Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

USAF sergeant encountered 'Walmart-sized' UFO and 'four beings'


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, the13bats said:

It still doesn't prove zip

What does it mean to "prove" something?

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Cho Jinn said:

What does it mean to "prove" something?

Is this what pro arguments for aliens visiting Earth has been reduced to?

“Proof? What is this thing called proof that you speak of?”

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Cho Jinn said:

What does it mean to "prove" something?

Try to be more specific I don't have a one size fits all blanket answer for that and my requirements likely differ to the next person,

What isn't proof is just a story, what isn't proof is blaming me just for asking...

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Just curious. Do you consider the likeliness of aliens and the Easter Bunny to be at the same level? 

No, not at all I have far more stories which you value as gold and far more supporting evidence the easter bunny is real where aliens are not.

Before you knee jerk, no of course the easter bunny isn't real but I was making a point you won't get.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, the13bats said:

No, not at all I have far more stories which you value as gold and far more supporting evidence the easter bunny is real where aliens are not.

Before you knee jerk, no of course the easter bunny isn't real but I was making a point you won't get.

So, the quantity, quality and consistency of the witness testimony is something to consider? 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LSD was really strong back in the 70's. On a serious note though , it's like there are so many vague stories , never anything substantive.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

So, the quantity, quality and consistency of the witness testimony is something to consider? 

Sure, it proves the easter bunny is fiction

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Sure, it proves the easter bunny is fiction

Don't be sad drop bear, if I return to the threads topic all I can do is list out why I think the story is made up, you ever notice if I ask where are the countless other witnesses that would have to see a Walmart sized craft with disco lights in the sky I'm greeted with crickets and tumbleweeds,

I can prove he didn't experience this I can't prove it wasnt aliens I can only present more reasons it's not that you can present reasons it is.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, the13bats said:

I can prove he didn't experience this I can't prove it wasnt aliens I can only present more reasons it's not that you can present reasons it is.

That should read I "can't" prove he didn't ....

Between my racy mind bad eye site and weird autocorrect I will watch for such typos more carefully

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Cho Jinn said:

Are you aware of all functions such light-emitting structures might serve?

To distort the crummy photographic equipment available? No wait, is it to activate the interdimensional portal? It's gotta be something important, right?🧐

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Cho Jinn said:

What does it mean to "prove" something?

Really? That's the argument you want to go with in this instance? Very well then.

Prove

[ proov ]proved, proved or prov·en, prov·ing.

 

  • to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument:
  • to prove one's claim.
  • to establish the authenticity or validity of (a will); probate.
  • to give demonstration of by action.
  • to subject to a test, experiment, comparison, analysis, or the like, to determine quality, amount, acceptability, characteristics, etc.:

 

So yeah, in this case the former AF NCO can't prove anything other than a nifty story. That's all.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Really? That's the argument you want to go with in this instance? Very well then.

Prove

[ proov ]proved, proved or prov·en, prov·ing.

  • to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument:
  • to prove one's claim.
  • to establish the authenticity or validity of (a will); probate.
  • to give demonstration of by action.
  • to subject to a test, experiment, comparison, analysis, or the like, to determine quality, amount, acceptability, characteristics, etc.:

So yeah, in this case the former AF NCO can't prove anything other than a nifty story. That's all.

You are correct, the article is about a guy's story.  It has been proven, to me, that the guy told his story to the reporter, who then wrote the article.  I certainly don't dispute your cited definitions, though that isn't exactly what I was soliciting, and I'm not really raising an argument.

Our Floridian Friend 13bats states that "It still doesn't prove zip".  Well, witness testimony is clearly a type of evidence, though how probative the testimony is will depend in part on for what it is being used to evince.  However, I don't see anyone proposing that anything has been proved, much less identifying by what standard of proof is at issue being held by who.  The drawing of sweeping strawman conclusions retards any discussion, and the topics on UM, mostly speculative and/or metaphysical, will be particularly susceptible to it.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cho Jinn said:

You are correct, the article is about a guy's story.  It has been proven, to me, that the guy told his story to the reporter, who then wrote the article.  I certainly don't dispute your cited definitions, though that isn't exactly what I was soliciting, and I'm not really raising an argument.

Our Floridian Friend 13bats states that "It still doesn't prove zip".  Well, witness testimony is clearly a type of evidence, though how probative the testimony is will depend in part on for what it is being used to evince.  However, I don't see anyone proposing that anything has been proved, much less identifying by what standard of proof is at issue being held by who.  The drawing of sweeping strawman conclusions retards any discussion, and the topics on UM, mostly speculative and/or metaphysical, will be particularly susceptible to it.

How do you prove a story exactly. With supporting evidence such as  corroborative statements, photos film, videos, physical evidence left from interaction with the alleged craft, etc. None of that exists. Just a story.

 

In related news, I once saw a unicorn the size of a target store when I was on maneuvers in Morocco once.🦄  I know what I saw!!!!!!!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cho Jinn said:

You are correct, the article is about a guy's story.  It has been proven, to me, that the guy told his story to the reporter, who then wrote the article.  I certainly don't dispute your cited definitions, though that isn't exactly what I was soliciting, and I'm not really raising an argument.

Our Floridian Friend 13bats states that "It still doesn't prove zip".  Well, witness testimony is clearly a type of evidence, though how probative the testimony is will depend in part on for what it is being used to evince.  However, I don't see anyone proposing that anything has been proved, much less identifying by what standard of proof is at issue being held by who.  The drawing of sweeping strawman conclusions retards any discussion, and the topics on UM, mostly speculative and/or metaphysical, will be particularly susceptible to it.

Also, sweeping strawman? No it is a complete dismissal of a fantastical claim absent of any corroborative elements. Noted, considered, and dismissed.

The standard and burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim and/or those who support such a claim.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Cho Jinn said:

What does it mean to "prove" something?

In this case it's to show the source of a phenomenon. In science, proper evidence always send investigators in a certain direction. If evidence is discovered later then it should fit in with the evidence that has already been collected and support the direction of the investigation to find the cause of the phenomenon.

There is no sign of this happening in the past eighty years of UFOlogy. Reports from eighty years ago have little do with reports from fifty years ago and even less to do with reports from ten years ago. There have been UFO "flaps" when people claim to have seen similar things in the sky or take photos of them, then after a year or two no one ever reports seeing them again. UFOs appear flying around a certain area for a period of time and nowhere else, then no one sees them again.

So it's impossible to prove anything from erratic data like this because none of the pieces fit together for any length of time. The best explanation is it's the product of human behavior.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Cho Jinn said:

You are correct, the article is about a guy's story.  It has been proven, to me, that the guy told his story to the reporter, who then wrote the article.  I certainly don't dispute your cited definitions, though that isn't exactly what I was soliciting, and I'm not really raising an argument.

Our Floridian Friend 13bats states that "It still doesn't prove zip".  Well, witness testimony is clearly a type of evidence, though how probative the testimony is will depend in part on for what it is being used to evince.  However, I don't see anyone proposing that anything has been proved, much less identifying by what standard of proof is at issue being held by who.  The drawing of sweeping strawman conclusions retards any discussion, and the topics on UM, mostly speculative and/or metaphysical, will be particularly susceptible to it.

I hope you read...

2 hours ago, Trelane said:

Also, sweeping strawman? No it is a complete dismissal of a fantastical claim absent of any corroborative elements. Noted, considered, and dismissed.

The standard and burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim and/or those who support such a claim.

And now since you flattered me with a mention, in the context of a bored retired service man making claims of seeing a UFO the size of a mediocre store with discoish lights I double down it doesn't prove zip, I don't care a person can tell a story and share it, great example....

5 hours ago, Trelane said:

I once saw a unicorn the size of a target store when I was on maneuvers in Morocco once.🦄  I know what I saw!!!!!!!

It doesn't make it truth or fact, it's just a story without supporting evidence.

In this threads case what I want proof of is the claims made the sergeant didn't do that and can't do that if he could he would have and it would have changed the world,

If he presented this story in court it would get tossed out for lack of collaborative supporting evidence, it's just a story and just a story is pretty much all we ever get, if you have a very best case please post it I promise to examine all the supporting evidence, please note a story is not evidence, hey drop bear do you have any room in your tree?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Cho Jinn said:

You are correct, the article is about a guy's story.  It has been proven, to me, that the guy told his story to the reporter, who then wrote the article.  I certainly don't dispute your cited definitions, though that isn't exactly what I was soliciting, and I'm not really raising an argument.

Our Floridian Friend 13bats states that "It still doesn't prove zip".  Well, witness testimony is clearly a type of evidence, though how probative the testimony is will depend in part on for what it is being used to evince.  However, I don't see anyone proposing that anything has been proved, much less identifying by what standard of proof is at issue being held by who.  The drawing of sweeping strawman conclusions retards any discussion, and the topics on UM, mostly speculative and/or metaphysical, will be particularly susceptible to it.

Quote

A short time later, he and his team were alerted to an alarm signaling that something had penetrated the perimeter of the base

Quoted from the story. Did you follow up on what had to be numorios witnesses? Can you post their reports please.

Since you have several people addressing your questions will you return that favor and address mine? ( It's been ignored so far )

A huge store sized UFO with wild lighting seen for a while where are the other what would amount to countless witness reports and at least a crappy pic or two?

What's your speculation why we don't have any?

Edited by the13bats
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see how many debunkers can refute his logic without resorting to insulting him.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Let's see how many debunkers can refute his logic without resorting to insulting him.

Synopsis please, as a general rule I don't watch YT videos without context. Also, if you could just quote what you say can't be assailed and then link to the video for more information, it would be a lot better for the individual to decide whether anymore watching would be required or necessary.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, the13bats said:

If he presented this story in court it would get tossed out for lack of collaborative supporting evidence

I appreciate the analogy, which somewhat gets to the point.  The proponent may very well lose at, say, summary judgment, after we've had an opportunity to collect and review evidence for and against whatever is being alleged to have happened; the court can determine as a matter of law, making a de jure conclusion, that XYZ happened or didn't happen.  We will not likely get into the fact finding, for at least a few reasons.

The thread has metastasized a bit at this point, but my general criticism is the routine dogmatic, and paradoxical, approach to this and many topics UM.  If the response to one random guy's account narrative account taken by a beat reporter is "I have this worldview, and what he is saying doesn't fit, therefore he is lying" we might as well call it and go back to church.  The mental self defense of "the universe has to prove itself to me" is quite literally retardation

retardation
/rē″tär-dā′shən/
noun
The act or process of delaying or impeding.
The condition of being delayed or impeded.
The extent to which something is held back or delayed.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Let's see how many debunkers can refute his logic without resorting to insulting him.

His logic is dependent on other people's (erroneous) interpretations, has he done any analysis himself that can be scientifically evaluated? If not, can he show that the interpretations that he's relying on to make his claims are conclusive? No. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, csspwns said:

His logic is dependent on other people's (erroneous) interpretations, has he done any analysis himself that can be scientifically evaluated? If not, can he show that the interpretations that he's relying on to make his claims are conclusive? No. 

No. He's studied the data like a scientist does. You didn't even watch the vid, did you? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hankenhunter said:

Let's see how many debunkers can refute his logic without resorting to insulting him.

Sadly in most cases skeptics get ad hominem attacks simply for asking believers for evidence so believers need to take what they dish out, get thicker skin accept all they have are stories.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Cho Jinn said:

I appreciate the analogy, which somewhat gets to the point.  The proponent may very well lose at, say, summary judgment, after we've had an opportunity to collect and review evidence for and against whatever is being alleged to have happened; the court can determine as a matter of law, making a de jure conclusion, that XYZ happened or didn't happen.  We will not likely get into the fact finding, for at least a few reasons.

The thread has metastasized a bit at this point, but my general criticism is the routine dogmatic, and paradoxical, approach to this and many topics UM.  If the response to one random guy's account narrative account taken by a beat reporter is "I have this worldview, and what he is saying doesn't fit, therefore he is lying" we might as well call it and go back to church.  The mental self defense of "the universe has to prove itself to me" is quite literally retardation

retardation
/rē″tär-dā′shən/
noun
The act or process of delaying or impeding.
The condition of being delayed or impeded.
The extent to which something is held back or delayed.

You did a very transparent shoddy job of yet again agnoring my direct questions about this threads case, are you kin to eot?

I take it you have zero answers to anything I asked you.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Synopsis please, as a general rule I don't watch YT videos without context. Also, if you could just quote what you say can't be assailed and then link to the video for more information, it would be a lot better for the individual to decide whether anymore watching would be required or necessary.

Very well said, me I'm not that elequint, why post a click bait video that has zero to do with this threads topic?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.