Ophiolite, I meant that not all posters may be aware of the long history of the subject,as it is not widely known as a " serious" subject. Now I feel a bit stupid because having looked up some of the posts of years ago,there is a lot of information already in this forum`s history. Excuse my crassness, I`m getting on a bit ,the brain`s throwing wobblies! Regards ,Awdsci
Don't let that keep you from chimming in with the discussion, awdsci. You seem to have an opinion, which may be of interest to the discussion, regardless of whether others agree or not.
your "empirical evidence" notwithstanding.... i meant what i said. perhaps it is unfortunate i prefer debate over discussion but i am sure i can make the accomodation quite effortlessly. all you gotta do is to disallow past considerations to taint the present. new thread it is when sufficiently motivated one of the talking points.... suit up...just kidding Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Window glass is quite transparent. Are other things equally transparent? Just an idle thought. awdsci - think nothing of it.
Skinwalker---yeah, why ae you resorting to callin Gustav by a past username? thaqt's childish. he is NOW 'GUSTAV' also, he is very MUC contributing to the degbate. so much so, he shows you'll up/ the chinks in your 'logic'--you know who i mean. THA is why he disturbs you, know why?? cause you invest EVEYthing in 'logic' is why. so to haveyour shaky founations juddered ...ooooo it hurts. i can feel it. btw, the reference to a past rant of yours. sheeit, i'd already answered it. please keep in presnt time. more fun Ophiliolite--says, 'eye witness testimony is unrelible'---ie., your reasons for interpreting the Disclosure prokect testimonies 'dangerous'. well. for WHo are the unreliable? for te one's who dont believe them? i wold say yeah to that. i would add that your irrational accusations against these people are unreliable, taboot. and Oph yu said: "you previously dismissed my shared experiences of seeing ghosts on two occassions-----eh what? that dont seem ME. where?
Cut me some slack Duendy. I don't know where. I have mentioned my ghost sightings on a number of threads over the past one and a half years. I have no idea which one or ones you made disparaging comments. I recall thinking at the time that if I had waxed lyrical at this strange mystical experience and not been called Ophiolite you would have been all over me and thrusting my experience in skeptics faces as another example their materialism would ignore. Instead, because I accepted them as hallucinations, with susbtantiating evidence, you just berated me for being a materialist. Some days it really does get old, Duendy. When one is trying to be honest and direct, then you just get kicked in the gonads.
ohhh myyyy daaays, SEE the irony HERE! you call others dangerous etc, and nutters, who give eye-witness testimony, yet..... OUT OF THE BLUE you accuse ME---not a likely canidate--as somehow discounting your ghosty mystical experiences, and yet---wait for it, have NO EVIDENCE to support your accusation.....? mwhahahhhahHAHAHHAhhhhaahahahaha...till i puke.......heheheheh
The evidence is there. I'm not too happy about having to spend several hours to locate it, since google no longer works within sciforums. I thought you might, in line with your declared principles, be willing to accept my description of events. Apparently not. Is there a touch of hypocrisy in your approach Duendy? No, surely not. Let us get something else absolutely clear - several things. I do not call anyone who give eyewitness testimony a nutter. I call people nutters who choose bizarre explanations over the mundane, either because they lack intelligence, education, or discrimination. I call the the unscientific approach to UFOs dangerous because it delays a more widespread scientific approach. I did not have mystical experiences - I saw ghosts. I said that had I claimed them as mystical experiences you would have clasped me to your bosom, figuratively I trust.
Nostalgia. I remember him as 'Spookz.' He made an impression upon me then. Perhaps it was the same quality that got 'Spookz' "forever banned" by Porfiry. Who knows... but he *is* Spookz. I'm not sure if you mean 'muck' or 'much.' Surely you mean the former, to which I agree. He serves only to muck a conversation. And if you notice, I only interact with him when he interacts with me. Such is the nature of the agreement we arrived at which he posted above. You responded, but you certainly didn't refute it. My 'rant' stands. The data I cited are valid and have not been refuted. The link I provided is also relevant and provides the answer to the question you posed. Though it seems likely that the information in that thread was not objectively reviewed by yourself, since it appeared contrary to your belief system and was thus dismissed out of hand. Not that I expect objectivity from you, though it is my hope. But in the interest of keeping the thread more about the topic and less about each other, which of the witness accounts do you see as credible in the document? Some? All? If all, do you operate under the assumption that every single account is accurate and true without embellishment (intentional or unintentional) or deception? Or do you accept that some of the accounts (there's a total of about 400) are inaccurate? If you do, which ones do you feel are the most inaccurate and why? If some can be accepted as inaccurate, why not all? How does one answer the problem of the demographic of the "eyewitnesses?" How does one answer the hypothesis that this is a function of belief rather than objectivity when the "testimonials" of other, questionable claims are considered? Do we accept that all testimonials of questionable claims validate the claims (new age cures, pyramid power, individual relgious cults, etc)? Or do we accept that people can allow their belief to override their critical thought processes and side with what they hope or want to be true? Do we accept that people of some perceived high status or rank in a society worry about their reputations while the rest of us are less concerned? Is the reputation of the individual who works a 9-5 job and lives pay-check-to-pay-check less important that that of the individual in the military? Or do we accept that those of elite status (of which there really aren't any in the 'disclosure project') are as capable of being as passionate or devout in their beliefs as the rest of us? The so-called 'disclosure project' discloses only the beliefs of its membership. Its 'congregation' if you will.
Duendy is a classic example of hypocrisy and someone who repeatedly argues against the very things she claims to stand for! On one hand, she considers all science to be "materialistic" and distrustful. Yet she turns right around and is quite willing to take the word - unquestioned, even! - of a bunch of people who say they saw something and since they don't know what it was, why then, it must have been alien craft!!! She also is opposed to ANY religion, yet as you've just pointed out, these people practically have their own "CHURCH of UFO BELIEVERS." No evidence of any kind, no real facts that can be examined - nothing but pure belief and belief alone ! Talk about confused, irrational thinking! She tops the chart in that category. (Her little tinfoil hat needs serious realignment - things are leaking out as well as in.)
Skin, the gist I personally got frm your latest post issss: how does one differentiate between bogus new age scams and whats going down at the DP? without evidence.....solid alright , in one of your critiqes you mentioned i think, Reiki. two years back i was on holiday with a young woman friend. she had been--a year back--in a bad road car accident and her leg was shattered. there was threat she might have to have amputation Her sister is a Reiki Master, and had learned it from her. she claims she healed it, and on holiday wa walking around this really frisky duns like any normal person, just needing a natrual stick for a sight crutch when it got dark one night and we were shrooming Nw. i intuit how you look at this event. you throw out 'reiki'--but ALSo throw out te ACTUAl healing she has somehow happened for herself altho not a Chaos magicikan. i dabbled once and have read a bit about it. they would interpret whats going on as this: 'reiki' is a MODEL. it is not 'the truth', but A way of --in this case--self-healing. and tat other ways could be used to just a adequate. including of course modern medicine if you so need/desire it....and of course in some cases, modern medicine is VERY much needed. yet not THE only way
It sounds like your problem with the disclosure project is in reality a problem you have with the ufo community in general. I think its a unfair blanket statement to claim that anyone interested in ufos has no interest in objectivity. I cant see what basis youd have to believe that people who are talking about ufos are simply using it as short-hand for 'alien spacecraft' unless you can read the mind of anyone talking about or professing an interest in ufos. I havent come across any witness accounts recounting other people's stories unless youve come across any and can copy and paste some quotes for me. thats a rather strange thing to say, that comes across to me as 'anyone who sees a ufo must have a delusional belief since ufos dont really exist' Reading between the lines in some of your posts thats the increasing impression im getting. I dont think the project goes as far as to disclose information about race, its really irrevelvant i think and a complete non-issue. But yes there does appear to be more male witnesses than female, prehaps due to the fact that some of these reports stretch decades back, before equal opportunities were as championed as they are today. As for rank it certainly holds alot more weight to hear someone with status/position than without, who would you be more inclined to believe someone with nothing to lose or something with everything to lose? Eye-witness testimonies can always be suspect yes, that is if you have can think of a reason to suspect youre being lied to. If you cant think of a good enough (plausible) reason then suspicion starts to become a little baseless and more of trait within the person scrutinising the data. As for testimonies being useless... definitely not, eye-witness testimonies are used every day in hearings and in courtrooms. Which is presicley the context that greer seeks this information to be used.
On the contrary, you have implied some very definite beliefs in the way you have described the object. You state that is had wings: today we find wings on birds, insects/bugs, aeroplanes. In each case they are associated with flight. Stating that the object you saw had wings clearly implies your belief that these wing-like objects were related to flight. In a similar way the body suggests a life form, or a constructed device that contains something. Again, belief is very clearly implied. I have no problem with you saying you saw something with long translucent features that looked like wings. Or, that the thing you observed appeared to have a body. Then you would be describing your experience. This is precisely what most reported UFO observations fail to do: objectively describe what they have seen. Instead, from before they begin to vocalise the experience they are already interpreting what they see and assigning provisional meaning. That's what humans do. That is why eye witness testimony is so unreliable, not because people knowingly lie, but because they make the same error that you did in relation to the 'novel' insect.
Spherical or saucer-shaped, like what I witnessed that one time. As it has been for quite some time. Propulsion? Silent? Capable of propelling something to extremely high speeds, back and forth, barely giving time for it to change trajectory, yet seemingly not skipping a beat? Brava, Mrs. Blank, BRAVA!!!! All extremely tired explanations. YAWN! What?!?! ANOTHER UFO??? I don't have to get up for this one! It's Venus, obviously! After all, Occam's Razor tells us this! I believe dear Gustav once said this not too long ago: Veteran Japan Airlines 747 Captain Kenju Terauchi reported a spectacular, prolonged encounter over Alaska in 1986. "Most unexpectedly two space ships stopped in front of our face, shooting off lights," he said. "The inside cockpit shined brightly and I felt warm in the face." Despite the FAA determination that he and his crew were stable, competent and professional, he was grounded for speaking out. No kidding? From a short article about that case: Of course, Occam tells us that Mr. Callahan is probably an exaggerator (Irish too? Probably a drunk!!!). Thanks, Ockham. You're such a knowledgeable guy! CASE SOLVED! No need to look at the radar records! No need to take the pilots' accounts at face value! Let's just rest easy, shall we, knowing that ALL PEOPLE are either deceiving, or being deceived. Again I say, CASE CLOSED on this one, folk!
Oph...what thelivin hell is you goin on with? do you write yur own scripts or what? looook. WHEN a person sees something so extraordinary as a 'UFO' rst assured their percepive capcity will also be extraordinaly attuned tink of some vital incident. you may haf eexperienced it, read about it, whatever. climbing---the prson is nearly on life's edge. and suddenly seems to acquire strength didn't know about, acuity of vision etc.THAT what really pisses me orf about your camp. is your ptronizing attitude............. you have he NERVE to say to people, eg: 'you didn't really see/experience what you did, cause xyc' if you could know how fukin annoying that stance is. not annoyng as in, there may bedoubt felt the annoyed. but annoying as in beneath contempt and wantin to strangle the silly dipstick who doesn't know the fuk what they is talkin
i have seen video of of radar images that defied description there are only 2 conclusions i can make about what i saw 1. it was a actual ufo 2. it was a simulation to detirmine the controllors reactions now i ask which is more plausable?
He follows in the steps of the "GREATS"! "I wasn't there, I didn't see it! But they couldn't have seen what they say they saw, so here's what they REALLY saw, even though I wasn't there." Pseudoscience? Does it apply? You be the judge of that.
On the other hand what is so extraordinary about a UFO? Duendy, I don't trust what people say they have seen because people are crap at understanding what they have seen. In a somewhat earlier computer age, where an HP2100 with 8k of memory was the bees knees, cost several thousand dollars and whose only output and human input was via teletype I witnessed repeatedly a simple example of this. Training people to use software on this beast I would hand them typed instructions. The typed instructions would tell them exactly what to type and note, in large bold letters, to type exactly that. I would back this up with strongly worded direction. Despite this, time after time, they would fail to get the program to run. They would claim that something was wrong with it. I would look at their input, there for all the world to see on the teletype output, and it would be wrong. I would simply say its wrong, you've not typed it exactly as required. Look. They would look and swear it was correct until I would point out the missing space, or the colon that had replaced a period. Time after time this happened Duendy, with educated individuals, trained to look objectively at the world and many of them, consistently got it wrong. I don't trust eye witness testimony. It is not patronising. It is not dismissive. It is realistic.
Maccabee's First Rule of Debunking: any published explanation is better than none. In layman's terms? As long as it sounds scientific, and it doesn't stoop to saying that something is truly inexplicable, then it's ALRIGHT!!!
