Do you believe in UFO's?

[joepistole]

On the contrary.
The evidence presented to the general public in the "already made my mind up" books would be enough to convict.
The evidence AGAINST isn't presented in the books.
No court in the world convicts without hearing both sides of the story, both sets of testimony.
Unfortunately the UFO books don't even allow (except for snide side-swipes, usually misrepresented) the opposing evidence.


And the sworn testimony from the personnel that didn't corroborate the "UFO story" has been left out of the popularisations.


See above.

That is where you are wrong. The sworn testimony of the Air Force officers remains unchanged and is consistent. Those who have tried to debunk their testimony have been proven false.

You also failed to mention all of the official stories that have debunked put out by the government (Roswell). And then you have the statements made by the Canadian Defense Minister.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGyFWyNuF3s

Here is Colonel Halt's testimony and the incident investigation is preserved on tapes he made. His testimony has been and remains consistent. There have been attempts to cover up and distort facts related to this case. But it seems to me that eye wittnesses of great credibility should be listened to and not disregarded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8DHDsweaWE

As I said your anti UFO position would be a lot more tenable if one did not have to ignore so much fact in order to accept it.

 

[Gustav]

Link?
From stuff I read years ago?
And probably isn't all on the 'net anyway.
I read books...
Try googling for it.
Kevin McClure (sp?) is one name that springs to mind.

i expect you to make the effort to back up your claim

 

[Ganymede]

Apart from the energy output - there's no stealth in space.

People don't report seeing UFO's in space.

Um, right. 30 years after arrival of the UAV the signals start to come into his brain.

You're basing that conclusion on our understanding of physics. A class 2 civilizations technology is thousands of years ahead of ours. That would be least of their challenges.

 

[Dywyddyr]

That is where you are wrong. The sworn testimony of the Air Force officers remains unchanged and is consistent. Those who have tried to debunk their testimony have been proven false.

Oh I'm sorry.
I didn't realise you have comprehension problems.
I wrote:

The evidence presented to the general public in the "already made my mind up" books would be enough to convict.
The evidence AGAINST isn't presented in the books.
No court in the world convicts without hearing both sides of the story, both sets of testimony.
Unfortunately the UFO books don't even allow (except for snide side-swipes, usually misrepresented) the opposing evidence.
And the sworn testimony from the personnel that didn't corroborate the "UFO story" has been left out of the popularisations.

In other words: not everyone involved gave evidence that supported the UFO theory.

You also failed to mention all of the official stories that have debunked put out by the government (Roswell).

And sworn testimony by officers who were there.
Which sadly gets left out of the books.
Start here.

And then you have the statements made by the Canadian Defense Minister.

Ah, selected video statements by someone who wasn't there, and WTF does the former Canadian Defence minister have to do with a UK RAF base?
Just because the guy was in a position of political power prevents him from being a gullible crackpot?
Hmm, just like Prince Charles and his liking for homoeopathy...
It MUST be real! Somebody important says so.

 

[Lori_7]

In the case of UFOs, no.
Every one seems to be different, either grossly or subtly.
Every one appears in a different location, for differing lengths of time, with differing behaviour.
They are ALL "one-off" occurrences and even eye-witnesses differ on details.

and the phenomenon as a whole means something.

 

[Dywyddyr]

i expect you to make the effort to back up your claim

You can expect whatever you like.
Are you of the opinion I can remember the title of every book I've read on the subject?
Or maybe you're of the opinion that everyone involved had exactly the same view of the situation?
Carry on.

People don't report seeing UFO's in space.

They have to get here through space.

You're basing that conclusion on our understanding of physics. A class 2 civilizations technology is thousands of years ahead of ours. That would be least of their challenges.

Ah I see.
You're assuming that there are "Class 2 Civilisations" and that they can somehow transmit signals faster than C?
Good luck proving (or even demonstrating) either of those.
Talk about "unfounded speculation".

 

[joepistole]

Oh I'm sorry.
I didn't realise you have comprehension problems.
I wrote:

In other words: not everyone involved gave evidence that supported the UFO theory.

And sworn testimony by officers who were there.
Which sadly gets left out of the books.
Start here.

Ah, selected video statements by someone who wasn't there, and WTF does the former Canadian Defence minister have to do with a UK RAF base?
Just because the guy was in a position of political power prevents him from being a gullible crackpot?
Hmm, just like Prince Charles and his liking for homoeopathy...
It MUST be real! Somebody important says so.

LOL, now after being forced into a corner you are resorting to using personal attacks.. I think that speaks for it self as to the weakness of your position. You have failed to support any of you claims, because you and I both know they are not supportable.

You have shown that you do not have an open mind. Any evidence or position contrary to yours is in your mind wrong. I think there is a word for that, it is arrogance. In many ways, people who cannot look facts in the face remind me of that old bird who likes to burry its head in the sand when in uncomfortable situations. And so it is with many of those who ignore UFO evidence and testimony from credible sources.

So now according to you not only is the former Canadian Defense Minister crazy, so were the American officers guarding nuclear weapons at Rendlesham. I would think that if indeed they were crazy, someone in authority would have recognized that fact and removed them from office given the great responsibilities these individuals bore in their professional lives.

 

[Dywyddyr]

LOL, now after being forced into a corner you are resorting to using personal attacks.. I think that speaks for it self as to the weakness of your position. You have failed to support any of you claims, because you and I both know they are not supportable.

Wrong again.
I pointed out that you (either deliberately or mistakenly) misread my comments.
I said NOTHING about changing testimony, that was a misrepresentation by you.

You have shown that you do not have an open mind. Any evidence or position contrary to yours is in your mind wrong.

Also wrong.
As stated previously I have read extensively (and that includes BOTH sides of the argument) for decades.

So now according to you not only is the former Canadian Defense Minister crazy, so were the American officers guarding nuclear weapons at Rendlesham. I would think that if indeed they were crazy, someone in authority would have recognized that fact and removed them from office given the great responsibilities these individuals bore in their professional lives.

And you seem to underestimate allowable "craziness".

 

[Dywyddyr]

And so it is with many of those who ignore UFO evidence and testimony from credible sources.

Having actually been at the side of the guy when a US Navy F-14 pilot misidentified a Russian jet fighter at a range of half a mile in broad daylight please, explain to what a credible source is?
EVERYONE is subject to misinterpreting what they see.
Add to that; night-time, in a forest...

 

[Gustav]

As stated previously I have read extensively (and that includes BOTH sides of the argument) for decades.

an absolutely worthless and infantile appeal to a yet, unproven authority
you do have the power to change all that by presenting a cogent argument in favor of your claim

until then i shall tentatively write you off as crackpot conspiracy theorist

 

[Dywyddyr]

an absolutely worthless and infantile appeal to a yet, unproven authority

Yeah sure.
So YOU can remember exactly which books you've read?
All of them?

you do have the power to change all that by presenting a cogent argument in favor of your claim

Couldn't be bothered to follow that link then?

until then i shall tentatively write you off as crackpot conspiracy theorist

Do as you wish.
"Conspiracy theorist"?
WTF?
Oh there's a conspiracy of people who want UFOs to be real and they're secretly promoting it on the internet?

 

[joepistole]

Wrong again.
I pointed out that you (either deliberately or mistakenly) misread my comments.
I said NOTHING about changing testimony, that was a misrepresentation by you.
Also wrong.
As stated previously I have read extensively (and that includes BOTH sides of the argument) for decades.
And you seem to underestimate allowable "craziness".

I think your posts here have yielded ample evidence to support my positions here. No one here has misconstrued anything you have written.

In order to support your position you have to ignore evidence and resort to other errrors in logic (e.g. ad hominem). Can people misidentify objects certianly. But such has not occured in the Rendlesham case. If you pay careful attention to the statements made by the officers reporting the incident at Rendlesham they made not inferences as to what the objects were, but described them. Additionally, these officers have rejected all of the claims made by those who tried to rationalized and discount their observations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY5exRzIa_U&NR=1

 

[Dywyddyr]

I think your posts here have yielded ample evidence to support my positions here. No one here has misconstrued anything you have written.

I see.
So where exactly did I write, or imply, that testimony had been changed?

In order to support your position you have to ignore evidence and resort to other errrors in logic (e.g. ad hominem).

Wrong again.

Can people misidentify objects certianly. But such has not occured in the Rendlesham case.

Wow. You were there too?
How do you know?
Because you're taking what YOU have read as fact...

 

[Ophiolite]

an absolutely worthless and infantile appeal to a yet, unproven authority

Get a ****ing grip. This is not an Appeal to Authority but provision of background to illustrate that Dywyddyr has made a study of this subject and is not coming from a closed minded position in which he has read only pro-UFO arguments. As such it is wholly relevant to the thread and is not a logical fallacy of anykind. But then you already knew that Gustav, but were just being your usual gormless self.

you do have the power to change all that by presenting a cogent argument in favor of your claim

You wnat him to prove a negative? UFOs don't exist. Do you want him to prove God doesn't exist as an encore?

I think your posts here have yielded ample evidence to support my positions here. No one here has misconstrued anything you have written

Then you will have no trouble pointing to the specific evidence that supports your position. From what you have written you have very definitely misinterpreted posts. This may have been accidental, or deliberate. Either way an apology is in order.

 

[jpappl]

Joe,

This is where I have to chuckle a bit, the evidence offered in the Rendlesham Forrest incident would be more than enough to convict someone of murder and enough evidence in the United States to relieve someone of their life.

You have the sworn testimony of career Air force officers. Either those officers were delusional while guarding nuclear weapons or they saw something that defies explanation, something extraordinary which on the face of it would apear extraterrestrial.

The difference is that we haven't established intelligent ET's existence. So, my point being. If it was claimed that "Bill" killed "Joe" and we know "Bill" exists, then the testimony has value.

Claiming that "what I saw was ET" without knowing or having physical evidence of at least one previously, a body in other words. Then it's no different than claiming to see bigfoot.

There is not the kind of evidence to support an absolute claim of ET's existence and of visiting earth.

I am not saying that ET has not visited or is not out there. Just that we haven't come across the type of evidence to say without any doubt that it has happened. Bottom line we need evidence that is without question, we need a body or a re-occuring encounter so it can be documented.

However, I would agree that there is a ton of very interesting evidence of things that remain unidentified and testimony, that I don't accept as evidence by itself but I could accept that they have indeed encountered something out of this world. I say that because I believe that it is unlikely that we are alone. Just a matter of whether they have actually come here or not.

To say that I know they exist and have visited, I want more than testimony. Because we have to establish with extrodinary evidence that they exist first. Then it changes how we look at the testimony.

 

[joepistole]

Joe,

The difference is that we haven't established intelligent ET's existence. So, my point being. If it was claimed that "Bill" killed "Joe" and we know "Bill" exists, then the testimony has value.

Claiming that "what I saw was ET" without knowing or having physical evidence of at least one previously, a body in other words. Then it's no different than claiming to see bigfoot.

There is not the kind of evidence to support an absolute claim of ET's existence and of visiting earth.

I am not saying that ET has not visited or is not out there. Just that we haven't come across the type of evidence to say without any doubt that it has happened. Bottom line we need evidence that is without question, we need a body or a re-occuring encounter so it can be documented.

However, I would agree that there is a ton of very interesting evidence of things that remain unidentified and testimony, that I don't accept as evidence by itself but I could accept that they have indeed encountered something out of this world. I say that because I believe that it is unlikely that we are alone. Just a matter of whether they have actually come here or not.

To say that I know they exist and have visited, I want more than testimony. Because we have to establish with extrodinary evidence that they exist first. Then it changes how we look at the testimony.

I don't think that you and I are in disagreement here. There is evidence that something strange is and has happened and defies conventional explanation. What that is remains to be seen. But to discount these credible reports out of hand is very unscientific.

There are certianly a lot of lunies out there. But there is some serious evidence that should not be discounted just because it runs contrary to conventional wisdom or belief.

 

[jpappl]

O

“ Originally Posted by Gustav
you do have the power to change all that by presenting a cogent argument in favor of your claim ”

You wnat him to prove a negative? UFOs don't exist. Do you want him to prove God doesn't exist as an encore?

And this is the problem for those who believe ET's have or are visiting.

There isn't the type of evidence to establish proof. Just enough of this and that to make it seem a possibility because there isn't any other answer to what it was. Doesn't mean it is or was ET, but since we look for answers even when there are none, we are left with assigning it to magical beings.

We can't prove something doesn't exist. So until they present themselves to us in a way that proof can be established, then we are left with guesses.

 

[Gustav]

And what about the reports from witnesses (especially Rendlesham since you brought it up) that go against the interpretation placed on it by the "Oh my god it's a flying saucer!" crowd?
Is that reliable and credible?

Link?
From stuff I read years ago?
And probably isn't all on the 'net anyway.
I read books...
Try googling for it.
Kevin McClure (sp?) is one name that springs to mind.

As stated previously I have read extensively (and that includes BOTH sides of the argument) for decades.

Yeah sure.
So YOU can remember exactly which books you've read?
All of them?

so you merely pull shit out of your ass, right?
once again, give me the explanation provided by these alleged witnesses

lemme take the liberty of quoting my dear old friend

Then you will have no trouble pointing to the specific evidence that supports your position.

/cackle

ja
go for it, dywyddyr.

 

[Dywyddyr]

so you merely pull shit out of your ass, right?

Like Joepistole does?
I mean, the witnesses contradict each other.
One says he had 45 minutes looking over the thing on the ground, another claims it took off straight away.

once again, give me the explanation provided by these alleged witnesses

Once again: do your own reading.

lemme take the liberty of quoting my dear old friend
Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Then you will have no trouble pointing to the specific evidence that supports your position.

Oh I get it.
You can't read either.
As PREVIOUSLY stated: so many books over so long a time.
As opposed to statements made in this thread.
Get it now?

 

[jpappl]

I don't think that you and I are in disagreement here. There is evidence that something strange is and has happened and defies conventional explanation. What that is remains to be seen. But to discount these credible reports out of hand is very unscientific.

There are certianly a lot of lunies out there. But there is some serious evidence that should not be discounted just because it runs contrary to conventional wisdom or belief.

I agree with this, I agree with keeping an open mind on the subject. At the same time, we need to leave it as unexplained in those cases and not assign it to ET's. There may be a more prosaic explanation to the event. It may be a secret craft of our own for example.

So, if we don't have an answer we don't have one.

We shouldn't make up an answer in those cases.

There are many reasons to support the idea of ET visitation. There are many reasons to support the idea they have not visited.