WTF is your problem?
I was alluding to rape.
I was alluding to rape.
Really? You have rape fantasies? Please take that unsavory topic elsewhere. Unless you wish to 'corroborate' a first-hand UFO/alien(s) probing encounter(s) of, let's say, an 'intimate, violating' nature!WTF is your problem?
I was alluding to rape.
Do you ever stop and think that people really looking for extraterrestrial life would be offended by MR and your bullshit?Hopefully someone will intelligently, honestly comment on article linked to in #5360.
'Interested' to respond with this much: A self-confessed alcoholic's notion of what constitutes 'BS' deserves to taken lightly at best.Do you ever stop and think that people really looking for extraterrestrial life would be offended by MR and your bullshit?
You can say no. But that means you're really not interested.
What a strange post!Then logically, James R is not really a 'scientifically minded' skeptic! Which I will 'prove' below.
The following briefly searched, inexhaustive list contains posts of considerable length. I believe in responsible replies respecting enquirers limited patience.
That said, just use the universally browser independent Ctrl+F together with proof and/or proves as search words (sometimes as confirmatory of a quote) in the following posts:
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3679027/
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3659110/
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3643819/
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3627234/
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3616481/
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3602557/
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3601493/
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3601101/
And a choice post that exemplifies James R's and fellow 'SF debunker's' insidious method of demonizing actually very reliable and reputable first-hand witness individuals:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/in-defence-of-space-aliens.160045/page-152#post-3601491
What more is there to say?
You're assuming what you need to show. It is not enough for you to just state your personal conviction that there is a "high reliability recounting" that points to the conclusion you had already reached prior to seeing this "recounting". You need to show that the evidence has the "high reliability" that you claim it has.Another high reliability recounting of vetted/trained thus mentally stable, responsible, accountable, multiply and simultaneously observed, military personnel.
Oops! You're showing your true stripes there, Q-reeus.One of many such before and since. Dismissed with a wave of the hand by the armchair SF 'skeptics'. Actually out and out scoffers. Too deeply committed to a mindset of 'only 'scientific' material phenomena CAN exist'.
This from the guy who goes for the personal attack in every post. You do make me chuckle, Q-reeus.Demand PROOF! When the contextual unreasonableness of that tactic is laid bare, just obfuscate and/or go for personal assaults i.e. tackle the man not the ball.
Too easy, and thus worthless.
James R is, as quoted above, evidently peering into a mirror and castigating himself. Please stop it though. So unedifying.It's only because you're a bit of a baby that you spend your time ranting and raving...This from the guy who goes for the personal attack in every post.
What's laughable and simultaneously lamentable, is the all too predictable unreasonableness of the SF 'debunker' brigades demands for 'proof'. Yazata (and myself) has ably fingered that 'proof' word as totally inappropriate given the (from a human perspective anyway) totally random and unpredictable nature of UFO encounters.
ALL one has, and all one can have, is circumstantial evidence.
Of intelligently controlled phenomena. With whimsical/mischievous motivations imo the consistent hallmark. How many times now has that been presented and predictably ignored or twisted to suit? Lots!
Perhaps, but not in this field.I think that employing the idea of "proof" is often inappropriate outside mathematics and logic.
We share similar outlooks. Especially as to typical motivations of many 'debunkers'. Where we differ is to degree of commitment to a concrete position.I think that employing the idea of "proof" is often inappropriate outside mathematics and logic. But that doesn't mean that inference is inappropriate. Sometimes that's deductive inference, but more often it's something else, whether induction or abduction. What the latter two have in common is that they don't imply logical necessity in the same way that deduction does. In inductive or abductive arguments, it's possible for all of the premises to be true and the conclusion false. To the extent that these arguments succeed, they make conclusions more likely.
We probably need to define what "circumstantial evidence" is. Circumstantial evidence is evidence of something other than what one wants to demonstrate, but supports a plausible inference that what one wants to demonstrate is indeed the case. In a trial, a prosecutor might present results of a dna test, showing that biological materials left at the crime scene match the accused. Which supports the inference that the accused was present at the crime scene.
Virtually all scientific evidence is circumstantial in that sense. We might want to determine the pressure in a pressure vessel. How could we do that? We consult a pressure gauge. But reporting the reading on a gauge isn't the same thing as reporting the pressure, without an additional inference about what the pressure gauge is doing and how it works. Evidence like photographs, instrument readings and experimental results occur everywhere in science. Their value oftentimes is that they justify inferences about particular physical states of affairs that we believe caused the evidence to be such as it is. Circumstantial.
I think that the most reasonable inference from the many observation reports is that something seems to have really been there in a subset of the reports and we don't know what it was. We don't even know whether it was all the same kind of unknown something each time. It's way premature to say much of anything about how they were controlled or what motivation they might have served. (Assuming intelligent agency behind them, which is unknown at this time as well.)
I guess that where we differ is that I'm not comfortable drawing the kind of inferences that you are drawing: whimsical/mischievous motivations, etc. I prefer to maintain my agnostic stance.
Where we are in agreement is in our disagreement with the so-called "skeptics" (more accurately debunkers) who try with all of their might to sneer and ridicule the whole matter into silence.
![]()
By Q logic, that makes you a sock of Yazata and a sycophant.We share similar outlooks.
If such people exist, they aren't doing a very good job of it, by the looks of it.Where we are in agreement is in our disagreement with the so-called "skeptics" (more accurately debunkers) who try with all of their might to sneer and ridicule the whole matter into silence.
You are yet to show there are any "nonmundane" UFOs. No point speculating on what "they" are until you have at least established that there's a "they" requiring an explanation.I've essentially nailed my colors to the mast in ascribing all or nearly all nonmundane UFO/UAP etc. encounters to the paranormal.
Hence the far more likely likelihood that one is dealing with misattribution of supersonic/hypersonic speeds, due to mistake in perception, hallucination, mismeasurement, misidentification etc. etc.If I was to single out one key facet from many, it's the many reports of low altitude supersonic/hypersonic speeds with never one observed sonic boom.
Sticking my neck out, I will state categorically that no physical craft, which has to displace air in moving from A to B, will ever be capable of that extraordinary feat!
Hence the likelihood one is dealing with 'projections' of some sort.
Well, in your opinion, your average Illuminati Grand Conspiracist Shill has god-like powers, so nothing special there.Well sorry,but imo the totality of recorded incidents indicates to me UFO and related phenomena owe to intelligences wielding god-like powers.
If such people exist, they aren't doing a very good job of it, by the looks of it.
Too often people are simply uncomfortable with concluding "I don't know". To me it is the default position and one in which I take great comfort, although would obviously prefer to know. Saying "I don't know" means that you're still on your journey, with all the exciting places to visit along the way, if one wishes to continue it.I think that the most reasonable inference from the many observation reports is that something seems to have really been there in a subset of the reports and we don't know what it was. We don't even know whether it was all the same kind of unknown something each time.
I wouldn't even begin to ask about "control" or "motivation" until they were on the table as meaningful questions. Which is a long way off, given how much we don't know about things. To even contemplate those questions is to effectively discount that wealth of ignorance that we have, and to simply assume that whatever "unknown" it is, it is at least one that we seem, somehow, to know enough about it to ascribe motivation etc. We're nowhere near that, in my view, given our levels of ignorance.It's way premature to say much of anything about how they were controlled or what motivation they might have served. (Assuming intelligent agency behind them, which is unknown at this time as well.)
Aye. There are still some sensible people among us.I guess that where we differ is that I'm not comfortable drawing the kind of inferences that you are drawing: whimsical/mischievous motivations, etc. I prefer to maintain my agnostic stance.
Hmmm. On the whole I find skeptics and debunkers simply to be those willing to throw up all the other possibilities. I haven't come across any who try to silence the issue, I suspect because doing so would also end their own activity of being a skeptic/debunker: they can't really do what they do without the loud voice of those who come up with the claims. Anyone who look to "sneer and ridicule" others, whether skeptics or not, in any walk of life, are contemptible. But not all skeptics and debunkers are. Just as not all those who believe in aliens visiting us, and UFOs being of alien origin, are completely nuts.Where we are in agreement is in our disagreement with the so-called "skeptics" (more accurately debunkers) who try with all of their might to sneer and ridicule the whole matter into silence.
We share similar outlooks. Especially as to typical motivations of many 'debunkers'.
Where we differ is to degree of commitment to a concrete position.
I've essentially nailed my colors to the mast in ascribing all or nearly all nonmundane UFO/UAP etc. encounters to the paranormal.
Which is a label, not an explanation. But nevertheless one that is essentially exclusive of 'nuts & bolts' interplanetary alien piloted 'saucers'. I can't 'prove' it. It's a world view that has grown more solid from studying a necessarily limited subset of the huge catalog of reported encounters.
If I was to single out one key facet from many, it's the many reports of low altitude supersonic/hypersonic speeds with never one observed sonic boom.
Sticking my neck out, I will state categorically that no physical craft, which has to displace air in moving from A to B, will ever be capable of that extraordinary feat!
Hence the likelihood one is dealing with 'projections' of some sort. Capable of reflecting light and radar (not always the latter!), but analogous in some ways to a 3D holographic projection.
But also able to manifest as a 'physical craft' at times e.g. leaving impressions in fields, or low level radioactivity. Some will say that's a grab-bag so wide it's impossible to disprove.
Well sorry,but imo the totality of recorded incidents indicates to me UFO and related phenomena owe to intelligences wielding god-like powers. Something I have gotten used to accepting as the only overall coherent position to take.
A true explanation is likely always to remain as far off as finding the proverbial pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.