The Washington National Airport Sightings

lets

we are aware of the sun because the object radiates energy that are picked up by our sense organs. it is the first and most immediate mode of perception by which we infer that an object is there

a strawman. i am not disputing any of that

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not just any TV show, someone claimed it was the Xfiles. My natural response was ''show me the link'' as the passage which had this claim, also claimed there was no eyewitnesses lol --- along with two other suspect claims, one maybe not so suspect in error, but missing important details.

And I have never stated aliens per say. I believe in them, I believe that they have visited. I am open to the idea of something else, but other explanations run thin, especially in the Washington 1952 case.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I mean if that was their own assertions, I can shoot down the contention that no one actually observed the lights. If the TV show Xfiles was their assertion and was worried that no one can trace it, well, give me the episode number and I'll watch it. I have every episode.

I think they should also be careful, that if the video is actually real, that the Xfiles never took the video for their production, rather than producting the video for the show. The video linked as well looks older than an Xfiles episode, arguably.

 

But hey, I am open to being wrong in this case. As I have said to Geoff, it is possible that the video is fake. But... I have seen no one come forward with that claim yet with proof, or linked evidence to the qoutes presented.

I don't even require proof. I require evidence, which speaks the magnanimity of my actions than those given here recently, especially after the resident troll alex.

 

No.
You have offered NO PROOF at all that the video is real or has anything to do with this event.

Indeed, in your link, no one claims to have seen lights like these over the WH, let alone filmed them.

 

Are you blind, I just said I have no proof. Why are you saying I haven't provided any? In all my years of reading up on this subject, not once have I seen anyone offer tangible, hard proof.

 

That was in reference to the video where you say:

So you are asking for proof that the video is fake.

But the burden is on YOU to provide proof that the video is real, not for us to prove it isn't

 

Excuse me!!!! I never stated the video was fabricated.

The fact of the matter is, someone came in with a small paragraph with about three errors enclosed in the same presumption that the video came from an X-Files episode.

Well, I haven't claimed anything. That person should have responded to my (five or six) requests for the site address this claim was taken from. In the meanwhile, we have fools like you saying the purdon of proof is all on me.

Well, bub, I'm afraid it isn't. I gather the evidence and testimony I do with clear links to their origins. If a skeptic comes in here and claims something, it is their burden for proof, not me.

 

This is the 2nd post in this thread.

With nothing in that link that says where it came from, who took it etc.

Still YOU claimed it was the ORIGINAL VIDEO.

So of course the burden of proof of that claim is on YOU.

 

It should be said ''the claimed video.''

And you are forgetting that if there was any evidence to state it was not, then if that person offers evidence, they must prove without any reasonable doubt that such a claim is not bogus. If a skeptic cannot suitably reference their sources and cite their qoutes, then I cannot be held to blame for insufficient evidence.

Go figure.

 

Not sure what you were trying to say, but the way this works is the person presenting the evidence, in this case YOU, has the burden of proving the video's authenticity.

In any case it didn't take to long to track this down.

It's a CG recreation for a History Channel show.

See your "original video" at 5:12 into this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1azkhXLYkk

 

You don't know what I am saying?

Well I have zero evidence from the skeptical side that the video is a fake. If there was any question to it, any evidence that has been brought foward seems as if it cannot be substantiated. The reason why is because the [skeptic] who made the claim has not cited after five attempts to ask them to come forward. Since none of that has been provided, explain to me then how it is my burden of proof on the subject?

I have no burdon of proof because there is no evidence against. If you can find evidence against, you bring it forward. There was no question of this until the point someone posted a dodgey paragraph taken from god knows where.

 

The video was made by the History Channel.

 

You just don't get it, do you?

If you make the claim, you must provide evidence to substantiate the claim.

If I were to claim you were a murder and child pornographer, I'd have to provide the evidence. Otherwise I can simply make the claim and say to you 'show me evidence you aren't'.

 

You've been shown the source of the video, a documentary from the History channel, where they do NOT claim it to be actual footage. It's rather dishonest of them to not clearly state it's a recreation, but then they do sex things up all too often. Use some discernment, and some critical thinking, and try ans understand what you are being shown, and more importantly, WHY.

 

When?

I have kept a usually good eye on this topic. May I see this link. I must have missed it, in the meantime, do I need to repeat what I said to Geoff? Just to rehash, the video is probably a fake. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be a fake. But in the meantime, I simply was not going to believe it was a fake, just because someone claimed it. Neither did it excuse the fact that there are then 2 existing errors in the literature which also claimed it, one notible one is claiming there was no eye-wittnesses to the lights, which is clearly an erreneous statement.

Now, if that is us finished on the validity of the video which has captured your imaginations so vividly, may we move on and now continue with the actual event which was historically documented in wikipedia.

 

lol

 

It's right under his nose, and he can't see it!

He'd never be able to find a UFO!!!!!!!

 

Right. Ok, that might have something to do with me qouting you, not them. I now have it and am about to watch it.