There's no evidence that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred

draknoir2

EnPassant
The sheer volume of witness testimony takes the argument to a new level and gathers a momentum that cannot be explained away.

How many people have claimed to have a "personal relationship with God"?

Is the sheer volume of such testimony proof that God exists, or are they all delusional and mentally unbalanced? Those are your only two choices, by the way. Your rules of logic.

The point is that Dawkins has painted himself into a corner. He has constructed his argument in such a way that he MUST play the delusion card or else admit there is likely to be something real in religious experience. Likewise with ufo sceptics. When it comes down to witnesses, the sceptic must accept that people are seeing clearly enough or argue that they are deluded. There are now so many witnesses that if they are deluded they are all having the same delusions, right down to stalling car engines etc. This is most unlikely. It would be possible to argue that one person imagined the engine stalled but if we argue that many many engines stall and still stick to the delusion argument we are then asserting that delusions keep inventing stalling engines. How could delusions keep deluding about something so specific? Delusions (or, more politely, misperceptions) tend to be wide and varied not repetitive down to such a specific phenomena. And it is not a case of people copying what they read. Stalling engines have been reported by people who had no knowledge of this or of ufos. It goes right back to the start.

reply to post by EnPassant


No problem EP, I appreciate your reply too!

I think you are spot on with the theatrical show!

There is certainly nothing interesting here in Fulham, SW London for these craft to be so eager to visit!!!
Aside from the Thames, but that stretches the entirety of London, so again, why Fulham was so special to them is anybodies guess!

They certainly weren't Western Military... I'm inclined to say Far East tech, but I wouldn't rule out visitation or monitoring from E.T!

Peace!

ZetaRediculianA couple of things to note. One is that g-loc is something that pilots can expect to have happen to them. During these episodes pilots loose consciousness and can even hallucinate. Not that this explains any single case but misidentifying something as a ufo is not that big of a deal compared to blacking out and hallucinating.
Another thing is that the US admitted giving pilots amphetamines which has been implicated as the root cause of friendly fire incidents which is also small beans compared to misidentification of unknown things as alien crafts.

The sheer volume of witness testimony takes the argument to a new level and gathers a momentum that cannot be explained

What sheer volume? The sheer volume of YouTube videos, the sheer volume of hoaxes and the sheer volume of people saying there is a sheer volume of witness testimony without any real basis offsets this.

edit on 7-3-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

Many of the pilots were sent up on the basis of radar detection and were not in heavy g-loc. They just approached the object. If you read the accounts you will see many of the were just at normal g and normal speed. I don't know that amphetamines cause distortion in perception. I believe they sharpen the senses, if anything, which is probably why they give them to soldiers.

The 'sheer volume' was in existence before uTube. Hynek, when asked for proof, pointed to the masses of reports that had been gathered.

reply to post by EnPassant


I was thinking the exact same thing when Zeta mentioned G-Loc...
While it may be a common occurrence for pilots to "hallucinate" would they all be seeing UFOs???
How about when radar, as you previously stated, backs up the claim also!!!


We can hypothesise other than Aliens, but we cannot rule Aliens out!
Proof is needed on both sides of the "argument", not just believers!


Peace!

reply to post by EnPassant


Beat me to it!!!

2nd!

Peace!

NavyDocBut that's not what he said. Witness testimony is only evidence that someone said they saw something. That's it. They could have seen things accurately and describe them accurately, of course. They could also be mistaken, delusional, fraudulent, or sincerely seeing something that they misinterpret. All of these are possible and all of them happen most likely depending on the circumstance.

Obviously corroborating physical evidence does help. If someone says that they saw a craft land in the field and you go out there and there are burn marks and landing gear impressions, that does make everything more solid. However, all that is evidence for is that someone saw something in a field and it looks like there indeed was something in that field. One cannot extrapolate "aliens" from that.

But the whole point is that people keep repeating the same things. Once sightings get beyond a certain 'critical mass' the difference becomes not only quantitative but qualitative. If someone comes to you and says they saw a Russian sub in the Gulf of Mexico you might say they could be mistaken. If two come to you in succession saying the same thing and these two don't know each other it becomes very likely that there something like a Russian sub there. If eight people come to you saying the same thing - you see? numbers generate a qualitative difference. That's what I'm getting at.

So, when people say they are mistaken, they are implying they are all mistaken in the same way. But mistakes are varied, they are not likely to come up with a theme - such as, for example, the humming sound of these craft.

Aliens:

Now, if we can establish, by such arguments that I'm giving here, that these people are not deluded, they are all seeing more or less the same thing, and they are reporting the essential details correctly then we can extend that reasoning to the descriptions of the aliens because the aliens are reported in the context of the ufo experience. We are hardly going to argue that they are not mistaken about the ufo and then say they must be mistaken about the appearance of the aliens, just because it is stretching beyond our world view.

We can't say "You're right about the ufo but you went wrong the minute you saw the aliens 'cos that's just too weird" If they are seeing the ufos properly they are likely to be seeing the aliens properly too. This constitutes indirect evidence for the existence of the beings in the craft.

draknoir2

How many people have claimed to have a "personal relationship with God"?

Is the sheer volume of such testimony proof that God exists, or are they all delusional and mentally unbalanced? Those are your only two choices, by the way. Your rules of logic.

That was a pretty direct question I posed [and you sidestepped]. How about a direct answer?

reply to post by EnPassant


Ever since I seen the space shuttle video of the U.F.O. being shot at by a silent rail gun, It is clear to me we are at war with these alien DRONE craft. My only question is are we winning.With the secret compartmental ism of the pentagon , if they have breached this system they could take over the military very fast and enjoy total domination because we the people are not allowed to see or monitor any thing the military does.
I believe it would be very easy to see secondary evidence of this takeover because with there new found PROTECTED power they would start to down the country and the world by doing the following;

Use all air craft to spray chem trails and increase flights to displace the air depleting oxygen ,this causes dramatic increase in illnesses and functions as a terraform.
Then they would remove the rights of the people to get information .
Then they would genetically alter the food chain to reduce the population and cause chaos and world wide wars.

Well I guess that answers the question, WE HAVE BEEN TAKEN OVER.

draknoir2

draknoir2

How many people have claimed to have a "personal relationship with God"?

Is the sheer volume of such testimony proof that God exists, or are they all delusional and mentally unbalanced? Those are your only two choices, by the way. Your rules of logic.

That was a pretty direct question I posed [and you sidestepped]. How about a direct answer?

I brought Dawkins into the debate because he has committed himself to the 'delusion' argument and it doesn't work.

How many claim personal knowledge of God? Many. For those who know God it may constitute 'proof' but it is not proof in the abstract way that reason and mathematics are. It is proof by experience. But Dawkins would not accept this so he must cry 'delusion!'

EnPassant
I brought Dawkins into the debate because he has committed himself to the 'delusion' argument and it doesn't work.

You brought Dawkins into your straw man debate to show how the 'delusion' argument you keep pretending was made doesn't work?

EnPassant
How many claim personal knowledge of God? Many. For those who know God it may constitute 'proof' but it is not proof in the abstract way that reason and mathematics are.

Thank you!

EnPassant
But Dawkins would not accept this so he must cry 'delusion!'

Again, who the Hell brought up Dawkins and the 'delusion' argument? Oh, that's right... YOU DID! And you keep doing it. Why is that? Is it frequently mentioned in your Jenny Randles book?

reply to post by CharlieSpeirs

I was thinking the exact same thing when Zeta mentioned G-Loc...
While it may be a common occurrence for pilots to "hallucinate" would they all be seeing UFOs???

I thought I made it clear that g-loc hallucinations did not explain a single case and yet that is what people read even though it is not at all what I said.

Not that this explains any single case but misidentifying something as a ufo is not that big of a deal compared to blacking out and hallucinating.

And now we are on to radar cases? We were talking about how pilots had to be psychological messes in order to see something that they can't identify. That is clearly not the case.

don't you find it extraordinary that you read and interpreted things that I didn't say? Is it that people only see and believe what they want? Personally, I find this pattern of perception very interesting. It is actually staggering how often this occurs in normal day to day life. Why wouldn't this effect be prevalent during the interpretations of ufo cases?

what is preventing the misinterpretation of pilot cases as they are passed along?

honestly, reread what I posted and tell me where I said pilots are hallucinating UFOs.

If a real discussion is to happen, I require that my simple statements be understood. If they are not clear than ask for clarification. I admit that I make the same human errors and don't always express what I mean clearly. In this case I think I was pretty clear.

draknoir2

EnPassant
I brought Dawkins into the debate because he has committed himself to the 'delusion' argument and it doesn't work.

You brought Dawkins into your straw man debate to show how the 'delusion' argument you keep pretending was made doesn't work?

EnPassant
How many claim personal knowledge of God? Many. For those who know God it may constitute 'proof' but it is not proof in the abstract way that reason and mathematics are.

Thank you!

EnPassant
But Dawkins would not accept this so he must cry 'delusion!'

Again, who the Hell brought up Dawkins and the 'delusion' argument? Oh, that's right... YOU DID! And you keep doing it. Why is that? Is it frequently mentioned in your Jenny Randles book?

It is people on this thread that keep saying witnesses are not seeing what is there - if there is anything there. That is essentially an argument that they are deluded. You can politely say they are mistaken but it comes to the same thing.

reply to post by supergravity


I think their invasion is more subtle. They are invading by stealth on a psychological level.

EnPassant


Aliens:

Now, if we can establish, by such arguments that I'm giving here, that these people are not deluded, they are all seeing more or less the same thing, and they are reporting the essential details correctly then we can extend that reasoning to the descriptions of the aliens because the aliens are reported in the context of the ufo experience. We are hardly going to argue that they are not mistaken about the ufo and then say they must be mistaken about the appearance of the aliens, just because it is stretching beyond our world view.

People report seeing "alien craft" all the time without having any way of knowing the nature, origin, or contents of what they saw. They assume it to be "Alien" because they equate that with U.F.O.'s. So how would a thousand such false assumptions be of any more value than a single one? What is the "critical mass" that would render it true?

And you have arbitrarily declared that "they are all seeing more or less the same thing". The fact is sightings are incredibly diverse.

reply to post by EnPassant

Many of the pilots were sent up on the basis of radar detection and were not in heavy g-loc.

So in order to demonstrate that people easily misperceive what is right in front of them, I will be pulling together a list of misperceptions that have occurred in this thread.

obviously it is entirely possible that the person misinterpreted the little blip on the radar screen since they are small like letters on a computer screen.

then when this was given as an explanation to a UFO researcher, they further misinterpreted the words written in the report.

then after the ufo book gets written it gets misinterpreted even more by the people that read them and believe them.

EnPassant

It is people on this thread that keep saying witnesses are not seeing what is there - if there is anything there. That is essentially an argument that they are deluded. You can politely say they are mistaken but it comes to the same thing.

That is not what I'm reading, nor is it "essentially an argument that they are deluded". That's you again.

reply to post by neoholographic


You realize evidence is not always one sided right? Sometimes the same evidence can be used to explain several different things, and the evidence is still left entirely up to interpretation.

What means things to one man, may mean an entirely different thing to someone else. For instance the nazi's symbol of the swastika, it's also a symbol to 2 religious groups and the meaning differs both with in them, and the Nazi's of ww2.

If I present to you a hole in the ground, it's a hole in the ground. Now we can ask each other, as well as the rest of the group how that hole got there. That's the only evidence we have, collected at the time.

We have pictures of that hole, and when we go back that hole is gone. How did it get there?

Did a man dig it?

Did an animal dig it?

Was it an explosion?

A collapse?

Was it super natural?

Natural?

We can't go back and check because now the hole is gone, all we have is one picture from a guy who simply found the hole and didn't have any idea himself.

This is the problem with a lot of UFO pictures, we have a picture, a person who doesn't know what it was, and that's it. That's a vast majority of the evidence for Alien visitation. Pictures with absolutely no explanation at the time, no way to go back and check, it's just something.

Now, word of mouth. When me and my brother were kids we swore there were monsters under the bed. There weren't but we swore there were, to us they were real as day. Like many kids various oogie boogies freak us out, and they are entirely real to us but are they?

Dreams that seem real?

Now, abduction stories are tricky the experience is real to them, but there is usually nothing other than the experience they are sure they had to go on. A large amount of abductions seem to happen in areas where we should be able to find some evidence this happened. where some others happen in the middle of no where, where it makes sense.

Those that seem to happen in major cities, with 100,000's of people, major air ports with radar, weather stations with radar, and yet no evidence comes forth make them a little hard to take as abductions by Alien craft. There should be something to corroborate the experience, especially because people often talk of seeing, hearing, feeling the craft and yet no other reports come out to corroborate it.

Now then there is the evidence people take, that are mere radar anomalies. Radar isn't perfect, and it can react with a lot of things, for instance weather. We use Radar to track clouds, moisture and other weather systems. When something pops up on aircraft radar that seems out of place and there were no craft in the area it's possible it's weather and those amateurs that see this and run with it are not always taken this into account and it gets buried in the super natural explanation rather than the real one. Even if a real explanation comes about it's immediately deemed a cover up.

"Believers" are often not willing to accept critical thinking, alternative solutions, and critique but at the same time make noise about how the real world scientists are doing the same, yet they are not. When we are thinking critically we have to take all things into account and use logic to discern what is more likely. If the likely does not fit the criteria then we move on collecting as much evidence and observation as possible until we can logically discern the results.

There are instances out there that can not be explained, and I am not going to say they are anything because it is not my place.

Is it possible there is alien life, absolutely. Is it possible there is advanced alien life capable of reaching and visiting earth? I's plausible. . Are there advanced alien life visiting earth, unlikely. In all the vastness of the universe the likelihood they would choose us is extremely small, and if they were capable of visiting anywhere why would they come back when they could take there snap shot and move on? It would take one of every creature to learn about the life on earth if they are so advanced they can go everywhere in the universe. If they are more advanced than us, that means many species had to exist for them to get to that point. There would be others less advanced than them, less advanced than us, and even possibly more advanced than the ones that visited us.

Now the problem here is you are going to say what about the more advanced ones, and what about all those that vary above and below the visitor.

Here's my problem with this. We are already at the point we can pretty much learn everything from a species by taking a single specimen, as well as simply observing it in it's environment. Sure we don't know about all of them, how ever an advanced species is likely looking at other advanced species. With all their tech they would all be able to do basically all they need with a single abductee. It would cause the least shock to the species, least risk to the abducter as well as abductee.

Most if not all, abduction stories involve one species it seems. Why would they waste so much time here when they could go find another? It doesn't make sense?

Why is there so little SOLID evidence of their visitation if the same technology, same species has been here over and over again. Just tell me why?

I Believe there is life in the universe we can not even begin to imagine, and yet I do not believe we are being visited. Not now, not ever.

reply to post by EnPassant

It is people on this thread that keep saying witnesses are not seeing what is there - if there is anything there. That is essentially an argument that they are deluded. You can politely say they are mistaken but it comes to the same thing.

First seeing something that is not there would be a hallucination. Second nobody in this thread has said that. You can prove me wrong by using the quote button. Even if someone did say that please point it out and I will tell them that they are wrong.

A delusion is a belief someone has despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Someone that sees an unidentified thing can safely believe it is an alien craft without being considered delusional since no evidence to the contrary exists. If anyone joins the conversation and says that people that see a true ufo and believe it to be alien are delusional, I will tell them that they are wrong.

I can also safely say that what they saw can be interpreted in a myriad of different ways.

by your interpretation of "deluded" you are implying that anyone that disagrees with you is "delusional" because they are mistaken.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


The only thing I said you mentioned was G-Loc...

Everything else was my own doing pal, I wasn't questioning your post at all, the thought of G-Loc just brought me to that conclusion!

Mate, if I needed clarification I would have replied to your post personally!
I apologise for the misunderstanding!

Peace!

CharlieSpeirs
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

The only thing I said you mentioned was G-Loc...

Everything else was my own doing pal, I wasn't questioning your post at all, the thought of G-Loc just brought me to that conclusion!

Mate, if I needed clarification I would have replied to your post personally!
I apologise for the misunderstanding!

Peace!

No problem. G-loc is a really interesting phenomenon that hasn't been linked to UFOs and nor am I attempting to do so.
The point is that pilots have a lot going on that overshadows some odd perception and belief they have.

it also has nothing to do with radar cases or what I had for breakfast.

you must admit it would have been a good post had you actually misread what I said.