Which is worse?

determining a priori that something isn't a ufo or that something is a ufo? oh and please explain why one is worse than the other.




STARTING A NEW THREAD.....

AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count.
Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread.
If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events,
or important information from other sites;
*please post one or two paragraphs,
*a link to the entire story,
*AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item,
as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.

reply to post by bottleslingguy


Aren't they one and the same? The answer to either, answers the other.

Had to look up the word, "Priori" to try to understand your question.

Who uses that word?

reply to post by bottleslingguy


You can either identify something (non UFO) or not identify something (UFO).

I would say they are equally violating of logic and reason.

Though then again, if it's unidentified to you, I guess it's a UFO relative to you.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
determining a priori that something isn't a ufo or that something is a ufo? oh and please explain why one is worse than the other.

Prove first that UFOs are controlled by alien beings, then you can line it equally with other realistic earthly possibilities. Otherwise you need to categorize the ET UFO possibility with other of the same type, like controlled by angels, something from another dimension, ghosts or whatever. Once you have 100% proof of one of those answers, then come over to the realistic possibilties.

You can't logically find an answer to a problem, with something that's still needs an answer in itself!

they're both the same difference
you cant have one without the other
what the hell is a priori anyway

You should use flawless logic and reasoning to determine which one of these two things you are looking at, then you should be left with the truth which could be ufo or identified object.

Of course others could always question that reasoning and new information could come to light, so we should never presume we have the final answer, or that 100 / of people will accept that answer - making it non conclusive. is that what your riddle is about ?

In the Aliens and UFOs front page you will see *Important Sticky Threads* HERE.
This should be required reading before starting new threads here.

We are rigel4.........your question is futile.

reply to post by Sinny

I guess another way of asking what I'm asking is:

some people have pre-determined notions regarding one scenario over the other.

Is it "better" to be a totally closed-minded skeptic or a total nutcase?

or are they pretty much the same thing?

Originally posted by lampsalot
I would say they are equally violating of logic and reason.

Though then again, if it's unidentified to you, I guess it's a UFO relative to you.

I'm with lampsalot. You would figure that someone intelligent enough to use "a priori" would be smart enough to know that the answer is: Moot point.

Well a total skeptic has really no interest in this topic, so that person is irrelevant to this discussion.
a nutcase attracts many who may have a legit sighting only because the legit sighting fellow seeks answers so he/she might attach themselves to a nut job and unfortunately this is a mistake.

For example:
Dr. Greer is a nut job, so he tarnishes even the most compelling cases.
You Get me Neil Armstrong and if he ever comes out and flat out says UFO's are true, I'm listening.
I also listen to what Gordon Cooper had to say, Buzz Aldrin, Dr Edgar Mitchell.

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by lampsalot
I would say they are equally violating of logic and reason.

Though then again, if it's unidentified to you, I guess it's a UFO relative to you.

I'm with lampsalot. You would figure that someone intelligent enough to use "a priori" would be smart enough to know that the answer is: Moot point.

yeah I guess you're right never mind