena is pushes it into the paranormal. And that's where the "extraordinary claims" come in, that the cause of the phenomenon is X or Y rather than something far more mundane.

 

[Magical Realist]

Where have I said that it is too extraordinary to exist? Please don't put words in my mouth. The position taken is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - and anecdotal and pictoral evidence that could be of something more likely than what it is claimed to be is not extraordinary evidence.

Once again, you are claiming the phenomena is too extraordinary to be inferred as real, and so much so that it becomes more plausible for you that the evidence is faked than that it is authentic. Such continuous and well coordinated fakery on the part of hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses and photographers is an extraordinary claim itself demanding extraordinary evidence, no? Why should we believe your unevidenced accusation of fraud over the eyewitnesses reports? Are you any more credible than they are? Maybe you are dishonestly pushing an agenda of debunkery in the name of science. Can I just accuse you of possibly being a liar and count that as evidence against your position? What is your evidence they are all faking it? How did they fake it? What was their motive? What makes the ufo phenomenon MORE extraordinary than a massive worldwide conspiracy to lie and defraud the public that ufos are real?

Again, I'm not saying it's "too extraordinary to occur" but that at present there is no substantive convincing or scientific evidence that it does. Come up with something substantial - a ufo witnessed by multiple news crews, for example, that is clearly of alien origin.

I already told you I posted 10 well documented and multiply witnessed cases of ufos in posts #119 and #120. Are you deliberately ignoring this so you can continue your lie that I only present photos of fuzzy blurs? Wouldn't want to actually acknowledge there's good evidence out there now would we? That would sink your whole "it's too extraordinary to occur" battleship wouldn't it? If there was ever any extraordinary evidence for anything, these 10 cases are definitely it. And no..I don't have to score thru your now moved "prove it is an alien" goalposts. I have only to prove it is a craft of intelligent operation that is beyond the present capability of anything we have.

If the "paranormal" occurs in such a manner then it is hardly paranormal, is it.
Only the explanation of what the phenomena is pushes it into the paranormal. And that's where the "extraordinary claims" come in, that the cause of the phenomenon is X or Y rather than something far more mundane.

I've already explained this to you numerous times. Something can be a phenomenon in one sense, and a theory in another. Evolution is such a thing, being both a real physical phenomena of nature AND a theory to explain certain facts of nature. Gravity is a phenomenon AND a theory at the same time. And that's what the paranormal is. Get used to it.

If - yet there is no scientific evidence, no scientific paper that has stood up to scrutiny, that supports the notion of it being "witnessed all the time", or that it even exists in the first place.

There is no scientific evidence, no scientific paper that has stood up to scrutiny, that supports the notion of your own existence, of it being "witnessed all the time", or that you even exist in the first place. Strange how you place your entire faith in science only when it is convenient to you.

 

[DaveC426913]

Once again, you are claiming the phenomena is too extraordinary to be inferred as real, and so much so that it becomes more plausible for you that the evidence is faked than that it is authentic. Such continuous and well coordinated fakery on the part of hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses and photographers is an extraordinary claim itself demanding extraordinary evidence, no? Why should we believe your unevidenced accusation of fraud over the eyewitnesses reports? Are you any more credible than they are? Maybe you are dishonestly pushing an agenda of debunkery in the name of science. Can I just accuse you of possibly being a liar and count that as evidence against your position? What is your evidence they are all faking it? How did they fake it? What was their motive? What makes the ufo phenomenon MORE extraordinary than a massive worldwide conspiracy to lie and defraud the public that ufos are real?

MR, this is a straw man.

Person A makes an assertion about an event "I saw a flying saucer".
Person B doubts the plausibility of the account, and offers several possible alternate explanations.

One cannot call Person B a liar. One cannot say Person B is making an accusation.

 

[DaveC426913]

An experimental aircraft is not a phenomenon. A model isn't a phenomenon. A cgi image isn't a phenomena. When we eliminate all these non-phenomenal explanations, we infer the phenomena itself as real and so a plausible explanation for all future cases.

We may need to be more rigorous in our terms here.

You're right, a thing (aircraft, model, cgi) is not a phenomenon, but the events surrounding it may well be.

A gathering of fifty people who saw strange lights in the sky can certainly be referred to as a phenomenon. It is referring to the event itself 'something strange happened in the sky'.
Whether or not the phenomenon ends up having a mundane explanation, an exotic explanation or is never explained, it is still referred to as a phenomenon.

I recognize that you are using the term slightly differently. You seem to be referring only to unexplainable phenomena as phenomena. (Notice that: 'unexplainable' is a qualifier on the larger set of all phenomena, because there are other types).

That's fine, but not everyone is using it that way, and that's going to cause confusion. We should all agree on the term.

 

[Magical Realist]

One cannot call Person B a liar. One cannot say Person B is making an accusation.

Unevidenced accusations of fakery are lies. Person B is lying the moment he slanders the eyewitness as an untrustworthy liar. He's also lying when he claims the mundane explains it when none of the mundane causes fit the case. See the 10 cases I already posted.

 

[DaveC426913]

Unevidenced accusations of fakery are lies.

An accusation, even an unevidenced one, is not a lie.
Where has anyone actually made such an accusation, as opposed to positing it as a possibility?

Person B is lying the moment he slanders the eyewitness as an untrustworthy liar.

No one has called any person a liar. We have only videos and photos to go on. We can certainly posit they might not be genuine.

He's also lying when he claims the mundane explains it when none of the mundane causes fit the case.

No he isn't. He is making a claim. That is not a lie.

You are now moving into a territory where you pretty much demand any opponent must accept every incident posted at face-value and true, else be called a liar.
That is not a demand you have any right - or business - making. And it's kind of off-the-reservation.

 

[Magical Realist]

An accusation, even an unevidenced one, is not a lie.
Where has anyone actually made such an accusation, as opposed to positing it as a possibility?

Yes it is a lie, when it is unevidenced and just made up as "possible." If you tell someone that it is possible they are lying, you are calling them a liar. You may waffle back and forth on the term possibility, but as you quickly get your face punched in you will suddenly see the truth of it. lol!

No one has called any person a liar. We have only videos and photos to go on. We can certainly posit they might not be genuine.

No, we also have thousands of eyewitness accounts too. If you claim someone photoshopped a ufo video, you are calling them a liar.

No he isn't. He is making a claim. That is not a lie.

Making a false claim deliberately to support your preexisting belief is lying.

You are now moving into a territory where you pretty much demand any opponent must accept every incident posted at face-value and true, else be called a liar.

No. I'm simply demanding evidence for the claim that they are lying. Don't have any? Then you don't know that do you?

That is not a demand you have any right - or business - making. And it's kind of off-the-reservation.

It's my total right. If you make a claim someone is lying, back it up with evidence. I have no reason to take your word for it just because you don't want to accept evidence as authentic.

 

[Sarkus]

Yes it is a lie, when it is unevidenced and just made up as "possible."

Are you claiming that there is no possible way whatsoever that it might have been faked, or simply a mistaken recollection? If so you need to convince me of that, because I consider it possible. I am not accusing them of faking things, but it is a possibility.

If you tell someone that it is possible they are lying, you are calling them a liar. You may waffle back and forth on the term possibility, but as you quickly get your face punched in you will suddenly see the truth of it. lol!

I'm a skeptic - of course I consider it possible that they are lying, or simply mistaken. That is why the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence needs to be, to persuade that they are not lying, not mistaken.
And I'm sorry that you think the term "possibility" is so unimportant in the matter. It is actually key to the matter, and that you can't seem to see that does rather diminish the value of further discussion.

No, we also have thousands of eyewitness accounts too. If you claim someone photoshopped a ufo video, you are calling them a liar.

Noone is claiming they did but it remains a possibility until you prove otherwise. You are the one claiming the interpretation of the photo is correct, so the onus is on you to assuage our concerns.

Making a false claim deliberately to support your preexisting belief is lying.

You're the only one making false claims by asserting that I have somehow lied. I haven't, and it is clear that I haven't in the language I have used, although you simply refuse to try to understand it (see above re: possibility).

No. I'm simply demanding evidence for the claim that they are lying. Don't have any? Then you don't know that do you?

Noone has accused anyone of lying. There is no such claim. There is simply the actual possibility (oops, there's that word again) that you refuse to acknowledge, but that I for one feel there is. You are making the claim so it is upon you to remove that possibility from my concern.

It's my total right. If you make a claim someone is lying, back it up with evidence. I have no reason to take your word for it just because you don't want to accept evidence as authentic.

For the last time, noone is claiming that anyone is lying.
And we have no reason take your or their word for their interpretation just because you/they do want to accept the evidence as authentic.

I for one will stick with what I consider to be the least implausible explanation as the practical position I adopt, until such time as sufficient evidence arises to convince otherwise. And yes, I do think it less implausible that the explanations are simply unknown but mundane (including photoshop, fakery etc) rather than anything paranormal.

 

[Magical Realist]

Are you claiming that there is no possible way whatsoever that it might have been faked, or simply a mistaken recollection? If so you need to convince me of that, because I consider it possible. I am not accusing them of faking things, but it is a possibility.

I'm saying a possibility, in the technical sense you are using it, isn't enough to dismiss evidence. I could say it's also possible the evidence is authentic. So what? You have utterly failed at presenting an argument for your position. You see, in reality evidence is either real or fake. There is no actual state of being possible. Possible is an extention of our ignorance. Positing it is useless in making a convincing case.

I'm a skeptic - of course I consider it possible that they are lying, or simply mistaken. That is why the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence needs to be, to persuade that they are not lying, not mistaken.

It's also possible they aren't lying. So where are we then? At a stalement limited by our own resigned to ignorance on the matter. Why don't you research the photographer or eyewitness? Why don't you see if similar ufos were seen in the area at the same time? Why don't submit the photo to analysis? Are there negatives of it? You only present a weak concession of not being certain either way, and leave it at that. Why even express that? Does you ignorance define the validity of the evidence or account? No..

And I'm sorry that you think the term "possibility" is so unimportant in the matter. It is actually key to the matter, and that you can't seem to see that does rather diminish the value of further discussion.

No..It is on the one hand, totally inadequate to determine the validity of the evidence. And otoh, it is a flagrant accusation against someone you don't even know just to deny a phenomenon you think is too extraordinary to occur. As if merely planting the seed of doubt is enough to deny the evidence. It is not.

Noone is claiming they did but it remains a possibility until you prove otherwise. You are the one claiming the interpretation of the photo is correct, so the onus is on you to assuage our concerns.

I'm not claiming anything. I'm simply presenting a photo as presented to me. If your claim it is a possible photoshop, then the burden lies on you to show me why. Why should I accept your claim it is possibly photoshopped just because you say so? Give me a reason to think it possible enough to matter.

You're the only one making false claims by asserting that I have somehow lied. I haven't, and it is clear that I haven't in the language I have used, although you simply refuse to try to understand it (see above re: possibility).

You're making a claim that you have no evidence for. Why do you think it possible enough that the photo is faked to even mention it? What tipped you off? Can you just tell by looking at the photo? Teach us how you can do that!

Noone has accused anyone of lying. There is no such claim. There is simply the actual possibility (oops, there's that word again) that you refuse to acknowledge, but that I for one feel there is. You are making the claim so it is upon you to remove that possibility from my concern.

I have no more duty to disprove the unevidenced possibility of fakery than you have to disprove the mere possibility of authenticity. A possibility isn't an excuse to dismiss evidence. It is an indication of our ignorance and of a need to fill that ignorance with more information about the evidence so we can be more certain about it than just a mere stalemate of possibilities.

For the last time, noone is claiming that anyone is lying.
And we have no reason take your or their word for their interpretation just because you/they do want to accept the evidence as authentic.

Right..just the weak assertion of possibility again, as if that overrides the possibility that it is real. lol!

I for one will stick with what I consider to be the least implausible explanation as the practical position I adopt, until such time as sufficient evidence arises to convince otherwise. And yes, I do think it less implausible that the explanations are simply unknown but mundane (including photoshop, fakery etc) rather than anything paranormal.

You have no way of knowing the paranormal is any less plausible than a mundane cause nobody has discovered yet. I mean really? The heard and recorded sound of a conversation in an empty room must have some mysterious scientific explanation that rules out the paranormal that exhibits this same trait over and over again in thousands of investigations and accounts? lol! That's not objectivity. That's the pigheaded denialism of someone who doesn't want to believe in the paranormal because it conflicts with their metaphysical assumptions on what reality is.

BTW, have you looked at those 10 ufo cases yet? Why not? Afraid the evidence might be TOO extraordinary?

 

[paddoboy]

Sarkus said: ↑
Are you claiming that there is no possible way whatsoever that it might have been faked, or simply a mistaken recollection? If so you need to convince me of that, because I consider it possible

I'm saying a possibility, in the technical sense you are using it, isn't enough to dismiss evidence. I could say it's also possible the evidence is authentic. So what?

Sarkus said:
I'm a skeptic - of course I consider it possible that they are lying

It's also possible they aren't lying. So where are we then?

So what??? So where are we then?????
That's easy to answer if you want to be really honest and truthful with yourself and the forum. It's simply a UFO

 

[Magical Realist]

Detailed description given by one of three Canadian hunters in their truck of an amazing ufo craft.
==============================================================
Date of sighting: August 2014
Location of sighting: Canada
Source: MUFON

"Its understandable that a person in the DOD wants to keep things off the record. In the government, you either play by their rules, or their rules will kick you out. Its just about job security."

Scott C. Waring
www.ufosightingsdaily.com

News states:

"A extremely credible Scientist that works with highly advanced technology who is also a contractor with the Department of Defense tells about a encounter with a large U.F.O. while on a hunting trip , 3 hunters see a dog bone shaped U.F.O. that is 170 feet long, covered in blue plasma, watch a interview with two of the hunters who witness this out of this world craft 400 feet away from them, Investigated independently by myself and Robert Powell (Director of Research for MUFON) Mutual UFO Network , for a considerable time, this event has produced specific details normally not observed and is now being released to the public, with the witness needing specific help furthering his research."

Ofcourse the pseudoskeptic will just say it's possible this is all just a hoax. Possible? Maybe. Plausible? I don't think so.

 

[paddoboy]

Ofcourse the pseudoskeptic will just say it's possible this is all just a hoax. Possible? Maybe. Plausible? I don't think so.

Just as your claim that Aliens may be flittering in and then flittering out again, conducting medical procedures etc, without leaving any sceric of irrefutable evidence of their visitation, is possible, it's most certainly not plausible.

 

[Magical Realist]

Just as your claim that Aliens may be flittering in and then flittering out again, conducting medical procedures etc, without leaving any sceric of irrefutable evidence of their visitation, is possible, it's most certainly not plausible.

You really are fixated on the anal probing thing aren't you? Why is that?

 

[paddoboy]

You really are fixated on the anal probing thing aren't you? Why is that?

I didn't mention anal probing: And you as usual have avoided answering the question directly.
I'll answer the why though...It just reinforces the total unlikeliness of what some gullible people see the need to believe.

 

[Magical Realist]

I didn't mention anal probing: And you as usual have avoided answering the question directly.
I'll answer the why though...It just reinforces the total unlikeliness of what some gullible people see the need to believe.

So because some people report experiences of being abducted by aliens with sinister experiments performed on them therefore ufos don't exist? That doesn't follow at all.

​

Interview with John Mack
Psychiatrist, Harvard University

NOVA: Let's talk about your own personal evolution from perhaps skepticism to belief ...

MACK: "When I first encountered this phenomenon, or particularly even before I had actually seen the people themselves, I had very little place in my mind to take this seriously. I, like most of us, were raised to believe that if we were going to discover other intelligence, we'd do it through radio waves or through signals or something of that kind.

The idea that we could be reached by some other kind of being, creature, intelligence that could actually enter our world and have physical effects as well as emotional effects, was simply not part of the world view that I had been raised in. So that I came very reluctantly to the conclusion that this was a true mystery. In other words, that I—I did everything I could to rule out other sources, or sexual abuse. Some of these people are abused. But they're able to tell, distinguish clearly the abduction trauma from other forms of abuse. Some forms of psychosis or people making up stories—I could reject that on the basis that there was no gain in this for the vast majority of these people.

.... I've now worked with over a hundred experiencers intensively. Which involves an initial two-hour or so screening interview before I do anything else. And in case after case after case, I've been impressed with the consistency of the story, the sincerity with which people tell their stories, the power of feelings connected with this, the self-doubt—all the appropriate responses that these people have to their experiences..."'

NOVA: So tell us, please, how literally you intend people to take this? Are you suggesting people are really being snatched from their beds by aliens and experiments on board a spaceship?


MACK: Just how literally to take this, is one of the most interesting and complex aspects of this. And I want to walk through that as clearly as I can. There are aspects of this which I believe we are justified in taking quite literally. That is, UFOs are in fact observed, filmed on camera at the same time that people are having their abduction experiences.

People, in fact, have been observed to be missing at the time that they are reporting their abduction experiences. They return from their experiences with cuts, ulcers on their bodies, triangular lesions, which follow the distribution of the experiences that they recover, of what was done to them in the craft by the surgical-like activity of these beings.

All of that has a literal physical aspect and is experienced and reported with appropriate feeling, by the abductees, with or without hypnosis or a relaxation exercise.

....There is a—I believe, a gradation of experiences and that go from the most literal physical kinds of hurts, wounds, person removed, spacecraft that can be photographed, to experiences which are more psychological, spiritual, involve the extension of consciousness. The difficulty for our society and for our mentality is, we have a kind of either/or mentality. It's either, literally physical; or it's in the spiritual other realm, the unseen realm. What we seem to have no place for—or we have lost the place for—are phenomena that can begin in the unseen realm, and cross over and manifest and show up in our literal physical world.

So the simple answer would be: Yes, it's both. It's both literally, physically happening to a degree; and it's also some kind of psychological, spiritual experience occurring and originating perhaps in another dimension. And so the phenomenon stretches us, or it asks us to stretch to open to realities that are not simply the literal physical world, but to extend to the possibility that there are other unseen realities from which our consciousness, our, if you will, learning processes over the past several hundred years have closed us off."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aliens/johnmack.html​

 

[paddoboy]

So because some people report experiences of being abducted by aliens with sinister experiments performed on them therefore ufos don't exist? That doesn't follow at all.

You're doing it again, MR: Twisting the facts and avoiding the issue at hand to give credibility to your own short comings....
You claim that all the mundane reasons to explain away your inferences of Aliens is not plausible: Yet you see as plausible the fact that these advanced intelligent beings would flitter in and flitter out without any official announcement or contact.

​

 

[Magical Realist]

You're doing it again, MR: Twisting the facts and avoiding the issue at hand to give credibility to your own short comings....
You claim that all the mundane reasons to explain away your inferences of Aliens is not plausible: Yet you see as plausible the fact that these advanced intelligent beings would flitter in and flitter out without any official announcement or contact.

​

And so you ofcourse know exactly what an alien intelligence would be up to at all times, how it should act, where it would go, how long it would stay, and the people it would be contacting. You don't even believe in them. Since when are you an expert on them?