Debunking the notion that those who believe official government denials are "skeptics"

a reply to: Tangerine

No, seriously. How do you prove you're not married? You can certainly prove that you're divorced, but I don't know how someone would go about proving they're not married.

Well, I am pretty sure that there would be a public record of that somewhere. The absence of any legal evidence that you are married would probably suffice. In other words, if there is no way to prove someone is married, then they aren't since its a legal issue.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Tangerine

No, seriously. How do you prove you're not married? You can certainly prove that you're divorced, but I don't know how someone would go about proving they're not married.

Well, I am pretty sure that there would be a public record of that somewhere. The absence of any legal evidence that you are married would probably suffice. In other words, if there is no way to prove someone is married, then they aren't since its a legal issue.

My point is that you can prove that you are married and you can prove that you are divorced (both are documented) but it's impossible to absolutely prove that someone is not married. In other words, you can't prove a negative.

a reply to: Tangerine

I'm almost there

If someone goes to court and is accused of being married...they could show up with a report of an exhaustive record search completed by a third party. Would that work? Of course that would all be for nothing once someone shows the long lost marriage certificate.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Tangerine

I'm almost there

If someone goes to court and is accused of being married...they could show up with a report of an exhaustive record search completed by a third party. Would that work? Of course that would all be for nothing once someone shows the long lost marriage certificate.

I have no idea what the court (ie. the Judge) would accept. Would the third party scour the earth? Would s/he take into account lost records? It is simply impossible to prove a negative.

a reply to: Tangerine

I concede

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Tangerine

I concede

And I'll give you a plate of chocolate chip cookies (still warm)

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

The pilot never before saw anything before that flight.

Happy misrepresenting and shilling to you today.

Just making up things all for the benefit of debunking history. James Callahan has a million times more credibility than you do. I will take his word over anyone else any day. Especially over a wannabe shill
That's a fact everyone can take to the bank.

"Wannabe shill ... making things up". An interesting response.

Excellent job on 'proving' the point I made previously though- Many believers have no clue what they are talking about in regard to many of these cases. They naively follow and regurgitate information that they're told by these biased sources. Zero research, zero independent thought.

As OccumsRazor04 pointed out, Terauchi had reported motherships on other occasions. The radar information was spotty and lasted off and on only minutes and was explained by FAA officials as an uncorrelated primary beacon returns.

I suggest you read up on all the facts before accusing someone of making things up.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: debonkers
a reply to: Tangerine

Researchers have come up with many categories and claimants have come up with many descriptions but they still all fall under the overall category of unidentified origin. We have 70 years worth of detailed reports. How has that established the origin of these objects in the sky? It hasn't. The origin is still unidentified.

So what? The object has been identified, as a metallic flying saucer, for example. Call it that. To reduce the description to "unidentified flying object" is a biased attempt to diminish the sighting.

You don't need to know the ORIGIN of the car that hit you to describe it as a car. You don't have to reduce the description to "unidentified driving object", do you? Of course not.

The origin is still unidentified. I agree with you that the term is inadequate but what term would you prefer for a general category that encompasses all sightings?

I do not think there is a general category that encompasses all sightings. Nor do I think we need one.

OK. Start a Metallic Flying Saucer thread and see where it leads. I suppose it would do no good to point out to you that you couldn't possibly know for certain that it was metallic. Someone can start a Cigar-shaped Flying Saucer Thread.

You're starting to strike me as not that informed.

Metallic simply means "resembling metal".

So, yes you could possibly know for certain that it was metallic.

I can't continue responding to your posts. Thanks for your participation, please feel free to continue posting and discussing with others in this thread.

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: debonkers
a reply to: Tangerine

Researchers have come up with many categories and claimants have come up with many descriptions but they still all fall under the overall category of unidentified origin. We have 70 years worth of detailed reports. How has that established the origin of these objects in the sky? It hasn't. The origin is still unidentified.

So what? The object has been identified, as a metallic flying saucer, for example. Call it that. To reduce the description to "unidentified flying object" is a biased attempt to diminish the sighting.

You don't need to know the ORIGIN of the car that hit you to describe it as a car. You don't have to reduce the description to "unidentified driving object", do you? Of course not.

The origin is still unidentified. I agree with you that the term is inadequate but what term would you prefer for a general category that encompasses all sightings?

I do not think there is a general category that encompasses all sightings. Nor do I think we need one.

OK. Start a Metallic Flying Saucer thread and see where it leads. I suppose it would do no good to point out to you that you couldn't possibly know for certain that it was metallic. Someone can start a Cigar-shaped Flying Saucer Thread.

You're starting to strike me as not that informed.

Metallic simply means "resembling metal".

So, yes you could possibly know for certain that it was metallic.

I can't continue responding to your posts. Thanks for your participation, please feel free to continue posting and discussing with others in this thread.

Metallic simply means resembling metal so you could possibly know for certain that it was metallic because it resembles metal? Huh?

Your promise to not continue responding gives me what I can only imagine is akin to a sensation of religious ecstasy.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: debonkers
a reply to: Tangerine

Researchers have come up with many categories and claimants have come up with many descriptions but they still all fall under the overall category of unidentified origin. We have 70 years worth of detailed reports. How has that established the origin of these objects in the sky? It hasn't. The origin is still unidentified.

So what? The object has been identified, as a metallic flying saucer, for example. Call it that. To reduce the description to "unidentified flying object" is a biased attempt to diminish the sighting.

You don't need to know the ORIGIN of the car that hit you to describe it as a car. You don't have to reduce the description to "unidentified driving object", do you? Of course not.

The origin is still unidentified. I agree with you that the term is inadequate but what term would you prefer for a general category that encompasses all sightings?

I do not think there is a general category that encompasses all sightings. Nor do I think we need one.

OK. Start a Metallic Flying Saucer thread and see where it leads. I suppose it would do no good to point out to you that you couldn't possibly know for certain that it was metallic. Someone can start a Cigar-shaped Flying Saucer Thread.

You're starting to strike me as not that informed.

Metallic simply means "resembling metal".

So, yes you could possibly know for certain that it was metallic.

I can't continue responding to your posts. Thanks for your participation, please feel free to continue posting and discussing with others in this thread.

Metallic simply means resembling metal so you could possibly know for certain that it was metallic because it resembles metal? Huh?

Wow, you are not at all a bright fellow.

I don't mean that as an insult, really, just an honest assessment.

Who could have this much difficulty understanding what the word metallic means?

Let me try to get this through to you, then, no more responses to anything you type, I promise. Okay. So here goes...

If you think something looks like metal, then you would describe it as metallic.

It's really as simple as that. It does not have to be made out of metal to be metallic, although it can be.

How can you possibly have trouble with such a simple word? How can we take anything you say seriously?

You need to type a lot less are read a lot more.

Best wishes and good luck in life. Now go crack a book. Any book.

a reply to: debonkers

Metallic simply means "resembling metal" so it could be an illusion or a hallucination or anything other than metal. You are correct.

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: debonkers
a reply to: Tangerine

Researchers have come up with many categories and claimants have come up with many descriptions but they still all fall under the overall category of unidentified origin. We have 70 years worth of detailed reports. How has that established the origin of these objects in the sky? It hasn't. The origin is still unidentified.

So what? The object has been identified, as a metallic flying saucer, for example. Call it that. To reduce the description to "unidentified flying object" is a biased attempt to diminish the sighting.

You don't need to know the ORIGIN of the car that hit you to describe it as a car. You don't have to reduce the description to "unidentified driving object", do you? Of course not.

The origin is still unidentified. I agree with you that the term is inadequate but what term would you prefer for a general category that encompasses all sightings?

I do not think there is a general category that encompasses all sightings. Nor do I think we need one.

OK. Start a Metallic Flying Saucer thread and see where it leads. I suppose it would do no good to point out to you that you couldn't possibly know for certain that it was metallic. Someone can start a Cigar-shaped Flying Saucer Thread.

You're starting to strike me as not that informed.

Metallic simply means "resembling metal".

So, yes you could possibly know for certain that it was metallic.

I can't continue responding to your posts. Thanks for your participation, please feel free to continue posting and discussing with others in this thread.

Metallic simply means resembling metal so you could possibly know for certain that it was metallic because it resembles metal? Huh?

Wow, you are not at all a bright fellow.

I don't mean that as an insult, really, just an honest assessment.

Who could have this much difficulty understanding what the word metallic means?

Let me try to get this through to you, then, no more responses to anything you type, I promise. Okay. So here goes...

If you think something looks like metal, then you would describe it as metallic.

It's really as simple as that. It does not have to be made out of metal to be metallic, although it can be.

How can you possibly have trouble with such a simple word? How can we take anything you say seriously?

You need to type a lot less are read a lot more.

Best wishes and good luck in life. Now go crack a book. Any book.

You announced in a previous post that you weren't going to respond to my posts any more. There goes your credibility.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: debonkers

Metallic simply means "resembling metal" so it could be an illusion or a hallucination or anything other than metal. You are correct.

OK, I accept that.

a reply to: debonkers

My point when I brought up the bit about your brain lying to you is that it may SEEM real to you but didn't really happen. For instance, if the event happened while you were sleeping. Are you sure it wasn't sleep paralysis? If it happened while you were conscious, maybe you were drugged or were sleepy.

Well, I don't know much about your experience. Did you actually SEE living beings or was it just you seeing a spacecraft in the sky? If it was you seeing a spacecraft in the sky, you can't even be intellectually honest by saying it was alive even if it does move erratically. You know at times Venus moves backwards in the sky? There are always possibilities to consider outside of the answer "aliens". And to be intellectually honest, one must consider and rule out the mundane before jumping to the unexplained (and even then you should really just say "I don't know").

By the way, you are using an awful BROAD definition of "aliens" here. We both know when someone says aliens in this conversations they are talking about an extraterrestrial being, so we can discard any definitions that don't deal with not being of this earth. Yes Mexicans are aliens in America, but that isn't relevant to what we are seeing. You didn't need to play this semantics game.

As for Occam's Razor, yes it says that aliens probably exist in the universe (even intelligent life, maybe even other human life), but Occam's Razor DOESN'T say that they've probably visited earth.

a reply to: debonkers


deleted,


No point in saying anything just observing is enough from now on

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: debonkers

By the way, you are using an awful BROAD definition of "aliens" here. We both know when someone says aliens in this conversations they are talking about an extraterrestrial being, so we can discard any definitions that don't deal with not being of this earth.

No, I most certainly am not.
In fact, I cited a half dozen definitions of the word, and these beings fit under all of them. I suggest you scroll back.

a reply to: debonkers

I know what you did and I am saying that it is a semantics game when everyone already knows what someone having this conversation means when they say "aliens". Regardless, aliens implies that you saw something alive, and possibly intelligent. Those two claims are assumptions if all you saw was a UFO in the sky.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: debonkers

I know what you did and I am saying that it is a semantics game when everyone already knows what someone having this conversation means when they say "aliens". Regardless, aliens implies that you saw something alive, and possibly intelligent. Those two claims are assumptions if all you saw was a UFO in the sky.

Look, it is not my problem if you think the only definition of the word "alien" mean extraterrestrials from another planet in outer space. That is your limited thinking, so don't accuse me of a "semantics game" because your narrow interpretation of the word is inadequate.

I listed a half dozen definitions of the word "alien", and these beings pretty much fit all of them. So stop whining when I use a word in proper context that falls outside of your preconceived beliefs.

Maybe you should use the word extraterrestrial if that's what you mean? Words are a wonderful means of communication if you understand their definitions.

More to the point, I cannot say with any degree of confidence that these beings travel through space from another planet that orbits a star in our sky. That is called ETH, or, the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

There are aspects of alien contact that may point to a more complex explanation; perhaps interdimensional, perhaps time travel, perhaps a spiritual plane, or the afterlife, if such a thing exists. Maybe it's all of the above. I cannot say from what I know, but still, the word "alien" is a very appropriate description.

I hope this helped.

originally posted by: debonkers
Look, it is not my problem if you think the only definition of the word "alien" mean extraterrestrials from another planet in outer space. That is your limited thinking, so don't accuse me of a "semantics game" because your narrow interpretation of the word is inadequate.

I don't think that alien only means extraterrestrial. I already told you I know the definition. I am just defining it narrowly for the purpose of our conversation.

I listed a half dozen definitions of the word "alien", and these beings pretty much fit all of them. So stop whining when I use a word in proper context that falls outside of your preconceived beliefs.

Fine. I don't care about this stupid semantics argument anymore. It's pointless. You are right. Can we move on now to something more important?

By the way, if you saw government agents or a clandestine corporation testing on the American population than they wouldn't be aliens.

More to the point, I cannot say with any degree of confidence that these beings travel through space from another planet that orbits a star in our sky. That is called ETH, or, the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

There are aspects of alien contact that may point to a more complex explanation; perhaps interdimensional, perhaps time travel, perhaps a spiritual plane, or the afterlife, if such a thing exists. Maybe it's all of the above. I cannot say from what I know, but still, the word "alien" is a very appropriate description.

I hope this helped.

How about you start with how you know these beings are "beings" to begin with and not a trick of the light or something. Like I said, seeing a UFO doesn't automatically give you carte blanche to say you are seeing intelligent life. You have to prove that something is piloting the ship first.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

By the way, if you saw government agents or a clandestine corporation testing on the American population than they wouldn't be aliens.

I agree.

Like I said, seeing a UFO doesn't automatically give you carte blanche to say you are seeing intelligent life. You have to prove that something is piloting the ship first.

I agree with that too.