Your time on these threads unequivocally says otherwise
You ought to consult a dictionary before you post
You have your own answer to that, it has been duly noted and is of zero value to anyone who wants to research the UFO topic.
Congratulations on going full “everyone who disagrees with me is a troll.” If you wanted even a chance at moderating the topic, you should have done more research. Nature abhors a vacuum.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Ha! That’s rather trusting isn’t it?
I mean, you wouldn’t be the first to approach 3 dudes ‘slithering’ out of a low rider in LA
In my case I am happy for you to go first. Don’t worry though, I will be behind you (waaaaay behind you!)
Attachments
Last edited:
About “poisoning the well” by mischaracterizing claims about UFOs as claims about aliens or “moving the goalposts” so that circumstantial evidence and testimony don’t qualify as evidence (they do, just not hard, physical evidence) therefore you can claim “there is no evidence” even when the opposite is true?
You take it so seriously! It's not a serious topic.
Circumstantial evidence and testimony mean nothing to me. You're entitled to interpret it however you want. I want facts, facts, facts.
Circumstantial evidence and testimony mean nothing to me. You're entitled to interpret it however you want. I want facts, facts, facts.
Huh?
I believe when shown scientific evidence. You're entitled to think otherwise. But if you want to convince me, and you want to convince a group of engineers, then SHOW US THE SCIENCE.
I don't jump to any conclusions. I saw a hornet in my garden that I'd never seen before. I could have surmised that a new species evolved, or that aliens brought it, etc. Or, I could use science to figure it out. So I showed the hornet to my neighbor, who showed it to his wife, who brought it to the Northwestern University department of biology, who identified it as a hornet whose range was moving northward due to climate change.
Mystery solved, by SCIENCE. That's how you would convince a group of engineers. Not with circumstantial evidence, etc.
I believe when shown scientific evidence. You're entitled to think otherwise. But if you want to convince me, and you want to convince a group of engineers, then SHOW US THE SCIENCE.
I don't jump to any conclusions. I saw a hornet in my garden that I'd never seen before. I could have surmised that a new species evolved, or that aliens brought it, etc. Or, I could use science to figure it out. So I showed the hornet to my neighbor, who showed it to his wife, who brought it to the Northwestern University department of biology, who identified it as a hornet whose range was moving northward due to climate change.
Mystery solved, by SCIENCE. That's how you would convince a group of engineers. Not with circumstantial evidence, etc.
From “circumstantial evidence and testimony mean nothing to me” to a personal testimony/anecdote including “science” in all caps in record speed. You can’t make this up.
Lol, you take it so seriously. No really, “science” looks great in all-caps. It doesn’t at all remind me of when a religious person puts their G-, J- and A- words in all-caps. Not at all.
Crazy, it’s like you’re suggesting that UFOs ought to be studied to maybe establish a body of knowledge to help people who have a first-hand experience with one.
Last edited:
Maybe this will help:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
What more do you want? I have standards for evidence. They're not met. So I neither believe nor disbelieve.
Why is it so important to you that I believe?
Why is it so hard to say “I never really looked into the subject so I have no idea what sort of evidence there may be, I’m just inclined to doubt there’s anything to it because if there was the scientific community would have validated it already”?
Repeating that there “is no evidence” is not only perpetuating falsehoods, it’s implying that you’ve actually looked into the matter when you really haven’t. It’s also denigrating the work of scientists who have looked into the subject and concluded the opposite of you.
Repeating that there “is no evidence” is not only perpetuating falsehoods, it’s implying that you’ve actually looked into the matter when you really haven’t. It’s also denigrating the work of scientists who have looked into the subject and concluded the opposite of you.
Last edited:
I actually have looked into it. I looked at stuff here and I looked up other stuff on my own.
Of course I've been aware of the evidence. It's part of pop culture.
"I’m just inclined to doubt there’s anything to it because if there was the scientific community would have validated it already”
Why would you think otherwise? I point out again and again that it's science that convinces me.
Of course I've been aware of the evidence. It's part of pop culture.
"I’m just inclined to doubt there’s anything to it because if there was the scientific community would have validated it already”
Why would you think otherwise? I point out again and again that it's science that convinces me.
I also explicitly said that I neither believe or disbelieve people making claims of seeing stuff, and that I don't think they're being dishonest.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.