There's no evidence that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred

reply to post by neoholographic

So because eyewitnesses who are experiencing and seeing these things can't describe what they see and experience because you haven't seen it? It's unknown to you not to the person seeing and experiencing it.

I stopped there because you are really having are hard time with some pretty basic concepts.

let me try again. What people see and experience is exactly what they see and experience. This would be considered subjective experience. We have in, simple terms, a knowledge base of known things. You might call that an " encyclopedia" When what someone describes can not be found in an "encyclopedia", we, as a society consider that "UNKNOWN".

when someone has an experience of something that is not among the book of common knowledge, it could be considered their own personal knowledge that what they saw was an alien or something. This also known as a BELIEF and there is nothing wrong with that.

you are free to believe them or continue searching the book of known things. The book of known things is pretty big and continues to grow. At some point, aliens might be in this "encyclopedia" and we can now say that we KNOW about aliens.

let me know if it still continues to baffle you and I can take it down a notch.

reply to post by EnPassant

It is not as simple as that. One report could be a misidentification. Two reports are less likely to be misidentification. But when hundreds of reports by balanced individuals with no agenda build, incrementally, a consistent picture and when themes - such as the much reported 'humming' sound of ufos - emerge, common sense demands that we take notice and give the witnesses the credibility they deserve. A credibility that is continually being reinforced. They only other try is "Deluded!".

What you are describing is a phenomenon. I don't think anyone disagrees that there is an unexplained phenomenon. Misidentification could play a part in that as could a number of other things none of which are considered "delusions". While possible, aliens have not been shown to be the cause of any phenomenon. As the numbers go up, nothing changes the fact that there is no way to determine the likeliness of aliens.

reply to post by neoholographic

According to you we can't describe it until it's known LOL.

Nope. not what I said at all. You are just proving my point that people misidentify things ALL the time. At no point did I say anything like this. You are a witness to my words, correct? Apparently you saw and read something I never wrote. You misread, misidentified and just plain hallucinated those words. To prove me wrong, all you have to do is quote where I said this.

here is the evidence that witness testimony can't be trusted. you even quoted a direct sentence from me!

Witnesses can only identify what they know. I have never seen anyone positively identify something not known to exist

The only other explanation is that you struggle with the basic meanings of words.

People can DESCRIBE things that are unknown. They cant IDENTIFY them as being something that is not known to exist.

Let me know if its still unclear. It is really, really simple. But please continue to hallucinate what words I use so you can continue making my point.

reply to post by LoopyLou

I like this example, let's carry on.
I see said tracks. And have not seen them before so I can't ID them. I see two options, carry on regardless OR look around! What do you see ? What have you heard? Oh looking there, a little bunny rabbit far off in the distance. Or perhaps you have heard tales of these pesky creatures called rabbits that are sometimes seen out there.Now I can take reason and logic and make an educated guess at it being rabbit tracks. I don't have proof or evidence and lets not forget that there could by multiple tracks that look just like said rabbit tracks.
So Nope I don't know for sure what they are..... but I AM right, yes??

Congratulations, you identified rabbit tracks. Unfortunately, we have looked around and have not found aliens

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Having actually eaten rabbits I know they exist.

And I know where I can get more.

reply to post by neoholographic

No it doesn't matter. It depends on the eyewitness. Some people make better eyewitnesses than others. In a situation where one is scared the person who knows all about cars might make a poor eyewitness. They could be so scared for their life that they don't pay attention to detail.

I concede your excellent point!
So in every ufo case where someone is scared, we should take that into consideration.
Do you know of any cases where someone isn't scared when they see a ufo?

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Well that's where we this argument always comes back to... Those. Who don't believe ANY of the witness statements of actual aliens think that nope aliens never been seen. Whilst those open to things will believe they aren't all mistaken or lying so will 'go with it' . People don't believe what I saw (not aliens) even though I know what I saw, so how could I and others like me who have seen something not believe another's story? Benefit of the doubt and all that, what's to lose?
But not to worry, until people like you see something your logical brain can't explain, you won't change

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Yeah me and the other 11 people at my event... Just a start, none of us were scared, in awe? Yes

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by EnPassant

 

It is not as simple as that. One report could be a misidentification. Two reports are less likely to be misidentification. But when hundreds of reports by balanced individuals with no agenda build, incrementally, a consistent picture and when themes - such as the much reported 'humming' sound of ufos - emerge, common sense demands that we take notice and give the witnesses the credibility they deserve. A credibility that is continually being reinforced. They only other try is "Deluded!".

What you are describing is a phenomenon. I don't think anyone disagrees that there is an unexplained phenomenon. Misidentification could play a part in that as could a number of other things none of which are considered "delusions". While possible, aliens have not been shown to be the cause of any phenomenon. As the numbers go up, nothing changes the fact that there is no way to determine the likeliness of aliens.

I have to agree with your first sentence. What we see is indeed a phenomenon. What "it" is has most likely many explanations because every encounter probably has a different explanation behind it. Some may be extraterrestrials, I do not deny this as a possibility. But likewise some encounters of sightings may be misidentified terrestrial and mundane things like weather balloons or atmospheric phenomena, experimental and regular aircraft (ever wonder why gulf breeze Florida has so many UFO sightings and "coincidentally" is near the cradle of Naval aviation and USAF special aviation bases?), delusions, fraud, and misidentification. You can't give a myriad of many, many experiences one, single explanation because the truthful answer is "all of the above."

That these experiences are "alien," no matter how sincere and honest the witnesses is really an unfounded leap that has no evidence. It could just as well be experience of MK ultra mind control experiments. One cannot say for sure what they are other than the fact that people experience something they cannot readily understand.

LoopyLou
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

Well that's where we this argument always comes back to... Those. Who don't believe ANY of the witness statements of actual aliens think that nope aliens never been seen.
Whilst those open to things will believe they aren't all mistaken or lying so will 'go with it' . People don't believe what I saw (not aliens) even though I know what I saw, so how could I and others like me who have seen something not believe another's story? Benefit of the doubt and all that, what's to lose?
But not to worry, until people like you see something your logical brain can't explain, you won't change

well, I think you are misunderstanding me than. People are entitled to their own personal beliefs about their own personal experiences. I also have my own personal beliefs and my own experiences. And I should feel free to express them without being labeled every derogatory name in the book for skeptics.

reply to post by neoholographic

People didn't know what a comet was when they first saw it yet they positively identified a comet.

I am curious, Do you actually think about this stuff before you type it? So a cave man sees a comet and doesn't think its anything supernatural and positively identifies it?

From ancient sources, such as Chinese oracle bones, it is known that their appearances have been noticed by humans for millennia.[117] Until the sixteenth century, comets were usually considered bad omens of deaths of kings or noble men, or coming catastrophes, or even interpreted as attacks by heavenly beings against terrestrial inhabitants.[118][119]

According to you, they could never identify the comet until they first identified the comet LOL. As long as the comet was unknown, no eyewitness could describe the comet based on your logic or lack thereof

Not according to me. I really think I am confusing you to the point where you cant formulate a clear thought. Let me try again.

When comets were first seen they would have been considered UFOs since nobody knew what they were. They were considered bad omens or even attacks by heavenly beings AKA "aliens". After some time and enough good observations were collected, they were able to be identified as a natural occurring phenomena.

Eyewitnesses could certainly describe what they saw and believe they were caused by supernatural beings but Other people made the keen observation that since there was really no evidence that supernatural beings actually existed that there might be a natural explanation. Despite the cries from the village idiots like "EYEWITNESSES ARE NOT DELUSIONAL" and "THAT MAKES NO SENSE" the people that understood the difference between evidence and belief eventually were able to positively identify a comet as a natural phenomenon.

So the eyewitnesses that saw a comet and DESCRIBED it also tried to IDENTIFY it as something that wasn't KNOWN to actually exist. While supernatural entities that were not known to actually exist "seemed" like a good explanation and was certainly a possible explanation for comets, the lack of any actual evidence of these entities did not sway anyone's erroneous beliefs.

Do you have any more examples of my lack of logic?

draknoir2

EnPassant

draknoir2
Simple reason and logic would indicate that you have a problem with skepticism.

edit on 6-3-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

Constructive scepticism is welcome and necessary but scepticism about ufos has now become desperately dependent on undermining the witnesses integrity or their ability to see what they are looking at. This won't work anymore because there are far too many well documented sightings.

It has got to the point now that sceptics absolutely need to undermine the witnesses' credibility or it is game over.

Actually a skeptic needn't undermine the witnesses' credibility at all, as witness testimony only proves that the witness said something... well-documented or not.

When your entire case is based on eyewitness testimony you can expect to have it indicted.

But the fact that you say it is based on witness testimony, as if that amounted to nothing, shows that you dismiss witness testimony. Besides, it is not entirely based on witness testimony, it is based on investigations and physical evidences such as radar, burn marks from electromagnetic radiation from these craft, landing traces etc etc. Do delusions create physical effects? Are the airforce employing mentally unbalanced pilots who have clear sightings of UFOs? The sheer volume of witness testimony takes the argument to a new level and gathers a momentum that cannot be explained away.

The recent debate raging on between 3-4 of you is very interesting and you all make very valid points!

I didn't want to reply to one and not the rest though, please accept my gratitude for an excellent back and forth to witness (excuse the pun)!


I do agree that what Zeta is saying is paramount...
There is no denying witnesses are reliable, BUT none of the testimony equates to Aliens (abductions aside)!

Noir also made an excellent point that witness testimony needn't be lambasted for people to be skeptical of Alien visitation!

Passant made a great point that it isn't just based on witnesses, but also radar & Geiger readings etc!

Neo pointed out a few different aspects that derives from skepticism that is beyond skeptical and reaches all out denial with "heads in the sand"... A great point, these actions take credibility away from the skeptics with a good point and really dominates these types of debate, I'm glad that didn't prevail here!


My own experience with UFOs tells me the only thing that is Unknown about these craft is the origin!
Find the answer to that and you find the answer to who is guiding/piloting these wonders of aviation!


Personally I steer from Aliens (piloting), simply because I'm not convinced they would risk being shot down, when I am certain that they have their own manifestation of drones! If Aliens are involved it's from beyond the atmosphere IMO!


I remember seeing a beautiful bright Red with a Silver base V1 rocket shaped craft outside my window, maybe 200 feet above the ground, but stationary... before i could call anybody it shot up into the atmosphere at a speed I couldn't even begin to calculate, but it was out of view within about 2 seconds maximum.
It was astonishing and I've still never seen anything go from static to lightning speed in such a short time since... I only hope I do get to witness this again with somebody else someday!
Who/What was it? I couldn't even use conjecture to say!

Another time I saw the famous glowing orange orbs with about 5 other people on New Year's Eve of 2010(into 2011)!
They were NOT Chinese lanterns!!!
They flew in formation, mainly triangular, at least 30 passed by... Some sped up and instantly went back to original trajectory as if to fall in line of formation, a couple were smaller and buzzing around the larger craft erratically, but also stable in a sense, it had to be seen and I am thankful there was my two mates, my mum & brother to see this event...
It was actually my mum who called us in, and if you want a skeptic in the house it's her, but she certainly became a UFO believer that night...
Again it was astonishingly beautiful to see them so low above the Thames, maybe 200-300 feet this time!
Who/What was it?
Conjecture tells me it is Chinese technology, spy drones perhaps, if it's Western technology, we should be proud, however if it's Far Eastern as I suspect, that's something to think about!


I do believe in Aliens, they may have even visited certain higher ups...
But I tend to think if Aliens are popping up here and there they are using drones to monitor us! I'd hazard a guess that they stop off at the Moon and that's as close as they get physically!


Peace!

EnPassant
Do delusions create physical effects? Are the airforce employing mentally unbalanced pilots who have clear sightings of UFOs? The sheer volume of witness testimony takes the argument to a new level and gathers a momentum that cannot be explained away.

Still with the "delusion" straw man? Really?

You just don't get it, do you?

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.

reply to post by EnPassant

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

A 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.

From millions of proofs less that 1% are real. Less than 1% of those 1% can be considered real proof. 2% of the 1% if the 1% can actually be found. People should give up. There are always people that believe and there are always people that does not. There are much more important things like the mysteries of the world and the Flying Blobs of Energy ( Which in fact are more known as ball ligtning)

Actually is proven that some allien sightings are in fact Ball Lightnings since, the Ball Lightnings are charged plasma that basically moves around and makes light almost like a living thing. Second thing is that its quiet unstable and sometimes... Explodes and is like engine of a spaceship.

EnPassant

draknoir2

EnPassant

draknoir2
Simple reason and logic would indicate that you have a problem with skepticism.

edit on 6-3-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

Constructive scepticism is welcome and necessary but scepticism about ufos has now become desperately dependent on undermining the witnesses integrity or their ability to see what they are looking at. This won't work anymore because there are far too many well documented sightings.

It has got to the point now that sceptics absolutely need to undermine the witnesses' credibility or it is game over.

Actually a skeptic needn't undermine the witnesses' credibility at all, as witness testimony only proves that the witness said something... well-documented or not.

When your entire case is based on eyewitness testimony you can expect to have it indicted.

But the fact that you say it is based on witness testimony, as if that amounted to nothing, shows that you dismiss witness testimony. Besides, it is not entirely based on witness testimony, it is based on investigations and physical evidences such as radar, burn marks from electromagnetic radiation from these craft, landing traces etc etc. Do delusions create physical effects? Are the airforce employing mentally unbalanced pilots who have clear sightings of UFOs? The sheer volume of witness testimony takes the argument to a new level and gathers a momentum that cannot be explained away.

But 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.

reply to post by neoholographic

Nope, I'm a skeptic when it comes to Bigfoot but there's things I would never do. I would never try to belittle eyewitness accounts as all unreliable because that's just silly. That would be more about me lying to myself and throwing out reason and logic to support my skepticism.

Really! I have a friend who said they saw bigfoot and I believe him. Why do you think that people are delusional when it comes to bigfoot? That is very hypocritical. There is no shortage of confusion.

CharlieSpeirs
The recent debate raging on between 3-4 of you is very interesting and you all make very valid points!

I didn't want to reply to one and not the rest though, please accept my gratitude for an excellent back and forth to witness (excuse the pun)!

I do agree that what Zeta is saying is paramount...
There is no denying witnesses are reliable, BUT none of the testimony equates to Aliens (abductions aside)!

Noir also made an excellent point that witness testimony needn't be lambasted for people to be skeptical of Alien visitation!

Passant made a great point that it isn't just based on witnesses, but also radar & Geiger readings etc!

Neo pointed out a few different aspects that derives from skepticism that is beyond skeptical and reaches all out denial with "heads in the sand"... A great point, these actions take credibility away from the skeptics with a good point and really dominates these types of debate, I'm glad that didn't prevail here!


My own experience with UFOs tells me the only thing that is Unknown about these craft is the origin!
Find the answer to that and you find the answer to who is guiding/piloting these wonders of aviation!


Personally I steer from Aliens (piloting), simply because I'm not convinced they would risk being shot down, when I am certain that they have their own manifestation of drones! If Aliens are involved it's from beyond the atmosphere IMO!


I remember seeing a beautiful bright Red with a Silver base V1 rocket shaped craft outside my window, maybe 200 feet above the ground, but stationary... before i could call anybody it shot up into the atmosphere at a speed I couldn't even begin to calculate, but it was out of view within about 2 seconds maximum.
It was astonishing and I've still never seen anything go from static to lightning speed in such a short time since... I only hope I do get to witness this again with somebody else someday!
Who/What was it? I couldn't even use conjecture to say!

Another time I saw the famous glowing orange orbs with about 5 other people on New Year's Eve of 2010(into 2011)!
They were NOT Chinese lanterns!!!
They flew in formation, mainly triangular, at least 30 passed by... Some sped up and instantly went back to original trajectory as if to fall in line of formation, a couple were smaller and buzzing around the larger craft erratically, but also stable in a sense, it had to be seen and I am thankful there was my two mates, my mum & brother to see this event...
It was actually my mum who called us in, and if you want a skeptic in the house it's her, but she certainly became a UFO believer that night...
Again it was astonishingly beautiful to see them so low above the Thames, maybe 200-300 feet this time!
Who/What was it?
Conjecture tells me it is Chinese technology, spy drones perhaps, if it's Western technology, we should be proud, however if it's Far Eastern as I suspect, that's something to think about!


I do believe in Aliens, they may have even visited certain higher ups...
But I tend to think if Aliens are popping up here and there they are using drones to monitor us! I'd hazard a guess that they stop off at the Moon and that's as close as they get physically!

Peace!

Thanks for sharing your experiences and interesting comments. One thing I have realised about ufos sightings is that they are theatrical. These craft are not necessarily going anywhere important and just happen to be seen by a passer by. When they are seen it is because they want to be seen. They are in the business of creating 'ufo consciousness'. They want some people's attention. They want influence in this world and they want to get it through their abductees and possibly hybrids. These beings are arch manipulators of both individual and mass psychology. They use a high level language of surreal theatre and myth to influence what people think. The contactee episodes of the 50s were - if they were genuine - this kind of theatre.