How to solve the UFO mystery

[stereologist]

4 hours ago, Fila said:

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.

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

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. 

A straw man argument is described here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

The fact that you don't care that your posts do not address what I posted simply shows how vacuous your arguments are. Your posts are without merit because they do not respond to what I did post. Instead they are some meritless jabber unrelated to what I posted.

I posted that you need to do research after you suggested others have not. You continue to pretend that there is good evidence. I have not seen any and you are free to post something  that you think is good evidence.

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, Fila said:

I am not the one you should be asking... My posts are generally on topic, logical, fair, factual and concise.

Your posts tend to be straw man arguments - at least your responses to my posts. They are anything but fair, logical, and on topic. Thankfully they are concise.

[stereologist]

The problem with the "mystery of UFOs" is why people think there is a mystery. The OP begins with "How can the UFO mystery be solved? "

Here are some suggestions:

1. Get some binoculars

2. Learn that it is okay not to identify everything that flies by

3. Learn that being clueless does not make for a mystery

[Fila]

6 hours ago, stereologist said:

A straw man argument is described here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Thank you. I do not believe you are correct about me doing that 'strawman' thing however.

If you believe I did not answer your question.., please point me in the right direction and I will notice immediately. I can assure you it would not have been on purpose. Things got a little heated today around the website, and I was inundated with messages and may have lost track.

6 hours ago, stereologist said:

The fact that you don't care that your posts do not address what I posted simply shows how vacuous your arguments are. Your posts are without merit because they do not respond to what I did post. Instead they are some meritless jabber unrelated to what I posted.

Many apologies if I did not reply correctly. I really do care about getting it right.

6 hours ago, stereologist said:

I posted that you need to do research after you suggested others have not. You continue to pretend that there is good evidence. I have not seen any and you are free to post something  that you think is good evidence.

I personally feel as though I have completed enough research into UFOs. Just like everyone else here.

Just because I am new to a forum.., does not mean I do not know about the subject.

What types of information would you suggest I look up, and why?

6 hours ago, stereologist said:

There is a pattern. The same tired old arguments keep getting posted and no evidence is ever posted. The simple fact of the matter is that there is basically no evidence for UFOs yet people continue to recycle the same old nonsense.

There is no evidence because no one is posting any. Ya'll are waiting for me to do research, while sitting back doing nothing claiming there is nothing.

[stereologist]

Just now, Fila said:

Thank you. I do not believe you are correct about me doing that 'strawman' thing however.

If you believe I did not answer your question.., please point me in the right direction and I will notice immediately. I can assure you it would not have been on purpose. Things got a little heated today around the website, and I was inundated with messages and may have lost track.

Many apologies if I did not reply correctly. I really do care about getting it right.

I personally feel as though I have completed enough research into UFOs. Just like everyone else here.

Just because I am new to a forum.., does not mean I do not know about the subject.

What types of information would you suggest I look up, and why?

You just may be so used to using the straw man argument that you cannot recognize that you are doing it. But, you are using straw man arguments in nearly every post responding to me.

Let's go over a straw man argument and hopefully you will see what you are doing.

In post #24 I begin by stating that there is no real evidence for UFOs and that all there is are reports. I point out that reports are not evidence because many ideas based on reports have been shown to be wrong. I follow up by stating that reports do not make things real.

Here is your response

Quote

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. I believe this is merely a blanket statement from a dismissive attitude based on prior assumptions.

This is a straw man argument.

1. You suggest that evidence might appear in the future. Has nothing to do with my post. I discussed  current understand and not some speculation.

2. You go on to suggest that your idea, which has nothing at all to do with my post, makes my post false logic. That's just weird illogical thinking on your part. Your musing about something else have no bearing on my post.

3. You follow up your illogical musing with some conclusion that my post is dismissive.

That is the first time you attempted a straw man argument. As you can see I called it " some sort of a straw man argument ".

[Fila]

On 14/12/2017 at 2:56 PM, stereologist said:

The problem with the "mystery of UFOs" is why people think there is a mystery. The OP begins with "How can the UFO mystery be solved? "

Here are some suggestions:

1. Get some binoculars

2. Learn that it is okay not to identify everything that flies by

3. Learn that being clueless does not make for a mystery

The mystery of UFOs my good man. Its been going on for many moons now.

There are countless reports of UFOs by reputable people that have not yet been explained. This is the mystery. The solved cases are not a mystery.

Thank you for the suggestions.., but kinda have the viewpoint that individual UFO recordings from amateurs like myself are not beneficial to UFOlogy. The type of basic information we citizens can provide is not very helpful in solving the mystery.

From my research I believe there's enough of this data type, and more will simply produce more of the same.

I do remember hating on "believers" as a biased sceptic.., demanding proof and being angry for some reason. I guess I am at a different level now after reading pretty much all I could from 1940 till now. I suggest everyone does the same before forming a conclusion.. I am beyond individual cases for proof. I realise it won't be found that way.

It would make an interesting thread. THE HURDLES OF UFOLOGY

[Fila]

On 14/12/2017 at 3:30 PM, stereologist said:

You just may be so used to using the straw man argument that you cannot recognize that you are doing it. But, you are using straw man arguments in nearly every post responding to me.

If that was the case.., others would be pulling me. I have not had this issue with anyone before. Hence.., why I suggest quoting wheere you believe this happened.., so we can actually sort it out. Thank you.

On 14/12/2017 at 3:30 PM, stereologist said:

.Let's go over a straw man argument and hopefully you will see what you are doing.

In post #24 I begin by stating that there is no real evidence for UFOs and that all there is are reports. I point out that reports are not evidence because many ideas based on reports have been shown to be wrong. I follow up by stating that reports do not make things real.

Here is your response

This is a straw man argument.

1. You suggest that evidence might appear in the future. Has nothing to do with my post. I discussed  current understand and not some speculation.

Number (1) is an incorrect interpretation of what I did say. I think you may have done this with quite a few of my posts, so I will just address number 1 first. If successful we can move on. If not.., I do not believe its my fault and will probably just give up or ask someone for a 2nd / 3rd opinion.

I was responding to your post: 

On 14/12/2017 at 8:07 AM, stereologist said:

There are plenty of things that have been reported that we now know do not exist. There are plenty of stories and chit and and anecdotes about witches and cities of gold and lost advanced civilizations and dragons and talking animals and giant flying birds and rods and  all sorts of other things.

It is not a rational argument to say because somethings were myths, mis-IDs or hoaxes in the past..., then that means UFOs must be too.

Why is this so? Why must UFOs be the same as other myths? It really just doesn't make any sense.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Fila

[stereologist]

Just now, Fila said:

The mystery of UFOs my good man. Its been going on for many moons now.

There are countless reports of UFOs by reputable people that have not yet been explained. This is the mystery. The solved cases are not a mystery.

Thank you for the suggestions.., but kinda have the viewpoint that individual UFO recordings from amateurs like myself are not beneficial to UFOlogy. The type of basic information we citizens can provide is not very helpful in solving the mystery.

From my research I believe there's enough of this data type, and more will simply produce more of the same.

I do remember hating on "believers" as a biased sceptic.., demanding proof and being angry for some reason. I guess I am at a different level now after reading pretty much all I could from 1940 till now. I suggest everyone does the same before forming a conclusion.. I am beyond individual cases for proof. I realise it won't be found that way.

It would make an interesting thread. THE HURDLES OF UFOLOGY

The fact that people claim there is a mystery does not make it a mystery. It doesn't matter how long people have had bad sightings. "Countless reports" doe snot make it a mystery or real or even interesting.

LOL, so input from amateurs is not beneficial? Where are those countless reports coming from? That's right they come from amateurs.

So out comes the BS about "hating" and the BS about "biased sceptic[sic]" and the BS about "angry". The simple fact of the matter is that the failure of UFO believers to produce any evidence makes them lash out calling others angry and biased and hateful.

I've been with UFO believers in the field. I've seen them point out UFOs in the sky. They were satellites. I told them what they were and the believers were dismissive. I even predicted when the satellites would disappear as they entered the Earth's shadow and they continued their snide dismissive attitude. When one satellite dropped below the horizon and another came up minutes later at a different spot they got all excited that the UFO was coming back. You see, these are the stories of people that are hopelessly lost in the fake mystery of UFOs. It is a fake mystery of their own making. BTW, not my only encounter with wingnuts unable to understand what they were viewing.

The real hurdle of ufology is getting some real evidence.

[stereologist]

Just now, Fila said:

If that was the case.., others would be pulling me. I have not had this issue with anyone before. Hence.., why I suggest quoting wheere you believe this happened.., so we can actually sort it out. Thank you.

1. Is an incorrect interpretation of what I did say.

I was responding to your post: 

It is not a rational argument to say because somethings were myths, mis-IDs or hoaxes in the past..., then that means UFOs must be too.

Why is this so? Why must UFOs be the same as other myths? It really just doesn't make any sense.

Just because no one else has pointed out your often use of a straw man argument has no bearing on whether or not you used one.

You responded with  straw man argument. That is what you do.

And here you do it again. You wrote " It is not a rational argument to say because somethings were myths, mis-IDs or hoaxes in the past..., then that means UFOs must be too. " I never stated that or suggested that.

Let's try this again.

I stated that reports do not make something real no matter how many reports are generated. I gave several examples of this. Just because there are reports of UFOs doe snot mean they are anything other than something that was not identified.

[Fila]

On 14/12/2017 at 3:45 PM, stereologist said:

The fact that people claim there is a mystery does not make it a mystery

Correct. Me saying there is a mystery will not make something a mystery. However there it is.., so please do not blame me. I didn't create the UFO phenomenon, LOL

 

On 14/12/2017 at 3:45 PM, stereologist said:

It doesn't matter how long people have had bad sightings. "Countless reports" doe snot make it a mystery or real or even interesting.

You think there is no evidence for UFOs. (I get it man, seriously I do. I just disagree and so do others. Chillax and discuss, but chill)

 

On 14/12/2017 at 3:45 PM, stereologist said:

.LOL, so input from amateurs is not beneficial? Where are those countless reports coming from? That's right they come from amateurs.

Cherrypicking is not nice man.

The rest of my post was:

Thank you for the suggestions.., but kinda have the viewpoint that individual UFO recordings from amateurs like myself are not beneficial to UFOlogy. The type of basic information we citizens can provide is not very helpful in solving the mystery.

From my research I believe there's enough of this data type, and more will simply produce more of the same.

On 14/12/2017 at 3:45 PM, stereologist said:

So out comes the BS about "hating" and the BS about "biased sceptic[sic]" and the BS about "angry". The simple fact of the matter is that the failure of UFO believers to produce any evidence makes them lash out calling others angry and biased and hateful.

No. That's fine. Its more the language used.., false accusations made.., and condescending attitude as if I do not use facts, or get angry when asked for evidence etc etc.

Pretty annoying stuff.

 

I was just mentioning that as a young biased "sceptic", I seemed to take it personally, and get angry at believers for some reason.., and I notice now I'm not biased anymore.

 

On 14/12/2017 at 3:45 PM, stereologist said:

I've been with UFO believers in the field. I've seen them point out UFOs in the sky. They were satellites. I told them what they were and the believers were dismissive. I even predicted when the satellites would disappear as they entered the Earth's shadow and they continued their snide dismissive attitude. When one satellite dropped below the horizon and another came up minutes later at a different spot they got all excited that the UFO was coming back. You see, these are the stories of people that are hopelessly lost in the fake mystery of UFOs. It is a fake mystery of their own making. BTW, not my only encounter with wingnuts unable to understand what they were viewing.

Yes.., 90% of cases are solved. Everyone loves bringing this up as an argument that all cases must be solved too.., however this is incorrect. 

[Fila]

On 14/12/2017 at 3:49 PM, stereologist said:

Just because no one else has pointed out your often use of a straw man argument has no bearing on whether or not you used one.

I am open to this option.., and will take it onboard if someone else raises the issue with me. However I must disagree.

On 14/12/2017 at 3:49 PM, stereologist said:

You responded with  straw man argument. That is what you do. And here you do it again. You wrote " It is not a rational argument to say because somethings were myths, mis-IDs or hoaxes in the past..., then that means UFOs must be too. " I never stated that or suggested that.

Its more likely that we have a communication breakdown between us..., as opposed to me purposely trying to troll you.

To speed things up.., this seems to be the quote we are having trouble on. Perhaps you can re-word it or elaborate some more to help me understand.

STEREO: " (1) There are plenty of things that have been reported that we now know do not exist. (2) There are plenty of stories and chit and and anecdotes about witches and cities of gold and lost advanced civilizations and dragons and talking animals and giant flying birds and rods and  all sorts of other things.

(3) Just because there are reports does not make them real. Just because reports have come in for a long time does not make them real. Just because some people pretend that governments or other authorities are hiding something does not make it real.

(4) UFOs are simply things that are not identified. Just because some things are not identified does not make them special." - POST #24

 

What was the point you were trying to make? I will break it down and label the parts how I understand them.

1) There are plenty of myths

2) We know those myths are now de-bunked

3) Just because somone reports a UFO.., does not mean UFOs exist (1), (2) as example

4) UFOs are nothing special

Edited December 14, 2017 by Fila

[stereologist]

12 minutes ago, Fila said:

Correct. Me saying there is a mystery will not make something a mystery. However there it is.., so please do not blame me. I didn't create the UFO phenomenon, LOL

You think there is no evidence for UFOs. (I get it man, seriously I do. I just disagree and so do others. Chillax and discuss, but chill)

Cherrypicking is not nice man.

The rest of my post was:

Thank you for the suggestions.., but kinda have the viewpoint that individual UFO recordings from amateurs like myself are not beneficial to UFOlogy. The type of basic information we citizens can provide is not very helpful in solving the mystery.

From my research I believe there's enough of this data type, and more will simply produce more of the same.

No. That's fine. Its more the language used.., false accusations made.., and condescending attitude as if I do not use facts, or get angry when asked for evidence etc etc.

Pretty annoying stuff.

I was just mentioning that as a young biased "sceptic", I seemed to take it personally, and get angry at believers for some reason.., and I notice now I'm not biased anymore.

Yes.., 90% of cases are solved. Everyone loves bringing this up as an argument that all cases must be solved too.., however this is incorrect. 

If there is any evidence then present it.

There is no mystery. There is no evidence. Where does this "Cherrypicking" come from? Countless reports come from amateurs. Maybe you don't know what cherry picking means.

You state " as if I do not use facts." Have you presented any facts in this thread?

You suggest that "90% of cases are solved." I'm not particularly interested in the rate at which cases are solved. I do see some suggestion here that you are attempting an argument called residualization. The argument is that there is some residue of arguments that are not solved and those are somehow important. Frankly, they are not. Just because a report is total crap and cannot be figured out does not make it interesting or important.

[stereologist]

19 minutes ago, Fila said:

I am open to this option.., and will take it onboard if someone else raises the issue with me. However I must disagree.

Its more likely that we have a communication breakdown between us..., as opposed to me purposely trying to troll you.

To speed things up.., this seems to be the quote we are having trouble on. Perhaps you can re-word it or elaborate some more to help me understand.

STEREO: " (1) There are plenty of things that have been reported that we now know do not exist. (2) There are plenty of stories and chit and and anecdotes about witches and cities of gold and lost advanced civilizations and dragons and talking animals and giant flying birds and rods and  all sorts of other things.

(3) Just because there are reports does not make them real. Just because reports have come in for a long time does not make them real. Just because some people pretend that governments or other authorities are hiding something does not make it real.

(4) UFOs are simply things that are not identified. Just because some things are not identified does not make them special." - POST #24

 

What was the point you were trying to make? I will break it down and label the parts how I understand them.

1) There are plenty of myths

2) We know those myths are now de-bunked

3) Just because somone reports a UFO.., does not mean UFOs exist (1), (2) as example

4) UFOs are nothing special

You can disagree about the use of straw man arguments but that just points out your inability to understand a simple concept. I will continue to point out your glaring failures as you commit them.

Here you completely and utterly fail to read and comprehend.

1. I do not refer to myths, i.e. lost advanced civilizations and rods are not a myth but a modern speculation

2. The reports of the issues I listed have been shown to be wrong

3. UFO reports are the same as reported ideas - unsupported and the reports are not evidence

4. UFO reports do not form a body of evidence

All there are for UFO are reports and stories and people pretending that this is strong evidence need to understand that reports are not evidence. It has been stated many times that the plural of anecdote is not data.

Edited December 14, 2017 by stereologist

[Fila]

On 14/12/2017 at 4:21 PM, stereologist said:

If there is any evidence then present it.

I'll give it a shot. I will need to start a new thread.

On 14/12/2017 at 4:21 PM, stereologist said:

There is no mystery. There is no evidence.

lol, I remember. You should put it in your signature.., that will save you time Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V'ing it all the time.

On 14/12/2017 at 4:21 PM, stereologist said:

You state " as if I do not use facts." Have you presented any facts in this thread?

I don't need to produce UFO cases for this specific thread. In fact this thread kinda suggests the opposite.

However.., I am aware we are just at different stages with this UFO thing.

I have spent years researching government documents, scientific reports, and highly credible reports.., at places like National Archives, MUFON, NICAP, Hessdalen files, NUFORC, UFORNSW, Police reports, FBI, CIA, COMETA, UFODATA project, and much more. 

After sorting out the chaff from the wheat (as opposed to just looking at the chaff) I have seen enough good data to conclude the phenomenon deserves a thorough investigation.

Wrong conclusions are usually the result of lack of comprehensive analysis.

On 14/12/2017 at 4:21 PM, stereologist said:

You suggest that "90% of cases are solved." I'm not particularly interested in the rate at which cases are solved.

This 90% thing was in response to you saying:

"I've been with UFO believers in the field. I've seen them point out UFOs in the sky. They were satellites. I told them what they were and the believers were dismissive. I even predicted when the satellites would disappear as they entered the Earth's shadow and they continued their snide dismissive attitude. When one satellite dropped below the horizon and another came up minutes later at a different spot they got all excited that the UFO was coming back. You see, these are the stories of people that are hopelessly lost in the fake mystery of UFOs. It is a fake mystery of their own making." 

To me.., it appears you are using the same basic logic of (I have seen UFOs debunked.., therefore all UFOs are debunked.) If this is not your meaning.., please let me know.

I responded that 10% were unsolved. 90% were solved. Its the 10% we are interested in.

[stereologist]

3 minutes ago, Fila said:

I'll give it a shot. I will need to start a new thread.

lol, I remember. You should put it in your signature.., that will save you time Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V'ing it all the time.

I don't need to produce UFO cases for this specific thread. In fact this thread kinda suggests the opposite.

However.., I am aware we are just at different stages with this UFO thing.

I have spent years researching government documents, scientific reports, and highly credible reports.., at places like National Archives, MUFON, NICAP, Hessdalen files, NUFORC, UFORNSW, Police reports, FBI, CIA, COMETA, UFODATA project, and much more. 

After sorting out the chaff from the wheat (as opposed to just looking at the chaff) I have seen enough good data to conclude the phenomenon deserves a thorough investigation.

Wrong conclusions are usually the result of lack of comprehensive analysis.

This 90% thing was in response to you saying:

"I've been with UFO believers in the field. I've seen them point out UFOs in the sky. They were satellites. I told them what they were and the believers were dismissive. I even predicted when the satellites would disappear as they entered the Earth's shadow and they continued their snide dismissive attitude. When one satellite dropped below the horizon and another came up minutes later at a different spot they got all excited that the UFO was coming back. You see, these are the stories of people that are hopelessly lost in the fake mystery of UFOs. It is a fake mystery of their own making." 

To me.., it appears you are using the same basic logic of (I have seen UFOs debunked.., therefore all UFOs are debunked.) If this is not your meaning.., please let me know.

I responded that 10% were unsolved. 90% were solved. Its the 10% we are interested in.

This thread is based on the falsehood that evidence exists. You pretend that they exist.

There are no scientific reports. The credible idea is simply baloney. It is attached to reports to pretend that some are better than others.

So what we have is your opinion based on wishful thinking. I believe that. The same sort of process is used by believers in TK, crop circles, chemtrails, and other unsupported ideas.

Again, I never stated or suggested the following: "using the same basic logic of (I have seen UFOs debunked.., therefore all UFOs are debunked.) " Seems that reading and comprehension are difficult for you.

You don't understand that the existence of a residue is meaningless. Jut because there are any cases that cannot be explained does not mean they are worth investigating. Show that any of the cases are something other than poor observations.

[Fila]

On 14/12/2017 at 4:30 PM, stereologist said:

You can disagree about the use of straw man arguments but that just points out your inability to understand a simple concept. I will continue to point out your glaring failures as you commit them.

I will have to disagree, yes. Regardless of how many times you say it.., Its more likely that we have a communication breakdown between us..., as opposed to me purposely trying to troll you or produce a strawman argument.

On 14/12/2017 at 4:30 PM, stereologist said:

Here you completely and utterly fail to read and comprehend.

1. I do not refer to myths, i.e. lost advanced civilizations and rods are not a myth but a modern speculation

Semantics...

A lost ancient civilisation is not a myth?  Even if its not.., that's pretty weak bro

On 14/12/2017 at 4:30 PM, stereologist said:

2. The reports of the issues I listed have been shown to be wrong

This is incorrect. I most certainly understood that part.

On 14/12/2017 at 4:30 PM, stereologist said:

3. UFO reports are the same as reported ideas - unsupported and the reports are not evidence

I totally got that bit already too...

On 14/12/2017 at 4:30 PM, stereologist said:

4. UFO reports do not form a body of evidence

I believe that credible UFO reports from reputable people do count as evidence.

 

On 14/12/2017 at 4:30 PM, stereologist said:

All there are for UFO are reports and stories and people pretending that this is strong evidence need to understand that reports are not evidence. It has been stated many times that the plural of anecdote is not data.

Yes, you have said this many timezzzzzzzzzz....

This is relative to the individual. Someone who has done no UFO research will conclude that there are no credible UFO reports.

Someone who has spent years researching credible UFO reports will say there are.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Fila

[stereologist]

2 minutes ago, Fila said:

I will have to disagree, yes. Regardless of how many times you say it.., Its more likely that we have a communication breakdown between us..., as opposed to me purposely trying to troll you or produce a strawman argument.

Semantics...

A lost ancient civilisation is not a myth?  Even if its not.., that's pretty weak bro

This is incorrect. I most certainly understood that part.

I totally got that bit already too...

I believe that credible UFO reports from reputable people do count as evidence.

Your inability to understand even basic ideas is showing. You are using straw man arguments.

A lost civilization is not a myth. No it is not weak. It is you that seems unable or unwilling to understand even basic ideas.

No you did not understand those parts. Please show me where any of t hose reports was anything other than wrong.

You can pretend that reports are evidence all you want. They are not. That is the problem with UFO so-called research. It isn't. It is all anecdotes with no supporting evidence.

[Fila]

On 14/12/2017 at 4:53 PM, stereologist said:

This thread is based on the falsehood that evidence exists.

Yes.., it is actually. There is nothing wrong with that for people who feel they have done sufficient research.., and are ready to move on.

 

On 14/12/2017 at 4:53 PM, stereologist said:

You pretend that they exist.

No I don't. Its a different perspective.

You gotta calm down man. Seriously. Just realise people have different perspectives on things. This doesn't mean they are liars.

On 14/12/2017 at 4:53 PM, stereologist said:

There are no scientific reports.

How can you be so sure? Have you looked before? I know for a fact that there are.

On 14/12/2017 at 4:53 PM, stereologist said:

The credible idea is simply baloney. It is attached to reports to pretend that some are better than others.

This is not true. There is credible data.., and unverifiable data. I prefer to read the verified data.., as opposed to YouTube for example.

On 14/12/2017 at 4:53 PM, stereologist said:

So what we have is your opinion based on wishful thinking. I believe that. The same sort of process is used by believers in TK, crop circles, chemtrails, and other unsupported ideas.

No. I have just done sufficient research.

On 14/12/2017 at 4:53 PM, stereologist said:

Again, I never stated or suggested the following: "using the same basic logic of (I have seen UFOs debunked.., therefore all UFOs are debunked.) " Seems that reading and comprehension are difficult for you.

Possibly. I am open to the idea. However.., it could also be that you may not be explaining it properly.., or we just have a communication barrier (I.e. Ancient Civilizations are NOT myths.., they are modern speculation)

On 14/12/2017 at 4:53 PM, stereologist said:

You don't understand that the existence of a residue is meaningless. Jut because there are any cases that cannot be explained does not mean they are worth investigating.

Okay cool. Thanks for that. But I'm okay with this.., try not to let my interest affect you personally.

I love this 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."

[Fila]

On 14/12/2017 at 5:01 PM, stereologist said:

Your inability to understand even basic ideas is showing. You are using straw man arguments

Again? It's gonna be a looooong evening huh.

On 14/12/2017 at 5:01 PM, stereologist said:

A lost civilization is not a myth. No it is not weak. It is you that seems unable or unwilling to understand even basic ideas.

I fail to see the drama here.

'Myth".., when I should have said "Modern Speculation". However I fail to see how this made me a straw man, and changed the meaning of your point.

Please elaborate.

On 14/12/2017 at 5:01 PM, stereologist said:

No you did not understand those parts. Please show me where any of t hose reports was anything other than wrong.

Those parts? You're going to have to quote this part properly.., I am not sure what part of my post you are replying to.., and what reports u refer to.

On 14/12/2017 at 5:01 PM, stereologist said:

You can pretend that reports are evidence all you want. They are not. That is the problem with UFO so-called research. It isn't. It is all anecdotes with no supporting evidence.

Oh, ok. Perhaps I am wrong. Can you please tell me what would be considered as "evidence" for UFOs being more than mis-ID's and hoaxes?

[raketata]

Well it is aliens. I have seen them.

White light ball in the sky flying with speed of bullet and can slow down and make turns.

[toast]

4 hours ago, Fila said:

90% were solved. Its the 10% we are interested in.

Exactly 10%, not 9,74 or 10,85? Who claimed to have measured? Has it been measured at all?

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

Enough with the personal attacks and bickering please.

[toast]

3 hours ago, raketata said:

Well it is aliens. I have seen them.

White light ball in the sky flying with speed of bullet and can slow down and make turns.

Thank you very much. Today you have changed the world view of billions of people. We are now at the edge to step into a totally different reality, a wonderfull one.

[Fila]

On 14/12/2017 at 9:00 PM, toast said:

Exactly 10%, not 9,74 or 10,85? Who claimed to have measured? Has it been measured at all?

I think NICAP, MUFON, AIRFORCE etc have their own figure.., but from memory it seems to average around 10%.

[toast]

1 minute ago, Fila said:

I think NICAP, MUFON, AIRFORCE etc have their own figure.., but from memory it seems to average around 10%.

What you think and what it seems is irrelevant when statistics are involved because they are not based on opinions but on figures. The 10%/5% claim, established by the UFO head community, is well known but has never been proven, will never be proven and cannot be proven.