Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
You know perfectly well you have used it several times. I have no obligation to do anything a troll like you demands.
Then you're lying. Good job!
You know perfectly well you have used it several times. I have no obligation to do anything a troll like you demands.
I am not lying. You wouldn't know truth if it bit you on the nose.Then you're lying. Good job!
They are simply dismissed as if they never happened, and the pilot is dismissed as delusional or in the very least incompetent. It's the same thing they did with Commander Fravor and the 40 ft long tic tac. The pilot is "seeing things"---a balloon or a bird. Nothing extraordinary to see here. Move along folks.
Since you brought it up, the only member I've actually seen use the phrase "nothing to see, move along" is MR
I remember a time when you posted this, but it wasn't out of the blue. It was likely a sarcastic response to being told repeatedly that the tic tac flying object could have been a weather balloon. lol!!Really? Then quote where I actually used that phrase or admit your're lying.
And a hypocrite.
Beyond the obvious, I disagree. It's dragging the thread, even now, into philosophy, when this thread is about UFOs! The last thing it needs is to be dragged into anything remotely interesting like matters of epistemology!It's useful to inquire into what the slogan means, into what it is assuming, and into what rhetorical purposes those who use it are hoping to achieve.
To the first: relatively, on a personal level. I.e. if the claim ranks 1 then the evidence should rank 1; if the claim ranks 10 then the evidence likewise. Obviously what one person considers a 1 another might consider at a different level, depending on their experiences, knowledge etc.The word 'extraordinary' is being used on both sides: 'extraordinary claims' and 'extraordinary evidence'. So the first order of business would seem to be to clarify how the word 'extraordinary' is being used.
And the two sides are linked by the word 'require'. Which naturally raises the question: Required in order to achieve what?
Meh. It's certainly the first and undoubtedly an element of the second, but I'm not sure anyone is considering prescriptive. It's on a par with Occam's razor. It doesnt' lead to the truth but it's a damn fine means of focussing one's thinking.Maybe my misgivings are related to how this idea seems to slippy-slide between a descriptive account of one's own state of credulity: 'I haven't seen anything that convinces me yet'...
and an attempt to restate that description of a personal mental state as if it was a prescriptive epistemological principle: 'and nobody else should be convinced either (because I'm not) ' .
Because it generally works. It's as objective as rationality itself.If it's something subjective and isn't an objective matter, then how can it serve as a general epistemological principle?
Which is to conclude "we don't know". I.e. they're making no claim. No problem with that.The only UFO cases that I've expressed any opinions about in this thread are the 'tic tacs'. And the only (very tentative) conclusions that I've drawn from them is that something extraordinary seems to have been happening and I don't know what it was. Where 'extraordinary' is defined as 'extra ordinary' as in something not ordinarily experienced. In this case not ordinarily experienced not only by me (who has only read fragmentary accounts about these events) but by those actually there, highly experienced radar operators and naval aviators. I'm also influenced by the 'UAP Preliminary Assessment' that has been made public, which seems to pretty much agree with my own view in italics up above.
If you're not making a claim then it doesn't apply. If you're assessing the claim: "it's aliens!" then how extraordinary do you consider that claim to be? Is the evidence as extraordinary as the claim? Ultimately: are you convinced of the claim by the evidence?I'm not sure how the 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' maxim even applies in this instance. What we seem to be starting with here is an initial description of 'extraordinary evidence'. It isn't some extraordinary claim in need of evidence, it's a description of the evidence itelf. The rhetorical response from the "skeptics" seems to be to argue that a claim of 'extraordinary evidence' is indeed an 'extraordinary claim' which in turn requires extraordinary evidence. Which would threaten to turn the maxim: 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' into an infinite regress, and perhaps into an argument that 'extraordinary claims' must never be accepted as true.
You used that phrase. You called me a liar when I said so. So I quoted you. Tell SciFo its quote feature is a liar.Nice try. I was sarcastically quoting skeptics saying it. Again, you lie.
...quote where I actually used that phrase...
Nothing extraordinary to see here. Move along folks.
...nothing to see here move along...
...Nothing to see here folks! Move along...
... your're lying.
...you're lying.
...Again, you lie.
Reported for lying, then doubling down with more, and then tripling down when shown in black and white with your own words you were wrong.
Let’s change the subject…
So, are there any other similar sightings like the tic tac object that we know of?
Hmm, I wouldn't say dozens; many of those weren't in the same league as the tic tac video (my opinion) - in terms of coming away not knowing what they could be. Those could be explained away once we started digging further into the possible explanations.You mean besides the dozens of cases posted in this thread already? Yes..but when I bring up new cases I am usually flamed for changing the subject.
Hmm, I wouldn't say dozens; many of those weren't in the same league as the tic tac video (my opinion) - in terms of coming away not knowing what they could be. Those could be explained away once we started digging further into the possible explanations.
Would you believe that the tic tac object is that of a ''secret'' military aircraft? (US or foreign)