Originally posted by Jay-morris
reply to post by mahigitam
You say there is no way of knowing if the ufo's (wedding cake) are large or small objects in the photos. Well, we just have to look at the facts.
Some of the photos (wedding cake ufo by the house) is clearly a small object by the camera. Also, if you look at the photo, you will see that a small
part of the model has fallen off. Also, you have to take into account that the base of the ufo is exactly the same size and look of a certain dustbin
lid. Has the same amount of lines, and small handles.
Also, the wedding cake photos by the tree's. Where did the tree's go?Do you believe his excuse that the paladiens erased the tree's, and the
memmory of the tree's from the mind of the people around that area? Do you really buy that?
Im quite busy at the moment. But choose a photo to talk about, and i will get back to you.
Hi Jay-Morris,
To learn/gain knowledge/investigate/discuss/debate about something(be it philosophically, scientifically, mathematically, legally, socially,....) one
should always start with a set of premises or propositions(axioms in mathematics), which are available as the information/data in the case.
If one disregards & abandons this scientific approach, i doubt that they will ever reach the truth.
WCUFO:
-------------
In my previous post(page 5), i made a set of propositions from which i made logical deductions, inferences from data at hand & reached a conclusion.
If you find something wrong with my procedure, we can have a discussion on that.
I like to have a discussion on any particular set of evidence offered my Meier(as you too do)...but the way you and others are approaching & dealing
the case cannot be considered a critical thinking process. I will mention below few points where you made some logical fallacies in your construction
of arguments.
"Also, if you look at the photo, you will see that a small part of the model has fallen off."
From the above statement, you are already judging and making statements about how an ET craft would be, about its parts and its detailed construction
which is a blunder mainly at two levels.
First one is, "Object in the photo is an ET craft" is a premise and hence not falsifiable but only falsifiable after gathering enough evidence..
Second one is, Here we are dealing with alleged ET's who are 8000 years ahead in technology and 30 million years ahead in spiritual evolution(not
falsifiable & a premise). Making exclusive statements about their crafts and their propulsion systems is a premature argument.
So your statement regarding the supposed,"fallen part" fails.
Also, you have to take into account that the base of the ufo is exactly the same size and look of a certain dustbin lid. Has the same amount of lines,
and small handles.
I accept that the dustbin lid is similar or almost similar to the object in the photo.
But you have resorted to same mistake - No premises considered
Look in pg 3, for a list of premises, which resolves above conundrum
Also, the wedding cake photos by the tree's. Where did the tree's go?Do you believe his excuse that the paladiens erased the tree's, and the
memmory of the tree's from the mind of the people around that area? Do you really buy that?
In CR 16, May 1975, Semjase makes the weather-fir tree disappear into past & also removes this event from the memories of those who has it.
Now is this statement falsifiable, i dont think so as here we are dealing with alleged ET Technology..moreover we have evidence that points to the
proposition that the tree has been there before - 2 witnesses & owner in whose farm resides the disappeared weather-fir tree.
From your arguments, what i understood basically is, you avoided the fundamental aspect in investigating a case, which is considering premises, gather
evidence, making logical connections and finally coming to conclusion.
I prefer objective analysis rather than subjective validation.