Skeptic misses point behind UFO book

a reply to: EnPassant

The Battle of Los Angeles and Westall are two that immediately pop to mind where the best government explanation was "weather balloon", which is obviously clear to even a child to be false.

Westall:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Battle of Los Angeles:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Did anyone mention to you that attempts at emotional/ego engagement are hallmarks of disinformation agents? Is that what you were attempting with your insults to me?

Nah. I think he is just frustrated because its nearly impossible to have a real discussion about this stuff. So stop being a nincompoop!

There is enough evidence to support the claim that there is an ET interaction with earth, though I agree that hasn't been proven beyond a doubt.

IF there is an ET interaction with earth, it is obviously being covered up by "officialdom", the government, military, MSM, science. Can we agree on that? That is, IF there actually is an ET interaction ongoing with earth, some facets of officialdom have to know about it, and it is being covered up?

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE....


Let me ask you this, given the hundreds of thousands of UFO sightings over the past 70 years or so, do you think that non-human intelligence is one possibility? A simple yes or no will do.

Yes.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: lostgirl
a reply to: 111DPKING111

I would include:

Radar returns with confirmed eyewitness visuals of the object, especially pilots who chased an object which they could see on radar and with their own eyes..

NO.........the "debunkers" would have you believe those objects that coincide with radar returns, the latter which are supposedly "spoofed", are just "plasmas" that miraculously defy the laws of conservation of energy.

YES.....the sometimes twisted and convoluted logic of "debunker" explanations are enough to give you a headache, not to mention a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

You obviously have never actually tried to understand a skeptical assessment of such cases, but instead rely on your imagined fantasies of 'straw men' to preserve your existing opinions. Your contribution to this discussion is worthless except as an illustration of why the subject is so garbled and obscure. Thanks for making it worse.

I just can't understand why insults are necessary when a logical counter argument should be good enough?

I thought I had written a large number of them over the years. Have you read ANY of them?

a reply to: JimOberg

Thank you. I'm glad we could have a civilized conservation, albeit a short one.

a reply to: JimOberg

I have seen some, though I can't recall the details. I will go back and look at the ten explanations you mentioned in reference to Leslie Kean's book, and comment at that point.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

IF there is an ET interaction with earth, it is obviously being covered up by "officialdom", the government, military, MSM, science. Can we agree on that? That is, IF there actually is an ET interaction ongoing with earth, some facets of officialdom have to know about it, and it is being covered up?

I don't know. I dont really get into conspiracy theories too much. The most I will say is that I do think there could be a deliberate distortion of the topic as a cover for military projects. I find the psy ops aspect interesting.

a reply to: JimOberg

Appreciate your reply Jim,

And earlier I see that the spell checker changed the name of James McGaha to Graham. So correcting that now..

edit to add: I'm aware that those documentaries seem to get a lot of footage and then go through it and pick the most colorful things people say to "brighten up" the end product, but even with that there are still some statements which people can make that have pretty clear meaning even when taken out of context, and mean the same thing either way. Something to think about.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: lostgirl
a reply to: 111DPKING111

I would include:

Radar returns with confirmed eyewitness visuals of the object, especially pilots who chased an object which they could see on radar and with their own eyes..

NO.........the "debunkers" would have you believe those objects that coincide with radar returns, the latter which are supposedly "spoofed", are just "plasmas" that miraculously defy the laws of conservation of energy.

YES.....the sometimes twisted and convoluted logic of "debunker" explanations are enough to give you a headache, not to mention a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

You obviously have never actually tried to understand a skeptical assessment of such cases, but instead rely on your imagined fantasies of 'straw men' to preserve your existing opinions. Your contribution to this discussion is worthless except as an illustration of why the subject is so garbled and obscure. Thanks for making it worse.

I just can't understand why insults are necessary when a logical counter argument should be good enough?

Did anyone mention to you that attempts at emotional/ego engagement are hallmarks of disinformation agents? Is that what you were attempting with your insults to me?

Do you think such high-schoolish antics say more about me or actually say more about you?

I think your screen name and use of terms like "disinformation agents" and "debunkers" say enough about you.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: lostgirl
a reply to: 111DPKING111

I would include:

Radar returns with confirmed eyewitness visuals of the object, especially pilots who chased an object which they could see on radar and with their own eyes..

NO.........the "debunkers" would have you believe those objects that coincide with radar returns, the latter which are supposedly "spoofed", are just "plasmas" that miraculously defy the laws of conservation of energy.

YES.....the sometimes twisted and convoluted logic of "debunker" explanations are enough to give you a headache, not to mention a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

You obviously have never actually tried to understand a skeptical assessment of such cases, but instead rely on your imagined fantasies of 'straw men' to preserve your existing opinions. Your contribution to this discussion is worthless except as an illustration of why the subject is so garbled and obscure. Thanks for making it worse.

I just can't understand why insults are necessary when a logical counter argument should be good enough?

Did anyone mention to you that attempts at emotional/ego engagement are hallmarks of disinformation agents? Is that what you were attempting with your insults to me?

Do you think such high-schoolish antics say more about me or actually say more about you?

I think your screen name and use of terms like "disinformation agents" and "debunkers" say enough about you.

But what about his point that insults and ridicule should not be necessary if their is a valid counter argument?

Did you know that the Air Force began using ridicule, threats, and the fear of violent government reprisals when they do not have a valid counter argument?

Why else would those extremes be needed? It's done to make people shut up!

They still spend a small fortune every year to keep the entire country on "ridecule lock-down" Saturating the media, schools, colleges and businesses, science, etc.

Why do they do this?
Because they do not have a valid counter argument/.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: lostgirl
a reply to: 111DPKING111

I would include:

Radar returns with confirmed eyewitness visuals of the object, especially pilots who chased an object which they could see on radar and with their own eyes..

NO.........the "debunkers" would have you believe those objects that coincide with radar returns, the latter which are supposedly "spoofed", are just "plasmas" that miraculously defy the laws of conservation of energy.

YES.....the sometimes twisted and convoluted logic of "debunker" explanations are enough to give you a headache, not to mention a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

You obviously have never actually tried to understand a skeptical assessment of such cases, but instead rely on your imagined fantasies of 'straw men' to preserve your existing opinions. Your contribution to this discussion is worthless except as an illustration of why the subject is so garbled and obscure. Thanks for making it worse.

I just can't understand why insults are necessary when a logical counter argument should be good enough?

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE


I just can't understand why insults are necessary when a logical counter argument should be good enough?

I thought I had written a large number of them over the years. Have you read ANY of them?

Insults? Or logical arguments? I see more of the former coming from you.

Let me ask you this question, and it is a rather important question regarding your work:

Of these 100 UFO sightings that you have "explained" away, in how many of those 100 cases do the actual witnesses of these events agree with your explanation?

I await your answer, and please be specific.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Why do they do this?
Because they do not have a valid counter argument/.

Problem with this is you can use the exact same logic on either side.

Why do they call me a debunker? Why do they heavily imply I'm a disinformation agent? Because they have no valid counter argument?

Some people are just a bit harsh. It's how it is. I can handle harshness, but as soon as the disinformation accusation / assertions about open mindedness come out it's just a conversation stopper. People might as well write 'I don't want to talk to you anymore.' Some people just won't rest until you subscribe 100% to their point of view I think, even when you subscribe to 60% it's just not enough.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: JimOberg



I have seen some, though I can't recall the details. I will go back and look at the ten explanations you mentioned in reference to Leslie Kean's book, and comment at that point.

Thanks. And a serious question about them is to ask what do you think the value of doing those investigations really is? What if anything does it prove even if all ten cases are solved?

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: lostgirl

a reply to: 111DPKING111



I would include:



Radar returns with confirmed eyewitness visuals of the object, especially pilots who chased an object which they could see on radar and with their own eyes..

NO.........the "debunkers" would have you believe those objects that coincide with radar returns, the latter which are supposedly "spoofed", are just "plasmas" that miraculously defy the laws of conservation of energy.



YES.....the sometimes twisted and convoluted logic of "debunker" explanations are enough to give you a headache, not to mention a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

You obviously have never actually tried to understand a skeptical assessment of such cases, but instead rely on your imagined fantasies of 'straw men' to preserve your existing opinions. Your contribution to this discussion is worthless except as an illustration of why the subject is so garbled and obscure. Thanks for making it worse.

I just can't understand why insults are necessary when a logical counter argument should be good enough?

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE





I just can't understand why insults are necessary when a logical counter argument should be good enough?

I thought I had written a large number of them over the years. Have you read ANY of them?

Insults? Or logical arguments? I see more of the former coming from you.



Let me ask you this question, and it is a rather important question regarding your work:



Of these 100 UFO sightings that you have "explained" away, in how many of those 100 cases do the actual witnesses of these events agree with your explanation?



I await your answer, and please be specific.

Don't you think putting "explained" in quotation marks is an insult? Well, i don't mind, because it's all we've gotten out of you. Let me ask a question: do you think ANY of the prosaic explanations I've offered for these numerous cases is accurate? Can you name one that you knew about, and my work changed your mind? This is a rather important question regarding your mindset.

The main ones I've focused on are missile and space related only because that's my porfessional specialty, NOT because I think these events are the answer to all or even most reports.

The STS-48 zig-zag shuttle video is the most famous -- do you think my explanation has merit?

The reports of alien encounters on Apollo-11 is also a classic. Never happened. Do you think my explanation has merit?

The sky spiral over Norway is another recent mass thrill, caused by a Russian missile test. Do you think my explanation has merit?

Gordon Cooper's witnessing a UFO extend legs and land at Edwards AFB is part of the sacred canon, but my research shows he only imagined it. Do you think my explanation has merit?

Leroy Chiao's glimpse of a fleet of lights passing his field of view while on a space station spacewalk in 2005 also has been widely circulated, but I showed it was a fishing fleet on the ocean 220 miles below. Do you think my explanation has merit?

Is your mind even capable of self-correction?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

"And take up jogging".

- NoCorruptionAllowed

"Thanks for the detailed response which in no way do I find offensive".

- Jim Oberg

I recognize he replied to your queries, but I sure hope he was being sarcastic. If not (hoping Jim reads this comment and chimes in), I would love to know the inside joke.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

Why do they do this?
Because they do not have a valid counter argument/.

This is where the conversation started: What is the valid counter argument to this?

YES.....the sometimes twisted and convoluted logic of "debunker" explanations are enough to give you a headache, not to mention a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

And then you "believer" dimwits cry when you get it back? There was no argument to begin with just a twisted convoluted thought.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

Why do they do this?
Because they do not have a valid counter argument/.

This is where the conversation started: What is the valid counter argument to this?

YES.....the sometimes twisted and convoluted logic of "debunker" explanations are enough to give you a headache, not to mention a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

And then you "believer" dimwits cry when you get it back? There was no argument to begin with just a twisted convoluted thought.

A valid counter argument would be just sticking to the facts and that alone. It doesn't matter where the conversation started.

Has nothing to do with belief in aliens at all. And you are the dimwit at a disadvantage going in to this from the beginning, not the believer, who only now knows something you do not, because they were witness to it.

Their quest has already ended, but yours continues because you do not know the information, and won't consider anyone's testimony. Demanding hard proof for something isn't the question to those who have seen things, that demand is only coming from those who are still ignorant of a reality, and that ignorance causes you anger and so you must now ridecule those who have seen proof themselves and calling them names.

Think of it as child tantrums and then work to get over that. You will be better for it.

Added: This is not meant to say that skepticism shouldn't be used always to discover the facts, which it should, and so just sticking to the truth rather than responding with insults should be enough.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

If you completely dismiss his credibility due to this, even though he was an ex air force officer and ex-governor, who will you believe? How small is the subset of people that have better credentials than this and can actually claim they were part of a authentic UFO incident? I think it is virtually zero.

Howdy PX, I think credentials are problematic in this area. Colonel Wendelle Stevens was USAF and promoted Billy Meier. Corso was a US Army Colonel IIRC, with a good record, and his claims were dubious. Hector Quintanilla, Jr was a USAF Lieutenant Colonel and was adamant that it was all BS. I'm also thinking of the USAF 'Estimate of the Situation' reports from the late 40s and 50s. One of them supported the ETH and the rest dismissed the ETH so which one do you pick? Credentials aren't everything.

Governors or 'ex-Governors' are politicians and when did anyone start taking that position as some sort of benchmark of honesty?

With Symington, his actions said one thing and then his words said something else.

It's not that I dismiss his credibility, it's just that his account isn't strong enough to withstand criticism.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

A valid counter argument would be just sticking to the facts and that alone. It doesn't matter where the conversation started.

That is an excellent point. well said.

Has nothing to do with belief in aliens at all. And you are the dimwit at a disadvantage going in to this from the beginning, not the believer, who only now knows something you do not, because they were witness to it.

I'm not a dimwit! This quote directly contradicts your first point.

Their quest has already ended, but yours continues

Its the journey, not the destination...

because you do not know the information, and won't consider anyone's testimony. Demanding hard proof for something isn't the question to those who have seen things, that demand is only coming from those who are still ignorant of a reality, and that ignorance causes you anger and so you must now ridecule those who have seen proof themselves and calling them names.

So apparently when you spell something wrong, im supposed to jump all over you and try to make you feel like an idiot but in doing so, I would only look like more of an idiot... and in the process, ignore any valid points you made. You didn't make any, so I am safe. I am far from angry.

Think of it as child tantrums and then work to get over that. You will be better for it.

This contradicts your previous point.

Added: This is not meant to say that skepticism shouldn't be used always to discover the facts, which it should, and so just sticking to the truth rather than responding with insults should be enough.

Yeah, now that I feel like a childish, angry, ignorant dimwit in the midst of a tantrum, I will take that into consideration. Thanks for you very insightful post

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

I think we are at cross purposes here. When you said that sightings are explained by psychological components I understood that you were talking about something more profound, like the hallucinations you mentioned. That's the way I read your post.

No, I am talking about psych 101 stuff. Discussing hallucinations in this context is pointless because it is almost impossible to prove that it has ever occurred in any of these cases but I have also pointed out that they do commonly occur in the normal population without the need to invoke your "deluded people with bad brain wiring filled bugs in their head". like this:

The counter argument is that these witnesses are deluded, or their brain's wiring is gone wrong or they are mistaken or whatever.

which is not at all the counter argument. The counter argument is that people are being people with normal psychology and yes, hallucinations ARE a part of normal psychology.

OK. What I have been getting at in my recent posts is that there are a number of ways to resolve the ufo issue. And proof need only come in one of these areas. These areas are

1. Whistle blowers
2. Witness testimony
3. Abductions
4. Alien (?) technology
5. Photographic evidence
6. --- etc.

Now, if you depend on the psychological explanation that will not explain photographic evidence. The photos are real or fake and have nothing to do with psychology.
If you go down the hallucination road that won't address the whistle blower testimony.
If you try to explain ufos as secret technology that won't solve the abduction question.

So, any convincing solution must solve all of the above areas (and more). So psych 101 might conceivably expose a small number of cases but it won't answer whistle blower testimony, or photographic evidence. You need a more all embracing theory to explain the thing.

Hallucinations - I asked for your personal opinion on this because I wanted to bring up the point that a hallucination need not be a purely fictitious thing. Even hallucinations may have an objective source in reality. See; Strassman www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com...