Are You A Quack?

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by paddoboy, Sep 25, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    OK but that is exactly the reply I got from the lady seeing the devil.
    I am not saying we must go thru life questioning what we see but I am suggesting that someone seeing a UFO needs more.
    I have seen a UFO which turned out to be a reflection from a jet illuminating a cloud. I ceased to be a UFO when I worked out what was going on.
    Now there are folk who may do the initial take and run off and say they saw a UFO ..
    There are others who will say they saw a UFO and attribute their sighting as evidence of visitors from another planet.
    And I don't think ones profession excludes one from getting it wrong.
    There are folk who present as intelligent and reasonable who believe all sorts of crap.
    That lady I mentioned..well read, intelligent on the face of it and yet her eye witness account would seem incorrect.
    I don't think it is unreasonable to ask of folk who see UFOs for something more if they go on to claim that what they saw was a visitor from somewhere else.
    If folk can get so confused witnessing a man crack his head on the ground is it not reasonable to think folk believing UFOs are from another planet could have got the bull by the foot.
    Yes I question these eyewitness accounts and still think you only saw a brown paper bag and not a squirrel.
    Alex
     
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    We have more. Hundreds of photos and videos and multiple witness accounts. You just need to look into the field itself like every other subject. I'm not really interested in derailing this thread with this topic any further. Review the accounts. They will convince you as they convinced me. As for the squirrel I saw today, you can speculate whatever you want. I don't really care.

    http://www.ufoevidence.org/
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Sorry I was trying to be funny.
    Thanks for the link.
    Alex
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    I took a look at the link and guess you are trying to be funny also.
    Thanks I had a good laugh.
    I have you worked out now you just like pulling folks legs.
    Alex
     
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  8. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    Actually, no. The question would be: How many people didn't see it? If there are dissenting opinions, then one opinion is not "compelling" - unless you have already presupposed that the observation is a "craft".
     
  9. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    if you didn't care you wouldn't be attempting to justify your conspiracist ideation

    Perhaps you should re-read this part from Xelasnave.1947:

    actually, you've not "demonstrated" anything other than intentional delusion and perhaps a touch of narcissistic Dunning-Kruger.

    as i noted (and proved with actual evidence): just because you think you see it doesn't mean it's there or even real

    no
    the actual point is: if you can't provide evidence that can be validated then you're a quack and likely believe in something that is not capable of being proven
    you know, with reputable evidence that isn't shooped, altered, hoaxed, maladjusted or intentionally lied about

    as i noted (and proved with actual evidence - those studies you apparently didn't bother to even read): just because you think you see it doesn't mean it's there or even real

    except i proved that wrong with those studies...
    hell! our problems with interpreting and blatant visual brain failures is well known and documented!
    you can see this in any "optical illusion" or MC Escher drawing

    as i noted (and proved with actual evidence - those studies you apparently didn't bother to even read): just because you think you see it doesn't mean it's there or even real

    1- you didn't read a single link i sent about mass hysteria and mass delusions, did you?
    those people all "saw" or "felt" the same thing as well... and it was proven to be a mass delusion or hysteria
    get it yet?

    2- I also noted that your "reliable site" included known hoax pictures...

    http://listverse.com/2009/02/16/top-10-most-famous-ufo-hoaxes/

    http://www.instructables.com/id/UFO-Hoax-Picture/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UFO-related_hoaxes
    it is really hard to be "convinced" when the site lists known hoaxes as legit

    and therein lies the rub

    when you mix pseudoscience with science all you will get is Pseudoscience! you know ... quackery
    LOL
     
    Kristoffer and paddoboy like this.
  10. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    Xelasnave.1947
    i'm not so sure...

    i think he might fall into the category of a "true believer"
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Bingo!
     
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  12. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    How many people didn't see a meteor over Oregon a few weeks ago? I didn't. Alot of people didn't. But it doesn't effect the fact that many people DID see it.
     
  13. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Mod hat:
    Okay, lets clamp down on this now:

    If you take personal umbrage with things being said here, report it. This is not one of the woo-woo sub forums, and such behavior will be dealt with. The fact that some members appear to have a guilty conscience does not excuse this behavior.
     
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  14. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    To clarify: How many people DID see X but DIDN'T interpret their observation as a "craft"? What other interpretations are possible? If you seize onto one interpretation to the exclusion of other possibilities, you're a quack.
     
  15. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    There were no other interpretations of the triangular craft seen over Phoenix. There WERE flares that were dropped 60 miles away on the horizon an hour later, but nobody mistook these for a directly overhead triangular craft.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights

    So the people who seized on the interpretation of meteor when seeing a firey ball flying thru the sky were quacks?
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2016
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    And it doesn't effect the fact that meteors are a well know common occurrence with much physical evidence even for those that actually did not see it.

    Again the general gist of the OP is the fact that cranks, quacks, and other assorted gullible, impressionable, agenda laden people are those that proceed with preconceived notions about what they "believe" and ignoring any and all evidence supporting some other explanation, generally that accepted by mainstream.
    The reasons are many and varied...an anti mainstream bias...delusions of grandeur and their beliefs they know more then the professionals.....religious agendas....conspiracy adherents and a belief that governments, and authorities etc are always hiding the truth, etc
    Those same cranks and quacks will nearly all the time, ignore professional scientific papers and links, refuse to support their own stated version with professional citations etc, and with a few sciency sounding words, perhaps some facts, then fabricate or concoct some other solution that they then expect the forum as a whole to swallow.
    The final fact remains indisputable: No one that fits any of the above descriptions, will ever invalidate, or falsify any incumbent theory from the realms of a science forum.
    If any professional has formulated some aspect of cosmology he believes invalidates the incumbent model, he will obviously go through the proper procedures with a paper and reputable publishing company and undergo professional peer review.
     
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    So how do flying saucers "invalidate or falsify any incumbent theory from the realms of a science forum"?
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2016
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    If you chose to believe in saucers that fly, that's your own problem.
    I'll stick with science thank you.
    Or are you intent on derailing this thread to suit your own agenda?
     
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  19. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    So it doesn't invalidate any of the theories of science, and certainly can't be said to invalidate any of the science of the next thousand years.
     
  20. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    Magical Realist
    more to the point: it was measured in more than one way with more than one device by more than just one person who can validate it with replication and or validation from secondary sources

    hence it's empirical evidence is far more powerful and compelling than simply saying "i saw [insert claim here]"

    saucers don't.

    the fact that they can't be proven and you've chosen to accept their existence without evidence does
    (which is, by definition, a faith, or the belief in something without evidence. this, in turn, is one of the cornerstones of Quackery and Pseudoscience)

    neither does the belief that "faerie farts cause hurricanes" ... it does, however, influence the gullible and scientifically illiterate, which DOES influence science

    the fight against the spread of pseudoscience or delusional behaviour is not victimless - this is best demonstrated by idiot so-called adults who refuse to vaccinate their kids but can also be seen in the much-publicised so-called "debate" on Climate Science. the evidence is overwhelmingly against the denier camp, but it doesn't stop them from believing because [insert excuse for delusion here] (see also: )

    ... it also directly affects any science or evidence based thread or discussion when said believer states, sans any reputable verifiable evidence, that said faerie farts are real and if you go to http://faeriefartscausehurricanes.org then you will see for yourself

    it's spreading false (or non-valid) information and can actually stimulate mass delusions or hysteria (need i link those studies to you again, Magical Realist ?)
    See also: http://phys.org/news/2015-06-pseudoscience-conspiracy-theory-victimless-crimes.html

    http://phys.org/news/2014-01-proof-pseudoscience.html

    http://phys.org/news/2014-11-scientists-distinguishes-science-pseudoscience.html

    a good rule of thumb to guard against being suckered: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

    some red flags to spot the quackery (and a fun Bingo styled game to play with fellow science advocates): http://sci-ence.org/red-flags2/

    something very, very relevant about "ufo's" and "eyewitness testimony" as well as evidence by Dr. Tyson:
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
  22. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    That is the best analogy I've ever read about this.
     
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  23. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page