Aliens Chase Navy Ships

H

HAL

Guest
..By disbelieving everyone and saying well there is no proof so...meh, swamp gas,..

You are half correct with that.

My approach would be 'Ok, so you see something. You don't recognise it ? Fair enough. But you can't claim it is an alien space ship without some form of evidence to back it up.'
I would say to the witness, I also have no idea what it was. It doesn't seem to fit anything I recognise. So we will have to wait for others to report it and see what comes from that. But it certainly is interesting'.

One should never be afraid of saying 'I don't know'.
 
O

Occult Hunter

Guest
..
Then if everything is swamp gas...what is your interest in UFOs.
Because you seem keen to put every single account from every single source in the bullshit basket.
Even statistically that makes no sense to me. SO what is your interest, if all are the proverbial weather balloon.
I don't get it
...

I've said many times that I believe there is something there. But that I don't know what it is. Surely you must have noticed that.
Also I wouldn't have spent years gum-shoeing around people's houses, following up reports if I didn't think that way.

I don't know where you get this 'everything is swamp gas' thing from.

You are describing a denier, not a skeptic.
Watch it...You will get banned arguing with him to much.
 
H

HAL

Guest
..I still don't get the the interest in UFO's if you don't accept the ET Hypothesis...

The ET hypothosis is only one of a variety of options. My interest in ufo stems from seeing one years ago.
 
D

Dundee

Guest
..I still don't get the the interest in UFO's if you don't accept the ET Hypothesis...

The ET hypothosis is only one of a variety of options. My interest in ufo stems from seeing one years ago.
Ok fair enough, everyone line is in a different spot I guess. Healthy skepticism is a good thing.
I guess my line is just in a different place to yours :)
 
D

Dundee

Guest
Highly unlikely. Just a couple of mates having a disagreement on a point. :smile:
Thanks hal, you beat me too it. Unlike you OC, Hal and I could do this all night then get pissed at the pub after and get locked up for bonnet surfing.
 
D

Dundee

Guest
Rock Paper Scissors hal for who gets to go first sitting on the bonnet ;) :ROFLMAO:
What could go wrong? :eek:

 
O

Occult Hunter

Guest
Heres something that might fit into this thread:

THE NATURE OF UFO EVIDENCE: TWO VIEWS​

 
H

HAL

Guest
Thanks OH.

Looks like a very good source.

I've downloaded it for later when I can settle down to it.

Lots of other stuff there as well.
 
H

HAL

Guest
That was an interesting read.

But you have to get to pages 17 and 18 to find anything that is not outright dismissal of the whole phenomena.

Bullard seems to see some hope in the enterprise. And his mention of the Illinois Police Chase case does point to one incident that is hard to simply push to one side.
 
D

Dr Wu

Guest
A good overall eval of the phenom over the course of years of invesgtigation.
A few noteworthy points from the piece:
"Are UFOs mythic? Of course they are, and our human bias will always threaten tomuddle observations, our human efforts to give meaning to experiences will intrudeon the facticity of the objects we wish to understand."
"At the same time, ufology does have a collection of unsolved cases that issignificant in size and meaningful in evidential value. These cases describeunknowns not just in the trivial sense of insufficient information or nobody hasreally tried to solve them, but in a robust sense of cases rich in description,provocative in strangeness, and impervious to conventional solution even thoughskeptics have attempted time and again to explain them."
Vicente-Juan invited me to collaborate in a dialogue of views .... He is ready to drivenails in the coffin and lower ufology into the grave; I still see sparks of life and wish to avoid a premature burial. ... Maybe I grasp at straws like a true believer still holding out, but I still perceive a mystery amid the clutter and avenues, or at leastalleyways of research not yet explored, or not adequately followed up. Until that happens I will continue to see a future for ufology."
 
H

HAL

Guest
Dr Wu,
So you would agree that Bullard agrees, if somewhat reluctantly, that there may actually be something going on. Something that can't be just ignored ?

OH,
How do you read it ?

Dundee,
And you ?
 
D

Dundee

Guest
Dr Wu,
So you would agree that Bullard agrees, if somewhat reluctantly, that there may actually be something going on. Something that can't be just ignored ?

OH,
How do you read it ?

Dundee,
And you ?
I struggled with seeing that from the paper.
I imagine you will call it my bias, perhaps it is.

But from the first page till pretty much the last all I saw was a person who has already decided on the outcome and quoting as many people he can find to bolster his confirmation bias as he can. He frequently used pisitive terms like researchers when talking about skeptics, but referred to beleivers in a far less flattering way.
His opinions on people less skeptical than him jumped out and smacks you round the ears in almost every paragraph.

There is an old saying, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull"
There is no doubt at all it is a very well written paper by someone who has done his reseach. It could be used as a tecahing aid at UNI to show students how to present a convincing argument.

But an ability with words does not automatically equate to an unbiased view.
We all know another saying, "out of the mouth of babes."

I don't see the point in adding the "Two Views" at the end of the title. There seems to be only one view there.
I actally laughed out loud at one point where he said, "In my humble opinion",
There is nothing humble about that piece.

So for me, all I got out of it was yet another skeptic who is bundling up everything into a big basket of personal skepticims that at every oportunity uses derogatory language to describe beleivers.

Even the terminoligy is derogatory.
On one side you have two terms, Deniers, and Skeptics, a subtle but significant difference.
The other just has beleivers, which bundles up everyone on that side into the crazy camp.
My personal beleif is that 99% of what we see buzzing about is misidentified and has a rational explanation. I am skeptical of most reports. But I also look at the small % that is left and think well hell thast wierd, I think that might very well be ET.
Why does the terminology bundle me up in the crazy camp. OC for example has put me in with the crazies, even though I am skeptical of most.
Why am I also not given the title of skeptic, when I am skeptical of the majority, but have a small but in my opinion not insignificant yes list.

So for me, it was just another paper full of academic fluff in a poor attempt to look unbiased, and wrtten by a skeptic.