Why does the government hide UFO's?

I never suggested they were. Try addressing what I actually said.

In your efforts to refute my assertion, you have been forced to add words such as "always" and "all the time". You had to modify my words, since my actual claim is demonstrably true.

This is an extant example of your dishonesty.

And this is how you have destroyed your credibility.

And yet, rather than argue in good faith, you accuse others of lying and being dishonest.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Whatever troll..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Always making it personal aren't you? Ooo I'm so dishonest! Blah blah.. Why is it so hard not to insult me? Does the fact that an intelligent person like me believes in ufos disturb you that it may be true? Does the compelling evidence I present anger you and so unleash your flaming tirades on me and the horrible person I must be? I think your own posts speak more about your own pathetic dishonesty and your inability to consider this topic objectively. Hence the desperate "it's all fake" stance and the litany of tired ad homs about me and how deceitful I'm being. And so now you know why you are not someone I enjoy corresponding much with James. Grow up a little and conduct yourself politely and maybe that will change. But I'm not counting on it.

lol! I'd sooner stand blindfolded before a firing squad. It's not yours or anyone elses job to flame me or dissect my psyche. Just discuss the points I raise. If you think the evidence is faked, then tell me why. What evidence can you present for that claim? You can't just raise suspicion about a documentary or a photo or an account and not say why.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have a search engine. Use it..

 

I don't recall ever saying that MR is deceived. I was expressing my own sympathy with what I take to be MR's motivations. I share them. MR wants to believe that the universe is still capable of being wondrous, that everything hasn't already been assigned into a nice little scientistic box. So he looks to phenomena that he thinks don't fit comfortably in the boxes.

I just happen to think that he's looking in the wrong place for that mystery and wonder. I find it in the realization that the intellectual underpinnings of our whole intellectual edifice are still shaky and uncertain. Some of the little boxes don't look nearly as robust when it's realized that their justification is still controversial. (That's an even more radical challenge to scientism than MR's problem cases, if you think about it for a moment.)

I already wrote about MR's motivations in the post that you are apparently referring to.

What interests me just as much as MR's motivations are the motivations of those who fight him so violently. What's their motivation? Why is it so important to them to believe that everything is safely tucked away, that everything already fits into a nice little explanatory box? Why is it so intolerable that somebody disagrees? Why doesn't everyone who disagrees with MR just say "I disagree with that" much as I did up in post #996? Why all the combat? Why is everyone so eager to silence MR, to insult him, even to burn him at the stake (ban him) for heresy?

The world no doubt will seem a less threatening place when everything is accounted for in one's world-view and all exceptions rendered impossible. People might even feel a sense of omniscience at second-hand, if they believe that they are associated with the sacred gnosis that explains everything, even if they can't understand all the reasoning and justification themselves. Certainly they will feel superior to all the outsiders (Fraggle's "retards") who don't stand within the charmed circle.

How do you know he's lying to himself? You're sneaking in your own assumption that every intelligent person will naturally agree with you. So if anyone disagrees, they must be doing it knowingly and dishonestly.

I'm not prepared to accept that generally speaking, Sciforums is any position to "tutor" anyone in "methods" applicable to justification of belief. Those that might be, like Sarkus and CC perhaps, aren't among MR's enemies. All that the board's louder and more self-assured participants can do is express their own opinions on the subject.

It's especially ironic when we have post after post on the board announcing the philosophy is bullshit. (The sainted Feynman said so!)

The word "genuous" is new to me. If we take the 'dis-' off 'disingenuous', wouldn't we have 'ingenuous'? (Which doesn't exactly mean the opposite of 'disingenuous'.)

I think that honest and intelligent skeptics need to stop saying that there is "no evidence" for ufos being alien vehicles. There are thousands of ufo reports, so that's just wrong. Some of them seemingly are reports of metallic objects that fly in formation with aircraft and so on, reports that certainly make it appear that some of the ufos are vehicles under intelligent control. Now obviously, all of those reports are defeasible. Perhaps thay are the result of people misinterpreting things or jumping to conclusions, or even filling out sketchy recollections with their imaginations. I lean towards thinking that way myself, but I haven't actually demonstrated it in MR's cases. And that guess of mine certainly doesn't justify saying that there is "no evidence".

What we might have here on Sciforums are people who are unwilling to accept any evidence. People whose minds are preemptorily closed. I think that's how MR sees it.

A more charitable interpretation might be that there is 'no evidence so far that I feel convincingly justifies my believing that ufos are alien vehicles.' That's more defensible I think. It's closer to my own views. Of course it raises the question of what kind of evidence would be sufficient. (And the fact that we aren't convinced isn't an argument that ufos can't be alien vehicles either. They could be, even if nobody believes it.)

MR plays a valuable role here on Sciforums in introducing the problem cases, cases where all the easy certainties don't necessarily apply, even if nobody else wants to consider them.

None of that justifies the hostility and outright hatred with which MR's expressions of heresy are received. None of it justifies that accusations of lying and of nefarious purposes.

 

No less than you consider it very important to your vision of yourself and your place in the universe that all your scientistic beliefs be true, to the extent that you're completely closed to any suggestion that you consider the alternative. Physician heal thyself..

No..neither you nor anyone else are tutoring shit. You relentlessly ad hom and insult and infract me for presenting facts and evidence for phenomena you dogmatically deny, pretending to know more about a subject that I have been studying for around 15 years. You are in no position to tutor anyone on this subject. On the contrary, you are the ones who have been tutored and educated on this topic. Your irrational and obstinate denial of it's validity as a real and distinct phenomena is the primary reason I move after so many pages of flames and ad homs. Noone one can educate someone who constantly screams "Fake!" with every presentation of the topic.

 

That nicely makes my point.

I made an assertion. You tried to refute it - by corrupting it.
When called out on it, your response is "whatever".

 

No..I'm simply not interested in your flaming ad homs. I've made this very clear to you in the past. I will simply ignore you when you start attacking my integrity and character. It has nothing to do with you backpeddling on your inane claim that people can't be trusted to tell the truth.

 

It is not an ad hom. I am directly addressing your actions in this thread To-wit: the deliberate corruption of an opponent's stance. That directly damages your credibility in this thread. As does the demonstrable naivete that instigated it.

I called you out on that dishonesty in this thread. I get to do that in a civilized debate.

But here is a chance to own up to that. Acknowledge the corruption on my stance and the claim of dishonesty will be automatically invalid.

 

No..I will not respond nor defend my character in the face of your ad homs on my integrity. You said people should not be trusted because they lie, and I showed how that is a patently ridiculous assertion. That is not a corruption of your claim. Are we clear?

 

Pot, kettle, black......
Or perhaps you misunderstand, as I'm sure you would not be dishonest, even though you have been informed umpteenth times.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Science has scientific theories, which is the accepted scenario at that time, but always open for invalidation and/or modification.
Science has also concluded that most UFO/Alien incidents were simply results of atmospheric disturbances, illusions, delusions, lies, or trickery.
The small proportion that remain unexplained are simply that....unexplained.
In other words, science is leaving the door open, not jumping to preconceived nonsensical conclusions re time travellers and/or Aliens.
This is what you are doing, and of course your sidekick.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Worth repeating.

 

Please MR, I really believe you are not as stupid as to believe that raising this video, refutes anything I said.
If I am gullible though, and you do believe that, then I certainly won't be next time you do similar.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Again, the small percentage that remain unexplained, are just that , unexplained. In other words science is leaving the door open for any potential extraordinary evidence to conclude one way or the other.
Please MR, you need to do better.
Congrats though for not falling for river's gullible claims, and that of his looney author friend Brandeburg and the face on Mars nonsense and Alien nuclear war. That shows there is still some hope for you.

 

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case14.htm

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case96.htm

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case408.htm

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case828.htm

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case1075.htm

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case777.htm

 

Please MR, I'm not interested in your videos, and gullible claims etc etc.
The fact remains that most are explained away and the small percentage that remain, are unexplained.
You see while science leaves the door open, gullible and Impressionable people that believe otherwise, then become even more emotional, irrational and just plain ornery.
Take it easy my friend!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My "survey" has had over 500 views.
Almost all of those who posted a comment (not 500) gave a negative report.
One member however told of a good friend and pilot and in all respects credible who had an experience of being "buzzed" by a UFO on a routine flight that left him a changed man.

I have read the accounts that you recently posted MR.
All very interesting and beyond explanation.

Alex

 

Walter Conkrite's UFO encounter in the South Pacific, 1950...

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case1178.ht

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Farmington, New Mexico UFO Armada--- March 17, 1950....

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case880.htm

Computer rendition:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well all this brings us back to the op.
Why?
Alex