What evidence would work?

[Beer w/Straw]

Krash may just have other motives since the argument is null.

 

[krash661]

Krash may just have other motives since the argument is null.

again, the argument is simply " if the public is unsure of the reality, then the reality must not exist," and "that is not evidence because I(insignificant individuals of the public only) say it is not. "-- which is only, simply, based on "belief" and NOTHING MORE. (shakes head)

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Just quoting Carl Sagan and doing a little compare and contrast. And mentioning argument from ignorance as a logical fallacy, nullifies your argument.

 

[paddoboy]

ahh--more of the female teenager mentality nonsense that is inaccurate-- comical--is this all pad?
anything on my questions that you have conveniently side-stepped that does not involve your pathetic manipulation spin?

But you have nothing other than a crazy deep seated belief that we have been visited.

While certainly some evidence of strange unexplained happenings, that does not equate to Alien visitations.
So keep plastering your nonsense for all you are worth...It in reality changes nothing, and I'm sure deep down you already know that.

 

[paddoboy]

Just quoting Carl Sagan and doing a little compare and contrast. And mentioning argument from ignorance as a logical fallacy, nullifies your argument.

I see Carl as probably one of the greatest educators of our time, and have his original [now somewhat dated] Cosmos series.
Some interesting logical comments by him here..........

 

[krash661]

But you have nothing other than a crazy deep seated belief that we have been visited.

While certainly some evidence of strange unexplained happenings, that does not equate to Alien visitations.
So keep plastering your nonsense for all you are worth...It in reality changes nothing, and I'm sure deep down you already know that.

is this all pad? anything on my questions that you have conveniently side-stepped that does not involve your pathetic manipulation spin?

 

[krash661]

Just quoting Carl Sagan and doing a little compare and contrast. And mentioning argument from ignorance as a logical fallacy, nullifies your argument.

except you have done no such thing. the only thing you have implemented is an abundance of ditzy-ness and low level minded shenanigans. (shrugs)

 

[krash661]

again, the argument is simply " if the public is unsure of the reality, then the reality must not exist," and "that is not evidence because I(insignificant individuals of the public only) say it is not. "-- which is only, simply, based on "belief" and NOTHING MORE. (shakes head)

 

[Beer w/Straw]

except you have done no such thing. the only thing you have implemented is an abundance of ditzy-ness and low level minded shenanigans. (shrugs)

Nope.

It means your argument is really a poor one.

 

[krash661]

Nope.

It means your argument is really a poor one.

LIM-- now we are right back to the question of " according to whom ? "--you ?-- this is comedy gold right here that one can charge for.
(shakes head)-- is this all?

 

[krash661]

again, the argument is simply " if the public is unsure of the reality, then the reality must not exist," and "that is not evidence because I(insignificant individuals of the public only) say it is not. "-- which is only, simply, based on "belief" and NOTHING MORE. (shakes head)

 

[Beer w/Straw]

LIM-- now we are right back to the question of " according to whom ? "--you ?-- this is comedy gold right here that one can charge for.
(shakes head)-- is this all?

I'm not the one spamming.

 

[krash661]

I'm not the one spamming.

so what are you doing besides initiating pathetic shenanigans?

 

[krash661]

again, the argument is simply " if the public is unsure of the reality, then the reality must not exist," and "that is not evidence because I(insignificant individuals of the public only) say it is not. "-- which is only, simply, based on "belief" and NOTHING MORE. (shakes head)

 

[paddoboy]

again, the argument is simply " if the public is unsure of the reality, then the reality must not exist,"

A totally ignorant statement: The Public is in the first instant "unsure" But as scientific methodology and reasoning is raised, and questions asked like, "Why with all these thousands and thousands of sightings, they are always flittering in then flittering out again, never making their visitations official" or "why have they never left anything really physical behind that can only be construed as extra terrestrial."
In essence the majority of the public [and science] is disinterested in UFO sightings [after initial credulous reactions] simply because most are explained by more mundane means.

and "that is not evidence because I(insignificant individuals of the public only) say it is not. "-- which is only, simply, based on "belief" and NOTHING MORE. (shakes head)

Wrong again, the issues that have lead to the official conclusion that we have no conclusive evidence of any Alien visitations, is dictated by logic, common sense reasoning, and the scientific method which entails those.

 

[paddoboy]

Krash may just have other motives since the argument is null.

I'll leave him to you, as I have some science articles to check out.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

so what are you doing besides initiating pathetic shenanigans?

I'm not.

Maybe you're not so smart or open enough to figure it out.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I'll leave him to you, as I have some science articles to check out.

Too late!

I'm going for beer.

 

[krash661]

A totally ignorant statement:

please show this to be true--simple correct?

 

[krash661]

"Why with all these thousands and thousands of sightings, they are always flittering in then flittering out again, never making their visitations official" or "why have they never left anything really physical behind that can only be construed as extra terrestrial."

again, according to whom?--whom or what is the deciding factor for reality?