USOs

How do you explain the witch-hunts during European and American history, notions of sorcery, of witchcraft?
Click to expand...

Religion is the culprit here and the spread of a hysterical mindset in local villages over what was causing crop failures, plagues, etc. With ufos there is no underlying hysteria. People not connected in the least all seeing the same things over a period of a month. There is not even a likelihood they heard of the other accounts. UFO sightings don't usually make national headlines.
 
Since ad homs are de rigueur in this subforum, I'm afraid accusing someone of it has a critical clout approaching zero.
 
DaveC426913 said:
I am not defending.
You are a pot calling a kettle black. You have no business complaining about ad homs.
Click to expand...

LOL! Thank you Mother Superior.

Ad homing is either right or wrong. There are no exceptions for different people. Unless ofcourse they're part of your little "bash MR" buddy club, right? Remember you defending Kittamaru calling me a psychopath? This is standard bullshit from you.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Ad homing is either right or wrong.
Click to expand...
And which is it to you?

You engage in it constantly, then try to call others out on it. That's hypocrisy.

Magical Realist said:
"bash MR" buddy club, right?
Click to expand...
You are not being bashed because of who you are, you are being bashed because of the arguments you assert. Nobody cares who you are, they only care what you say.

You lack critical thinking and healthy skepticism. Once you'd freely admitted that you will believe anything any stranger tells you unless you have good reason to be suspicious of them, there was just no way back from that. It undermines every thread, every post you write. How is anyone supposed to trust you? For all we know, the sentences you write were put in your ear by a Nigerian Prince. Many of the things you have asserted over multiple threads seem to be just that.

That's a very relevant concern in a discussion. Nobody started off wanting to dismiss you; you left them no choice.

JamesR has been by far the most tolerant, and yet you managed to get under even his skin with your poor critical thinking.

But have it your way "we're all out to get you".

Now please, respond with your worst put-down.
 
You are not being bashed because of who you are, you are being bashed because of the arguments you assert. Nobody cares who you are, they only care what you say.
Click to expand...

Bullshit it is. Every time one of you 5 trolls loses an argument with me you get into moralizing put-downs about who I am as a person. It has not a thing to do with the debate, but that's always where you take it--to personal levels. You're whole attack on me for ad homing, which I assume you scrupulously catalogue to the neglect of everyone else, is itself another attack on me. Now I'm untrustworthy and a mouthpiece for a Nigerian prince. Look, if you can't win an argument, then quit arguing. Ad homing and talking about how I am or how I'm not reasoning properly is only a distraction from the real issue. You don't have a thing to teach me about critical thinking when all you do is make up excuses to deny evidence put right in front of you.
 
Last edited:
We're not denying evidence, we're denying the idiotic conclusions that you're jumping to after carefully not considering any other possible alternative to "ALIENS!!!" "GHOSTS!!!" "BIGFOOT!!!"
 
Magical Realist said:
Every time one of you 5 trolls loses an argument
Click to expand...
I wonder what that'll be like...

Magical Realist said:
you get into moralizing put-downs about who I am as a person.
Click to expand...
No. Only the part you present.

Magical Realist said:
evidence put right in front of you.
Click to expand...
I wonder what that'll be like...


We all noticed you studiously avoided addressing the core problem:
Once you'd freely admitted that you will believe anything any stranger tells you unless you have good reason to be suspicious of them, there was just no way back from that. It undermines every thread, every post you write. How is anyone supposed to trust you?
Click to expand...
 
Magical Realist said:
Look, if you can't win an argument, then quit arguing.
Click to expand...
If you're not going to properly address the quite reasonable objections that have been put against your claims, then you can't win the argument. You should therefore take your own advice.
 
MR:

If it turns out that you are interested in discussing your claims, you might start addressing the substance of my posts here (and honestly answering the questions I have put to you in these posts, in full):

http://sciforums.com/threads/usos.156774/page-2#post-3391003
http://sciforums.com/threads/usos.156774/page-2#post-3391004
http://sciforums.com/threads/usos.156774/page-3#post-3391024
http://sciforums.com/threads/usos.156774/page-3#post-3391025
http://sciforums.com/threads/usos.156774/page-4#post-3391203

For example, I proposed that the video you posted might show a water droplet on the aircraft canopy. Your entire response to that suggestion was this:
Magical Realist said:
LFMAO! Water droplet now. This is getting rich. I can't wait to see what you change your mind to next.
Click to expand...
This is not a discussion of what I wrote. It does nothing to dispute what I wrote. It is you ignoring the substance of what I wrote. It shows an inability or unwillingness to honestly face objections to your ideas.
 
James R said:
MR:

If it turns out that you are interested in discussing your claims, you might start addressing the substance of my posts here (and honestly answering the questions I have put to you in these posts, in full):

http://sciforums.com/threads/usos.156774/page-2#post-3391003
http://sciforums.com/threads/usos.156774/page-2#post-3391004
http://sciforums.com/threads/usos.156774/page-3#post-3391024
http://sciforums.com/threads/usos.156774/page-3#post-3391025
http://sciforums.com/threads/usos.156774/page-4#post-3391203

For example, I proposed that the video you posted might show a water droplet on the aircraft canopy. Your entire response to that suggestion was this:

This is not a discussion of what I wrote. It does nothing to dispute what I wrote. It is you ignoring the substance of what I wrote. It shows an inability or unwillingness to honestly face objections to your ideas.
Click to expand...

A water droplet is not black and cylindrical shaped. Everyone who has ever seen a water droplet on a windshield knows this. Quit trying to rewrite the science books just to deny the evidence that is right in front of you.
 
James R said:
If you're not going to properly address the quite reasonable objections that have been put against your claims, then you can't win the argument. You should therefore take your own advice.
Click to expand...

You have yet to offer anything. Anytime I ask you what you are claiming, you say you aren't claiming anything, Just suggesting possibilities. Come back when you have a strong enough claim to argue for. Cuz as of this post, you haven't argued anything worth taking seriously.
 
Magical Realist:

Come back when you have a strong enough claim to argue for. And when you do, make sure you're equipped with evidence to argue the claim, rather than just your wish that it be true.

Oh, and don't think it has gone unnoticed that you have continued to avoid responding to the substance of what I posted.
 
Magical Realist said:
You have yet to offer anything. Anytime I ask you what you are claiming, you say you aren't claiming anything, Just suggesting possibilities. Come back when you have a strong enough claim to argue for.
Click to expand...
This is flawed logic. Unlike your stance, skeptics are not set on stating what it is, merely on what it might be (since we know we can't know). So it makes no sense to dismiss a plausible explanation simply because it doesn't demand itself to be true. Being open makes for a stronger stance.

So while the rest of the world sees being open to multiple plausibilities as a good thing, you see it as a bad thing.

I post this, not for your benefit, but for the benefit of other readers. They are learning from your errors.
 
JamesR: The water droplet would have been an excellent explanation of the object and its movement, but I think it rendered implausible by careful observation.

Watch the objects' position relative to the cockpit console:
mig-21.png
At 0:20s to 0:22s you can see the object move dramatically to the left relative to the cockpit console - and therefore relative to the aircraft's canopy.

(It's not due to a shifting camera - the camera has not moved relative to the cockpit in that time.)

If it were a droplet on the canopy, and were shifted sideways, it should have changed its long-axis orientation and - presumably moved backward.

 
This is flawed logic. Unlike your stance, skeptics are not set on stating what it is, merely on what it mightbe (since we know we can't know). So it makes no sense to dismiss a plausible explanation simply because it doesn't demand itself to be true. Being open makes for a stronger stance.
Click to expand...

It makes sense to dismiss mere possibilities with no evidence of their probability. A mere possibility isn't an argument for anything. Just idle and inconsequential speculations. If you have nothing more substantial that that, then maybe you should butt out.

So while the rest of the world sees being open to multiple plausibilities as a good thing, you see it as a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Actually the rest of the world sees a cylindrical object flying in sky. Nobody is seeing a shadow or a water droplet except James R. He sees what he wants to see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top