This masterful characterization applies just as easily - if not more - to the pseudoskepticism I’ve seen here and elsewhere, especially on the UFO topic.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
more of same old toss by the sound of it
we’re all ready here to become believers, just show us one hard piece of evidence, no fuzzy AV, no ‘we saw it’, no proposed extensions to our knowledge of physics, no documentaries with shocking relevations or conspiaciy theories, no ‘the government are hiding it’, just one alien craft or a clear trusted image. Hopefully, it’s just a matter of time before hard evidence shows up.
Last edited:
Anyway we can argue among and against each others all we want but it seems like a futile exercise without any additional "hard" evidence. Maybe I'll live long enough to see what that might be.
You seem to have me confused with a tailor. I’ve suggested several documentaries to review and not a single pseudoskeptic has bothered to take me up on it. Do you think I would have made these recommendations if I didn’t think they were excellent jumping off points for conversation?
You don’t get it: I am already convinced of the phenomena because I have done the work. What you think you need is completely irrelevant to my own interest. I made a helpful suggestion and it is what it is. I have no interest in throwing good money after bad unless I see some change. And none of this pathetic “I’ll only watch it if it’s at the library” or “I don’t have the time” nonsense. You guys aren’t going to die if you miss a football game. Besides, if you have the time to go on forums like this making silly armchair arguments about things you know little about yet you clearly think are nonsense anyway, then you have to time to watch a documentary.
Last edited:
Question to you (& JMFahey), did someone make certain claim that you are demanding one hard piece of evidence of? I would like to see a quote of that claim for specificity sake. Thanks.
The last line of the article pretty much guarantees that the results are going to be inconclusive. Kind of interesting though, the samples seem pretty mundane in their makeup and very different from each other. The mostly iron one seems a long shot for space travel.
What result would be disappointing, and why? I could guess.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
if you are asking whether I have seen somebody claim hard evidence? well to my understanding such claims have only been made in reference to what is allegedly stored by the US military.
My question is as it was written, "did someone make certain claim that you are demanding one hard piece of evidence of?" If no one here did (based on lack of quote), then what's the point of asking for hard piece of evidence?
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
because I wanted to… well, context was posting reference to documentary, just more chatter, no answer other than punting me to a link etc.
Last edited:
Attachments
"Skirt" means to go around; to avoid contact. "Detached" means not connected to; not in contact with.
You're playing silly word games.
And you still can't answer a question.
Now if you had said something like "authoritarian" (or J Mack did, since you have trouble speaking for yourself), I may have conceded to some degree. But using the phrase you posted scores no intellectual points with me.
Nothing, as long as the "debris samples" remain "alleged."
Hi sofaspud, thanks for the link re: pathological science. Without it I might never have thought to search up Pathological Skepticism. Considering the relevance to this thread it may be your most constructive contribution yet!
Let me guess... It was coined sometime in the past 40-50 years?
Let me change that. It was coined post-CSICOP?
edit: I found a couple of sites "grandfathering" the term, then up pops Bill Beaty. LOL
Let me change that. It was coined post-CSICOP?
edit: I found a couple of sites "grandfathering" the term, then up pops Bill Beaty. LOL
Last edited:
That quote must be real precious material. I'll bet it's expensive. Maybe I should invest on it instead of gold...
Lots of people claim to have seen UFOs and that´s the object of this very thread, the "hard piece of evidence" refers to physical objects, claimed to be Alien Space machines or parts of them, not fuzzy lights, shadows, dots on a screen, etc. and even less people´s statements🙄 , but SOLID objects.
I want to see a piece of that, a piece of material that can be weighted, measured, X-Rayed, put in a Spectrometer, chemically analyzed, whose magnetic - electrical poperties can be measured, and found "not of this Earth" and "made by somebody not of this Earth".
My question is actually VERY SIMPLE and sadly REMAINS UNANSWERED, so if I wish I will repeat it 1000 or 10000 times until it is.
Even more, I want that physical object to clearly be ARTIFICIAL, even if we do not have a clue about how it works; a blob of weird random material, think a piece of meteorite or similar does not qualify.
An EASY task IF they exist, somewhat difficult if not.
To make it more clear for you and others claiming "proof exists" and/or linking to YT Videos, Net pages, etc. claiming so, (lots of such links offered here), I first show Extraterrestrial material which does not prove Alien Intelligence, and then showing Human materials (proving Humans DO exist).
If you can not understand the difference, then that´s beyond me.
The "iron" meteorites here do NOT qualify as proof of Extraterrestrial intelligent life (even less Space Travel machines, benevolent Aliens, "visitors", etc.), EVEN IF Nickel Steel is also a Human made Technological product an much used by us:
Artificially made Nickel Steel (surprisingly very similar composition to the one which "falls from the Heavens", think about that) and proving we mythical Humans actually exist 😱, as well of our flying machines :
etc.
Mind you, I would be happy even with the Alien equivalent of this:
EDIT: as of:
include that into my general disdain about
WHO cares about Edgar Hoover?
Show me the actual disks.
Last edited:
I just saw the film "The Phenomenon". I too would recommend anyone seriously interested in UFOs watch it. I'm applying that to both types of people, a person who doesn't believe it's a real "thing" and to those who do. I've known most of what is in it but what I knew came from many many different sources and over probably 20 years of time. It's a very well directed and produced film that makes it easy to get up to speed on the background of "most" of story. Not the physics of course.
I would say this though: if you attempt to debunk UFOs and don't know the material in the film then you do not yet know what you will need to prove false. You are going into that debate with a blindfold on and your arms tied behind your back. So all of you who are confident that everyone is imagining them or seeing something that only resembles something that is extraordinary I invite you to watch the film. With your confidence I expect you will easily be able to disprove all the examples in it and have nothing to fear in watching it. Otherwise I will assume you are not taking advantage of the opportunity of watching because of genuine fear you might be proved wrong.
I would say this though: if you attempt to debunk UFOs and don't know the material in the film then you do not yet know what you will need to prove false. You are going into that debate with a blindfold on and your arms tied behind your back. So all of you who are confident that everyone is imagining them or seeing something that only resembles something that is extraordinary I invite you to watch the film. With your confidence I expect you will easily be able to disprove all the examples in it and have nothing to fear in watching it. Otherwise I will assume you are not taking advantage of the opportunity of watching because of genuine fear you might be proved wrong.
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
“Need to prove false” ? We’re not trying to prove it false, we’re waiting for someone to prove claims of ‘craft’ etc. Are actually real and not just fuzzy pictures and fisherman’s tales. Does the movie prove anything is real? I am curious enough to watch it at some point.