The exact percentage of sightings that are unknown or unexplainable are questionable. Some claim it's a mere one percent. Others say that's a conservative estimate. I'd say more, but I'm not in the mood for writing or thinking or breathing or being. Toodles, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! noodles!
skinwalker perhaps i can oblige somewhat the paper in question is Skeptics UFO Newsletter (SUN) #62 the klass files, which is hosted by cicops, seems incomplete and #62 is missing. however ohio state university claims to have archived a Skeptics UFO Newsletter #62 dated march of 2000. i doubt if it is online but i am sure a procedure exists to peruse the contents of the newsletter if one was so inclined what we have online however is a rebuttal to klass's claim by a eric w. davis skinwalker, for a person who exhorted me to discuss rather than flame, your post sounded suspiciously like a rant. a diatribe replete with red herrings and strawmen. it is bait. and i just might bite Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
i find this very perceptive but then again it probably is the most commonplace of affairs for you. i have noticed what you speak of here is my verdict. neither camp can handle a subtle and nuanced argument or viewpoint. shades of grey are to be avoided like the plague. it is no fun and requires actual thought. your literary style cannot be easily skimmed and i guess most will not comprehend the whole or perhaps just ignore. if i recall correctly, i was astonished that the pseudos did not seize the opportunity you presented to them in the form of your explanation of ufo's alleged motion. i think i even mentioned it. no critique/acknowedgement, nothing. i do know why however. besides, you roasted a few crackpots, yes? no? that probably earned you a lifetime membership in the pseudo skeptic club
an apology if i offended you in the giam/gustav thread that said...do not bring it up! think "abstract" and "third person". there is enough drama in here good posts and i learned some stuff
now, on a general note.. enough with the fucking confessionals you all have been warned Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That rebuttal was helpful. I've not found the original explanation by Klass, but at least Davis' response gives the gist of what was in it. I also was never a big fan of Klass, though I found many of his explanations and responses to UFO claims to be thought out and plausible in each case I've read. His personality didn't seem to be one that I would have gotten along with, however. If so, nothing intentional. It was mostly my opinion based on my knowledge of both sides of the UFO believer fence. I was once a "devout believer." I've since been "de-programmed," if you will, but I remember the feelings I had about skeptics at the time. Most of the frustrations that ETI-UFO believers have are missplaced and illogically derived. Do what you feel you must. You've seen enough of my posts to know that I can handle myself.
Skin, remember few weeks back? i asked you , in different words, WHAT was it that 'de-programmed'- you? you never responded. maybe you missed the post. i'd be interested to know tho
>sigh!<... Yeah. Y'know, you're probably right there. Thank you for that G, something certainly to mull over. Your candour, as always, refreshing. I'm obliged.
Reptilians disguised as men in black gave him a talking to, I'm certain. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
@SkinWalker, and fellow thinkers. Apologies in advance for the moderate verbosity... Thanks for your reply, Skin. I regard your posts rather highly, so it's with due respect that I suggest that anything which is characterizable and objective can be analyzed with the Scientific Method. At one time, the study of UFO's was scientific (not that UFO's were ever a branch of Science, granted), and in some small circles, serious individuals still carry on civilian investigation. This distinction is to, again, acknowledge that a handful of kooks and people seeking their "15 minutes" have so marginalized the topic that it makes the jobs of debunkers and skeptics even easier since the very axiom of "UFO's are all little green men" is memetic, culturally. You have to agree that the meme is so pervasive that I suggest for consideration that any person who makes it their professional position would not, and could not, recognize authentic evidence (if any exists) of a genuine ETI encounter (if any occurred) even if it were available to them for extended review, because the very absolute which they have built their careers around would then have been fundamentally dissolved. The underlying point I wish to make for you to consider is not that I oppose "professional debunkers" but that I dismiss bandwaggoners of both extreme positions; believers and deniers alike. Others do a bang-up job already, here and elsewhere, of kicking the hornet's nests of the other view... ... I furthermore suggest that the term "UFO" is very much outdated because, with the advent of Our own exploration of Space (which has occurred since the terms UFO and Flying Saucer were originally minted), we now have electronically captured data coming in from probes, satellites, and shuttle missions to consider. With these new sensory devices comes a need for Our lexicon to grow in order to characterize new, objective phenomena and data and to re-evalutate previous assessments. I'm supposing that every civilian and government organization which monitors airspace, atmospheric or oceanographic parameters, or near outer space has some specific terms or codes for unknowns and/or unusual phenomena. For example, it's rather easy to speculate that an FAA unknown is going to be refered to differently than a NORAD unknown, and then their unknowns from a skunkworks project, or NRO unknown, or a NASA unknown, or some other (if any) "genuine unknown." The main point to consider isn't codewords and semantics, however, it is this: that We (Earthlings) logically have "a set" of sets of specialized knowledge, and much of what "UFOs" are- (or have turned out to be, in most cases)-- is within that sum set. I'm hoping you'll agree that the logical conclusion of this point is that there are genuine unknowns; they occur; they exist; certainly within that sum set of Human Understanding, and (logically) outside it. The sum point I wish to make here with all this is- that unknowns exist, that encounters with mysterious or unusual objects and phenomena are real and do occur, and it is much more rational and of benefit to one's time to investigate scientifically any case which exhibits direct evidence or credible testimony. ... The ETI hypothesis is only one of many. I don't "buy" that this is the only one, and neither do you; we agree on that. Where I'm sure we differ on whether or not is it (1) possible, (2) probable, or (3) likely in any case, and those are only matters of degree. I'm of course not here to "testify" or "convert" anyone to my way of thinking- or to even suggest we lighten the burden of proof on the protagonist of the ETI/UFO hypothesis. ... Only to show that I think it's more reasonable to maintain an open mind on the subject of so-called UFOs, and to "think the unthinkable" before it can have any shock value to our senses... that is the "true" value of hypothesis; it avoids worthless theories. ... Consider this then, though it is 'impolite' to mix these ideas together- That the ultimate Philosophical endeavor is Understanding, and the ultimate Scientific endeavor is Inquiry. Heh- I suggest there's no end to the latter, and a only limited amout of the former to be had. Thanks again. Cheers
If mundane explainations are either dimissed or not considered atall in favour of the alien hypothesis then this is clearly sloppy thinking. But i dont think thats what myself (and Giambattista) were talking about. The issue was when people invoke mundane explainations that dont fit but stick to them anyway, which to my mind is every bit of sloppy as just saying 'oh its obviously aliens...next'. It was but i seem to remember there being anomalies which didnt fit the supposed oil well explaination, such as movement relative to the camera of the ufos and as Giambattista pointed out the shape of ufos appearing far too spherical to be flares.
Btw i did actually have a feeling you might have been a reformed believer, somone so 'anti-anything to do with ufos' had to have some ulterior motives going on. Reformed characters are strong minded people once theyve been deprogrammed or reformed. For instance, an ex-alcoholic is far more likely to tell you how evil and destructive booze is compared to someone whos never touched a drop. The ex-alcoholic will also see it as being impossible for anyone to drink in moderation and will probably tell people to 'stay away from the stuff altogether' assuming that people will fall into the exact same traps they have. I think you can probably guess what im getting at; Just because you fell into certain mental traps and belief systems related to ufos doesnt mean others will to. We can handle our ufos in moderation Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sorry to be so direct, i useally try to stick to the subject at hand rather than dissecting peoples methodology; but i really feel like this painstakingly created strawman youve created needs knocking down before normal conversation can resume.
Don't be sorry, please! If you would only observe his misrepresentation of my opinions in the "Brain Implants" thread, you would realise he deserves to be questioned, and quite possibly reprimanded. Michael Shermer is another of those credulous woo-woos gone (in your words) "anti-anything to do with ufos" skeptic. It is a trend that I myself have noticed on occasion before.
As well as a possible radar return, and the fact that no observations of oil flares had been misconstrued as unidentified flying objects on that route before. An understatement! Skinwalker's clear prejudice and pre-conceived notions of people is rather annoying. I'm getting tired of being labeled a woo-woo and filed away thusly, when the person doing the name-calling consistently misunderstands my position in the first place. The Mexican case is interesting, but not conclusive of anything at this time, in my opinion. I'm not in ANY way jumping to the conclusion that every little weird light is automatically aliens. However, as you have observed, he seems to be the one jumping to conclusions. Your approach is a reasonable one, Heliocentric. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
SkinWalker is one of the few (possibly the only - though I will award Heliocentric a commendation for effort) person on this thread who has consistently made their position clear. Everyone else has pussyfooted around with implications, prevarications, obfuscations, innuendo, and a general vagueness that would do credit to party of pre-pubescent girls. If you don't want to be misinterpreted make your position clear from the outset. With that in mind, I berate the Disclosure Project, not because I do not consider it possible that UFOs are alien space craft, but because the Project is crap. I do consider it possible that UFOs are alien craft. It's just I believe, based upon available evidence, that that possibility is remote. The cases where no plausible conventional explanation is available, hardly constitute an automatic shoo-in for the alien hypothesis. I am at a loss to see why anyone would lean to that alternative out of the many available, other than a flawed application of the faulty notion of Sherlock Holmes, about eliminating other explanations.
a rather natural expression of megalomania resulting from a delusion of grandiosity. the right honorable justice oafy! lets analyse and rip post to shreds watch in awe donations welcome
Another pointless contribution Gustav. You are going to exceed your own record for futile posting. Oh, I see, are you hurt I didn't award you anything? There, there. Just keep trying - I'll give you that much - you are trying.
