4705 replies to this topic

[bmk1245]

TheMacGuffin, on 07 October 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

BMK, you are bogus because you have posted nothing at all, and just keep repeating like a broken record that everything I post on here is false.  Don't you ever get tired on it?  I get tired of listening to it, that's for sure!

Well, you are right here: I'm not huge fan of YT "evidence". But if you would take just few minutes and look at actual data, you'd be "amazed" how many alienz fly around.

[bmk1245]

Hazzard, on 07 October 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

Kinda sad if you think about it, bmk,... In that sea of complete and utter garbage that zoser has posted there could actually be that "gold nugget" that we all are looking for.
[...]

Yeap, great chance that real "gold nugget" can be overlooked.

Hazzard, on 07 October 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

[...]
A tactic that would make a government paid disinformation specialist proud.

[CT crap on]
We had SkyEagle (all in the know), now we have McG (all in the know)... Kinda obvious pattern... CIA thugs don't sleep... (Goddamit, I'm CIA thug... F@k, I just blew my cover up... And my $$$ flow away...)
[/CT crap off]

[zoser]

Hazzard, on 07 October 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

Kinda sad if you think about it, bmk,... In that sea of complete and utter garbage that zoser has posted there could actually be that "gold nugget" that we all are looking for.


A tactic that would make a government paid disinformation specialist proud.

I notice your all still here, bright and eager.  Eagerly expecting the next case no doubt.  If I get time I will post the next one tonight.

[bmk1245]

zoser, on 07 October 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

[...[ I will post the next one tonight.

Another anonizer? Should be... whatever word fits...

[Hazzard]

zoser, on 07 October 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

I notice your all still here, bright and eager.  Eagerly expecting the next case no doubt.  If I get time I will post the next one tonight.

I have no doubt that you will,... I just wish that you could use a little more skeptical thinking (scrutiny) when choosing your videos.

Im sure that your "selective audience" will still be watching, but to the rest of us its nothing but more mud in the water.

[zoser]

Hazzard, on 07 October 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

I have no doubt that you will,... I just wish that you could use a little more skeptical thinking (scrutiny) when choosing your videos.

I go on the apparent sincerity of the witness.  So far I haven't seen anyone giving a testimony that is fooling around.  All appear deadly serious, a little scared and eager to bring the case to the public's attention.

[Sky Scanner]

zoser, on 07 October 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

I go on the apparent sincerity of the witness.  So far I haven't seen anyone giving a testimony that is fooling around.  All appear deadly serious, a little scared and eager to bring the case to the public's attention.

Something i've always wondered is to what degree an unknown (in terms of something we're not familiar with or have no benchmarks to associate it with) can influence how you see it. I'm thinking like how someone like Derren Brown can manipulate a person or group into thinking in way he wants them too, or perceiving something in line with how he wants them too. All he really does is take someone into a situation they can't control, or predict, and then manipulate the outcome to show how easily we are led in a certain direction in the right circumstances.

If you was to  witness something that is truely bizarre (i'm thinking of a case I had years ago of a women who reported seeing a dark small cloud at ground level, but when she got closer it looked like a perfect disk shaped object, stepped back again and it was a dark dense cloud - now that is truly weird)...your senses and brain must be going on over drive - your account becomes accurate then in terms that you're not lying, but not necessarily accurate in terms of what it really was.

Just a thought...

Edit - double quoted somehow, so fixed it..

Edited by The Sky Scanner, 07 October 2012 - 07:22 PM.

[Slave2Fate]

The Sky Scanner, on 07 October 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

Something i've always wondered is to what degree an unknown (in terms of something we're not familiar with or have no benchmarks to associate it with) can influence how you see it. I'm thinking like how someone like Derren Brown can manipulate a person or group into thinking in way he wants them too, or perceiving something in line with how he wants them too. All he really does is take someone into a situation they can't control, or predict, and then manipulate the outcome to show how easily we are led in a certain direction in the right circumstances.

If you was to  witness something that is truely bizarre (i'm thinking of a case I had years ago of a women who reported seeing a dark small cloud at ground level, but when she got closer it looked like a perfect disk shaped object, stepped back again and it was a dark dense cloud - now that is truly weird)...your senses and brain must be going on over drive - your account becomes accurate then in terms that you're not lying, but not necessarily accurate in terms of what it really was.

Just a thought...

Edit - double quoted somehow, so fixed it..

Human perception and it's questionable accuracy along with introduced biases and fallacies are at the crux of eyewitness testimony. It has been established long before this thread was ever started that eyewitness testimony can often be unreliable. It all comes back to separating the wheat from the chaff, how can we differentiate between what is real and what has been perceived in error? In my opinion, judging someone's sincerity isn't the right 'tool' for accomplishing that task. People with mental disorders like delusions are often sincere but that doesn't mean that what they are telling you is true. Before anyone goes off in a tizzy I'm not saying every UFO eyewitness has some type of mental disorder. Perhaps only a small percentage do. Maybe there is that 'gold nugget' hidden amongst the debris of testimony somewhere. How will we know if/when we see it?

Edited by Slave2Fate, 07 October 2012 - 07:54 PM.

[zoser]

The Sky Scanner, on 07 October 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

Something i've always wondered is to what degree an unknown (in terms of something we're not familiar with or have no benchmarks to associate it with) can influence how you see it. I'm thinking like how someone like Derren Brown can manipulate a person or group into thinking in way he wants them too, or perceiving something in line with how he wants them too. All he really does is take someone into a situation they can't control, or predict, and then manipulate the outcome to show how easily we are led in a certain direction in the right circumstances.

If you was to  witness something that is truely bizarre (i'm thinking of a case I had years ago of a women who reported seeing a dark small cloud at ground level, but when she got closer it looked like a perfect disk shaped object, stepped back again and it was a dark dense cloud - now that is truly weird)...your senses and brain must be going on over drive - your account becomes accurate then in terms that you're not lying, but not necessarily accurate in terms of what it really was.

Just a thought...

Edit - double quoted somehow, so fixed it..

Philosophy is a disease.  A  cigar shaped saucer is a cigar shaped saucer.  A humanoid with pink eyes is a humanoid with pink eyes.  A car engine malfunctioning close to a UFO...........you get the idea.  Don't fall into this intellectual philosophy clap trap for goodness sake.  

If I hit you on the head with a hammer it will hurt.  Your perception about it will have zero affect on the pain I can assure you.

Edited by zoser, 07 October 2012 - 08:00 PM.

[Slave2Fate]

zoser, on 07 October 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

Philosophy is a disease.  A  cigar shaped saucer is a cigar shaped saucer.  A humanoid with pink eyes is a humanoid with pink eyes.  A car engine malfunctioning close to a UFO...........you get the idea.  Don't fall into this intellectual philosophy clap trap for goodness sake.  

If I hit you on the head with a hammer it will hurt.  Your perception about it will have zero affect on the pain I can assure you.

Only if you accept human perception as infallible, otherwise your analogy is broken.



Is this image actually moving, or is your brain having trouble with something as simple as a few lines and colors?

[Sky Scanner]

zoser, on 07 October 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

Philosophy is a disease.  A  cigar shaped saucer is a cigar shaped saucer.  A humanoid with pink eyes is a humanoid with pink eyes.  A car engine malfunctioning close to a UFO...........you get the idea.  Don't fall into this intellectual philosophy clap trap for goodness sake.  

If I hit you on the head with a hammer it will hurt.  Your perception about it will have zero affect on the pain I can assure you.

You see this is where we disagree, because I want to know the answers to individual cases, of which I do not think there is one over riding answer..in order to do that you have to explore all the avenues.

You've actually backed up my point with your 'hitting me on the head with a hammer' scenario - yes the pain is the same, but my perception might have been that you hit me with an iron bar - and that's the point, it's the object causing the pain/sighting that's in question, and given you have just messed up my senses by wacking me on the head (experiencing something I can't control) then my recall of what you hit me with might not be accurate.

[Slave2Fate]

Slave2Fate, on 07 October 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

Maybe there is that 'gold nugget' hidden amongst the debris of testimony somewhere. How will we know if/when we see it?

I don't often quote myself but this is a legitimate question I have. What are the criteria for determining a valid testimony? Surely there has to be something more than just their sincerity? How do we assess someones perceptual accuracy with an event that has already transpired and nothing left to quantify? How do we determine truth in a vacuum of verifiable facts?

[TheMacGuffin]

bmk1245, on 07 October 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

[CT crap on]
We had SkyEagle (all in the know), now we have McG (all in the know)... Kinda obvious pattern... CIA thugs don't sleep... (Goddamit, I'm CIA thug... F@k, I just blew my cover up... And my $$$ flow away...)
[/CT crap off]

Find me one post where I ever said I was in the CIA.  You know perfectly well what my background is.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 07 October 2012 - 08:39 PM.

[1963]

Slave2Fate, on 07 October 2012 - 08:22 PM, said:

I don't often quote myself but this is a legitimate question I have. What are the criteria for determining a valid testimony? Surely there has to be something more than just their sincerity? How do we assess someones perceptual accuracy with an event that has already transpired and nothing left to quantify? How do we determine truth in a vacuum of verifiable facts?

Hi S2F, hope you are well my friend!

It is a great and ponderous question that you have set!...And all that I can offer is that the question itself sums up ...'why there are these UFO/ET forums in the first place'!
Because if there was anything else more tangible to judge a persons testimony on, other than their sincerity,[in most cases anyway], then there there wouldn't be any questions about the existence of these ET'UFO's would there?


Cheers buddy.

[R4z3rsPar4d0x]

Yeah so either you just have to rely on what sounds plausible and forget the rest