I said if the same standards for evidence of aliens you believe in was applied to other unsubstantiated human experiences - like ghosts - you must conclude that ghosts are also real.
No, that's what mental midgets who don't do - nor understand - nuance like to say. You can't conflate positions on very different things as the same.
Quote:
Despite your obfuscating attempts to avoid admitting it, you haven't made any cogent arguments that would invalidate this conclusion, so you have indirectly claimed that ghosts do exist. If you don't think the same standards of evidence should apply to ghosts as UFOs, and therefore also prove ghosts exist, why not?
This is rich. You haven't presented ANYTHING in this thread other than a critique of others. All you've done is try and put words in other people's mouths, which you suck at as well. Try presenting an argument and got some skin in the game. Critiquing others and not having the sack to join the discussion is lame.
Counter to the story you're trying to spin, I completely believe the same standards apply. Present some solid evidence and maybe I'll reconsider my position that ghosts exist. When the government launches multiple secret programs into investigating ghosts, maybe we can consider them the same?
Let's be clear about something. UFOs exist. We have proof that they exist. They are unidentified-flying-objects, emphasis on unidentified objects. I get you get off on playing stupid (or are you playing???), but even you should be able to understand that some objects viewed in the sky are not identified, making them - wait for it - unidentified flying objects. I mean, you have to be next level stupid to not understand that UFOs are exactly what the descriptor says they are?.
Quote:
Try answering in short sentences and in no more than one or two paragraphs. Also, for bonus credit, explain why stories of witches, or homeopathic medicine's efficacy, or religious miracles shouldn't be taken at face value as well - surely the same evidentiary rules you champion should apply to all phenomena?
Short sentences. You have a fetish for putting words in other people's mouths. You can't put together an argument so you critique people instead.
Short enough?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Again I wasn’t attempting a personal attack. I was merely showing what I thought your position was was absurd. And I don’t really bother to read multi-quote diatribes. That style of posting is not productive on a message board. If you can’t make your post on your phone sitting on the toilet then you are being far to verbose an ineffective at communicating.
Well it came off as a personal attack. And I'm fine with that so long as the moderators take the handcuffs off me and let me respond in equitable fashion. I really don't care about what you think or what you like about posting styles. Nuance requires specificity, so each point gets addressed separately. Now if that cuts into your ####ting time, or your legs get numb because you're force to #### on the john for an extra five minutes, that isn't my concern.
Quote:
But anyway I took your position to be
That people of sound mind recalling an event after inspection by a qualified clinician should be accepted as evidence that the event occurred.
Well you took it wrong.
Quote:
What I am hearing you now say is people of sound mind recalling an event after inspection by a qualified clinician should be believed that they have the memory that they state they have.
That's accurate. The only other thing I will add is that unless you can present evidence to the counter, you can't make a statement that their memory is false and think it holds water. There has to be something tangible to support the claim of a false memory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus
Would be nice but I suspect Lanny is a salesman or a politician in real life
And I suspect you wear a paper hat, and worked really hard for the promotion to the fryer.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
No, that's what mental midgets who don't do - nor understand - nuance like to say. You can't conflate positions on very different things as the same.
The argument is that if you trust people's memories as proof of one claim when no other proof exists then you must accept their memories as proof of any other claim when no other proof exists.
Your counter-argument is that ghosts aren't aliens. The relevance of this statement seems dubious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
Try presenting an argument and got some skin in the game. Critiquing others and not having the sack to join the discussion is lame.
There is no proof that aliens exist. I believe it is likely, nevertheless, that they do, or did, or will, and I also believe it is extremely unlikely that any such aliens visit this planet and give rise to reports of UFOs. Due to holding this second opinion, I disagree with your opinion on the reality of alien UFOs and further find the arguments you present to justify your opinion risible.
The above is a succinct summary of the arguments I'm making. I thought the second, at least, was readily apparent in previous posts. You are welcome to challenge either or both, however note that it is tedious to winnow through long blocks of text with low information content to reply.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The argument is that if you trust people's memories as proof of one claim when no other proof exists then you must accept their memories as proof of any other claim when no other proof exists.
Nice syllogistic fallacy. Also nice twisting of the position I made and trying to extrapolate it in to something not said. The point was made in a discussion about memory, not about specifics to aliens or ghosts or anything specific. It was in relation to an individual's memories and the validity of those memories to the individual. In the absence of contrary evidence or mental defect then you must assume the individual has the memory they are describing.
Quote:
Your counter-argument is that ghosts aren't aliens. The relevance of this statement seems dubious.
Your argument is a syllogistic fallacy, completely void of nuance or examining the facts. You're also on a runaway train where you're compiling your interpretation of comments and then building a strawman. You're making claims on my behalf that I have not made based on your syllogistic leaps. Here are the positions I've stated in this thread.
1) UFOs are real.
2) The behaviors of these UFOs exceed anything the technology that any nation state has available. These UFOs do not appear to be terrestrial in nature.
3) I believe there is other life in the universe, and I believe there are civilizations that are way ahead of us in technology and evolution.
4) Our understanding of the universe and the constraints on what can be done are in their infancy.
5) Our understanding of the mind and the brain is also in its infancy.
6) Memory is very complex, there are different types of memory, and there are means to validate the existence of memories within each type of memory space.
7) Cognitive function and impairment are critical to the determination of memory efficacy.
8) In the absence of cognitive or physical defect, or evidence to the contrary, we must accept that an individual has the memory they are recalling.
9) Near death experience can be explained through neurophysiology and brain activity.
10) I have not seen any compelling evidence of a ghost/spirit/soul existing, so I do not believe in such entities.
11) I leave myself open to all possibilities should a compelling body of evidence be submitted for review and logical explanations cannot be found.
12) We don't know what we don't know, especially when it comes to physics and the universe around us.
Those are all separate points to very different arguments. You don't get to visit the syllogistic smorgasbord and compile something I never said.
Quote:
There is no proof that aliens exist. I believe it is likely, nevertheless, that they do, or did, or will, and I also believe it is extremely unlikely that any such aliens visit this planet and give rise to reports of UFOs.
Proof that you are aware of or willing to accept. What evidence would convince you? A functioning craft landing in your front yard? At this point does it still remain a UFO, since you've now identified it, and you can still maintain you don't believe in UFOs (even though they exist)?
The government has been researching this subject matter for decades, and has keep those programs hidden from public view. The most famous of which was a program where their lead astrophysicist changed his tune and became a proponent of UFOs not being terrestrial in nature. These programs have collected data from events around the globe and off planet. This lends a high degree of credibility to the search for the origin of such technologies, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.
The alien factor is a separate issue. Yes, I think there is other life out there. Yes, I think they would be just as curious about us as we would be about them. We've been looking for a very short period of time. If there are other more advanced civilizations out there, with the same level of curiosity as us, then it would make sense for them to observe us in the same way we observe other species. The big question is how would that other intelligence cross the vast expanses of space to reach us? With our current technology, that doesn't seem possible. But we must understand that if these other civilizations are thousands of years more advanced that us, they may have a greater understanding of the universe, of physics, and may be able to do what we may not. Consider that 200 years ago, Charles Babbage proposed the difference engine, which would ultimately become the computer, and the first steel hulled steamboat crossed the English Channel. We've come a very long way in a very short period of time. Now extrapolate that over a tens to hundreds of thousands of years. We as a species have a long way to go, and we don't know what we don't know.
Quote:
Due to holding this second opinion, I disagree with your opinion on the reality of alien UFOs and further find the arguments you present to justify your opinion risible.
Syllogistic fallacy.
Quote:
The above is a succinct summary of the arguments I'm making. I thought the second, at least, was readily apparent in previous posts. You are welcome to challenge either or both, however note that it is tedious to winnow through long blocks of text with low information content to reply.
When you say succinct you mean void of detail and argument. What's even more tiresome to read are these contrite no information rebuttals from the intellectually lazy. Complex issues require complex discussions. Sorry if the details and nuance bother you. I really don't care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus
Again you call me stupid but yet you're the one who believes in nonsense and frankly crazy things, have you've been tested for narcissism?
I have not called you stupid. You have called yourself stupid, multiple times, and I have just refused to disagree with you on that point.
Not at all. Manufactured memories are always a concern, but a trained psychologist will sniff those out quickly. There are plenty of tools and markers that make manufactured memories raise red flags. This is why methods are extremely important to review and observe during the process, and make sure appropriate rigor is maintained in that regard.
Disagree on this. The problem with many of these articles is making the assumption that the people are damaged in some way, and as a result their minds unreliable. Those assumptions are part of the problem. The reality is that many of these people are not damaged, they are high functioning individuals with perfectly functioning brains and intact mental faculties. I would also say that the mind is not incredibly unreliable. If it were, we wouldn't trust it to do anything and we would be slaves to computers... which we program to emulate out thought and decision processes. Unless there is some type of cognitive impairment, which is not evident in many of the publications, you have to accept that this is an event that happened.
Everything we do is brain and memory based. If our brains and minds are so faulty then everything we do and propose is faulty. Every concept we propose and mull over would then be faulty. Every single cognitive function would then be brought into question and nothing that science does would have value or meaning. If the study of behavior and brain function has no value, then pretty much everything we do with that bushel of neurons is useless and has no value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
Nice syllogistic fallacy. Also nice twisting of the position I made and trying to extrapolate it in to something not said. The point was made in a discussion about memory, not about specifics to aliens or ghosts or anything specific. It was in relation to an individual's memories and the validity of those memories to the individual. In the absence of contrary evidence or mental defect then you must assume the individual has the memory they are describing.
Your argument is a syllogistic fallacy, completely void of nuance or examining the facts. You're also on a runaway train where you're compiling your interpretation of comments and then building a strawman. You're making claims on my behalf that I have not made based on your syllogistic leaps. Here are the positions I've stated in this thread.
1) UFOs are real.
2) The behaviors of these UFOs exceed anything the technology that any nation state has available. These UFOs do not appear to be terrestrial in nature.
3) I believe there is other life in the universe, and I believe there are civilizations that are way ahead of us in technology and evolution.
4) Our understanding of the universe and the constraints on what can be done are in their infancy.
5) Our understanding of the mind and the brain is also in its infancy.
6) Memory is very complex, there are different types of memory, and there are means to validate the existence of memories within each type of memory space.
7) Cognitive function and impairment are critical to the determination of memory efficacy.
8) In the absence of cognitive or physical defect, or evidence to the contrary, we must accept that an individual has the memory they are recalling.
9) Near death experience can be explained through neurophysiology and brain activity.
10) I have not seen any compelling evidence of a ghost/spirit/soul existing, so I do not believe in such entities.
11) I leave myself open to all possibilities should a compelling body of evidence be submitted for review and logical explanations cannot be found.
12) We don't know what we don't know, especially when it comes to physics and the universe around us.
-snip-
You have now changed your argument. The bolded bits are very different statements. Either you realize the premise of your first point was indefensible, or you have forgotten what you are defending.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Well it came off as a personal attack. And I'm fine with that so long as the moderators take the handcuffs off me and let me respond in equitable fashion. I really don't care about what you think or what you like about posting styles. Nuance requires specificity, so each point gets addressed separately. Now if that cuts into your ####ting time, or your legs get numb because you're force to #### on the john for an extra five minutes, that isn't my concern.
Well you took it wrong.
That's accurate. The only other thing I will add is that unless you can present evidence to the counter, you can't make a statement that their memory is false and think it holds water. There has to be something tangible to support the claim of a false memory.
And I suspect you wear a paper hat, and worked really hard for the promotion to the fryer.
Here is why I took your position wrong.
Quote:
Disagree on this. The problem with many of these articles is making the assumption that the people are damaged in some way, and as a result their minds unreliable. Those assumptions are part of the problem. The reality is that many of these people are not damaged, they are high functioning individuals with perfectly functioning brains and intact mental faculties. I would also say that the mind is not incredibly unreliable. If it were, we wouldn't trust it to do anything and we would be slaves to computers... which we program to emulate out thought and decision processes. Unless there is some type of cognitive impairment, which is not evident in many of the publications, you have to accept that this is an event that happened.
The missing believed to have happened is what started this series of discussions.
So instead of stating many people who believe in ufos actually believe the memory they have, which I don’t think anyone ever disagreed with, you have posted a train wreck of information in which you subtly changed your position.
You can state their memory of being abducted by aliens is false when it an absurd claim without corroborating physical evidence. It’s just like the ghosts. Unless you have that peer reviewed study with physical evidence that you promised us.
Last edited by GGG; 03-06-2022 at 10:05 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
For funsies, there is a new video going around that was apparently captured in 2012 that is looking out over the Pacific Ocean (from shore) and captures the Tic Tacs in formation and interacting with the water (white water disturbance). Some of these movements and behavior have been described from Cmdr. Fravor in the past during his Nimitz encounters.
A bunch of people have tried stabilizing the footage, so here's a link to one of the better ones (not on YouTube as far as I can see, only linked from Reddit embed video). Others have done edits that slow down the framerate and increase the contrast.
The very visible stuff starts at about 0:20 of the 0:45.
Tic Tacs in the Pacific Ocean performing an exercise similar to what the Nimitz Crew described. It was recorded March 15 2012 over the Pacific Ocean. I received this video Via Google Drive after posting my other video; I have no other details.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Why? It's a decade old random video someone dropped anonymously with zero context or information. If someone wanted, they could make 20 of these a day.
In all seriousness I’ve watched the OG and stabilised video multiple times and all I see is differently sized blips flickering in an out and drifting. You have to want to believe they’re interacting with the water to see it, because it’s not there, and that’s an awfully nonsensical formation if there is one.
I don’t think stuff like this where people are stretching the imagination to make this fit into the alien box really helps the cause.
No, I think there was something, but aliens isn't proven.
I think there was something out there, just not sure what. It look like water disturbance and formation of tic tacs (as in logical of a formation it was, lest you realize we can't always approach this from human logic to something we may not understand).
Writing it off is just as foolish as thinking it's for sure aliens though. That doesn't help either.
No, I think there was something, but aliens isn't proven.
I think there was something out there, just not sure what. It look like water disturbance and formation of tic tacs (as in logical of a formation it was, lest you realize we can't always approach this from human logic to something we may not understand).
Writing it off is just as foolish as thinking it's for sure aliens though. That doesn't help either.
I didn’t write it off. And of course aliens isn’t proven. Who are you even saying this to?
I’m saying you have to want to believe there was water disruption because the video does not support that in any clear way whatsoever and calling it a “formation” is a pretty generous description of a few dots drifting and blipping around. That’s not an honest “open mindedness,” either, that’s using language that very clearly is trying to pigeonhole what this can be. Camera distortion doesn’t impact water, it doesn’t fly in a formation. Aircraft flies in formation, aircraft causes water disruption. So if you can convince yourself that stuff is actually on the blurry zoomed in and janky video, you conveniently get to narrow what you believe it could possibly be.
Sorry, I get it, could be anything. Aliens? Cool. Weird camera thing? Boring. Unicorn mermaids that live in the sunken city of Atlantis? Let’s go! I just find it really typical and hypocritical when the “keep an open mind” crowd is very clearly not interested in keeping an open mind and instead what they mean is “THIS IS THE LIMITED NUMBER OF THINGS IT COULD BE AND IF YOU DONT AGREE I GUESS YOU ARE CLOSE MINDED.”
It’s boring and dumb. I’m open to it being aliens. You’ve already decided it’s more than camera fuzz. Who has the open mind?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
