Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic

page: 18
11
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Skeptics are fine. I'm skeptical of many UFO cases or associated phenomena, and still, I believe in alien visitation.

Debunkers on the other hand.. you cannot beat them. Because no matter how much proof you have, at the end of the day, they will always have "black projects" to fall back on, even if it makes no sense at all. Because you can't disprove it was not a black government project. So it's a fine bastion of defense for a debunker who has no other explanation for a sighting.




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
Skeptics are fine. I'm skeptical of many UFO cases or associated phenomena, and still, I believe in alien visitation.

Debunkers on the other hand.. you cannot beat them. Because no matter how much proof you have, at the end of the day, they will always have "black projects" to fall back on, even if it makes no sense at all. Because you can't disprove it was not a black government project. So it's a fine bastion of defense for a debunker who has no other explanation for a sighting.

I don't think anyone played the "black project" card here. Now this is one thing I have learned from this thread and in general. Whenever someone makes a claim to counter your position, the Borden of proof is now on them Otherwise, it is just their opinion. Also, when all else fails google "logical fallacies" and pick the best fit. Hope that helps



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
Skeptics are fine. I'm skeptical of many UFO cases or associated phenomena, and still, I believe in alien visitation.

Debunkers on the other hand.. you cannot beat them. Because no matter how much proof you have, at the end of the day, they will always have "black projects" to fall back on, even if it makes no sense at all. Because you can't disprove it was not a black government project. So it's a fine bastion of defense for a debunker who has no other explanation for a sighting.


As you already stated earlier in this thread:


Originally posted by fleabit

And while that is very true, I think the "black project" is a huge excuse. It's the last bastion of defense for a debunker who has nothing left to fall back on. When nothing else fits, use the military aircraft excuse - it's impossible to prove it wasn't, so it's a great last ditch attempt to explain a sighting away.



So my response is the same:


Originally posted by draknoir2

Actually it should be one of the first, having verifiable historical and current precedence, unlike the extraterrestrial "theory", which has only wild, unconfirmed speculation.

I can go to an air show and see, touch, even watch a former black project fly. I can meet the pilot before and after the flight and ask questions about him and the vehicle.

You, on the other hand, can only roll your eyes at conventional explanations and cry "debunker!".

I have little use for the term, as it implies a fundamental shift in the burden of proof.

Neither should you have any love for the term, as it also implies that the claim is bunk.


Additionally, how does falling back on "black projects" as an explanation differ from using "Extraterrestrials" as a panacea, other than the fact black projects can be proven to exist?


Originally posted by fleabit

Skeptics are fine. I am very skeptical myself. But there are many people who say they are skeptics, but who are actually debunkers. These are people that have already made up their mind that UFO visitation is impossible, and they approach every sighting from that angle, instead of basing it on its own merits, in an unbiased manner. I've seen a lot of people here who say they are skeptics, but they are not.. they are debunkers. They will never admit something might be unexplainable - they have an excuse for every sighting, even if it's a ludicrous theory.


There are those on both sides who pretend to be objective until they are challenged in such a way that puts their true belief system on the defensive. We all have our personal biases to varying degrees, but should all strive for objectivity.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


Good points forgot about that. So I guess since we know they exist, we can put a value on an unknown. Since we do have a sample of past black project UFOs, we can now calculate the odds for an unknown being due to a black project. I believe this is correct. I like it.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 



If magic is the answer that requires the least amount of assumptions for some folk, there you go. You can keep your magic fairy dust and go home. Have fun with that.

Actually, it gets worse.

If your answer is magic based on 1950's reports that uses newspaper clippings as evidence, you are having heaps of fun.

Oh yeah, I'm purely rubbing it in for sure now.




Wow, News of the World must be a Science Journal then?



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter


Blah blah blah.

Answer the question.

x is UFO.

Y is the ETH.

x is unknown and unexplained.

Y is the hypothesis you are using to explain it.

If as you claim you have drawn a conclusions, please show one report were it is stated(Bluebook, Sturrock, SERPA, GEPAN.....The UK reports all the release UFO files from Canada, UK, USA, other governments) that x is intelligently controlled etc bla blah blah.

Y is your Hypothesis to explain x.

You and Teabag are using X to insert Y as your hypothesis.

Because the only way to explain x acorrding to you is Y.

So simply show Y exists in order to validate your explanation of X.

It is a simple equation.

Otherwise I am going to insert a big white flying unicorn named Ernie as my hypothesis.

Ernie is a shape shifting unicorn and he has flashing lights too.

That would explain x, because a shapeshifting flying unicorn with lights could explain numourous sightings.

SR14 supports Ernies existence because Ernie matches the "unknown" label.

Furthermore, Ernie can be found in mythological tales and writings, further evidence of his existence and possible sightings. I think he was in Harry Potter too!

Cool.

X is unknown.

Ernie is Y.

Ernie causes X by his flying shapeshifting shennanigans.

X is evidence of Ernie.

Pretty simple.

I like your game, its really, really, fun.



What is really funny is that you state "we can draw conclusions" from SR14.

If you can draw a conclusion, you don't need a hypothesis.
You have an explanation.
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation.

So all you have is a proposal.

What a joke.
edit on 26/2/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by RoScoLaz
 



i would say non-ballistic motion; following a path that cannot be explained or reproduced by conventional aircraft.


As has been pointed out, this is an inadequate definition. Until proponents of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis can define what they mean by "intelligently controlled," there is no reason to put the hypothesis forward.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


Ok.

So now I need to show they used newspaper clippings. The report states it.
Many status reports all the way through blue book refer to the retention of the newspaper clipping service.

I know it hurts Teabag, but there you have it.

Anyway. Here is my nail in your coffin.


www.bluebookarchive.org...
" Nothing in the reports of Unknowns necessitates the assumption of extraterrestrial origin. To state the cause of an aerial phenomena is "unknown", does not imply it is "unknowable" within the framework of terrestrial events. To this extent, assuming an aerial phenomena to be extraterrestrial in origin because its unidentifiable becomes unneccesary, illogical and unscientific."

So, according to Bluebook, a ETH is uneccesary, illogical and unscientific. Wow.

And on the statistical methedology that you seem to think is significant in terms of "Uknowns".
www.bluebookarchive.org...

"This is pointed out on page 76 of Report #14 where it is stated that the Chi Square Test neither confirms nor denies that the Unknowns are primarily unidentified Knowns".

So the test cannot determine the true nature of unknowns relative to all the knowns inputted into the analysis.

So really, do you even have a point anymore?

Really, you and Brighter seem to harp on about that very point.

Further more,
On the quality of data and the conclusions stated relative to the method used.

www.bluebookarchive.org...
"Keeping in mind that the data used were based primarily on personal impressions and interpretations and not concrete facts. It was recognized that some of the methods of data-treatment or analysis may be found unacceptable, or their validity questioned.
For example in report #14, a tool of statistical analysis, call the Chi Square Test, was used in an effort to show that the Unknowns were merely unrecognized Knowns. The Logic in the results of the Chi Square Test, as applied to the Unknowns(see page 68 of Report #14) may best be restated thus: Granted that it has not been possible to prove statistically that the Unknowns are of the same nature as the Knowns; nevertheless, neither has it been shown that they are actually of a different nature.
As far as the original premise (that the Unknowns are merely unidentified Knowns) is concerned, the test therefore has been inconclusive".

Data poor.
Methodology is questionable.
Statistical nature of Unknowns relative to knowns, Inconclusive.
No evidence of extraterrestrial origin.

"To this extent, assuming an aerial phenomena to be extraterrestrial in origin because its unidentifiable becomes unneccesary, illogical and unscientific."

Sucks to be you right now doesn't it.






edit on 26/2/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 


www.bluebookarchive.org...
" Nothing in the reports of Unknowns necessitates the assumption of extraterrestrial origin. To state the cause of an aerial phenomena is "unknown", does not imply it is "unknowable" within the framework of terrestrial events. To this extent, assuming an aerial phenomena to be extraterrestrial in origin because its unidentifiable becomes unneccesary, illogical and unscientific."



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Well, it is an interesting historical document

PSYCHOLOGICAL MANIFESTATIONS -
Most common mental aberations:
Religious fanaticism
Desire for publicity
Overactive imagination

I don't know much about Hynek but apparently Psychology wasn't his strong suit:


The reports are real, and their cause must be real even if the cause is mass hallucination, it is still a real cause.



Long years of experience with people who come to the observatory, or write in about their theories which I file in my file called novel ideas to avoid the possible libel implications of crackpot -have taught me how a typical fraud or crackpot chooses his words and phrases. Among other things, he cannot conduct a rational discussion, but resorts to constant repetition; he won't listen to the other person and cannot answer questions rationally or intelligently.

Interesting in or out of context:

In compiling these statistics, Dr Hynek cautiously accepted each case at face value, without discounting evidence that sometimes "verged on the ludicrous" and without taking Into consideration psychological factors.


So we can add "Crackpots" and "Mass Hallucinations" to our list of "valid" psychological categories.

Mental degenerates were also mentioned but I wasn't sure by whom and what the context was.

This took me all of 20 minutes to research. There must be more.

Lets add some basic coursework in Psychology while we are trying to figure out that you cant calculate the odds of the unknowns being aliens.
edit on 26-2-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
As has been pointed out, ["non-ballistic motion; following a path that cannot be explained or reproduced by conventional aircraft" is an inadequate definition. Until proponents of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis can define what they mean by "intelligently controlled," there is no reason to put the hypothesis forward.
Is there really a need to so precisely define what is obvious to most anyone? Let's not check our common sense at the door, please....

Following or inspecting our aircraft ...
Flying circles around them (literally!) ...
Responding to them in evasive ways when intercepted ...
Do any of those provide evidence of "intelligence"?

And non-ballistic motion, of a type that our flying machines are not capable of, is indeed significant evidence of something? If confirmed by multiple witness and a radar or two ... what could explain that? Do we just ignore it? Play dumb? Shrug it off (like one well-known member here probably would) with a casual "It's just Unknown. Unknown does not = alien!! There's no need to insert magic or unicorns or fairy dust into the equation."

How incredibly and transparently disingenuous.

A reminder of early Air Force findings: "The reported operating characteristics such as ... motion which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely." (From 1947.)

"Common sense ... always important." Do we need to buy some members that T-shirt? (And not necessarily you, DJW001; I see you've made some worthwhile skeptical, yet non-dismissive contributions. Which is much needed around here and always appreciated.)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   


Following or inspecting our aircraft ...
Flying circles around them (literally!) ...
Responding to them in evasive ways when intercepted ...
Do any of those provide evidence of "intelligence"?

These are most likely due to Crackpots or Religious Fanaticism now we can't rule out Mass Hallucination since Hynek said it could be an explaination.

Now you have to explain how you know they were "inspecting" or being "evasive". Does that sound like objectivity to you?

Seriously, the only evidence of "intelligence" comes from someones perception. Now I DID take a course in the Psychology of Intelligence. I have to tell you, this is going to be an uphill battle. Something "appearing" intelligent is one thing but proving that it "is" intelligent is whole different ball game. I will not be participating in that discussion because I know exactly where it will go and that is nowhere. But good luck.
"lend belief to the possibility " ??? From 1947? Really?
edit on 26-2-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
Ok. So now I need to show they used newspaper clippings.
No, that's not what you need to show. That's trivial to show. Nice escape maneuver, but it's not going to work.

You "need to show" that what what you've previously said or implied in this thread about SR14 relying heavily on newspaper clippings for their 'sightings' is actually true. And I told you last time that, if you tried to avoid showing that, I'd just ask you again. So...

What evidence do you have that any significant portion of those ~3000 final SR14 sightings were sightings which contained only a single newspaper article as their 'evidence'?


Because THAT is what you've said outright or strongly implied with totally false statements like the following, no?
--------------------------------
From atlasastro:
1) "[Y]ou do know that a significant number of the "sightings" were gathered from clippings from newspapers for the Projects don't you?", from this post of yours.

2) "I read all the same reports.... I pointed out what they really stated. I actually looked at what they used as "evidence". Evidence that was made up of NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS OF UFO REPORTS.", from this post of yours.

3) "Why did you not point out that the BlueBook S14 used many newspaper clippings as "evidence"?", from the bottom of this very same post of yours.

4) And various others, but my point is made....
--------------------------------

And THAT is what I and others have objected to. Can you back those up? It's obvious what you're trying to do there....


Your very next sentence after the above quote:

Originally posted by atlasastroThe report states it [that they used newspaper clippings].
Many status reports all the way through blue book refer to the retention of the newspaper clipping service.
Not disputed. This is boring....

The question to you was not, and has never been "what evidence do you have that a clipping service was used?".

Nor was the question "what evidence do you have that 'X' number of clippings were received?".

NOR was the question "can you provide us with needless reminders that the clipping service status was summarized in the 12 Project Stork updates?".

Those are the questions you've just 'answered' in your last reply. But the question was: "What evidence do you have that any significant portion of those ~3000 final SR14 sightings were sightings which contained only a single newspaper article as their 'evidence'?"

By answering that question with things like this: "Many status reports all the way through blue book refer to the retention of the newspaper clipping service", you're only trying to move the goalpost. You won't. You'd be better off just admitting that you tried to exaggerate the role of and mischaracterize the nature of that clipping service.

So for the 3rd time this post, 4th or 5th overall (hey, I don't want you to 'forget' again), here's what you need to answer in order to buttress your earlier claims:
What evidence do you have that any significant portion of those ~3000 final SR14 sightings were sightings which contained only a single newspaper article as their 'evidence'?

Do you just make up your own 'facts'? So far it appears that you do. We'll see....

Now back up what you've stated. And if you can't, back out of the thread. Because replying again with the same 'evidence' -- evidence of obvious, conceded and irrelevant points -- will be the equivalent of backing out of your credibility.
edit on 26-2-2013 by TeaAndStrumpets because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 



bla bla bla


Doesn't matter. The fact that they even used newspaper clippings is enough. Interesting document from that time.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
bla bla bla

Doesn't matter. The fact that they even used newspaper clippings is enough. Interesting document from that time.


Haha. It matters. Look at the thread title. Your ally "atlasatro" invents facts and makes claims he can't support, just to muddy the waters and distract from the central issues -- the statistical findings of SR14 -- because he doesn't like and can't accept them.

Of course he and other 'skeptics' here can't accept them; they completely undermine the skeptics' primary argument that the Unknowns are simply future Knowns which for now just lack identifying information. The favorite claim of the skeptics is refuted, and it has been for over 60 years.

Also refuted is the argument that the SR14 scientists used newspaper clippings as many of the complete, single "sightings" that its statistical conclusions are based upon. SR14 itself confirms that the claim is false. Read page 3.

And when your response devolves into characterizing as "bla bla bla" some very significant and obviously true accusations of intellectual fraud by your ally, it's obvious you've recognized the above-mentioned refutations.

This kind of thing (even your casual statement, "that they even used newspaper clippings is enough", when it's not clear exactly how they used them) is attempted much too often by those with narrow, unaccepting minds, grasping at credibility by claiming 'skepticism', while cloaking with cascades of empty words their true debunker nature.

Should I be surprised you find it irrelevant that fellow debunker atlasastro makes totally fallacious claims? You two have the same ultimate UFO conclusion, so ... "anything goes"? It's a sad day for 'skepticism' when tactics like his are resorted to, and even sadder when they earn him the support and implicit encouragement of his fellow 'skeptics'.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 



Of course he and other 'skeptics' here can't accept them; they completely undermine the skeptics' primary argument that the Unknowns are simply future Knowns which for now just lack identifying information. The favorite claim of the skeptics is refuted, and it has been for over 60 years.


How does any of your hand waving refute the simple tautology that unknowns are potentially future "knowns?" Even if they remain unknown, that does not mean they are necessarily extraterrestrial, which is the actual point you should be trying to prove.
edit on 26-2-2013 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Simple:

A: Some people say they saw something unknown.

B: The existence of extraterrestrials visiting earth in UFOs is unknown.

C: They saw extraterrestrials visiting earth in UFOs



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
Following or inspecting our aircraft ...
Flying circles around them (literally!) ...
Responding to them in evasive ways when intercepted ...
Do any of those provide evidence of "intelligence"?

A reminder of early Air Force findings: "The reported operating characteristics such as ... motion which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely." (From 1947.)


from the same letter from General Twining just before your quote:


It is the opinion that:
...
c. There is a possibility that some of the incidents may be caused by natural phenomena, such as meteors.

I am sure we can add to that list of possibilities 66 years later.
yours is "d." BTW.

How come you never link to your source? Is it a secret?

files.ncas.org...

So an Air Force General from 1947 reccomends we check out some things flying around that "appear" that they might be intelligent. That is what you are trying to shove in everyones face? I am surprised that his letter wasn't worded stronger.

My letter would have been more like this:
"There are some god damn things flying around my air space and want them investigated, brought down, probed and dismantled and we should not stop until we find out EXACTLY who or what these things are.
(end)"

" lend belief to the possibility that " says he was not that concerned.

continuing to "h."


Due consideration must be given the following: -
(1) The possibility that these objects are of domestic origin - the product of some high security project not known to AC/AS-2 or this Command.
(2) The lack of physical evidence in the shape of crash recovered exhibits which would undeniably prove the existence of these objects.
(3) The possibility that some foreign nation has a form of propulsion possibly nuclear, which is outside of our domestic knowledge.


Lets put it in perspective: its 1947!!!! i am pretty sure we had nuclear power and bombs and that the Russians were pretty darn close. The start of the cold war was 1945! I imagine this was pretty hairy times for Air Force Generals.

In short this letter says nothing out of the ordinary.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
bla bla bla


Believe me, this would not be acceptable research by todays standards. I will read past the first couple of sentances of your posts and reply to your comments when you answer my questions.

1. How can you use the Fermi Paradox to support your position when he gave no credibility to ETH. And at the same time Criticize people for having that same belief? I posted it 3 or 4 times now.

UFO researchers note that the Fermi Paradox arose within the context of a wave of UFO reports, yet Fermi, Teller, York and Konopinski apparently dismissed the possibility that flying saucers might be extraterrestrial – despite contemporary US Air Force investigations that judged a small portion of UFO reports as inexplicable by contemporary technology.


2. Explain why my card anolagy is wrong using your own words and without copying and pasting from a source you dont understand.

3. comment on the Hynek quotes I posted. please.

until then:

edit on 26-2-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


Moving the goal posts won't work Teabag. It is over and you know it.

I know it hurts Teabag, but there you have it.

Anyway. Here is my nail in your coffin.


www.bluebookarchive.org...
" Nothing in the reports of Unknowns necessitates the assumption of extraterrestrial origin. To state the cause of an aerial phenomena is "unknown", does not imply it is "unknowable" within the framework of terrestrial events. To this extent, assuming an aerial phenomena to be extraterrestrial in origin because its unidentifiable becomes unneccesary, illogical and unscientific."

So, according to Bluebook, a ETH is uneccesary, illogical and unscientific. Wow.

I guess they didn't have enough paper clippings to make it a scientific study.
Oh yeah!

P.S. Ernie, my hypothesis(ETH.. Ernie Theory Hypothesis), the shapeshifting Unicorn says Hi!


edit on 26/2/13 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join