Why the skeptics fear UFOs - AKA, The debunkers have something to hide

Re: one liner

you must be bored, to keep accusing me of trolling when you know better. go fight with someone who wants to fight. i want to talk and understand.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

/what are you nuts? how it works? accept the status quo? be a good little worker?

Man where the hell is your brain? In order to research stuff, you need resources to do it. Cash, people, materials, facilities, etc. If you want that cash, you gotta convince someone that the investment is worthwhile unless you happen to have your own cash. Pretty fucking simple. It would be goddamn STUPID to waste cash on every damn crackpot dipshit's ideas.

/Why do you think that is? Goddamn dude, you know if you can prove that your shit is straight someone will buy into it. The problem is actually doing that.

/doing what? proving or buying?

Proving.

/if i have to settle for a sub standard product simply because market forces dictate i have to.

uh huh. you can spend cash for pretty much whatever you want, yet you want to pretend you can't? you can't blame substandard products on anyone but you. you don't like your toilet? go have one built just like you like it.

/reform, oversight, regulations. there are tons of socialistic laws that look after the interests of the consumer. what country do you live in? microsoft? baby bells? blah?

dude, that simply makes no sense to me. you think that MORE regulation is gonna lead to better research? what about fucking FREEDOM? what about the fact that if there is a profit in it, people are all over it and when there isn't or the risk is too high, people avoid it. that is how it works naturally. certain regulations are required so unethical crap doesn't go down, but besides that I really think regulating is a horrible idea because the system is too complex to deal with in that manner. you want a bunch of idiotics damn politicians determining what research gets done, etc? ack, that sounds horrific to me.

/no, you said.... "the allocation of scarce resources. look into it". what resources? oil? cash?

economics man. Studying the "allocation of scarce resources" is economics. note that scarce merely means "not infinite".

/why you shit, didnt you advise me to...["Nobody says you have to buy what they're selling." and you now claim it aint "pertinent"? troll!

miscommunication, ass. i just figure you can read my mind, WTF? by "buying what they're selling" I meant "believing what they're telling you". Where the hell is your slang dictionary?

/yes! the govt regulates all industry that pertains to infrastructure. the govt represents me. i dictate! secondly. restructuring major industries is usually done under govt auspices with my money!

trying to direct shit that you don't understand is unwise. politicians, you, blah blah. you try to tell me how to run my business, when it's my business to support the goddamn infrastructure and well, you're wrong. you don't know my business. you are a stinking idealog who THINKS they know what is right, but really you don't know shit except how YOU think things should be. you are playing an authoritative bullshit game that i don't like. you set overall regulations regarding ethics and blah blah and let the market work it out. it is the only way to find an efficient solution to matters of industry.

/You know it's funny that the biggest fucking troll on this board

/show me a deliberate troll. i dare you! show me malice/misrepresentation/deceit! i dare you! [/B]

dude, have you not admitted to trolling on a number of occasions? do you not haunt gendy and those you determine to be full of shit, follow them around the board and just talk whatever bullshit you can to attempt to pimp them off "your" board? if not then I stand corrected.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Shall we revisit? "the same pseudo skeptical tactics used by ufo debunkers are employed by the industry against the alt energy crowd." Yeah, it still seems like a load of paranoid crap. I already explained why.

Far from recognizing that urgency, the United States' official position seems to be to minimize the severity of global warming. This recalcitrance can be traced to a relentless disinformation campaign by the fossil-fuel lobby to dismiss or downplay the climate crisis. For years, coal and oil interests have funded a handful of scientists known as "greenhouse skeptics" who cast doubt on the implications and even existence of global warming. Enormous amounts of money spent by their corporate sponsors have amplified the skeptics' voices out of all proportion to their standing in the scientific community, giving them undue influence on legislators, policymakers, and the media.

But with the skeptics being marginalized by the increasingly united and alarming findings of mainstream science, industry PR campaigns have taken to exaggerating the economic impacts of cutting back on fossil fuels.

a modest proposal

your response jives quite well with their tactics....and you have a right to get around them to the best of your ability. (wesmorris)

excellent. i know the enemy and you are it! thanks for showing me your rule book

*i aint done boy. lemme dig documentation of actual malfeasance

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

/your response jives quite well with their tactics....and you have a right to get around them to the best of your ability. (wesmorris)

spookz, you have to take your meds man. you're going to end up in the facility again.

 

wes ups the ante

dude, have you not admitted to trolling on a number of occasions? do you not haunt gendy and those you determine to be full of shit, follow them around the board and just talk whatever bullshit you can to attempt to pimp them off "your" board? if not then I stand corrected.

what did i ask you to do punk? show me! show me malice/misrepresentation/deceit! that is what defines a real troll. then show me the "bullshit"

where did i assert this is my board? show me! i said "my community"! lying piece of shit. back your play up! you now make serious allegations (misrepresentation). if you fail to do so, get your punk ass out too!

my self characterization is bought by only those who want to something to bash me with. like you wanna do.

the most i admit to is responding to posters on their terms! they act like assholes, so do i

do you not haunt gendy

interesting. i now play with her and yet you say "haunt". frikkin troll. you lie to make your point. you fucked up a fun thread with your garbage. all things will not pass!

 

Re: wes ups the ante

Spookz, fuck you bitch. I am not your play toy. Bye.

 

no wes
fuck you!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

are you a hot beesh? if so i think we can work this out.

 

address the response to the "paranoid crap" bitch!
shit gets worked out on my terms, not yours

 

LOL.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

you suck

 

Well, atleast send him over here when you're done with him

 

Re: Re: Re: Why the skeptics fear UFOs, AKA The debunkers have something to hide

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
However, aside from the claim that something very unusual and highly energetic flies around the sky at times, I try very hard to remain neutral.
It's not even neccessarily that though. Most likely it is a group of reasons including: misidentified 'normal' objects, people seeing things, atmospheric conditions, hoaxes... They are the only 4 I can think of that are actually proven. The point is, the remainder are just as likely (if not more so) to be so form of atmospheric energy, which doesn't even involve energetic matter flying about. Hell, it needn't even be energetic.

I see very little correlation to free energy devices and UFOs. There is no reason to consider any free energy machine that one can't turn on, inspect, and test.
Likewise, there is no reason to consider a UFO which I can't turn on, inspect, and test. I am not drawing the correlation between UFOs and free energy, but a comparison between ET based UFOs and free energy.

UFOs on the other hand are rare, typically brief in appearance, and not repeatable by nature.
Just like free energy. It never seems to work when people are looking

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My motives are clear; I just want to know what they are.
But how do you actually do that? You will NEVER be able to identify a cause, because all you can really do is guess, imagine, and knockout possibilities. Without creating or having whatever a UFO is, you can not test it, reproduce it, or anything vaguely relating to science. All that radar and the like tells us is that 'something' is there. It doesn't give us any hints as to what. As such, I think this line of research is interesting... but a dead end.

Why should I have to put up with people like Q for having this interest?
Viewing this from the outside, you both seem to step over the line at times (although Q more so). It's understandable, as we've all done it. Threads like this don't help your case any though.

There is plenty of evidence
Evidence of what? I have never seen enough information that provided anything except 'UFOs exist'. That doesn't do any good in identifying them.

I have posted the Iran document a number of times but no one responds.
If I recall correctly, it was fighter dispatched which were dirupted when they got to a certain range. Great, but it doesn't actually provide us with enough information to do anything with. It once again just says UFOs exist.

So, is the UFO culture growing larger or getting smaller?
Hehe, damn X-files

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We Ufologist put up with a lot of personal attacks
agreed

Something unusual must be flying around from time to time. To me this conclusion seems unavoidable.
I think 'flying' may be a stretch, but it's a minor one.

I can sympathize with the ET crowd, but that is just too far of a stretch for me unless ET lands in my pasture or next to Tom Brokaw on the evening news.
Lol. Agreed. Glad to know you're not a kook.

Also, you know that skeptics and debunkers use language like "nuts" ," fanatics" etc, etc, etc, with reckless disregard for any respectful discourse. This is just, somehow, by whatever rationalization, OK.
Well, many of them are "nuts" ," fanatics" etc, etc, etc... so yes it is OK

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Look at MacM in the physics forum. I and MANY others have tried to explain basic physics to him over and over. He is most definetely a "fanatic" and his lack of reasoning skills makes him "nuts". The problem is that you have to give people a chance. It's fine to call someone a nut, but only if you have evidence to back it up.

In general, I think this thread is off base... and is no better than people trying to demonize someone who if interested in UFOs 'just because'. That said, I think we generaly agree that some of the debunking methods being used are offbase.

 

This particular incident, the White House one, has always intrigued me. The number of witnesses and the radar evidence is compelling. (Isn't there also film of this? Somehow I recall seeing an old black and white film of small dots of light moving around in the sky which then pans down to show they are located over the White House.)

In terms of what someone might choose for serious scrutiny, this story has the advantage of hundreds of witnesses, obvious government reaction, reports from pilots and the radar. It is much better than most. This one deserves to be looked at, not with the intention of throwing out speculation to explain it away but with the intention of trying to figure out what caused it.

 

persol

Likewise, there is no reason to consider a UFO which I can't turn on, inspect, and test.

cold war
Likewise, there is no reason to consider a mig which I can't turn on, inspect, and test.
valid?

 

Reality is what you and how much you perceive

A man with decent hearing will hear the train and get off the tracks.
A man with poor hearing might eventually get a better look at the train but at what expense?

 

by persol
But how do you actually do that? You will NEVER be able to identify a cause, because all you can really do is guess, imagine, and knockout possibilities. Without creating or having whatever a UFO is, you can not test it, reproduce it, or anything vaguely relating to science.
===============================================

I feel much the same about theoretical physics. Where is the black
hole that is evaporating by Hawkin radiation? Reproduced any and
tested them? Got any of that dark energy sitting on a lab bench
anywhere? You know, the stuff that makes up most of the universe
and is causing an ever increasing rate of expansion of the universe.
The stuff with anti-gravity properties that the revered General Relativity says cannot exist. The stuff that was guessed to exist
to explain the OBSERVATION of superluminal galaxies. And of course,
the quasars aren't "really" superluminal, because that would violate
Special Relativity. Created any of that "stretched" vacuum in the lab?
I am not saying any of this is impossible, but like much theory in science, it is based on "educated guesses" formed from observation
and mathmatics, not from created material objects that can be tested.
Are UFO's any stranger than strings and M-Brane theory with what,
14 dimensions now?

 

Why is it that the debunkers always bring up the hoaxes, fruads, lights in the sky...ect... when debunking this topic.

Why do they never address the:

Washington incident of 1952?

Rendelsham Forest incident of 1980?

The Belgium incident in the mid 80's?

The Travis Walton incident in the mid 70's?

The Thomas Mantell incident in the mid 50's?

The Mexico flap in the late 80's with thousands of video's and 10's of thousands of eyewitnesses? This is one of the best IMO.

The photo's taken by the Brazilian naval officers?

The hundreds of CREDIBLE military/intelligence eyewitnesses who have come forward with their stories of 1st hand ET reports?


I really want to know. Why won't you address the real evidence?

 

All that evidence is anticdotal. If you could produce physical evidence, the argument would be over. You apparently can't, or it would be over.. so what's to think about?

I'm not even saying we're not being visited or that there aren't aliens or creatures in the center of the earth or whatever... this is a matter of "where IS the real evidence", rather than why isn't it addressed.

Of course, I don't have access to secret government records and would urge them to be forthcoming regarding the matter, but it's somewhat hard to do when they won't acknowledge that there are records to give eh? *shrug*

Then of course you have to consider that the "experts" pushing this research are generally frauds from what I could tell. They strech their bullshit into seemingly plausible shit that suckers people in so that they buy their books.

So to me, having never been presented with actual evidence to the contrary, and noting that people are uhm... not particularly exacting about what they believe, that this shit is likely merely the product of a lot of random weirdness and a bunch of pimps tryign to cash in on it. So it's basically equivalent to the same shit that religious people do, with the weirdness and the pimping and the bizness. At least that's the way it seemed.

Hell I'm even somewhat of a buff on the topic. I'm down with Roswell and Area 51 and unsolved mysteries and all of those UFO specials and shit, I'm into it... however, as I've aged I've begun to more and more smell bullshit. Then Penn and Teller kind of clenched it for me with their show regarding the topic. I already smelled bullshit and the sniffed out the pile and put it on TV.

 

You are mistaking evidence for actual proof.

If there was Physical evidence available, then the question would be answered. However, there is plenty of 'Evidence'.

Evidence is something that can be used as an individual piece to get at the truth(proof). Because the current level of evidence hasn't yet given us the proverbial concrete proof, does not mean there is no evidence.

But, like most, you refused to even address the evidence I provided.