It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UFO Testimonies By Cosmonauts and Astronauts and U.S. Presidents

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 



Sorry but i have real trouble in perceiving that you are in any position to refute or dismiss those who are in much more credible positions than yourself

Sorry, I have real trouble perceiving that you are in any interest in discussing anything. I am an a position where I can form my own opinion about any given subject. That is because I am a person who is capable of accepting or rejecting the credibility of any source of information for myself regardless of those kinds of statements.

The question I asked you was how do you get from someone's subjective observation of something to the ETH is credible? My opinion is that it doesn't add very much if anything. My opinion is based on credible information that people can and do misperceive things and since these statements come from people, I assume that they too are capable of of misperceiving. Is there any evidence that these people are less likely to misperceive?



So now its all about "people no matter their credibility see all manor of things", you have asked for validation even admitted that there is a percentage of genuine quotes and when it looks like there are such quotes the argument is turned around to now suggest these credible individuals are seeing anything but possible ET technologies..

No, the argument isn't turned around. Once you dig through the mountain of misquotes, lies and garbage that spin the story to begin with, you take a look at what's left and reevaluate. And, yes, the next natural question is "what did they actually see?" And then "is it possible that what they saw was not an actual alien spaceship?" The answer to that is "yes".

The point being is that your alien story is comprised of a lot of bad data to begin with which still seems to fuel the next part. Eventually you come to a road block in which you don't have any real data to get to ETH. Again, you can only imagine or speculate that which is fun to do but nothing really beyond that.
edit on 2-9-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



Why is it not possible for the ET hypothesis not having any credibility in those cases deemed unsolvable to any known natural or man made origins after investigation??? When you have the nature of quotes ect like the ones in the book "Generals ect come forward by Leslie Kean then when is the time to pay attention to these kind of sources, is this the level of cross reference checking that we dismiss, ignore or play down these quotes in Keans book??, You may be hapy to do so but i take the view that those in better and more credible positions cannot all by misunderstanding of what they have witnessed or more importantly what they have been privy to in the form of classified information regarding the UFO situation..


I have and read the Kean book which I thought was very good. I also read Jim Oberg's critique of it which I thought was also very good but which also made me think about what I was reading. Personally, I think it's good to look at things from all sides and angles and to make up your own mind and that's what I have done.
edit on 2-9-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)


Tachypsychia is associated with rushes of adrenaline. When that occurs:

The most common experience during tachypsychia is the feeling that time has either increased or slowed down, brought on by the increased brain activity cause by epinephrine, or the severe decrease in brain activity caused by the "catecholamine washout" occurring after the event.
It is common for an individual experiencing tachypsychia to have serious misinterpretations of their surroundings during the events, through a combination of their altered perception of time, as well as transient partial color blindness and tunnel vision. After the irregularly high levels of adrenaline consumed during sympathetic nervous system activation, an individual may display signs and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, and it is common for the person to display extreme emotional lability and fatigue, regardless of their actual physical exertion.

en.wikipedia.org...

Would pilots be immune to this type of thing?
edit on 2-9-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



By all means make up your own mind but i will say this again ,when there are sources who are in a much more credible and experienced position than you but you still feel its you who is more qualified ect to reject those credible testimonies ect then i really do feel its you who is in no way interested in perusing any interest in those cases that are harder to debunk. If you are really putting forward the "tachpsychia" explanation for every pilot encounter then you have not looked at All of them...




posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 



Sorry but i have real trouble in perceiving that you are in any position to refute or dismiss those who are in much more credible positions than yourself

Sorry, I have real trouble perceiving that you are in any interest in discussing anything. I am an a position where I can form my own opinion about any given subject. That is because I am a person who is capable of accepting or rejecting the credibility of any source of information for myself regardless of those kinds of statements.

The question I asked you was how do you get from someone's subjective observation of something to the ETH is credible? My opinion is that it doesn't add very much if anything. My opinion is based on credible information that people can and do misperceive things and since these statements come from people, I assume that they too are capable of of misperceiving. Is there any evidence that these people are less likely to misperceive?



So now its all about "people no matter their credibility see all manor of things", you have asked for validation even admitted that there is a percentage of genuine quotes and when it looks like there are such quotes the argument is turned around to now suggest these credible individuals are seeing anything but possible ET technologies..

No, the argument isn't turned around. Once you dig through the mountain of misquotes, lies and garbage that spin the story to begin with, you take a look at what's left and reevaluate. And, yes, the next natural question is "what did they actually see?" And then "is it possible that what they saw was not an actual alien spaceship?" The answer to that is "yes".

The point being is that your alien story is comprised of a lot of bad data to begin with which still seems to fuel the next part. Eventually you come to a road block in which you don't have any real data to get to ETH. Again, you can only imagine or speculate that which is fun to do but nothing really beyond that.
edit on 2-9-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



Why is it not possible for the ET hypothesis not having any credibility in those cases deemed unsolvable to any known natural or man made origins after investigation??? When you have the nature of quotes ect like the ones in the book "Generals ect come forward by Leslie Kean then when is the time to pay attention to these kind of sources, is this the level of cross reference checking that we dismiss, ignore or play down these quotes in Keans book??, You may be hapy to do so but i take the view that those in better and more credible positions cannot all by misunderstanding of what they have witnessed or more importantly what they have been privy to in the form of classified information regarding the UFO situation..


I have and read the Kean book which I thought was very good. I also read Jim Oberg's critique of it which I thought was also very good but which also made me think about what I was reading. Personally, I think it's good to look at things from all sides and angles and to make up your own mind and that's what I have done.
edit on 2-9-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)


Tachypsychia is associated with rushes of adrenaline. When that occurs:

The most common experience during tachypsychia is the feeling that time has either increased or slowed down, brought on by the increased brain activity cause by epinephrine, or the severe decrease in brain activity caused by the "catecholamine washout" occurring after the event.
It is common for an individual experiencing tachypsychia to have serious misinterpretations of their surroundings during the events, through a combination of their altered perception of time, as well as transient partial color blindness and tunnel vision. After the irregularly high levels of adrenaline consumed during sympathetic nervous system activation, an individual may display signs and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, and it is common for the person to display extreme emotional lability and fatigue, regardless of their actual physical exertion.

en.wikipedia.org...

Would pilots be immune to this type of thing?
edit on 2-9-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



By all means make up your own mind but i will say this again ,when there are sources who are in a much more credible and experienced position than you but you still feel its you who is more qualified ect to reject those credible testimonies ect then i really do feel its you who is in no way interested in perusing any interest in those cases that are harder to debunk. If you are really putting forward the "tachpsychia" explanation for every pilot encounter then you have not looked at All of them...



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 


double post..
edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


My question to you is what credible capacity do you justify that the ET hypothesis cannot be included to these possible explanations below for the UFO cases that are deemed unsolved by the amount of high strangeness data they contain.

Possible explanations;

1.Secret black ops;
2;Unknown atmospheric origins;
3;ET intelligence's/technology.

Now why is it that you feel credible enough to view that the ET possibility is not viable or possible in the three named above, were is your evidence that there are NO ET intelligence's out there with the require technological capabilities to visit here or are engaged in a systematic observational agendas??

In what credible position can you provide or show that would justify your opinion ,(rebuttal over the et hypothesis), is more acceptable than over a a credible scientific investigation and those conclusions reached like those by Dr James E McDonald???

Why should your opinion be more credible than a scientific analysis (Dr McDonald), were is your evidence and scientific investigation report that shows beyond doubt that there are no ET intelligence's out there capable of visiting us.???

Are you seriously putting forward the arguments that every single military pilot,witness , credible investigations and its sources are wrong or misinformed???,

You have not made one comment or rebuttal that can be viewed with any ounce of scientific credibility on those cases exposed by Dr McDonald as having "force fit debunking explanations on them, not one referral or even an acknowledgement that the USAF was engaged in inadequate scientific methods of investigations and were involved in putting forward inadequate explanations for hundreds of UFO cases that contradicted not only the observable data from credible military witnesses but the "flight characteristics" of these objects in those cases deemed solved???

And you see it fit and justifiable to reject any possibility of an ET hypothesis for those cases when in reality no real scientific investigations have ever really been conducted in a fair and adequate way , how can one form any real credible conclusions from such a situation??, how can one really take your rejection of any possibility of the ET hypothesis when you your self are in no real credible or scientific position to either show or even form any real scientific rebuttals of the ET hypothesis???

All of this above is based not on your abilities to form your own opinions as regards the ET hypothesis or refuting those quotes deemed valid but by your non ability to provided any real working scientific rebuttal thesis on sources like Dr McDonald his investigations and his conclusions,those UFO cases deemed unsolvable by very high strangeness data, your lack or non existent evidence proving beyond doubt that there is no possibility of ET intelligence"s having the technological means to observe us.

I really do find it rather bizarre that you said its me who is not interested in "discussing", well as we have a better understanding on what both of us constitutes as "check-able", viable and credible sources, credible individuals and actual data contained in those UFO reports deemed unsolvable due to their high strangeness data ,is it any wonder one can lose interest with those who only play hard ball with side racking "argumentation" tactics and avoid the real issues exposed by such sources as Dr McDonald on the ET hypotheses.

When you can provide a credible ,working scientific thesis that can match or is in the same mold as Dr McDonald's and also when you can provide another working scientific thesis on WHY the possibility of ET intelligence's having the technological means to observe us thus justifying why the ET hypothesis cannot be included in any table listing possible explanations of origin for those UFO cases containing very high strangeness,(like those cases investigated by Dr McDonald), i will then be interested in what you have to say regarding the ET hypothesis, you cannot justify the ET rebuttals from purely just your opinion alone, surely doing so is not scientific protocol or a adequate scientific method of investigation considering what is at stake here.

What is interesting here and is transparent in your post is people trying to pass them selves of as being in any credible position at all in not only ignoring credible data and conclusions from sources like Dr McDonald but providing non scientific rebuttals of the ET hypothesis..
edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)

edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
.....What is interesting here and is transparent in your post is people trying to pass them selves of as being in any credible position at all in not only ignoring credible data and conclusions from sources like Dr McDonald but providing non scientific rebuttals of the ET hypothesis..


Discussions can involve in any direction and nobody really 'owns' any thread, but I must say I'm getting the impression you are wandering off in a new direction -- a reasonable one for discussion, to be sure, but far from the original theme here.

The OP offered a series of quotations attributed to astronauts and presidents, as evidence for the unexplainability of the stimulus behind them. The words supposedly were the 'proof' of the reality of UFOs.

I tried to point out that a large -- and as yet undetermined -- portion of such quotations were bogus. And I asked for help in developing techniques that an average UFO student could use to track down any existing explanations or refutations of the quotations, including denials by the originally attributed speakers.

While expressing respect for that interest you seem to have argued that it doesn't MATTER if many, or most, or even mostly all of the quotations are bogus.

There are so many, you argue, they can't ALL be bogus.

I responded with counterexamples of long-reported human perceptions for which there exists a mass literature of accounts, ALL of which turn out to be bogus: human levitation and communications with the dead, for example.

I remind you that the existence of a residue of unexplained stories in ANY field of human activity is not in itself proof of an extraordinary and fundamentally unexplainable phenomenon. Daily life experiences: missing persons; aircraft accidents; missing socks.

My suggestion was to cooperate to develop techniques and standards to allow verification of all the claims out there on the Internet.

I consider it a serious barrier to attaining a valid understanding of the phenomenon.

Are you suggesting it's a waste of time to try to find out of the quotations are counterfeit, or misrepresented, or out of context? I don't think you are, but it looks that way.

Millions of people in all walks of life over the past two thirds century have concluded from the evidence they've seen that something extraordinary is going on. It is a reasonable deduction from the evidence as presented.

I'm suggesting the quality of the evidence is much lower than one might naively assume, and if that's true, then it is useless to point to people's beliefs [a consequence of that tainted evidence] as proof, if those beliefs rested largely on phantoms and falsehoods.

The Afanasyev quotation is a good example of a deliberate media hoax, as a few energetic diggers showed.

The Mitchell quotations on Roswell are accurate renditions of his view on hearsay that he received.

The quotes attributed to Mitchell admitting he saw, or his colleagues told him they saw, UFOs in space, are inventions -- as he has stressed whenever asked.

The Apollo-11 UFOs on the moon stories are also counterfeit, the product of tabloid newspaers of the time period.

The 'Aldrin UFO shadowing' story is a media hoax, created by manipulation and editing of comments he made about watching something that had come off the Apollo-Saturn stack early in flight and drifted along with them.

The cosmonaut Kovalyonok story is a well documented account of a truly interesting apparition, which has yet to be seriously investigated.

How is it bad to know this? What does it harm, aside from ignorance and delusions?


edit on 3-9-2013 by JimOberg because: typos



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 



By all means make up your own mind but i will say this again ,when there are sources who are in a much more credible and experienced position than you but you still feel its you who is more qualified ect to reject those credible testimonies ect then i really do feel its you who is in no way interested in perusing any interest in those cases that are harder to debunk.

I'm not trying to debunk anything nor do I think I'm more qualified than anyone. I have interests beyond this topic and I come across stuff about perception, neurology etc... That seems to be ignored around here. So I look at different things and ask questions. Personally I am stuck in how to get to aliens when all you have is subjective accounts.


If you are really putting forward the "tachpsychia" explanation for every pilot encounter then you have not looked at All of them...
that's what you perceived. Read it again. I asked a question. Do you really think that is what I wrote? Obviously you "saw" something that wasn't there. Didn't you? Misperception is a pretty common thing I guess.
edit on 3-9-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


I think your comments are helpful in the big picture, because what I've come to realize is that the human capacity is wa-a-a-a-ay bigger than i would ever have supposed going into this subject. All these going-in assumptions about pilots as trained observers and thinking that misperception reflects low intelligence or mental aberration, are unhelpful.

Here, I've tried to make the point that space and rocket events provide a laboratory-quality TEST CASE SET for seeing just how far, in reality, human perception can malfunction. And with specific cases of documented space/rocket events, we can track back to witness reports that cover the entire range of classic UFO perceptions -- not just lights, but large structured objects, occupants, car-chases, electronic interference, telepathic messages, even -- yes! -- sexual encounters with alien crew. And in those cases, because space/missile events ARE so well documented, we can determine the ACTUAL visual stimuli and then map into the range of witness misperception.

It is really, really scary, for those who insist on accepting all such stories as accurate until proven otherwise. that may explain the reluctance -- nay, the abhorrnce -- of many folkd hereabouts to even WANT to do such calibration and checks. They're afraid of what they might be forced to find.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 


I have to agree with Jim oberg that this is waaaay off topic. But to briefly answer your long post, I honestly have no idea who you are responding to. I didnt suggest anything other than my opinion that I don't think we can get to proving ET from here. I won't be bullied either. So if you want to quote something I actually said and ask me to clarify or discuss, I'm happy to do so. Honestly it looks like you are having a fantasy argument with someone. Not only am I far from a debunker, I don't even think offered a debunking for anything. I disagreed with you. Get over it.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 


I have to agree with Jim oberg that this is waaaay off topic. But to briefly answer your long post, I honestly have no idea who you are responding to. I didnt suggest anything other than my opinion that I don't think we can get to proving ET from here. I won't be bullied either. So if you want to quote something I actually said and ask me to clarify or discuss, I'm happy to do so. Honestly it looks like you are having a fantasy argument with someone. Not only am I far from a debunker, I don't even think offered a debunking for anything. I disagreed with you. Get over it.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Thanks. For me, this is really fascinating stuff. I think the whole topic of perception in general is really not well understood. I have followed your discussions about rocket events and how they are percieved I think it's, well, very eye opening. I wouldnt be surprised if someone in neurology or related field picks up some these cases. I think it would make a great Oliver Sacks book..who knows.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by HiddenSecrets
 


Hola HiddenSecrets and interesting thread mate
- I suppose the truth is the truth so it's only right to enquire about the heritage of some of these statements, that said there are plenty more here.
Cheers.



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


My question to you is what credible capacity do you justify that the ET hypothesis cannot be included to these possible explanations below for the UFO cases that are deemed unsolved by the amount of high strangeness data they contain.

Possible explanations;

1.Secret black ops;
2;Unknown atmospheric origins;
3;ET intelligence's/technology.

Now why is it that you feel credible enough to view that the ET possibility is not viable or possible in the three named above, were is your evidence that there are NO ET intelligence's out there with the require technological capabilities to visit here or are engaged in a systematic observational agendas??

"Where" is your evidence that I said anything like that?



In what credible position can you provide or show that would justify your opinion ,(rebuttal over the et hypothesis), is more acceptable than over a a credible scientific investigation and those conclusions reached like those by Dr James E McDonald???

So people aren't allowed to have opinions that go against McDonald's opinion. What were his qualifications to speak about human perception? He was a physicist. Correct?


Why should your opinion be more credible than a scientific analysis (Dr McDonald), were is your evidence and scientific investigation report that shows beyond doubt that there are no ET intelligence's out there capable of visiting us.???

I need evidence to have an opinion? And where am I saying this? Dr McDonald was a physicist?


Are you seriously putting forward the arguments that every single military pilot,witness , credible investigations and its sources are wrong or misinformed???,

Are you seriously saying that I said that? Where?


You have not made one comment or rebuttal that can be viewed with any ounce of scientific credibility on those cases exposed by Dr McDonald as having "force fit debunking explanations on them, not one referral or even an acknowledgement that the USAF was engaged in inadequate scientific methods of investigations and were involved in putting forward inadequate explanations for hundreds of UFO cases that contradicted not only the observable data from credible military witnesses but the "flight characteristics" of these objects in those cases deemed solved???

No I haven't. Was I supposed to? You asked me my opinion on what I thought. Next time you ask my opinion I will be sure to have footnotes and references at the ready. Are you for real?
Dr McDonald? I don't really get physics.


And you see it fit and justifiable to reject any possibility of an ET hypothesis for those cases when in reality no real scientific investigations have ever really been conducted in a fair and adequate way , how can one form any real credible conclusions from such a situation??, how can one really take your rejection of any possibility of the ET hypothesis when you your self are in no real credible or scientific position to either show or even form any real scientific rebuttals of the ET hypothesis???

I actually had no Idea i was engaged in such a discussion. But why haven't you mentioned Dr McDonald? And why do I want a Big Mac now?


All of this above is based not on your abilities to form your own opinions as regards the ET hypothesis or refuting those quotes deemed valid but by your non ability to provided any real working scientific rebuttal thesis on sources like Dr McDonald his investigations and his conclusions,those UFO cases deemed unsolvable by very high strangeness data, your lack or non existent evidence proving beyond doubt that there is no possibility of ET intelligence"s having the technological means to observe us.

Yes. Dr McDonald. Got it.


I really do find it rather bizarre that you said its me who is not interested in "discussing", well as we have a better understanding on what both of us constitutes as "check-able", viable and credible sources, credible individuals and actual data contained in those UFO reports deemed unsolvable due to their high strangeness data ,is it any wonder one can lose interest with those who only play hard ball with side racking "argumentation" tactics and avoid the real issues exposed by such sources as Dr McDonald on the ET hypotheses.
he was a physicist or something. Yeah, that's not my area of interest. I can see now that you are very interested having a discussion with someone who isn't me aka, SWIM. SWIM said a lot of things apparently.


When you can provide a credible ,working scientific thesis that can match or is in the same mold as Dr McDonald's and also when you can provide another working scientific thesis on WHY the possibility of ET intelligence's having the technological means to observe us thus justifying why the ET hypothesis cannot be included in any

Yes, i have to write a thesis when I form an opinion or disagree with someone, ok. I am certain you are repeating yourself

I have to take a breath
edit on 3-9-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 



... table listing possible explanations of origin for those UFO cases containing very high strangeness,(like those cases investigated by Dr McDonald), i will then be interested in what you have to say regarding the ET hypothesis, you cannot justify the ET rebuttals from purely just your opinion alone, surely doing so is not scientific protocol or a adequate scientific method of investigation considering what is at stake here.

Yes, I am very influential and people need to see the science behind my opinion considering what's at stake.



What is interesting here and is transparent in your post is people trying to pass them selves of as being in any credible position at all in not only ignoring credible data and conclusions from sources like Dr McDonald but providing non scientific rebuttals of the ET hypothesis..

Actually what's interesting is your incredible diatribe at the mere suggestion that I don't think you can get to any ET hypothesis from reports of this kind. So is there any scientific references you can provide from anywhere that state that pilots don't mispercieve or have human biochemistry? How do you get to ETH without having a clue about human perception? Please let me know if I need to footnote my questions or if I'm alowed to even ask them.

Also Interesting is your need to make up statistical terms like "the law of reasonable averages" In order to make what yout saying sound like something. I imagine thats why you mention "Dr McDonald" so much but dont actualy say anything. Not only does the term "the law of reasonable averages" not exist, it's based on a statistical fallacy. Here let me use it in a sentence. "The law of reasonable averages states that Dr McDonald can not be refuted or disagreed with" it's sort of like Murphy's law or something.

Here is a good article www.zipworld.com.au...

Please go have a "discussion" with someone else.


edit on 3-9-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 



... table listing possible explanations of origin for those UFO cases containing very high strangeness,(like those cases investigated by Dr McDonald), i will then be interested in what you have to say regarding the ET hypothesis, you cannot justify the ET rebuttals from purely just your opinion alone, surely doing so is not scientific protocol or a adequate scientific method of investigation considering what is at stake here.

Yes, I am very influential and people need to see the science behind my opinion considering what's at stake.



What is interesting here and is transparent in your post is people trying to pass them selves of as being in any credible position at all in not only ignoring credible data and conclusions from sources like Dr McDonald but providing non scientific rebuttals of the ET hypothesis..

Actually what's interesting is your incredible diatribe at the mere suggestion that I don't think you can get to any ET hypothesis from reports of this kind. So is there any scientific references you can provide from anywhere that state that pilots don't mispercieve or have human biochemistry? How do you get to ETH without having a clue about human perception? Please let me know if I need to footnote my questions or if I'm alowed to even ask them.

Also Interesting is your need to make up statistical terms like "the law of reasonable averages" In order to make what yout saying sound like something. I imagine thats why you mention "Dr McDonald" so much but dont actualy say anything. Not only does the term "the law of reasonable averages" not exist, it's based on a statistical fallacy. Here let me use it in a sentence. "The law of reasonable averages states that Dr McDonald can not be refuted or disagreed with" it's sort of like Murphy's law or something.

Here is a good article www.zipworld.com.au...

Please go have a "discussion" with someone else.


edit on 3-9-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



My original question was "ARE YOU SAYING THAT EVERY SINGLE QUOTE IS EITHER MISQUOTED OR TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT??? A straight yes or no.

Now my other question was or in the context "in what credible way can you personally provide that would put you in a more qualified way to refute the ET hypothesis from those cases containing "high strangeness" data that has been investigated by more qualified sources than you???

What evidence can you provide that shows ALL those pilot cases , their witness testimonies ect are just mis- identifications, how can an object picked up on radar and that radar data showing the object performing flight characteristics that are deemed "beyond current acceptable "KNOWN" technological capabilities?? Are you suggesting that there have been no such cases that have shown such conclusions?

Are you implying that ALL pilots that have reported their encounters are suffering from or more "likely" to be suffering from misconceptions of what they have witnessed??? If so could you please provided a working scientific thesis that shows this is the case for EVERY single case.

While your several replies to the content of my previous posts might look fine and authentic they address not the questions i posed but concentrate on the theme of "speculations" not scientific methods, practices and protocols that such sources like McDonald used, have you personally looked in the eyes of the hundreds of witnesses McDonald interviewed??

You speak of the human condition misinterpretation and try and imply or link it to ALL pilot cases, well as we all know there is no substitute of the human condition looking into the eyes of someone who 100% believes that what they witnessed was no misconception, back to my main point though that the chance that every single pilot report has only one possible explanation i.e, misconception is not really paying attention to the actual content of those reports that not only contain radar data, radar data that shows objects out pacing ect fighter jets,

Ae you saying that there are no such cases or that even after investigations carried out pilot testimonies and those on the ground have added more credibility to it that these cases are still not evidence for the credibility of the ET hypothesis being a possible origin from either secret black ops; again where is your evidence that proves without doubt that there are NO advanced ET intelligence's out there who have the means to observe us??

Your repeated stance on not recognizing the ET hypothesis for high strangeness cases is unproven, why , because you cannot take the "possible" out of the possibility. You cannot know what manner of ET is out there, even the great minds cannot rule it out, this has been my point all along.
edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 


I don't speak for Zeta, KPP, but in my own view, you defiantly keep looking at the burden of proof backwards. Since you're hardly alone, it's worth addressing.

It isn't a matter of having to disprove ALL items on a list. The doubt always favors the existing state -- in this case, 'extraordinary stimulus NOT proven.' Or person on trial -- innocent.

It is up to the claimant of a different verdict to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the evidence CANNOT be explained prosaicly. It cannot be explained in any OTHER way than by a NEW phenomenon.

S when a list of ten items are provided with such a claim, a doubter can say -- 'well, you've shown yourself incapable of filtering out prosaic explanations for 2,3, 7 and 10, as my own research shows. Why should we trust YOUR judgment on ANY of the claims?"

It is a fair objection, and it is devastating to the claimant's position.

Nor is the knee-jerk retrt any less devastating '-- 'OK, I was incompetent to solve 2,3, 7 and 10, but 8 might still be true, or maybe 4." You gotta solve THEM, too.

'Might' is the operative word here. Sure, they might be true. Or might not. But with a track record as in this case, one shouldn't bet on it. Nor does the skeptic need to exert more effort towards a theoretical completeness of explanations -- which will still be less than 100% even in totally prosaic phenomena.

To make such claims credibly, one has to show their ability to reliably filter out prosaic explanations. And the UFO proposal continues to fail to do so [as in the list presented here by the OP], and proponents continue to make excuses why they really shouldn't even have to.

And we get nowhere.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   

K-PAX-PROT
My original question was "ARE YOU SAYING THAT EVERY SINGLE QUOTE IS EITHER MISQUOTED OR TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT??? A straight yes or no.


If this answer wasn't good enough, I don't know what to tell you. Honestly, I don't.


So I do believe that there are some quotes that are valid although, I would be hard pressed to provide a valid one, but even so, that in itself does not lead directly to the credibility of ETH.




Now my other question was or in the context "in what credible way can you personally provide that would put you in a more qualified way to refute the ET hypothesis from those cases containing "high strangeness" data that has been investigated by more qualified sources than you???

My opinion is that I don't think you can get to ETH from the data that we currently have. That is because I have a brain and I think about things.


What evidence can you provide that shows ALL those pilot cases , their witness testimonies ect are just mis- identifications, how can an object picked up on radar and that radar data showing the object performing flight characteristics that are deemed "beyond current acceptable "KNOWN" technological capabilities?? Are you suggesting that there have been no such cases that have shown such conclusions?

What I can show is that misperception is a very common thing. Just read what I wrote and compare that to what you think I am saying. It's quite impressive.


Are you implying that ALL pilots that have reported their encounters are suffering from or more "likely" to be suffering from misconceptions of what they have witnessed??? If so could you please provided a working scientific thesis that shows this is the case for EVERY single case.

"Suffering from misconceptions of what they witnessed" is a misconception. The word you want is misperception and no, I don't think people "suffer" from this since its not an affliction. "Every single case" is unreasonable. Can you show one confirmed alien encounter? If so, then I have no need to prove "every single case". And the use of made up statistical fallacies will not be accepted as proof of anything which I think is your overall issue. As mind boggling as it might seem to you, "the law of reasonable averages" will not work and really doesn't exist either.


While your several replies to the content of my previous posts might look fine and authentic they address not the questions i posed but concentrate on the theme of "speculations" not scientific methods, practices and protocols that such sources like McDonald used,

That's because the questions you posed and the things that you think i said had nothing to do with a thing I actually said. I think it's very interesting though to go from "my opinion is that you can't get to a definite ETH from this type of data" to requiring me to provide a thesis to scientific credentials. It's actually quite funny and will make the topic of good conversation this weekend.

And by the way, you just flat ignored my questions. But that's ok because I'm not all that interested in you doing so since I am sure It will contain several references to Dr McDonald and the overuse of several words that don't fit with what you are saying.


have you personally looked in the eyes of the hundreds of witnesses McDonald interviewed??
that's a rhetorical question I believe.


edit on 5-9-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 




You speak of the human condition misinterpretation and try and imply or link it to ALL pilot cases, well as we all know there is no substitute of the human condition looking into the eyes of someone who 100% believes that what they witnessed was no misconception,

Did I try to link ALL pilot cases? I don't think I did. But ok. Can you provide the quote or something?
what they witnessed would be a "misperception" not a "misconception" and of course they would believe that they didn't mispercieve something. Just like you are certain I said something like "all pilots suffer from.." And "I think I'm more qualified then..." And "there is no way ETs can possibly exist" and on and on. Try actually quoting something I said specifically. That might help.


back to my main point though that the chance that every single pilot report has only one possible explanation i.e, misconception is not really paying attention to the actual content of those reports that not only contain radar data, radar data that shows objects out pacing ect fighter jets,

Here, let me help you. You have a misconception of what the word "misconception" means. Your misconception is that you think that I think there is only one possible explaination. that explaination, you think I have is "all pilots are misperceiving" which is a misconception on your part. Gee, I don't think we are going to get to the radar data.


Ae you saying that there are no such cases or that even after investigations carried out pilot testimonies and those on the ground have added more credibility to it that these cases are still not evidence for the credibility of the ET hypothesis being a possible origin from either secret black ops; again where is your evidence that proves without doubt that there are NO advanced ET intelligence's out there who have the means to observe us??

Oy vey


Your repeated stance on not recognizing the ET hypothesis for high strangeness cases is unproven, why , because you cannot take the "possible" out of the possibility.

Just curious if you understand the difference between "possibility" and "probability".


You cannot know what manner of ET is out there, even the great minds cannot rule it out, this has been my point all along.

Can you find the quote where I ruled this out? If you can't, don't you think you just wasted your time? But thanks for the entertainment.
Sorry if my responses were vague, but I honestly don't think I can handle any more of your misconceptions, misperceptions , misinterpretations and misrepresentations of what I said.


edit on 5-9-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



I don't speak for Zeta


If you want, I can provide you my account info and you can say anything you want. I mean anything.

Out of curiosity, did I say anything that could have been misconstrued as a debunking effort or anything unreasonable? I am careful not to make any claims as in "all pilots a hallucinating baboons" that would be different than say "I don't think you can get ET out of subjective data".

If I am thinking about this correctly, I actually have no way to prove that anyone hallucinated or mispercieved anything. But you HAVE shown that it can and does happen. Obviously I am being accused of extrapolating that up to "every" event which I am not.

What I can say, without the need to write a thesis, is that trying to understand the complexity of the human mind and human interaction is daunting and there are so many misconceptions out there especially around this topic that I don't think it's surmountable.

What I also know is that the human mind is capable of experiencing every facet of reality and then some without the need for that reality to exist.

Thanks, just needed to babble.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 


You said this a few babbling posts ago:

As you have admitted that you think some credible quotes are valid


Now this?

My original question was "ARE YOU SAYING THAT EVERY SINGLE QUOTE IS EITHER MISQUOTED OR TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT??? A straight yes or no.


Are you still confused? A simple yes or no please.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 



McDonald spoke before the United States Congress for a UFO hearing in 1968.[1] In part, he stated his opinion that "UFOs are entirely real and we do not know what they are, because we have laughed them out of court. The possibility that these are extraterrestrial devices, that we are dealing with surveillance from some advanced technology, is a possibility I take very seriously".[8] McDonald emphasized that he accepted the extraterrestrial hypothesis as a possibility not due to any specific evidence in its favor, but because he judged competing hypotheses as inadequate.


After seeing how you grossly misinterpreted just about everything I said, I wanted to see how badly you misinterpreted McDonald. I honestly don't see this as unreasonable for 1968. Of course the body of knowledge regarding human perception was probably very deficient in 1968. It probably still is today. So he said that there was no specific evidence in favor of ETH? so i guess that would include witness accounts too i imagine. His opinion was based on the lack of competing hypotheses in 1968. He said it was a "possibility".

Got it. so my opinion is that I don't think that you can get to a definite ETH with this type of data which seems to agree with McDonald's view more or less. This is because he saw it as a possibility and not as a fact as in not absolute even after interviewing 500 witnesses and looking them in the eye. Are you following? That is a lot of people to look in the eye and not come to an absolute conclusion that they saw alien spaceships.

Of course you think that McDonald came to an ET conclusion after interviewing all these witnesses. He didn't. He came to the conclusion that ET was a possibility due to a lack of competing hypotheses.


You speak of the human condition misinterpretation and try and imply or link it to ALL pilot cases, well as we all know there is no substitute of the human condition looking into the eyes of someone who 100% believes that what they witnessed was no misconception,


How do you get to your above quote from this post by me?



but there is no way to get to an absolute ETH based on this kind of data. If there is please enlighten me.

Because I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to during your discourse so I have to guess why you are so confused about what I'm saying. So what is it that you are missing?

Well I think there are some competing hypotheses 45 years later. More than just ball lightning too. So in 1968, I would be more inclined to agree with McDonald's view over Phil Klass's view in 1968.

As we move forward in time 45 years, our body of knowledge increases. The conclusions reached 45 years ago need to be reevaluated. You should endeavor to continue increasing knowledge in the same vain that McDonald did. that would mean looking at current information and not resting on a 45 year old conlusion. Does that make any sense to you whatsoever?



He was one of the more prominent figures of his time who argued in favor of the extraterrestrial hypothesis as a plausible, but not completely proved, model of UFO phenomena.


So I honestly think that you have over exaggerated in your head what you actually think he said and you have some fantasy that I am Phil Klass or something.
edit on 6-9-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join