JMFahey,
Please keep it honest. There is a difference between “evidence” and “the only evidence JMFahey will accept.” I posted a Hoover memo as a little toe-dip to see how you would react and you reacted poorly. Simply put, you do not get to decide for others what constitutes a sufficient amount of circumstantial evidence. I looked, I did the reading and I came to a conclusion.
Case in point: The McMinnville UFO photographs. They are fairly clear and I believe they are genuine. I have no doubt you have seen them before and dismissed them out of hand. So what good is there in indulging your demands?
Please keep it honest. There is a difference between “evidence” and “the only evidence JMFahey will accept.” I posted a Hoover memo as a little toe-dip to see how you would react and you reacted poorly. Simply put, you do not get to decide for others what constitutes a sufficient amount of circumstantial evidence. I looked, I did the reading and I came to a conclusion.
Case in point: The McMinnville UFO photographs. They are fairly clear and I believe they are genuine. I have no doubt you have seen them before and dismissed them out of hand. So what good is there in indulging your demands?
Hey, why do people get upset when another person tells it like it is? There is far and away enough physical evidence gathered now by multiple sightings and recorded instrumentation to assume the problem isn't in the people gathering the evidence. I came to the conclusion that is the only one that can be reached by this point. The good qualified evidence is being denied by some people because of the psychological insecurities they possess. I'm not saying its easy for any of us to process. That's the reason I'm saying it out loud. I have to deal with it too but I don't just deny it like some of you. That is sooo lame. It must be especially humiliating for individuals heavily invested in the study of science to have let that insecurity overwhelm you.
If I was in that position I'd be pissed off too. In other words being pissed of at myself for denying the evidence and not bothering to watch films like The Phenomenon.
If I was in that position I'd be pissed off too. In other words being pissed of at myself for denying the evidence and not bothering to watch films like The Phenomenon.
A way to make/fake modern UFO sightings?
Aerial3D in Burton lab. - YouTube
スクリーンレス空中3Dディスプレイ - YouTube
Imagine a military version of that technology
Aerial3D in Burton lab. - YouTube
スクリーンレス空中3Dディスプレイ - YouTube
Imagine a military version of that technology
We have both been duped into asking the same question; a question that will never be answered.
By the Rules of the Internet, they won and we lost. Sorry Mr. Fahey.
It's funny, but religious apologists say the exact same thing to me when I won't accept their claims of sky magic.
Just sayin.
I think the standard Mr. Fahey accepts is a scientifically verifiable standard. I know that is the standard I accept.
Just for the record, as a person educated in engineering and science I am one of those "individuals heavily invested in the study of science." And since this site is heavily populated with engineers, you shouldn't be surprised when you are mocked for pushing what can be politely referred to as fringe theories.
So lighten up and don't be so pedantic. I'll find some more funny alien pictures and we can all have a chuckle.
As someone trained in the sciences you should appreciate how poorly it reflects on your profession when you refuse to look at evidence. There’s a difference between doubt and denialism.
Because that’s what you want me to do, but it isn’t what I have been saying. I’m saying that you can’t make accurate predictions with insufficient information. Are you suggesting that you can?
There's probably a formal name for this form of wordage, but I don't know what it would be.
I liken it to, "You can't fill a one gallon bucket with a half-gallon of water."
It ends up with the same force as "the UFO phenomenon is real."
Last edited:
I'm not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I wrote with synonymic sentence.
Bad faith reading leads to bad faith arguing. I clarified that for you:
That’s when you bailed.
I wasn't arguing.
That wasn't when I bailed.
A couple of posts later was the "look at the hand" comment.
That's when I bailed. Maybe it is more clear now.
That wasn't when I bailed.
A couple of posts later was the "look at the hand" comment.
That's when I bailed. Maybe it is more clear now.
It’s when you ceased arguing in good faith, when you sabotaged the exchange. It’s a distinction without a difference.
Last edited:
One last time...
I wasn't arguing.
Or maybe you can quote my argument? (That seems to be the popular tactic.)
I wasn't arguing.
Or maybe you can quote my argument? (That seems to be the popular tactic.)
Seeking clarification is "arguing" in your informal world, where you chide people for "bad faith" communicating?
You and I have no more to discuss, if that wasn't plainly clear already.
You and I have no more to discuss, if that wasn't plainly clear already.
Our exchange here now and in the past could easily be described as “arguing,” per the definition above. I even referred to it as an exchange. You’re doing what you accused me of, playing word games.
Considering that my researched stance on the topic is within reason and your uninformed opinion is not, yes, this has long been plainly clear.
Before you slink away, a quote for you: “ It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from enquiry.”
Last edited:
I’m suggesting there is sufficient evidence about the complexity of life and evolution, and that the arrival of intelligence is not the end destination of evolution (which you have to believe if you think there are lots of alien civilizations out there). We are here by pure accident.
Then consider that the post successful organism that we know of was a single celled Protozoa that ruled the planet for 2 billion years.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.