You want proof of flying saucers? This is it!

page: 22
214
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
0o well that was a let down... a few pictures of some teachers and a bit of text.

Wild man with a title like that by the way... if you recently have received the keys to your very own sports model saucer THEN and ONLY then can you say that you have proof...

otherwise a few teachers talking rubbish is just that. i didn't believe teachers when i was in school and now i make more then most of them =D life lesson learned.
edit on 16-7-2012 by Aarcadius because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Aarcadius
 


Thank you for your reply, but I suspect that you haven't grasped the fundamental point of the exotic car example in my last post. Please go back and read it again.

I'm actually glad you responded the way you did, as it lets me make a point that I think needs to be made. You responded by saying that the only proof that would convince you of the existence of the exotic car would be if you held the keys to the car in your own hand. In other words, you're saying that the only acceptable proof for the existence of something is direct perceptual evidence. But this is clearly invalid thinking and is to hold a double-standard, as most of the things we take to be real in our world we take as real based on non-direct anecdotal evidence. Not only do we take them to be real, but we would say we are justified in believing they are real. I used the example of great white sharks in my last post, but other examples could be made.

This kind of skeptical response isn't really skeptical in the educated, proper sense - it's actually just a form of denial. When one has impossible standards of "proof," it typically indicates a psychological prejudice that muddies one's ability to reason objectively about a novel phenomenon. It works by making one unable to assess evidence from an objective standpoint.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


Thanks for your response!

Sure, I can start a new topic with the post on anecdotal evidence. That's probably a good idea, as I just realized that it kind of goes off-topic to your original post, which deals with the 1966 case.

I don't think that I have enough posts to start a new topic at this very moment, but I'll create it as soon as I do.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter

The strength of anecdotal evidence depends on quantity and quality. To illustrate this, take this simple example. You are situated outside of a barn in the country, and it is your job to take peoples' tickets to walk into the barn and see some exotic car. You've never been inside the barn, and you've never seen the car. After taking peoples' tickets and watching them walk in and back out of the barn, they all tell you of how strange the car looks, that they've never seen anything like it, its details and its color. Now after this happens, say, 100 times, you'd say that you have strong reason to believe that an exotic car actually is in the barn, wouldn't you? Even though you have absolutely no direct perceptual evidence of it, you are still justified in your belief based on the quantity and quality of the reports. Now obviously, if they were all intoxicated, or blind, or only 2 people went in, then your anecdotal evidence would certainly not justify your belief. But what if they were all sober, came from all walks of life and all cultures, included pilots, scientists, professors, government officials, doctors, police officers and high-ranking military officers, would you say that your anecdotal evidence was strong enough to justify your belief that an exotic car really is in the barn?


For fun let's substitute the car for Bigfoot, would you still take their word for it?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 


Impossible standards of proof? i said... if YOU had the keys... then YOU could put such a title.

now that you've replied that way ill reply this way... i don't need to hold the keys, touch the windshield ... no. i need to see something that i haven't seen before... like the triangle craft i saw when i was younger. and then not be denied on every corner ey? or given some lame excuse like a freaking crop duster -.-

seeing with your eyes is one thing... that's an experience. But being told that someone saw something... Or watching a video of a blurry dot of light, or hearing a voice cut in... they are all second hand sources and you will never know if the story has been tampered with.

anyway i wasn't really interested in this and have no wish to debate it... was just unhappy that you used such a powerful title.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter
reply to post by Aarcadius
 


Thank you for your reply, but I suspect that you haven't grasped the fundamental point of the exotic car example in my last post. Please go back and read it again.

I'm actually glad you responded the way you did, as it lets me make a point that I think needs to be made. You responded by saying that the only proof that would convince you of the existence of the exotic car would be if you held the keys to the car in your own hand. In other words, you're saying that the only acceptable proof for the existence of something is direct perceptual evidence. But this is clearly invalid thinking and is to hold a double-standard, as most of the things we take to be real in our world we take as real based on non-direct anecdotal evidence. Not only do we take them to be real, but we would say we are justified in believing they are real. I used the example of great white sharks in my last post, but other examples could be made.

This kind of skeptical response isn't really skeptical in the educated, proper sense - it's actually just a form of denial. When one has impossible standards of "proof," it typically indicates a psychological prejudice that muddies one's ability to reason objectively about a novel phenomenon. It works by making one unable to assess evidence from an objective standpoint.


Yes, Bob Lazar modified a Honda with a jet engine and it worked.


It doesn't exactly make Bob Lazar look like a janitor at Los Alamos National Laboratory.


We was a scientist and everyone knows it.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


If a large number of reliable individuals all said that they just saw a large hairy primate in the barn, then I would say that one would be reasonably justified in believing that there really is a large hairy primate in the barn.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Zaphod58 posted this vid in another thread. It gave me an Ah Ha moment. Yes, I have proof too. Here it is.
www.youtube.com...
So yes, this explains why they have this shape and why they get hot. They exist. I was wrong.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


Thanks for your response!

Sure, I can start a new topic with the post on anecdotal evidence. That's probably a good idea, as I just realized that it kind of goes off-topic to your original post, which deals with the 1966 case.

I don't think that I have enough posts to start a new topic at this very moment, but I'll create it as soon as I do.


That would be great. A lot of people in the UFO forum could take a lesson on how much of our "reality" is actually attributable to indirect anecdotal evidence. By the way, you don't happen to be a professional philosopher, do you?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


I just tried to send you a U2U but it said I can only message the forum administrators.
I guess I'll have to wait until I have more posts before I start the thread or send U2Us.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter
reply to post by cripmeister
 


If a large number of reliable individuals all said that they just saw a large hairy primate in the barn, then I would say that one would be reasonably justified in believing that there really is a large hairy primate in the barn.



So you would need further evidence, perhaps even proof to accept that what they saw was in fact Bigfoot?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by Brighter
reply to post by cripmeister
 

If a large number of reliable individuals all said that they just saw a large hairy primate in the barn, then I would say that one would be reasonably justified in believing that there really is a large hairy primate in the barn.


So you would need further evidence, perhaps even proof to accept that what they saw was in fact Bigfoot?

True. Could be an escaped gorilla or a man in a suit. At some point you have to bring in the disinterested experts who have no dog in the fight to analyze the data and make a determination. Just to make sure, because... why not?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by Brighter
reply to post by cripmeister
 


If a large number of reliable individuals all said that they just saw a large hairy primate in the barn, then I would say that one would be reasonably justified in believing that there really is a large hairy primate in the barn.



So you would need further evidence, perhaps even proof to accept that what they saw was in fact Bigfoot?


An accurate description of what they saw and their interpretation of what they saw would be two different things in this case. You might accept one without necessarily subscribing to the other. If they all came out saying "Wow, there's a Bigfoot in there!", that would be one thing. If they all came out and said, "Jeez, I don't know what that thing was, but it looked like kind of an ape and had dark, shaggy fur, but it was standing and walking upright like a man, and it was about eight feet tall with a kind of pointed cranium", that would be another. Even if you walked into the barn and there was indeed a creature in there that looked exactly like what the people were describing, you still would not have proof that it "was in fact Bigfoot".

Same with UFOs. You don't necessarily have to buy into any particular label for what people see, but when you have dozens of people all offering very similar descriptions of what they saw, you can reasonably accept that the description is fairly accurate, and that if you had been there with them there's a good chance you would describe the object in the same terms. Doesn't necessarily mean the object "is" anything in particular, only that it fits the description given by the witnesses.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by Brighter
reply to post by cripmeister
 


If a large number of reliable individuals all said that they just saw a large hairy primate in the barn, then I would say that one would be reasonably justified in believing that there really is a large hairy primate in the barn.



So you would need further evidence, perhaps even proof to accept that what they saw was in fact Bigfoot?


It all depends on the quantity and quality of the anecdotal reports. Given enough reports by reliable individuals, I would likely not need further evidence that at least a large primate exists in the barn. But if a large number of reliable witnesses said that it was 9 feet tall and walked on two feet with ease, then I think one would be justified, based on enough reports, that such a creature is in the barn. Especially if one of them was, say, a primate researcher.

In the same sense, if you have a large number of reliable people describing sightings of UFOs, then you would be justified in believing that they are real, especially when many of those people are trained pilots and military observers.

edit on 16-7-2012 by Brighter because: additions



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 


I frequently go back to a quote by Dr. James E. McDonald from his testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Science and Astronautics back in July 1968:


And I would emphasize to those who cite jury trial experience that the tendency for a group of witnesses to an accident to come in with quite different accounts, must not be overstressed here. Those witnesses don't come in from, say, a street corner accident and claim they saw a giraffe killed by a tiger. They talk about an accident. They are confused about details. There is legally confusing difference of timing and distance, and so on; but all are in agreement that it was an auto accident.

So also when you deal with multiple-witness cases in UFO sightings. There is an impressive core of consistency; everybody is talking about an object that has no wings, all of 10 people may say it was dome shaped or something like that, and then there are minor differences as to how big they thought it was, how far away, and so on. Those latter variations do pose a very real problem. It stands as a negative factor with respect to the anecdotal data, but it does not mean we are not dealing with real sightings of real objects.


source



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter

It all depends on the quantity and quality of the anecdotal reports. Given enough reports by reliable individuals, I would likely not need further evidence that at least a large primate exists in the barn. But if a large number of reliable witnesses said that it was 9 feet tall and walked on two feet with ease, then I think one would be justified, based on enough reports, that such a creature is in the barn. Especially if one of them was, say, a primate researcher.

In the same sense, if you have a large number of reliable people describing sightings of UFOs, then you would be justified in believing that they are real, especially when many of those people are trained pilots and military observers.


There is no primate researcher in your original example, you are trying to move the goal posts. You have admitted to being skeptical of the claims of a Bigfoot in saying you would believe claims of a large primate. You are going with a known before an unknown. This is also my take on this particular UFO case. The kids saw something, possibly a balloon, which in the panic and confusion of the situation became flying saucers. According to you my ability to reason should be questioned because of this but you are using the same reasoning in the Bigfoot example.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by Brighter

It all depends on the quantity and quality of the anecdotal reports. Given enough reports by reliable individuals, I would likely not need further evidence that at least a large primate exists in the barn. But if a large number of reliable witnesses said that it was 9 feet tall and walked on two feet with ease, then I think one would be justified, based on enough reports, that such a creature is in the barn. Especially if one of them was, say, a primate researcher.

In the same sense, if you have a large number of reliable people describing sightings of UFOs, then you would be justified in believing that they are real, especially when many of those people are trained pilots and military observers.


There is no primate researcher in your original example, you are trying to move the goal posts. You have admitted to being skeptical of the claims of a Bigfoot in saying you would believe claims of a large primate. You are going with a known before an unknown. This is also my take on this particular UFO case. The kids saw something, possibly a balloon, which in the panic and confusion of the situation became flying saucers. According to you my ability to reason should be questioned because of this but you are using the same reasoning in the Bigfoot example.


Nope, no moving of goal posts, just someone not reading carefully enough


Let me re-acquaint you with what I said for clarity:

"Given enough reports by reliable individuals, I would likely not need further evidence that at least a large primate exists in the barn."

"At least" is the operative phrase here. In some situations, I would say one is not only justified in believing that a large primate exists, but that that large primate is in fact Bigfoot. I thought that my addition of "at least" would be well-understood.

And unless the entire school including staff, students and teachers were heavily intoxicated, I cannot see how a rational person would ever come to the conclusion that they all witnessed balloons. See my discussion of psychological denial above. Also see the quote by Dr. James E. McDonald above.
edit on 16-7-2012 by Brighter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by Brighter

It all depends on the quantity and quality of the anecdotal reports. Given enough reports by reliable individuals, I would likely not need further evidence that at least a large primate exists in the barn. But if a large number of reliable witnesses said that it was 9 feet tall and walked on two feet with ease, then I think one would be justified, based on enough reports, that such a creature is in the barn. Especially if one of them was, say, a primate researcher.

In the same sense, if you have a large number of reliable people describing sightings of UFOs, then you would be justified in believing that they are real, especially when many of those people are trained pilots and military observers.


There is no primate researcher in your original example, you are trying to move the goal posts. You have admitted to being skeptical of the claims of a Bigfoot in saying you would believe claims of a large primate. You are going with a known before an unknown. This is also my take on this particular UFO case. The kids saw something, possibly a balloon, which in the panic and confusion of the situation became flying saucers. According to you my ability to reason should be questioned because of this but you are using the same reasoning in the Bigfoot example.


The kids saw a balloon, and this balloon caused such a degree of panic that it induced hallucinations among the entire student body, staff and teachers? I'm sorry, I'm new here and I can't tell if you are kidding.

edit on 16-7-2012 by Brighter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by Brighter

It all depends on the quantity and quality of the anecdotal reports. Given enough reports by reliable individuals, I would likely not need further evidence that at least a large primate exists in the barn. But if a large number of reliable witnesses said that it was 9 feet tall and walked on two feet with ease, then I think one would be justified, based on enough reports, that such a creature is in the barn. Especially if one of them was, say, a primate researcher.

In the same sense, if you have a large number of reliable people describing sightings of UFOs, then you would be justified in believing that they are real, especially when many of those people are trained pilots and military observers.


There is no primate researcher in your original example, you are trying to move the goal posts. You have admitted to being skeptical of the claims of a Bigfoot in saying you would believe claims of a large primate. You are going with a known before an unknown. This is also my take on this particular UFO case. The kids saw something, possibly a balloon, which in the panic and confusion of the situation became flying saucers. According to you my ability to reason should be questioned because of this but you are using the same reasoning in the Bigfoot example.


The kids saw a balloon, and this balloon caused such a degree of panic that it induced hallucinations among the entire student body, staff and teachers? I'm sorry, I'm new here and I can't tell if you are kidding.

edit on 16-7-2012 by Brighter because: (no reason given)


No, brighter. He's not. This is his typical stance.
edit on 16-7-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I was having a conversation with someone the other night about all of this UFO stuff. So I asked a very simple question. Why in the last 80 years has no one shot dead a alien or shot down a UFO for us all to see? It's the most simple question to ask.





new topics

top topics



 
214
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join