1012 replies to this topic

[TheMacGuffin]

Hazzard, on 13 October 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

As much as I love a tall tale,... but, eye-witness testimony doesnt meen s¤#t as far as proof of ET visitation.

If you didn't say the same things about every UFO story, you might have a little more credibility.

[Sky Scanner]

TheMacGuffin, on 13 October 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

If you didn't say the same things about every UFO story, you might have a little more credibility.

It's actually the other way around. If he changed his stance in accordance with who was telling the story it would make him pretty inconsistent. He's obviously set a bar of evidence to a certain level, and no story will reach that level. You might not agree with it, but it is a credible stance.

[Babe Ruth]

It's a credible stance if one assumes that there is no intelligent life in the universe but humans on earth.

[itsnotoutthere]

TheMacGuffin, on 13 October 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

If you didn't say the same things about every UFO story, you might have a little more credibility.

I am not sure you are the best judge of what is credible & what is not, your enthusiasm to accept any 'UFO story' as being credible borders on embarrassing at times.

[TheMacGuffin]

The Sky Scanner, on 13 October 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

It's actually the other way around. If he changed his stance in accordance with who was telling the story it would make him pretty inconsistent. He's obviously set a bar of evidence to a certain level, and no story will reach that level. You might not agree with it, but it is a credible stance.

Oh, is that what he's doing?  And all this time I just thought he was here to make fun of us.  He must be more sophisticated than I imagined.

[itsnotoutthere]

Babe Ruth, on 13 October 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

It's a credible stance if one assumes that there is no intelligent life in the universe but humans on earth.

It is also a credible stance in light of the lack of any evidence of intelligent life in the universe, & assumptions don't come into it.

[TheMacGuffin]

itsnotoutthere, on 13 October 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

I am not sure you are the best judge of what is credible & what is not, your enthusiasm to accept any 'UFO story' as being credible borders on embarrassing at times.

Here's another caricature of me by the so-called "skeptics", since there are many UFO stories that I ignore or dismiss.

This is why people should not listen to what they say about me, but what I actually say for myself.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 13 October 2012 - 03:05 PM.

[TheMacGuffin]

itsnotoutthere, on 13 October 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

It is also a credible stance in light of the lack of any evidence of intelligent life in the universe, & assumptions don't come into it.

This is the way "Itsnotoutthere" wants it to be, or wants people to think it is, but of course I do not share his views in any way.

I have very good reasons to think the way I do, and have posted thousands of times to explain exactly why.  You will never see these guys getting very detailed or specific, though--almost never.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 13 October 2012 - 02:57 PM.

[booNyzarC]

Babe Ruth, on 13 October 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

It's a credible stance if one assumes that there is no intelligent life in the universe but humans on earth.

You are presenting a false dichotomy as a strawman argument here BR, and it has nothing to do with the position Hazzard holds.  Having intelligent life in the universe and having said life never pay us a visit are not mutually exclusive.  The universe could be teeming with life, but that doesn't mean any of that life has found its way into our little solar system.

[itsnotoutthere]

TheMacGuffin, on 13 October 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

This is the way "Itsnotoutthere" wants it to be, or wants people to think it is, but of course I do not share his views in any way.

I have very good reasons to think the way I do, and have posted thousands of times to explain exactly why.  You will never see these guys getting very detailed or specific, though--almost never.

There is a thread on this forum currently in it's 3rd edition 'the best evidence for alien visitation' now with around 6000 replies.
To date all we have had are a collection of word of mouth stories passed on over the years with embellishments added for dramatic effect, Roswell being the classic example. But at the end of the day, what REAL physical evidence do we have?  It's a rhetorical question the answer is None.
There are thousands of scientists, astronomers & others who study the stars & the universe for a profession (rather than youtube) If there was any real evidence for these people to study, they would be falling over themselves to do so, & if the evidence was provable they would make every effort to publish it & go down in history as the person who had discovered it. But the reason they haven't is because the proof just isn't there. So until it is, anything else is just (to use your words) a UFO story.

Edited by itsnotoutthere, 13 October 2012 - 03:23 PM.

[Sky Scanner]

Edit - nevermind.

Edited by The Sky Scanner, 13 October 2012 - 03:25 PM.

[TheMacGuffin]

itsnotoutthere, on 13 October 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

There is a thread on this forum currently in it's 3rd edition 'the best evidence for alien visitation' now with around 6000 replies.
To date all we have had are a collection of word of mouth stories passed on over the years with embellishments added for dramatic effect, Roswell being the classic example.

I've looked at that BE thread and I certainly wouldn't characterize it the way you do since they are plenty of UFO and ET cases on there that haven't been explained.  Just because you think they are doesn't make it so--not at all.

Of course, your statement that there is no physical evidence is also a myth.

[itsnotoutthere]

TheMacGuffin, on 13 October 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

I've looked at that BE thread and I certainly wouldn't characterize it the way you do since they are plenty of UFO and ET cases on there that haven't been explained.  Just because you think they are doesn't make it so--not at all.

Of course, your statement that there is no physical evidence is also a myth.

Explain

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Hazzard, on 13 October 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

As much as I love a tall tale,... but, eye-witness testimony doesnt meen s¤#t as far as proof of ET visitation.

'Zactly!

Why listen to the 10,000 who were there and who saw it when you can listen to MB pontificators who were not there.!

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Serious question here - and then some comments.

I will swear up and down I watched a show years ago on the Phoenix Lights. Was it UFO Hunters...? I can't say for sure. maybe.
anyway, in the documentary, *somebody*  analyzed the light from the flares/craft. They proved not to be flare light, they also proved not to be light from conventional aircrafts (electrical). they did not know what type of light it was. They could make no match to that type light.

DOES ANYONE KNOW OF THIS "TEST" BEING DONE OR OF THIS DOCUMENTARY?

if not, I'll just as soon say "pass".

Now, those alleged flares were tubes that were about 5 inches in diameter and 36 inches long.
Did anybody ever attempt to retrieve them? interesting, nobody has mentioned that.

Also, if you really believe the US military would break the law and drop flares like that in a civilian area when there was no need, then I would suggest you are likely grasping at straws to keep your "DEBUNK" theory alive.
What they would have done would not only be illegal, it would be damn dangerous.

Also, again,,, I don't give two damns if those lights *were* flares*, 10,000 people became alarmed that night.
"Flares" are not going to cause that kind of scare. No way. Nor does the "flares" theory explain how so many people saw the sky above them being blackened out by a huge craft going right over head.

Spin as you wish. I'd rather take the word of the many witnesses who saw it over the word of some mathematician who "proves" that the lights seen were flares.

One last question, as I did not look at the math to it all:
Does the person doing the math make the conclusion of "flares" simply based on the rate of decent?
If he did, he be quite foolish