Do you believe in UFO's?

[Lori_7]

LOL. HE isn't being objective? :roflmao:

i don't think so. not considering a preponderance of evidence, no. not considering the likelihood of et life, no. not considering an abundance of testimony, no.

see Q, unlike you, i don't assume thousands upon thousands of people are lying over the course of millenia just because they don't support my personal agenda.

 

[Dywyddyr]

and your conclusion, based upon a preponderance of evidence, is that people are just making the stuff up? a hoax? what's the agenda behind it?

See later comments.

i'm sorry, but you would have to jump through some hoops to discount all of the evidence.

Wrong. See later.

do you know anyone who's been abducted or has seen a craft?

Me.
Now try arguing.

i don't think so. not considering a preponderance of evidence, no. not considering the likelihood of et life, no. not considering an abundance of testimony, no.

Once again you missed the word reliable

see Q, unlike you, i don't assume thousands upon thousands of people are lying over the course of millenia just because they don't support my personal agenda.

Ah but unlike you I don't ascribe motives to people.
I didn't say (and don't assume) they're lying.
But I AM fully aware of how unreliable the senses are.

I don't even take my own observations of such phenomena at face value, which what the vast majority of these people have done.

 

[Lori_7]

What evidence? Can you show us an alien craft or the aliens themselves? Anything at all other than the rantings of lunatics?

who don't you think is a lunatic Q? you claim that any and everyone who is aware of something that you're not is a lunatic.

 

[Lori_7]

I don't even take my own observations of such phenomena at face value, which what the vast majority of these people have done.

this isn't the first time i've heard this from a forum member (in regards to spiritual things), and i think it's a strange perspective to have. i mean, if you can't trust and interpret your own experience and your own knowledge then what can you trust and interpret? not to say that yours is right, but i do think it's the best anyone can do, given what they have to work with. :shrug:

 

[Stryder]

But I AM fully aware of how unreliable the senses are.

I don't even take my own observations of such phenomena at face value, which what the vast majority of these people have done.

I concur.

The human brain is extremely capable of putting lines between dots, the problem is that most of the time there aren't necessarily lines to be drawn there.

From what I AM aware of, there are a lot of things being done to people without their consent on a day to day basis, those things can output extreme data (dots) which people then misrepresent (lines between dots)

Some of those projects are obviously to observe what lines are drawn, others are doing something entirely different but you end up with a "Butterfly Effect" caused by misinterpretation.

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't even take my own observations of such phenomena at face value, which (is) what the vast majority of these people have done.

This is the only rationale stance for someone with scientific training to take. Unfortunately too many believe their own senses and worse accept the least plausible explanation of what their senses are telling them. Skepticism is essential in any investigation, but is doubly important when studying the controversial, or doubtful.

 

[Dywyddyr]

this isn't the first time i've heard this from a forum member (in regards to spiritual things), and i think it's a strange perspective to have. i mean, if you can't trust and interpret your own experience and your own knowledge then what can you trust and interpret? not to say that yours is right, but i do think it's the best anyone can do, given what they have to work with. :shrug:

I see, so knowing that not everyone sees things the same way I should assume that MY perspective is the correct one and everyone else is wrong?
And you accuse me of not being objective...

 

[Lori_7]

I see, so knowing that not everyone sees things the same way I should assume that MY perspective is the correct one and everyone else is wrong?
And you accuse me of not being objective...

no, i'm just saying that your own perspective, even if it includes others' testimony, is the best you have to go on...even if it's not right...it's what you have to work with.

 

[Dywyddyr]

no, i'm just saying that your own perspective, even if it includes others' testimony, is the best you have to go on...even if it's not right...it's what you have to work with.

Exactly: I know it's not "right" i.e. it isn't an exact indicator of what's happening.
Therefore MORE knowledge and MORE data is required before making a conclusion.
Especially one that is insupportable from known (replicable) facts.

 

[Lori_7]

Exactly: I know it's not "right" i.e. it isn't an exact indicator of what's happening.
Therefore MORE knowledge and MORE data is required before making a conclusion.
Especially one that is insupportable from known (replicable) facts.

what type of knowledge and/or data is better than your own personal experience?

 

[joepistole]

What evidence? Can you show us an alien craft or the aliens themselves? Anything at all other than the rantings of lunatics?

There is plenty of evidence out there on the record, just open your eyes and mind and do a little research. There are multiple records of very credible wittnesses (e.g. Rendlesham Forrest) and many others.

The problem with those who dismiss UFOs, in order to believe them one has to dismiss a lot of evidence. Do we have alien bodies, maybe. But if we do, it is certianly not in the public realm.

 

[Dywyddyr]

what type of knowledge and/or data is better than your own personal experience?

But, as shown by the fact that everyone sees things differently what I SEE isn't necessarily what it IS.
Simply because I have seen it doesn't make it evidence, it's a one-off observation and hearsay to anyone else.
It's not objective.

There is plenty of evidence out there on the record, just open your eyes and mind and do a little research. There are multiple records of very credible wittnesses (e.g. Rendlesham Forrest) and many others.

Uh huh.
And what about the reports from witnesses (especially Rendlesham since you brought it up) that go against the interpretation placed on it by the "Oh my god it's a flying saucer!" crowd?
Is that reliable and credible?

The problem with those who dismiss UFOs, in order to believe them one has to dismiss a lot of evidence.

No, you're mistaken as to what constitutes evidence.

 

[Lori_7]

But, as shown by the fact that everyone sees things differently what I SEE isn't necessarily what it IS.
Simply because I have seen it doesn't make it evidence, it's a one-off observation and hearsay to anyone else.
It's not objective.

then what is objective? a mass sighting?

if you can't trust your own senses, and you can't trust anyone else's senses, and/or your own interpretation of them, then what can you trust?

you'll never have perfect knowledge.

 

[Dywyddyr]

then what is objective? a mass sighting?

Repeatable, measurable, verifiable, data.

if you can't trust your own senses, and you can't trust anyone else's senses, and/or your own interpretation of them, then what can you trust?

Repeatable, measurable, verifiable, data.

you'll never have perfect knowledge.

I don't assume that "perfect knowledge" exists.

 

[joepistole]

But, as shown by the fact that everyone sees things differently what I SEE isn't necessarily what it IS.
Simply because I have seen it doesn't make it evidence, it's a one-off observation and hearsay to anyone else.
It's not objective.

Uh huh.
And what about the reports from witnesses (especially Rendlesham since you brought it up) that go against the interpretation placed on it by the "Oh my god it's a flying saucer!" crowd?
Is that reliable and credible?


No, you're mistaken as to what constitutes evidence.

This is where I have to chuckle a bit, the evidence offered in the Rendlesham Forrest incident would be more than enough to convict someone of murder and enough evidence in the United States to relieve someone of their life.

You have the sworn testimony of career Air force officers. Either those officers were delusional while guarding nuclear weapons or they saw something that defies explanation, something extraordinary which on the face of it would apear extraterrestrial.

And there are many more such incidents. Take Roswell, the Air Force has issues several explanations for the event but in order to believe any of them one has to ignore a lot of contrary evidence. In the last round of Air Force explanations for Roswell, one has to ignore time lines and ignore eye wittness testimony. Any truth with respect to the issue of UFOs should not have to ignore fact. So whatever the truth is about UFOs, advocates on both sides loose credibility when they have to ignore facts to make their arguements or assume facts not in evidence to make their theorys work.

 

[Dywyddyr]

This is where I have to chuckle a bit, the evidence offered in the Rendlesham Forrest incident would be more than enough to convict someone of murder and enough evidence in the United States to relieve someone of their life.

On the contrary.
The evidence presented to the general public in the "already made my mind up" books would be enough to convict.
The evidence AGAINST isn't presented in the books.
No court in the world convicts without hearing both sides of the story, both sets of testimony.
Unfortunately the UFO books don't even allow (except for snide side-swipes, usually misrepresented) the opposing evidence.

You have the sworn testimony of career Air force officers. Either those officers were delusional while guarding nuclear weapons or they saw something that defies explanation, something extraordinary which on the face of it would apear extraterrestrial.

And the sworn testimony from the personnel that didn't corroborate the "UFO story" has been left out of the popularisations.

And there are many more such incidents. Take Roswell, the Air Force has issues several explanations for the event but in order to believe any of them one has to ignore a lot of contrary evidence. In the last round of Air Force explanations for Roswell, one has to ignore time lines and ignore eye wittness testimony. Any truth with respect to the issue of UFOs should not have to ignore fact. So whatever the truth is about UFOs, advocates on both sides loose credibility when they have to ignore facts to make their arguements or assume facts not in evidence to make their theorys work.

See above.

 

[Lori_7]

Repeatable, measurable, verifiable, data.


Repeatable, measurable, verifiable, data.


I don't assume that "perfect knowledge" exists.

and visual observation and experience is not repeatable, measurable, or verifiable?

 

[Gustav]

And what about the reports from witnesses (especially Rendlesham since you brought it up) that go against the interpretation placed on it by the "Oh my god it's a flying saucer!" crowd?

what reports? link them please

But I AM fully aware of how unreliable the senses are.

I don't even take my own observations of such phenomena at face value, which what the vast majority of these people have done.

how do your senses fail you?
what phenomenon do you claim to have observed?

I am laying on my back in the grass talking to my mom and our co-workers and I noticed a large triangular object gliding slowly in the air. I kid you not, not a freaking sound was coming from this object. I alarm my mom and the other two to look up. We watch this triangular object coast..it was massive. Very large with red circular lights at the corner of each point. We hear no sound what so ever, not even a cricket as we do normally. This thing was so huge it began to block out the light from the moon and it got real dark for the entire ten minutes left on our break. As we stayed out to watch this thing, it continued to coast in the sky. I am not good with measurments and can't exactly tell you how high up it was, but I know it wasn't to high becuase it blocked out the moonlight for ten freaking minutes but high enough not to see any details on the object. It glided real, real slow and I swear to you guys that this happened.

dywyddyr, what optical illusion can account for this alleged observation?

 

[Dywyddyr]

and visual observation and experience is not repeatable, measurable, or verifiable?

In the case of UFOs, no.
Every one seems to be different, either grossly or subtly.
Every one appears in a different location, for differing lengths of time, with differing behaviour.
They are ALL "one-off" occurrences and even eye-witnesses differ on details.

 

[Dywyddyr]

what reports? link them please

Link?
From stuff I read years ago?
And probably isn't all on the 'net anyway.
I read books...
Try googling for it.
Kevin McClure (sp?) is one name that springs to mind.