The End of UFOlogy?

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Hunkadinka
I'm a skeptic and I find your blanket comments less than desirable. What do you know about skepticism? Obviously nothing because you sound like an obvious believer and accept claims willy nilly.

I guess it's true that if you don't pick a "side," everybody thinks you're against them.

It's always been that way. When you are mentally conditioned which automatically robs you of thinking for yourself and allows your thinking to be controlled, you are going to rail about clear thinkers, skeptics, etc. We are not easily fooled. Believers are. We keep things on the straight and narrow. Believers resent being told that their thinking is less than desirable. Believers don't contribute because they don't rely on irrefutable evidence, their belief system cannot be overridden. They're happy being ignorant. We have some swell, clear thinkers that tell it like it is and we are always being attacked by mentally challenged members. Nothing changes here. I'm glad Armap checks in once in a while and he helps by calling violators on the carpet and removing stupid and insulting posts, not all of them but some is better than nothing.

I’m still waiting for irrefutable proof/an answer to my question... lay it on us.

I laid it down somewhere, maybe on another thread or a mistaken reply, I don't know. I don't feel like doing that again. Irrefutable evidence is out there, just not in here.

I just realized I wasn't posting here but at the Rant forum, 4 pages worth! Maybe the thread started here and was moved. But I returned there to see if my answer was on that forum. If I run into it I'll copy and paste it here to answer your question.

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: EnigmaChaser
If there are MORE cameras everywhere than were in past decades one would think those violating airspace would be more careful regarding potencial detection?

See this is another good point that I don’t see “non-believers” take into consideration.

As one party advances, so must the other. It’s entirely plausible they realized that we largely couldn’t detect them or document their existence via the masses 40 years ago. Today they understand that. So, countermeasures are deployed. In my mind - that’s not kooky thinking in the least - we did the same with stealth.

It is not another good point, it's silly. Cameras have never been a factor in UFOlogy aside from recording what humans see. UAOs don't give a damn about your pointing a camera at them. Potential detection, you gotta be kidding.

How do you know they don’t care? What’s the concrete evidence to the contrary?

The "concrete evidence" is that no one aiming a camera at a UAP has been "zapped" by them. Good enuf?

This has a good description of the sighting made by Lonnie Zamora.

As a counterpoint to the argument that Ufology is riddled with bias, it is worth reviewing in this case the arguments of the debunkers. Zamora was easily the sanest of the bunch! Just a prank by high school kids ... sure.

Cheers

Well, if we had any idea what those ufos are actually are or from, would it be called known?

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Hunkadinka
I'm a skeptic and I find your blanket comments less than desirable. What do you know about skepticism? Obviously nothing because you sound like an obvious believer and accept claims willy nilly.

snip

I’m still waiting for irrefutable proof/an answer to my question... lay it on us.

The definition of irrefutable is something that is impossible to prove wrong, or that cannot be denied.

Now that you have a definition of irrefutable evidence, choose a claim and apply the definition. There is no irrefutable evidence to support Travis Walton's claim, ditto for the Hills. Ditto for any claim of "alien abductions", nor for ETs. And I don't have to lay it on "us" only on you as you don't speak for anyone else. You either accept a claim 'cause it's supported by irrefutable evidence or you accept the claim 'cause you're a gullible believer. Take a stand.

edit on 9/22/2019 by Hunkadinka because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Hunkadinka
I'm a skeptic and I find your blanket comments less than desirable. What do you know about skepticism? Obviously nothing because you sound like an obvious believer and accept claims willy nilly.

I guess it's true that if you don't pick a "side," everybody thinks you're against them.

It's always been that way. When you are mentally conditioned which automatically robs you of thinking for yourself and allows your thinking to be controlled, you are going to rail about clear thinkers, skeptics, etc. We are not easily fooled. Believers are. We keep things on the straight and narrow. Believers resent being told that their thinking is less than desirable. Believers don't contribute because they don't rely on irrefutable evidence, their belief system cannot be overridden. They're happy being ignorant. We have some swell, clear thinkers that tell it like it is and we are always being attacked by mentally challenged members. Nothing changes here. I'm glad Armap checks in once in a while and he helps by calling violators on the carpet and removing stupid and insulting posts, not all of them but some is better than nothing.

I’m still waiting for irrefutable proof/an answer to my question... lay it on us.

The definition of irrefutable is something that is impossible to prove wrong, or that cannot be denied.

Now that you have a definition of irrefutable evidence, choose a claim and apply the definition. There is no irrefutable evidence to support Travis Walton's claim, ditto for the Hills. Ditto for any claim of "alien abductions" and for ETs. And I don't have to lay it on "us" only on you as you don't speak for anyone else. You either accept a claim 'cause it's supported by irrefutable evidence or you accept the claim 'cause you're a gullible believer. Take a stand.

originally posted by: Specimen88
Well, if we had any idea what those ufos are actually are or from, would it be called known?

Some of us know, but it is not common knowledge among the unwashed masses because the truth is SO SCARY (hiding under the bed monster like) and boomerangs/undermines all false notions of religion, archaeology, and world power structures (just to name a few) you docile slave you.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Specimen88
Well, if we had any idea what those ufos are actually are or from, would it be called known?

Some of us know, but it is not common knowledge among the unwashed masses because the truth is SO SCARY (hiding under the bed monster like) and boomerangs/undermines all false notions of religion, archaeology, and world power structures (just to name a few) you docile slave you.

empty claims

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Hunkadinka
I'm a skeptic and I find your blanket comments less than desirable. What do you know about skepticism? Obviously nothing because you sound like an obvious believer and accept claims willy nilly.

I guess it's true that if you don't pick a "side," everybody thinks you're against them.

It's always been that way. When you are mentally conditioned which automatically robs you of thinking for yourself and allows your thinking to be controlled, you are going to rail about clear thinkers, skeptics, etc. We are not easily fooled. Believers are. We keep things on the straight and narrow. Believers resent being told that their thinking is less than desirable. Believers don't contribute because they don't rely on irrefutable evidence, their belief system cannot be overridden. They're happy being ignorant. We have some swell, clear thinkers that tell it like it is and we are always being attacked by mentally challenged members. Nothing changes here. I'm glad Armap checks in once in a while and he helps by calling violators on the carpet and removing stupid and insulting posts, not all of them but some is better than nothing.

I’m still waiting for irrefutable proof/an answer to my question... lay it on us.

I laid it down somewhere, maybe on another thread or a mistaken reply, I don't know. I don't feel like doing that again. Irrefutable evidence is out there, just not in here.

I just realized I wasn't posting here but at the Rant forum, 4 pages worth! Maybe the thread started here and was moved. But I returned there to see if my answer was on that forum. If I run into it I'll copy and paste it here to answer your question.

So you have no irrefutable proof. Got it.

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: EnigmaChaser
If there are MORE cameras everywhere than were in past decades one would think those violating airspace would be more careful regarding potencial detection?

See this is another good point that I don’t see “non-believers” take into consideration.

As one party advances, so must the other. It’s entirely plausible they realized that we largely couldn’t detect them or document their existence via the masses 40 years ago. Today they understand that. So, countermeasures are deployed. In my mind - that’s not kooky thinking in the least - we did the same with stealth.

It is not another good point, it's silly. Cameras have never been a factor in UFOlogy aside from recording what humans see. UAOs don't give a damn about your pointing a camera at them. Potential detection, you gotta be kidding.

How do you know they don’t care? What’s the concrete evidence to the contrary?

The "concrete evidence" is that no one aiming a camera at a UAP has been "zapped" by them. Good enuf?

Nope. That’s an entirely nonsensical argument.

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Hunkadinka
I'm a skeptic and I find your blanket comments less than desirable. What do you know about skepticism? Obviously nothing because you sound like an obvious believer and accept claims willy nilly.

I guess it's true that if you don't pick a "side," everybody thinks you're against them.

It's always been that way. When you are mentally conditioned which automatically robs you of thinking for yourself and allows your thinking to be controlled, you are going to rail about clear thinkers, skeptics, etc. We are not easily fooled. Believers are. We keep things on the straight and narrow. Believers resent being told that their thinking is less than desirable. Believers don't contribute because they don't rely on irrefutable evidence, their belief system cannot be overridden. They're happy being ignorant. We have some swell, clear thinkers that tell it like it is and we are always being attacked by mentally challenged members. Nothing changes here. I'm glad Armap checks in once in a while and he helps by calling violators on the carpet and removing stupid and insulting posts, not all of them but some is better than nothing.

I’m still waiting for irrefutable proof/an answer to my question... lay it on us.

I laid it down somewhere, maybe on another thread or a mistaken reply, I don't know. I don't feel like doing that again. Irrefutable evidence is out there, just not in here.

I just realized I wasn't posting here but at the Rant forum, 4 pages worth! Maybe the thread started here and was moved. But I returned there to see if my answer was on that forum. If I run into it I'll copy and paste it here to answer your question.

So you have no irrefutable proof. Got it.

Son, what do you desire irrefutable proof of, that you're operating with less than your full mind? You words provide your own irrefutable proof. Now move on and let the adults play here.

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: EnigmaChaser
If there are MORE cameras everywhere than were in past decades one would think those violating airspace would be more careful regarding potencial detection?

See this is another good point that I don’t see “non-believers” take into consideration.

As one party advances, so must the other. It’s entirely plausible they realized that we largely couldn’t detect them or document their existence via the masses 40 years ago. Today they understand that. So, countermeasures are deployed. In my mind - that’s not kooky thinking in the least - we did the same with stealth.

It is not another good point, it's silly. Cameras have never been a factor in UFOlogy aside from recording what humans see. UAOs don't give a damn about your pointing a camera at them. Potential detection, you gotta be kidding.

How do you know they don’t care? What’s the concrete evidence to the contrary?

The "concrete evidence" is that no one aiming a camera at a UAP has been "zapped" by them. Good enuf?

Nope. That’s an entirely nonsensical argument.

Prove it.

a reply to: Hunkadinka

I think YOU are in the wrong playground... just move on

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Hunkadinka
I'm a skeptic and I find your blanket comments less than desirable. What do you know about skepticism? Obviously nothing because you sound like an obvious believer and accept claims willy nilly.

I guess it's true that if you don't pick a "side," everybody thinks you're against them.

It's always been that way. When you are mentally conditioned which automatically robs you of thinking for yourself and allows your thinking to be controlled, you are going to rail about clear thinkers, skeptics, etc. We are not easily fooled. Believers are. We keep things on the straight and narrow. Believers resent being told that their thinking is less than desirable. Believers don't contribute because they don't rely on irrefutable evidence, their belief system cannot be overridden. They're happy being ignorant. We have some swell, clear thinkers that tell it like it is and we are always being attacked by mentally challenged members. Nothing changes here. I'm glad Armap checks in once in a while and he helps by calling violators on the carpet and removing stupid and insulting posts, not all of them but some is better than nothing.

I’m still waiting for irrefutable proof/an answer to my question... lay it on us.

I laid it down somewhere, maybe on another thread or a mistaken reply, I don't know. I don't feel like doing that again. Irrefutable evidence is out there, just not in here.

I just realized I wasn't posting here but at the Rant forum, 4 pages worth! Maybe the thread started here and was moved. But I returned there to see if my answer was on that forum. If I run into it I'll copy and paste it here to answer your question.

So you have no irrefutable proof. Got it.

Son, what do you desire irrefutable proof of, that you're operating with less than your full mind? You words provide your own irrefutable proof. Now move on and let the adults play here.

So you have no irrefutable proof. Got it.

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: EnigmaChaser
If there are MORE cameras everywhere than were in past decades one would think those violating airspace would be more careful regarding potencial detection?

See this is another good point that I don’t see “non-believers” take into consideration.

As one party advances, so must the other. It’s entirely plausible they realized that we largely couldn’t detect them or document their existence via the masses 40 years ago. Today they understand that. So, countermeasures are deployed. In my mind - that’s not kooky thinking in the least - we did the same with stealth.

It is not another good point, it's silly. Cameras have never been a factor in UFOlogy aside from recording what humans see. UAOs don't give a damn about your pointing a camera at them. Potential detection, you gotta be kidding.

How do you know they don’t care? What’s the concrete evidence to the contrary?

The "concrete evidence" is that no one aiming a camera at a UAP has been "zapped" by them. Good enuf?

Nope. That’s an entirely nonsensical argument.

Prove it.

Look man, I get you’re a keyboard warrior. That’s fine - you’re not the first or the last.

But, while you’re waxing agro, you’re missing my entire point that there is no irrefutable proof.... You don’t have it. I don’t have it. If anyone here has it, I highly doubt they would plainly post it.

So, no - I don’t have irrefutable proof you’re wrong, you don’t have irrefutable proof you’re right - this is why they’re called theories or hypotheses. This is why we research. This is why we look for “evidence” - it’s a quest of sorts - not an equation.

I suggest keeping an open mind a little more going forward - there’s lots of angle to consider. Because whether you’re right, or I’m right, I do believe we’ll both clearly agree on the correct answer if the truth really shows itself for all to see.

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: EnigmaChaser
If there are MORE cameras everywhere than were in past decades one would think those violating airspace would be more careful regarding potencial detection?

See this is another good point that I don’t see “non-believers” take into consideration.

As one party advances, so must the other. It’s entirely plausible they realized that we largely couldn’t detect them or document their existence via the masses 40 years ago. Today they understand that. So, countermeasures are deployed. In my mind - that’s not kooky thinking in the least - we did the same with stealth.

It is not another good point, it's silly. Cameras have never been a factor in UFOlogy aside from recording what humans see. UAOs don't give a damn about your pointing a camera at them. Potential detection, you gotta be kidding.

How do you know they don’t care? What’s the concrete evidence to the contrary?

The "concrete evidence" is that no one aiming a camera at a UAP has been "zapped" by them. Good enuf?

Nope. That’s an entirely nonsensical argument.

Prove it.

Look man, I get you’re a keyboard warrior. That’s fine - you’re not the first or the last.

But, while you’re waxing agro, you’re missing my entire point that there is no irrefutable proof.... You don’t have it. I don’t have it. If anyone here has it, I highly doubt they would plainly post it.

So, no - I don’t have irrefutable proof you’re wrong, you don’t have irrefutable proof you’re right - this is why they’re called theories or hypotheses. This is why we research. This is why we look for “evidence” - it’s a quest of sorts - not an equation.

I suggest keeping an open mind a little more going forward - there’s lots of angle to consider. Because whether you’re right, or I’m right, I do believe we’ll both clearly agree on the correct answer if the truth really shows itself for all to see.

Look, I don't know what you're railing at. I've said over and over to all the members the same thing which I'm sick and tired of repeating. If you are a believer and you make claims and don't provide what is accepted as irrefutable evidence, I'm going to challenge you and anyone who makes claims without support. I don't have anything personal against you. You are a member here, so am I. We have our diverse opinions. But I'm a clear thinker and I want to learn from others. But not if the offered material is questionable. I live with logic, reason and common sense.

I've been in this game longer than most if not all members. My UFOlogy knowledge is vast. I'm a skeptic. I'm a debunker. But only when it's needed. And in this forum it's needed a lot.

I'm not a UFO/UAP novice. I've had many excellent UAP sightings, with one resultant video. I don't have to trade barbs with those that feel I'm not telling it like it is. I've been doing it all my life.

I don't believe UAP is real, I know it's real. But I'm never going to violate my principles by stating that I accept (not believe) something which presently is just a fantasy. To my knowledge there doesn't exist any evidence that extraterrestrials exist. If there was, we wouldn't be arguing about beliefs vs. acceptance.

My mind is as open as it can be. I allow for change. So based on the way I think about UFOlogy and based on my over 61 years with the subject I consider myself right. I have not been proven wrong yet. Some videos that I posted turned out to be bad choices but I learned after being corrected. A small percentage of error in my life.

The problem with forums such as this one and many more is that they attract less-than-proper thinkers and for people such as me, Mirageman, Arbitrageur, Phage, Harte, Oberg, et al, we are in the minority.

Ugh, I can't stand the stances of "believer" or "skeptic." What a lazy way to approach something.

Instead of approaching something with a bias that it is probably more true than not, or more likely to not be true than is true, how about the novel idea of approaching each sighting with no bias whatsoever? Base it on the facts and evidence on hand.

The big issue I have with skeptics is that most approach a sighting with the preconceived notion that it is more likely a hoax, mistaken identification, or something else before seeing any of the facts. When you approach something with that mindset, you are already biased against a fair evaluation of the evidence. And the same could be said for those who more apt to believe it is something non-terrestrial before evaluating all the facts.

It's ironic, because many years ago when I came here, as a believer in phenomena that I felt was not of this planet, I thought I'd be on board with all the posts about sightings and encounters. I was very wrong, as I found I was actually dismissing a much greater number of reported sightings than not. The majority in fact. But that was because I tried to approach every sighting from an unbiased viewpoint.

Even after that, I still firmly believe there is a ludicrous preponderance of evidence that something not of this world is visiting. So I can only chuckle when I hear something along the lines that there has been nothing substantial for decades. There has been a mountain of evidence in the last 30 years. Just because aliens have not landed on the White House or Kremlin lawns doesn't mean there is not plenty of evidence.

If court cases followed the mindset of people following Ufology, the vast majority of cases would favor the defense. Like, 90% or more. But that does not happen. Why? Common sense, and a preponderance of evidence. Which Ufology has a ridiculous amount of.

a reply to: fleabit

The big issue I have with skeptics is that most approach a sighting with the preconceived notion that it is more likely a hoax, mistaken identification, or something else before seeing any of the facts.

Facts are pretty hard to come by. Eyewitness accounts are what they are, unreliable. Photographs are what they are, pictures of something in the sky, and often hoaxed, clearly so.


In the end, not many facts. Just a variety of anecdotes about a variety of phenomena. Not facts, not evidence.

Facts are pretty hard to come by. Eyewitness accounts are what they are, unreliable. Photographs are what they are, pictures of something in the sky, and often hoaxed, clearly so.

In the end, not many facts. Just a variety of anecdotes about a variety of phenomena. Not facts, not evidence.

Eyewitness testimony is vastly underrated I think. You can't just consider what people said they saw, you have to consider what other people have -not- seen. Example - Phoenix lights. The popular skeptic theory being that people saw a flight of military planes for many hours, from differing perspectives and light conditions. How many other flights of planes have there been in the last 40 years or so? How many were mistaken for a UFO for hours?

Or perhaps Tehran 1976. Popular skeptic opinion - pilots, civilians and military personnel were viewing Jupiter. Although Jupiter was visible in the almost identical position the night before, and the night after, and years before, and years after. Yet skeptics truly believe that on that one night, pilots and military personnel and civilians were duped by a planet (along with multi-failing military equipment). Convenient but ludicrous excuse. That is not critical thinking, that is a pure skeptical view of "We can't come up with another theory, so we'll go with Jupiter." It doesn't even make sense.

Like I said, if eyewitness testimony was that shaky, the U.S. justice system would be a laughable joke. People's lives are changed by eyewitness testimony every day in a court of law. But for Ufology, it is NEVER considered reliable. And it doesn't matter if it's civilians or trained commercial or even military pilots. It's just immediately discounted. I get some people really are just mistaking the sun off a plane for something spectacular, but when a rancher sees an object over his head that literally covers his entire view of the sky, that's different. Or in the Phoenix lights, when people saw an object passing very close overhead.

Do you believe that YOU would be fooled into thinking a flight of planes, at an altitude so high you literally cannot hear their engines, is within hundreds of feet of you instead? Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think for a moment I would be duped by that. Nor do I think hundreds of witnesses who said this happened, were also duped into thinking this.

Eyewitness testimony is the biggest source of evidence in Ufology, and I think skeptics give it a tiny margin (if even that) of the level of importance it should be receiving. Eyewitness testimony IS evidence. It always has been in a court of law, and it is in Ufology as well.