Studying the nature of ufo encounters with Jacques Vallee, it may very well be that the intelligences behind ufo phenomena are outside of our physicalist construct and are tinkering with it for some reason not obvious to us. If you were playing a video game and encountered a player at the god level, it wouldn't entail the player isn't real. It just means that in terms of the virtual reality of the game, he has manipulated it in such a way as to do things that are impossible to you. Sort of like the Smith agents in the Matrix, which entailed an AI form of intelligence embedded in the software yet outside of it at the same time.
You assume "craft". You assume that the interpretation of the observation is correct, that it can not be in error. It is not just the need to assume that aliens have tech in advance of ours... you are first assuming they exist (not proven), that they are capable of civilisation (not proven), that they are more advanced than us (not proven), that they exist in the same epoch as us (not proven), that they are close enough to visit us during our lifetime (not proven), that they are even interested in our planet (not proven). Yes, you can claim that a UFO is indeed the proof you need for all those but that is not how things work, unless you lack critical thought, unless you have no interest in science, and unless you only want to conclude what you already believe. Your thinking is simply irrational. Noone has said that it does define what is possible for all other species. You have made this statement before and yet noone had said it back then either. What we don't do, or at least what we shouldn't do if we wish to be rational, is conclude that a possibility equates to "is", as you do. But you do start concluding them to be, despite all the unknowns that it involves, all the things that you have to assume for it to be a possibility, you do all of that rather than stopping at the more rational "I don't know". This statement of lacking knowledge about the origin of such observations leaves open the possibility that it could be alien, although my view would be that it is more rational to conclude that it be far more likely to be of unknown terrestrial origin. It is - and you don't follow that: you jump to conclusions based on untested observations. You assume the accuracy of the testimony and then assume that it is not possible to be of terrestrial origin, thus begging the question. That would depend on how you define the phenomena: - if you define the phenomena to be "exactly as described by the witness" then no, I wouldn't be satisfied. - if you define the phenomena to be "something that the witness has described as... such and such" then yes, probably I would be satisfied. Do you appreciate the difference between those definitions, though?
No I don't assume it. I infer it after studying the ufos case by case. It's logical and makes perfect sense given what we know about ufos. Yes..my CONCLUSION (not assumption) of advanced alien species visiting earth because we have eyewitness accounts of advanced aerial craft as well as encounters with non-human beings coming out of them is totally justified. It totally explains the phenomenon, something you fail to do with your "everything is mundane cuz aliens can't travel in space" premise. Between a good explanation and a resignation to just not knowing what it was, I always go with the good explanation. Yes you did. You said it is rational to assume what we know about space travel applies to aliens too. You are imposing the limits of human ignorance on advanced species. And that's irrational. It is more rational to assume aliens have devised means of travel totally unknown to us, making the prospect of their visitation here totally plausible. Yes...I go with a logical explanation that fits the facts as we know them. I don't throw up my hands and say, "Well it must be some terrestrial phenomenon we haven't discovered yet." Some ufos DO seem to have that quality, such as the Foo Fighters and the Hessdalen lights, but then there are many others that are obviously craft flying around silently at speeds exceeding human technology. So we go to the next logical conclusion there--if they are non-human craft, they must be of alien origin. No...I don't jump to anything. I take each case as it is, and examine the detailed descriptions and photos and video, and rule out the mundane. THEN I conclude they are likely some alien craft beyond our current technology. What I DON'T do is assume alien craft don't exist, and then based on that assumption discount eyewitnessed details and photos and videos in order to make the accounts match that assumption. If you're only trying to debunk ufos, you aren't really studying them objectively. You are only editing accounts to match your worldview that aliens can't be visiting us, an assumption you make based on your own faith in the scientific limits of our current human knowledge. You have no idea what is possible out there, and discounting that fact is where you consistently screw up. Yes...the phenomenon as described by the eyewitness accounts, the radar returns, and the photos and videos of it. As opposed to your own "account" of what the eyewitnesses actually saw after you have edited the account of all details suggesting anything other than a mundane cause. Take this case for example:
Being a logically valid explanation does not necessarily make it rational. Multiple logical explanations can exist - but rationality should start with what is also sound. In the absence of soundness one should rationally conclude "I don't know", not guess at some merely valid explanation. 1. Those accounts are merely interpretations of their experiences as being of advanced aerial craft and of encounters with non-human beings. 2. Please show where I have said "everything is mundane cuz aliens can't travel in space"... or even words to that effect. Please do - or stop making such crap up. 3. "Good" explanation according to who? You? Where have I said it?? You have clearly misunderstood, as you are repeating the same crap again and again. Where do you think I have said it. I'm making no such imposition. But you can't simply say "they're advanced... they can do anything..." as you seem to be doing, as you're basically just invoking magic, and removing the discussion from any semblance of science and toward, if it's not already firmly there, fantasy. Anything can be considered plausible if you want to believe in the existence of that which would make it plausible. The question is whether it is rational to believe that in favour of something more mundane. You clearly believe in magic, MR, and as such everything and anything will be "plausible" to you. Noone has said it "must be"... only that it is more rational to assume that it is than to assume advanced alien life visiting us. As argued earlier, your conclusions require far more coincidence and assumption than any hitherto unknown terrestrial phenomenon would ever require, irrespective of whether you think your explanation is logical. That assumes that the interpretation as being "craft flying" is correct, that the speeds were correct, that there is no possibility of it being a mundane explanation (a hoax, a misinterpretation, an unknown natural phenomenon etc). You don't rule out the mundane at all! You immediately assume that the interpretation provided to you is 100% accurate. By doing so you already fail Critical Thinking 101 - the application of healthy skepticism. A mundane explanation might simply be that it is a hoax. It is precisely because I have no idea that I conclude "I don't know"! You don't know, but you conclude that it is something you couldn't possibly know. Yet you think you are acting rationally in that? And from this response it is clear you don't see the difference. In the first you are taking the observer's interpretation as 100% accurate representation of the physical cause of the interpretation. In the second the phenomenon is simply that the eyewitness had an experience they have described as such and such. E.g. a person sees some lights and interprets them as a ghost. The first definition of "phenomenon" would be: the ghost. The second definition would be: a person has seen something that they have interpreted as a ghost. With this second, at no point does my own interpretation enter into the notion of what phenomenon is under discussion, nor does it read into the notion more than what happened. It makes no assumption that the person genuinely saw a ghost, nor that they did not. It does not assume that ghosts exist, nor that ghosts do not exist. There is no editing of the phenomenon. What there subsequently is is an examination of that phenomenon... and that starts with the person, their interpretation of what they saw, and what it might have been - there is no assumption that the interpretation is 100% accurate, as you seem to do. What about it? It doesn't really seem to move much. Could well be just a small blimp, perhaps being used for low-atmosphere testing. It's not a clear enough picture, unfortunately, to be sure what exactly it is. What point are you trying to make with it, though?
Going with the most logical explanation IS rational, especially when all the evidence points to such. Just as insisting it can't be an alien craft because you believe aliens are probably not capable of such technology is irrational. No they aren't. They are descriptions of what they witnessed first hand. Just like you'd know a craft or a non-human being if you saw one too. Barring the absurd supposition that they could be humans from a fast moving craft-shaped balloon dressed up to look like aliens. Oh, but then THAT would actually be an interpretation wouldn't it? Oh I see. So you are backpeddling now and saying aliens CAN travel in space but they just don't ever visit here. On what basis do you claim that? No.."good" explanation as in one that explains the details of the accounts. Right..and this is where you start denying everything you've just been arguing. I'm done with you trying to disengenuously wiggle out of everything you've been arguing for. This is where you always wind up at. Don't waste my time anymore. Oh one more thing: Bullshit it isn't editing. Denying they saw what they saw is direct editing of their account to suit your own preconclusion that it couldn't be paranormal. If a person sees a transparent figure walk into a wall, you will do everything you can to deny it was a ghost and insist that they were hallucinating or seeing some extraordinary projection of light from a passing car. Or you will cop out and just say it was some mundane event we haven't discovered yet. That's not only interpretation, but it's confirmation bias as well.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You've been informed of that a dozen times. And why the flittering in and flittering out scenario time after time after time, without making the visitation official. You're wasting your own time with this vendetta of yours to convert the world to your way of thinking. The supposed miracle of Fatima has as much credibility as your own second hand delusions. Editing bullshit = nothing Best of luck MR. Our next story will be about the Alien who has kidnapped Bigfoot.
Please explain how aliens in spaceships is "the most logical explanation". I'd love to see the steps you took to reach that conclusion. Or should I say, jumps.
I still haven't seen anyone offer up any explanations on posts # 238 and 239. Are they just unexplained?
Like all denialists, they decree and pontificate in broad and absolute generalities. "They're all hysteria and weather balloons and swamp gas" they claim. Or "nobody has ever seen a flying saucer or an advanced aerial craft", etc etc bs bs...But make it specific on a case by case basis and those generalities fall apart quickly. Hence the crickets whenever I bring the actual sightings up.
Magical Realist: Again, you seem to have picked an example that is very suspicious, without actually taking any time to investigate it. The Somerset video from 1998 that you posted is credited to a guy called Rod Dickinson. Who is Rod Dickinson? It turns out he is an artist who specialises in artwork relating to UFOs, among other things. Fancy that. Also, it turns out that he is well known for making crop circles (you know, the ones that were supposed to be made by alien activity). So, with about 30 seconds research on the internet, we discover that the source of this video of yours is a known faker. Chances are, he is trying to publicise his "art" by faking a UFO video. What do you think, Magical Realist? Are you going to argue that although he fakes crop circles, his UFO video is 100% real? I've seen other UFO nuts trying to make that argument on the internet (in my 30 seconds of research). And I notice that this video is on at least one list of the best videos of alien spacecraft, according to the UFO nuts. What does that tell you?
Definitely not in favor of the video being authentic. But I will say several CGI experts determined the video to be of a real object. So what do you say it was? A balloon? Swamp gas? The planet Venus? That's the partyline ya know.. Here's what Rod Dickinson said about it: "Many have claimed that the video was a prank, so Rod Dickinson, (the camerman), was traced and contacted by email, asking him the question outright... and this is his reply; 'Thanks for your mail. I did take the footage some 10 years ago. For what it is worth it is not a hoax - at least one other person I met saw the thing while I was filming it. I think others saw it too. Obviously I don't think it's an alien spacecraft/ufo.' "(data obtained from abovetopsecret.com) http://www.beamsinvestigations.org/...ntists as Genuine Daylight UFO Stabilized.htm
That is claimed on some UFO enthusiast sites. But all we have is their claims about the authentication of the video (unless you can find some better evidence). I think the video was most likely faked, especially given that the person who took it is a self-confessed faker of this kind of stuff. Yes. But he would say that, wouldn't he? And he is a known hoaxer.
Not necessarily. I visited his website. He's an artist that studies public reaction to simulated historical events. Not just some lying hoaxer. He admitted to doing the cropcircles 20 years ago. So why wouldn't he admit to doing a ufo camera hoax 10 years ago? Seems his reputation as the kind of artist he is would highly benefit from that sort of publicity.
How is it the "most logical" rather than just being a logical explanation? What makes it "more" logical? I have not said that "aliens are probably not capable of such technology". Please desist with this bullshit you are attributing to me. I have never said that. Are you deliberately misinterpreting everything I have said? If so, to what aim? You don't get it, do you! Everything we think we observe is an interpretation of the observation. Until it has been proven as such it remains an interpretation. Many interpretations are 100% accurate, due to familiarity of the experience. But they are still interpretations until subsequently confirmed. What of this do you fail to grasp? The descriptions given by the witness are their interpretation of what they saw. What we then subsequently do is try to assess what is the most rational explanation for the person having that interpretation. It might be that the most rational is that their interpretation is 100% accurate. It might be that the most rational explanation is that they misinterpreted a weather-balloon. Get it yet? I am not backpeddling now, nor have I need to. I am saying that I don't know whether aliens can travel in space or not. I don't know whether there are any aliens, although I think it highly likely. I don't know whether they would have any interest in visiting us, or whether they are capable of visiting us. There is no backpeddling - there seems only to be you trying to twist what has been said into something you can fight against. Magic explains the same thing in perfect detail. So does "God did it". Invisible space-faring pixies indigenous to Ireland also explain it. All "good" explanations, then? I've not denied anything I have said. You have simply misunderstood / misinterpreted what I have said. Others have pointed this out to you as well, and your inability to grasp the actual difference between the examples I previously gave demonstrate as much. Rather than trying to criticise me for denying something I haven't said, why not go back and try to understand what I have said. Alternatively, support your criticism... show me where I have said what you claim I am now denying. No one is editing their account. It is a fact that they claim they have seen what they then related. No one can change that. The issue is whether what they saw is actually what they thought they saw. This is not editing! It is simply investigating the most likely explanation for their interpretation. I would accept that they have seen something, something that they have interpreted as what they claim it to be. Then I would investigate alternative explanations that might explain the interpretation. Since I did not witness the event first hand, the person's testimony would be inconclusive evidence alone to support what they claim, given the extraordinary nature of the claim. As such, if I could not arrive at a more rational explanation, it would remain unresolved. With UFOs they would remain "unidentified". I wouldn't claim that it definitely is an as-yet-undiscovered natural phenomenon, but given what we don't know about our planet, that seems to be a more rational explanation than it being a ghost. Do you even know what confirmation bias is?
Unidentified objects have been seen in the sky since ancient times. No doubt most of these sightings have mundane explanations. These mundane explanations may be physical (unusual aircraft types, unusual examples of known meteorological or astronomical phenomena) or psychological (imagination, self-deception, lies). There may or may not be a residual class of sightings that are truly anomalous and can't be explained by contemporary scientific understanding. The possibility exists that some people really are witnessing new, unexpected and unknown kinds of phenomena. It isn't a certainty though. If there really are unknown anomalous events occurring, then we probably shouldn't be jumping to conclusions as to what they are. We need to have open minds. I think that it's just a fact that people tend to interpret unknown events in the sky, to form hypotheses as to what they are, depending on the interests and assumptions prevalent in their cultures. In ancient Rome, when divination was a popular obsession, unknown sightings in the sky were interpreted as supernatural portents of future events. The medievals saw what they were sure were miracles of Mary and the saints up in the sky. In the late 19th century, there were waves of sightings of what were described as unknown lighter-than-air airships, some audibly chugging through the sky with steam engines. (We would call it 'steam punk', except it wasn't 'retro' to those who reported them, it was how they imagined 'futuristic'.) And right after the end of World War II, when space travel was first entering the public consciousness, people became convinced that what they saw in the sky were alien spaceships.
Really? Misunderstanding what people have said has been pointed out to me? When? I don't recall that complaint at all. I get accused of all sorts of things: ignoring evidence, trolling, plagiarism, insults, and intellectual dishonesty. But never have I been accused of misunderstanding someone's argument, except by you. Why do you think that is?
I was referring to post #211. I can‘t speak for what others accuse you of. Irrespective, you quite clearly and demonstrably have misunderstood what I wrote, whether your misunderstanding is deliberate or not. That you can‘t provide example of where I have said what you are claiming I have said is testimony to your misunderstanding. If you want I can try to dumb down the language I use, use just one or two syllable words and so forth?
Post #211 contains no complaint by anyone that I misunderstood the argument. So you're just making shit up. Which is what gets you ignored. Then why are you speaking for what you claim others accused me of? I already told you why I quit responding to your points. It is because you deny the very positions you were arguing for. I'm not about to go thru all your past posts and quibble with you about the fine differences between "is" and "is probable" and "isn't" and "is improbable."If you can't keep up with what you were arguing that's your problem not mine. Maybe you should take an online course in writing clearly. I'll look some up for you if you want me to.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So when paddoboy responds to what you think I have said with: "?? I see him plainly saying that Alien life exists most probably, but that he doubts it being technologically advanced." you don't see this as telling you that you have misinterpreted what I have said? Apologies, I should have said "I can't speak for what else others accuse you of". I do no such thing - and I'm still waiting for you to support this accusation. Simple fact is that you can't. And all you would end up doing if you tried is showing that it is simply you that has misinterpreted what others have clearly understood (note paddoboy's use of the term "plainly" in post #211). Yazata and others also have no difficulty in accurately interpreting and understanding what I have written. But you have the gall to blame me for your own shortcomings. :shrug: If you start dismissing differences between "is" and "is probable" then no wonder you misinterpret. If you can't handle subtle differences within your comprehension then just tell me and I'll dumb things down for you as much as possible, okay? Perhaps work on the basis that if I say "is probable" then I am not saying that it "definitely is" but merely "more likely than not". "Is possible" means that I think there is a non-zero probability. After all, that is what those phrases mean. Just quit blaming others for your own issues, MR. You're just making a fool out of yourself with such disrespectful tactics.
