There's no evidence that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred

Harte
No extraterrestrial evidence has even been mentioned in this thread by the ETH supporters.

Let me know when you post a pic of a UFO with "We're not from this planet" painted across the side - in alien glyphs, of course.

Harte

The "evidence" is the numbers. What comprises these numbers is beyond me. I believe the statement was made that there have never been any cases of misidentification ever. If there were, they were made by someone that was delusional. I must accept "evidence" without question. I am completely baffled.

There is no evidence that people who see ufos are seeing incorrectly.

None. Never once has this happened ever. As in no one has ever seen something else and thought it was an alien spaceship. There is no evidence this has happened. So if I look at the sky tonight and see something that looks alien and think its alien, there is no way it could be something else.

Or maybe he means it has happened repeatedly throughout history but that it does not apply in any way shape or form to any case today that it hasn't happened to yet. we ignore large bodies of knowledge and whole fields of study that we don't know about anyway. Once you completely dispose of this, you still don't have evidence of ET!

ZetaRediculian

EnPassant
There is no evidence that people who see ufos are seeing incorrectly.

sure there is but you choose to ignore it.
Case Studies In Pilot Misperceptions Of "UFOs"

you consider these people delusional.

These people are normal.

Where do I disagree? This is pure fantasy on your part.

If you say they are not seeing correctly you need to back that up.

They see just fine but you apparently haven't seen one thing I have written!

The default is that they are seeing correctly unless shown otherwise.

You are the one saying that they are delusional!

It is ok the speculate but I am answering these speculations and they don't hold up.

you are not answering anything other than what you are making up!

G-loc does not always apply.

apply to what????? g-loc happens. That's my only point!
Here is my quote "G-loc is a really interesting phenomenon that hasn't been linked to UFOs and nor am I attempting to do so."
Do you not see the absolute utterly gross misperception and misinterpretation here? Not once, but TWICE now. I am just pointing this out on this one point but you are doing it consistently with several points if not all. Are you not aware that you are doing this? At least two others have pointed this out now.

Many of these missions were scrambled from bases in a non combat capacity. It is not as if pilots are continually blitzed up on amphetamines during peacetime in case something happens.

AGAIN NOT MY POINT ANYWHERE!

Here is my actual point. AGAIN

[previously posted]
But again I am addressing your argument


Are the airforce employing mentally unbalanced pilots who have clear sightings of UFOs

The airforce doesn't give a poop. They encourage the use of amphetamines during missions. Again, I have no idea if they cause UFO sightings but they certainly do distort perceptions. They also enhance performance. So its a trade off.

So to answer your straw man question, yes , the airforce encourages and even force their pilots to take drugs which has the side effect of "mental unbalance".
[/previously posted]

Do you see it yet? I directly answered your straw man only to be met with another straw man! I clearly stated "I have no idea if they cause UFO sightings" but stated that they do have side effects that result in friendly fire which should answer your question about "unbalanced pilots" being employed by the airforce. I think that giving drugs like amphetamines to your employees constitutes making sure your employees are "unbalanced" and compared to friendly fire, seeing a UFO does not seem like much of a concern. Same point with g-loc. Neither have anything to do with UFOs!

You turned this point into "UFO sightings and radar return cases not being caused by amphetamines". What am I missing? how can we have a conversation or get anywhere like this?

Also, what these pilots see is backed up by commercial pilots sightings. Also, commercial pilots don't experience g-loc. I also read an account of a pilot who experienced both oxygen deprivation and an nde. He said they were different experiences.

commercial pilots don't experience g-loc and neither do bus drivers. I once read an account about someone who lost a dog.

You have every right to argue your point but you should also try to argue against you own points and you will see that they don't hold up to analysis.

really? you should actually argue against a point that was actually made by somebody at some point because not one thing you said has anything to do with anything said by me or anyone else.

The argument that witnesses are not seeing things properly does not originate in evidence concerning the witness it originates in the debunking campaign that started in the 50s with swamp gas etc. psychological assessment of witnesses shows they are normal.

witnesses see just fine its interpretations by people like you that are suspect. you have not read or understood ONE point I made. UNBELIVABLE!





When I say these people are normal I am saying that that is evidence that they are seeing correctly.

I have not said these people are delusional. You may link to what I said if you disagree.

When I say g-loc does not apply it is because there are cases where commercial pilot sightings back up what the military pilots report so the military pilot's reports are not likely to be a result of g-loc.

You say witnesses see just fine and it interpretations that are wrong. Witnesses see greys. How should we interpret this?

ZetaRediculian

EnPassant
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

Dr Winnery says that, "as a traditional scientist, these experiments add tremendous credibility to the NDE phenomenon." He says that individual's accounts of NDE's should be listened to very closely, because their stories are very accurate, as demonstrated by his experiments on pilots."

These people are not delusional or suffering from mental illness but you consistently say that people that experience this are delusional. This is important stuff and yet you ignore it. Why do you think we should ignore it?

I have not said anywhere that anyone is delusional. I think you have lost the drift of my argument.

EnPassant

When I say these people are normal I am saying that that is evidence that they are seeing correctly.

I have not said these people are delusional. You may link to what I said if you disagree.

When I say g-loc does not apply it is because there are cases where commercial pilot sightings back up what the military pilots report so the military pilot's reports are not likely to be a result of g-loc.

You say witnesses see just fine and it interpretations that are wrong. Witnesses see greys. How should we interpret this?

I don't think anyone will debate that these people saw something, but how do we go from seeing something strange to extraterrestrials in one big jump. I could say they are Demons and Angels and be as correct as saying they are extraterrestrials.

Harte
No extraterrestrial evidence has even been mentioned in this thread by the ETH supporters.

Let me know when you post a pic of a UFO with "We're not from this planet" painted across the side - in alien glyphs, of course.

Harte

It has. People have seen grays and Nordics. I have argued that, by and large, these people are seeing correctly. Also, there is evidence that some of these beings are biological creatures and the best explanation, if they are such, is the ETH.

EnPassant

It seems that these witnesses are, by and large, reporting what is there.

The accusations that they are mistaken are pure speculative and academic. There is no evidence that they are mistaken in any serious way. So, given all the supporting evidence, such as radar, we can take as true the general picture that is emerging with regard to sightings; they are real and reported as experienced.

Likewise, given that we give credibility to the witnesses we have no reason to believe that they are wrong when they describe the ufonauts.

This is where it gets interesting; these ufonauts seem to be spirits or extra dimensional beings. But they also seem to be biological creatures. Strieber says he asked to smell them. Many other cases suggest they are biological creatures. And yet the seem to be spirits.

The evidence suggests that, like human beings, they are spirits and some of them at least have physical bodies. If they are physical creatures then this is evidence that they are ET. They don't seem to come from earth - not in terms of their physicality.

Yes, there are many differences in sightings but there are similarities too. This is why I keep referring to the themes that emerge (stalling car engines etc.)

Draknoir: Speaking of pure speculation, it SEEMS that's exactly what you are engaged in... and rather heavily at that.

If the witnesses are seeing correctly how would you interpret what the are seeing? - what seems to be the explanation, in your estimation?

Xtrozero

EnPassant

When I say these people are normal I am saying that that is evidence that they are seeing correctly.

I have not said these people are delusional. You may link to what I said if you disagree.

When I say g-loc does not apply it is because there are cases where commercial pilot sightings back up what the military pilots report so the military pilot's reports are not likely to be a result of g-loc.

You say witnesses see just fine and it interpretations that are wrong. Witnesses see greys. How should we interpret this?

I don't think anyone will debate that these people saw something, but how do we go from seeing something strange to extraterrestrials in one big jump. I could say they are Demons and Angels and be as correct as saying they are extraterrestrials.

This post follows on from your question.

EnPassant

Harte
No extraterrestrial evidence has even been mentioned in this thread by the ETH supporters.

Let me know when you post a pic of a UFO with "We're not from this planet" painted across the side - in alien glyphs, of course.

Harte

It has. People have seen grays and Nordics.

I would have to disagree.

Grays entered the human psyche with the edited description by Betty Hill (originally, they looked like Jimmy Durante until she changed her story.)

Please provide us with a link to the first mention of "nordic" aliens.

"Always" is a strong term. Before UFOs became a craze in the 1940's and 50's, people "always" saw an old crone doing visitations and abductions. Along with incubi and succubi.

Harte

EnPassant
what seems to be the explanation, in your estimation?

That would be pure speculation on my part and would depend on the specifics of the individual case.


Unless you truly believe things are always as they seem, which you apparently do, I can see no reason why this would constitute "evidence of extraterrestrials" to you.

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by InhaleExhale

 

I think you are arguing with someone that is confusing possibility and probability or at least overvaluing what "possibility" is exactly. And I think you are right, you can't really "study" something "unknown". Its like saying "I am studying people that have evolved wings and can fly".

I would accept this point up to a point --- mathematicians have said a lot about what conditions Odd Perfect Numbers would fulfil, if they exist, but none has ever been found and they don't even know if they exist! Article

draknoir2
reply to post by EnPassant

 

You seem like a nice enough guy[?]. You are apparently just logically impaired, for whatever reason.

Apologies if I mislead you, but when I reply I make general statements and address points that you particularly might not have made. But, because of the intricacy of the general debate about these things, I must mention the sceptic's points before making mine. That does not mean I am implying you made these points. I am just bringing them up to get them out of the way before making the point 'cos if I don't I may have to go into it later.

reply to post by EnPassant


You're making some great points and like I said, when it comes to many UFO skeptics, logic and reason are just thrown out.

If you treat eyewitness accounts like we treat eyewitness accounts in America, it's easy to reach a conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred. Everyone will not reach this conclusion but there's more than enough evidence to reach this conclusion.

The problem when it comes to many UFO skeptics is, there so insecure about their own belief they want to determined the conclusions everyone can come to in these areas.

So all eyewitness accounts are unreliable and everyone accept them is just stupid.

This is belief and it has nothing to do with reason and logic.

Like I said, we deal with eyewitnesses all the time when investigating a crime or during a jury trial.

People ask, well how do you know they saw what they said they saw and experienced? I know because this is what usually happens with eyewitnesses. They tell you what they saw and experienced and some eyewitnesses will be strong and some will be weak and this is why you don't throw all eyewitnesses into the same box.

The skeptic doesn't use reason and logic. They want you to give more weight to their opinion of what an eyewitness saw and experience and give zero weight to the actual eyewitness LOL!

It's just a joke.

This shows the clear difference between skeptics and debunker's.

Many UFO skeptics are just debunker's. Debunker's aren't seeking the truth, they just want to debunk everything that threatens their belief.

A true skeptic can accept that others have reached a different conclusion than they have based on the EVIDENCE.

A debunker can't accept that others use evidence and reached a different conclusion than they have. To them every eyewitness is thrown into the same box and everyone that disagrees with them are just blind believers who are just wishful thinkers.

Harte

EnPassant

Harte
No extraterrestrial evidence has even been mentioned in this thread by the ETH supporters.

Let me know when you post a pic of a UFO with "We're not from this planet" painted across the side - in alien glyphs, of course.

Harte

It has. People have seen grays and Nordics.

I would have to disagree.

Grays entered the human psyche with the edited description by Betty Hill (originally, they looked like Jimmy Durante until she changed her story.)

Please provide us with a link to the first mention of "nordic" aliens.

"Always" is a strong term. Before UFOs became a craze in the 1940's and 50's, people "always" saw an old crone doing visitations and abductions. Along with incubi and succubi.
Harte

Apparently these ufonauts are spirits. But there are also spirits that are native to this world. Incubi and succubi might be such spirits. Not every ghost or apparition is alien and it is a mistake to confuse the two. Confusing native and alien spirits makes things very complicated.

Can you refer me to the Jimmy Durante article?

draknoir2

EnPassant
what seems to be the explanation, in your estimation?

That would be pure speculation on my part and would depend on the specifics of the individual case.

Unless you truly believe things are always as they seem, which you apparently do, I can see no reason why this would constitute "evidence of extraterrestrials" to you.

No, I don't think things are always as they seem. But when people keep reporting the same things they are likely to be seeing correctly and reporting what they have seen. It is this build up of corroborating evidence that makes the case.

neoholographic

The problem when it comes to many UFO skeptics is, there so insecure about their own belief they want to determined the conclusions everyone can come to in these areas.

What sceptics need to focus on are the emergent themes such as the salty-lemonade drink that abductees are often required to drink. This drink is reported by people who never heard of it from other cases. Likewise with the other flags. These could not be delusions because they show up on a regular basis.

The OP is possibly correct, in honesty, but all of the information he points to is either circumstantial or unverifiable.

For me, intelligent life elsewhere is virtually certain, but it's unlikely that it has visited here either directly or indirectly via probes or what have you. It's certainly possible, but it's also highly unlikely.

The fact remains - to the best of public knowledge there is not even one piece of evidence available for scientific study and peer review that supports the notion that intelligent extraterrestrial life has visited Earth at any point.

I'd love for that to be untrue, but it simply isn't. All we can do is keep our eyes and minds open. This doesn't mean that the subject isn't utterly fascinating or unworthy of a great deal of time, effort and thought though. Far from it!

neoholographic
logic and reason

reason and logic.

reason and logic.

I do not think this means what you think it does.

KingIcarus
The OP is possibly correct, in honesty, but all of the information he points to is either circumstantial or unverifiable.

For me, intelligent life elsewhere is virtually certain, but it's unlikely that it has visited here either directly or indirectly via probes or what have you. It's certainly possible, but it's also highly unlikely.

The fact remains - to the best of public knowledge there is not even one piece of evidence available for scientific study and peer review that supports the notion that intelligent extraterrestrial life has visited Earth at any point.

I'd love for that to be untrue, but it simply isn't. All we can do is keep our eyes and minds open. This doesn't mean that the subject isn't utterly fascinating or unworthy of a great deal of time, effort and thought though. Far from it!

Evidence is simply a body of facts that are interpreted. One person can interpret this body of facts one way and another can interpret it another way. Evidence for all kinds of things exists and all kinds of arguments can be backed up by evidence. The real question is; what is the correct way to interpret this body of facts?

draknoir2

EnPassant
what seems to be the explanation, in your estimation?

That would be pure speculation on my part and would depend on the specifics of the individual case.

Why only an individual case? A collection of cases is more than the sum of its parts. In a collection common factors or themes emerge that cannot be discerned in one case. It is these kinds of patterns that lend themselves to powerful analysis.

reply to post by EnPassant


You make a perfectly good point, tbf, but it's also true to say that some evidence is simply undeniable based on science as we currently understand it.

Whilst there is certainly evidence for UFO (or whatever) activity on Earth, none of it is evidence that would pass a test of 'reasonable doubt'. Of course, that doesn't mean that evidence is useless, it just weakens the argument it presents or supports.

Until we have something that can be properly examined by relevant experts from various countries/institutions who come to comparable conclusions, I would suggest our evidence is weak at best.

Of course, it's essential that we continue to seek this evidence.