How to solve the UFO mystery

[stereologist]

Just now, Fila said:

Yes. Although just because; Something was proven wrong in the past.., does not automatically imply everything will be proven wrong.

This is an assumption based on false logic.., and does not negate future claims and potential new discoveries. Sorry.

This is logical. So is.., Just because there are UFO hoaxers.., doesn't mean all UFOs are hoaxes. (This is false logic again)

Haha, yea. We are discussing this here from now on to hopefully avoid repetitive posts in each and every thread

 

There is no false logic there. You did attempt to create some sort of a straw man argument. My point is that the basis for UFOs as alien craft is no better than other ideas. These other ideas have been shown to be incorrect. Did I state that the UFO as aliens was false? No, I did not. I simply pointed out that the basis is poor and that just because there are plenty of reports, there is no reason to accept UFOs as a good idea. I see it as a rather unsubstantiated idea.

Do you have a better understanding of what I posted?

The idea of hoaxes is your idea. I did not bring that up. I think we agree on that.

[stereologist]

7 minutes ago, Fila said:

Yes. Although just because; Something was proven wrong in the past.., does not automatically imply everything will be proven wrong.

This is an assumption based on false logic.., and does not negate future claims and potential new discoveries. Sorry.

This is logical. So is.., Just because there are UFO hoaxers.., doesn't mean all UFOs are hoaxes. (This is false logic again)

Haha, yea. We are discussing this here from now on to hopefully avoid repetitive posts in each and every thread

 

There is no false logic there. You did attempt to create some sort of a straw man argument. My point is that the basis for UFOs as alien craft is no better than other ideas. These other ideas have been shown to be incorrect. Did I state that the UFO as aliens was false? No, I did not. I simply pointed out that the basis is poor and that just because there are plenty of reports, there is no reason to accept UFOs as a good idea. I see it as a rather unsubstantiated idea.

Do you have a better understanding of what I posted?

The idea of hoaxes is your idea. I did not bring that up. I think we agree on that.

[Area201]

On 12/12/2017 at 3:22 PM, Fila said:

On 12/12/2017 at 9:43 AM, freetoroam said:

Tis unfortunate today that most of the answers we recieve on here when we ask that question is "youtube". 

Tis, very much so. What's the alternative? If I took video footage of a UFO.., should I host my own domain just to post a video?

This is one of the weakest arguments I've seen here that is common by skeptics. They point to the fact its on "youtube" or whatever platform and totally ignore the content presented. We live in an age where nearly all the media has channels on youtube (nature, national geographic, etc) so it's just another medium to communicate. We understand there are peer reviewed journals, but to outright dismiss something simply because it's on "youtube" is a weak and irrational way to avoid and dodge. It's not anything good or bad, credible or joke, it's just a medium like books, kindle, etc. I lose a lot respect for folks like this here who put their head in the sand.

"FAKE NEWS! YOUTUBE!" they sound nuts

Edited December 13, 2017 by Area201

[Fila]

Your first post here does not contribute to the discussion. All you did was make blanket statements about UFOs being general BS.
This is a classic dismissive biased "scetpic" approach to a topic.

On 14/12/2017 at 9:16 AM, stereologist said:

There is no false logic there. You did attempt to create some sort of a straw man argument

It is false logic. This cannot be denied. 

On 14/12/2017 at 9:20 AM, stereologist said:

My point is that the basis for UFOs as alien craft is no better than other ideas. These other ideas have been shown to be incorrect

This is still an assumption based on no evidence (unless you would like to provide some.., I cannot take your word for it)

On 14/12/2017 at 9:20 AM, stereologist said:

I simply pointed out that the basis is poor and that just because there are plenty of reports, there is no reason to accept UFOs as a good idea.

This is an example of a dismissive attitude. Here is a quote from Dr. Allen J Hynek

"It is no longer possible to sweep away thc whole subject. It reminds me of the days of Galileo when he was trying to get people to look at the sun spots. They would say that the sun is a symbol of God; God is perfect, therefore the sun is perfect; therefore spots cannot exist: therefore there is no point in looking."

On 14/12/2017 at 9:20 AM, stereologist said:

I see it as a rather unsubstantiated idea.

That's ok. Its a matter of perspective based on research.

On 14/12/2017 at 9:20 AM, stereologist said:

The idea of hoaxes is your idea. I did not bring that up. I think we agree on that.

i did not conceive the idea, no.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Fila

[toast]

2 hours ago, Area201 said:

3) Make contact yourself. ET Contact Tool provides you with a full course in these techniques, as well as a suite of tools to help you make contact on your own.

 

Quote

The ET Contact Tool is a self-contained course on making contact with ET beings authored by Steven M. Greer, M.D., which includes working scientific instruments for detecting anomalous activity.

"ET Contact Tool!?

Steven Greer?

6.99$?

Edited December 13, 2017 by toast

[stereologist]

9 minutes ago, Fila said:

Your first post here does not contribute to the discussion. All you did was make blanket statements about UFOs being general BS.
This is a classic dismissive biased "scetpic" approach to a topic.

It is false logic. This cannot be denied. 

This is still an assumption based on no evidence (unless you would like to provide some.., I cannot take your word for it)

This is an example of a dismissive attitude. Here is a quote from Dr. Allen J Hynek

"It is no longer possible to sweep away thc whole subject. It reminds me of the days of Galileo when he was trying to get people to look at the sun spots. They would say that the sun is a symbol of God; God is perfect, therefore the sun is perfect; therefore spots cannot exist: therefore there is no point in looking."

That's ok. Its a matter of perspective based on research.

i did not conceive the idea, no.

Actually you read it as general BS which is not what I posted. You need to address what people post and not some rather obvious straw man argument.

The only false logic is your continued straw man arguments. The problem is that UFOs is an idea with little to no evidence. You pretending otherwise does not change the simple fact that there is little to no evidence.

Actual research into the issue shows how little evidence is there. You should do some research and find out.

[stereologist]

8 minutes ago, dirtierdragoon4 said:

This thread is based on a person from the CIA that played a part in identifying unknown objects in the sky who is stating that "the phenomena" real. For what he means remains to be seen. This thread is attempting to substantiate claims and has tried honorably. So it is relevant and substantial within the info received so far. I would say inclusive rather than meaningless.

I have not come across any documents from any government that has stated dragons, talking animals or giant flying birds within their reports. However, we have plenty stating UFOs and UAPs and Phenomena in reports. And just to reiterate, UK's intelligence in the 90's stating they are "aware that an informal group exists in the US intelligence community and it is possible that this reflects a more formal assessment activity." The source of this document is from UK's government - a legitimate report.

We are being strung along, we obviously do not know, yet.

Nothing you posted suggests anyone is being strung along. At best we have people looking into sightings for reasons that could be simply determining how poorly people identify known targets.

[Fila]

On 14/12/2017 at 9:46 AM, toast said:

Steven Greer?

6.99$?

O'rly? Gross. Good thing I didn't click that link... Quick, change your IP address, lol

Edited December 13, 2017 by Fila

[stereologist]

26 minutes ago, Area201 said:

This is one of the weakest arguments I've seen here that is common by skeptics. They point to the fact its on "youtube" or whatever platform and totally ignore the content presented. We live in an age where nearly all the media has channels on youtube (nature, national geographic, etc) so it's just another medium to communicate. We understand there are peer reviewed journals, but to outright dismiss something simply because it's on "youtube" is a weak and irrational way to avoid and dodge. It's not anything good or bad, credible or joke, it's just a medium like books, kindle, etc. I lose a lot respect for folks like this here who put their head in the sand.

"FAKE NEWS! YOUTUBE!" they sound nuts

Youtube is a very poor choice except for those unable to read.

[freetoroam]

9 minutes ago, Area201 said:

whatever platform and totally ignore the content presented.

You are so wrong.....the whole point is we HAVE watched the contents many times.

As i have explained before, research should not just start and stop on you tube.

The reason why many skeptics dismiss youtube is because unlike those who believe everything they watch on you tube, we also do our reseach at other sources TOO. 

Hence why we know there are many fakes. 

15 minutes ago, Area201 said:

We live in an age where nearly all the media has channels on youtube (nature, national geographic, etc

Reputable channels are never dismissed! That is not the issue.

There is a big difference between someone making a video because they believe they have captured a UFO, and those who are trying to tell people how to make contact with aliens from another planet, to a live media news story or a documentary showing real life events.

How can you even try to make a comparison? That is ridiculous.

That is the problem with many people today who believe everything they watch on youtube is real.....you can not even tell the difference between the ones which are and the which are not.

There are many ways to research, accurately and thoroughly..have you ever tried reading or do you just watch videos?

 

 

[freetoroam]

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Youtube is a very poor choice except for those unable to read.

You got in there while i was typing. 

[MrBene]

30 minutes ago, Area201 said:

This is one of the weakest arguments I've seen here that is common by skeptics. They point to the fact its on "youtube" or whatever platform and totally ignore the content presented. We live in an age where nearly all the media has channels on youtube (nature, national geographic, etc) so it's just another medium to communicate. We understand there are peer reviewed journals, but to outright dismiss something simply because it's on "youtube" is a weak and irrational way to avoid and dodge. It's not anything good or bad, credible or joke, it's just a medium like books, kindle, etc. I lose a lot respect for folks like this here who put their head in the sand.

"FAKE NEWS! YOUTUBE!" they sound nuts

Youtube is just a platform to upload videos. Youtube compress videos and you have no way to download/acquire the original video from youtube. Unless the uploader gives a link (on description) to the full original video I don't think a youtube video can be used in serious research/investigation. Taking into account the accesbility of Adobe Premiere, Vegas, After Effects and much other software that made really easy to fake videos you need the raw data. 

[Area201]

Just now, freetoroam said:

That is the problem with many people today who believe everything they watch on youtube is real.....you can not even tell the difference between the ones which are and the which are not.

There are many ways to research, accurately and thoroughly..have you ever tried reading or do you just watch videos?

No I never tried reading. What is that?

[Fila]

On 14/12/2017 at 9:46 AM, stereologist said:

Actually you read it as general BS which is not what I posted. You need to address what people post and not some rather obvious straw man argument. The only false logic is your continued straw man arguments.

I don't really know what a straw-man argument is.., and don't really care. Just because you label my paragraph.., does not negate it meaning.

My words still stand true. You will need to address the content.., in order to continue the discussion.

On 14/12/2017 at 9:46 AM, stereologist said:

The problem is that UFOs is an idea with little to no evidence. You pretending otherwise does not change the simple fact that there is little to no evidence.

I'm not pretending there is a large amount of evidence. This accusation is incorrect and based on nothing but you own arrogant assumptions.

On 14/12/2017 at 9:46 AM, stereologist said:

Actual research into the issue shows how little evidence is there. You should do some research and find out.

I should? How do you know I haven't? Why do people here make so many crazy accusations and claims as if they know me?

Yes.., there is little evidence.., but I would argue there is a sufficient amount of credible reports that remain unsolved.., enough so to prompt an investigation into the matter to actually find an answer.., as opposed to the current techniques of reviewing YouTube footage from randoms, and at best getting inconclusive results.

The inconclusive results are the evidence to start an investigation. 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Fila

[freetoroam]

Just now, Area201 said:

No I never tried reading. What is that?

Books......references......archives...encyclopedias? That sort of reading.

[freetoroam]

3 minutes ago, dirtierdragoon4 said:

Please elobarte. The jury is still out and we are waiting for Luis Elizondo, through Tom Delonge, to present what he means by "the phenomena is real."

Oi....i am not stitting on the same side of the fence as him....i am in the jury box. Let me know if i miss anything interesting, i am just going to go for a short walk round the world a couple of times.so you got a good 25 years to come up with something.

[Inversion5]

Just now, freetoroam said:

Oi....i am not stitting on the same side of the fence as him....i am in the jury box. Let me know if i miss anything interesting, i am just going to go for a short walk round the world a couple of times.so you got a good 25 years to come up with something.

Phew, I might need the time.

[Dejarma]

IMO it has been solved. The 'FACT' that there's absolutely no solid evidence after 80+ years of research can only mean aliens are not here! Pure common sense; isn't it?

Edited December 13, 2017 by Dejarma

[Fila]

On 14/12/2017 at 10:10 AM, XenoFish said:

I would like to carefully read what I posted. Especially that which is in bold and that word I underlined. Just take a moment. You can call it later okay.

I got it.., thanks. lol.

[Fila]

On 14/12/2017 at 10:40 AM, Dejarma said:

IMO it has been solved. The 'FACT' that there's absolutely no solid evidence after 80+ years of research can only mean aliens are not here! Pure common sense; isn't it?

No solid evidence? What would be considered "solid" evidence?

I'm not being condescending.., just wanting to know.

[freetoroam]

54 minutes ago, Fila said:

So any logical conversation about solving the UFO mystery is BS?

We did the logical bit on page one. 

I am not calling it bs, it only reaches bs when people come up with unverified videos of UFO's and can not recognise a fake video or fully explainable video,  because they are blinded by their belief, that they will not accept a chinese lantern as the object in the video.

There are many threads on here about strange lights or objects seen in the sky, please ( as part of research)  check these threads out,  some get explained within a couple of posts, some a couple of pages, but none have provided proof of visiting crafts from another planet.

Please remember, UFO does not mean an alien craft from another planet, it just means the person has seen something they can not identify.

Have you ever seen the lights of a combine harvester at night or car lights on full beam coming over a hill at night, or a light on top of a building in the distance at night or a chinese lanterns or rescue helicopters at night.

Have you seen any of these:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=strange+cloud+formation&tbm=isch&client=ms-android-samsung&ved=0ahUKEwj9opWDpYjYAhUEPVAKHcr1Dc4QtI8BCCsoAQ

 

[Fila]

On 14/12/2017 at 11:41 AM, Dejarma said:

 'factual': I put forward what I feel is a fact in my initial reply in this thread= what facts are YOU referring to? 

It's a simple question

It is a simple question... But I just need to context (surrounding words) to comment. I may have used the term "factual" quite alot on this website.., and needed to be sure what you were referring to.

This means that I do not post information that is not true.  I do not speak with 100% certainty on a topic I am unsure of.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Fila

[Dejarma]

Just now, Fila said:

This means that I do not post information that is not true.

yeah great==== so what information are you referring to?

[Fila]

On 14/12/2017 at 11:55 AM, freetoroam said:

We did the logical bit on page one.

Too much was it?

I don't see any harm in being logical on all pages. If you want entertainment and laughs.., then there are other places on the internet. But don't get all weird just because I wish to have a logical debate.

On 14/12/2017 at 11:55 AM, freetoroam said:

I am not calling it bs, it only reaches bs when people come up with unverified videos of UFO's and can not recognise a fake video or fully explainable video,  because they are blinded by their belief, that they will not accept a chinese lantern as the object in the video.

You backtracking here.., come on now. You said: The original topic was asking for a shift...towards sanity.

To which my response was : So any logical conversation about solving the UFO mystery is BS?

And now you bring up videos? Stick to the point about discussing the thread's OC and how you think its a stupid idea to discuss.

 

On 14/12/2017 at 11:55 AM, freetoroam said:

Please remember, UFO does not mean an alien craft from another planet, it just means the person has seen something they can not identify.

Please remember that I was the one who started a thread to discuss the term 'UFO'.

We would really like your input, please join in here http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/314135-youtube-is-not-acceptable-as-a-reference/

On 14/12/2017 at 11:55 AM, freetoroam said:

Have you ever seen the lights of a combine harvester at night or car lights on full beam coming over a hill at night, or a light on top of a building in the distance at night or a chinese lanterns or rescue helicopters at night.

I have actually seen all those things in real life, yes.

On 14/12/2017 at 11:55 AM, freetoroam said:

Have you seen any of these:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=strange+cloud+formation&tbm=isch&client=ms-android-samsung&ved=0ahUKEwj9opWDpYjYAhUEPVAKHcr1Dc4QtI8BCCsoAQ

Lenticular clouds. Yes, in real life also.

 

Cool. I feel you trailed onto another topic there.., I hope we can get back on track. 

Edited December 14, 2017 by Fila

[Fila]

On 14/12/2017 at 0:00 PM, Dejarma said:

yeah great==== so what information are you referring to?

All my posts, ever.

But I think you are referring to my observations about some members here. - Page 3, C#75 (Because this is a reply, of a reply, of a reply, of a reply, that goes back to the previous page. I'm not sure how you managed to ask me, then forget but anyway. We got there in the end didn't we)