Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
On the eve of April-27-2000 Fox Television (in the United
States) aired 2 specials relating to paranormal activity.
In this article I will be focusing on the program titled
"UFOs The Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape 2". I will be
detailing my viewpoints towards several major aspects of
the show that have sparked my attention while I was
watching the program on my local FOX station last night.
The program opened with a UFO video which appeared quite
unusual and shocking to me. Most people may remember this
as the UFO with the flashing colors. The skeptic may have
argued that this could have been an art sculpture of some
kind, since it was filmed during an arts festival in Nevada.
The funny thing is that the program never mentioned anyone
who came forward and said "hey, that was just my art project."
I am also sure that if this was just someone's art project,
it would have scored near first prize. The fact of the matter
is that the program did not mention a claimant of the project.
I somewhat feel it safe to believe that this was something
other then an art project. It may have been an alien spacecraft.
There are many paranormal possibilities here. This UFO sighting
is indeed still a mystery. Eric, while detailing his sighting
said that to the naked eye it simply appeared as though it
was just a ball of light until he zoomed in with his camera
only to discover that it was something much more then a simple
ball of light. If this was just an art project, then why did
nobody claim credit for it? Why was it so far up in the sky
where it was hard to see with the naked eye? This is in fact
kind of interesting. Are paranormal aliens visiting our planet?
I would say that there is a great possibility. Please keep
in mind that the possibilities of our being visited by
paranormal aliens have never been disproven.
Yes there were a "few" hoaxes, but that does not mean that
everything is a hoax. Especially when people are still
coming forward with mounds of information such as this,
that was never disproven by skeptics or otherwise.
The next segment featured a UFO flying close to the twin
towers in NYC. If you looked closely at the video you may
have noticed that the city lights were being reflected by
the object. As the object moved, so did the reflection of
city lights. One might also notice that the UFO seemed to
be somewhat stationary in the sky. For example when the
camera moved, the UFO seemed to remain stationary with the
buildings. To this segment the skeptic argued that the video
was taken on a vessel and that nobody else on the vessel
was reacting to the sighting. The skeptic also argued that
simply because the camera operator moved the camera away
from the sighting that the video may not be legit. This is
where I am shocked. When I was on vacation in Ocean City Md
last year, I had the experience of working a video camera
from a moving vessel. The vessel as it was moving, bobbed
up and down with the waves that it was creating. There were
times when it appeared as though I was panning up and down
when I was not. This occurred simply because of the way the
vessel moved in the water. If you watch the video more
closely you will notice that the camera was moving in an
upward and downward motion through the entire video. This is
indeed kind of interesting. Could this have been a paranormal
alien spacecraft? This does make one think for a while.
Another segment featured videos which came from NASA. One video
featured a satellite with a 12 mile long tether attached to it.
The tether soon broke and was drifting away. In the video which
was taken by NASA at the time, there appeared to be dozens of UFOS.
One was estimated to be 2-3 miles in diameter, according to one
researcher. The skeptic argued that it was just space junk. While
taking a closer look a researcher observed that there were circular
patterns of light emanating from one of the objects. Another video
featured a UFO that made an extremely sharp turn, unlike any common
Earthly object. Another question is what could have made this object
change it's path so suddenly? What about the dozens of UFOs filmed
by NASA in the tether incident? I am doubting that this was the
result of someone trying to play a hoax. These were videos from
NASA. This is extremely interesting.
Later in the show they focused on the increasing amount of UFO
activity in Mexico. One researcher suggested that paranormal aliens
may in fact be landing there. This reminds me of one of my older
threads titled "Paranormal Aliens & Hybridization." Are paranormal
aliens walking among us in disguise? This is indeed an interesting
thought. Please keep in mind that our being visited by paranormal
aliens was never disproven, and most skeptics agree that it is not
possible for them to disprove these possibilities. There is still a
great possibility that we are in fact being visited.
On a closing note.
I believe that FOX could have done a better job at presenting this
program. Some people argue that the program did not go into detail
about some of the findings and also edited out a vast amount of
footage etc. There was also the alien interview which was featured.
Some people, including myself are still questioning that. When FOX
was covering this segment they completely dubbed music over the
entire scene, and I did not really get much information from it at
all. When I do, I may write about it. There are still mounds of
information that has yet to be even looked at, or is simply locked
in file cabinets. I feel that we should work together at trying to
get people to research these issues much more closely. I was happy
for FOX to include the notion that people on the internet are coming
together and sharing ideas and evidence. There are many aspects of
this field that have yet to be explored by common science. As a
paranormalist, I am constantly aiming to get these studies classified
in such a field where these issues can be fully researched and not
simply locked away by the Pseudo-Skeptic.
--
"With the birth of this great new millennium, the paranormal has
dawned upon us all. All you have to do is allow yourself to believe!"
Please refer to alt.paranormal for more posts from Flagship1.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
http://www.Flagship1.com
Lou Minatti™
> The program opened with a UFO video which appeared quite
> unusual and shocking to me. Most people may remember this
> as the UFO with the flashing colors. The skeptic may have
> argued that this could have been an art sculpture of some
> kind, since it was filmed during an arts festival in Nevada.
> The funny thing is that the program never mentioned anyone
> who came forward and said "hey, that was just my art project."
> I am also sure that if this was just someone's art project,
> it would have scored near first prize. The fact of the matter
> is that the program did not mention a claimant of the project.
> I somewhat feel it safe to believe that this was something
> other then an art project. It may have been an alien spacecraft.
Ahh... what's the use.
--
ALL NEW MARFA MYSTERY LIGHTS!
http://www.watchingyou.com/marfa.html
Lance C. Johnson
just recently happened to me. I have a little London-style Bobby (cop)
figure on my keychain and I've recently discovered that something has
chewed it up.
Upon close examination, it's clear that it is indeed teeth marks on the
figure. Perhaps it was aliens, but I think that leprechauns, sprites
or gnomes are more likely in this scenario, as they're known for their
mischevious tendencies.
Of course, I do own three rats that I let run around my room and they
are well known for chewing on things. However, I didn't actually SEE
them chew up the figure. Also, none of them CLAIMED to have chewed it
up. Since nobody can absolutely prove that my rats chewed up the
figure, then we can all likely assume that it was something paranormal,
right?
Ugh...
That whooshing sound is the joke going over Flagship's head...
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
NewAge Skeptic
"Lou Minatti™" wrote:
>
> Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote:
>
> > The program opened with a UFO video which appeared quite
> > unusual and shocking to me. Most people may remember this
> > as the UFO with the flashing colors. The skeptic may have
> > argued that this could have been an art sculpture of some
> > kind, since it was filmed during an arts festival in Nevada.
> > The funny thing is that the program never mentioned anyone
> > who came forward and said "hey, that was just my art project."
> > I am also sure that if this was just someone's art project,
> > it would have scored near first prize. The fact of the matter
> > is that the program did not mention a claimant of the project.
> > I somewhat feel it safe to believe that this was something
> > other then an art project. It may have been an alien spacecraft.
>
> Ahh... what's the use.
There isn't any. I've come to realize that this little fella is just a
waste of everyone's valuable time. Let him talk to himself, and his
electric fan.
Sandy
--
"Desperate Dan" Kettler wrote in reference to his
persistent linking of his website:
DK: I don't link _every_ discussion, or even
nearly every discussion. You are a jerk!
NewAge Skeptic
"Lance C. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Ya know, it's funny, but something with paranormal possibilities has
> just recently happened to me. I have a little London-style Bobby (cop)
> figure on my keychain and I've recently discovered that something has
> chewed it up.
>
> Upon close examination, it's clear that it is indeed teeth marks on the
> figure. Perhaps it was aliens, but I think that leprechauns, sprites
> or gnomes are more likely in this scenario, as they're known for their
> mischevious tendencies.
>
> Of course, I do own three rats that I let run around my room and they
> are well known for chewing on things. However, I didn't actually SEE
> them chew up the figure. Also, none of them CLAIMED to have chewed it
> up. Since nobody can absolutely prove that my rats chewed up the
> figure, then we can all likely assume that it was something paranormal,
> right?
>
> Ugh...
>
> That whooshing sound is the joke going over Flagship's head...
The FTB Theory of Deductive Reasoning dictates:
'Since it cannot be proven that your rat(s) chewed on your keychain
there is a great likelihood it was perpetrated by a paranormal alien
because that possibility has not been disproven.'
Flaggy would then defend this conclusion with: 'How do you know for sure
it wasn't...hmm?'
Sandy :o)
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
--
Wally Anglesea™
<parano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
<SNIP>
>Another segment featured videos which came from NASA. One video
>featured a satellite with a 12 mile long tether attached to it.
>The tether soon broke and was drifting away. In the video which
>was taken by NASA at the time, there appeared to be dozens of UFOS.
>One was estimated to be 2-3 miles in diameter, according to one
>researcher. The skeptic argued that it was just space junk. While
>taking a closer look a researcher observed that there were circular
>patterns of light emanating from one of the objects. Another video
>featured a UFO that made an extremely sharp turn, unlike any common
>Earthly object. Another question is what could have made this object
>change it's path so suddenly? What about the dozens of UFOs filmed
>by NASA in the tether incident? I am doubting that this was the
>result of someone trying to play a hoax. These were videos from
>NASA. This is extremely interesting.
AHAHHA. Flaggy. you are aware that the alleged UFO that nuts like
you froth about was IN FACT ice and other debris. The reason that the
object suddenly appeared is that it passed beyond the shuttles shadow
zone, and was this lighted. The sudden sharp turn, alleged by whackos
as the UFO leaving because it was fired upon by sekret space rays from
Earht defence (and you *do* see the "rays"), was because the debris
was moved by the REACTION ENGINES ON THE SHUTTLE. The firing of the
engines at that point is a MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.
If you have the common sense to actually look at the optical illusion
you see, you will see the thing for yourself. I suspect you will
however, see this as an attempt by the "guvmint sekret agents to deny
the reality of the UFO fenomena".
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/pebble.htm
Fight spam:
http://www.caube.org.au/
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
NewAge Skeptic
"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 21:49:14 GMT, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
> <parano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
> <SNIP>
>
> >Another segment featured videos which came from NASA. One video
> >featured a satellite with a 12 mile long tether attached to it.
> >The tether soon broke and was drifting away. In the video which
> >was taken by NASA at the time, there appeared to be dozens of UFOS.
> >One was estimated to be 2-3 miles in diameter, according to one
> >researcher. The skeptic argued that it was just space junk. While
> >taking a closer look a researcher observed that there were circular
> >patterns of light emanating from one of the objects. Another video
> >featured a UFO that made an extremely sharp turn, unlike any common
> >Earthly object. Another question is what could have made this object
> >change it's path so suddenly? What about the dozens of UFOs filmed
> >by NASA in the tether incident? I am doubting that this was the
> >result of someone trying to play a hoax. These were videos from
> >NASA. This is extremely interesting.
>
> AHAHHA. Flaggy. you are aware that the alleged UFO that nuts like
> you froth about was IN FACT ice and other debris. The reason that the
> object suddenly appeared is that it passed beyond the shuttles shadow
> zone, and was this lighted. The sudden sharp turn, alleged by whackos
> as the UFO leaving because it was fired upon by sekret space rays from
> Earht defence (and you *do* see the "rays"), was because the debris
> was moved by the REACTION ENGINES ON THE SHUTTLE. The firing of the
> engines at that point is a MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.
>
> If you have the common sense to actually look at the optical illusion
> you see, you will see the thing for yourself. I suspect you will
> however, see this as an attempt by the "guvmint sekret agents to deny
> the reality of the UFO fenomena".
Flaggy claims that the skeptic argued the particles to be space junk. So
he will now pigeonhole the shuttle astronauts who were on the spot and
had a visual as pseudo-skeptics since it was they who claimed his UFOs
were debris released by the breaking of the tether.
What I found amazing about this shoddy piece of journalism is that with
the outragious claims being made, the producers didn't bother to
interview NASA scientists. Nor did they feature an interview with
Isreali Air Force officials on the claim that it spends a lot of time
chasing UFOs.
Makes you wonder what goes on in the Fox Network boardroom.
<snipped naive FTB observations>
Sandy
psiload
Paranormal <parano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
>
>On the eve of April-27-2000 Fox Television (in the United
>States) aired 2 specials relating to paranormal activity.
an electric fan.
Were these specials aired by the highly respected Fox Television
network between their "When Chihuahuas Attack!" and "Amazing Car
Crash/Prime Time Snuff Videos!" specials?
Mike Combs
>
> What I found amazing about this shoddy piece of journalism is that with
> the outragious claims being made, the producers didn't bother to
> interview NASA scientists. Nor did they feature an interview with
> Isreali Air Force officials on the claim that it spends a lot of time
> chasing UFOs.
>
> Makes you wonder what goes on in the Fox Network boardroom.
Discussions of which strategies garner the highest ratings. Evidently
actually solving a mystery isn't one of them.
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hey, waiter, I'm in my soup!"
Overheard in a cafe in "A Bug's Life"
NewAge Skeptic
Mike Combs wrote:
>
> NewAge Skeptic wrote:
> >
> > What I found amazing about this shoddy piece of journalism is that with
> > the outragious claims being made, the producers didn't bother to
> > interview NASA scientists. Nor did they feature an interview with
> > Isreali Air Force officials on the claim that it spends a lot of time
> > chasing UFOs.
> >
> > Makes you wonder what goes on in the Fox Network boardroom.
>
> Discussions of which strategies garner the highest ratings. Evidently
> actually solving a mystery isn't one of them.
Yup.
This sort of journalism borders on the irresponsible. The Fox editorial
staff's memory obviously doesn't go far enough back to remember
'Heaven's Gate'. But hey, this is nothing new for Fox. They know what
their audience wants to believe so far be it from them to present a
balanced documentary. Hardly anyone would watch. Obviously ratings are
more important than truth.
Chris Sutor
: Discussions of which strategies garner the highest ratings. Evidently
: actually solving a mystery isn't one of them.
These programs often go out of their way to edit out any commentary which
doesn't promote the show's angle.. clipping explanations and ignoring
evidence which would point to more mundane reasons for what's being shown.
The UFO show was called "Best Evidence Ever"... Not exactly a skeptical
title.
--
COBALTatTIGERDENdotCOM I'd really like a New World Order, but
----==============---- I can only afford a slightly used one.
now with 10% real *****************************************
fruit juice! Don't blame me, I voted for Richard Dangerous
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
-Reposted from yesterday at 6:21pm (ET) due to possible
propagation problems with Earthlink's newserver-
-Groups Removed-
sci.skeptic
"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 21:49:14 GMT, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
> <parano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
> <SNIP>
>
> >Another segment featured videos which came from NASA. One video
> >featured a satellite with a 12 mile long tether attached to it.
> >The tether soon broke and was drifting away. In the video which
> >was taken by NASA at the time, there appeared to be dozens of UFOS.
> >One was estimated to be 2-3 miles in diameter, according to one
> >researcher. The skeptic argued that it was just space junk. While
> >taking a closer look a researcher observed that there were circular
> >patterns of light emanating from one of the objects. Another video
> >featured a UFO that made an extremely sharp turn, unlike any common
> >Earthly object. Another question is what could have made this object
> >change it's path so suddenly? What about the dozens of UFOs filmed
> >by NASA in the tether incident? I am doubting that this was the
> >result of someone trying to play a hoax. These were videos from
> >NASA. This is extremely interesting.
>
> AHAHHA. Flaggy. you are aware that the alleged UFO that nuts like
> you froth about was IN FACT ice and other debris. The reason that the
> object suddenly appeared is that it passed beyond the shuttles shadow
> zone, and was this lighted. The sudden sharp turn, alleged by whackos
> as the UFO leaving because it was fired upon by sekret space rays from
> Earht defence (and you *do* see the "rays"), was because the debris
> was moved by the REACTION ENGINES ON THE SHUTTLE. The firing of the
> engines at that point is a MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.
>
> If you have the common sense to actually look at the optical illusion
> you see, you will see the thing for yourself. I suspect you will
> however, see this as an attempt by the "guvmint sekret agents to deny
> the reality of the UFO fenomena".
There was a sharp turn and "increase" in acceleration of the object.
I find it hard to believe that it was an ordinary piece of ice
or space debris. What makes you think that it was ice etc? If you
do not believe in the existence of an ether, then how can such debris
make such a sharp turn in midspace? With the distance of the object from
the shuttle, how and why do you believe that its sharp movement was a
result of the reaction engines firing? How would this engine firing
result in the sharp angle of direction the object shifted, VS its
velocity? How would the firing of the engines cause the rate of
acceleration of the distant object to increase so rapidly? Hmm.
This is indeed kind of interesting. I was up a few nights when
I first heard about this a few years ago. There is in fact a great
likelihood that we are being visited by paranormal aliens. Please
keep in mind that these possibilities were never disproven.
> Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/pebble.htm
>
> Fight spam:
> http://www.caube.org.au/
>
> "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
--
psiload
>SNIP
>
>The next segment featured a UFO flying close to the twin
>towers in NYC. If you looked closely at the video you may
>have noticed that the city lights were being reflected by
>the object. As the object moved, so did the reflection of
>city lights. One might also notice that the UFO seemed to
>be somewhat stationary in the sky. For example when the
>camera moved, the UFO seemed to remain stationary with the
>buildings. To this segment the skeptic argued that the video
>was taken on a vessel and that nobody else on the vessel
>was reacting to the sighting.
Here's something else for you to consider Flaggy... not only did
nobody on the vessel react to the alien spacecraft that was
supposedly hovering near lower Manhattan, nobody else in this
most densely populated areas of the world reacted either. I live
in Manhattan, and I don't recall seeing any articles in the Times
about the spaceship that hovered over the World Trade Center.
Before you try and claim that we were all distracted, I'll remind
you that this is the city that never sleeps.
Lance C. Johnson
Paranormal <parano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >The next segment featured a UFO flying close to the twin
> > >towers in NYC. If you looked closely at the video you may
> > >have noticed that the city lights were being reflected by
> > >the object. As the object moved, so did the reflection of
> > >city lights. One might also notice that the UFO seemed to
> > >be somewhat stationary in the sky. For example when the
> > >camera moved, the UFO seemed to remain stationary with the
> > >buildings. To this segment the skeptic argued that the video
> > >was taken on a vessel and that nobody else on the vessel
> > >was reacting to the sighting.
> >
> > nobody on the vessel react to the alien spacecraft that was
> > supposedly hovering near lower Manhattan, nobody else in this
> > most densely populated areas of the world reacted either. I live
> > in Manhattan, and I don't recall seeing any articles in the Times
> > about the spaceship that hovered over the World Trade Center.
> > Before you try and claim that we were all distracted, I'll remind
> > you that this is the city that never sleeps.
> I believe that there were a great number of witnesses to this
> strange object. I also believe that several of those people
> around the NYC area posted to the newsgroups in relation to
> the issue before the video was even brought forward to the
> public.
Typical Flagship response. He doesn't have any actual facts to back
him up, he just uses his "I believe that..." phrase. Kinda like how he
believes that the pyramids and New Mexico are "close" to the equator.
(Despite the fact that they're both thousands of miles away.)
> This is indeed a thing that makes you think for a
> while. Try doing a Deja-News lookup of Usenet posts made around
> that time. Also try searching for some interesting websites
> relating to the issue.
You'd think that at least somebody would have been able to get a CLEAR
picture of it then, huh? There's a lot of people in Manhattan...lots
of possibilities for at least somebody to come up with some solid
evidence...which is always lacking in Flagship's posts.
> Please keep in mind that even if this
> is another hoax possibly perpetrated by the secret
> sub-governmental cults in our society to divert people to
> skepticism etc, it does not disprove the likelihood
> that we are in fact being visited by paranormal aliens.
> Yes, there have been other New Yorkers that have witnessed
> the same or similar UFO sighting in NYC.
Like who? Got some facts to back it up? Or just "beliefs." Where are
the pyramids again?
> The funny thing
> is that the reports from the time detailed it in several
> locations. I believe that it was scanning the city or
> possibly observing the multitude of people wondering the
> streets, and carrying out their everyday lives.
Maybe you should get some hard evidence that it was in fact a
"paranormal alien" before you go coming up with theories as to what its
intent was.
> If you
> been to NYC a lot, you may notice that people seldomly
> look up. It is still likely that many people did not
> witness this possible paranormal event.
But wait, didn't you just say that many people did? Did they or didn't
they?
> As time roles on
> I will continue to research the paranormal possibilities
> of aliens visiting our planet.
We're all still awaiting some ACTUAL research from you, Flagship. I
think that you are ignorant as to what constitutes research, as your
previous endeavors have led you to believe that the pyramids are near
the equator, even though they're close in the same way that San
Francisco is close to El Paso. I'd have at least a bit of respect for
you if you were honest enough to admit that you were wrong about that.
> "With the birth of this great new millennium, the paranormal has
> dawned upon us all. All you have to do is allow yourself to
> believe!"
Do you realize how pathetic it is when you quote yourself? And the
paranormal hasn't "dawned upon us all." Even if there was some truth
to it, it sure as heck hasn't "dawned upon us all." Sure sounds
fancy-shmancy though, I'll have to give you that. I'd be more
impressed with "All you have to do is look at the evidence." Of
course, if people did that then they wouldn't "believe."
Oh, and thanks for adding me to the Alt.paranormal regulars list! It's
a pretty sharp page (no sarcasm there at all...I do a bit of web design
and yours is clear and easy to navigate.)
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
psiload wrote:
>
> In article <390A074A...@earthlink.net>, Flagship1 of the
> Paranormal <parano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
>
> >SNIP
>
> >
> >The next segment featured a UFO flying close to the twin
> >towers in NYC. If you looked closely at the video you may
> >have noticed that the city lights were being reflected by
> >the object. As the object moved, so did the reflection of
> >city lights. One might also notice that the UFO seemed to
> >be somewhat stationary in the sky. For example when the
> >camera moved, the UFO seemed to remain stationary with the
> >buildings. To this segment the skeptic argued that the video
> >was taken on a vessel and that nobody else on the vessel
> >was reacting to the sighting.
>
> Here's something else for you to consider Flaggy... not only did
> nobody on the vessel react to the alien spacecraft that was
> supposedly hovering near lower Manhattan, nobody else in this
> most densely populated areas of the world reacted either. I live
> in Manhattan, and I don't recall seeing any articles in the Times
> about the spaceship that hovered over the World Trade Center.
> Before you try and claim that we were all distracted, I'll remind
> you that this is the city that never sleeps.
I believe that there were a great number of witnesses to this
strange object. I also believe that several of those people
around the NYC area posted to the newsgroups in relation to
the issue before the video was even brought forward to the
public. This is indeed a thing that makes you think for a
while. Try doing a Deja-News lookup of Usenet posts made around
that time. Also try searching for some interesting websites
relating to the issue. Please keep in mind that even if this
is another hoax possibly perpetrated by the secret
sub-governmental cults in our society to divert people to
skepticism etc, it does not disprove the likelihood
that we are in fact being visited by paranormal aliens.
Yes, there have been other New Yorkers that have witnessed
the same or similar UFO sighting in NYC. The funny thing
is that the reports from the time detailed it in several
locations. I believe that it was scanning the city or
possibly observing the multitude of people wondering the
streets, and carrying out their everyday lives. If you
been to NYC a lot, you may notice that people seldomly
look up. It is still likely that many people did not
witness this possible paranormal event. As time roles on
I will continue to research the paranormal possibilities
of aliens visiting our planet.
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
--
Mike Combs
>
> They know what
> their audience wants to believe so far be it from them to present a
> balanced documentary.
The disclaimer they always put at the front of these kinds of shows is a
frank admission that there's not going to be any attempt at a balanced
presentation. It's up to you to go out and ferret out the evidence
leading to the prosaic explanation yourself.
Mike Combs
>
> These programs often go out of their way to edit out any commentary which
> doesn't promote the show's angle.. clipping explanations and ignoring
> evidence which would point to more mundane reasons for what's being shown.
The disclaimer they put at the front of these shows practically says as
much as that they're only going to present you with the one side of the
issue.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
-Slimmed Down To Save Bandwidth-
"Lance C. Johnson" wrote:
>
> > I believe that there were a great number of witnesses to this
> > strange object. I also believe that several of those people
> > around the NYC area posted to the newsgroups in relation to
> > the issue before the video was even brought forward to the
> > public.
>
> Typical Flagship response. He doesn't have any actual facts to back
> him up, he just uses his "I believe that..." phrase. Kinda like how he
> believes that the pyramids and New Mexico are "close" to the equator.
> (Despite the fact that they're both thousands of miles away.)
You seem to be missing my point here. I recommended people to do
a search of Deja News if they were interested in doing so. The
person who shot the video was obviously not the only person who
may have witnessed this paranormal event at the time.
> > This is indeed a thing that makes you think for a
> > while. Try doing a Deja-News lookup of Usenet posts made around
> > that time. Also try searching for some interesting websites
> > relating to the issue.
>
> You'd think that at least somebody would have been able to get a CLEAR
> picture of it then, huh? There's a lot of people in Manhattan...lots
> of possibilities for at least somebody to come up with some solid
> evidence...which is always lacking in Flagship's posts.
I have presented a great deal of evidence in my posts. The
problem comes with the Pseudo-Skeptic (a term by Dan Kettler)
who automatically assumes the negative even when he/she claims
that such a negative cannot be proven in the first place. I
did not write that the video footage presented by FOX Television
(in the United States) was the only evidence from this sighting.
> > Please keep in mind that even if this
> > is another hoax possibly perpetrated by the secret
> > sub-governmental cults in our society to divert people to
> > skepticism etc, it does not disprove the likelihood
> > that we are in fact being visited by paranormal aliens.
> > Yes, there have been other New Yorkers that have witnessed
> > the same or similar UFO sighting in NYC.
>
> Like who? Got some facts to back it up? Or just "beliefs." Where are
> the pyramids again?
It is a proven fact that people are deliberately creating hoaxes to
divert people to skepticism. There is a great possibility that some
of these people work within various sub-governmental cults, that
carry out such activity as a diversion. I was saying that even if
this sighting was such a hoax, it does not at all disprove the
likelihood of our being visited by paranormal aliens. At the present
time, however I have found (no) evidence indicating that this NYC UFO
sighting was a hoax. There is still a great likelihood that it may
have been a paranormal alien spacecraft.
> > The funny thing
> > is that the reports from the time detailed it in several
> > locations. I believe that it was scanning the city or
> > possibly observing the multitude of people wondering the
> > streets, and carrying out their everyday lives.
>
> Maybe you should get some hard evidence that it was in fact a
> "paranormal alien" before you go coming up with theories as to what its
> intent was.
You will have to take a closer look at the object. Please tell
me specifically what you seen in the picture, and why you are
assuming that it was not a paranormal alien spacecraft.
> > If you
> > been to NYC a lot, you may notice that people seldomly
> > look up. It is still likely that many people did not
> > witness this possible paranormal event.
>
> But wait, didn't you just say that many people did? Did they or didn't
> they?
Many people have witnessed this sighting, though the reports
detail it as being seen in several different places in the
NYC metropolitan area. Yes there are in fact many people who
may never have noticed it as well. And yes there may still be
a vast majority of people who may have noticed it but never
came forward with information.
> > As time roles on
> > I will continue to research the paranormal possibilities
> > of aliens visiting our planet.
>
> We're all still awaiting some ACTUAL research from you, Flagship. I
> think that you are ignorant as to what constitutes research, as your
> previous endeavors have led you to believe that the pyramids are near
> the equator, even though they're close in the same way that San
> Francisco is close to El Paso. I'd have at least a bit of respect for
> you if you were honest enough to admit that you were wrong about that.
I wrote in that very thread that the pyramids were in a climate close
to the equator. Please keep in mind that I am mainly discussing the
recent telecast relating to paranormal UFOs being caught on tape.
> > "With the birth of this great new millennium, the paranormal has
> > dawned upon us all. All you have to do is allow yourself to
> > believe!"
>
> Do you realize how pathetic it is when you quote yourself? And the
> paranormal hasn't "dawned upon us all." Even if there was some truth
> to it, it sure as heck hasn't "dawned upon us all." Sure sounds
> fancy-shmancy though, I'll have to give you that. I'd be more
> impressed with "All you have to do is look at the evidence." Of
> course, if people did that then they wouldn't "believe."
It is still your choice if you want to allow yourself to
believe in these paranormal possibilities or not. Millions
of people have been coming forward with mounds of evidence
relating to the possibilities of our being visited by
paranormal aliens. A good example of that evidence was
presented by Fox television (in the United States) a few
days ago. Yes there were a few things that I did not fully
agree with, but there was still a good amount of stuff
there for me to work with.
> Oh, and thanks for adding me to the Alt.paranormal regulars list! It's
> a pretty sharp page (no sarcasm there at all...I do a bit of web design
> and yours is clear and easy to navigate.)
I still wonder why people with opposing viewpoints visit my
website. I designed the alt.paranormal info page with a
neutral viewpoint, so yeah I guess its understandable.
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
--
-=[chRØMi$X]=--- - - - - -
>> > I believe that there were a great number of witnesses to this
>> > strange object. I also believe that several of those people
>> > around the NYC area posted to the newsgroups in relation to
>> > the issue before the video was even brought forward to the
>> > public.
>> Typical Flagship response. He doesn't have any actual facts to back
>> him up, he just uses his "I believe that..." phrase. Kinda like how he
>> believes that the pyramids and New Mexico are "close" to the equator.
>> (Despite the fact that they're both thousands of miles away.)
>You seem to be missing my point here. I recommended people to do
>a search of Deja News if they were interested in doing so. <SNiP>
You could actually prove your point here with a link to an URL
pointing to the discussed dejanews messages to *prove* your point. If
you are able to do so, you don't have to believe anymore that there
there were people around the NYC area posted to the newsgroups in
relation to these issues those times: You *knew* instead. In this
situation, believing may result in misguessings and false presumtions
about something which didn't happen at all, or happened different; The
people reading your claim surfing to deja.com/ may find nothing.
Some won't look at all because they think it's searching for a needle
in a haystack. (regardless if this haystack-thing is true or not).
That's why Lance claims that you don't have any facts to back up.
You'll be more credible if you do so. I've never seen (or better put,
seldom) references made by you. only that "I believe that..." phrase.
There is no point to miss, because you made none. Only hot air. Back
it up properly with a detailed *reference*, not with some guessing and
believing, but with a real fact. You are the one bringing this issue
about dejanews message(s), give an URL to (one of) these/this
message(s). give detailed *references*.
for example, the phrase --I believe that Albert Einstein said "in one
of his books" that trees bend gravity-- is *not* a reference, but
*knowing* that --I know Albert Einstein said in book x, on page y,
book revision z that trees bend gravity-- is. Actually, Einstein never
wrote this, thus i'm not able to give that (last) detailed reference
unless i lie,but it's possible to give the first one. But when you do,
you are not accurate, and you have no point. See what I mean?
/-- - - - - -\..
\ # # -- -- - -- /````
-- - # # / E-mail at chromisx (at) home.nl
chromis# | (remove .SPAM. from header address!)
- -- # # \ Greetings from Holland!
/ # # -- - -\..
\-- - - ---- --/````
Bob Myers
this thread concerns "paranormal" UFOs, as opposed
to the normal, everyday, garden-variety kind that keep
regular schedules and can be caught by anyone with
a valid ticket at the right gate at O'Hare, right?
Bob M.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
"-=[chRØMi$X]=--- - - - - -" wrote:
>
> -=[ Flagship1 <parano...@earthlink.net> wr0Te: ]=-
>
> >> > I believe that there were a great number of witnesses to this
> >> > strange object. I also believe that several of those people
> >> > around the NYC area posted to the newsgroups in relation to
> >> > the issue before the video was even brought forward to the
> >> > public.
> >> Typical Flagship response. He doesn't have any actual facts to back
> >> him up, he just uses his "I believe that..." phrase. Kinda like how he
> >> believes that the pyramids and New Mexico are "close" to the equator.
> >> (Despite the fact that they're both thousands of miles away.)
>
> >You seem to be missing my point here. I recommended people to do
> >a search of Deja News if they were interested in doing so. <SNiP>
>
> You could actually prove your point here with a link to an URL
> pointing to the discussed dejanews messages to *prove* your point. If
> you are able to do so, you don't have to believe anymore that there
> there were people around the NYC area posted to the newsgroups in
> relation to these issues those times: You *knew* instead. In this
> situation, believing may result in misguessings and false presumtions
> about something which didn't happen at all, or happened different; The
> people reading your claim surfing to deja.com/ may find nothing.
> Some won't look at all because they think it's searching for a needle
> in a haystack. (regardless if this haystack-thing is true or not).
>
> That's why Lance claims that you don't have any facts to back up.
> You'll be more credible if you do so. I've never seen (or better put,
> seldom) references made by you. only that "I believe that..." phrase.
> There is no point to miss, because you made none. Only hot air. Back
> it up properly with a detailed *reference*, not with some guessing and
> believing, but with a real fact. You are the one bringing this issue
> about dejanews message(s), give an URL to (one of) these/this
> message(s). give detailed *references*.
My "deepest" apologies to those who went to Deja news to perform a
lookup. I regret to say that Deja's archives for alt.paranormal
"do not" go back to October/November of 1994 when this paranormal
event has been originally reported. I am sure that a great many
of the people may still remember reading the posts, or writing
them for that matter. (SAVE THIS POST.) As soon as deja stretches
its database to include the old posts from 1994 I will repost this
portion of the thread. Please keep in mind that just because Deja
failed to include that period of time in their archives, does not
mean that this issue was not discussed in alt.paranormal that year.
The thing about the NYC UFO video that really shocked me is how
the city lights seem to be reflected by the object. Another factor
is that even with the movement of the camera due to the vessel
bobbing up and down in the water, the UFO seemed to be fixated
with the twin towers. This is indeed kind of strange. There
is still a great possibility that we are in fact being visited by
paranormal aliens. One issue that I discussed in the original
posting was that there were videos shot by NASA which I highly
doubt to be hoaxes. This is really spooky. I cant go to bed at night
without thinking about these paranormal issues. This is indeed
an extremely interesting subject.
> for example, the phrase --I believe that Albert Einstein said "in one
> of his books" that trees bend gravity-- is *not* a reference, but
> *knowing* that --I know Albert Einstein said in book x, on page y,
> book revision z that trees bend gravity-- is. Actually, Einstein never
> wrote this, thus i'm not able to give that (last) detailed reference
> unless i lie,but it's possible to give the first one. But when you do,
> you are not accurate, and you have no point. See what I mean?
You may be missing my point here, since I am mainly discussing the
possibilities of our being visited by paranormal aliens. The fact
of the matter is that even if this "one" video turns out to be a
hoax, it does not disprove the likelihood of our being visited
by paranormal aliens. There were still many things such as the
footage shot by NASA that amount to great evidence of our being
visited. The question is if you as an individual want to accept
these paranormal possibilities or not.
> /-- - - - - -\..
> \ # # -- -- - -- /````
> -- - # # / E-mail at chromisx (at) home.nl
> chromis# | (remove .SPAM. from header address!)
> - -- # # \ Greetings from Holland!
> / # # -- - -\..
> \-- - - ---- --/````
--
Lance C. Johnson
Paranormal <parano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Re: Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
> -Slimmed Down To Save Bandwidth-
> "Lance C. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > > I believe that there were a great number of witnesses to this
> > > strange object. I also believe that several of those people
> > > around the NYC area posted to the newsgroups in relation to
> > > the issue before the video was even brought forward to the
> > > public.
> >
> > Typical Flagship response. He doesn't have any actual facts to
> back
> > him up, he just uses his "I believe that..." phrase. Kinda like
> how he
> > believes that the pyramids and New Mexico are "close" to the
> equator.
> > (Despite the fact that they're both thousands of miles away.)
> You seem to be missing my point here. I recommended people to do
> a search of Deja News if they were interested in doing so. The
> person who shot the video was obviously not the only person who
> may have witnessed this paranormal event at the time.
You're the one missing the point, sweet-cheeks.
> > > This is indeed a thing that makes you think for a
> > > while. Try doing a Deja-News lookup of Usenet posts made around
> > > that time. Also try searching for some interesting websites
> > > relating to the issue.
> >
> > You'd think that at least somebody would have been able to get a
> CLEAR
> > picture of it then, huh? There's a lot of people in
> Manhattan...lots
> > of possibilities for at least somebody to come up with some solid
> > evidence...which is always lacking in Flagship's posts.
> I have presented a great deal of evidence in my posts.
Bullpucky. Just 'cause you keep sayin' it, that doesn't make it so.
You've made statements about "millions of people have said this or
that" which doesn't qualify as evidence for anything...even though you
think it does.
> The
> problem comes with the Pseudo-Skeptic (a term by Dan Kettler)
..Who's a frothing-at-the-mouth idiot...
> who automatically assumes the negative even when he/she claims
> that such a negative cannot be proven in the first place.
You seem to be missing the point about skepticism. We don't assume
anything. You're the one doing the assuming, as you ASSUME that a
"paranormal alien" is a likely answer. I'll entertain that notion once
you provide some proof other than your ad naseum comment of "millions
of people."
> I
> did not write that the video footage presented by FOX Television
> (in the United States) was the only evidence from this sighting.
Fair enough, but you didn't provide any info regarding other evidence
regarding the sighting...other than just telling us that other people
did, to which we're supposed to take your word for it.
> > > Please keep in mind that even if this
> > > is another hoax possibly perpetrated by the secret
> > > sub-governmental cults in our society to divert people to
> > > skepticism etc, it does not disprove the likelihood
> > > that we are in fact being visited by paranormal aliens.
You're missing the point, Flagship. Who said it was a hoax? A more
simple explanation was offered...one that you really don't want to
believe for some reason.
> > > Yes, there have been other New Yorkers that have witnessed
> > > the same or similar UFO sighting in NYC.
> >
> > Like who? Got some facts to back it up? Or just "beliefs."
> Where are
> > the pyramids again?
> It is a proven fact that people are deliberately creating hoaxes
> to
> divert people to skepticism.
"Proven fact," eh? Then you should have no problem providing some
evidence. And don't say that you have...'cause you haven't. And don't
say that "millions of people have come forward," 'cause that isn't
evidence either. Give us some names, dates, places, etc. that can be
verified through sources other than yourself.
> There is a great possibility that
> some
> of these people work within various sub-governmental cults, that
> carry out such activity as a diversion.
And there's also a great possibility that you're delusional. But you
wouldn't want to even entertain such a notion, would you?
> I was saying that even if
> this sighting was such a hoax, it does not at all disprove the
> likelihood of our being visited by paranormal aliens.
Of course it wouldn't. Nobody said that it did.
> At the
> present
> time, however I have found (no) evidence indicating that this NYC
> UFO
> sighting was a hoax.
Quit throwing up this strawman argument. Just because it's not a hoax,
that doesn't mean that "paranormal alien" is the only other likely
answer. You yourself keep talking about examining all of the
possibilities...seems to me that you only examine the ones that fit
your pet theories.
> There is still a great likelihood that it may
> have been a paranormal alien spacecraft.
Likelihood? Maybe. Great? Hardly.
> > > The funny thing
> > > is that the reports from the time detailed it in several
> > > locations. I believe that it was scanning the city or
> > > possibly observing the multitude of people wondering the
> > > streets, and carrying out their everyday lives.
> >
> > Maybe you should get some hard evidence that it was in fact a
> > "paranormal alien" before you go coming up with theories as to
> what its
> > intent was.
> You will have to take a closer look at the object. Please tell
> me specifically what you seen in the picture, and why you are
> assuming that it was not a paranormal alien spacecraft.
Send me a URL, as I don't have the picture handy.
Still, why are YOU assuming that it might be a spacecraft? Why is that
an option? I know, I know..."millions of people..."
> > > If you
> > > been to NYC a lot, you may notice that people seldomly
> > > look up. It is still likely that many people did not
> > > witness this possible paranormal event.
> >
> > But wait, didn't you just say that many people did? Did they or
> didn't
> > they?
> Many people have witnessed this sighting, though the reports
> detail it as being seen in several different places in the
> NYC metropolitan area. Yes there are in fact many people who
> may never have noticed it as well. And yes there may still be
> a vast majority of people who may have noticed it but never
> came forward with information.
Flagship, why don't you just address the fact that you've contradicted
yourself instead of trying to dishonestly cover your tracks? Maybe
nobody saw anything at all...and some people are just jumping on the
bandwagon and claiming that they did...something which has happened
before. (James Randi once went on a radio station and while not
revealing who he was, claimed that he saw a UFO. The lines were
flooded with several callers who claimed to have seen it too...even
though he just made it up.)
> > > As time roles on
> > > I will continue to research the paranormal possibilities
> > > of aliens visiting our planet.
> >
> > We're all still awaiting some ACTUAL research from you,
> Flagship. I
> > think that you are ignorant as to what constitutes research, as
> your
> > previous endeavors have led you to believe that the pyramids are
> near
> > the equator, even though they're close in the same way that San
> > Francisco is close to El Paso. I'd have at least a bit of
> respect for
> > you if you were honest enough to admit that you were wrong about
> that.
> I wrote in that very thread that the pyramids were in a climate
> close
> to the equator.
That's not what you said. You said that they were close to the
equator. Anyway, what you just stated isn't true either.
> Please keep in mind that I am mainly discussing
> the
> recent telecast relating to paranormal UFOs being caught on tape.
Yeah, and when we back you up against a wall on this one, you'll turn
around with your tail between your legs and create a new post.
> > > "With the birth of this great new millennium, the paranormal
> has
> > > dawned upon us all. All you have to do is allow yourself to
> > > believe!"
> >
> > Do you realize how pathetic it is when you quote yourself? And
> the
> > paranormal hasn't "dawned upon us all." Even if there was some
> truth
> > to it, it sure as heck hasn't "dawned upon us all." Sure sounds
> > fancy-shmancy though, I'll have to give you that. I'd be more
> > impressed with "All you have to do is look at the evidence." Of
> > course, if people did that then they wouldn't "believe."
> It is still your choice if you want to allow yourself to
> believe in these paranormal possibilities or not.
It is still your choice to get a clue.
> Millions
> of people have been coming forward with mounds of evidence
> relating to the possibilities of our being visited by
> paranormal aliens.
You do realize that repeating something doesn't make it true, right?
> A good example of that evidence was
> presented by Fox television (in the United States) a few
> days ago. Yes there were a few things that I did not fully
> agree with, but there was still a good amount of stuff
> there for me to work with.
Exactly...your research consists of sources that only promote your pet
theories...hardly what anybody could call balanced RESEARCH.
> > Oh, and thanks for adding me to the Alt.paranormal regulars
> list! It's
> > a pretty sharp page (no sarcasm there at all...I do a bit of web
> design
> > and yours is clear and easy to navigate.)
> I still wonder why people with opposing viewpoints visit my
> website. I designed the alt.paranormal info page with a
> neutral viewpoint, so yeah I guess its understandable.
That's kinda how I saw it...it's not like you called me a "booby-head
who eats his own poop." What you wrote was true and I have no problem
with the truth.
NewAge Skeptic
"Lance C. Johnson" wrote:
>
> In article <39107538...@earthlink.net>, Flagship1 of the
> Paranormal <parano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Re: Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
> > -Slimmed Down To Save Bandwidth-
> > "Lance C. Johnson" wrote:
<snip>
> And there's also a great possibility that you're delusional. But you
> wouldn't want to even entertain such a notion, would you?
I would. Based on available evidence, the possibility has escalated to
probability.
<snip>
-=[chRØMi$X]=--- - - - - -
>> That's why Lance claims that you don't have any facts to back up.
>> You'll be more credible if you do so. I've never seen (or better put,
>> seldom) references made by you. only that "I believe that..." phrase.
>> There is no point to miss, because you made none. Only hot air. Back
>> it up properly with a detailed *reference*, not with some guessing and
>> believing, but with a real fact. You are the one bringing this issue
>> about dejanews message(s), give an URL to (one of) these/this
>> message(s). give detailed *references*.
<SNiP>
>portion of the thread. Please keep in mind that just because Deja
>failed to include that period of time in their archives, does not
>mean that this issue was not discussed in alt.paranormal that year.
Agreed, but my point is that if you are able to give a reference, you
have a better case.
<SNiP>
>doubt to be hoaxes. This is really spooky. I cant go to bed at night
>without thinking about these paranormal issues. This is indeed
>an extremely interesting subject.
>> for example, the phrase --I believe that Albert Einstein said "in one
>> of his books" that trees bend gravity-- is *not* a reference, but
>> *knowing* that --I know Albert Einstein said in book x, on page y,
>> book revision z that trees bend gravity-- is. Actually, Einstein never
>> wrote this, thus i'm not able to give that (last) detailed reference
>> unless i lie,but it's possible to give the first one. But when you do,
>> you are not accurate, and you have no point. See what I mean?
>You may be missing my point here, since I am mainly discussing the
>possibilities of our being visited by paranormal aliens.
Above quote was used to illustrate my reference issue, thus to enhance
my point, not to challenge or enhance *your* point.
>The fact
>of the matter is that even if this "one" video turns out to be a
>hoax, it does not disprove the likelihood of our being visited
>by paranormal aliens.
Agreed, one hoax doesn't disprove the existence of UFO's. And yes, i'm
sure UFO's exist, because the abbreviation means "unidentified flying
object". Whether these things are inhabited by aliens or not, remains
a belief. Yes, there is a possibility.
>There were still many things such as the
>footage shot by NASA that amount to great evidence of our being
>visited. The question is if you as an individual want to accept
>these paranormal possibilities or not.
I only 'accept' possibilities if they are probable because they are
well documented with evidence. The problem I have with ufology is that
there are many hoaxes and many controversial stories who are way too
weird: you never know when a story is true of false, unless there are
multiple witnesses for an account, and they could be lying too because
of the sensation and the media attention. It's a difficult
"profession". This is why these issues are not in my area of
interest. Besides that, It's also difficult to investigate the
phenomena at the time it happens.
psiload
>> >towers in NYC. If you looked closely at the video you may
>> >have noticed that the city lights were being reflected by
>> >the object. As the object moved, so did the reflection of
>> >city lights. One might also notice that the UFO seemed to
>> >be somewhat stationary in the sky. For example when the
>> >camera moved, the UFO seemed to remain stationary with the
>> >buildings. To this segment the skeptic argued that the video
>> >was taken on a vessel and that nobody else on the vessel
>> >was reacting to the sighting.
>>
did
>> nobody on the vessel react to the alien spacecraft that was
>> supposedly hovering near lower Manhattan, nobody else in this
>> most densely populated areas of the world reacted either. I
live
>> in Manhattan, and I don't recall seeing any articles in the
Times
>> about the spaceship that hovered over the World Trade Center.
>> Before you try and claim that we were all distracted, I'll
remind
>> you that this is the city that never sleeps.
>
>strange object. I also believe that several of those people
>around the NYC area posted to the newsgroups in relation to
>the issue before the video was even brought forward to the
>public.
I wonder why these "several" people chose to report this
incredible event in internet newsgroups, while not a single
person among the "great number of witnesses" decided to report
the event to a legitimate media outlet? Perhaps they did, but the
media decided that an alien spaceship hovering over Manhattan
just was too mundane to be newsworthy? After all, they've got
lotto numbers to announce.
I believe you should stop quoting newsgroups as references to
support your claims...unless, of course, your goal is to brush
off any crumbs of credibility that may still be clinging to you.
If that's the case, then you should definitely quote Dan Kettler
more often.
>This is indeed a thing that makes you think for a
>while.
No, this is a thing that makes YOU think for way too long.
> Try doing a Deja-News lookup of Usenet posts made around
>that time. Also try searching for some interesting websites
>relating to the issue.
I had a better idea. I searched the archives of the New York
Times for around that time and guess what?
> Please keep in mind that even if this
>is another hoax possibly perpetrated by the secret
>sub-governmental cults in our society to divert people to
>skepticism etc, it does not disprove the likelihood
>that we are in fact being visited by paranormal aliens.
Sorry, my mind is too full of logical thoughts to store such
tripe.
>Yes, there have been other New Yorkers that have witnessed
>the same or similar UFO sighting in NYC. The funny thing
>is that the reports from the time detailed it in several
>locations.
Reports? You mean newsgroup ramblings right?
> I believe that it was scanning the city or
>possibly observing the multitude of people wondering the
>streets, and carrying out their everyday lives. If you
>been to NYC a lot, you may notice that people seldomly
>look up.
Unless of course, there's something worth looking up
at(i.e.-suicidal persons perched on ledges, scantily-clad models
on billboards, alien spaceships, etc...)
>It is still likely that many people did not
>witness this possible paranormal event.
Yet it is highly unlikely that only a few did, yet didn't bother
to report it anywhere except internet newsgroups...
A meteor streaked across the night skies above Peekskill, NY
recently. Not only were several dozen eyewitnesses to the event
interviewed on local TV and radio stations after the
event(legitimate media/not internet newsgroups), but more than
one of them actually captured the event on video! All this
despite the fact that this event occurred over a far less
populated area, and was of a far shorter duration than the
"Manhattan spaceship" event you claim is genuine despite it's
consisting of one dubious video, and scant or nonexistent
corroboration.
> As time roles on
>I will continue to research the paranormal possibilities
>of aliens visiting our planet.
Why shouldn't you? After all, it's not like you've got a life to
lead or anything.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
-Slimmed Down To Save Bandwidth-
"Lance C. Johnson" wrote:
>
> > You seem to be missing my point here. I recommended people to do
> > a search of Deja News if they were interested in doing so. The
> > person who shot the video was obviously not the only person who
> > may have witnessed this paranormal event at the time.
>
> You're the one missing the point, sweet-cheeks.
>
> > I have presented a great deal of evidence in my posts.
>
> Bullpucky. Just 'cause you keep sayin' it, that doesn't make it so.
> You've made statements about "millions of people have said this or
> that" which doesn't qualify as evidence for anything...even though you
> think it does.
The fact of the matter is that I have pointed out in a previous
post that the Pseudo-Skeptic seems to be automatically assuming
these millions of people to be lying. There is in fact a great
possibility that we are being visited by paranormal aliens. I
believe that the segments from the FOX telecast (in the United
States) stands firm to these issues. Again, it is still your
choice if you want to accept these possibilities or not.
> > The
> > problem comes with the Pseudo-Skeptic (a term by Dan Kettler)
>
> ..Who's a frothing-at-the-mouth idiot...
>
> > who automatically assumes the negative even when he/she claims
> > that such a negative cannot be proven in the first place.
>
> You seem to be missing the point about skepticism. We don't assume
> anything. You're the one doing the assuming, as you ASSUME that a
> "paranormal alien" is a likely answer. I'll entertain that notion once
> you provide some proof other than your ad naseum comment of "millions
> of people."
Nope, I wrote that it was the Pseudo-Skeptic who automatically assumes,
the negative even when he/she writes that such a negative cannot be
proven. How do you know for sure that we are not being visited by
aliens?
> > I
> > did not write that the video footage presented by FOX Television
> > (in the United States) was the only evidence from this sighting.
>
> Fair enough, but you didn't provide any info regarding other evidence
> regarding the sighting...other than just telling us that other people
> did, to which we're supposed to take your word for it.
>
> You're missing the point, Flagship. Who said it was a hoax? A more
> simple explanation was offered...one that you really don't want to
> believe for some reason.
This was a write-up/review of a recent telecast which was aired
on FOX Television (in the United States.) If you were watching
the program, you may have noticed that there is in fact mounds of
evidence that continues to come in from all around the world. The
problem is with the file cabinets. If you noticed, most of the
footage aired by FOX was at least 2-4 years old. Where was it
before FOX had it? Hmm. My guess is that FOX had to either get
special permission from someone, or must have gone to a film
vault/archive to receive the footage.
> > It is a proven fact that people are deliberately creating hoaxes
> > to
> > divert people to skepticism.
>
> "Proven fact," eh? Then you should have no problem providing some
> evidence. And don't say that you have...'cause you haven't. And don't
> say that "millions of people have come forward," 'cause that isn't
> evidence either. Give us some names, dates, places, etc. that can be
> verified through sources other than yourself.
I have a series of threads about that coming up in a short while
after my upcoming Randi posts. This would be hard to discuss in
just a single post.
> > There is a great possibility that
> > some
> > of these people work within various sub-governmental cults, that
> > carry out such activity as a diversion.
>
> And there's also a great possibility that you're delusional. But you
> wouldn't want to even entertain such a notion, would you?
What leads you to the automatic negative conclusion that I am
"delusional,"?
> > I was saying that even if
> > this sighting was such a hoax, it does not at all disprove the
> > likelihood of our being visited by paranormal aliens.
>
> Of course it wouldn't. Nobody said that it did.
I agree with you here.
> > At the
> > present
> > time, however I have found (no) evidence indicating that this NYC
> > UFO
> > sighting was a hoax.
>
> Quit throwing up this strawman argument. Just because it's not a hoax,
> that doesn't mean that "paranormal alien" is the only other likely
> answer. You yourself keep talking about examining all of the
> possibilities...seems to me that you only examine the ones that fit
> your pet theories.
>
> > There is still a great likelihood that it may
> > have been a paranormal alien spacecraft.
>
> Likelihood? Maybe. Great? Hardly.
You may be missing my point here. This is not a "strawman"
argument. I honestly don't even know what a "strawman" argument
is. The fact of the matter is that the likelihood's of our being
visited by paranormal aliens were never disproven.
> > You will have to take a closer look at the object. Please tell
> > me specifically what you seen in the picture, and why you are
> > assuming that it was not a paranormal alien spacecraft.
>
> Send me a URL, as I don't have the picture handy.
>
> Still, why are YOU assuming that it might be a spacecraft? Why is that
> an option? I know, I know..."millions of people..."
This is not a website that I am doing the review on. I am mainly
discussing the recent FOX television broadcast titled "UFOs The
Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape 2." I am referring to an actual
video tape here, that has a detailed shot of what appears to be a
paranormal UFO hovering close to the twin towers in NYC. Please
refer to the earlier replies for more info.
> > Many people have witnessed this sighting, though the reports
> > detail it as being seen in several different places in the
> > NYC metropolitan area. Yes there are in fact many people who
> > may never have noticed it as well. And yes there may still be
> > a vast majority of people who may have noticed it but never
> > came forward with information.
>
> Flagship, why don't you just address the fact that you've contradicted
> yourself instead of trying to dishonestly cover your tracks? Maybe
> nobody saw anything at all...and some people are just jumping on the
> bandwagon and claiming that they did...something which has happened
> before. (James Randi once went on a radio station and while not
> revealing who he was, claimed that he saw a UFO. The lines were
> flooded with several callers who claimed to have seen it too...even
> though he just made it up.)
I may be missing your point here. ...covering my tracks? James
Randi? I believe that the only real person who attempts to
cover his/her tracks on Usenet is the Pseudo-Skeptic (a term
by Dan Kettler) who wishes to automatically assume a negative
premise to be true, when such a negative premise cannot be
proven true in the first place. Please refer to my recent
thread titled "My Challenge to the Skeptics," or my website
for more info if you are interested. IIRC there was even a case
where someone even tried discussing purple cows simply to pull
the discussion off-topic, or to avoid it completely. I see
things a little differently then you do. I have nothing
against that, since I still understand that you have differing
viewpoints towards some of these paranormal possibilities.
> > I wrote in that very thread that the pyramids were in a climate
> > close
> > to the equator.
>
> That's not what you said. You said that they were close to the
> equator. Anyway, what you just stated isn't true either.
I did in fact write that they were close to the equator, and
people continually missed my point on that issue. I went on to
better describe my point by pointing out that the pyramids
were in a "climate" close to the equator. I am still saying
the same thing. Please refer to Deja News. Also, keep in mind
that I am mainly discussing the recent FOX telecast relating
to the possibilities of our being visited by paranormal aliens.
LOL :) There is no need for you to wander away from the topic
of this thread.
> > Please keep in mind that I am mainly discussing
> > the
> > recent telecast relating to paranormal UFOs being caught on tape.
>
> Yeah, and when we back you up against a wall on this one, you'll turn
> around with your tail between your legs and create a new post.
I do not see myself as being backed up against a wall in
discussing these paranormal issues. But, yes I do plan to
post a few more threads about these issues in the near
future.
> > It is still your choice if you want to allow yourself to
> > believe in these paranormal possibilities or not.
>
> It is still your choice to get a clue.
>
> > Millions
> > of people have been coming forward with mounds of evidence
> > relating to the possibilities of our being visited by
> > paranormal aliens.
>
> You do realize that repeating something doesn't make it true, right?
>
> > A good example of that evidence was
> > presented by Fox television (in the United States) a few
> > days ago. Yes there were a few things that I did not fully
> > agree with, but there was still a good amount of stuff
> > there for me to work with.
>
> Exactly...your research consists of sources that only promote your pet
> theories...hardly what anybody could call balanced RESEARCH.
Please refer to the above, about the FOX telecast (in the United
States.)
> > I still wonder why people with opposing viewpoints visit my
> > website. I designed the alt.paranormal info page with a
> > neutral viewpoint, so yeah I guess its understandable.
>
> That's kinda how I saw it...it's not like you called me a "booby-head
> who eats his own poop." What you wrote was true and I have no problem
> with the truth.
The fact of the matter is that even if I did, words are in fact
just words. All you have to do is allow yourself to have
faith in yourself.
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
--
"With the birth of this great new millennium, the paranormal has
dawned upon us all. All you have to do is allow yourself to believe!"
Please refer to alt.paranormal for more posts from Flagship1.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
> >You may be missing my point here, since I am mainly discussing the
> >possibilities of our being visited by paranormal aliens.
> Above quote was used to illustrate my reference issue, thus to enhance
> my point, not to challenge or enhance *your* point.
>
> >The fact
> >of the matter is that even if this "one" video turns out to be a
> >hoax, it does not disprove the likelihood of our being visited
> >by paranormal aliens.
> Agreed, one hoax doesn't disprove the existence of UFO's. And yes, i'm
> sure UFO's exist, because the abbreviation means "unidentified flying
> object". Whether these things are inhabited by aliens or not, remains
> a belief. Yes, there is a possibility.
>
> >There were still many things such as the
> >footage shot by NASA that amount to great evidence of our being
> >visited. The question is if you as an individual want to accept
> >these paranormal possibilities or not.
> I only 'accept' possibilities if they are probable because they are
> well documented with evidence. The problem I have with ufology is that
> there are many hoaxes and many controversial stories who are way too
> weird: you never know when a story is true of false, unless there are
> multiple witnesses for an account, and they could be lying too because
> of the sensation and the media attention. It's a difficult
> "profession". This is why these issues are not in my area of
> interest. Besides that, It's also difficult to investigate the
> phenomena at the time it happens.
Yes, there are some hoaxes. I believe that various sub-governmental
cults may be responsible for creating hoaxes to divert the public's
attention. Hey you never know. I agree with you that there is in
fact a great possibility that some of these UFOs may in fact be
paranormal alien spacecrafts. There are in fact many paranormal
possibilities here. As time progresses I will continue to research
the likelihood's of our being visited by aliens.
> /-- - - - - -\..
> \ # # -- -- - -- /````
> -- - # # / E-mail at chromisx (at) home.nl
> chromis# | (remove .SPAM. from header address!)
> - -- # # \ Greetings from Holland!
> / # # -- - -\..
> \-- - - ---- --/````
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
People want their information to be seen quickly rather then
simply locked in file cabinets etc. Most of those people are
now turning to the internet to share their findings with a vast
number of people, rather then file cabinets. If you watched
the FOX telecast you may know what I am talking about. Most
of the videos presented by FOX were at least 2-4 years old.
Usenet helps paranormalists get around those barriers. It
gives us the ability to send our information around the world
in a matter of seconds without the file cabinets and the long
wait. I still credit the broadcaster for mentioning the internet
discussions on their program.
> I believe you should stop quoting newsgroups as references to
> support your claims...unless, of course, your goal is to brush
> off any crumbs of credibility that may still be clinging to you.
> If that's the case, then you should definitely quote Dan Kettler
> more often.
It is still your choice of where you want to go for information.
I see the posters to Usenet as regular people just like you and
I. There is no need to automatically assume someone to be lying,
unless they were first proven to be lying.
> >This is indeed a thing that makes you think for a
> >while.
>
> No, this is a thing that makes YOU think for way too long.
>
> > Try doing a Deja-News lookup of Usenet posts made around
> >that time. Also try searching for some interesting websites
> >relating to the issue.
>
> I had a better idea. I searched the archives of the New York
> Times for around that time and guess what?
I am guessing that you probably had to wait until 1996
to read about it. If you read about it earlier, the report
was probably extremely anecdotal. Please refer to the
above about people using the internet to communicate
their theories and ideas.
> > Please keep in mind that even if this
> >is another hoax possibly perpetrated by the secret
> >sub-governmental cults in our society to divert people to
> >skepticism etc, it does not disprove the likelihood
> >that we are in fact being visited by paranormal aliens.
>
> Sorry, my mind is too full of logical thoughts to store such
> tripe.
>
> >Yes, there have been other New Yorkers that have witnessed
> >the same or similar UFO sighting in NYC. The funny thing
> >is that the reports from the time detailed it in several
> >locations.
>
> Reports? You mean newsgroup ramblings right?
I understand that you see things differently at your POV.
The fact of the matter is that the likelihood's of our being
visited by paranormal aliens were never disproven.
> > I believe that it was scanning the city or
> >possibly observing the multitude of people wondering the
> >streets, and carrying out their everyday lives. If you
> >been to NYC a lot, you may notice that people seldomly
> >look up.
>
> Unless of course, there's something worth looking up
> at(i.e.-suicidal persons perched on ledges, scantily-clad models
> on billboards, alien spaceships, etc...)
>
> >It is still likely that many people did not
> >witness this possible paranormal event.
>
> Yet it is highly unlikely that only a few did, yet didn't bother
> to report it anywhere except internet newsgroups...
> A meteor streaked across the night skies above Peekskill, NY
> recently. Not only were several dozen eyewitnesses to the event
> interviewed on local TV and radio stations after the
> event(legitimate media/not internet newsgroups), but more than
> one of them actually captured the event on video! All this
> despite the fact that this event occurred over a far less
> populated area, and was of a far shorter duration than the
> "Manhattan spaceship" event you claim is genuine despite it's
> consisting of one dubious video, and scant or nonexistent
> corroboration.
The fact of the matter is that many media outlets are afraid
to show a great deal of information. There is no requirement
for these media outlets to relay this information to the public.
It is there choice as to what they want to do, or what they
want to gatekeep or not. People go to where they can get their
information more conveniently and without the 2-4 year
waits as described above. There are still many media programs
that touch on these issues all the time, as well. Ex: Coast to
Coast with Art Bell, Jeff Rinse, and many others. It just
depends on where you want to look to get your information. The
fact of the matter is that there is still a great possibility
that we are in fact being visited. It is still your choice if
you want to accept these possibilities at your POV or not.
Another great thing about Usenet and the internet is that
you can get information directly from the sources, rather
then getting limited information from a 3rd party or an
editing machine.
> > As time roles on
> >I will continue to research the paranormal possibilities
> >of aliens visiting our planet.
>
> Why shouldn't you? After all, it's not like you've got a life to
> lead or anything.
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
As time continues to roll on, I will continue my heavy research
into the possibilities of our being visited by paranormal aliens.
Lance C. Johnson
Paranormal <parano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The fact of the matter is that I have pointed out in a previous
> post that the Pseudo-Skeptic seems to be automatically assuming
> these millions of people to be lying.
The real fact of the matter is that nobody is saying that these
SUPPOSED "millions" are all lying. Until I am shown some SOLID
evidence, I will go with the more likely theory that they're all a
combination of liars, wishful thinkers, and people who are simply
mistaken. Flagship, I believe that if YOU saw a weather balloon in the
fog, you would assume that it's a "paranormal alien" ship because you
so desperately WANT it all to be true.
> > You seem to be missing the point about skepticism. We don't
> assume
> > anything. You're the one doing the assuming, as you ASSUME that
> a
> > "paranormal alien" is a likely answer. I'll entertain that
> notion once
> > you provide some proof other than your ad naseum comment of
> "millions
> > of people."
> Nope, I wrote that it was the Pseudo-Skeptic who automatically
> assumes,
> the negative even when he/she writes that such a negative cannot
> be
> proven. How do you know for sure that we are not being visited by
> aliens?
Flagship, did I ever say "I am sure that we are not being visited by
paranormal aliens?" Did any of the skeptics or "Pseudo-skeptics" EVER
say that? No, we didn't. All we've said is that the "evidence" that
has been presented to us isn't good enough for us to believe that we
ARE being visited.
> This was a write-up/review of a recent telecast which was aired
> on FOX Television (in the United States.) If you were watching
> the program, you may have noticed that there is in fact mounds of
> evidence that continues to come in from all around the world. The
> problem is with the file cabinets. If you noticed, most of the
> footage aired by FOX was at least 2-4 years old. Where was it
> before FOX had it? Hmm. My guess is that FOX had to either get
> special permission from someone, or must have gone to a film
> vault/archive to receive the footage.
You reveal how desperately you want this all to be true, jumping to
conclusions and making guesses (a word that you even use) that fit your
theory.
> > > It is a proven fact that people are deliberately creating
> hoaxes
> > > to
> > > divert people to skepticism.
> >
> > "Proven fact," eh? Then you should have no problem providing
> some
> > evidence. And don't say that you have...'cause you haven't.
> And don't
> > say that "millions of people have come forward," 'cause that
> isn't
> > evidence either. Give us some names, dates, places, etc. that
> can be
> > verified through sources other than yourself.
> I have a series of threads about that coming up in a short while
> after my upcoming Randi posts. This would be hard to discuss in
> just a single post.
I eagerly await some solid evidence from you, Flagship. I'll hold you
to your word.
> > > There is a great possibility that
> > > some
> > > of these people work within various sub-governmental cults,
> that
> > > carry out such activity as a diversion.
> >
> > And there's also a great possibility that you're delusional.
> But you
> > wouldn't want to even entertain such a notion, would you?
> What leads you to the automatic negative conclusion that I am
> "delusional,"?
Actually, I'm pretty positive that you're delusional, Flagship. Based
on your posts, which are prime examples of wishful thinking, sloppy
"research," guesses, "visions," and a complete lack of understanding of
what science and skepticism are all about, I find it VERY easy to
believe that you're delusional.
> > > At the
> > > present
> > > time, however I have found (no) evidence indicating that this
> NYC
> > > UFO
> > > sighting was a hoax.
> >
> > Quit throwing up this strawman argument. Just because it's not
> a hoax,
> > that doesn't mean that "paranormal alien" is the only other
> likely
> > answer. You yourself keep talking about examining all of the
> > possibilities...seems to me that you only examine the ones that
> fit
> > your pet theories.
> >
> > > There is still a great likelihood that it may
> > > have been a paranormal alien spacecraft.
> >
> > Likelihood? Maybe. Great? Hardly.
> You may be missing my point here. This is not a "strawman"
> argument. I honestly don't even know what a "strawman" argument
> is. The fact of the matter is that the likelihood's of our being
> visited by paranormal aliens were never disproven.
How can you say that it's not a strawman argument if you don't even
know what one is? Here's the definition: "1. Stating a misrepresented
version of an opponent's argument for the purpose of having an easier
target to knock down." That's exactly what you did. You kept on
accusing the skeptics of calling it a hoax, which isn't even what we
were saying. Once again, YOU have missed the point.
> > > You will have to take a closer look at the object. Please tell
> > > me specifically what you seen in the picture, and why you are
> > > assuming that it was not a paranormal alien spacecraft.
> >
> > Send me a URL, as I don't have the picture handy.
> >
> > Still, why are YOU assuming that it might be a spacecraft? Why
> is that
> > an option? I know, I know..."millions of people..."
> This is not a website that I am doing the review on. I am mainly
> discussing the recent FOX television broadcast titled "UFOs The
> Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape 2." I am referring to an actual
> video tape here, that has a detailed shot of what appears to be a
> paranormal UFO hovering close to the twin towers in NYC. Please
> refer to the earlier replies for more info.
I suggest that you do the same, as a more likely answer was given to
you...one that you don't even want to consider.
Reread what I wrote, Flaggy...it ain't that tough. And quit quoting
Kettler, he's an idiot and he's not helping your cause.
> Please refer to my recent
> thread titled "My Challenge to the Skeptics," or my website
> for more info if you are interested.
I read it and found it to be full of your usual nonsense, where you
prove again and again that you don't understand the skeptical viewpoint.
> IIRC there was even a case
> where someone even tried discussing purple cows simply to pull
> the discussion off-topic, or to avoid it completely.
Are you really this clueless? The purple cow thing was being used as a
COMPARISON to what you were saying, using your own "logic" against you.
Basically, it just reiterated what you were saying, but substituted
"paranormal aliens" with "purple cows" in order to show you how
ridiculous your "point" was.
You couldn't handle the fact that somebody pointed out the obvious
holes in your point, so you cry foul about being "off-topic." You're
the only one doing the avoiding here, bunky.
> I see
> things a little differently then you do. I have nothing
> against that, since I still understand that you have differing
> viewpoints towards some of these paranormal possibilities.
> > > I wrote in that very thread that the pyramids were in a climate
> > > close
> > > to the equator.
> >
> > That's not what you said. You said that they were close to the
> > equator. Anyway, what you just stated isn't true either.
> I did in fact write that they were close to the equator, and
> people continually missed my point on that issue. I went on to
> better describe my point by pointing out that the pyramids
> were in a "climate" close to the equator.
That's still ridiculous. The equator has ONE climate? I mean, most of
it is warm, sure...but aren't there both humid and dry areas there?
(I'm not sure...but I do know that the pyramids in Giza are in a dry
climate.) Do you even know what a climate is?
> I am still saying
> the same thing. Please refer to Deja News. Also, keep in mind
> that I am mainly discussing the recent FOX telecast relating
> to the possibilities of our being visited by paranormal aliens.
> LOL :) There is no need for you to wander away from the topic
> of this thread.
> > > Please keep in mind that I am mainly discussing
> > > the
> > > recent telecast relating to paranormal UFOs being caught on
> tape.
> >
> > Yeah, and when we back you up against a wall on this one, you'll
> turn
> > around with your tail between your legs and create a new post.
> I do not see myself as being backed up against a wall in
> discussing these paranormal issues. But, yes I do plan to
> post a few more threads about these issues in the near
> future.
Of course you don't see it that way...further proof that you're
delusional.
> > > I still wonder why people with opposing viewpoints visit my
> > > website. I designed the alt.paranormal info page with a
> > > neutral viewpoint, so yeah I guess its understandable.
> >
> > That's kinda how I saw it...it's not like you called me a
> "booby-head
> > who eats his own poop." What you wrote was true and I have no
> problem
> > with the truth.
> The fact of the matter is that even if I did, words are in fact
> just words. All you have to do is allow yourself to have
> faith in yourself.
Hmmm...I like that one better than your usual "allow yourself to
believe" silliness.
LectrikEd
<parano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>You seem to be missing my point here.
DOH!!
>I have presented a great deal of evidence in my posts.
DOH!!
> There is still a great likelihood that it may
DOH!!
psiload
>People want their information to be seen quickly rather then
>simply locked in file cabinets etc. Most of those people are
>now turning to the internet to share their findings with a vast
>number of people, rather then file cabinets. If you watched
>the FOX telecast you may know what I am talking about. Most
>of the videos presented by FOX were at least 2-4 years old.
The reason the "ambiguous lights in the sky video" type of
information shown on the Fox special winds up in file cabinets,
and not on the six o'clock news is because the general public has
grown tired of this nonsense. Fifty years of people crying
"wolf", has yet to produce a single wolf turd, let alone a
living, breathing wolf. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I
think the UFO crap is going to go away anytime soon...as long as
their are logically-challenged creduphiles like yourself in the
world, Fox will continue to serve this crap on a paper plate.
But, don't expect to see any Late Breaking reports on CNN
covering the Manhattan spaceship video until the "bUFOonologists"
can come up with something besides "ambiguous lights-in-the-sky
videos", "alien implants" aka slivers of glass and metal removed
from the dermis of the hysterical, and "abduction" stories
gleaned from hypnosis of the sexually dysfunctional.
>Usenet helps paranormalists get around those barriers. It
>gives us the ability to send our information around the world
>in a matter of seconds without the file cabinets and the long
>wait.
Oh, and you forgot to mention the part about not needing a single
shred of evidence, verification and corroboration when making
fantastic claims on the internet. The internet sure comes in
handy when you need to circumvent those pesky barriers.
>I still credit the broadcaster for mentioning the internet
>discussions on their program.
You mean the Fox network? The same network that tried to feed us
Alien Autopsy and then subsequently aired a program exposing it
as the hoax they knew it was? Thereby proving once and for all
what a bunch totally unscrupulous ratings whores they truly are.
Yes, the network that brought us Al Bundy deserves lots of
credit.
>It is still your choice of where you want to go for information.
Just like from where one chooses to get their daily bread is a
personal choice. You can get your food from the gutter or the
grocery store.
>I see the posters to Usenet as regular people just like you and
>I. There is no need to automatically assume someone to be lying,
>unless they were first proven to be lying.
Unfortunately, dishonesty is just one arrow in the quiver of
human fallibility.
>I am guessing that you probably had to wait until 1996
>to read about it.
Actually, I'm still waiting.
> If you read about it earlier, the report
>was probably extremely anecdotal.
As opposed to what? The concrete reports from the guy who
intercepted the spaceship and has it stored in his garage?
>I understand that you see things differently at your POV.
>The fact of the matter is that the likelihood's of our being
>visited by paranormal aliens were never disproven.
Flaggy Fact alert!
>The fact of the matter is that many media outlets are afraid
>to show a great deal of information.
Yes, many media outlets are afraid of ruining their reputations
by presenting wildly speculative and childishly foolish
paranormal claptrap as if it were respectable fact. Luckily for
you, the Fox network has no such reservations.
> There is no requirement
>for these media outlets to relay this information to the public.
It would be more accurate to say that there is no requirement
that the information these media outlets relay be true, or even
likely.
>It is there choice as to what they want to do, or what they
>want to gatekeep or not.
If they're not hampered by frivolities such as journalistic
integrity, as Fox most certainly is not, then they show what
sells (crap) and gatekeep what does not (rationality).
> People go to where they can get their
>information more conveniently and without the 2-4 year
>waits as described above.
If the crap was real, there would be not wait. There is wait
because there is doubt.
> There are still many media programs
>that touch on these issues all the time, as well. Ex: Coast to
>Coast with Art Bell, Jeff Rinse, and many others.
Actually, Art Bell just gave up. It seems he couldn't tolerate
the bullshit, lies and slander. Against himself that is. He had
no problem bullshitting lying and slandering about any topic but
himself. And Jeff "Rinse" is actually named Jeff Rense, although
I do want to rinse myself after listening to the bullshit he
shovels.
> It just
>depends on where you want to look to get your information.
Although some of us possess the intellectual capacity to
"consider the source".
> The
>fact of the matter is that there is still a great possibility
>that we are in fact being visited. It is still your choice if
>you want to accept these possibilities at your POV or not.
Flaggy Fact alert!
>Another great thing about Usenet and the internet is that
>you can get information directly from the sources, rather
>then getting limited information from a 3rd party or an
>editing machine.
Unverified, uncorroborated, unsubstantiated, unfiltered
bullshit... The breakfast of champion kooks.
>As time continues to roll on, I will continue my heavy research
>into the possibilities of our being visited by paranormal
>aliens.
If I were you(*shudder*)I'd be heavily researching the
possibility of getting laid. On the other hand...maybe it'd be
better for the human race if you continued yo devote your
energies into obsessing over the paranormal alien visitors.
Kevin Burnett
Hash: SHA1
parano...@earthlink.net (Flagship1 of the Paranormal) wrote in
<3911E3ED...@earthlink.net>:
>
>Yes, there are some hoaxes. I believe that various sub-governmental
>cults may be responsible for creating hoaxes to divert the public's
>attention. Hey you never know.
Hey, Mr. Flagship, where'd you come up with this belief of yours? I
have read other people expressing such a belief, like Jacques Vallee.
Mind you, after having read "Messengers of Deception" and
"Revelations", I think Vallee is a paranoid nutcase.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBORIGmO9ykiRzpsWWEQJgigCffXqA390SeDK1EzGYnzXKh9amCaoAn0FF
eVyT7xk5oyvS2MUtG6zfrWkj
=JS5X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
k...@catnip.org http://www.catnip.org/
"DOS is Disk Operating System. It's needed by the disk, not by your operating
system." -- Richard the Stupid, demonstrating his amazing knowledge of
computers.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
-Reposted from yesterday at 8:43pm (ET) due to possible
propagation problems with Earthlink's newserver-
-Slimmed Down To Save Bandwidth-
"Lance C. Johnson" wrote:
>
> In article <3911DA8A...@earthlink.net>, Flagship1 of the
> Paranormal <parano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > The fact of the matter is that I have pointed out in a previous
> > post that the Pseudo-Skeptic seems to be automatically assuming
> > these millions of people to be lying.
>
> The real fact of the matter is that nobody is saying that these
> SUPPOSED "millions" are all lying. Until I am shown some SOLID
> evidence, I will go with the more likely theory that they're all a
> combination of liars, wishful thinkers, and people who are simply
> mistaken. Flagship, I believe that if YOU saw a weather balloon in the
> fog, you would assume that it's a "paranormal alien" ship because you
> so desperately WANT it all to be true.
My point was that the likelihood of our being visited by paranormal
aliens was never disproven, and the vast majority of the evidence that
I cited from the FOX telecast was also never disproven.
> > Nope, I wrote that it was the Pseudo-Skeptic who automatically
> > assumes,
> > the negative even when he/she writes that such a negative cannot
> > be
> > proven. How do you know for sure that we are not being visited by
> > aliens?
>
> Flagship, did I ever say "I am sure that we are not being visited by
> paranormal aliens?" Did any of the skeptics or "Pseudo-skeptics" EVER
> say that? No, we didn't. All we've said is that the "evidence" that
> has been presented to us isn't good enough for us to believe that we
> ARE being visited.
I agree with you 100% when you say that you cannot disprove the
likelihood of our being visited by paranormal aliens. As long
as you understand that the possibilities of our being visited
still exist, I see nothing wrong. I was discussing the
Pseudo-Skeptic (a term by Dan Kettler) who automatically assumes
a negative, even when he/she believes that such a negative
cannot be proven.
> > This was a write-up/review of a recent telecast which was aired
> > on FOX Television (in the United States.) If you were watching
> > the program, you may have noticed that there is in fact mounds of
> > evidence that continues to come in from all around the world. The
> > problem is with the file cabinets. If you noticed, most of the
> > footage aired by FOX was at least 2-4 years old. Where was it
> > before FOX had it? Hmm. My guess is that FOX had to either get
> > special permission from someone, or must have gone to a film
> > vault/archive to receive the footage.
>
> You reveal how desperately you want this all to be true, jumping to
> conclusions and making guesses (a word that you even use) that fit your
> theory.
It still depends on what you accept at your own POV. It is your choice
if you want to allow yourself to accept these paranormal possibilities
or not. The fact of the matter is that a lot of the evidence that FOX
has presented was old. I pointed out in another reply that Usenet allows
people to express their understandings of the paranormal without having
to fear the file cabinet so much. The FOX telecast also pointed to the
fact that the internet is indeed a great place for paranormalists to
discuss the paranormal.
> > I have a series of threads about that coming up in a short while
> > after my upcoming Randi posts. This would be hard to discuss in
> > just a single post.
>
> I eagerly await some solid evidence from you, Flagship. I'll hold you
> to your word.
I have presented mounds of evidence. I even referred to actual
video tapes from NASA in this thread. Again, it still depends
on if you want to accept the evidence at your POV. Please note
that this evidence was never proven to be false. So yes it is
still valad evidence at my POV.
> > What leads you to the automatic negative conclusion that I am
> > "delusional,"?
>
> Actually, I'm pretty positive that you're delusional, Flagship. Based
> on your posts, which are prime examples of wishful thinking, sloppy
> "research," guesses, "visions," and a complete lack of understanding of
> what science and skepticism are all about, I find it VERY easy to
> believe that you're delusional.
I'm sorry, but I do not see my research into these paranormal
possibilities as being sloppy. In my opinion, it is the
Pseudo-Skeptic that simply locks things in file cabinets that
I see as being sloppy. We have to look more closely at the
evidence at hand.
> > You may be missing my point here. This is not a "strawman"
> > argument. I honestly don't even know what a "strawman" argument
> > is. The fact of the matter is that the likelihood's of our being
> > visited by paranormal aliens were never disproven.
>
> How can you say that it's not a strawman argument if you don't even
> know what one is? Here's the definition: "1. Stating a misrepresented
> version of an opponent's argument for the purpose of having an easier
> target to knock down." That's exactly what you did. You kept on
> accusing the skeptics of calling it a hoax, which isn't even what we
> were saying. Once again, YOU have missed the point.
>
> > This is not a website that I am doing the review on. I am mainly
> > discussing the recent FOX television broadcast titled "UFOs The
> > Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape 2." I am referring to an actual
> > video tape here, that has a detailed shot of what appears to be a
> > paranormal UFO hovering close to the twin towers in NYC. Please
> > refer to the earlier replies for more info.
>
> I suggest that you do the same, as a more likely answer was given to
> you...one that you don't even want to consider.
Please refer to the earlier replies.
> > I may be missing your point here. ...covering my tracks? James
> > Randi? I believe that the only real person who attempts to
> > cover his/her tracks on Usenet is the Pseudo-Skeptic (a term
> > by Dan Kettler) who wishes to automatically assume a negative
> > premise to be true, when such a negative premise cannot be
> > proven true in the first place.
>
> Reread what I wrote, Flaggy...it ain't that tough. And quit quoting
> Kettler, he's an idiot and he's not helping your cause.
I am still missing your point, as I described in the above. I am mainly
discussing the recent telecast on FOX television relating to paranormal
aliens visiting our planet in this thread.
> > Please refer to my recent
> > thread titled "My Challenge to the Skeptics," or my website
> > for more info if you are interested.
>
> I read it and found it to be full of your usual nonsense, where you
> prove again and again that you don't understand the skeptical viewpoint.
What is leading you to this strange conclusion? I believe that I
have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the likelihood of our
being visited by paranormal aliens were never disproven. I have
posted some information to my Raw Feed Page, about that issue.
It even contains various quotes and links to Daja News.
> > IIRC there was even a case
> > where someone even tried discussing purple cows simply to pull
> > the discussion off-topic, or to avoid it completely.
>
> Are you really this clueless? The purple cow thing was being used as a
> COMPARISON to what you were saying, using your own "logic" against you.
> Basically, it just reiterated what you were saying, but substituted
> "paranormal aliens" with "purple cows" in order to show you how
> ridiculous your "point" was.
>
> You couldn't handle the fact that somebody pointed out the obvious
> holes in your point, so you cry foul about being "off-topic." You're
> the only one doing the avoiding here, bunky.
I am mainly discussing the recent FOX telecast in this thread. Why is
everyone throwing purple cows at me? Heeellllppp!!! What do they have
to do with the topics of either of these posts? Please make reference
to the recent FOX telecast in your reply. :)
> > I see
> > things a little differently then you do. I have nothing
> > against that, since I still understand that you have differing
> > viewpoints towards some of these paranormal possibilities.
> >
> > I did in fact write that they were close to the equator, and
> > people continually missed my point on that issue. I went on to
> > better describe my point by pointing out that the pyramids
> > were in a "climate" close to the equator.
>
> That's still ridiculous. The equator has ONE climate? I mean, most of
> it is warm, sure...but aren't there both humid and dry areas there?
> (I'm not sure...but I do know that the pyramids in Giza are in a dry
> climate.) Do you even know what a climate is?
Please do a Deja News lookup on my thread titled "Did paranormal
aliens build the pyramids?" posted on March-02-2000 for more
info on this.
> > I am still saying
> > the same thing. Please refer to Deja News. Also, keep in mind
> > that I am mainly discussing the recent FOX telecast relating
> > to the possibilities of our being visited by paranormal aliens.
> > LOL :) There is no need for you to wander away from the topic
> > of this thread.
> >
> > I do not see myself as being backed up against a wall in
> > discussing these paranormal issues. But, yes I do plan to
> > post a few more threads about these issues in the near
> > future.
>
> Of course you don't see it that way...further proof that you're
> delusional.
I'm sorry, but I do not see my discussions relating to the recent
FOX telecast titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape 2,"
as being delusional. Meanwhile, I will continue my research
into the likelihood that we are in fact being visited by aliens.
> > The fact of the matter is that even if I did, words are in fact
> > just words. All you have to do is allow yourself to have
> > faith in yourself.
>
> Hmmm...I like that one better than your usual "allow yourself to
> believe" silliness.
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
--
Mark
Lance C. Johnson):
> > > IIRC there was even a case
> > > where someone even tried discussing purple cows simply to pull
> > > the discussion off-topic, or to avoid it completely.
> >
> > Are you really this clueless? The purple cow thing was being used as a
> > COMPARISON to what you were saying, using your own "logic" against you.
> > Basically, it just reiterated what you were saying, but substituted
> > "paranormal aliens" with "purple cows" in order to show you how
> > ridiculous your "point" was.
> >
> > You couldn't handle the fact that somebody pointed out the obvious
> > holes in your point, so you cry foul about being "off-topic." You're
> > the only one doing the avoiding here, bunky.
>
> I am mainly discussing the recent FOX telecast in this thread. Why is
> everyone throwing purple cows at me? Heeellllppp!!! What do they have
> to do with the topics of either of these posts? Please make reference
> to the recent FOX telecast in your reply. :)
Flagship, do you really not understand why people use arguments such as
the "purple cow" argument or are you being deliberately awkward? Do you
not understand that there are two ways of attacking your
arguments?: Firstly, to show that they are based on flawed logic, and
secondly, to show that your premises are untrue. Arguments like "purple
cow" are intended to show that the logic underlying your argument is
flawed. It doesn't matter to these arguments what your premises are (which
is why they make no reference to things like the Fox broadcast) - they are
there to simply show you that your logic is fatally flawed and should not
be used to support any argument, including the one you put forward
regarding the Fox broadcast (or whatever).
Mark_H
Lance C. Johnson
> > Flagship, did I ever say "I am sure that we are not being
> visited by
> > paranormal aliens?" Did any of the skeptics or
> "Pseudo-skeptics" EVER
> > say that? No, we didn't. All we've said is that the "evidence"
> that
> > has been presented to us isn't good enough for us to believe
> that we
> > ARE being visited.
> I agree with you 100% when you say that you cannot disprove the
> likelihood of our being visited by paranormal aliens. As long
> as you understand that the possibilities of our being visited
> still exist, I see nothing wrong. I was discussing the
> Pseudo-Skeptic (a term by Dan Kettler) who automatically assumes
> a negative, even when he/she believes that such a negative
> cannot be proven.
Yeah, Flagship, but you're not describing any of the skeptics on this
board. Hence, the strawman argument.
> > > What leads you to the automatic negative conclusion that I am
> > > "delusional,"?
> >
> > Actually, I'm pretty positive that you're delusional, Flagship.
> Based
> > on your posts, which are prime examples of wishful thinking,
> sloppy
> > "research," guesses, "visions," and a complete lack of
> understanding of
> > what science and skepticism are all about, I find it VERY easy to
> > believe that you're delusional.
> I'm sorry, but I do not see my research into these paranormal
> possibilities as being sloppy. In my opinion, it is the
> Pseudo-Skeptic that simply locks things in file cabinets that
> I see as being sloppy. We have to look more closely at the
> evidence at hand.
Exactly, you need to look more closely at the evidence at
hand...something which you DON'T do! You just look for things that
support your theory...which is sloppy and is NOT the way research is
conducted.
> > Reread what I wrote, Flaggy...it ain't that tough. And quit
> quoting
> > Kettler, he's an idiot and he's not helping your cause.
> I am still missing your point, as I described in the above. I am
> mainly
> discussing the recent telecast on FOX television relating to
> paranormal
> aliens visiting our planet in this thread.
I know what you're discussing, Flagship. I was talking about a similar
incident of a supposed mass UFO sighting. Are you having such a hard
time finding the connection or are you just putting on your usual
blinders when presented with actual evidence?
> > > Please refer to my recent
> > > thread titled "My Challenge to the Skeptics," or my website
> > > for more info if you are interested.
> >
> > I read it and found it to be full of your usual nonsense, where
> you
> > prove again and again that you don't understand the skeptical
> viewpoint.
> What is leading you to this strange conclusion?
Because the conclusion isn't so strange, and that's precisely what you
do.
> > > IIRC there was even a case
> > > where someone even tried discussing purple cows simply to pull
> > > the discussion off-topic, or to avoid it completely.
> >
> > Are you really this clueless? The purple cow thing was being
> used as a
> > COMPARISON to what you were saying, using your own "logic"
> against you.
> > Basically, it just reiterated what you were saying, but
> substituted
> > "paranormal aliens" with "purple cows" in order to show you how
> > ridiculous your "point" was.
> >
> > You couldn't handle the fact that somebody pointed out the
> obvious
> > holes in your point, so you cry foul about being "off-topic."
> You're
> > the only one doing the avoiding here, bunky.
> I am mainly discussing the recent FOX telecast in this thread. Why
> is
> everyone throwing purple cows at me? Heeellllppp!!! What do they
> have
> to do with the topics of either of these posts? Please make
> reference
> to the recent FOX telecast in your reply. :)
Christ...you REALLY are that clueless! Do you really not understand
the process of using comparisons in order to demonstrate a point?
> > > I did in fact write that they were close to the equator, and
> > > people continually missed my point on that issue. I went on to
> > > better describe my point by pointing out that the pyramids
> > > were in a "climate" close to the equator.
> >
> > That's still ridiculous. The equator has ONE climate? I mean,
> most of
> > it is warm, sure...but aren't there both humid and dry areas
> there?
> > (I'm not sure...but I do know that the pyramids in Giza are in a
> dry
> > climate.) Do you even know what a climate is?
> Please do a Deja News lookup on my thread titled "Did paranormal
> aliens build the pyramids?" posted on March-02-2000 for more
> info on this.
I read the whole thing, Flagship. All you did there was dodge the
issue and insist that the pyramids were close to the equator. How
about addressing the fact that you're wrong yet again instead of
referring me to something that doesn't answer the question either?
> > > I am still saying
> > > the same thing. Please refer to Deja News. Also, keep in mind
> > > that I am mainly discussing the recent FOX telecast relating
> > > to the possibilities of our being visited by paranormal aliens.
> > > LOL :) There is no need for you to wander away from the topic
> > > of this thread.
> > >
> > > I do not see myself as being backed up against a wall in
> > > discussing these paranormal issues. But, yes I do plan to
> > > post a few more threads about these issues in the near
> > > future.
> >
> > Of course you don't see it that way...further proof that you're
> > delusional.
> I'm sorry, but I do not see my discussions relating to the recent
> FOX telecast titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape 2,"
> as being delusional. Meanwhile, I will continue my research
> into the likelihood that we are in fact being visited by aliens.
Of course you don't see it as being delusional...that's because you ARE
delusional! Somebody who's delusional isn't aware that he or she
delusional.
Shall we put it to a vote?
-=[chRØMi$X]=--- - - - - -
Re: Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
>"-=[chRØMi$X]=--- - - - - -" wrote:
>> -=[ Flagship1 o/t Paranormal <parano...@earthlink.net> wr0Te: ]=-
>> Agreed, one hoax doesn't disprove the existence of UFO's. And yes, i'm
>> sure UFO's exist, because the abbreviation means "unidentified flying
>> object". Whether these things are inhabited by aliens or not, remains
>> a belief. Yes, there is a possibility.
>> >There were still many things such as the footage shot by NASA that
>> >amount to great evidence of our being visited. The question is if
>> >you as an individual want to accept these paranormal possibilities
>> >or not.
>> I only 'accept' possibilities if they are probable because they are
>> well documented with evidence. The problem I have with ufology is that
>> there are many hoaxes and many controversial stories who are way too
>> weird: you never know when a story is true of false, unless there are
>> multiple witnesses for an account, and they could be lying too because
>> of the sensation and the media attention. It's a difficult
>> "profession". This is why these issues are not in my area of
>> interest. Besides that, It's also difficult to investigate the
>> phenomena at the time it happens.
>Yes, there are some hoaxes. I believe that various sub-governmental
>cults may be responsible for creating hoaxes to divert the public's
>attention. Hey you never know.
Well, this is beyond my knowledge of the situation. Besides that,
becoming paranoid because of such theories is not an unknown
happening. I rather stay level-headed about this. I believe most
hoaxes are done by debunkers and hobbyists who are into this area of
the unknown, just to show how easy it is to fool people. I think it's
unlikely that the governement is related with such issues, but we will
never know that for sure, ofcourse.
>I agree with you that there is in fact a great possibility that some
>of these UFOs may in fact be paranormal alien spacecrafts. There are
>in fact many paranormal possibilities here. As time progresses I will
>continue to research the likelihood's of our being visited by aliens.
I don't know if it's a *great* possibility, but there is ofcourse a
chance that it's origin may be extra-terrestial. There may be other
explanations to UFO phenomena (not all accounts) as well,
physical/explainable ones and the weird unexplainable ones which may
be 1) paranormal in nature or 2) normal in nature but seemingly
paranormal because of limited/insufficient data. Besides that, if they
are paranormal, it doesn't necesarry have to be an alien; there are
other (haunting-like) anomalies known to paranormalists as well which
may be occuring at discussed sites. Yes, there are in fact many
possibilities here, but nobody knows for sure if they are paranormal
or not. This remains a belief again.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
"Lance C. Johnson" wrote:
>
> In article <39124989...@earthlink.net>, Flagship1 of the
> Paranormal <parano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Re: Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
>
> > > Flagship, did I ever say "I am sure that we are not being
> > visited by
> > > paranormal aliens?" Did any of the skeptics or
> > "Pseudo-skeptics" EVER
> > > say that? No, we didn't. All we've said is that the "evidence"
> > that
> > > has been presented to us isn't good enough for us to believe
> > that we
> > > ARE being visited.
> > I agree with you 100% when you say that you cannot disprove the
> > likelihood of our being visited by paranormal aliens. As long
> > as you understand that the possibilities of our being visited
> > still exist, I see nothing wrong. I was discussing the
> > Pseudo-Skeptic (a term by Dan Kettler) who automatically assumes
> > a negative, even when he/she believes that such a negative
> > cannot be proven.
>
> Yeah, Flagship, but you're not describing any of the skeptics on this
> board. Hence, the strawman argument.
There are in fact some people in these groups which do in fact
automatically assume the negative, even when a negative is not
proven. I did not want to point out who those people were so
I described them as being Pseudo-Skeptics, (a term by Dan
Kettler) The fact of the matter is that much of the information
form the recent FOX telecast referred to in this thread was
never disproven. There is no need for the Pseudo-Skeptic to
automatically assume the evidence to be false unless it was
actually proven to be false, which it hasn't.
> > > > What leads you to the automatic negative conclusion that I am
> > > > "delusional,"?
> > >
> > > Actually, I'm pretty positive that you're delusional, Flagship.
> > Based
> > > on your posts, which are prime examples of wishful thinking,
> > sloppy
> > > "research," guesses, "visions," and a complete lack of
> > understanding of
> > > what science and skepticism are all about, I find it VERY easy to
> > > believe that you're delusional.
> > I'm sorry, but I do not see my research into these paranormal
> > possibilities as being sloppy. In my opinion, it is the
> > Pseudo-Skeptic that simply locks things in file cabinets that
> > I see as being sloppy. We have to look more closely at the
> > evidence at hand.
>
> Exactly, you need to look more closely at the evidence at
> hand...something which you DON'T do! You just look for things that
> support your theory...which is sloppy and is NOT the way research is
> conducted.
As a paranormalist who is trying to present various theories,
one may expect that I would want to include information that
will support my theory. The fact of the matter is that the
likelihood's of our being visited by aliens were never
disproven.
> > > Reread what I wrote, Flaggy...it ain't that tough. And quit
> > quoting
> > > Kettler, he's an idiot and he's not helping your cause.
> > I am still missing your point, as I described in the above. I am
> > mainly
> > discussing the recent telecast on FOX television relating to
> > paranormal
> > aliens visiting our planet in this thread.
>
> I know what you're discussing, Flagship. I was talking about a similar
> incident of a supposed mass UFO sighting. Are you having such a hard
> time finding the connection or are you just putting on your usual
> blinders when presented with actual evidence?
I was only trying to keep the thread on-topic and about the
paranormal evidence presented by the recent FOX telecast
titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape 2" (in
the United States.) I see nothing wrong with trying to
stay on-topic. I am still missing your point here.
Please refer to the above.
> > > > I did in fact write that they were close to the equator, and
> > > > people continually missed my point on that issue. I went on to
> > > > better describe my point by pointing out that the pyramids
> > > > were in a "climate" close to the equator.
> > >
> > > That's still ridiculous. The equator has ONE climate? I mean,
> > most of
> > > it is warm, sure...but aren't there both humid and dry areas
> > there?
> > > (I'm not sure...but I do know that the pyramids in Giza are in a
> > dry
> > > climate.) Do you even know what a climate is?
> > Please do a Deja News lookup on my thread titled "Did paranormal
> > aliens build the pyramids?" posted on March-02-2000 for more
> > info on this.
>
> I read the whole thing, Flagship. All you did there was dodge the
> issue and insist that the pyramids were close to the equator. How
> about addressing the fact that you're wrong yet again instead of
> referring me to something that doesn't answer the question either?
After the Randi Challenge, I am planning to open a new thread
on the pyramid issue in a few weeks with some interesting new
twists. I will be happy to discuss this further with you at
that time. All I can ask of you now is to go to Deja News and
look up that thread I mentioned in the last reply. I am mainly
discussing the recent telecast aired by FOX in this issue.
Please stop trying to avoid the discussion with off-topic
materiel. I do not see this as relating to the recent FOX
telecast about paranormal aliens.
> > > > I am still saying
> > > > the same thing. Please refer to Deja News. Also, keep in mind
> > > > that I am mainly discussing the recent FOX telecast relating
> > > > to the possibilities of our being visited by paranormal aliens.
> > > > LOL :) There is no need for you to wander away from the topic
> > > > of this thread.
> > > >
> > > > I do not see myself as being backed up against a wall in
> > > > discussing these paranormal issues. But, yes I do plan to
> > > > post a few more threads about these issues in the near
> > > > future.
> > >
> > > Of course you don't see it that way...further proof that you're
> > > delusional.
> > I'm sorry, but I do not see my discussions relating to the recent
> > FOX telecast titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape 2,"
> > as being delusional. Meanwhile, I will continue my research
> > into the likelihood that we are in fact being visited by aliens.
>
> Of course you don't see it as being delusional...that's because you ARE
> delusional! Somebody who's delusional isn't aware that he or she
> delusional.
>
> Shall we put it to a vote?
Why are you coming to this automatic prejudicial assumption that I
am delusional? The fact of the matter is that there was in fact a
great amount of evidence presented by the recent FOX telecast that
does suggest the likelihood that we are being visited by aliens.
Please keep in mind that none of the issues discussed in my
original post titled "Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape," were
completely disproven.
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
psiload wrote:
>
> >
> >People want their information to be seen quickly rather then
> >simply locked in file cabinets etc. Most of those people are
> >now turning to the internet to share their findings with a vast
> >number of people, rather then file cabinets. If you watched
> >the FOX telecast you may know what I am talking about. Most
> >of the videos presented by FOX were at least 2-4 years old.
>
> The reason the "ambiguous lights in the sky video" type of
> information shown on the Fox special winds up in file cabinets,
> and not on the six o'clock news is because the general public has
> grown tired of this nonsense. Fifty years of people crying
> "wolf", has yet to produce a single wolf turd, let alone a
> living, breathing wolf. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I
> think the UFO crap is going to go away anytime soon...as long as
> their are logically-challenged creduphiles like yourself in the
> world, Fox will continue to serve this crap on a paper plate.
> But, don't expect to see any Late Breaking reports on CNN
> covering the Manhattan spaceship video until the "bUFOonologists"
> can come up with something besides "ambiguous lights-in-the-sky
> videos", "alien implants" aka slivers of glass and metal removed
> from the dermis of the hysterical, and "abduction" stories
> gleaned from hypnosis of the sexually dysfunctional.
The general public, myself included have a great interest
in these paranormal possibilities. There is not a single
night that I go to sleep without thinking about these issues.
I was pointing out that various media outlets seem to not
be eager to present these issues because they have a fear
of being criticized etc. It is a proven fact that Usenet,
and the Internet is a way for people to get their information
out to those who wish to receive it more quickly and
conveniently. There is no editing-machines or 2-4 year
tape-delays. Usenet and the Internet allows these people to
get information directly from the sources.
> >Usenet helps paranormalists get around those barriers. It
> >gives us the ability to send our information around the world
> >in a matter of seconds without the file cabinets and the long
> >wait.
>
> Oh, and you forgot to mention the part about not needing a single
> shred of evidence, verification and corroboration when making
> fantastic claims on the internet. The internet sure comes in
> handy when you need to circumvent those pesky barriers.
If you want people to accept your theory you still need some
kind of evidence. The internet provides people a direct channel
of relaying such evidence directly to the public without having
to worry about file cabinets. Yes, there are always programs such
as the recent telecast aired by FOX. The fact of the matter is that
people are looking for CURRENT information. People on Usenet and
the Internet also have the advantage of getting this information
directly from the sources edit free. There is in fact a great
likelihood that we are being visited by aliens. It is still your
choice of where you want to get your information from.
> >I still credit the broadcaster for mentioning the internet
> >discussions on their program.
>
> You mean the Fox network? The same network that tried to feed us
> Alien Autopsy and then subsequently aired a program exposing it
> as the hoax they knew it was? Thereby proving once and for all
> what a bunch totally unscrupulous ratings whores they truly are.
> Yes, the network that brought us Al Bundy deserves lots of
> credit.
LOL :) This is not the way it is. Yes they do compete for higher
ratings, but they also want to act as a channel for those people
who are interested in the subject. I too have differing viewpoints
about the Alien Autopsy footage, and also the Alien Interview which
was featured in this latest telecast. The fact of the matter is that
even if these were hoaxes, it does not mean that everything else
is a hoax as well. (Ex. If one student cheated a test, it does not
automatically mean that everyone else cheated.) There is still a
great likelihood that we are in fact being visited.
> >It is still your choice of where you want to go for information.
>
> Just like from where one chooses to get their daily bread is a
> personal choice. You can get your food from the gutter or the
> grocery store.
>
> >I see the posters to Usenet as regular people just like you and
> >I. There is no need to automatically assume someone to be lying,
> >unless they were first proven to be lying.
>
> Unfortunately, dishonesty is just one arrow in the quiver of
> human fallibility.
Do you really believe that all these people are dishonest?
If so, then what leads you to that conclusion?
> >I am guessing that you probably had to wait until 1996
> >to read about it.
>
> Actually, I'm still waiting.
>
> > If you read about it earlier, the report
> >was probably extremely anecdotal.
>
> As opposed to what? The concrete reports from the guy who
> intercepted the spaceship and has it stored in his garage?
>
> >I understand that you see things differently at your POV.
> >The fact of the matter is that the likelihood's of our being
> >visited by paranormal aliens were never disproven.
>
> Flaggy Fact alert!
>
> >The fact of the matter is that many media outlets are afraid
> >to show a great deal of information.
>
> Yes, many media outlets are afraid of ruining their reputations
> by presenting wildly speculative and childishly foolish
> paranormal claptrap as if it were respectable fact. Luckily for
> you, the Fox network has no such reservations.
FOX still presented a disclaimer saying that it is still up to you
if you want to accept these possibilities or not. The fact of the
matter is that the information that I cited in this thread, was
never disproven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is still a great
likelihood that we are being visited.
> > There is no requirement
> >for these media outlets to relay this information to the public.
>
> It would be more accurate to say that there is no requirement
> that the information these media outlets relay be true, or even
> likely.
>
> >It is there choice as to what they want to do, or what they
> >want to gatekeep or not.
>
> If they're not hampered by frivolities such as journalistic
> integrity, as Fox most certainly is not, then they show what
> sells (crap) and gatekeep what does not (rationality).
You may have missed my point on that issue.
> > People go to where they can get their
> >information more conveniently and without the 2-4 year
> >waits as described above.
>
> If the crap was real, there would be not wait. There is wait
> because there is doubt.
How do you know for sure that it was not real? Are you only
assuming this, or do you actually know for sure?
> > There are still many media programs
> >that touch on these issues all the time, as well. Ex: Coast to
> >Coast with Art Bell, Jeff Rinse, and many others.
>
> Actually, Art Bell just gave up. It seems he couldn't tolerate
> the bullshit, lies and slander. Against himself that is. He had
> no problem bullshitting lying and slandering about any topic but
> himself. And Jeff "Rinse" is actually named Jeff Rense, although
> I do want to rinse myself after listening to the bullshit he
> shovels.
To me it will always be Coast to Coast with Art Bell. He was one
of the greats. Coast to Coast is now hosted by Mike Segal. Jeff
Rense (excuse me) is also a great source for current information
relating to these paranormal possibilities. Again, it is still your
choice as to where you want to get your information from, or if
you want to allow yourself to accept these paranormal
possibilities or not.
> > It just
> >depends on where you want to look to get your information.
>
> Although some of us possess the intellectual capacity to
> "consider the source".
>
> > The
> >fact of the matter is that there is still a great possibility
> >that we are in fact being visited. It is still your choice if
> >you want to accept these possibilities at your POV or not.
>
> Flaggy Fact alert!
>
> >Another great thing about Usenet and the internet is that
> >you can get information directly from the sources, rather
> >then getting limited information from a 3rd party or an
> >editing machine.
>
> Unverified, uncorroborated, unsubstantiated, unfiltered
> bullshit... The breakfast of champion kooks.
Do you believe that every single person who ever came forward
with information relating to the liklihoods of our being visited
by aliens should automatically be considered a kook?
> >As time continues to roll on, I will continue my heavy research
> >into the possibilities of our being visited by paranormal
> >aliens.
>
> If I were you(*shudder*)I'd be heavily researching the
> possibility of getting laid. On the other hand...maybe it'd be
> better for the human race if you continued yo devote your
> energies into obsessing over the paranormal alien visitors.
I am mainly discussing the recent telecast presented by FOX
television (in the United States) and the various ways
that people can relay their information to the public.
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
Mark wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 May 2000, Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote (in a reply to
> Lance C. Johnson):
>
> > > > IIRC there was even a case
> > > > where someone even tried discussing purple cows simply to pull
> > > > the discussion off-topic, or to avoid it completely.
> > >
> > > Are you really this clueless? The purple cow thing was being used as a
> > > COMPARISON to what you were saying, using your own "logic" against you.
> > > Basically, it just reiterated what you were saying, but substituted
> > > "paranormal aliens" with "purple cows" in order to show you how
> > > ridiculous your "point" was.
> > >
> > > You couldn't handle the fact that somebody pointed out the obvious
> > > holes in your point, so you cry foul about being "off-topic." You're
> > > the only one doing the avoiding here, bunky.
> >
> > I am mainly discussing the recent FOX telecast in this thread. Why is
> > everyone throwing purple cows at me? Heeellllppp!!! What do they have
> > to do with the topics of either of these posts? Please make reference
> > to the recent FOX telecast in your reply. :)
>
> Flagship, do you really not understand why people use arguments such as
> the "purple cow" argument or are you being deliberately awkward? Do you
> not understand that there are two ways of attacking your
> arguments?: Firstly, to show that they are based on flawed logic, and
> secondly, to show that your premises are untrue. Arguments like "purple
> cow" are intended to show that the logic underlying your argument is
> flawed. It doesn't matter to these arguments what your premises are (which
> is why they make no reference to things like the Fox broadcast) - they are
> there to simply show you that your logic is fatally flawed and should not
> be used to support any argument, including the one you put forward
> regarding the Fox broadcast (or whatever).
Anybody can attempt to throw a thread as far off-topic as they
wish to. As long as "purple cows" does not disprove the
liklihoods of our being visited by paranormal aliens, or the
content referred to in this thread from the recent FOX television
broadcast, I will continue to point it out to the readers. If you
want to attempt to attack or disprove an argument, you should try
disproving the "ACTUAL ARGUMENT," instead of making up your own
argument such as "Purple Cows" and disproving your own argument
instead of mine.
Fact is fact. Nobody has disproven the liklihoods of our being
visited by aliens. I do not think that discussing "Purple Cows,"
is a good start at trying to disprove an argument that you
cannot otherwise disprove. Please refer to the recent FOX
telecast in your reply.
> Mark_H
Mark
> > > I am mainly discussing the recent FOX telecast in this thread. Why is
> > > everyone throwing purple cows at me? Heeellllppp!!! What do they have
> > > to do with the topics of either of these posts? Please make reference
> > > to the recent FOX telecast in your reply. :)
> >
> > Flagship, do you really not understand why people use arguments such as
> > the "purple cow" argument or are you being deliberately awkward? Do you
> > not understand that there are two ways of attacking your
> > arguments?: Firstly, to show that they are based on flawed logic, and
> > secondly, to show that your premises are untrue. Arguments like "purple
> > cow" are intended to show that the logic underlying your argument is
> > flawed. It doesn't matter to these arguments what your premises are (which
> > is why they make no reference to things like the Fox broadcast) - they are
> > there to simply show you that your logic is fatally flawed and should not
> > be used to support any argument, including the one you put forward
> > regarding the Fox broadcast (or whatever).
>
> Anybody can attempt to throw a thread as far off-topic as they
> wish to. As long as "purple cows" does not disprove the
> liklihoods of our being visited by paranormal aliens, or the
> content referred to in this thread from the recent FOX television
> broadcast, I will continue to point it out to the readers. If you
> want to attempt to attack or disprove an argument, you should try
> disproving the "ACTUAL ARGUMENT," instead of making up your own
> argument such as "Purple Cows" and disproving your own argument
> instead of mine.
I'll take that as confirmation that you really don't see the difference
between an argument and the logic underlying that argument.
Look:
Argument A:
Premise 1: All animals with wings can fly
Premise 2: Pigeons have wings and are animals
Therefore: Pigeons can fly
Argument B:
Premise 1: All animals with wings can fly
Premise 2: Pigs have wings and are animals
Therefore: Pigs can fly
Both of these arguments are logically valid. The conclusion drawn in both
cases is valid. However, the truth of those conclusions is dependent on
the truth of the premises - as we know, pigs do not have wings. So, if you
had put forward an argument like argument B, we would not be able to
criticise it on a logical basis by talking about purple cows, or whatever,
because the logical form of that argument is sound. We would have to
take a look at the truth or otherwise of the premises.
Now:
Argument C:
Premise 1: All things with wings can fly
Premise 2: Rabbits do not have wings
Therefore: Rabbits cannot fly
This argument produces a conclusion that is true, but this conclusion is
invalid. The argument is invalid. The argument is not sound. We can't
attack it's premises because they are both true (well... they would be, if
I could think of better examples. They're good enough for the point to be
made though). We can see that the argument is invalid because helicopters
can fly without wings. However, to show that the logic behind the argument
is... illogical, we can use an example that follows the same form:
Premise 1: All leaves are green
Premise 2: Frogs are not leaves
Therefore: Frogs are not green
The same logical form of the argument is being used to demonstrate that
the logic is not sound - the conclusion is still invalid, but this time it
is untrue instead of true. If an argument can produce conclusions that can
be either true or untrue, neither the argument nor the conclusion is
valid.
Now, you are asking us not to question the logic behind your argument, but
only to look at the veracity of your premises? You are asking us to not
look at your argument too hard. You are telling us not to worry about
whether your conclusions are valid or not. Why would you do this if your
arguments were valid and your conclusions were valid?
> Fact is fact. Nobody has disproven the liklihoods of our being
> visited by aliens.
Fact: There is a possibility that we are being visited by aliens.
Fact: The probability attached to this event cannot be estimated with the
data currently available.
Fact: It has not been shown that the chance of alien visitation is
non-zero.
If you would like to prove to me that the chance of alien visitation is
non-zero I would be most grateful. Alternatively, disprove that they are
not visiting. Either way, I'd be happy.
> I do not think that discussing "Purple Cows,"
> is a good start at trying to disprove an argument that you
> cannot otherwise disprove.
Have you not been paying attention? You asked people to disprove a
generality, something that cannot logically be done no matter what the
details of that generality (visitation by aliens, infestation of invisible
M&M people, attack by subatomic soldiers, etc.). This puts your case on
the same logical level as the theory that, when nobody is looking, dust
collects into large, autonomous masses and composes sonnets to the sun.
> Please refer to the recent FOX telecast in your reply.
Okay. I've never seen the recent FOX telecast. Funnily enough, that wasn't
shown on terrestrial TV in the country in which I reside. How much more
about it would you like me to say?
Mark_H
NewAge Skeptic
Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote:
>
> Re: Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
>
> Mark wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 5 May 2000, Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote (in a reply to
> > Lance C. Johnson):
> >
> > > > > IIRC there was even a case
> > > > > where someone even tried discussing purple cows simply to pull
> > > > > the discussion off-topic, or to avoid it completely.
> > > >
> > > > Are you really this clueless? The purple cow thing was being used as a
> > > > COMPARISON to what you were saying, using your own "logic" against you.
> > > > Basically, it just reiterated what you were saying, but substituted
> > > > "paranormal aliens" with "purple cows" in order to show you how
> > > > ridiculous your "point" was.
> > > >
> > > > You couldn't handle the fact that somebody pointed out the obvious
> > > > holes in your point, so you cry foul about being "off-topic." You're
> > > > the only one doing the avoiding here, bunky.
> > >
> > > I am mainly discussing the recent FOX telecast in this thread. Why is
> > > everyone throwing purple cows at me? Heeellllppp!!! What do they have
> > > to do with the topics of either of these posts? Please make reference
> > > to the recent FOX telecast in your reply. :)
> >
> > Flagship, do you really not understand why people use arguments such as
> > the "purple cow" argument or are you being deliberately awkward? Do you
> > not understand that there are two ways of attacking your
> > arguments?: Firstly, to show that they are based on flawed logic, and
> > secondly, to show that your premises are untrue. Arguments like "purple
> > cow" are intended to show that the logic underlying your argument is
> > flawed. It doesn't matter to these arguments what your premises are (which
> > is why they make no reference to things like the Fox broadcast) - they are
> > there to simply show you that your logic is fatally flawed and should not
> > be used to support any argument, including the one you put forward
> > regarding the Fox broadcast (or whatever).
>
> Anybody can attempt to throw a thread as far off-topic as they
> wish to. As long as "purple cows" does not disprove the
> liklihoods of our being visited by paranormal aliens, or the
> content referred to in this thread from the recent FOX television
> broadcast, I will continue to point it out to the readers.
And I will continue to point out that you are arguing from ignorance.
> If you
> want to attempt to attack or disprove an argument, you should try
> disproving the "ACTUAL ARGUMENT," instead of making up your own
> argument such as "Purple Cows" and disproving your own argument
> instead of mine.
>
> Fact is fact. Nobody has disproven the liklihoods of our being
> visited by aliens. I do not think that discussing "Purple Cows,"
> is a good start at trying to disprove an argument that you
> cannot otherwise disprove. Please refer to the recent FOX
> telecast in your reply.
Is it arrogance or ignorance that makes you think you can dictate how
people choose to attack your argument? The 'purple cow' example was
brought up by David T., not Mark, and with it David demonstrated how
stupid your challenge was. If you remember, you tried to discredit his
argument by redefining the colour purple.
You continue to use the argument from ignorance, which you know to be an
improper discussion format, because you have no other way to present
your case.
And, if you want to discuss facts, please let us know, if you followed
these threads at all, how Drake's equation of probability provides for
this 'likelihood'. In doing so, please keep in mind that likelihood is
probability based on evidence.
Instead of resting on the argument from ignorance, let's see your
evidence for the positive. Is FOX it for you or do you have something
substantial to offer?
Sandy
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
-Slimmed Down To Save Bandwidth-
Mark wrote:
>
> > Anybody can attempt to throw a thread as far off-topic as they
> > wish to. As long as "purple cows" does not disprove the
> > liklihoods of our being visited by paranormal aliens, or the
> > content referred to in this thread from the recent FOX television
> > broadcast, I will continue to point it out to the readers. If you
> > want to attempt to attack or disprove an argument, you should try
> > disproving the "ACTUAL ARGUMENT," instead of making up your own
> > argument such as "Purple Cows" and disproving your own argument
> > instead of mine.
>
> I'll take that as confirmation that you really don't see the difference
> between an argument and the logic underlying that argument.
-A Brief Snippage of Off-Topic Material-
> Now, you are asking us not to question the logic behind your argument, but
> only to look at the veracity of your premises? You are asking us to not
> look at your argument too hard. You are telling us not to worry about
> whether your conclusions are valid or not. Why would you do this if your
> arguments were valid and your conclusions were valid?
I do not see a problem with your questioning the logic of "MY"
arguments. The problem is that you are "NOT." You are simply
making up your own arguments about Purple Cows etc and questioning
the logic of them. This still does not disprove the likelyhoods
of our being visited by paranormal aliens, nor the evidence
referred to from the recent FOX telecast (in the United States).
> > Fact is fact. Nobody has disproven the liklihoods of our being
> > visited by aliens.
>
> Fact: There is a possibility that we are being visited by aliens.
Yes, the fact of the matter is that there is a great possibility
that we are being visited by aliens. I agree with you here.
> Fact: The probability attached to this event cannot be estimated with the
> data currently available.
With the evidence that was presented, a close estimation can in
fact be achieved. We may not get an "ABSOLUTE" answer, but the
conjecture of our being visited by aliens remains intact because
it has yet to be disproven.
> Fact: It has not been shown that the chance of alien visitation is
> non-zero.
It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that we are not
being visited. There are many unknown variables, therefore a defined
answer or absolute assertion of zero is not necessarily a solidified
fact in all possible cases. There is still a great likelihood that
we are being visited by paranormal aliens.
> If you would like to prove to me that the chance of alien visitation is
> non-zero I would be most grateful. Alternatively, disprove that they are
> not visiting. Either way, I'd be happy.
>
> > I do not think that discussing "Purple Cows,"
> > is a good start at trying to disprove an argument that you
> > cannot otherwise disprove.
-A Brief Snippage of Off-Topic Material-
> Okay. I've never seen the recent FOX telecast. Funnily enough, that wasn't
> shown on terrestrial TV in the country in which I reside. How much more
> about it would you like me to say?
I understand your situation. I am not sure of the air date in
the UK, but most of these shows are later broadcast in the UK
so the audience can see them over there. FOX does have several
foreign broadcast outlets under News-Corp such as SKY-Television
(UK). You may want to check with them for a possible UK air date,
but there are no guarantees. I think that some of these programs
are aired on Channel 4 (UK) from time to time, but I am not too
sure about that. I pretty much summed up what I seen in the
original post. The fact of the matter is that there is in fact
a great possibility that we are being visited by aliens.
> Mark_H
Lance C. Johnson
Name them, Flaggy, or else I will continue to accuse you of throwing up
a strawman argument.
I did not want to point out who those people were so
> I described them as being Pseudo-Skeptics, (a term by Dan
> Kettler)
Go ahead and name them...better yet, quote 'em, showing that they
"automatically assume the negative." And for the love of God, quit
quoting Kettler...that guy's several sandwiches shy of a picnic.
> The fact of the matter is that much of the information
> form the recent FOX telecast referred to in this thread was
> never disproven. There is no need for the Pseudo-Skeptic to
> automatically assume the evidence to be false unless it was
> actually proven to be false, which it hasn't.
Except, Flaggy, this isn't what anybody has done. You are deliberately
misrepresenting the point of the skeptics just so you can easily tear
down their points. Try addressing what we actually say, not what you
wish we were saying.
> > Exactly, you need to look more closely at the evidence at
> > hand...something which you DON'T do! You just look for things
> that
> > support your theory...which is sloppy and is NOT the way
> research is
> > conducted.
> As a paranormalist who is trying to present various theories,
> one may expect that I would want to include information that
> will support my theory.
But Flagship, real research involves looking into all of the
possibilities...not just the ones that you like. If that's not what
you want to do, then don't call it "research," 'cause it ain't.
> The fact of the matter is that the
> likelihood's of our being visited by aliens were never
> disproven.
Didn't we already agree on this point? Why do you keep repeating it?
Nobody's arguing that...KNOCK IT OFF! (Besides, the correct way of
writing that is "The fact of the matter is that the likelihood of our
being visited by aliens WAS never disproven.")
> > > > Reread what I wrote, Flaggy...it ain't that tough. And quit
> > > quoting
> > > > Kettler, he's an idiot and he's not helping your cause.
> > > I am still missing your point, as I described in the above. I
> am
> > > mainly
> > > discussing the recent telecast on FOX television relating to
> > > paranormal
> > > aliens visiting our planet in this thread.
> >
> > I know what you're discussing, Flagship. I was talking about a
> similar
> > incident of a supposed mass UFO sighting. Are you having such a
> hard
> > time finding the connection or are you just putting on your usual
> > blinders when presented with actual evidence?
> I was only trying to keep the thread on-topic and about the
> paranormal evidence presented by the recent FOX telecast
> titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape 2" (in
> the United States.) I see nothing wrong with trying to
> stay on-topic. I am still missing your point here.
You were mainly being dense. I was being on topic, offering a
comparison to a similar event...how dare I mention something other than
the FOX special when you, Der Alt.Paranormal Fuehrer is on the case.
Indeed...you truly are the most clueless person alive. Refer to Mark's
post on this, as he described it rather eloquently. I'd like to see
your response to THAT! (I noticed that you haven't bothered yet...in a
corner, Flaggy?)
Like what? Are they near New York now?
> I will be happy to discuss this further with you at
> that time. All I can ask of you now is to go to Deja News and
> look up that thread I mentioned in the last reply. I am mainly
> discussing the recent telecast aired by FOX in this issue.
> Please stop trying to avoid the discussion with off-topic
> materiel. I do not see this as relating to the recent FOX
> telecast about paranormal aliens.
The only one dodging issues here is you, Flagship, but you're too
delusional to realize it.
> > Of course you don't see it as being delusional...that's because
> you ARE
> > delusional! Somebody who's delusional isn't aware that he or she
> > delusional.
> >
> > Shall we put it to a vote?
> Why are you coming to this automatic prejudicial assumption that I
> am delusional?
Excuse me? Prejudicial? I base my conclusion of you being delusional
on what you have posted in the past. There's no pre-judgement
whatsoever. Please refer to my other posts for more information.
> The fact of the matter is that there was in fact a
> great amount of evidence presented by the recent FOX telecast that
> does suggest the likelihood that we are being visited by aliens.
And all of that "evidence" is rather weak and easily torn apart.
> Please keep in mind that none of the issues discussed in my
> original post titled "Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape," were
> completely disproven.
Please keep in mind that nobody's saying that it was disproven and that
you're setting up strawman arguments ad naseum.
NewAge Skeptic
The same Dan Kettler who has tried to counsel you on your improper
argument format?.
Because your 'research' consists only of watching television hype and
third party hearsay and then automatically accepting it as likelihood,
using your own logic we can conclude that your claim of being a
paranormalist is a sham. You are therefore a Pseudo-Paranormalist (I
still prefer Frothing True Believer).
> The fact of the matter is that much of the information
> form the recent FOX telecast referred to in this thread was
> never disproven.
So therefore it becomes a great likilehood?
> There is no need for the Pseudo-Skeptic to
> automatically assume the evidence to be false unless it was
> actually proven to be false, which it hasn't.
Are you as a Frothing True Believer not doing exactly what you accuse
skeptics of, except in your case you're automatically assuming the
positive?
Sandy
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
NewAge Skeptic wrote:
>
> Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote:
> >
> > Re: Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
> >
> > Mark wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 5 May 2000, Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote (in a reply to
> > > Lance C. Johnson):
> > >
> > > > > > IIRC there was even a case
> > > > > > where someone even tried discussing purple cows simply to pull
> > > > > > the discussion off-topic, or to avoid it completely.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you really this clueless? The purple cow thing was being used as a
> > > > > COMPARISON to what you were saying, using your own "logic" against you.
> > > > > Basically, it just reiterated what you were saying, but substituted
> > > > > "paranormal aliens" with "purple cows" in order to show you how
> > > > > ridiculous your "point" was.
> > > > >
> > > > > You couldn't handle the fact that somebody pointed out the obvious
> > > > > holes in your point, so you cry foul about being "off-topic." You're
> > > > > the only one doing the avoiding here, bunky.
> > > >
> > > > I am mainly discussing the recent FOX telecast in this thread. Why is
> > > > everyone throwing purple cows at me? Heeellllppp!!! What do they have
> > > > to do with the topics of either of these posts? Please make reference
> > > > to the recent FOX telecast in your reply. :)
> > >
> > > Flagship, do you really not understand why people use arguments such as
> > > the "purple cow" argument or are you being deliberately awkward? Do you
> > > not understand that there are two ways of attacking your
> > > arguments?: Firstly, to show that they are based on flawed logic, and
> > > secondly, to show that your premises are untrue. Arguments like "purple
> > > cow" are intended to show that the logic underlying your argument is
> > > flawed. It doesn't matter to these arguments what your premises are (which
> > > is why they make no reference to things like the Fox broadcast) - they are
> > > there to simply show you that your logic is fatally flawed and should not
> > > be used to support any argument, including the one you put forward
> > > regarding the Fox broadcast (or whatever).
> >
> > Anybody can attempt to throw a thread as far off-topic as they
> > wish to. As long as "purple cows" does not disprove the
> > liklihoods of our being visited by paranormal aliens, or the
> > content referred to in this thread from the recent FOX television
> > broadcast, I will continue to point it out to the readers.
>
> And I will continue to point out that you are arguing from ignorance.
>
> > If you
> > want to attempt to attack or disprove an argument, you should try
> > disproving the "ACTUAL ARGUMENT," instead of making up your own
> > argument such as "Purple Cows" and disproving your own argument
> > instead of mine.
> >
> > Fact is fact. Nobody has disproven the liklihoods of our being
> > visited by aliens. I do not think that discussing "Purple Cows,"
> > is a good start at trying to disprove an argument that you
> > cannot otherwise disprove. Please refer to the recent FOX
> > telecast in your reply.
>
> Is it arrogance or ignorance that makes you think you can dictate how
> people choose to attack your argument? The 'purple cow' example was
> brought up by David T., not Mark, and with it David demonstrated how
> stupid your challenge was. If you remember, you tried to discredit his
> argument by redefining the colour purple.
>
> You continue to use the argument from ignorance, which you know to be an
> improper discussion format, because you have no other way to present
> your case.
>
> And, if you want to discuss facts, please let us know, if you followed
> these threads at all, how Drake's equation of probability provides for
> this 'likelihood'. In doing so, please keep in mind that likelihood is
> probability based on evidence.
>
> Instead of resting on the argument from ignorance, let's see your
> evidence for the positive. Is FOX it for you or do you have something
> substantial to offer?
It is the evidence from millions of people worldwide that is
seemingly being locked in file cabinets by the Pseudo-Skeptic
who automatically assumes the evidence to be false, even though
the evidence was not proven to be false. The recent FOX telecast
(in the United States) presented several cases which I mentioned
in the original thread that were never disproven. I'm sorry that
you see this as being ignorant. The fact of the matter is that
the possibilities of our being visited were never disproven. I
simply wrote that arguing OFF-TOPIC is not an affective method
of attacking someone's argument. Of course if that is what
floats their boat, they can continue to do so. I will just
continue to point out the fact that it does not disprove the
theory(s) which were presented by the original argument.
> Sandy
Mark
> Mark wrote:
> >
> > > Anybody can attempt to throw a thread as far off-topic as they
> > > wish to. As long as "purple cows" does not disprove the
> > > liklihoods of our being visited by paranormal aliens, or the
> > > content referred to in this thread from the recent FOX television
> > > broadcast, I will continue to point it out to the readers. If you
> > > want to attempt to attack or disprove an argument, you should try
> > > disproving the "ACTUAL ARGUMENT," instead of making up your own
> > > argument such as "Purple Cows" and disproving your own argument
> > > instead of mine.
> >
> > I'll take that as confirmation that you really don't see the difference
> > between an argument and the logic underlying that argument.
>
> -A Brief Snippage of Off-Topic Material-
Material, I would like to point out, demonstrating the validity of using
examples to point out flaws in logic.
> > Now, you are asking us not to question the logic behind your argument, but
> > only to look at the veracity of your premises? You are asking us to not
> > look at your argument too hard. You are telling us not to worry about
> > whether your conclusions are valid or not. Why would you do this if your
> > arguments were valid and your conclusions were valid?
>
> I do not see a problem with your questioning the logic of "MY"
> arguments. The problem is that you are "NOT."
For future reference: quotation marks are not used for emphasis. They are
used to show that you are quoting someone (funnily enough). Putting things
in quotes is NOT a way to emphasise something. The same is also true of
parentheses (the things around this statement). Parentheses seperate the
major clauses of the sentence from another clause that is not necessary to
the understanding of that sentence, but which may aid in that
understanding. I'm sorry to point these out (I know you have a "great
understanding of the English language" - notice the use of parentheses
and quotation marks) and I'm not using these trivial errors as an argument
against you, but you've been making these mistakes for some time now and I
thought it was time you were told.
Anyway, back to the point.
> You are simply making up your own arguments about Purple Cows etc and
> questioning the logic of them.
<sigh>
Arguments like the "purple cow" argument are there to show that the logic
underpinning your argument is flawed. They do so by using the same logical
structure as your argument but the detail of the premises is different (to
remove any emotional attachment you may have to the subject matter in
hand, e.g. UFOs). If someone can show that an argument of the same form as
your own produces inconsistent conclusions (i.e. sometimes they are true,
sometimes they are untrue) then they have shown that the structure of that
argument is invalid. As the structure of their argument was taken from
your argument, your argument must also have a flawed logical
structure. Therefore your argument is invalid. However, I suspect you
still won't see why "purple cows" can be used to attack your arguments. I
don't think I can make it any clearer. If you really don't understand,
then I'm sorry - I can't lower myself any further.
> This still does not disprove the likelyhoods
> of our being visited by paranormal aliens,
I shan't dignify that with a response.
> nor the evidence
> referred to from the recent FOX telecast (in the United States).
>
> > > Fact is fact. Nobody has disproven the liklihoods of our being
> > > visited by aliens.
> >
> > Fact: There is a possibility that we are being visited by aliens.
>
> Yes, the fact of the matter is that there is a great possibility
> that we are being visited by aliens. I agree with you here.
Good. That's because these are all facts. Which is why I wrote,
"Fact:" before them all.
> > Fact: The probability attached to this event cannot be estimated with the
> > data currently available.
>
> With the evidence that was presented, a close estimation can in
> fact be achieved.
And what would this close estimation be? Is there also an estimate of the
amount of error in this estimation? How have you arrived at this
estimation?
> We may not get an "ABSOLUTE" answer, but the
> conjecture of our being visited by aliens remains intact because
> it has yet to be disproven.
You can say this any number of times, but it will still mean nothing more
than the statement, "It has not been proved that I'm not The Supreme High
Ruler Of The Entire Universe".
> > Fact: It has not been shown that the chance of alien visitation is
> > non-zero.
>
> It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that we are not
> being visited.
Therefore the converse is true: It has not been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that we are being visited. Therefore the probability that we are
being visited has not been shown to be greater than zero. QED. You agree
with my statement above.
> > If you would like to prove to me that the chance of alien visitation is
> > non-zero I would be most grateful. Alternatively, disprove that they are
> > not visiting. Either way, I'd be happy.
I'm still waiting for an answer to this.
> > > I do not think that discussing "Purple Cows,"
> > > is a good start at trying to disprove an argument that you
> > > cannot otherwise disprove.
>
> -A Brief Snippage of Off-Topic Material-
If you ignore everything that attacks your arguments you are never going
to learn. You do want to learn, don't you? Or would you rather evidence
that does not support your theories be locked away? Perhaps in a filing
cabinet. Shouldn't you take the time to review what I provided you
with? It was proof that arguments like the "purple cow" argument can be
useful when critiquing logic. You know, your attitude reminds me a lot of
a group of people that Dan Kettler termed, "Pseudo-Skeptic
Fanatics" (PSF).
> > Okay. I've never seen the recent FOX telecast. Funnily enough, that wasn't
> > shown on terrestrial TV in the country in which I reside. How much more
> > about it would you like me to say?
>
> I understand your situation. I am not sure of the air date in
> the UK,
I'm pretty sure it won't be any time soon.
> but most of these shows are later broadcast in the UK
> so the audience can see them over there.
Really?
> FOX does have several
> foreign broadcast outlets under News-Corp such as SKY-Television
> (UK).
I only watch terrestrial television. I have neither the money, nor the
inclination to install satellite/cable.
> You may want to check with them for a possible UK air date,
> but there are no guarantees. I think that some of these programs
> are aired on Channel 4 (UK) from time to time, but I am not too
> sure about that.
It's probably more likely to appear on Ch5 - they show a lot of American
shows. Mainly because they don't have a great deal of money (they are the
newest terrestrial channel) and can't afford to produce their own. I'm
afraid they are a bit of a joke here.
> I pretty much summed up what I seen in the
> original post. The fact of the matter is that there is in fact
> a great possibility that we are being visited by aliens.
No reasonable person would deny the possibility. By your repition, you are
implying that we are not reasonable people. If my inference is correct, I
might find this insulting, if it wasn't for the fact that I know
better. The only reason you have given so far for believing that the
possibility is "great" is because lots of people have reported sightings,
some of which have not been explained to your satisfaction. Let me remind
you that there are fewer people checking the claims than are making
them. If millions of people can be fooled by weather balloons, marsh gas,
ball lightning, etc. is it not reasonable to accept the possibility that
the reason not all the sightings have been explained to your satisfaction
is that the people checking the claims are as fallible as the people
making the claims and can occassionally not find the true, non-paranormal
explanation for the sighting?
Mark_H
-=[chRØMi$X]=--- - - - - -
<SNiP>
>you're setting up strawman arguments ad naseum.
Maybe a stupid question, but what is a strawman "ad naseum' in this
context? Is it an argument used to detract a reader from the main
issue to side issues, or is it a false argument used as a true
argument? i've never really understood the use of this word, because
English is not my native language.
Thanks for your inquiry in advance ;)
NewAge Skeptic
Now its 'seemingly'? In past articles you used 'in fact', etc. Can we
now assume that you have no evidence that anything is being locked away
by anybody? And, if you're not sure it is 'in fact' locked away, how can
you rely on this illusionary information as 'evidence' to support your
argument?
> The recent FOX telecast
> (in the United States) presented several cases which I mentioned
> in the original thread that were never disproven. I'm sorry that
> you see this as being ignorant.
I won't bother to repost the definition because it appears obvious that
you haven't bothered to read it (or have chosen to ignore it). No one is
calling you ignorant. The discussion format you use is known as an
'argument from ignorance'.
> The fact of the matter is that
> the possibilities of our being visited were never disproven. I
> simply wrote that arguing OFF-TOPIC is not an affective method
> of attacking someone's argument.
It is evident from your postings that you are not an expert on what
constitutes an effective method. Why don't you just answer the questions
and thus demonstrate your genius, instead of crying foul.
> Of course if that is what
> floats their boat, they can continue to do so. I will just
> continue to point out the fact that it does not disprove the
> theory(s) which were presented by the original argument.
What would float my boat is you replying to the following which you have
so far evaded:
I and other readers have referred you to Drake's Equation of Probability
on a number of occasions. Based on available data, the best possible
estimate of probability is non-zero.
Gather up all your data and apply the equation. Then, please tell us in
terms of percentage what constitutes a great likelihood of:
a). The existence of intelligent life outside our sphere
b). That such life is visiting us.
In your reply, please specify the source of your data.
Please take your time with this, after all I realize that you do not
have the millions of dollars available to top notch scientific
researchers with impeccable credentials, who, given their best effort
can only come up with a probability of non-zero.
The equation has been referenced on a number of occasions so I won't
bother to repost it, besides I'm sure a researcher such as yourself
works with it on a daily basis.
Best of luck.
(BTW: This is not off-topic. As long as you continue to conclude the
great probability or likelihood it is not improper for someone to
challenge it.)
Sandy
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
-Slimmed Down To Save Bandwidth-
NewAge Skeptic wrote:
>
> > It is the evidence from millions of people worldwide that is
> > seemingly being locked in file cabinets by the Pseudo-Skeptic
> > who automatically assumes the evidence to be false, even though
> > the evidence was not proven to be false.
>
> Now its 'seemingly'? In past articles you used 'in fact', etc. Can we
> now assume that you have no evidence that anything is being locked away
> by anybody? And, if you're not sure it is 'in fact' locked away, how can
> you rely on this illusionary information as 'evidence' to support your
> argument?
What else can I tell you. Things are being locked in file cabinets
by people who automatically assume that the evidence is false,
even though the evidence was never disproven. Please keep in mind
that I am mainly discussing the recent FOX telecast titled "UFOs
The Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape 2." I also pointed out that
a great deal of the material presented by this recent telecast was
at least 2-4 years old. You must allow yourself to look into the
arguments, rather then simply looking them over.
> > The recent FOX telecast
> > (in the United States) presented several cases which I mentioned
> > in the original thread that were never disproven. I'm sorry that
> > you see this as being ignorant.
>
> I won't bother to repost the definition because it appears obvious that
> you haven't bothered to read it (or have chosen to ignore it). No one is
> calling you ignorant. The discussion format you use is known as an
> 'argument from ignorance'.
I may be missing your point here. I only ignore something when it
does not relate to the topic of a given post and/or newsgroup.
> > The fact of the matter is that
> > the possibilities of our being visited were never disproven. I
> > simply wrote that arguing OFF-TOPIC is not an affective method
> > of attacking someone's argument.
>
> It is evident from your postings that you are not an expert on what
> constitutes an effective method. Why don't you just answer the questions
> and thus demonstrate your genius, instead of crying foul.
Well, it depends at what you see at your own POV. This is why I have
been saying this from the start. It is your choice if you want to
accept the possibilities of our being visited by aliens or not. Just
keep in mind that the liklihoods of our being visited by aliens were
never disproven. That's all.
There is in fact a greater then 0% probability that we are in
fact being visited by aliens, because this likelihood was never
disproven beyond all reasonable doubt. It does not take an
expert to realize that. Please note that none of the information
that I referenced from the recent FOX telecast was disproven in
this thread. There is in fact a greater then 0% probability
that we may be visited by paranormal aliens.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
-Slimmed Down To Save Bandwidth-
"Lance C. Johnson" wrote:
>
> > There are in fact some people in these groups which do in fact
> > automatically assume the negative, even when a negative is not
> > proven.
>
> Name them, Flaggy, or else I will continue to accuse you of throwing up
> a strawman argument.
>
> > I described them as being Pseudo-Skeptics, (a term by Dan
> > Kettler)
>
> Go ahead and name them...better yet, quote 'em, showing that they
> "automatically assume the negative." And for the love of God, quit
> quoting Kettler...that guy's several sandwiches shy of a picnic.
There is no need for me to do that, since the majority of
people reading the groups already know who they are. In
this portion of the thread I was mainly discussing the
fact that mounds of evidence form millions of people are
being ignored by the Pseudo-Skeptic, even though the
evidence was never disproven. To add to that, none of
the evidence that I referred to from the recent FOX telecast
titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape 2,"
was ever disproven. Please refer to the original posts
for more information on this.
> > The fact of the matter is that much of the information
> > form the recent FOX telecast referred to in this thread was
> > never disproven. There is no need for the Pseudo-Skeptic to
> > automatically assume the evidence to be false unless it was
> > actually proven to be false, which it hasn't.
>
> Except, Flaggy, this isn't what anybody has done. You are deliberately
> misrepresenting the point of the skeptics just so you can easily tear
> down their points. Try addressing what we actually say, not what you
> wish we were saying.
I may be missing your point here. I do not see any problems with
the points that I am discussing in my replies. Please keep in
mind that I am mainly discussing the recent FOX telecast relating
to paranormal aliens visiting our planet, and the research that
goes along with it.
> > As a paranormalist who is trying to present various theories,
> > one may expect that I would want to include information that
> > will support my theory.
>
> But Flagship, real research involves looking into all of the
> possibilities...not just the ones that you like. If that's not what
> you want to do, then don't call it "research," 'cause it ain't.
I agree with you here. There are many unknown possibilities when
it comes to the likelihood of our being visited by aliens. Please
keep in mind that these possibilities were never disproven, and
there is in fact a greater then 0% probability that we are being
visited. As time progresses I will continue to research these
paranormal possibilities of our being visited by aliens.
> > The fact of the matter is that the
> > likelihood's of our being visited by aliens were never
> > disproven.
>
> Didn't we already agree on this point? Why do you keep repeating it?
> Nobody's arguing that...KNOCK IT OFF! (Besides, the correct way of
> writing that is "The fact of the matter is that the likelihood of our
> being visited by aliens WAS never disproven.")
I agree with you here as well. You just wrote that "The fact of
the matter is that the likelihood of our being visited by
aliens WAS never disproven."
> > I was only trying to keep the thread on-topic and about the
> > paranormal evidence presented by the recent FOX telecast
> > titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape 2" (in
> > the United States.) I see nothing wrong with trying to
> > stay on-topic. I am still missing your point here.
>
> You were mainly being dense. I was being on topic, offering a
> comparison to a similar event...how dare I mention something other than
> the FOX special when you, Der Alt.Paranormal Fuehrer is on the case.
>
> > Please refer to the above.
>
> Indeed...you truly are the most clueless person alive. Refer to Mark's
> post on this, as he described it rather eloquently. I'd like to see
> your response to THAT! (I noticed that you haven't bothered yet...in a
> corner, Flaggy?)
Sorry, I do not see Mark's posts as disproving the likelihood
of our being visited by paranormal aliens, nor do I see them as
disproving any of the material I referred to from the recent
FOX telecast titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever Caught on
Tape 2."
> > After the Randi Challenge, I am planning to open a new thread
> > on the pyramid issue in a few weeks with some interesting new
> > twists.
>
> Like what? Are they near New York now?
>
> > I will be happy to discuss this further with you at
> > that time. All I can ask of you now is to go to Deja News and
> > look up that thread I mentioned in the last reply. I am mainly
> > discussing the recent telecast aired by FOX in this issue.
> > Please stop trying to avoid the discussion with off-topic
> > materiel. I do not see this as relating to the recent FOX
> > telecast about paranormal aliens.
>
> The only one dodging issues here is you, Flagship, but you're too
> delusional to realize it.
>
> > Why are you coming to this automatic prejudicial assumption that I
> > am delusional?
>
> Excuse me? Prejudicial? I base my conclusion of you being delusional
> on what you have posted in the past. There's no pre-judgement
> whatsoever. Please refer to my other posts for more information.
I do not see my discussing these issues as being evidence
that I am delusional. I know that I am not delusional. Please
present evidence to show that this is not a prejudicial
assumption that you are making.
> > The fact of the matter is that there was in fact a
> > great amount of evidence presented by the recent FOX telecast that
> > does suggest the likelihood that we are being visited by aliens.
>
> And all of that "evidence" is rather weak and easily torn apart.
What makes you feel that this is week evidence?
> > Please keep in mind that none of the issues discussed in my
> > original post titled "Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape," were
> > completely disproven.
>
> Please keep in mind that nobody's saying that it was disproven and that
> you're setting up strawman arguments ad naseum.
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
-Slimmed Down To Save Bandwidth-
Mark wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 May 2000, Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote:
>
> > -A Brief Snippage of Off-Topic Material-
>
> Material, I would like to point out, demonstrating the validity of using
> examples to point out flaws in logic.
>
> > I do not see a problem with your questioning the logic of "MY"
> > arguments. The problem is that you are "NOT."
>
> For future reference: quotation marks are not used for emphasis. They are
> used to show that you are quoting someone (funnily enough). Putting things
> in quotes is NOT a way to emphasise something. The same is also true of
> parentheses (the things around this statement). Parentheses seperate the
> major clauses of the sentence from another clause that is not necessary to
> the understanding of that sentence, but which may aid in that
> understanding. I'm sorry to point these out (I know you have a "great
> understanding of the English language" - notice the use of parentheses
> and quotation marks) and I'm not using these trivial errors as an argument
> against you, but you've been making these mistakes for some time now and I
> thought it was time you were told.
>
> Anyway, back to the point.
This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, nor this
entire newsgroup. Please tell me how the above relates to the
recent FOX telecast, or paranormal UFOs being caught on tape.
The rest of the off-topic material has been snipped.
> > You are simply making up your own arguments about Purple Cows etc and
> > questioning the logic of them.
>
> <sigh>
>
> Arguments like the "purple cow" argument are there to show that the logic
> underpinning your argument is flawed. They do so by using the same logical
> structure as your argument but the detail of the premises is different (to
> remove any emotional attachment you may have to the subject matter in
> hand, e.g. UFOs).
No, these are completely different arguments that you made up
and "RIGGED" to have flaws. The reader may have already noticed
that you have made little to no attempts at attacking the "ACTUAL"
argument about paranormal aliens that I am making.
-A Brief Snippage of Off-Topic Material-
> > This still does not disprove the likelyhoods
> > of our being visited by paranormal aliens,
>
> I shan't dignify that with a response.
Because, you will first have to make up an OFF-TOPIC
argument since you "CANNOT" disprove the likelihood
of our being visited by aliens. You simply try to
make up your own arguments which you know are invalad
and you disprove them. If you want to make a point,
why won't you try attacking the "ACTUAL" argument
rather then an OFF-TOPIC argument that you simply
made up in a possible attempt to confuse the readers?
Please note that "NONE" of the material that I
referred to from the recent FOX telecast was
disproven.
> > nor the evidence
> > referred to from the recent FOX telecast (in the United States).
> >
> > Yes, the fact of the matter is that there is a great possibility
> > that we are being visited by aliens. I agree with you here.
>
> Good. That's because these are all facts. Which is why I wrote,
> "Fact:" before them all.
>
> > With the evidence that was presented, a close estimation can in
> > fact be achieved.
>
> And what would this close estimation be? Is there also an estimate of the
> amount of error in this estimation? How have you arrived at this
> estimation?
There is a greater then 0% probability that we are being
visited by paranormal aliens, since the likelihood of our
being visited was never disproven beyond all reasonable
doubt. Millions of people are still coming forward with
information.
> > We may not get an "ABSOLUTE" answer, but the
> > conjecture of our being visited by aliens remains intact because
> > it has yet to be disproven.
-A Brief Snippage of Off-Topic Material-
> > It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that we are not
> > being visited.
>
> Therefore the converse is true: It has not been proven beyond a reasonable
> doubt that we are being visited. Therefore the probability that we are
> being visited has not been shown to be greater than zero. QED. You agree
> with my statement above.
I agree, and as long as the probabilities of our being visited
by aliens was never disproven, the conjecture remains. There is
still the likelihood that we are in fact being visited.
> I'm still waiting for an answer to this.
>
> > -A Brief Snippage of Off-Topic Material-
>
> If you ignore everything that attacks your arguments you are never going
> to learn. You do want to learn, don't you? Or would you rather evidence
> that does not support your theories be locked away? Perhaps in a filing
> cabinet. Shouldn't you take the time to review what I provided you
> with? It was proof that arguments like the "purple cow" argument can be
> useful when critiquing logic. You know, your attitude reminds me a lot of
> a group of people that Dan Kettler termed, "Pseudo-Skeptic
> Fanatics" (PSF).
You did not attack "MY" argument there. You simply attacked
another OFF-TOPIC argument that "YOU" made up while
avoiding mine completely, in a possible attempt to confuse
the readers.
The majority of these claims were never disproven. It is not
logical for anyone to assume all of these claims to be false,
unless they were first proven to be false. "Innocent until
PROVEN Guilty." No file cabinets needed. I do not see a
person who automatically assumes all of these people to be
guilty of lying as being a reasonable person. There is in
fact a great likelihood that we are being visited by aliens.
> Mark_H
Mark
> "Lance C. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > Indeed...you truly are the most clueless person alive. Refer to Mark's
> > post on this, as he described it rather eloquently. I'd like to see
> > your response to THAT! (I noticed that you haven't bothered yet...in a
> > corner, Flaggy?)
>
> Sorry, I do not see Mark's posts as disproving the likelihood
> of our being visited by paranormal aliens, nor do I see them as
> disproving any of the material I referred to from the recent
> FOX telecast titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever Caught on
> Tape 2."
Good - that wasn't my intention. My intention was to try to show you that
you were asking us not to test the logic underpinning your argument with
the use of examples. You see, we had demonstrated that your logic was
flawed by using colourful examples, but you ignored them because you
believed them to be irrelevant. I can only conclude that you really don't
care whether your arguments have a sound basis in logic or not.
My interpretation of your position is that you would be comfortable using
the argument:
If an animal without birth defects or injuries has four legs, eats grass
and says "moo", it is a cow.
A dog does not say "moo".
Therefore, a dog is not a cow.
Would you be comfortable using this argument? Let's look at it closer. It
certainly seems convincing. The premises are true. The conclusion is
true. Heck, we could go out and collect evidence to show that the
conclusion is true, but... the argument is not a good one. It is logically
flawed and should therefore not be used, no matter how true the
conclusion. Do you see the flaw, Flagship? I'll let you think about that
one for a time. We'll return to it very shortly.
I have a question for you: Do you think the statement, "It has never been
proved that aliens are not visiting us" contains any more useful
information than the statement, "It has never been proved that pulsars are
not big lumps of strawberry flavoured jelly with unusual properties"?
Why/why not?
What do you think was the most solid piece of evidence shown on the Fox
broadcast? Why did it seem so convincing to you? Does it remind you of any
evidence you have seen previously? Now, and this is the most important
question, what would it take to convince you that this piece of evidence
was not actually evidence of alien visitation?
I think we should return to the cow/dog problem now. You do see why it's
flawed, don't you? Let's take a look at the bare bones of the logic:
If A then B
Not A
Therefore Not B
(where A="four legs, eats grass, says 'moo'", B="cow")
The problem arises from the fact that, while if A is true, B must be true,
it is not the case that if B is true, A is true. The truth of A is
sufficient for the truth of B, but it is not necessary for the truth of
B. There may be other ways of getting to B without needing A to be
true. If these letters are making your eyes hurt it might be easier if I
demonstrate with an example (shock, horror):
If a machine has wings, it is able to fly.
A helicopter does not have wings.
Therefore, helicopters cannot fly.
Notice that this argument follows the same structure as the cow/dog
argument but this time it produces a false conclusion. This unreliability
in the form of the argument is a clear demonstration that there is a
logical flaw somewhere behind the words. Similar uses of examples have
been used to show holes in your logic in the past, but you have dismissed
them as being irrelevant. I'm baffled by your stance on this matter. How
do you defend your position?
Mark_H
Mark
> > > I do not see a problem with your questioning the logic of "MY"
> > > arguments. The problem is that you are "NOT."
> >
> > For future reference: quotation marks are not used for emphasis. They are
> > used to show that you are quoting someone (funnily enough). Putting things
> > in quotes is NOT a way to emphasise something. The same is also true of
> > parentheses (the things around this statement). Parentheses seperate the
> > major clauses of the sentence from another clause that is not necessary to
> > the understanding of that sentence, but which may aid in that
> > understanding. I'm sorry to point these out (I know you have a "great
> > understanding of the English language" - notice the use of parentheses
> > and quotation marks) and I'm not using these trivial errors as an argument
> > against you, but you've been making these mistakes for some time now and I
> > thought it was time you were told.
> >
> > Anyway, back to the point.
>
> This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, nor this
> entire newsgroup. Please tell me how the above relates to the
> recent FOX telecast, or paranormal UFOs being caught on tape.
There's no point putting forward an argument, evidence, proof, etc. if
nobody can make head or tail of what you've written. Whilst your English
is better than many (many people that should know better - I'm talking
about people to whom English is their first language) I just thought I
would help you better yourself by improving your language skills. I
thought that perhaps it might come in handy during your extended research.
Is that good enough? Or would you like me to make up some more drivel?
> > > You are simply making up your own arguments about Purple Cows etc and
> > > questioning the logic of them.
> >
> > <sigh>
> >
> > Arguments like the "purple cow" argument are there to show that the logic
> > underpinning your argument is flawed. They do so by using the same logical
> > structure as your argument but the detail of the premises is different (to
> > remove any emotional attachment you may have to the subject matter in
> > hand, e.g. UFOs).
>
> No, these are completely different arguments that you made up
> and "RIGGED" to have flaws.
That I made up? Me? Tell me, who was it that came up with the "purple
cow" argument? Or are you addressing everyone here?
All the colourful arguments I have used have retained the logical
structure of your original arguments, which I have subsequently shown to
be flawed. See my last post for the cow/dog argument (I wonder if either
of those are purple). Flaws in an argument can be masked by the content of
the premises and the conclusion. Using another example can often reveal
those flaws. The only way to refute one of these "example
arguments" (e.g. "purple cow") is to show that the logical structure has
been changed between your original argument and the new example. Saying,
"But this argument is about helicopters and machines - I'm talking about
animals", is NOT a valid argument.
> The reader may have already noticed
> that you have made little to no attempts at attacking the "ACTUAL"
> argument about paranormal aliens that I am making.
Which is what? That it has not been proved that aliens aren't
visiting? That's not an argument. It does not provide us with any
information. If aliens are vising us, it can never be proved. If aliens
are NOT visiting us, it can STILL NEVER BE PROVED. It supports neither the
proposition that they are visiting nor the proposition that they are
not. You might as well have said, "Is the following statement true or
false? This statement is false".
> > > This still does not disprove the likelyhoods
> > > of our being visited by paranormal aliens,
> >
> > I shan't dignify that with a response.
>
> Because, you will first have to make up an OFF-TOPIC
> argument since you "CANNOT" disprove the likelihood
> of our being visited by aliens.
If you look above, you will see that using quotation marks to add emphasis
does nothing but make you look like someone that doesn't know how to use
punctuation and gets it wrong EVEN WHEN IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO HIM.
What is your argument here? Is it that I can never disprove it because to
do so I would have to go off-topic and my disproof would therefore not be
valid? Because that's really just silly. I can't disprove it for the same
reason that you can't disprove the notion that Santa's helpers killed the
old fat man and buried him on the dark side of Jupiter's second moon.
> You simply try to
> make up your own arguments which you know are invalad
> and you disprove them.
I've pointed out to you once before that the correct spelling is
"invalid". I don't mind regional variations, or the occassional mistake (I
make tem al teh timee) but you should take note of them. Remember back to
the Geller thread? I spelt his name "Gellar" all the time, until it was
pointed out to me by someone else. Very embarrassing it was, but I've made
an effort not to spell it incorrectly again.
> If you want to make a point,
> why won't you try attacking the "ACTUAL" argument
> rather then an OFF-TOPIC argument that you simply
> made up in a possible attempt to confuse the readers?
I haven't seen any arguments from you that have taken more than a couple
of minutes to attack. If I've made any more up for myself it's only to
relieve the boredom whilst I wait for another of yours. Let me see
now... You've argued that alien visitation has never been disproved - an
argument that most people can see to be true but vacuous. It isn't a
useful argument unless it can actually tell us something. You've argued
that the chance that aliens are visiting is great because lots of people
say so. Most people can see that an argument from the masses is not a
valid argument. Lots of people can be wrong. They can be wrong and
vocal. Lots of people have committed suicide because they thought the
world was going to end. They were so sure they were right that they bet
their lives on it. At the time, nobody had disproved that the world was
going to end the next day. But they were wrong.
> > > With the evidence that was presented, a close estimation can in
> > > fact be achieved.
> >
> > And what would this close estimation be? Is there also an estimate of the
> > amount of error in this estimation? How have you arrived at this
> > estimation?
>
> There is a greater then 0% probability that we are being
> visited by paranormal aliens, since the likelihood of our
> being visited was never disproven beyond all reasonable
> doubt. Millions of people are still coming forward with
> information.
Why is 0% no longer an option for the probability of alien visitation? As
far as I can see, the chance that we have been visited in the past is
either 0 or 1 (0% or 100%) - we either have been or we haven't been. If
you discount 0, you are left with 1. So you believe we have been visited
in the past. So where's the proof?
The idea that we have not been visited in the past has never been
disproved. Therefore, the chance is less than 100%. Which leaves us at 0%
(as this is a past event and either happened or didn't).
Your argument is not persuasive. Why is 0% not an option? Is 1%? 38%?
> > > It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that we are not
> > > being visited.
> >
> > Therefore the converse is true: It has not been proven beyond a reasonable
> > doubt that we are being visited. Therefore the probability that we are
> > being visited has not been shown to be greater than zero. QED. You agree
> > with my statement above.
>
> I agree, and as long as the probabilities of our being visited
> by aliens was never disproven, the conjecture remains. There is
> still the likelihood that we are in fact being visited.
You agree? But you are now contradicting yourself. You've now told us that
you think 0% is both a possibility and not a possibility. Very odd. Which
is it to be?
> > If you ignore everything that attacks your arguments you are never going
> > to learn. You do want to learn, don't you? Or would you rather evidence
> > that does not support your theories be locked away? Perhaps in a filing
> > cabinet. Shouldn't you take the time to review what I provided you
> > with? It was proof that arguments like the "purple cow" argument can be
> > useful when critiquing logic. You know, your attitude reminds me a lot of
> > a group of people that Dan Kettler termed, "Pseudo-Skeptic
> > Fanatics" (PSF).
>
> You did not attack "MY" argument there. You simply attacked
> another OFF-TOPIC argument that "YOU" made up while
> avoiding mine completely, in a possible attempt to confuse
> the readers.
I clearly give the readers more credit than you do. I assume that they
will be able to see the obvious parallels between the arguments you put
forward and the examples that I use to demonstrate logical flaws.
> The majority of these claims were never disproven.
These claims were never proved? Why did these people not have any proof?
> It is not
> logical for anyone to assume all of these claims to be false,
> unless they were first proven to be false.
And it would be stupid to accept these unproven claims at face value. At
present, they mean nothing. When they are proven, then they become
interesting.
> "Innocent until PROVEN Guilty."
That's right. In this case, the orthodox view (i.e. aliens are not
visiting) is being accused of being a lie, a sham, a mockery of
reality. We should therefore regard it as being innocent of such
accusations until such time as it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt
that the orthodox view is guilty of being untrue. We should assume its
innocence (i.e. that aliens are not visiting) until someone proves
otherwise. And I thought you believed aliens were visiting. How wrong
could I have been?
[snip off-topic bumph]
Mark_H
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
-Slimmed Down To Save Bandwidth-
Mark wrote:
>
> > This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, nor this
> > entire newsgroup. Please tell me how the above relates to the
> > recent FOX telecast, or paranormal UFOs being caught on tape.
>
> There's no point putting forward an argument, evidence, proof, etc. if
> nobody can make head or tail of what you've written. Whilst your English
> is better than many (many people that should know better - I'm talking
> about people to whom English is their first language) I just thought I
> would help you better yourself by improving your language skills. I
> thought that perhaps it might come in handy during your extended research.
>
> Is that good enough? Or would you like me to make up some more drivel?
I may be missing your point here. I believe that I have a fine
understanding of the english language and the literature that
goes with it. Please keep in mind that I am mainly discussing
the recent FOX telecast (in the United States) relating to
paranormal UFOs being caught on tape.
> > No, these are completely different arguments that you made up
> > and "RIGGED" to have flaws.
>
> That I made up? Me? Tell me, who was it that came up with the "purple
> cow" argument? Or are you addressing everyone here?
In this sense, "Purple Cow Arguments" are anecdotal, self-created
colorful, Off-Topic arguments which are posted to a thread to
possibly try to confuse the reader. This allows the attacker to
escape the need of attacking the "ACTUAL" argument while simply
attacking the SELF-CREATED "Purple Cow Argument," which has nothing
to do with the liklihoods of our being visited by aliens, or the
recent telecast aired by FOX (in the United States)
> All the colourful arguments I have used have retained the logical
> structure of your original arguments, which I have subsequently shown to
> be flawed. See my last post for the cow/dog argument (I wonder if either
> of those are purple). Flaws in an argument can be masked by the content of
> the premises and the conclusion. Using another example can often reveal
> those flaws. The only way to refute one of these "example
> arguments" (e.g. "purple cow") is to show that the logical structure has
> been changed between your original argument and the new example. Saying,
> "But this argument is about helicopters and machines - I'm talking about
> animals", is NOT a valid argument.
LOL. Please refer to the above about "Purple Cow Arguments,"
now only if I could write that in latin. (being sarcastic)
> > The reader may have already noticed
> > that you have made little to no attempts at attacking the "ACTUAL"
> > argument about paranormal aliens that I am making.
>
> Which is what? That it has not been proved that aliens aren't
> visiting? That's not an argument. It does not provide us with any
> information. If aliens are vising us, it can never be proved. If aliens
> are NOT visiting us, it can STILL NEVER BE PROVED. It supports neither the
> proposition that they are visiting nor the proposition that they are
> not. You might as well have said, "Is the following statement true or
> false? This statement is false".
I agree with you here. Even though the likelihood of our being
visited was not proved or DISPROVED there is still the POSSIBILITY
that we are in fact being visited by aliens. The CONJECTURE that
we are in fact being visited by paranormal aliens was never
disproven. There is still a good chance that we are being
visited.
> > Because, you will first have to make up an OFF-TOPIC
> > argument since you "CANNOT" disprove the likelihood
> > of our being visited by aliens.
>
> If you look above, you will see that using quotation marks to add emphasis
> does nothing but make you look like someone that doesn't know how to use
> punctuation and gets it wrong EVEN WHEN IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO HIM.
I am mainly discussing the recent FOX telecast relating to
paranormal UFOs being caught on tape. Please keep in mind
that none of the items referred to in this post were
disproven beyond a reasonable doubt.
> What is your argument here? Is it that I can never disprove it because to
> do so I would have to go off-topic and my disproof would therefore not be
> valid? Because that's really just silly.
What's wrong? Why can't you attack my "ACTUAL" argument? Why
are you going Off-Topic and attacking your OWN arguments
instead of mine? I am still missing your point here.
-A Brief Snippage of an Off-Topic Purple Cow Argument-
> > You simply try to
> > make up your own arguments which you know are invalad
> > and you disprove them.
>
> I've pointed out to you once before that the correct spelling is
> "invalid". I don't mind regional variations, or the occassional mistake (I
> make tem al teh timee) but you should take note of them. Remember back to
> the Geller thread? I spelt his name "Gellar" all the time, until it was
> pointed out to me by someone else. Very embarrassing it was, but I've made
> an effort not to spell it incorrectly again.
Please explain what the above has to do with disproving the
liklihoods of our being visited by aliens, or the material
referred to from the recent FOX telecast (in the United States)
titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape 2."
> > If you want to make a point,
> > why won't you try attacking the "ACTUAL" argument
> > rather then an OFF-TOPIC argument that you simply
> > made up in a possible attempt to confuse the readers?
>
> I haven't seen any arguments from you that have taken more than a couple
> of minutes to attack. If I've made any more up for myself it's only to
> relieve the boredom whilst I wait for another of yours. Let me see
> now... You've argued that alien visitation has never been disproved - an
> argument that most people can see to be true but vacuous. It isn't a
> useful argument unless it can actually tell us something. You've argued
> that the chance that aliens are visiting is great because lots of people
> say so. Most people can see that an argument from the masses is not a
> valid argument. Lots of people can be wrong. They can be wrong and
> vocal.
You forgot to mention that I also argue the facts that alien
visitation was never disproven, and how the Pseudo-Skeptic is
automatically assuming these issues to be false even though
they were never disproven.
-A Brief Snippage of Off-Topic Material-
> > There is a greater then 0% probability that we are being
> > visited by paranormal aliens, since the likelihood of our
> > being visited was never disproven beyond all reasonable
> > doubt. Millions of people are still coming forward with
> > information.
>
> Why is 0% no longer an option for the probability of alien visitation? As
> far as I can see, the chance that we have been visited in the past is
> either 0 or 1 (0% or 100%) - we either have been or we haven't been. If
> you discount 0, you are left with 1. So you believe we have been visited
> in the past. So where's the proof?
I once again want to apologize for your not being able to see
the recent FOX telecast. The fact of the matter is that lots of
evidence has been coming in from millions of people, most of
which was NEVER DISPROVEN. It was either returned to the sender,
or placed in a file cabinet. This is what I am focusing on in
both of these arguments. That IS where the proof is. It is still
your choice if you want to allow yourself to accept the evidence
or not.
> The idea that we have not been visited in the past has never been
> disproved. Therefore, the chance is less than 100%. Which leaves us at 0%
> (as this is a past event and either happened or didn't).
Nope. This is where the Pseudo-Skeptic starts to automatically
assume a negative even when such a negative has not been proven
in the first place, hence they simply assume the 0% when it is
actually a smooth 50% conjecture. This is where the file
cabinets come in. This is also where you are missing my point.
(Thanks for not using a Purple Cow Argument here.)
> Your argument is not persuasive. Why is 0% not an option? Is 1%? 38%?
In this sense, 0 is undefined and the conjecture that we
are being visited by paranormal aliens remains intact until
the conjecture is either completely solved or disproven.
There is still the possibility that we are being visited.
When a variable is undefined, there is no need to
automatically assume the negation that we are
not being visited by paranormal aliens.
> > I agree, and as long as the probabilities of our being visited
> > by aliens was never disproven, the conjecture remains. There is
> > still the likelihood that we are in fact being visited.
>
> You agree? But you are now contradicting yourself. You've now told us that
> you think 0% is both a possibility and not a possibility. Very odd. Which
> is it to be?
Please refer to the above. I do not believe that I am
contradicting myself, here.
> > You did not attack "MY" argument there. You simply attacked
> > another OFF-TOPIC argument that "YOU" made up while
> > avoiding mine completely, in a possible attempt to confuse
> > the readers.
>
> I clearly give the readers more credit than you do. I assume that they
> will be able to see the obvious parallels between the arguments you put
> forward and the examples that I use to demonstrate logical flaws.
A good number of them may have already seen the fact that you
have made "little to no" attempts at attacking my "actual"
argument before your last reply. You simply made up your own
arguments that have "small similarities" to mine and attacked
them instead. This appears to be a possible attempt to confuse
the readers into thinking that you are attacking my arguments
when it is your own self-created arguments that you are
really attacking. (all in one breath.)
The non Pseudo-Skeptic reader is probably wanting to know why
you did that, because I sure do and so does Deja News.
> > The majority of these claims were never disproven.
>
> These claims were never proved? Why did these people not have any proof?
>
> > It is not
> > logical for anyone to assume all of these claims to be false,
> > unless they were first proven to be false.
>
> And it would be stupid to accept these unproven claims at face value. At
> present, they mean nothing. When they are proven, then they become
> interesting.
Mean Nothing??? Does this mean to imply that they should just be
shoved in file cabinets or not judged with a proper judging
procedure?
> > "Innocent until PROVEN Guilty."
>
> That's right. In this case, the orthodox view (i.e. aliens are not
> visiting) is being accused of being a lie, a sham, a mockery of
> reality. We should therefore regard it as being innocent of such
> accusations until such time as it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt
> that the orthodox view is guilty of being untrue. We should assume its
> innocence (i.e. that aliens are not visiting) until someone proves
> otherwise. And I thought you believed aliens were visiting. How wrong
> could I have been?
There is still a great possibility that we are in fact being visited
by paranormal aliens. These possibilities have never been disproven
beyond all reasonable doubt. There are many unknown variables in
our universe. Hey, you never know.
> [snip off-topic bumph]
Thank you.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
-Slimmed Down To Save Bandwidth-
Mark wrote:
>
> > Sorry, I do not see Mark's posts as disproving the likelihood
> > of our being visited by paranormal aliens, nor do I see them as
> > disproving any of the material I referred to from the recent
> > FOX telecast titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever Caught on
> > Tape 2."
>
> Good - that wasn't my intention. My intention was to try to show you that
> you were asking us not to test the logic underpinning your argument with
> the use of examples.
You can feel free to try to test the logic of my "ACTUAL" arguments.
There is no need for you to create your own arguments and attack them
instead of attacking my "ACTUAL" arguments." Please keep in mind that
I am mainly discussing the recent FOX telecast in the United States,
that relates to paranormal UFOs being caught on tape. The point of
my arguments is that none of the evidence referred to in my original
post was ever disproven. There is in fact a great likelihood that
we are in fact being visited.
-A Brief Snippage of Off-Topic Material-
> What do you think was the most solid piece of evidence shown on the Fox
> broadcast? Why did it seem so convincing to you? Does it remind you of any
> evidence you have seen previously? Now, and this is the most important
> question, what would it take to convince you that this piece of evidence
> was not actually evidence of alien visitation?
There is more then one piece of evidence presented by FOX that
has further convinced me of the possibilities of our being visited
by paranormal aliens. This evidence is referred to in my original
post titled "Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape."
In order to convince me that a piece of evidence was invalad,
someone must prove to me that the evidence is invalad.
-A Brief Snippage of Off-Topic Material-
> Similar uses of examples have
> been used to show holes in your logic in the past, but you have dismissed
> them as being irrelevant. I'm baffled by your stance on this matter. How
> do you defend your position?
I defend it by saying that you are showing holes in your own
self-created arguments instead of mine, and you are doing so
most likely because you "CANNOT" disprove the liklihoods of our
being visited by paranormal aliens, but can disprove a "Purple
Cow Argument" in place of the actual argument in a possible
attempt to escape the need to disprove the liklihoods of our
being visited by paranormal aliens, or the material referred
to from the recent FOX telecast. (all in one breath)
> Mark_H
NewAge Skeptic
Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote:
>
> Re: Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
>
> -Slimmed Down To Save Bandwidth-
>
> NewAge Skeptic wrote:
> >
> > > It is the evidence from millions of people worldwide that is
> > > seemingly being locked in file cabinets by the Pseudo-Skeptic
> > > who automatically assumes the evidence to be false, even though
> > > the evidence was not proven to be false.
> >
> > Now its 'seemingly'? In past articles you used 'in fact', etc. Can we
> > now assume that you have no evidence that anything is being locked away
> > by anybody? And, if you're not sure it is 'in fact' locked away, how can
> > you rely on this illusionary information as 'evidence' to support your
> > argument?
>
> What else can I tell you.
Tell me what you know as a fact. Is it seemingly, maybe, could be, what
is it?
> Things are being locked in file cabinets
> by people who automatically assume that the evidence is false,
> even though the evidence was never disproven.
What evidence do you have of this?
> Please keep in mind
> that I am mainly discussing the recent FOX telecast titled "UFOs
> The Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape 2."
Then stop throwing in 'attachments' cause as long as you do, people will
attack them.
> I also pointed out that
> a great deal of the material presented by this recent telecast was
> at least 2-4 years old. You must allow yourself to look into the
> arguments, rather then simply looking them over.
Right. let's see how much 'looking into' you have done.
Have you done any of the following:
1). Contacted NASA to verify the astronaut reports
2). Checked the New York City news media archives for reports of a UFO
over the World Trade Center
3). Interviewed Israeli defense officials about claims of their air
force chasing UFOs on a regular basis
Have you, or have you allowed yourself to simply believe?
It is my recollection that the New York sighting footage was not brought
forward by its producer until just recently, a fact that was mentioned
as strange even by the biased narrator. Have you checked into that?
> > > The recent FOX telecast
> > > (in the United States) presented several cases which I mentioned
> > > in the original thread that were never disproven. I'm sorry that
> > > you see this as being ignorant.
> >
> > I won't bother to repost the definition because it appears obvious that
> > you haven't bothered to read it (or have chosen to ignore it). No one is
> > calling you ignorant. The discussion format you use is known as an
> > 'argument from ignorance'.
>
> I may be missing your point here. I only ignore something when it
> does not relate to the topic of a given post and/or newsgroup.
No you're not missing it at all. Your arguments from ignorance form the
basis of each of your threads, and as such making the readers aware of
questionable tactics is very much relavent. You chose to ignore it
because you cannot counter the claim that I have made repeatedly.
> > > The fact of the matter is that
> > > the possibilities of our being visited were never disproven. I
> > > simply wrote that arguing OFF-TOPIC is not an affective method
> > > of attacking someone's argument.
> >
> > It is evident from your postings that you are not an expert on what
> > constitutes an effective method. Why don't you just answer the questions
> > and thus demonstrate your genius, instead of crying foul.
>
> Well, it depends at what you see at your own POV.
If it is only a matter of POV, why do you froth about it.
> This is why I have
> been saying this from the start. It is your choice if you want to
> accept the possibilities of our being visited by aliens or not. Just
> keep in mind that the liklihoods of our being visited by aliens were
> never disproven. That's all.
Do you really give any thought to what you write? In the above paragraph
we see possibility and likelihood freely interchanged as though they are
one and the same. What is it; chance, possibility, likelihood,
probability, what?
> There is in fact a greater then 0% probability that we are in
> fact being visited by aliens, because this likelihood was never
> disproven beyond all reasonable doubt.
Nice try. Likelihood means probability, a probability infers supporting
evidence strong enough to make it likely though not certain to be true.
You claim to have mounds of supporting evidence. Apply your data to the
equation and then tell us how great this probability is. That should not
be difficult considering all your evidence.
> It does not take an
> expert to realize that.
The experts disagree with you. They will not venture beyond a non-zero
estimate of probability. They also do not discount the possibility of
'zero'.
> Please note that none of the information
> that I referenced from the recent FOX telecast was disproven in
> this thread. There is in fact a greater then 0% probability
> that we may be visited by paranormal aliens.
Then prove this fact. DO IT! Stop evading the issue.
Sandy
NewAge Skeptic
Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote:
>
> Re: Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
>
> -Slimmed Down To Save Bandwidth-
>
> Mark wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry, I do not see Mark's posts as disproving the likelihood
> > > of our being visited by paranormal aliens, nor do I see them as
> > > disproving any of the material I referred to from the recent
> > > FOX telecast titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever Caught on
> > > Tape 2."
> >
> > Good - that wasn't my intention. My intention was to try to show you that
> > you were asking us not to test the logic underpinning your argument with
> > the use of examples.
>
> You can feel free to try to test the logic of my "ACTUAL" arguments.
> There is no need for you to create your own arguments and attack them
> instead of attacking my "ACTUAL" arguments." Please keep in mind that
> I am mainly discussing the recent FOX telecast in the United States,
> that relates to paranormal UFOs being caught on tape. The point of
> my arguments is that none of the evidence referred to in my original
> post was ever disproven. There is in fact a great likelihood that
> we are in fact being visited.
The logical fallacy of your arguments has been shown time and time again
by a number of respondents both directly and through example. You are
just too thick to understand it. You cannot assume that lack of evidence
for the negative adds veracity to the positive. WHEN WILL YOU UNDERSTAND
THIS??????
<snip>
Sandy
Mark
> > > This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, nor this
> > > entire newsgroup. Please tell me how the above relates to the
> > > recent FOX telecast, or paranormal UFOs being caught on tape.
> >
> > There's no point putting forward an argument, evidence, proof, etc. if
> > nobody can make head or tail of what you've written. Whilst your English
> > is better than many (many people that should know better - I'm talking
> > about people to whom English is their first language) I just thought I
> > would help you better yourself by improving your language skills. I
> > thought that perhaps it might come in handy during your extended research.
> >
> > Is that good enough? Or would you like me to make up some more drivel?
>
> I may be missing your point here. I believe that I have a fine
> understanding of the english language and the literature that
> goes with it.
English has a capital "E". Keep learning.
> > > No, these are completely different arguments that you made up
> > > and "RIGGED" to have flaws.
> >
> > That I made up? Me? Tell me, who was it that came up with the "purple
> > cow" argument? Or are you addressing everyone here?
>
> In this sense, "Purple Cow Arguments" are anecdotal, self-created
> colorful, Off-Topic arguments which are posted to a thread to
> possibly try to confuse the reader.
No, they are solid, well-designed arguments using colourful examples
demonstrating to the reader that the arguments put forward by yourself are
peppered with holes.
> This allows the attacker to
> escape the need of attacking the "ACTUAL" argument while simply
> attacking the SELF-CREATED "Purple Cow Argument," which has nothing
> to do with the liklihoods of our being visited by aliens, or the
> recent telecast aired by FOX (in the United States)
But they have everything to do with the logic of the argument that you put
forward. If your logic is not sound, and it has been demonstrated that
this is the case, then your conclusions are invalid. They may be either
true or false, but they are still invalid. You do know the difference
between veracity and validity, don't you?
> > All the colourful arguments I have used have retained the logical
> > structure of your original arguments, which I have subsequently shown to
> > be flawed. See my last post for the cow/dog argument (I wonder if either
> > of those are purple). Flaws in an argument can be masked by the content of
> > the premises and the conclusion. Using another example can often reveal
> > those flaws. The only way to refute one of these "example
> > arguments" (e.g. "purple cow") is to show that the logical structure has
> > been changed between your original argument and the new example. Saying,
> > "But this argument is about helicopters and machines - I'm talking about
> > animals", is NOT a valid argument.
>
> LOL. Please refer to the above about "Purple Cow Arguments,"
> now only if I could write that in latin. (being sarcastic)
I notice you completely ignored my explanation of the cow/dog
argument. You really don't have the first clue about how to argue
successfully, do you? Oh, and a word of advice: Don't ever try to learn
Classical Latin - you won't get very far. It is a very logical language.
> > > The reader may have already noticed
> > > that you have made little to no attempts at attacking the "ACTUAL"
> > > argument about paranormal aliens that I am making.
> >
> > Which is what? That it has not been proved that aliens aren't
> > visiting? That's not an argument. It does not provide us with any
> > information. If aliens are vising us, it can never be proved. If aliens
> > are NOT visiting us, it can STILL NEVER BE PROVED. It supports neither the
> > proposition that they are visiting nor the proposition that they are
> > not. You might as well have said, "Is the following statement true or
> > false? This statement is false".
>
> I agree with you here.
Good. So why do you keep repeating a useless, vacuous argument that
contains no information?
> > What is your argument here? Is it that I can never disprove it because to
> > do so I would have to go off-topic and my disproof would therefore not be
> > valid? Because that's really just silly.
>
> What's wrong? Why can't you attack my "ACTUAL" argument? Why
> are you going Off-Topic and attacking your OWN arguments
> instead of mine? I am still missing your point here.
Again, I have to remind you that emphasis is not added by the use of
quotation marks. That's three times I've told you.
As for your "argument", we've both already discounted it as a vacuous
waste of words. You agreed with me that it contained no
information. Remember? If you are missing my point, you are also missing
your own point, and that smacks of carelessness.
> > > You simply try to
> > > make up your own arguments which you know are invalad
> > > and you disprove them.
> >
> > I've pointed out to you once before that the correct spelling is
> > "invalid". I don't mind regional variations, or the occassional mistake (I
> > make tem al teh timee) but you should take note of them. Remember back to
> > the Geller thread? I spelt his name "Gellar" all the time, until it was
> > pointed out to me by someone else. Very embarrassing it was, but I've made
> > an effort not to spell it incorrectly again.
>
> Please explain what the above has to do with disproving the
> liklihoods of our being visited by aliens, or the material
> referred to from the recent FOX telecast (in the United States)
> titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape 2."
It's a demonstration of your unwillingness to change your views, actions,
behaviours and arguments even in light of the facts. If you won't learn
simple things like the correct use of a punctuation mark, why should we
think that you have the capabilities to alter your beliefs when confronted
with evidence?
> > > If you want to make a point,
> > > why won't you try attacking the "ACTUAL" argument
> > > rather then an OFF-TOPIC argument that you simply
> > > made up in a possible attempt to confuse the readers?
> >
> > I haven't seen any arguments from you that have taken more than a couple
> > of minutes to attack. If I've made any more up for myself it's only to
> > relieve the boredom whilst I wait for another of yours. Let me see
> > now... You've argued that alien visitation has never been disproved - an
> > argument that most people can see to be true but vacuous. It isn't a
> > useful argument unless it can actually tell us something. You've argued
> > that the chance that aliens are visiting is great because lots of people
> > say so. Most people can see that an argument from the masses is not a
> > valid argument. Lots of people can be wrong. They can be wrong and
> > vocal.
>
> You forgot to mention that I also argue the facts that alien
> visitation was never disproven,
You obviously don't read what I write. Let's take a look at some of the
last paragraph of mine that you quoted: "You've argued that alien
visitation has never been disproved". And now you say that I forgot to
mention that "alien visitation was never disproven". If I didn't know
better I'd say that your reading comprehension skills needed a little
work.
As for that argument, we've already determined (and you agreed) that it
can never contain any information and can never be used to prove anything.
> and how the Pseudo-Skeptic is
> automatically assuming these issues to be false even though
> they were never disproven.
This isn't an argument. This is simply a definition. Remember the
definition you gave of Pseudo-Skeptic? One of the defining characteristics
of a Pseudo-Skeptic is that he assumes these issues to be false even
though they have never been disproven. Your "argument" is the equivalent
of "triangles have three sides". It's just a definition. Definitions are
not arguments.
> -A Brief Snippage of Off-Topic Material-
>
> > > There is a greater then 0% probability that we are being
> > > visited by paranormal aliens, since the likelihood of our
> > > being visited was never disproven beyond all reasonable
> > > doubt. Millions of people are still coming forward with
> > > information.
> >
> > Why is 0% no longer an option for the probability of alien visitation? As
> > far as I can see, the chance that we have been visited in the past is
> > either 0 or 1 (0% or 100%) - we either have been or we haven't been. If
> > you discount 0, you are left with 1. So you believe we have been visited
> > in the past. So where's the proof?
>
> I once again want to apologize for your not being able to see
> the recent FOX telecast. The fact of the matter is that lots of
> evidence has been coming in from millions of people, most of
> which was NEVER DISPROVEN. It was either returned to the sender,
> or placed in a file cabinet. This is what I am focusing on in
> both of these arguments. That IS where the proof is. It is still
> your choice if you want to allow yourself to accept the evidence
> or not.
So the evidence that you are presenting is that a TV show said that
millions of people had evidence. They sent this evidence to... who? These
people then either returned it or filed it away. And from this I am to
conclude that aliens have been visiting Earth?
> > The idea that we have not been visited in the past has never been
> > disproved. Therefore, the chance is less than 100%. Which leaves us at 0%
> > (as this is a past event and either happened or didn't).
>
> Nope. This is where the Pseudo-Skeptic starts to automatically
> assume a negative even when such a negative has not been proven
> in the first place, hence they simply assume the 0% when it is
> actually a smooth 50% conjecture.
Tut tut tut. You've been a bit brutal with the snipping there. If you look
again at the piece to deleted you will see that my argument uses your
logical structure. You have determined that it is the kind of argument
that a Pseudo-Skeptic would use. Therefore, you have the arguing
technique of a Pseudo-Skeptic. You can agree with me at this point.
As for the probability of alien visitation being 50%... well, that's just
nonsense. I was talking about visitation IN THE PAST. You want me to
believe that we have been half visited. What is that? Is that when they
set out to come to Earth but change their minds halfway to us? If you are
talking about the chance that they'll visit us in the future, how do you
get 50%? Because it either will or won't happen? What about the chance of
rolling a 6 on one die? That isn't 50%, but it either will or won't
happen.
> This is where the file
> cabinets come in. This is also where you are missing my point.
> (Thanks for not using a Purple Cow Argument here.)
I thought I'd use your own flawed logic against you. Nice to see you can
determine the flaws in the logic when it is used for the opposing point of
view.
> > Your argument is not persuasive. Why is 0% not an option? Is 1%? 38%?
>
> In this sense, 0 is undefined and the conjecture that we
> are being visited by paranormal aliens remains intact until
> the conjecture is either completely solved or disproven.
Why did you include "disproven"? It can't be disproven, even if it isn't
happening. What do you mean "0 is undefined"? Is 1 undefined? Is 38
undefined? Which are the defined possibilities?
> > > I agree, and as long as the probabilities of our being visited
> > > by aliens was never disproven, the conjecture remains. There is
> > > still the likelihood that we are in fact being visited.
> >
> > You agree? But you are now contradicting yourself. You've now told us that
> > you think 0% is both a possibility and not a possibility. Very odd. Which
> > is it to be?
>
> Please refer to the above. I do not believe that I am
> contradicting myself, here.
You are. Again, you've deleted what you are agreeing to. If you had read
it, you would have seen that I had written, "Therefore the probability
that we are being visited has not been shown to be greater than zero" -
you are agreeing that zero is a possibility. Early you had written "There
is a greater then 0% probability that we are being visited by paranormal
aliens" - making it very clear that a zero probability is out of the
question. How is this not a contradiction?
> > > You did not attack "MY" argument there. You simply attacked
> > > another OFF-TOPIC argument that "YOU" made up while
> > > avoiding mine completely, in a possible attempt to confuse
> > > the readers.
> >
> > I clearly give the readers more credit than you do. I assume that they
> > will be able to see the obvious parallels between the arguments you put
> > forward and the examples that I use to demonstrate logical flaws.
>
> A good number of them may have already seen the fact that you
> have made "little to no" attempts at attacking my "actual"
> argument before your last reply.
Look, I really hate doing this, but you are still using quotation marks to
add emphasis. That's four times now.
> You simply made up your own
> arguments that have "small similarities" to mine and attacked
> them instead.
The logic of the arguments was the same. If you wanted to question this
fact you should have done so - it would be the only way to avoid the
inevitable conclusion that your arguments were flawed. Of course, if you
HAD done so you would have been shown to be wrong once more, as they
shared exactly the same logical structure.
> This appears to be a possible attempt to confuse
> the readers into thinking that you are attacking my arguments
> when it is your own self-created arguments that you are
> really attacking. (all in one breath.)
Not at all, and I'm sure all reasonable readers can see exactly what I've
been doing. I've never hidden my aims. I enjoy picking holes in arguments,
preferably without having to mess around with the gorey details of the
premises. So I attack the logic of the argument and show that it is
invalid (when this is possible). To make this easier, I remove the logical
spine from the argument and work it through with an example to demonstrate
the inconsistencies of the conclusions - a clear demonstration that the
logic of the argument is fatally flawed and should not be used in any
context. I'm not questioning the veracity of your conclusions - I'm
questioning their validity.
> The non Pseudo-Skeptic reader is probably wanting to know why
> you did that, because I sure do and so does Deja News.
Any reasonable person that has read more than one or two of my posts would
know exactly why I do that - I seem to have to tell you every other
day. Of course, I imagine the number of people reading my posts is very
small - they are long and cover ground that has been explained to you any
number of times already. You speak of Deja News as though it gives two
hoots what it carries. It doesn't. I'm proud that my posts are
archived. If I wasn't, I wouldn't post.
> > > The majority of these claims were never disproven.
> >
> > These claims were never proved? Why did these people not have any proof?
> >
> > > It is not
> > > logical for anyone to assume all of these claims to be false,
> > > unless they were first proven to be false.
> >
> > And it would be stupid to accept these unproven claims at face value. At
> > present, they mean nothing. When they are proven, then they become
> > interesting.
>
> Mean Nothing??? Does this mean to imply that they should just be
> shoved in file cabinets or not judged with a proper judging
> procedure?
Naturally, as any reasonable person knows, I can only talk from my point
of view. I am not employed to review such material; it is not my job. What
good are unproven claims of alien visitation to me? They are meaningless
to me. They are not going to make me change my life. They mean the same to
me as unproven claims about the effects of air travel on the
environment. When someone who is employed to such a task proves that we
are being visited by aliens, I will sit up and pay attention. But it isn't
my job to prove these things. If it was my job, I would take it seriously,
dilligently checking the facts of the claims and filing them away
according to the most likely explanation. Filing cabinets are very
useful. Some of them might even be labelled, "Genuine UFO proof", and may
be accessible by all.
Mark_H
Mark
> > Good - that wasn't my intention. My intention was to try to show you that
> > you were asking us not to test the logic underpinning your argument with
> > the use of examples.
>
> You can feel free to try to test the logic of my "ACTUAL" arguments.
> There is no need for you to create your own arguments and attack them
> instead of attacking my "ACTUAL" arguments."
Yes there is, and I've explained it. See my earlier posts.
> In order to convince me that a piece of evidence was invalad,
> someone must prove to me that the evidence is invalad.
"I have discovered a cure for all diseases. The only copy of the formula
is in my head. I will release it to the world only if you send me all your
money."
Would you accept that statement at face value? How can it be shown to be
invalid? This directly relates to how you evaluate evidence, such as the
evidence that was presented in the Fox broadcast.
> > Similar uses of examples have
> > been used to show holes in your logic in the past, but you have dismissed
> > them as being irrelevant. I'm baffled by your stance on this matter. How
> > do you defend your position?
>
> I defend it by saying that you are showing holes in your own
> self-created arguments instead of mine, and you are doing so
> most likely because you "CANNOT" disprove the liklihoods of our
> being visited by paranormal aliens, but can disprove a "Purple
> Cow Argument" in place of the actual argument in a possible
> attempt to escape the need to disprove the liklihoods of our
> being visited by paranormal aliens, or the material referred
> to from the recent FOX telecast. (all in one breath)
David used the "purple cow" argument to show that the burden of proof was
on the person claiming that a phenomenon existed. He showed that to ask
to disprove the existence of a phenomenon is pointless. This applies to
all phenomena, be they purple cows, alien visitation, etc. His aim was not
to disprove alien visitation but to show that the act of mounting a
challenge to do such a thing is nothing more than hot air, smoke and
mirrors. It's an empty challenge and cannot be resolved. It supports
neither the proposition that aliens are visiting, nor the proposition that
aliens are not visiting. The only effect it has had is to weaken your
standing - your refusal to acknowledge that it was a meaningless
challenge simply makes you look like the unreasonable Judge who threatens
to send a man to prison if he does not speak up for himself whilst knowing
full well that the man in question is dumb and cannot speak.
Mark_H
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
-Slimmed Down To Save Bandwidth-
Mark wrote:
>
> > I may be missing your point here. I believe that I have a fine
> > understanding of the english language and the literature that
> > goes with it.
>
> English has a capital "E". Keep learning.
>
> > In this sense, "Purple Cow Arguments" are anecdotal, self-created
> > colorful, Off-Topic arguments which are posted to a thread to
> > possibly try to confuse the reader.
>
> No, they are solid, well-designed arguments using colourful examples
> demonstrating to the reader that the arguments put forward by yourself are
> peppered with holes.
These are arguments that you have created in a possible attempt
to confuse the reader into thinking that they somehow relate
to my argument, which they do not. They have nothing to do
with the recent telecast aired by FOX, nor the liklihoods
of our being visited by paranormal aliens.
> > This allows the attacker to
> > escape the need of attacking the "ACTUAL" argument while simply
> > attacking the SELF-CREATED "Purple Cow Argument," which has nothing
> > to do with the liklihoods of our being visited by aliens, or the
> > recent telecast aired by FOX (in the United States)
>
> But they have everything to do with the logic of the argument that you put
> forward. If your logic is not sound, and it has been demonstrated that
> this is the case, then your conclusions are invalid. They may be either
> true or false, but they are still invalid. You do know the difference
> between veracity and validity, don't you?
Can you disprove the likelihood of our being visited by aliens?
Can you disprove the referred to material from the recent
FOX telecast, or should I be expecting yet another Off-Topic
"Purple Cow Argument"?
> > LOL. Please refer to the above about "Purple Cow Arguments,"
> > now only if I could write that in latin. (being sarcastic)
>
> I notice you completely ignored my explanation of the cow/dog
> argument. You really don't have the first clue about how to argue
> successfully, do you? Oh, and a word of advice: Don't ever try to learn
> Classical Latin - you won't get very far. It is a very logical language.
I may be missing your point here. I am not discussing cows
and dogs in this thread. I am mainly discussing the recent
FOX telecast titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever Caught on
Tape 2." Anyone can place an honest bet that I will continue
to ignore off-topic arguments that do not even relate to the
paranormal which is the topic of this newsgroup, you know.
> > I agree with you here.
>
> Good. So why do you keep repeating a useless, vacuous argument that
> contains no information?
Why do you continue to attempt to go Off-Topic? I am only
attempting to refine the topic of the thread. Please keep
in mind that none of the evidence that I referred to from
the recent FOX telecast was disproven.
> > What's wrong? Why can't you attack my "ACTUAL" argument? Why
> > are you going Off-Topic and attacking your OWN arguments
> > instead of mine? I am still missing your point here.
>
> Again, I have to remind you that emphasis is not added by the use of
> quotation marks. That's three times I've told you.
I may be missing your point here. How does the above relate to
the recent FOX telecast (in the United States)?
> As for your "argument", we've both already discounted it as a vacuous
> waste of words. You agreed with me that it contained no
> information. Remember? If you are missing my point, you are also missing
> your own point, and that smacks of carelessness.
Well, the fact of the matter is that I am in fact missing
your point here.
> > Please explain what the above has to do with disproving the
> > liklihoods of our being visited by aliens, or the material
> > referred to from the recent FOX telecast (in the United States)
> > titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape 2."
>
> It's a demonstration of your unwillingness to change your views, actions,
> behaviours and arguments even in light of the facts. If you won't learn
> simple things like the correct use of a punctuation mark, why should we
> think that you have the capabilities to alter your beliefs when confronted
> with evidence?
Because that does not matter here. I am only interested in
discussing the paranormal since that is the topic of this
newsgroup. If you dislike my writing about the paranormal
or my style of writing about it, then why don't you just
get a killfile? The fact is that the liklihoods of our being
visited was never disproven.
> > You forgot to mention that I also argue the facts that alien
> > visitation was never disproven,
>
> You obviously don't read what I write. Let's take a look at some of the
> last paragraph of mine that you quoted: "You've argued that alien
> visitation has never been disproved". And now you say that I forgot to
> mention that "alien visitation was never disproven". If I didn't know
> better I'd say that your reading comprehension skills needed a little
> work.
I may be missing your point here. How does this disprove the
likelihood of our being visited by paranormal aliens? Do you
even know what the topic of this entire newsgroup is? What
about this post? Hmm.
> As for that argument, we've already determined (and you agreed) that it
> can never contain any information and can never be used to prove anything.
>
> > and how the Pseudo-Skeptic is
> > automatically assuming these issues to be false even though
> > they were never disproven.
>
> This isn't an argument. This is simply a definition. Remember the
> definition you gave of Pseudo-Skeptic? One of the defining characteristics
> of a Pseudo-Skeptic is that he assumes these issues to be false even
> though they have never been disproven. Your "argument" is the equivalent
> of "triangles have three sides". It's just a definition. Definitions are
> not arguments.
You may want to read the FAQ for this newsgroup at the
following website: http://www.psicounsel.com/altparfaq.txt
for more information. Please read (11.) What is on-topic
posting? If you are as smart as I once thought you were,
you may understand that you are going Off-Topic when you
are not referring to the actual topic of the threads.
In this thread I am mainly discussing the fact that the
referred to material from the recent FOX telecast about
alien visitation was never disproven.
> > -A Brief Snippage of Off-Topic Material-
> >
> > I once again want to apologize for your not being able to see
> > the recent FOX telecast. The fact of the matter is that lots of
> > evidence has been coming in from millions of people, most of
> > which was NEVER DISPROVEN. It was either returned to the sender,
> > or placed in a file cabinet. This is what I am focusing on in
> > both of these arguments. That IS where the proof is. It is still
> > your choice if you want to allow yourself to accept the evidence
> > or not.
>
> So the evidence that you are presenting is that a TV show said that
> millions of people had evidence. They sent this evidence to... who? These
> people then either returned it or filed it away. And from this I am to
> conclude that aliens have been visiting Earth?
No. It is the fact that none of the evidence that I referred
to was disproven beyond all reasonable doubt, and that there
are still millions of people coming forward with evidence
that is automatically assumed to be false be the Pseudo-Skeptic.
> > Nope. This is where the Pseudo-Skeptic starts to automatically
> > assume a negative even when such a negative has not been proven
> > in the first place, hence they simply assume the 0% when it is
> > actually a smooth 50% conjecture.
>
> Tut tut tut. You've been a bit brutal with the snipping there. If you look
> again at the piece to deleted you will see that my argument uses your
> logical structure. You have determined that it is the kind of argument
> that a Pseudo-Skeptic would use. Therefore, you have the arguing
> technique of a Pseudo-Skeptic. You can agree with me at this point.
The portion deleted had "nothing" to do with the topic of the
thread, this group, nor my argument. The reader can always look
at your previous post if he/she is still interested.
> As for the probability of alien visitation being 50%... well, that's just
> nonsense. I was talking about visitation IN THE PAST. You want me to
> believe that we have been half visited. What is that? Is that when they
> set out to come to Earth but change their minds halfway to us? If you are
> talking about the chance that they'll visit us in the future, how do you
> get 50%? Because it either will or won't happen? What about the chance of
> rolling a 6 on one die? That isn't 50%, but it either will or won't
> happen.
Have you somehow disproved the likelihood of our being visited by
paranormal aliens? Huh. I notice that you stand in silence on
this issue.
> > This is where the file
> > cabinets come in. This is also where you are missing my point.
> > (Thanks for not using a Purple Cow Argument here.)
>
> I thought I'd use your own flawed logic against you. Nice to see you can
> determine the flaws in the logic when it is used for the opposing point of
> view.
I may be missing your point here. Did you attempt to actually
disprove the likelihood of our being visited, or did I miss
something here?
> > In this sense, 0 is undefined and the conjecture that we
> > are being visited by paranormal aliens remains intact until
> > the conjecture is either completely solved or disproven.
>
> Why did you include "disproven"? It can't be disproven, even if it isn't
> happening. What do you mean "0 is undefined"? Is 1 undefined? Is 38
> undefined? Which are the defined possibilities?
As a paranormalist I do not look for absolutes where absolutes
cannot always be found. If something is neither proven or
DISPROVEN, it remains a possibility. The conjecture that
we are in fact being visited by paranormal aliens remains
intact.
> > Please refer to the above. I do not believe that I am
> > contradicting myself, here.
>
> You are. Again, you've deleted what you are agreeing to. If you had read
> it, you would have seen that I had written, "Therefore the probability
> that we are being visited has not been shown to be greater than zero" -
> you are agreeing that zero is a possibility. Early you had written "There
> is a greater then 0% probability that we are being visited by paranormal
> aliens" - making it very clear that a zero probability is out of the
> question. How is this not a contradiction?
Without an absolute value determined, 0 becomes the value
of (null), hence 0 in this sense is undefined. There are
many unknown variables in our universe. As long as something
is not DISPROVEN beyond ALL reasonable doubt the possibility
remains. It is likely that you are not understanding what
I mean by this, and may be missing my point. Please look
this over several more times.
> > A good number of them may have already seen the fact that you
> > have made "little to no" attempts at attacking my "actual"
> > argument before your last reply.
>
> Look, I really hate doing this, but you are still using quotation marks to
> add emphasis. That's four times now.
That has nothing to do with the recent FOX telecast. I am still
missing your point here. I am mainly discussing the paranormal
possibilities of aliens visiting our planet.
> > You simply made up your own
> > arguments that have "small similarities" to mine and attacked
> > them instead.
>
> The logic of the arguments was the same. If you wanted to question this
> fact you should have done so - it would be the only way to avoid the
> inevitable conclusion that your arguments were flawed. Of course, if you
> HAD done so you would have been shown to be wrong once more, as they
> shared exactly the same logical structure.
The arguments that you made up were completely different arguments.
They had NOTHING to do with this argument about paranormal UFOs
being caught on tape. Why don't you just try to show flaws in
the ACTUAL argument instead of your own self-created arguments.
I have noticed your silence on this issue.
> > This appears to be a possible attempt to confuse
> > the readers into thinking that you are attacking my arguments
> > when it is your own self-created arguments that you are
> > really attacking. (all in one breath.)
>
> Not at all, and I'm sure all reasonable readers can see exactly what I've
> been doing. I've never hidden my aims. I enjoy picking holes in arguments,
> preferably without having to mess around with the gorey details of the
> premises. So I attack the logic of the argument and show that it is
> invalid (when this is possible).
You have never disproven any of my arguments. You can play
around with logistics as long as you wish to, but that does
not DISPROVE my arguments. It may question the grammar of my
argument a little (LOL,) but it does not DISPROVE it.
-A Brief Snippage of Off-Topic Material-
> > The non Pseudo-Skeptic reader is probably wanting to know why
> > you did that, because I sure do and so does Deja News.
>
> Any reasonable person that has read more than one or two of my posts would
> know exactly why I do that - I seem to have to tell you every other
> day. Of course, I imagine the number of people reading my posts is very
> small - they are long and cover ground that has been explained to you any
> number of times already. You speak of Deja News as though it gives two
> hoots what it carries. It doesn't. I'm proud that my posts are
> archived. If I wasn't, I wouldn't post.
You never disproved ANY of my arguments, you only questioned
my grammar. Again, this does not disprove my arguments. You
are getting nowhere with this, trust me.
> > Mean Nothing??? Does this mean to imply that they should just be
> > shoved in file cabinets or not judged with a proper judging
> > procedure?
>
> Naturally, as any reasonable person knows, I can only talk from my point
> of view. I am not employed to review such material; it is not my job.
Therefore, you don't even acknowledge the fact that I am
writing about the paranormal, and not purple cows? What
is your job? To question the grammar of an argument,
simply because you cannot disprove the likelihood of
our being visited by aliens?
> What
> good are unproven claims of alien visitation to me? They are meaningless
> to me. They are not going to make me change my life.
There are millions of people coming forward with mounds
of information that was NEVER DISPROVEN. There is in
fact a good possibility that we are being visited.
-A Brief Snippage of Off-Topic Material-
> When someone who is employed to such a task proves that we
> are being visited by aliens, I will sit up and pay attention. But it isn't
> my job to prove these things. If it was my job, I would take it seriously,
> dilligently checking the facts of the claims and filing them away
> according to the most likely explanation.
Really, would you seriously look this evidence over? Or
would you simply say that "it is not my job anyhow, so
why bother?" I bet you have a nice file cabinet, yes?
> Filing cabinets are very
> useful. Some of them might even be labelled, "Genuine UFO proof", and may
> be accessible by all.
Well, it depends on what you want to use those file cabinets for.
Are you just going to lock things in them, or are you going to
actually look at the evidence at hand? What? This is not your
job? I notice that you stand in silence on this issue.
> Mark_H
P.S. You may be interested in "dancing cows". I seriously
recommend the following website. http://www.cowdance.com/
Please don't forget to read the FAQ that is listed above.
Also keep in mind that I am mainly discussing paranormal
UFOs being caught on tape.
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
NewAge Skeptic wrote:
>
> Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote:
> >
> > Re: Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
> >
> > -Slimmed Down To Save Bandwidth-
> >
> > NewAge Skeptic wrote:
> > >
> > > > It is the evidence from millions of people worldwide that is
> > > > seemingly being locked in file cabinets by the Pseudo-Skeptic
> > > > who automatically assumes the evidence to be false, even though
> > > > the evidence was not proven to be false.
> > >
> > > Now its 'seemingly'? In past articles you used 'in fact', etc. Can we
> > > now assume that you have no evidence that anything is being locked away
> > > by anybody? And, if you're not sure it is 'in fact' locked away, how can
> > > you rely on this illusionary information as 'evidence' to support your
> > > argument?
> >
> > What else can I tell you.
>
> Tell me what you know as a fact. Is it seemingly, maybe, could be, what
> is it?
It is a fact that these liklihoods were never disproven. The
possibility that we are being visited by aliens remains.
> > Things are being locked in file cabinets
> > by people who automatically assume that the evidence is false,
> > even though the evidence was never disproven.
>
> What evidence do you have of this?
Please refer to the above.
> > Please keep in mind
> > that I am mainly discussing the recent FOX telecast titled "UFOs
> > The Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape 2."
>
> Then stop throwing in 'attachments' cause as long as you do, people will
> attack them.
I may be missing your point here. The only arguments that
were attacked in this entire thread were "Purple Cow Arguments"
> > I also pointed out that
> > a great deal of the material presented by this recent telecast was
> > at least 2-4 years old. You must allow yourself to look into the
> > arguments, rather then simply looking them over.
>
> Right. let's see how much 'looking into' you have done.
>
> Have you done any of the following:
>
> 1). Contacted NASA to verify the astronaut reports
I visited their website and obtained what I believe is
the necessary information required for this post.
> 2). Checked the New York City news media archives for reports of a UFO
> over the World Trade Center
I referred to library references and written literature, as
well as the footage presented from the recent FOX telecast
(in the United States) titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever
Caught on Tape 2."
> 3). Interviewed Israeli defense officials about claims of their air
> force chasing UFOs on a regular basis
Hmm. I will look into this and I may post some detailed
information to the group in a later post when more
information becomes available, if it does.
> Have you, or have you allowed yourself to simply believe?
I do accept the possibilities and the likelihood that we
are being visited.
> It is my recollection that the New York sighting footage was not brought
> forward by its producer until just recently, a fact that was mentioned
> as strange even by the biased narrator. Have you checked into that?
The majority of the alleged hoax evidence was brought
forward much more quickly on average. There is still
a great likelihood that this video is not a hoax. Yes,
there have been hoaxes that have been later proven to
be hoaxes. To my knowledge this particular video has
never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be a
hoax.
> > > > The recent FOX telecast
> > > > (in the United States) presented several cases which I mentioned
> > > > in the original thread that were never disproven. I'm sorry that
> > > > you see this as being ignorant.
> > >
> > > I won't bother to repost the definition because it appears obvious that
> > > you haven't bothered to read it (or have chosen to ignore it). No one is
> > > calling you ignorant. The discussion format you use is known as an
> > > 'argument from ignorance'.
> >
> > I may be missing your point here. I only ignore something when it
> > does not relate to the topic of a given post and/or newsgroup.
>
> No you're not missing it at all. Your arguments from ignorance form the
> basis of each of your threads, and as such making the readers aware of
> questionable tactics is very much relavent. You chose to ignore it
> because you cannot counter the claim that I have made repeatedly.
Again, I don't see my arguments as being a basis of
ignorance on any account. I show that the liklihoods
of our being visited by aliens was never disproven. I
do not see this as a standardized methodological
approach at what you term as being an "argument from
ignorance."
> > > > The fact of the matter is that
> > > > the possibilities of our being visited were never disproven. I
> > > > simply wrote that arguing OFF-TOPIC is not an affective method
> > > > of attacking someone's argument.
> > >
> > > It is evident from your postings that you are not an expert on what
> > > constitutes an effective method. Why don't you just answer the questions
> > > and thus demonstrate your genius, instead of crying foul.
> >
> > Well, it depends at what you see at your own POV.
>
> If it is only a matter of POV, why do you froth about it.
...because I believe that this is where you are missing my point.
> > This is why I have
> > been saying this from the start. It is your choice if you want to
> > accept the possibilities of our being visited by aliens or not. Just
> > keep in mind that the liklihoods of our being visited by aliens were
> > never disproven. That's all.
>
> Do you really give any thought to what you write? In the above paragraph
> we see possibility and likelihood freely interchanged as though they are
> one and the same. What is it; chance, possibility, likelihood,
> probability, what?
I have a great understanding of what I write in relation
to paranormal UFOs being caught on tape. I also have a
great understanding that the liklihoods of our being
visited by aliens were never disproven.
> > > > Of course if that is what
This is because the likelihood was never disproven, and
even the skeptic argues that such a likelihood cannot be
disproven. This point was made in the previous thread.
> You claim to have mounds of supporting evidence. Apply your data to the
> equation and then tell us how great this probability is. That should not
> be difficult considering all your evidence.
I have. It is still your choice if you want to accept these
paranormal possibilities or not.
> > It does not take an
> > expert to realize that.
>
> The experts disagree with you. They will not venture beyond a non-zero
> estimate of probability. They also do not discount the possibility of
> 'zero'.
There is in fact a greater then zero percent probability
that we are in fact being visited. This greater then zero
percent probability was never disproven.
> > Please note that none of the information
> > that I referenced from the recent FOX telecast was disproven in
> > this thread. There is in fact a greater then 0% probability
> > that we may be visited by paranormal aliens.
>
> Then prove this fact. DO IT! Stop evading the issue.
I have. Please refer to the above.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
Mark wrote:
>
> On Sun, 7 May 2000, Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote:
>
> > > Good - that wasn't my intention. My intention was to try to show you that
> > > you were asking us not to test the logic underpinning your argument with
> > > the use of examples.
> >
> > You can feel free to try to test the logic of my "ACTUAL" arguments.
> > There is no need for you to create your own arguments and attack them
> > instead of attacking my "ACTUAL" arguments."
>
> Yes there is, and I've explained it. See my earlier posts.
>
> > In order to convince me that a piece of evidence was invalad,
> > someone must prove to me that the evidence is invalad.
>
> "I have discovered a cure for all diseases. The only copy of the formula
> is in my head. I will release it to the world only if you send me all your
> money."
>
> Would you accept that statement at face value? How can it be shown to be
> invalid? This directly relates to how you evaluate evidence, such as the
> evidence that was presented in the Fox broadcast.
The above statement has nothing to do with my thread. As a
paranormalist I do not look for absolutes. You know that
I cannot comment on the above statement because it is
OFF-TOPIC. I can only point out that it is a fact that the
liklihoods of our being visited by paranormal alien spacecrafts
were never disproven. Your above OFF-TOPIC argument does not
disprove the liklihoods of our being visited. It does not
disprove the material from the recent Fox telecast either.
It may question my grammar a little, but it does not disprove
the liklihoods of our being visited by aliens. I can say this
a thousand more times if you want. I have already noticed your
silence on trying to disprove my arguments. There is no need
for "Purple Cow Arguments," Why can't you attack the ACTUAL
argument without making your own argument up and attacking
it in place of mine? Please, please, please, why don't you
give it a try? You are not afraid are you?
> > > Similar uses of examples have
> > > been used to show holes in your logic in the past, but you have dismissed
> > > them as being irrelevant. I'm baffled by your stance on this matter. How
> > > do you defend your position?
> >
> > I defend it by saying that you are showing holes in your own
> > self-created arguments instead of mine, and you are doing so
> > most likely because you "CANNOT" disprove the liklihoods of our
> > being visited by paranormal aliens, but can disprove a "Purple
> > Cow Argument" in place of the actual argument in a possible
> > attempt to escape the need to disprove the liklihoods of our
> > being visited by paranormal aliens, or the material referred
> > to from the recent FOX telecast. (all in one breath)
>
> David used the "purple cow" argument to show that the burden of proof was
> on the person claiming that a phenomenon existed. He showed that to ask
> to disprove the existence of a phenomenon is pointless. This applies to
> all phenomena, be they purple cows, alien visitation, etc. His aim was not
> to disprove alien visitation but to show that the act of mounting a
> challenge to do such a thing is nothing more than hot air, smoke and
> mirrors. It's an empty challenge and cannot be resolved. It supports
> neither the proposition that aliens are visiting, nor the proposition that
> aliens are not visiting. The only effect it has had is to weaken your
> standing - your refusal to acknowledge that it was a meaningless
> challenge simply makes you look like the unreasonable Judge who threatens
> to send a man to prison if he does not speak up for himself whilst knowing
> full well that the man in question is dumb and cannot speak.
It does NOT question the liklihoods of our being visited by
paranormal aliens. The fact of the matter is that the skeptic
CANNOT disprove these liklihoods and has admitted it. Their only
hope at defending themselves is to create an OFF-TOPIC argument
and attempt to disprove that in place of mine with possible
hopes of confusing the reader. Why don't you try to disprove
my "ACTUAL" argument. Come on Mark, why don't you give it a
try? Hmm. Is that a purple cow, I see?
> Mark_H
Mark
> > > In this sense, "Purple Cow Arguments" are anecdotal, self-created
> > > colorful, Off-Topic arguments which are posted to a thread to
> > > possibly try to confuse the reader.
> >
> > No, they are solid, well-designed arguments using colourful examples
> > demonstrating to the reader that the arguments put forward by yourself are
> > peppered with holes.
>
> These are arguments that you have created in a possible attempt
> to confuse the reader into thinking that they somehow relate
> to my argument, which they do not.
You are not an average reader. I'm sure most readers will understand how
the examples relate to your argument. I understand completely that you
don't want to acknowledge that your arguments are based on unsound logic.
[snip repetitions]
> > > LOL. Please refer to the above about "Purple Cow Arguments,"
> > > now only if I could write that in latin. (being sarcastic)
> >
> > I notice you completely ignored my explanation of the cow/dog
> > argument. You really don't have the first clue about how to argue
> > successfully, do you? Oh, and a word of advice: Don't ever try to learn
> > Classical Latin - you won't get very far. It is a very logical language.
>
> I may be missing your point here. I am not discussing cows
> and dogs in this thread.
You have missed the point completely. I'd suggest you go back and read the
examples carefully, then read the posts that spell out in minute detail
how they relate to your arguments. Deja might help.
> > > I agree with you here.
> >
> > Good. So why do you keep repeating a useless, vacuous argument that
> > contains no information?
>
> Why do you continue to attempt to go Off-Topic?
It has been proved time and time again that your "argument" that "the
possibilities of alien visitations have never been disproved" is a
useless, vacuous argument that conveys no information whatsoever. I don't
see how this can possibly be off-topic. It is an attack on your
argument. Not on it's premises or it's logic, but its usefulness. Your
"argument" is useless.
> I am only
> attempting to refine the topic of the thread.
I think you've spelt "redefine" incorrectly there.
> > > What's wrong? Why can't you attack my "ACTUAL" argument? Why
> > > are you going Off-Topic and attacking your OWN arguments
> > > instead of mine? I am still missing your point here.
> >
> > Again, I have to remind you that emphasis is not added by the use of
> > quotation marks. That's three times I've told you.
>
> I may be missing your point here. How does the above relate to
> the recent FOX telecast (in the United States)?
It doesn't. It relates to that other "argument" of yours. Can you not keep
track of more than one argument at a time?
[snip repetitions]
> > It's a demonstration of your unwillingness to change your views, actions,
> > behaviours and arguments even in light of the facts. If you won't learn
> > simple things like the correct use of a punctuation mark, why should we
> > think that you have the capabilities to alter your beliefs when confronted
> > with evidence?
>
> Because that does not matter here.
It does not matter that you are unwilling to change your views in the
light of evidence. Pass me that definition of a Pseudo-Skeptic, please...
> If you dislike my writing about the paranormal
> or my style of writing about it, then why don't you just
> get a killfile?
I don't dislike you writing about it at all. I like it. It's good
entertainment and a pleasant diversion from what I normally do. I don't
care what anyone believes, as long as they have some good reason for
believing it. If they want to admit that their belief in something is for
no rational reason then I can completely accept this - it's a personal
belief and could never be forced upon anyone else. If someone wants to
start making claims about those beliefs, though, these claims will be
questioned. Similarly, if they propose arguments, they should be prepared
to have these arguments examined for factual or logical errors. I don't
know enough about the subject to tackle your factual errors, but I can
point out your logical errors.
> > > You forgot to mention that I also argue the facts that alien
> > > visitation was never disproven,
> >
> > You obviously don't read what I write. Let's take a look at some of the
> > last paragraph of mine that you quoted: "You've argued that alien
> > visitation has never been disproved". And now you say that I forgot to
> > mention that "alien visitation was never disproven". If I didn't know
> > better I'd say that your reading comprehension skills needed a little
> > work.
>
> I may be missing your point here.
You accused me of something that I was blatantly not guilty of. The proof
was sitting right in front of you. So much for your "innocent until proven
guilty" position...
> > As for that argument, we've already determined (and you agreed) that it
> > can never contain any information and can never be used to prove anything.
> >
> > > and how the Pseudo-Skeptic is
> > > automatically assuming these issues to be false even though
> > > they were never disproven.
> >
> > This isn't an argument. This is simply a definition. Remember the
> > definition you gave of Pseudo-Skeptic? One of the defining characteristics
> > of a Pseudo-Skeptic is that he assumes these issues to be false even
> > though they have never been disproven. Your "argument" is the equivalent
> > of "triangles have three sides". It's just a definition. Definitions are
> > not arguments.
>
> You may want to read the FAQ for this newsgroup at the
> following website: http://www.psicounsel.com/altparfaq.txt
> for more information. Please read (11.) What is on-topic
> posting? If you are as smart as I once thought you were,
> you may understand that you are going Off-Topic when you
> are not referring to the actual topic of the threads.
You have put forward arguments, I'm taking issue with these
arguments. That's all. And I'm not even taking issue with the facts of
your arguments! I'm simply pointing out that you can't use the logic that
you have been using because it doesn't work. I don't mind if you use logic
to support something that I don't believe - as long as your logic isn't
flawed.
> > > I once again want to apologize for your not being able to see
> > > the recent FOX telecast. The fact of the matter is that lots of
> > > evidence has been coming in from millions of people, most of
> > > which was NEVER DISPROVEN. It was either returned to the sender,
> > > or placed in a file cabinet. This is what I am focusing on in
> > > both of these arguments. That IS where the proof is. It is still
> > > your choice if you want to allow yourself to accept the evidence
> > > or not.
> >
> > So the evidence that you are presenting is that a TV show said that
> > millions of people had evidence. They sent this evidence to... who? These
> > people then either returned it or filed it away. And from this I am to
> > conclude that aliens have been visiting Earth?
>
> No. It is the fact that none of the evidence that I referred
> to was disproven beyond all reasonable doubt, and that there
> are still millions of people coming forward with evidence
> that is automatically assumed to be false be the Pseudo-Skeptic.
Okay, but who does this affect? No, scratch that. How does it affect
ME? Is there anything, beyond the word of "millions of people", that will
help me to believe that the chances of alien visitation are higher than I
currently do? I'm not a Pseudo-Skeptic (I'm not sure, but I think you
might even agree with me on that point), I would like to believe aliens
were visiting, I haven't seen any good evidence. I find the topic of
aliens intensely exciting - I'm a student of zoology, and would love to
find out how life has evolved elsewhere in the Universe. But I don't like
blind faith.
> > > Nope. This is where the Pseudo-Skeptic starts to automatically
> > > assume a negative even when such a negative has not been proven
> > > in the first place, hence they simply assume the 0% when it is
> > > actually a smooth 50% conjecture.
> >
> > Tut tut tut. You've been a bit brutal with the snipping there. If you look
> > again at the piece to deleted you will see that my argument uses your
> > logical structure. You have determined that it is the kind of argument
> > that a Pseudo-Skeptic would use. Therefore, you have the arguing
> > technique of a Pseudo-Skeptic. You can agree with me at this point.
>
> The portion deleted had "nothing" to do with the topic of the
> thread, this group, nor my argument. The reader can always look
> at your previous post if he/she is still interested.
The portion deleted had everything to do with the part you replied to. If
you choose to reply to something you see as OT, you should at least have
the common courtesy to include anything that may have been relevant.
> > As for the probability of alien visitation being 50%... well, that's just
> > nonsense. I was talking about visitation IN THE PAST. You want me to
> > believe that we have been half visited. What is that? Is that when they
> > set out to come to Earth but change their minds halfway to us? If you are
> > talking about the chance that they'll visit us in the future, how do you
> > get 50%? Because it either will or won't happen? What about the chance of
> > rolling a 6 on one die? That isn't 50%, but it either will or won't
> > happen.
>
> Have you somehow disproved the likelihood of our being visited by
> paranormal aliens? Huh. I notice that you stand in silence on
> this issue.
I've answered this issue so many times I'm thinking of writing a macro to
save me the trouble. There is no point trying to prove a phenomenon does
not exist because it is impossible. It doesn't matter what the phenomenon
is - alien visitation, breadstick galaxies, pink atoms, rabid pies - the
question is simply impossible to answer. As such, the question does not
increase our knowledge base. Therefore it is vacuous (empty) and does not
(and cannot ever) provide us with any information. It is therefore a
useless question to ask.
> > > This is where the file
> > > cabinets come in. This is also where you are missing my point.
> > > (Thanks for not using a Purple Cow Argument here.)
> >
> > I thought I'd use your own flawed logic against you. Nice to see you can
> > determine the flaws in the logic when it is used for the opposing point of
> > view.
>
> I may be missing your point here. Did you attempt to actually
> disprove the likelihood of our being visited, or did I miss
> something here?
You missed something.
> > > Please refer to the above. I do not believe that I am
> > > contradicting myself, here.
> >
> > You are. Again, you've deleted what you are agreeing to. If you had read
> > it, you would have seen that I had written, "Therefore the probability
> > that we are being visited has not been shown to be greater than zero" -
> > you are agreeing that zero is a possibility. Early you had written "There
> > is a greater then 0% probability that we are being visited by paranormal
> > aliens" - making it very clear that a zero probability is out of the
> > question. How is this not a contradiction?
>
> Without an absolute value determined, 0 becomes the value
> of (null), hence 0 in this sense is undefined. There are
> many unknown variables in our universe. As long as something
> is not DISPROVEN beyond ALL reasonable doubt the possibility
> remains. It is likely that you are not understanding what
> I mean by this, and may be missing my point. Please look
> this over several more times.
What you should be saying is that there are two choices: aliens are
visiting or they are not. We don't know the probabilities of these two
events. The chance they will visit us tonight is in the range 0 - 1 (0 -
100%). That includes 0 and 1.
> > > You simply made up your own
> > > arguments that have "small similarities" to mine and attacked
> > > them instead.
> >
> > The logic of the arguments was the same. If you wanted to question this
> > fact you should have done so - it would be the only way to avoid the
> > inevitable conclusion that your arguments were flawed. Of course, if you
> > HAD done so you would have been shown to be wrong once more, as they
> > shared exactly the same logical structure.
>
> The arguments that you made up were completely different arguments.
> They had NOTHING to do with this argument about paranormal UFOs
> being caught on tape. Why don't you just try to show flaws in
> the ACTUAL argument instead of your own self-created arguments.
> I have noticed your silence on this issue.
I have been silent on the issue of the Fox broadcast for a very good
reason - I haven't seen it. You know this. Are you trying to tell our dear
readers that my inability to disprove the evidence shown in this broadcast
proves that aliens are visiting? Good Lord, that's a weak argument.
My arguments were directed, as you well know, at your petty challenge to
disprove alien visitation. They were not intended to win your challenge,
but to show the futility of it.
> > > This appears to be a possible attempt to confuse
> > > the readers into thinking that you are attacking my arguments
> > > when it is your own self-created arguments that you are
> > > really attacking. (all in one breath.)
> >
> > Not at all, and I'm sure all reasonable readers can see exactly what I've
> > been doing. I've never hidden my aims. I enjoy picking holes in arguments,
> > preferably without having to mess around with the gorey details of the
> > premises. So I attack the logic of the argument and show that it is
> > invalid (when this is possible).
>
> You have never disproven any of my arguments. You can play
> around with logistics as long as you wish to, but that does
> not DISPROVE my arguments. It may question the grammar of my
> argument a little (LOL,) but it does not DISPROVE it.
I have repeatedly demonstrated the fallacious nature of your arguments. I
provided rebuttals to all your "loopholes" in the Randi Challenge, I have
shown your "disprove alien visitation" argument to be vacuous and without
merit, I have shown your argument about the position taken by
Pseudo-Skeptics to be nothing more than "by definition" statement.
> > > The non Pseudo-Skeptic reader is probably wanting to know why
> > > you did that, because I sure do and so does Deja News.
> >
> > Any reasonable person that has read more than one or two of my posts would
> > know exactly why I do that - I seem to have to tell you every other
> > day. Of course, I imagine the number of people reading my posts is very
> > small - they are long and cover ground that has been explained to you any
> > number of times already. You speak of Deja News as though it gives two
> > hoots what it carries. It doesn't. I'm proud that my posts are
> > archived. If I wasn't, I wouldn't post.
>
> You never disproved ANY of my arguments, you only questioned
> my grammar.
Actually, I did both.
> Again, this does not disprove my arguments. You
> are getting nowhere with this, trust me.
Do you notice how few supporters you have in this thread? Why is nobody
else arguing on your side? It can't be because there isn't anyone here who
believes in alien visitation - I'm sure there are lots of people that
do. I think the reason they are staying out of this one is that they are
not blind to logic. They may agree with your intentions and may share your
feelings and views on evidence and Pseudo-Skeptics, but they can see that
you are using flawed logic. You have passion and the ability to maintain
a civil tone - these are good qualities. But alone they are not enough. If
you straightened out your logic you would increase your effectiveness no
end.
> > > Mean Nothing??? Does this mean to imply that they should just be
> > > shoved in file cabinets or not judged with a proper judging
> > > procedure?
> >
> > Naturally, as any reasonable person knows, I can only talk from my point
> > of view. I am not employed to review such material; it is not my job.
>
> Therefore, you don't even acknowledge the fact that I am
> writing about the paranormal, and not purple cows?
If purple cows aren't paranormal, I don't know what is.
> What is your job? To question the grammar of an argument,
> simply because you cannot disprove the likelihood of
> our being visited by aliens?
No. I am studying zoology. As a science student I have to be able to
critically evaluate the evidence and arguments that are presented to me
every day. That is one of the skills they teach us. Believe me, if you
want to publish something in a scientific journal you need to make sure
that you've got your logic right. If you haven't, someone will call your
bluff and rip you to shreds.
> > What
> > good are unproven claims of alien visitation to me? They are meaningless
> > to me. They are not going to make me change my life.
>
> There are millions of people coming forward with mounds
> of information that was NEVER DISPROVEN. There is in
> fact a good possibility that we are being visited.
But this evidence has never proved that we are being visited by
aliens. There is a good possibility that we are not being visited.
> -A Brief Snippage of Off-Topic Material-
>
> > When someone who is employed to such a task proves that we
> > are being visited by aliens, I will sit up and pay attention. But it isn't
> > my job to prove these things. If it was my job, I would take it seriously,
> > dilligently checking the facts of the claims and filing them away
> > according to the most likely explanation.
>
> Really, would you seriously look this evidence over?
If it was my job, yes. If that was what I was employed to do, I would do
it to the best of my abilities. Does this surprise you?
> Or would you simply say that "it is not my job anyhow, so
> why bother?"
I'd say that if it wasn't my job to do such a thing. If I was a
street-sweeper and someone gave me what they claimed was evidence for
alien visitation I probably wouldn't bother with it. I might read it out
of interest, but then I'd hand it in to the local police station, or
something. Of course, if I WAS employed to look over evidence like that, I
would. And I'd be more thorough than most.
> I bet you have a nice file cabinet, yes?
No I don't. Are you selling them?
> > Filing cabinets are very
> > useful. Some of them might even be labelled, "Genuine UFO proof", and may
> > be accessible by all.
>
> Well, it depends on what you want to use those file cabinets for.
> Are you just going to lock things in them, or are you going to
> actually look at the evidence at hand? What? This is not your
> job?
That's right. It isn't my job. If someone told you to homogenise a
preparation of murine kidney cells for a lactate dehydrogenase assay would
you? Or would you say, "Sorry mate, that's not my job and I wouldn't know
how to do it properly"?
> I notice that you stand in silence on this issue.
Yes, I'm sorry I didn't reply in the time that you typed those two
sentences. I'll try and reduce my turn-around time.
> P.S. You may be interested in "dancing cows". I seriously
> recommend the following website. http://www.cowdance.com/
How does this relate to this thread or this newsgroup? I think you may be
missing my point.
> Please don't forget to read the FAQ that is listed above.
I read the part you cited. I was most amused to find that they support
freedom of speech. As long as it didn't occur on their newsgroup. :-)
> Also keep in mind that I am mainly discussing paranormal
> UFOs being caught on tape.
They can be caught on tape? They come halfway across the galaxy and get
stuck on tape? They are losing my respect.
Mark_H
Mark
> > > In order to convince me that a piece of evidence was invalad,
> > > someone must prove to me that the evidence is invalad.
> >
> > "I have discovered a cure for all diseases. The only copy of the formula
> > is in my head. I will release it to the world only if you send me all your
> > money."
> >
> > Would you accept that statement at face value? How can it be shown to be
> > invalid? This directly relates to how you evaluate evidence, such as the
> > evidence that was presented in the Fox broadcast.
>
> The above statement has nothing to do with my thread.
There does seem to be a pattern forming. As soon as anyone questions
something you have written you automatically write a set-piece claiming
that the subject is off-topic, that you don't look for absolutes, that we
can't disprove the existence of a phenomenon...
> As a
> paranormalist I do not look for absolutes. You know that
> I cannot comment on the above statement because it is
> OFF-TOPIC. I can only point out that it is a fact that the
> liklihoods of our being visited by paranormal alien spacecrafts
> were never disproven. Your above OFF-TOPIC argument does not
> disprove the liklihoods of our being visited. It does not
> disprove the material from the recent Fox telecast either.
> It may question my grammar a little, but it does not disprove
> the liklihoods of our being visited by aliens. I can say this
> a thousand more times if you want. I have already noticed your
> silence on trying to disprove my arguments. There is no need
> for "Purple Cow Arguments," Why can't you attack the ACTUAL
> argument without making your own argument up and attacking
> it in place of mine?
Creating and attacking these examples is a way of attacking the logic
under your arguments. I wrote quite a long piece on this in a post that
contained easy to follow example arguments about dogs, cows and
helicopters. You never replied to that one. Really, you should read these
things. They may be important.
> Please, please, please, why don't you give it a try? You are not
> afraid are you?
I'm insulted. You think goading is an effective method of argument? You
think I'll lose my temper and expose myself for the fiend I really am? Or
are you trying to discourage me from replying to you? All you have to do
is ask. Give me a good reason and I'll consider your request.
> It does NOT question the liklihoods of our being visited by
> paranormal aliens.
I'm sorry, who are you replying to? Are you talking to someone else in the
room? Because I didn't say it did.
> The fact of the matter is that the skeptic
> CANNOT disprove these liklihoods and has admitted it.
Not much of an admission is it? There's certainly no shame in saying that
we can't do the impossible. I can never disprove the existence of a fleet
of multicoloured Mars bars out in space. There. I've admitted it.
> Their only
> hope at defending themselves is to create an OFF-TOPIC argument
> and attempt to disprove that in place of mine with possible
> hopes of confusing the reader. Why don't you try to disprove
> my "ACTUAL" argument. Come on Mark, why don't you give it a
> try? Hmm. Is that a purple cow, I see?
Oh dear. More goading. I thought I had seen the last of that infantile
behaviour when I left primary school. What's next? Are you going to
"double-dare" me?
In an attempt to start again, I'm going to ask you to condense your
arguments down so that I can present my views on them once and once
only. When you reply to this, take a paragraph to explain each of your
arguments. Then I'll reply to them. How does that sound? You are quite
welcome to cut and paste from your old posts, if you like.
I look forward to evaluating your arguments.
Mark_H
Lance C. Johnson
(-=[chRØMi$X]=--- - - - - -) wrote:
> -=[ Lance C. Johnson <EagleMan2...@aol.com.invalid> wr0Te:
> ]=-
> <SNiP>
> context? Is it an argument used to detract a reader from the main
> issue to side issues, or is it a false argument used as a true
> argument? i've never really understood the use of this word,
> because
> English is not my native language.
> Thanks for your inquiry in advance ;)
> /-- - - - - -\..
> \ # # -- -- - -- /````
> -- - # # / E-mail at chromisx (at) home.nl
> chromis# | (remove .SPAM. from header address!)
> - -- # # \ Greetings from Holland!
> / # # -- - -\..
> \-- - - ---- --/````
A "strawman" is when you falsely represent the opposing side's
argument, so you can easily attack it and knock it down. I hope that
helps! : )
Lance C. Johnson
Paranormal <parano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Re: Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
> -Slimmed Down To Save Bandwidth-
> > Go ahead and name them...better yet, quote 'em, showing that they
> > "automatically assume the negative." And for the love of God,
> quit
> > quoting Kettler...that guy's several sandwiches shy of a picnic.
> There is no need for me to do that, since the majority of
> people reading the groups already know who they are.
In other words, you can't do it, because it's not true.
> In
> this portion of the thread I was mainly discussing the
> fact that mounds of evidence form millions of people are
> being ignored by the Pseudo-Skeptic, even though the
> evidence was never disproven.
Yeah, you keep saying that...
> To add to that, none of
> the evidence that I referred to from the recent FOX telecast
> titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape 2,"
> was ever disproven. Please refer to the original posts
> for more information on this.
I'm aware of all this...
> > > The fact of the matter is that much of the information
> > > form the recent FOX telecast referred to in this thread was
> > > never disproven. There is no need for the Pseudo-Skeptic to
> > > automatically assume the evidence to be false unless it was
> > > actually proven to be false, which it hasn't.
> >
> > Except, Flaggy, this isn't what anybody has done. You are
> deliberately
> > misrepresenting the point of the skeptics just so you can easily
> tear
> > down their points. Try addressing what we actually say, not
> what you
> > wish we were saying.
> I may be missing your point here. I do not see any problems with
> the points that I am discussing in my replies. Please keep in
> mind that I am mainly discussing the recent FOX telecast relating
> to paranormal aliens visiting our planet, and the research that
> goes along with it.
I know what you're talking about, and yes, you have missed my point.
My point was that you deliberately misrepresent what the skeptics say
in order to easily destroy their side of the argument.
> > > As a paranormalist who is trying to present various theories,
> > > one may expect that I would want to include information that
> > > will support my theory.
> >
> > But Flagship, real research involves looking into all of the
> > possibilities...not just the ones that you like. If that's not
> what
> > you want to do, then don't call it "research," 'cause it ain't.
> I agree with you here. There are many unknown possibilities when
> it comes to the likelihood of our being visited by aliens. Please
> keep in mind that these possibilities were never disproven, and
> there is in fact a greater then 0% probability that we are being
> visited. As time progresses I will continue to research these
> paranormal possibilities of our being visited by aliens.
And you will only consult sources that support your pet theories, I can
safely assume.
> > > The fact of the matter is that the
> > > likelihood's of our being visited by aliens were never
> > > disproven.
> >
> > Didn't we already agree on this point? Why do you keep
> repeating it?
> > Nobody's arguing that...KNOCK IT OFF! (Besides, the correct way
> of
> > writing that is "The fact of the matter is that the likelihood
> of our
> > being visited by aliens WAS never disproven.")
> I agree with you here as well. You just wrote that "The fact of
> the matter is that the likelihood of our being visited by
> aliens WAS never disproven."
I was correcting your English, Brainiac.
> Sorry, I do not see Mark's posts as disproving the likelihood
> of our being visited by paranormal aliens, nor do I see them as
> disproving any of the material I referred to from the recent
> FOX telecast titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever Caught on
> Tape 2."
They weren't supposed to. His post was only made to demonstrate the
flaws in your logic...which he did rather successfully.
> > > Why are you coming to this automatic prejudicial assumption
> that I
> > > am delusional?
> >
> > Excuse me? Prejudicial? I base my conclusion of you being
> delusional
> > on what you have posted in the past. There's no pre-judgement
> > whatsoever. Please refer to my other posts for more information.
> I do not see my discussing these issues as being evidence
> that I am delusional. I know that I am not delusional. Please
> present evidence to show that this is not a prejudicial
> assumption that you are making.
You're not delusional because you discuss these issues. You're
delusional because you consider the words of "millions of people" to be
evidence, you don't understand the simple concept of making comparisons
in order to show the holes in a person's argument, you think that the
pyramids are near the equator, etc. I'm sure that you believe that
you're not delusional...but wouldn't you agree that part of being
delusional is that the delusional person is certain that they are not
delusional? You'll entertain the notion that aliens are visiting us,
but you're not willing to consider your own sanity.
> > > The fact of the matter is that there was in fact a
> > > great amount of evidence presented by the recent FOX telecast
> that
> > > does suggest the likelihood that we are being visited by
> aliens.
> >
> > And all of that "evidence" is rather weak and easily torn apart.
> What makes you feel that this is week evidence?
See the previous posts made by myself and others, Flaggy.
Ken Bowden
<parano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> It is a fact that these liklihoods were never disproven. The
> possibility that we are being visited by aliens remains.
This is something I'd like to address, as the possibility of alien remains
and humans being of alien origin are often misunderstood. The reality of
that question, it's true answer, lies in the secrets locked in both the
Basque language and the specific, rare, unique Basque gene -- which I
brother was genetically altered to carry in the 1970s under a Project
OFTEN off-shoot.
We should also be willing to consider that disinformation existed in
ancient times, also. That being said, and in such a consideration, one
might re-think seeming tell-tale signs of alien/human interface such as
Easter Island and Egypt as the provocateurs of their time. I have no hard
proof of that now, per se. But it's a real hunch.
Read more about my brother's experience at
www.plasmaman.com
--
Ken Bowden, webmaster
www.plasmaman.com
Email: webm...@REMOVETHISplasmaman.com
"Every movement is given a mission. The UFO community's is to save Russell."
-- Actor & activist Woody Salazar
Ken Bowden
the Basques of the Pyrenees mountain reigons (13 districts of Spain and 2
districts of France) and not found in any other homo sapien.
Also, the Basque language has no Earthly derivative; no forebearer.
My brother Russell, who considers himself a 'spiritual Basque' and now
carries both the unique gene and the high RH blood level, will discuss
more about the true history of Basques and how the governments are trying
to surpress their place in world history on the David Oates show on May
26.
Thank you for your inquiry.
-- Ken
In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.000508...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
Mark <mk...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> What does this gene do? Can you give me some information as to it's
> discovery? (e.g. When it was discovered and by whom) Has it been
> sequenced? You say it is rare, how rare? Is it common in the Basque
> region?
>
>
> Mark_H
Wally Anglesea™
<parano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Re: Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
>
>-Reposted from yesterday at 6:21pm (ET) due to possible
>propagation problems with Earthlink's newserver-
>
>-Groups Removed-
>sci.skeptic
>
added again
>
>"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 21:49:14 GMT, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
>> <parano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> >Another segment featured videos which came from NASA. One video
>> >featured a satellite with a 12 mile long tether attached to it.
>> >The tether soon broke and was drifting away. In the video which
>> >was taken by NASA at the time, there appeared to be dozens of UFOS.
>> >One was estimated to be 2-3 miles in diameter, according to one
>> >researcher. The skeptic argued that it was just space junk. While
>> >taking a closer look a researcher observed that there were circular
>> >patterns of light emanating from one of the objects. Another video
>> >featured a UFO that made an extremely sharp turn, unlike any common
>> >Earthly object. Another question is what could have made this object
>> >change it's path so suddenly? What about the dozens of UFOs filmed
>> >by NASA in the tether incident? I am doubting that this was the
>> >result of someone trying to play a hoax. These were videos from
>> >NASA. This is extremely interesting.
>>
>> AHAHHA. Flaggy. you are aware that the alleged UFO that nuts like
>> you froth about was IN FACT ice and other debris. The reason that the
>> object suddenly appeared is that it passed beyond the shuttles shadow
>> zone, and was this lighted. The sudden sharp turn, alleged by whackos
>> as the UFO leaving because it was fired upon by sekret space rays from
>> Earht defence (and you *do* see the "rays"), was because the debris
>> was moved by the REACTION ENGINES ON THE SHUTTLE. The firing of the
>> engines at that point is a MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.
>>
>> If you have the common sense to actually look at the optical illusion
>> you see, you will see the thing for yourself. I suspect you will
>> however, see this as an attempt by the "guvmint sekret agents to deny
>> the reality of the UFO fenomena".
>
>There was a sharp turn and "increase" in acceleration of the object.
>I find it hard to believe that it was an ordinary piece of ice
>or space debris.
I realise that. That comes about because you don't understand
physics, optics, perspective, depth, or science in general.
>What makes you think that it was ice etc? If you
>do not believe in the existence of an ether, then how can such debris
>make such a sharp turn in midspace?
Flaggy, Newtonian physics alone should tell you this. Ever seen a
leaf falling, and then have a sudden change of direction? It's
usually brought about by a force operating on it to change it's
direction. I usually attribute that to the wind. I don't believe
paint flecks, leaves, or snowflakes and ice are operated by little
green men or fairies. You obviously do, because you don't have the
common sense to actually question your preconceived notions.
>
>With the distance of the object from
>the shuttle, how and why do you believe that its sharp movement was a
>result of the reaction engines firing? How would this engine firing
>result in the sharp angle of direction the object shifted, VS its
>velocity? How would the firing of the engines cause the rate of
>acceleration of the distant object to increase so rapidly?
Ever seen the wind flaggy? what do you think the forces of a shuttles
engines actually are flaggy?
> Hmm.
>This is indeed kind of interesting. I was up a few nights when
>I first heard about this a few years ago. There is in fact a great
>likelihood that we are being visited by paranormal aliens. Please
>keep in mind that these possibilities were never disproven.
And you have never proven it you idjit.
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/pebble.htm
Fight spam:
http://www.caube.org.au/
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
-Slimmed Down To Save Bandwidth-
Mark wrote:
>
> > These are arguments that you have created in a possible attempt
> > to confuse the reader into thinking that they somehow relate
> > to my argument, which they do not.
>
> You are not an average reader. I'm sure most readers will understand how
> the examples relate to your argument. I understand completely that you
> don't want to acknowledge that your arguments are based on unsound logic.
I may be missing your point here, since the only arguments that
you have actually attacked were your own little creations. You
have yet to disprove anything that was stated in my original
post titled "Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape."
> [snip repetitions]
>
> > I may be missing your point here. I am not discussing cows
> > and dogs in this thread.
>
> You have missed the point completely. I'd suggest you go back and read the
> examples carefully, then read the posts that spell out in minute detail
> how they relate to your arguments. Deja might help.
Yes, I am in fact missing your point completely. I am mainly
interested in discussing the paranormal since that is the prime
topic of this newsgroup. It says it right in my name. "Flagship1
of the PARANORMAL" I specialize in studies of the paranormal. I
am sorry, but I can't really help you on something that does
not directly relate to the paranormal. I wish that I could.
It has been shown time and time again that you have never
attacked my ACTUAL argument relating to the recent telecast
aired on Fox.
> > Why do you continue to attempt to go Off-Topic?
>
> It has been proved time and time again that your "argument" that "the
> possibilities of alien visitations have never been disproved" is a
> useless, vacuous argument that conveys no information whatsoever. I don't
> see how this can possibly be off-topic. It is an attack on your
> argument. Not on it's premises or it's logic, but its usefulness. Your
> "argument" is useless.
LOL :) Not really. You never attacked the actual argument.
You only attacked arguments that you made up.
> > I am only
> > attempting to refine the topic of the thread.
>
> I think you've spelt "redefine" incorrectly there.
>
> > I may be missing your point here. How does the above relate to
> > the recent FOX telecast (in the United States)?
>
> It doesn't. It relates to that other "argument" of yours. Can you not keep
> track of more than one argument at a time?
I keep tabs on only the arguments that relate to the paranormal.
I am a paranormalist. This is where I post my information
relating to the paranormal. You can always go to alt.usage.english
if you choose to. I am mainly discussing the recent telecast
aired by Fox television (in the United States.)
> [snip repetitions]
>
> > Because that does not matter here.
>
> It does not matter that you are unwilling to change your views in the
> light of evidence. Pass me that definition of a Pseudo-Skeptic, please...
You never made an attempt to disprove the evidence
presented in the original post.
> > If you dislike my writing about the paranormal
> > or my style of writing about it, then why don't you just
> > get a killfile?
>
> I don't dislike you writing about it at all. I like it. It's good
> entertainment and a pleasant diversion from what I normally do. I don't
> care what anyone believes, as long as they have some good reason for
> believing it.
So you don't even care? I may already agree with that.
What do you see as being entertainment? Are we some
kind of joke to you?
> If they want to admit that their belief in something is for
> no rational reason then I can completely accept this - it's a personal
> belief and could never be forced upon anyone else. If someone wants to
> start making claims about those beliefs, though, these claims will be
> questioned. Similarly, if they propose arguments, they should be prepared
> to have these arguments examined for factual or logical errors. I don't
> know enough about the subject to tackle your factual errors, but I can
> point out your logical errors.
Well I have no problem with people questioning my beliefs.
That is not what you are doing. You are simply making
up "Purple Cow Arguments" and questioning them. You never
disproved a single one of my posts.
> > I may be missing your point here.
>
> You accused me of something that I was blatantly not guilty of. The proof
> was sitting right in front of you. So much for your "innocent until proven
> guilty" position...
I may be missing your point here. You have in fact
avoided the issue of disproving the liklihoods of
our being visited by paranormal aliens.
> > You may want to read the FAQ for this newsgroup at the
> > following website: http://www.psicounsel.com/altparfaq.txt
> > for more information. Please read (11.) What is on-topic
> > posting? If you are as smart as I once thought you were,
> > you may understand that you are going Off-Topic when you
> > are not referring to the actual topic of the threads.
>
> You have put forward arguments, I'm taking issue with these
> arguments. That's all. And I'm not even taking issue with the facts of
> your arguments! I'm simply pointing out that you can't use the logic that
> you have been using because it doesn't work. I don't mind if you use logic
> to support something that I don't believe - as long as your logic isn't
> flawed.
My arguments do work and that is half your problem. You
are only trying to force this thread OFF-TOPIC with Purple
Cow Arguments and grammar attacks, because you know for a
fact that you are in a jam because you cannot disprove the
referred to material from the recent Fox telecast, nor the
possibilities of our being visited by paranormal aliens.
> > No. It is the fact that none of the evidence that I referred
> > to was disproven beyond all reasonable doubt, and that there
> > are still millions of people coming forward with evidence
> > that is automatically assumed to be false be the Pseudo-Skeptic.
>
> Okay, but who does this affect? No, scratch that. How does it affect
> ME? Is there anything, beyond the word of "millions of people", that will
> help me to believe that the chances of alien visitation are higher than I
> currently do? I'm not a Pseudo-Skeptic (I'm not sure, but I think you
> might even agree with me on that point), I would like to believe aliens
> were visiting, I haven't seen any good evidence. I find the topic of
> aliens intensely exciting - I'm a student of zoology, and would love to
> find out how life has evolved elsewhere in the Universe. But I don't like
> blind faith.
The likelihood of our being visited was never disproven.
> > The portion deleted had "nothing" to do with the topic of the
> > thread, this group, nor my argument. The reader can always look
> > at your previous post if he/she is still interested.
>
> The portion deleted had everything to do with the part you replied to. If
> you choose to reply to something you see as OT, you should at least have
> the common courtesy to include anything that may have been relevant.
The portion I snipped was off-topic. The small portion that I
left in and replied to was on-topic. Scroll back and see for
yourself.
> > Have you somehow disproved the likelihood of our being visited by
> > paranormal aliens? Huh. I notice that you stand in silence on
> > this issue.
>
> I've answered this issue so many times I'm thinking of writing a macro to
> save me the trouble. There is no point trying to prove a phenomenon does
> not exist because it is impossible.
There have been many things that were proven to not exist.
The sad thing on your part is that the likelihood of our
being visited by aliens was never disproven, hence you
automatically assume that it is impossible. As a paranormalist
I do not automatically assume impossibilities and absolutes.
This is where you are missing my point.
-A Brief Snippage of Off-Topic Material-
> As such, the question does not
> increase our knowledge base. Therefore it is vacuous (empty) and does not
> (and cannot ever) provide us with any information. It is therefore a
> useless question to ask.
You would be surprised about how much I know about paranormal
aliens and the paranormal. You know I have a vast knowledge
base with the paranormal. I am assuming this is why you
resorted to those OFF-TOPIC grammar attacks in the previous
post so you can avoid this issue.
> > I may be missing your point here. Did you attempt to actually
> > disprove the likelihood of our being visited, or did I miss
> > something here?
>
> You missed something.
If it was Off-Topic, then yes I may have missed it.
> > Without an absolute value determined, 0 becomes the value
> > of (null), hence 0 in this sense is undefined. There are
> > many unknown variables in our universe. As long as something
> > is not DISPROVEN beyond ALL reasonable doubt the possibility
> > remains. It is likely that you are not understanding what
> > I mean by this, and may be missing my point. Please look
> > this over several more times.
>
> What you should be saying is that there are two choices: aliens are
> visiting or they are not. We don't know the probabilities of these two
> events. The chance they will visit us tonight is in the range 0 - 1 (0 -
> 100%). That includes 0 and 1.
You may be missing my point here. I will let it go at that.
> > The arguments that you made up were completely different arguments.
> > They had NOTHING to do with this argument about paranormal UFOs
> > being caught on tape. Why don't you just try to show flaws in
> > the ACTUAL argument instead of your own self-created arguments.
> > I have noticed your silence on this issue.
>
> I have been silent on the issue of the Fox broadcast for a very good
> reason - I haven't seen it. You know this. Are you trying to tell our dear
> readers that my inability to disprove the evidence shown in this broadcast
> proves that aliens are visiting? Good Lord, that's a weak argument.
LOL. Just as I thought. You CAN'T disprove the evidence, so you
have in fact remained silent on this issue and tried to avoid
it with OFF-TOPIC grammar attacks instead.
> My arguments were directed, as you well know, at your petty challenge to
> disprove alien visitation. They were not intended to win your challenge,
> but to show the futility of it.
You never attempted the challenge either. You simply
posted OFF-TOPIC grammar attacks that had nothing to
do with the thread.
> > You have never disproven any of my arguments. You can play
> > around with logistics as long as you wish to, but that does
> > not DISPROVE my arguments. It may question the grammar of my
> > argument a little (LOL,) but it does not DISPROVE it.
>
> I have repeatedly demonstrated the fallacious nature of your arguments. I
> provided rebuttals to all your "loopholes" in the Randi Challenge, I have
> shown your "disprove alien visitation" argument to be vacuous and without
> merit, I have shown your argument about the position taken by
> Pseudo-Skeptics to be nothing more than "by definition" statement.
You only made OFF-TOPIC grammar attacks. You never disproved any
of my threads, not even the one relating to Possible Loopholes
Existing in the Randi Challenge. Please keep in mind that I am
mainly discussing the recent Fox telecast (in the United States)
in this thread.
> > You never disproved ANY of my arguments, you only questioned
> > my grammar.
>
> Actually, I did both.
>
> > Again, this does not disprove my arguments. You
> > are getting nowhere with this, trust me.
>
> Do you notice how few supporters you have in this thread? Why is nobody
> else arguing on your side? It can't be because there isn't anyone here who
> believes in alien visitation - I'm sure there are lots of people that
> do. I think the reason they are staying out of this one is that they are
> not blind to logic. They may agree with your intentions and may share your
> feelings and views on evidence and Pseudo-Skeptics, but they can see that
> you are using flawed logic. You have passion and the ability to maintain
> a civil tone - these are good qualities. But alone they are not enough. If
> you straightened out your logic you would increase your effectiveness no
> end.
This is really common, just look at all of the other threads.
The only people who really reply to a post are those who
question them, or those who oppose them. The people that
agree with the post do not usually reply. I do not have
to prove this to you. Just take a look at the other threads
posted to this group. Now there may be a few threads that
got replies from supporters, but not vary many. Just see
for yourself. The fact of the matter is that you never
disproved the evidence from the Fox telecast which was
posted in the original post. You are still trying to
avoid this issue.
> > Therefore, you don't even acknowledge the fact that I am
> > writing about the paranormal, and not purple cows?
>
> If purple cows aren't paranormal, I don't know what is.
>
> > What is your job? To question the grammar of an argument,
> > simply because you cannot disprove the likelihood of
> > our being visited by aliens?
>
> No. I am studying zoology. As a science student I have to be able to
> critically evaluate the evidence and arguments that are presented to me
> every day. That is one of the skills they teach us. Believe me, if you
> want to publish something in a scientific journal you need to make sure
> that you've got your logic right. If you haven't, someone will call your
> bluff and rip you to shreds.
>
> > There are millions of people coming forward with mounds
> > of information that was NEVER DISPROVEN. There is in
> > fact a good possibility that we are being visited.
>
> But this evidence has never proved that we are being visited by
> aliens. There is a good possibility that we are not being visited.
>
> > -A Brief Snippage of Off-Topic Material-
> >
You may be missing my point here. It has already been proven
that the Pseudo-Skeptic automatically assumes a negative even
when such a negative cannot be proven in the first place. They
simply say "Its not my job, so who cares anyhow," or they simply
resort to OFF-TOPIC arguments and simple grammar attacks in hopes
of confusing the reader. The fact of the matter is that these
likelihood's were never disproven.
> Mark_H
Mark
> > > These are arguments that you have created in a possible attempt
> > > to confuse the reader into thinking that they somehow relate
> > > to my argument, which they do not.
> >
> > You are not an average reader. I'm sure most readers will understand how
> > the examples relate to your argument. I understand completely that you
> > don't want to acknowledge that your arguments are based on unsound logic.
>
> I may be missing your point here, since the only arguments that
> you have actually attacked were your own little creations. You
> have yet to disprove anything that was stated in my original
> post titled "Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape."
See my earlier posts.
> > > I may be missing your point here. I am not discussing cows
> > > and dogs in this thread.
> >
> > You have missed the point completely. I'd suggest you go back and read the
> > examples carefully, then read the posts that spell out in minute detail
> > how they relate to your arguments. Deja might help.
>
> Yes, I am in fact missing your point completely. I am mainly
> interested in discussing the paranormal since that is the prime
> topic of this newsgroup. It says it right in my name. "Flagship1
> of the PARANORMAL" I specialize in studies of the paranormal.
Is the "Flagship" part of your name an exaggeration? Or are you actually
the leading authority on these matters? Just how literally do you wish me
to take your name?
> I
> am sorry, but I can't really help you on something that does
> not directly relate to the paranormal. I wish that I could.
> It has been shown time and time again that you have never
> attacked my ACTUAL argument relating to the recent telecast
> aired on Fox.
See my earlier posts.
> > > Why do you continue to attempt to go Off-Topic?
> >
> > It has been proved time and time again that your "argument" that "the
> > possibilities of alien visitations have never been disproved" is a
> > useless, vacuous argument that conveys no information whatsoever. I don't
> > see how this can possibly be off-topic. It is an attack on your
> > argument. Not on it's premises or it's logic, but its usefulness. Your
> > "argument" is useless.
>
> LOL :) Not really. You never attacked the actual argument.
> You only attacked arguments that you made up.
See my earlier posts.
> > [snip repetitions]
> >
> > > Because that does not matter here.
> >
> > It does not matter that you are unwilling to change your views in the
> > light of evidence. Pass me that definition of a Pseudo-Skeptic, please...
>
> You never made an attempt to disprove the evidence
> presented in the original post.
See my earlier posts.
> > > If you dislike my writing about the paranormal
> > > or my style of writing about it, then why don't you just
> > > get a killfile?
> >
> > I don't dislike you writing about it at all. I like it. It's good
> > entertainment and a pleasant diversion from what I normally do. I don't
> > care what anyone believes, as long as they have some good reason for
> > believing it.
>
> So you don't even care? I may already agree with that.
I'm interested, but no, I don't particularly care. I find that keeping a
dispassionate outlook helps me avoid making too many errors.
> What do you see as being entertainment? Are we some
> kind of joke to you?
You think you're Joe Pesci?
I see arguing as entertainment. It's a good mental excersize and can be
deeply satisfying.
> > If they want to admit that their belief in something is for
> > no rational reason then I can completely accept this - it's a personal
> > belief and could never be forced upon anyone else. If someone wants to
> > start making claims about those beliefs, though, these claims will be
> > questioned. Similarly, if they propose arguments, they should be prepared
> > to have these arguments examined for factual or logical errors. I don't
> > know enough about the subject to tackle your factual errors, but I can
> > point out your logical errors.
>
> Well I have no problem with people questioning my beliefs.
> That is not what you are doing. You are simply making
> up "Purple Cow Arguments" and questioning them. You never
> disproved a single one of my posts.
See my earlier posts.
> > > I may be missing your point here.
> >
> > You accused me of something that I was blatantly not guilty of. The proof
> > was sitting right in front of you. So much for your "innocent until proven
> > guilty" position...
>
> I may be missing your point here. You have in fact
> avoided the issue of disproving the liklihoods of
> our being visited by paranormal aliens.
See my earlier posts.
> > > You may want to read the FAQ for this newsgroup at the
> > > following website: http://www.psicounsel.com/altparfaq.txt
> > > for more information. Please read (11.) What is on-topic
> > > posting? If you are as smart as I once thought you were,
> > > you may understand that you are going Off-Topic when you
> > > are not referring to the actual topic of the threads.
> >
> > You have put forward arguments, I'm taking issue with these
> > arguments. That's all. And I'm not even taking issue with the facts of
> > your arguments! I'm simply pointing out that you can't use the logic that
> > you have been using because it doesn't work. I don't mind if you use logic
> > to support something that I don't believe - as long as your logic isn't
> > flawed.
>
> My arguments do work and that is half your problem. You
> are only trying to force this thread OFF-TOPIC with Purple
> Cow Arguments
(PCA)
> and grammar attacks, because you know for a
> fact that you are in a jam because you cannot disprove the
> referred to material from the recent Fox telecast, nor the
> possibilities of our being visited by paranormal aliens.
Why do you think I would be in a jam? None of this affects me. I have
nothing to gain or to lose here. If you want details of my arguments, I
suggest you see my earlier posts.
> > > No. It is the fact that none of the evidence that I referred
> > > to was disproven beyond all reasonable doubt, and that there
> > > are still millions of people coming forward with evidence
> > > that is automatically assumed to be false be the Pseudo-Skeptic.
> >
> > Okay, but who does this affect? No, scratch that. How does it affect
> > ME? Is there anything, beyond the word of "millions of people", that will
> > help me to believe that the chances of alien visitation are higher than I
> > currently do? I'm not a Pseudo-Skeptic (I'm not sure, but I think you
> > might even agree with me on that point), I would like to believe aliens
> > were visiting, I haven't seen any good evidence. I find the topic of
> > aliens intensely exciting - I'm a student of zoology, and would love to
> > find out how life has evolved elsewhere in the Universe. But I don't like
> > blind faith.
>
> The likelihood of our being visited was never disproven.
See my earlier posts.
> > > The portion deleted had "nothing" to do with the topic of the
> > > thread, this group, nor my argument. The reader can always look
> > > at your previous post if he/she is still interested.
> >
> > The portion deleted had everything to do with the part you replied to. If
> > you choose to reply to something you see as OT, you should at least have
> > the common courtesy to include anything that may have been relevant.
>
> The portion I snipped was off-topic. The small portion that I
> left in and replied to was on-topic. Scroll back and see for
> yourself.
See my earlier posts.
> > > Have you somehow disproved the likelihood of our being visited by
> > > paranormal aliens? Huh. I notice that you stand in silence on
> > > this issue.
> >
> > I've answered this issue so many times I'm thinking of writing a macro to
> > save me the trouble. There is no point trying to prove a phenomenon does
> > not exist because it is impossible.
>
> There have been many things that were proven to not exist.
> The sad thing on your part is that the likelihood of our
> being visited by aliens was never disproven, hence you
> automatically assume that it is impossible.
And where exactly have I said that? I believe I've stated my position
exactly. See my earlier posts.
> > As such, the question does not
> > increase our knowledge base. Therefore it is vacuous (empty) and does not
> > (and cannot ever) provide us with any information. It is therefore a
> > useless question to ask.
>
> You would be surprised about how much I know about paranormal
> aliens and the paranormal. You know I have a vast knowledge
> base with the paranormal. I am assuming this is why you
> resorted to those OFF-TOPIC grammar attacks in the previous
> post so you can avoid this issue.
That isn't a correction of your grammar or your spelling. It is an
analysis of your "argument". I assume that you are trying to deliberately
mislead the reader into thinking that I am indulging in ad hominems to
disguise the fact that your argument is an information-free zone. Are you
hoping that nobody will notice that your argument is valueless? That is
has no use? It is empty, devoid of all merit, and is therefore a bad
argument.
If you want to know more...
See my earlier posts.
> > > The arguments that you made up were completely different arguments.
> > > They had NOTHING to do with this argument about paranormal UFOs
> > > being caught on tape. Why don't you just try to show flaws in
> > > the ACTUAL argument instead of your own self-created arguments.
> > > I have noticed your silence on this issue.
> >
> > I have been silent on the issue of the Fox broadcast for a very good
> > reason - I haven't seen it. You know this. Are you trying to tell our dear
> > readers that my inability to disprove the evidence shown in this broadcast
> > proves that aliens are visiting? Good Lord, that's a weak argument.
>
> LOL. Just as I thought. You CAN'T disprove the evidence, so you
> have in fact remained silent on this issue and tried to avoid
> it with OFF-TOPIC grammar attacks instead.
I was right - that is your argument. You are arguing that because I can
say nothing about a specific broadcast aliens are visiting - but that
broadcast was not even aired in this country! Heck, if I'd known it was
that important for me to see this, I would have made more of an effort,
you know, really strained my eyesight to try and catch some of it.
You know something else I was right about? It IS a weak argument. It's
positively atrophied.
> > My arguments were directed, as you well know, at your petty challenge to
> > disprove alien visitation. They were not intended to win your challenge,
> > but to show the futility of it.
>
> You never attempted the challenge either. You simply
> posted OFF-TOPIC grammar attacks that had nothing to
> do with the thread.
Hello? Are you seriously this dense? I can prove the challenge to be
unwinable. Therefore, it is not a challenge. It's just a smokescreen. A
challenge would be something along the lines of, "Prove that aliens are
visiting and I'll give you a signed photo". This is winable. All you have
to do is provide proof that aliens are visiting. Proof that would convince
any reasonable person. Such as: an alien (dead or alive), a vehicle that
could be demonstrated to have been built on another planet, a signed
affadavit from the occupants of the nearest inhabited planet to the effect
that, yes, they did visit us while back, built the pyramids and moved the
equator. In fact, take this as my second challenge to you. I notice you
remained remarkably and very suspiciously quiet about the Lemon Challenge.
Oh, and don't forget to...
See my earlier posts.
> > > You have never disproven any of my arguments. You can play
> > > around with logistics as long as you wish to, but that does
> > > not DISPROVE my arguments. It may question the grammar of my
> > > argument a little (LOL,) but it does not DISPROVE it.
> >
> > I have repeatedly demonstrated the fallacious nature of your arguments. I
> > provided rebuttals to all your "loopholes" in the Randi Challenge, I have
> > shown your "disprove alien visitation" argument to be vacuous and without
> > merit, I have shown your argument about the position taken by
> > Pseudo-Skeptics to be nothing more than "by definition" statement.
>
> You only made OFF-TOPIC grammar attacks. You never disproved any
> of my threads, not even the one relating to Possible Loopholes
> Existing in the Randi Challenge. Please keep in mind that I am
> mainly discussing the recent Fox telecast (in the United States)
> in this thread.
See my earlier posts.
> > > Again, this does not disprove my arguments. You
> > > are getting nowhere with this, trust me.
> >
> > Do you notice how few supporters you have in this thread? Why is nobody
> > else arguing on your side? It can't be because there isn't anyone here who
> > believes in alien visitation - I'm sure there are lots of people that
> > do. I think the reason they are staying out of this one is that they are
> > not blind to logic. They may agree with your intentions and may share your
> > feelings and views on evidence and Pseudo-Skeptics, but they can see that
> > you are using flawed logic. You have passion and the ability to maintain
> > a civil tone - these are good qualities. But alone they are not enough. If
> > you straightened out your logic you would increase your effectiveness no
> > end.
>
> This is really common, just look at all of the other threads.
> The only people who really reply to a post are those who
> question them, or those who oppose them. The people that
> agree with the post do not usually reply.
By that logic I assume that as many people are agreeing with me as with
you. And the same again for each of the other people disagreeing with
you. That means that you are still very much in the minority.
> I do not have
> to prove this to you. Just take a look at the other threads
> posted to this group. Now there may be a few threads that
> got replies from supporters, but not vary many. Just see
> for yourself. The fact of the matter is that you never
> disproved the evidence from the Fox telecast which was
> posted in the original post. You are still trying to
> avoid this issue.
See my earlier posts.
> > > Also keep in mind that I am mainly discussing paranormal
> > > UFOs being caught on tape.
> >
> > They can be caught on tape? They come halfway across the galaxy and get
> > stuck on tape? They are losing my respect.
>
> You may be missing my point here.
I think I am. What do you mean? Are you talking about single-sided or
double-sided sticky tape? Duct tape? A secret tape developed by the US
military? Black Tape? Are their navigation systems not sophisticated
enough to guide them round the tape? Why won't you answer? Why are you
avoiding the issue?
> It has already been proven
> that the Pseudo-Skeptic automatically assumes a negative even
> when such a negative cannot be proven in the first place.
But you do the same. Every night and day you operate on that same
principle. How do you know that just as you are lying down on your bed to
go to sleep a huge spike isn't going to penetrate the bed and
yourself? Have you disproved the possibility? No. You assume that it won't
happen (or you have a death wish and are constantly dissappointed). It can
never be disproved that a huge spike will impale you as you lie down
before you actually lie down. So why do you lie down when the possibility
of impending death is there? Do you want to die?
> They
> simply say "Its not my job, so who cares anyhow,"
Is it their job? Or are they lawyers, doctors, businessmen that actually
do the things they are paid to do? Why should they let their job suffer
because somebody thinks he saw an alien last night? If it isn't their job
they shouldn't be doing it. Are you a medical doctor? If you saw a man
collapse with chest pains would you cut open his chest and fix him? Or
would you alert somebody who knew what they were doing? If it isn't your
job or your duty you needn't be doing it. It is your duty to phone an
ambulance. It is not your duty to put a man's life at risk by performing a
technique you saw on ER. If it is not your job to perform heart surgery
you shouldn't be doing it. You don't have the training or the
experience. If it isn't someone's job to analyse claims about the
paranormal they shouldn't be doing it. They won't have the training or the
experience. They will make mistakes and may wrongfully conclude that a
piece of evidence is good. Or is this what you want?
> or they simply
> resort to OFF-TOPIC arguments and simple grammar attacks in hopes
> of confusing the reader.
Are you implying that I am a Pseudo-Skeptic? If you want me to stop
pointing out the holes in your arguments, all you have to do is say
so. Ask nicely and I may just grant you your wish.
> The fact of the matter is that these
> likelihood's were never disproven.
See my earlier posts.
Mark_H
Mark
> This is something I'd like to address, as the possibility of alien remains
> and humans being of alien origin are often misunderstood. The reality of
> that question, it's true answer, lies in the secrets locked in both the
> Basque language and the specific, rare, unique Basque gene -- which I
> brother was genetically altered to carry in the 1970s under a Project
> OFTEN off-shoot.
What does this gene do? Can you give me some information as to it's
Mark
> The gene is well-known of and scientifically cataloged.
I'm sure you are right. I think I may have heard of it. You don't happen
to know its name, do you? I ran a search for "Basque gene" to see if
anything had been written about it in the journals lately and didn't get
any hits (I was only able to search from 1981).
> It is specific to
> the Basques of the Pyrenees mountain reigons (13 districts of Spain and 2
> districts of France) and not found in any other homo sapien.
What kind of gene is it? It is another member of the globin gene
family? Do you know what the protein it codes for does? Is it a gene that
other people don't have, or is it a modified version of a common gene?
> Also, the Basque language has no Earthly derivative; no forebearer.
Could it be that the language did not develop from languages spoken in
neighbouring countries, but that it has remained isolated in the Basque
regions?
> My brother Russell, who considers himself a 'spiritual Basque' and now
> carries both the unique gene and the high RH blood level,
RH?
> will discuss
> more about the true history of Basques and how the governments are trying
> to surpress their place in world history on the David Oates show on May
> 26.
I'm glad he has such an opportunity. I wish him all the best.
Mark_H
NewAge Skeptic
Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote:
>
> Re: Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
>
> NewAge Skeptic wrote:
> >
> > Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote:
> > >
> > > Re: Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
> > >
> > > -Slimmed Down To Save Bandwidth-
> > >
> > > NewAge Skeptic wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It is the evidence from millions of people worldwide that is
> > > > > seemingly being locked in file cabinets by the Pseudo-Skeptic
> > > > > who automatically assumes the evidence to be false, even though
> > > > > the evidence was not proven to be false.
> > > >
> > > > Now its 'seemingly'? In past articles you used 'in fact', etc. Can we
> > > > now assume that you have no evidence that anything is being locked away
> > > > by anybody? And, if you're not sure it is 'in fact' locked away, how can
> > > > you rely on this illusionary information as 'evidence' to support your
> > > > argument?
> > >
> > > What else can I tell you.
> >
> > Tell me what you know as a fact. Is it seemingly, maybe, could be, what
> > is it?
>
> It is a fact that these liklihoods were never disproven. The
> possibility that we are being visited by aliens remains.
Please no more generalities and address my question. Are things
'seemingly' locked away or do you have some solid evidence that they
'are' locked away?
> > > Things are being locked in file cabinets
> > > by people who automatically assume that the evidence is false,
> > > even though the evidence was never disproven.
> >
> > What evidence do you have of this?
>
> Please refer to the above.
No that won't do. Please answer the question.
> > > Please keep in mind
> > > that I am mainly discussing the recent FOX telecast titled "UFOs
> > > The Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape 2."
> >
> > Then stop throwing in 'attachments' cause as long as you do, people will
> > attack them.
>
> I may be missing your point here. The only arguments that
> were attacked in this entire thread were "Purple Cow Arguments"
Have you been reading other people's posts or just your own? The 'purple
cow argument' was brought up in a previous thread. My reference is to
your extrapolations of your premise which lead you to conclusions that
do not exist. Those will attacked.
> > > I also pointed out that
> > > a great deal of the material presented by this recent telecast was
> > > at least 2-4 years old. You must allow yourself to look into the
> > > arguments, rather then simply looking them over.
> >
> > Right. let's see how much 'looking into' you have done.
> >
> > Have you done any of the following:
> >
> > 1). Contacted NASA to verify the astronaut reports
>
> I visited their website and obtained what I believe is
> the necessary information required for this post.
And what did you find there that suggests to you that the shuttle was
surrounded by UFOs?
> > 2). Checked the New York City news media archives for reports of a UFO
> > over the World Trade Center
>
> I referred to library references and written literature, as
> well as the footage presented from the recent FOX telecast
> (in the United States) titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever
> Caught on Tape 2."
We are discussing the veracity of the footage. Are you now using it in
support of itself?? Are you suggesting that when dicussing the
authenticity of film footage that you can refer to its existence as
evidence of its authenticity?
You brought up the suggestion that a number of people must have posted
to newsgroups about this incident and advised others to check deja,
which you knew will not maintain records going back that far. Is this
another argument from ignorance? Are you now suggesting that your
assertion of newsgroup postings must be true because there are no
records to disprove it?
It is my experience that the average person will call the media, not
post to newsgroups, when they witness an extraordinary event. If
something that size was hovering over one of the most densely populated
pieces of real estate in the world, do you not think there would be some
media coverage?
My question was, "did you check the New York City news media archives",
yes or no.
BTW: What did you find in the library and written literature?
> > 3). Interviewed Israeli defense officials about claims of their air
> > force chasing UFOs on a regular basis
>
> Hmm. I will look into this and I may post some detailed
> information to the group in a later post when more
> information becomes available, if it does.
Wait a just a minute! Do you not think you should have checked this out
*before* posting this thread...hmm, or is your research limited to
sensationalistic television specials?
While you are at it, you may also want to check into the footage of the
giant UFO shot by an Israeli teenager. He claims to have his entire
village (60 individuals) as witnesses to his filming. FOX did not
produce any reports nor did they challenge it. Please let us know if you
can find any such reports. Did you not find it curious that the FOX
'expert' on this footage was an Israeli author of 'Return of the
Giants', a book about a giant alien race?
> > Have you, or have you allowed yourself to simply believe?
>
> I do accept the possibilities and the likelihood that we
> are being visited.
I think you're beginning to answer my question. You have accepted the
FOX special at face value, as witness your lack of investigation.
> > It is my recollection that the New York sighting footage was not brought
> > forward by its producer until just recently, a fact that was mentioned
> > as strange even by the biased narrator. Have you checked into that?
>
> The majority of the alleged hoax evidence was brought
> forward much more quickly on average. There is still
> a great likelihood that this video is not a hoax. Yes,
> there have been hoaxes that have been later proven to
> be hoaxes. To my knowledge this particular video has
> never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be a
> hoax.
How do you know? It had never been seen before the FOX special.
It has been your assertion that a lot, if not most, of your supposed
'evidence' has been locked away from public view. Why would someone who
claims to have evidence of a large UFO over Manhattan wait years to
release it? No doubt you will find some kind of conspiracy theory to
explain it.
> > > > > The recent FOX telecast
> > > > > (in the United States) presented several cases which I mentioned
> > > > > in the original thread that were never disproven. I'm sorry that
> > > > > you see this as being ignorant.
> > > >
> > > > I won't bother to repost the definition because it appears obvious that
> > > > you haven't bothered to read it (or have chosen to ignore it). No one is
> > > > calling you ignorant. The discussion format you use is known as an
> > > > 'argument from ignorance'.
> > >
> > > I may be missing your point here. I only ignore something when it
> > > does not relate to the topic of a given post and/or newsgroup.
> >
> > No you're not missing it at all. Your arguments from ignorance form the
> > basis of each of your threads, and as such making the readers aware of
> > questionable tactics is very much relavent. You chose to ignore it
> > because you cannot counter the claim that I have made repeatedly.
>
> Again, I don't see my arguments as being a basis of
> ignorance on any account. I show that the liklihoods
> of our being visited by aliens was never disproven. I
> do not see this as a standardized methodological
> approach at what you term as being an "argument from
> ignorance."
Then read it again, and again, and again until it sinks in. You are
using the same methodology in this message.
> > > > > The fact of the matter is that
> > > > > the possibilities of our being visited were never disproven. I
> > > > > simply wrote that arguing OFF-TOPIC is not an affective method
> > > > > of attacking someone's argument.
> > > >
> > > > It is evident from your postings that you are not an expert on what
> > > > constitutes an effective method. Why don't you just answer the questions
> > > > and thus demonstrate your genius, instead of crying foul.
> > >
> > > Well, it depends at what you see at your own POV.
> >
> > If it is only a matter of POV, why do you froth about it.
>
> ...because I believe that this is where you are missing my point.
This is just evasion. If others are just expressing their POV and if you
see it as only that, why do you feel you need police it by shouting
OFF-TOPIC in caps.? Why not address it?
> > > This is why I have
> > > been saying this from the start. It is your choice if you want to
> > > accept the possibilities of our being visited by aliens or not. Just
> > > keep in mind that the liklihoods of our being visited by aliens were
> > > never disproven. That's all.
> >
> > Do you really give any thought to what you write? In the above paragraph
> > we see possibility and likelihood freely interchanged as though they are
> > one and the same. What is it; chance, possibility, likelihood,
> > probability, what?
>
> I have a great understanding of what I write in relation
> to paranormal UFOs being caught on tape. I also have a
> great understanding that the liklihoods of our being
> visited by aliens were never disproven.
So is it a 'likelihood'? Please let us know so that when we see you use
words such as chance, possibility, and probability, we will know that
you really meant to write 'likelihood'.
More evasion. Will you attempt to estimate a degree of probalility, yes
or no?
> > You claim to have mounds of supporting evidence. Apply your data to the
> > equation and then tell us how great this probability is. That should not
> > be difficult considering all your evidence.
>
> I have. It is still your choice if you want to accept these
> paranormal possibilities or not.
If you have, what are the results?
> > > It does not take an
> > > expert to realize that.
> >
> > The experts disagree with you. They will not venture beyond a non-zero
> > estimate of probability. They also do not discount the possibility of
> > 'zero'.
>
> There is in fact a greater then zero percent probability
> that we are in fact being visited. This greater then zero
> percent probability was never disproven.
Then the true experts in this field are wrong? If the possibility of
'zero' cannot be discounted, how can you claim that "there is in fact a
greater than zero percent probability that we are in fact being
visited"?
> > > Please note that none of the information
> > > that I referenced from the recent FOX telecast was disproven in
> > > this thread. There is in fact a greater then 0% probability
> > > that we may be visited by paranormal aliens.
> >
> > Then prove this fact. DO IT! Stop evading the issue.
>
> I have. Please refer to the above.
No you haven't. You have only evaded the issues.
Sandy
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
-Slimmed Down To Save Bandwidth-
Mark wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 May 2000, Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote:
>
> > I may be missing your point here, since the only arguments that
> > you have actually attacked were your own little creations. You
> > have yet to disprove anything that was stated in my original
> > post titled "Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape."
>
> See my earlier posts.
>
> > Yes, I am in fact missing your point completely. I am mainly
> > interested in discussing the paranormal since that is the prime
> > topic of this newsgroup. It says it right in my name. "Flagship1
> > of the PARANORMAL" I specialize in studies of the paranormal.
>
> Is the "Flagship" part of your name an exaggeration? Or are you actually
> the leading authority on these matters? Just how literally do you wish me
> to take your name?
You may be missing my point here.
> > I
> > am sorry, but I can't really help you on something that does
> > not directly relate to the paranormal. I wish that I could.
> > It has been shown time and time again that you have never
> > attacked my ACTUAL argument relating to the recent telecast
> > aired on Fox.
>
> See my earlier posts.
>
> > LOL :) Not really. You never attacked the actual argument.
> > You only attacked arguments that you made up.
>
> See my earlier posts.
>
> > You never made an attempt to disprove the evidence
> > presented in the original post.
>
> See my earlier posts.
>
> > So you don't even care? I may already agree with that.
>
> I'm interested, but no, I don't particularly care. I find that keeping a
> dispassionate outlook helps me avoid making too many errors.
Even though you do not care, there are many people that do.
People are still coming forward with new and interesting
evidence which is not unlike what was recently shown on
the recent FOX telecast, titled "UFOs The Best Evidence
Ever Caught on Tape 2." I simply write that it is still
your choice as an individual if you want to allow yourself
to care or not.
> > What do you see as being entertainment? Are we some
> > kind of joke to you?
>
> You think you're Joe Pesci?
>
> I see arguing as entertainment. It's a good mental excersize and can be
> deeply satisfying.
>
> > Well I have no problem with people questioning my beliefs.
> > That is not what you are doing. You are simply making
> > up "Purple Cow Arguments" and questioning them. You never
> > disproved a single one of my posts.
>
> See my earlier posts.
>
> > I may be missing your point here. You have in fact
> > avoided the issue of disproving the liklihoods of
> > our being visited by paranormal aliens.
>
> See my earlier posts.
>
> > My arguments do work and that is half your problem. You
> > are only trying to force this thread OFF-TOPIC with Purple
> > Cow Arguments
>
> (PCA)
>
> > and grammar attacks, because you know for a
> > fact that you are in a jam because you cannot disprove the
> > referred to material from the recent Fox telecast, nor the
> > possibilities of our being visited by paranormal aliens.
>
> Why do you think I would be in a jam? None of this affects me. I have
> nothing to gain or to lose here. If you want details of my arguments, I
> suggest you see my earlier posts.
So you do not care about the possibilities of our being
visited by aliens, yes? You only argue your points for
some sort of entertainment value, rather then trying to
disprove the liklihoods of our being visited by paranormal
aliens, yes? In the above you wrote "I see arguing as
entertainment."
> > The likelihood of our being visited was never disproven.
>
> See my earlier posts.
>
> > The portion I snipped was off-topic. The small portion that I
> > left in and replied to was on-topic. Scroll back and see for
> > yourself.
>
> See my earlier posts.
>
> > There have been many things that were proven to not exist.
> > The sad thing on your part is that the likelihood of our
> > being visited by aliens was never disproven, hence you
> > automatically assume that it is impossible.
>
> And where exactly have I said that? I believe I've stated my position
> exactly. See my earlier posts.
Then you do agree that the liklihoods of our being visited
by alien lifeforms were never Disproven, yes or no?
> > You would be surprised about how much I know about paranormal
> > aliens and the paranormal. You know I have a vast knowledge
> > base with the paranormal. I am assuming this is why you
> > resorted to those OFF-TOPIC grammar attacks in the previous
> > post so you can avoid this issue.
>
> That isn't a correction of your grammar or your spelling. It is an
> analysis of your "argument". I assume that you are trying to deliberately
> mislead the reader into thinking that I am indulging in ad hominems to
> disguise the fact that your argument is an information-free zone. Are you
> hoping that nobody will notice that your argument is valueless? That is
> has no use? It is empty, devoid of all merit, and is therefore a bad
> argument.
I am sure that there are some people who do in fact see these
arguments as being useless and meaningless, and don't even care
about the actual arguments in the first place. I see things
differently then that. I see my arguments as being a foundation
to further people's investigation of the paranormal evidence at
hand. I am arguing against the file cabinet. The aim of my recent
threads relating to paranormal aliens was to show that these
liklihoods were never disproven, and that the possibility that we
are being visited remains. Well, I leave it up to you to decide
which path to take.
> If you want to know more...
>
> See my earlier posts.
>
> > LOL. Just as I thought. You CAN'T disprove the evidence, so you
> > have in fact remained silent on this issue and tried to avoid
> > it with OFF-TOPIC grammar attacks instead.
>
> I was right - that is your argument. You are arguing that because I can
> say nothing about a specific broadcast aliens are visiting - but that
> broadcast was not even aired in this country! Heck, if I'd known it was
> that important for me to see this, I would have made more of an effort,
> you know, really strained my eyesight to try and catch some of it.
The original post to this thread stated right off the bat that
it was related to a Fox telecast aired in the United States. You
did not have to envelope yourself into the discussion if you did
not see the telecast. I am not one to give people advice, but I
usually stay away from a arguments that are about something that
I know little about.
> You know something else I was right about? It IS a weak argument. It's
> positively atrophied.
I see things a little differently then you do.
> > You never attempted the challenge either. You simply
> > posted OFF-TOPIC grammar attacks that had nothing to
> > do with the thread.
>
> Hello? Are you seriously this dense? I can prove the challenge to be
> unwinable. Therefore, it is not a challenge. It's just a smokescreen. A
> challenge would be something along the lines of, "Prove that aliens are
> visiting and I'll give you a signed photo". This is winable. All you have
> to do is provide proof that aliens are visiting. Proof that would convince
> any reasonable person. Such as: an alien (dead or alive), a vehicle that
> could be demonstrated to have been built on another planet, a signed
> affadavit from the occupants of the nearest inhabited planet to the effect
> that, yes, they did visit us while back, built the pyramids and moved the
> equator. In fact, take this as my second challenge to you. I notice you
> remained remarkably and very suspiciously quiet about the Lemon Challenge.
We have provided mounds of evidence. The problem is with the
Pseudo-Skeptic automatically assuming everything to be false,
even though it was not PROVEN to be false. Please refer to my
other thread titled "My Challenge to the Skeptics," for more
info on the purpose of my challenge.
> Oh, and don't forget to...
>
> See my earlier posts.
>
> > You only made OFF-TOPIC grammar attacks. You never disproved any
> > of my threads, not even the one relating to Possible Loopholes
> > Existing in the Randi Challenge. Please keep in mind that I am
> > mainly discussing the recent Fox telecast (in the United States)
> > in this thread.
>
> See my earlier posts.
>
> > This is really common, just look at all of the other threads.
> > The only people who really reply to a post are those who
> > question them, or those who oppose them. The people that
> > agree with the post do not usually reply.
>
> By that logic I assume that as many people are agreeing with me as with
> you. And the same again for each of the other people disagreeing with
> you. That means that you are still very much in the minority.
Are you automatically assuming this negative, or do you
somehow know for sure?
> > I do not have
> > to prove this to you. Just take a look at the other threads
> > posted to this group. Now there may be a few threads that
> > got replies from supporters, but not vary many. Just see
> > for yourself. The fact of the matter is that you never
> > disproved the evidence from the Fox telecast which was
> > posted in the original post. You are still trying to
> > avoid this issue.
>
> See my earlier posts.
>
> > You may be missing my point here.
>
> I think I am. What do you mean? Are you talking about single-sided or
> double-sided sticky tape? Duct tape? A secret tape developed by the US
> military? Black Tape? Are their navigation systems not sophisticated
> enough to guide them round the tape? Why won't you answer? Why are you
> avoiding the issue?
You may be still missing my point here. I am mainly referring to
the information referred to from the recent Fox telecast. You are
reading more then just the title of the thread, yes?
> > It has already been proven
> > that the Pseudo-Skeptic automatically assumes a negative even
> > when such a negative cannot be proven in the first place.
>
> But you do the same. Every night and day you operate on that same
> principle. How do you know that just as you are lying down on your bed to
> go to sleep a huge spike isn't going to penetrate the bed and
> yourself? Have you disproved the possibility? No. You assume that it won't
> happen (or you have a death wish and are constantly dissappointed). It can
> never be disproved that a huge spike will impale you as you lie down
> before you actually lie down. So why do you lie down when the possibility
> of impending death is there? Do you want to die?
Again, you are missing the point of the argument. I pointed
out in both these recent posts that the Pseudo-Skeptic has
never disproved the likelihood of our being visited by aliens.
> > They
> > simply say "Its not my job, so who cares anyhow,"
>
> Is it their job? Or are they lawyers, doctors, businessmen that actually
> do the things they are paid to do? Why should they let their job suffer
> because somebody thinks he saw an alien last night? If it isn't their job
> they shouldn't be doing it. Are you a medical doctor? If you saw a man
> collapse with chest pains would you cut open his chest and fix him? Or
> would you alert somebody who knew what they were doing? If it isn't your
> job or your duty you needn't be doing it. It is your duty to phone an
> ambulance. It is not your duty to put a man's life at risk by performing a
> technique you saw on ER. If it is not your job to perform heart surgery
> you shouldn't be doing it. You don't have the training or the
> experience. If it isn't someone's job to analyse claims about the
> paranormal they shouldn't be doing it. They won't have the training or the
> experience. They will make mistakes and may wrongfully conclude that a
> piece of evidence is good. Or is this what you want?
Oh, man. Here we go with "Purple Cow Arguments," again. I never
wrote that everybody should quit their current jobs and only
research the liklihoods of our being visited by aliens. You are
once again avoiding the ACTUAL argument. I wrote that people
should take their time and look at the evidence at hand. I never
asked anyone to give up their entire lifestyles as doctors etc.
I am trying to get our society OUT of the Dark Ages, I am not
trying to set it deeper. This is the shrewdest example of a
"Purple Cow Argument" that you have yet to post.
-Here is an example of an Off-Topic purple cow argument-
What if I have cancer? What if someone discovers a cure for my
cancer, and my doctor is a Pseudo-Skeptic who automatically assumes
the cure to be a hoax? What if I die? Would he simply say that
he does not care because it was not his job to find a cure in
the first place? (I do not mean anything by this Purple Cow
Argument, I am pointing out that with these Off-Topic arguments
you can confuse the reader into thinking about something other
then what is actually being discussed in the discussion.) I know
that even if you are a Pseudo-Skeptic you don't want people to
die, and neither do I. If I did not write this justification,
my above example may have confused people into thinking that.
The fact of the matter is that you cannot disprove the liklihoods
of our being visited by aliens, nor the referred to evidence from
the recent Fox telecast. It is still your choice if you want to
allow yourself to accept these possibilities or not. I am not
the bad guy here. I am just the writer of the posts from Flagship1.
> > or they simply
> > resort to OFF-TOPIC arguments and simple grammar attacks in hopes
> > of confusing the reader.
>
> Are you implying that I am a Pseudo-Skeptic? If you want me to stop
> pointing out the holes in your arguments, all you have to do is say
> so. Ask nicely and I may just grant you your wish.
You were not pointing out the holes in my ACTUAL arguments. Please
refer to my above example of a Purple Cow Argument. Please keep in
mind that I am mainly discussing the recent telecast aired on Fox.
> > The fact of the matter is that these
> > likelihood's were never disproven.
>
> See my earlier posts.
>
> Mark_H
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
-Slimmed Down To Save Bandwidth-
NewAge Skeptic wrote:
>
> > It is a fact that these liklihoods were never disproven. The
> > possibility that we are being visited by aliens remains.
>
> Please no more generalities and address my question. Are things
> 'seemingly' locked away or do you have some solid evidence that they
> 'are' locked away?
It has been proven that a lot of the evidence relating
to the liklihoods of our being visited by aliens was
automatically assumed to be false by the Pseudo-Skeptic,
even though such evidence was never proven to be false
in the first place. (all in one breath)
> > Please refer to the above.
>
> No that won't do. Please answer the question.
>
> > I may be missing your point here. The only arguments that
> > were attacked in this entire thread were "Purple Cow Arguments"
>
> Have you been reading other people's posts or just your own? The 'purple
> cow argument' was brought up in a previous thread. My reference is to
> your extrapolations of your premise which lead you to conclusions that
> do not exist. Those will attacked.
You may be missing my point here. I was referring to
Purple Cow Arguments in general. Note the capitalization.
I am not writing of people making arguments about cows
that are purple. I was referring to people making
OFF-TOPIC arguments with possible hopes of confusing
the reader. These arguments were used by Pseudo-Skeptics
(a term by Dan Kettler) to avoid the issue of having
to disprove the liklihoods of our being visited by
aliens, or the referred to material from the recent
Fox telecast.
> > I visited their website and obtained what I believe is
> > the necessary information required for this post.
>
> And what did you find there that suggests to you that the shuttle was
> surrounded by UFOs?
It was a satellite. Shortly after the tether broke there
appeared to be what I believe to have been paranormal
alien spacecrafts hovering around the satellite. If you take
a closer look at one of the objects you may notice a series
of pulsating lights. This is one reason why I believe that
what was seen was not ordinary space debris.
> > I referred to library references and written literature, as
> > well as the footage presented from the recent FOX telecast
> > (in the United States) titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever
> > Caught on Tape 2."
>
> We are discussing the veracity of the footage. Are you now using it in
> support of itself?? Are you suggesting that when dicussing the
> authenticity of film footage that you can refer to its existence as
> evidence of its authenticity?
I was looking for case records of similar paranormal events
occurring in the past and how they may have been filmed. I
also examined the changes in velocity that the objects seem
to have made. This is one of the things that is still puzzling
me to this day.
> You brought up the suggestion that a number of people must have posted
> to newsgroups about this incident and advised others to check deja,
> which you knew will not maintain records going back that far. Is this
> another argument from ignorance? Are you now suggesting that your
> assertion of newsgroup postings must be true because there are no
> records to disprove it?
Yes, I have mentioned Deja News but the fact that their
archives only date back to 1995 was outside my knowledge
at the time. As soon as I found out, I posted an apology
to those people who attempted to do a look up. I still
remember all of the hype that was going on about UFO
sightings taking place in the greater New York Metropolitan
area, as well as the rest of the Tri-State area for that
matter. This was in fact a great discussion matter. I am
almost sure that someone on these groups from 1994 may
have remembered these discussions. I also asked people to
save this post, as soon as Deja updates their database to
cover 1994 I may repost this portion of the thread.
> It is my experience that the average person will call the media, not
> post to newsgroups, when they witness an extraordinary event. If
> something that size was hovering over one of the most densely populated
> pieces of real estate in the world, do you not think there would be some
> media coverage?
Well, nearly every media outlet that I know of has its
gatekeepers. They only accept the information that THEY
FEEL is newsworthy. I wrote in an earlier message that the
internet provides a clearer and more direct channel for
people to communicate their information to the masses.
Another advantage that the internet, as well as Usenet
has over the other media outlets is that it allows people
to get their information directly from the source, rather
then from a 3rd party.
> My question was, "did you check the New York City news media archives",
> yes or no.
I often try to get information relating to these issues
from the sources in which the information comes from. I
am sure that if I would search the news archives I may
find something interesting. The problem is that what I
may find may be extremely anecdotal, and may be simply
there to fill a news-hole and is squashed in with a
bunch of advertisements. Again, I go to where I can find
the most information about these paranormal possibilities
of aliens visiting our planet. Please note that none of
the material that I referred to from the recent Fox
telecast was disproven beyond all reasonable doubt. There
is still a great likelihood that we are being visited. I
will continue to look for answers and more pieces to the
puzzle at hand. As I said from the start, it is still your
choice if you want to accept these possibilities or not.
> BTW: What did you find in the library and written literature?
>
> > Hmm. I will look into this and I may post some detailed
> > information to the group in a later post when more
> > information becomes available, if it does.
>
> Wait a just a minute! Do you not think you should have checked this out
> *before* posting this thread...hmm, or is your research limited to
> sensationalistic television specials?
I seem to be missing your point here. I said that I
will post some more information as it becomes available.
I can supplement you with an anecdotal answer, but I
would not see that as being fair.
> While you are at it, you may also want to check into the footage of the
> giant UFO shot by an Israeli teenager. He claims to have his entire
> village (60 individuals) as witnesses to his filming. FOX did not
> produce any reports nor did they challenge it. Please let us know if you
> can find any such reports. Did you not find it curious that the FOX
> 'expert' on this footage was an Israeli author of 'Return of the
> Giants', a book about a giant alien race?
Sorry, I do not have all the details on that issue at
the present time. I am still looking into some of these
issues. That is why I only referred to a certain number
of them in the original post. Thanks for the tip. I will
take this into further consideration.
> > I do accept the possibilities and the likelihood that we
> > are being visited.
>
> I think you're beginning to answer my question. You have accepted the
> FOX special at face value, as witness your lack of investigation.
What are you terming as being a face value acceptance? I
do not see this as being a lack of investigation on anybody's
part. I believe that Fox television produced a fine program.
I will agree with you that their may have been some bias,
but I am sure that a great deal of investigation was put into
the production of that program.
> > The majority of the alleged hoax evidence was brought
> > forward much more quickly on average. There is still
> > a great likelihood that this video is not a hoax. Yes,
> > there have been hoaxes that have been later proven to
> > be hoaxes. To my knowledge this particular video has
> > never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be a
> > hoax.
>
> How do you know? It had never been seen before the FOX special.
>
> It has been your assertion that a lot, if not most, of your supposed
> 'evidence' has been locked away from public view. Why would someone who
> claims to have evidence of a large UFO over Manhattan wait years to
> release it? No doubt you will find some kind of conspiracy theory to
> explain it.
Maybe they were afraid to come forward. This is indeed a vary
open-ended question. There are many possibilities. It does
make one think for a while, yes?
> > Again, I don't see my arguments as being a basis of
> > ignorance on any account. I show that the liklihoods
> > of our being visited by aliens was never disproven. I
> > do not see this as a standardized methodological
> > approach at what you term as being an "argument from
> > ignorance."
>
> Then read it again, and again, and again until it sinks in. You are
> using the same methodology in this message.
Sorry, but I may be missing your point on that statement.
Can you rephrase it for me?
> > ...because I believe that this is where you are missing my point.
>
> This is just evasion. If others are just expressing their POV and if you
> see it as only that, why do you feel you need police it by shouting
> OFF-TOPIC in caps.? Why not address it?
Certain limitations set forth by the FAQs and Charters
for this newsgroup forbid me to post Off-Topic or fully
address Off-Topic issues. Most of those issues are outside
my knowledge, anyhow. I usually leave them at that, while
trying to keep the reader informed of the possible purpose
of these Purple Cow Arguments, as I have come to call them.
In this thread I am mainly referring to the recent telecast
on Fox television. If someone does not pose an argument that
relates to that issue, I usually give them generalized
statements about the subject matter at hand. The likelihood
of our being visited by extra-terrestrial life was never
disproven beyond all reasonable doubt.
> > I have a great understanding of what I write in relation
> > to paranormal UFOs being caught on tape. I also have a
> > great understanding that the liklihoods of our being
> > visited by aliens were never disproven.
>
> So is it a 'likelihood'? Please let us know so that when we see you use
> words such as chance, possibility, and probability, we will know that
> you really meant to write 'likelihood'.
All I can ask of you here, is to review my earlier threads
relating to those issues.
> > This is because the likelihood was never disproven, and
> > even the skeptic argues that such a likelihood cannot be
> > disproven. This point was made in the previous thread.
>
> More evasion. Will you attempt to estimate a degree of probalility, yes
> or no?
Sorry, but I can't bare down on what you are getting at. Can
you rephrase the question?
> > I have. It is still your choice if you want to accept these
> > paranormal possibilities or not.
>
> If you have, what are the results?
What type of results are you seeking?
> > There is in fact a greater then zero percent probability
> > that we are in fact being visited. This greater then zero
> > percent probability was never disproven.
>
> Then the true experts in this field are wrong? If the possibility of
> 'zero' cannot be discounted, how can you claim that "there is in fact a
> greater than zero percent probability that we are in fact being
> visited"?
What makes you so sure that there is not a greater then
0% probability?
> > I have. Please refer to the above.
>
> No you haven't. You have only evaded the issues.
I do not believe that I have evaded these issues. I have
explained everything to the best of my knowledge.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
-Slimmed Down To Save Bandwidth-
"Lance C. Johnson" wrote:
>
> > There is no need for me to do that, since the majority of
> > people reading the groups already know who they are.
>
> In other words, you can't do it, because it's not true.
You are asking me to name specific names of people who I
believe to be Pseudo-Skeptics. I see no real need in doing
so, since I believe that it should be up to the reader to
decide. I can name people, but how would that support my
cause?
> > In
> > this portion of the thread I was mainly discussing the
> > fact that mounds of evidence form millions of people are
> > being ignored by the Pseudo-Skeptic, even though the
> > evidence was never disproven.
>
> Yeah, you keep saying that...
>
> > To add to that, none of
> > the evidence that I referred to from the recent FOX telecast
> > titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape 2,"
> > was ever disproven. Please refer to the original posts
> > for more information on this.
>
> I'm aware of all this...
>
> > I may be missing your point here. I do not see any problems with
> > the points that I am discussing in my replies. Please keep in
> > mind that I am mainly discussing the recent FOX telecast relating
> > to paranormal aliens visiting our planet, and the research that
> > goes along with it.
>
> I know what you're talking about, and yes, you have missed my point.
> My point was that you deliberately misrepresent what the skeptics say
> in order to easily destroy their side of the argument.
I did not misrepresent anyone here. I was writing of the
Pseudo-Skeptic, which is someone who automatically assumes
something to be false even though it was never proven to
be false in the first place. The liklihoods of our being
visited by paranormal aliens were never disproven, nether
was the referred to material from the recent Fox telecast.
> > I agree with you here. There are many unknown possibilities when
> > it comes to the likelihood of our being visited by aliens. Please
> > keep in mind that these possibilities were never disproven, and
> > there is in fact a greater then 0% probability that we are being
> > visited. As time progresses I will continue to research these
> > paranormal possibilities of our being visited by aliens.
>
> And you will only consult sources that support your pet theories, I can
> safely assume.
I usually look at these issues from several different
perspectives.
> > I agree with you here as well. You just wrote that "The fact of
> > the matter is that the likelihood of our being visited by
> > aliens WAS never disproven."
>
> I was correcting your English, Brainiac.
There is no need for grammar attacks. Please keep in mind
that grammar attacks, and "Purple Cow Arguments" do not
disprove any of my arguments. They may question the grammar
etc but have no effect on the value of my arguments, as
long as I continue to point these issues of avoidance out.
Again, it is still your choice if you want to accept the
liklihoods of our being visited by paranormal aliens or not.
> > Sorry, I do not see Mark's posts as disproving the likelihood
> > of our being visited by paranormal aliens, nor do I see them as
> > disproving any of the material I referred to from the recent
> > FOX telecast titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever Caught on
> > Tape 2."
>
> They weren't supposed to. His post was only made to demonstrate the
> flaws in your logic...which he did rather successfully.
You may be missing my point here. He only attacked my grammar. He
avoided the ACTUAL argument completely. He never made an attempt
at disproving any of my ACTUAL arguments.
> > I do not see my discussing these issues as being evidence
> > that I am delusional. I know that I am not delusional. Please
> > present evidence to show that this is not a prejudicial
> > assumption that you are making.
>
> You're not delusional because you discuss these issues. You're
> delusional because you consider the words of "millions of people" to be
> evidence, you don't understand the simple concept of making comparisons
> in order to show the holes in a person's argument, you think that the
> pyramids are near the equator, etc.
Grammar attacks, do not disprove the liklihoods of our being
visited by paranormal aliens, nor have they disproven any of
my arguments. Please keep in mind that I am mainly discussing
the recent telecast aired by Fox (in the United States)
> I'm sure that you believe that
> you're not delusional...but wouldn't you agree that part of being
> delusional is that the delusional person is certain that they are not
> delusional? You'll entertain the notion that aliens are visiting us,
> but you're not willing to consider your own sanity.
I never said that I was delusional. You are automatically
assuming this negative, even though this negative cannot be
proven in the first place.
> > What makes you feel that this is week evidence?
>
> See the previous posts made by myself and others, Flaggy.
I have thrown several bundles of replies at them already
and I have a few more truck loads of replies and another
newsthread coming up the street as you read this.
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
-Groups Removed-
alt.bonehead.flagship1
alt.usenet.kooks
sci.skeptic
"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 02 May 2000 18:38:41 GMT, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
> <parano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Re: Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
> >
> >-Reposted from yesterday at 6:21pm (ET) due to possible
> >propagation problems with Earthlink's newserver-
> >
> >-Groups Removed-
> >sci.skeptic
> >
>
> added again
> >
> >"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 21:49:14 GMT, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
> >> <parano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
I have a vast understanding of many of these issues. This
is where you are missing my point. The fact of the matter
is that there is a great possibility that we are in fact
being visited by paranormal aliens. Please also keep in
mind that none of the material referenced from the recent
Fox telecast was disproven in this thread.
> >What makes you think that it was ice etc? If you
> >do not believe in the existence of an ether, then how can such debris
> >make such a sharp turn in midspace?
>
> Flaggy, Newtonian physics alone should tell you this. Ever seen a
> leaf falling, and then have a sudden change of direction? It's
> usually brought about by a force operating on it to change it's
> direction. I usually attribute that to the wind. I don't believe
> paint flecks, leaves, or snowflakes and ice are operated by little
> green men or fairies. You obviously do, because you don't have the
> common sense to actually question your preconceived notions.
Please keep in mind that I am mainly discussing the
recent Fox telecast aired in the United States. Can
you please rephrase your statement, and explain how
it relates to the recent Fox telecast? I may be
missing your point here.
> >With the distance of the object from
> >the shuttle, how and why do you believe that its sharp movement was a
> >result of the reaction engines firing? How would this engine firing
> >result in the sharp angle of direction the object shifted, VS its
> >velocity? How would the firing of the engines cause the rate of
> >acceleration of the distant object to increase so rapidly?
>
> Ever seen the wind flaggy? what do you think the forces of a shuttles
> engines actually are flaggy?
It is the fact that the object shifted in a direction that
is somewhat toward the shuttle then started to swiftly
accelerate at a rapid rate. I highly doubt that its sudden
movement at that extreme rate of acceleration was the
result of the firing of the reaction engines, as you have
termed them.
> > Hmm.
> >This is indeed kind of interesting. I was up a few nights when
> >I first heard about this a few years ago. There is in fact a great
> >likelihood that we are being visited by paranormal aliens. Please
> >keep in mind that these possibilities were never disproven.
>
> And you have never proven it you idjit.
We have in fact provided mounds of evidence in relation
to these liklihoods of our being visited by paranormal
aliens. A vast majority of that evidence was never
disproven beyond all reasonable doubt. Please keep in
mind that it is still your choice if you want to accept
these paranormal possibilities or not.
> --
>
> Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~wanglese/pebble.htm
>
> Fight spam:
> http://www.caube.org.au/
>
> "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
Mark wrote:
>
> On Sun, 7 May 2000, Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote:
>
> > > > In order to convince me that a piece of evidence was invalad,
> > > > someone must prove to me that the evidence is invalad.
> > >
> > > "I have discovered a cure for all diseases. The only copy of the formula
> > > is in my head. I will release it to the world only if you send me all your
> > > money."
> > >
> > > Would you accept that statement at face value? How can it be shown to be
> > > invalid? This directly relates to how you evaluate evidence, such as the
> > > evidence that was presented in the Fox broadcast.
> >
> > The above statement has nothing to do with my thread.
>
> There does seem to be a pattern forming. As soon as anyone questions
> something you have written you automatically write a set-piece claiming
> that the subject is off-topic, that you don't look for absolutes, that we
> can't disprove the existence of a phenomenon...
Nope. I only write that something is off topic, if something
actually is off topic.
> > As a
> > paranormalist I do not look for absolutes. You know that
> > I cannot comment on the above statement because it is
> > OFF-TOPIC. I can only point out that it is a fact that the
> > liklihoods of our being visited by paranormal alien spacecrafts
> > were never disproven. Your above OFF-TOPIC argument does not
> > disprove the liklihoods of our being visited. It does not
> > disprove the material from the recent Fox telecast either.
> > It may question my grammar a little, but it does not disprove
> > the liklihoods of our being visited by aliens. I can say this
> > a thousand more times if you want. I have already noticed your
> > silence on trying to disprove my arguments. There is no need
> > for "Purple Cow Arguments," Why can't you attack the ACTUAL
> > argument without making your own argument up and attacking
> > it in place of mine?
>
> Creating and attacking these examples is a way of attacking the logic
> under your arguments. I wrote quite a long piece on this in a post that
> contained easy to follow example arguments about dogs, cows and
> helicopters. You never replied to that one. Really, you should read these
> things. They may be important.
You are only attacking my grammar. You are making ABSOLUTELY
no attempts at trying to disprove or counter my ACTUAL arguments.
You never disproved the liklihoods of our being visited by
paranormal aliens, or the recent Fox telecast relating to
paranormal UFOs being caught on tape.
> > Please, please, please, why don't you give it a try? You are not
> > afraid are you?
>
> I'm insulted. You think goading is an effective method of argument? You
> think I'll lose my temper and expose myself for the fiend I really am? Or
> are you trying to discourage me from replying to you? All you have to do
> is ask. Give me a good reason and I'll consider your request.
You may be missing my point here. You can reply to me in any
way that you choose to. You still never disproved or countered
any of my posts. I am not at a loss here.
I may be missing your point here.
> > The fact of the matter is that the skeptic
> > CANNOT disprove these liklihoods and has admitted it.
>
> Not much of an admission is it? There's certainly no shame in saying that
> we can't do the impossible. I can never disprove the existence of a fleet
> of multicoloured Mars bars out in space. There. I've admitted it.
You are simply saying that it is impossible for you to
disprove the liklihoods of our being visited by paranormal
aliens, Yes?
> > Their only
> > hope at defending themselves is to create an OFF-TOPIC argument
> > and attempt to disprove that in place of mine with possible
> > hopes of confusing the reader. Why don't you try to disprove
> > my "ACTUAL" argument. Come on Mark, why don't you give it a
> > try? Hmm. Is that a purple cow, I see?
>
> Oh dear. More goading. I thought I had seen the last of that infantile
> behaviour when I left primary school. What's next? Are you going to
> "double-dare" me?
O.K. I "double-dare" you to attempt to attack my ACTUAL argument.
All I seen were grammar attacks. You never made an actual
attempt at trying to disprove or counter any of my arguments.
> In an attempt to start again, I'm going to ask you to condense your
> arguments down so that I can present my views on them once and once
> only. When you reply to this, take a paragraph to explain each of your
> arguments. Then I'll reply to them. How does that sound? You are quite
> welcome to cut and paste from your old posts, if you like.
>
> I look forward to evaluating your arguments.
Is that a purple cow I see over there? Please note that the
referred to material from the recent Fox telecast was never
disproven beyond all reasonable doubts.
> Mark_H
Lance C. Johnson
Paranormal <parano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Re: Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
> -Slimmed Down To Save Bandwidth-
> "Lance C. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > > There is no need for me to do that, since the majority of
> > > people reading the groups already know who they are.
> >
> > In other words, you can't do it, because it's not true.
> You are asking me to name specific names of people who I
> believe to be Pseudo-Skeptics. I see no real need in doing
> so, since I believe that it should be up to the reader to
> decide. I can name people, but how would that support my
> cause?
Evasion noted.
> > My point was that you deliberately misrepresent what the
> skeptics say
> > in order to easily destroy their side of the argument.
> I did not misrepresent anyone here. I was writing of the
> Pseudo-Skeptic, which is someone who automatically assumes
> something to be false even though it was never proven to
> be false in the first place.
And yet, nobody is doing that. You keep saying that they are, yet you
can't point out any examples. Am I doing that? Am I a Pseudeo-skeptic?
> The liklihoods of our being
> visited by paranormal aliens were never disproven, nether
> was the referred to material from the recent Fox telecast.
Didn't we already agree on this? Why do you keep tying it?
> > And you will only consult sources that support your pet
> theories, I can
> > safely assume.
> I usually look at these issues from several different
> perspectives.
That's surpising, considering that you often show yourself to be
completely ignorant of things like the scientific method, evidence,
research, etc...
> > > I agree with you here as well. You just wrote that "The fact of
> > > the matter is that the likelihood of our being visited by
> > > aliens WAS never disproven."
> >
> > I was correcting your English, Brainiac.
> There is no need for grammar attacks. Please keep in mind
> that grammar attacks, and "Purple Cow Arguments" do not
> disprove any of my arguments. They may question the grammar
> etc but have no effect on the value of my arguments, as
> long as I continue to point these issues of avoidance out.
> Again, it is still your choice if you want to accept the
> liklihoods of our being visited by paranormal aliens or not.
The "Purple Cow" argument is not a grammar attack. It is an attack on
the way you form your theories...you just can't understand it and say
that it's "off-topic," because guys like Mark are talking over your
head.
> > > Sorry, I do not see Mark's posts as disproving the likelihood
> > > of our being visited by paranormal aliens, nor do I see them as
> > > disproving any of the material I referred to from the recent
> > > FOX telecast titled "UFOs The Best Evidence Ever Caught on
> > > Tape 2."
> >
> > They weren't supposed to. His post was only made to demonstrate
> the
> > flaws in your logic...which he did rather successfully.
> You may be missing my point here. He only attacked my grammar. He
> avoided the ACTUAL argument completely. He never made an attempt
> at disproving any of my ACTUAL arguments.
He didn't attack your grammar at all. Hmmm...further evidence that
you're delusional? I think so!
And yes, he did attack your "ACTUAL" arguments by attacking the way you
formed them. You're either dishonest or dense...I'm inclined to
believe that latter. How come so many other people see it but you
don't?
> > You're not delusional because you discuss these issues. You're
> > delusional because you consider the words of "millions of
> people" to be
> > evidence, you don't understand the simple concept of making
> comparisons
> > in order to show the holes in a person's argument, you think
> that the
> > pyramids are near the equator, etc.
> Grammar attacks, do not disprove the liklihoods of our being
> visited by paranormal aliens, nor have they disproven any of
> my arguments. Please keep in mind that I am mainly discussing
> the recent telecast aired by Fox (in the United States)
Please keep in mind that I was just demonstrating that anything that
you post is questionable, since you're obviously delusional.
> > I'm sure that you believe that
> > you're not delusional...but wouldn't you agree that part of being
> > delusional is that the delusional person is certain that they
> are not
> > delusional? You'll entertain the notion that aliens are
> visiting us,
> > but you're not willing to consider your own sanity.
> I never said that I was delusional. You are automatically
> assuming this negative, even though this negative cannot be
> proven in the first place.
I never said that YOU said that you were delusional. I'm sure that you
believe that you aren't. And it is YOU who are automatically assuming
the negative...assuming that you're NOT delusional without looking at
the actual evidence.
> > > What makes you feel that this is week evidence?
> >
> > See the previous posts made by myself and others, Flaggy.
> I have thrown several bundles of replies at them already
> and I have a few more truck loads of replies and another
> newsthread coming up the street as you read this.
No, you have thrown "several bundles" of dodges, evasions, vagueness,
incoherance, ignorance, strawmen and delusions. I assume that your
next thread will be similar.
Mark
> > > So you don't even care? I may already agree with that.
> >
> > I'm interested, but no, I don't particularly care. I find that keeping a
> > dispassionate outlook helps me avoid making too many errors.
>
> Even though you do not care, there are many people that do.
And we should let them put forward arguments that are logically flawed
without pointing this out just because they care? Are you discriminating
against people that don't care about this topic?
> > > My arguments do work and that is half your problem. You
> > > are only trying to force this thread OFF-TOPIC with Purple
> > > Cow Arguments
> > (PCA)
> > > and grammar attacks, because you know for a
> > > fact that you are in a jam because you cannot disprove the
> > > referred to material from the recent Fox telecast, nor the
> > > possibilities of our being visited by paranormal aliens.
> >
> > Why do you think I would be in a jam? None of this affects me. I have
> > nothing to gain or to lose here. If you want details of my arguments, I
> > suggest you see my earlier posts.
>
> So you do not care about the possibilities of our being
> visited by aliens, yes? You only argue your points for
> some sort of entertainment value, rather then trying to
> disprove the liklihoods of our being visited by paranormal
> aliens, yes? In the above you wrote "I see arguing as
> entertainment."
That's right. It is great entertainment. I am in this argument because I
enjoy it. I wouldn't be talking to you if I didn't enjoy it. I hope I will
learn something new - I hope I'll see some evidence for alien visitation,
but all I've seen so far are your rather sorry attempts at arguments and
the claim that millions of people say they think they saw something.
> > > There have been many things that were proven to not exist.
> > > The sad thing on your part is that the likelihood of our
> > > being visited by aliens was never disproven, hence you
> > > automatically assume that it is impossible.
> >
> > And where exactly have I said that? I believe I've stated my position
> > exactly. See my earlier posts.
>
> Then you do agree that the liklihoods of our being visited
> by alien lifeforms were never Disproven, yes or no?
Have you actually read ANYTHING I've written? I'll give you a simple
answer - it can never be proved that aliens are not visiting us.
This is what I, and many, many others, have been saying all along. But
what does this tell you? Does it act as evidence suggesting that aliens
ARE visiting? No. It is impossible simply because it requires the
searching of an infinite set in a finite time - impossible in practice. It
carries the same weight as "it has never been proven that the Easter Bunny
does not exist". The Easter Bunny does not exist. I can't prove it, but I
know that to be the case. I don't know whether aliens are visiting. If
they are, it is impossible to prove that aliens are not visiting. But if
they aren't visiting... the same is still true. It will still be
impossible to prove they aren't. So what does your argument tell us? Can
it help us answer the question "are aliens visiting?" No, it cannot.
What is your aim in putting forward your "argument"? Is it to attempt to
answer the question "are aliens visiting?" Clearly not - it can't ever
help us answer that question. Is it to attempt to win points with readers
that may not be au fait with logic? It sure looks that way. Does that
serve a purpose? No. Your "argument" is purposeless. It has no use at all.
> > > You would be surprised about how much I know about paranormal
> > > aliens and the paranormal. You know I have a vast knowledge
> > > base with the paranormal. I am assuming this is why you
> > > resorted to those OFF-TOPIC grammar attacks in the previous
> > > post so you can avoid this issue.
> >
> > That isn't a correction of your grammar or your spelling. It is an
> > analysis of your "argument". I assume that you are trying to deliberately
> > mislead the reader into thinking that I am indulging in ad hominems to
> > disguise the fact that your argument is an information-free zone. Are you
> > hoping that nobody will notice that your argument is valueless? That is
> > has no use? It is empty, devoid of all merit, and is therefore a bad
> > argument.
>
> I am sure that there are some people who do in fact see these
> arguments as being useless and meaningless, and don't even care
> about the actual arguments in the first place. I see things
> differently then that. I see my arguments as being a foundation
> to further people's investigation of the paranormal evidence at
> hand.
And how will it do that? It can't help us resolve the issue of whether
aliens are visiting or not.
> I am arguing against the file cabinet. The aim of my recent
> threads relating to paranormal aliens was to show that these
> liklihoods were never disproven, and that the possibility that we
> are being visited remains.
And always will. There is a possibility that aliens are visiting. That
means that they might be and they might not. So I'm sure you would have no
qualms about saying that you believe there is a chance that aliens are not
visiting.
> The original post to this thread stated right off the bat that
> it was related to a Fox telecast aired in the United States. You
> did not have to envelope yourself into the discussion if you did
> not see the telecast. I am not one to give people advice, but I
> usually stay away from a arguments that are about something that
> I know little about.
Are you arguing without logic? I hope your answer would be "no". I can see
bad logic when it comes my way. It isn't necessary to even know what an
argument is about to determine whether it is a valid argument or not. Your
arguments are invalid or worthless. That has been demonstrated to you time
and time again by lots of different people. You still don't understand the
difference between the details of an argument (whether it is about aliens,
cows, colours, prime numbers, etc.) and the form of an argument (if A then
B, A therefore B). I'm applying my rudimentary knowledge of logic to your
arguments and I can already see that even without reference to the
substance of your argument your position is flawed.
> > > You never attempted the challenge either. You simply
> > > posted OFF-TOPIC grammar attacks that had nothing to
> > > do with the thread.
> >
> > Hello? Are you seriously this dense? I can prove the challenge to be
> > unwinable. Therefore, it is not a challenge. It's just a smokescreen. A
> > challenge would be something along the lines of, "Prove that aliens are
> > visiting and I'll give you a signed photo". This is winable. All you have
> > to do is provide proof that aliens are visiting. Proof that would convince
> > any reasonable person. Such as: an alien (dead or alive), a vehicle that
> > could be demonstrated to have been built on another planet, a signed
> > affadavit from the occupants of the nearest inhabited planet to the effect
> > that, yes, they did visit us while back, built the pyramids and moved the
> > equator. In fact, take this as my second challenge to you. I notice you
> > remained remarkably and very suspiciously quiet about the Lemon Challenge.
>
> We have provided mounds of evidence. The problem is with the
> Pseudo-Skeptic automatically assuming everything to be false,
> even though it was not PROVEN to be false. Please refer to my
> other thread titled "My Challenge to the Skeptics," for more
> info on the purpose of my challenge.
You are still avoiding the question of the Lemon Challenge. And my alien
challenge.
> > > This is really common, just look at all of the other threads.
> > > The only people who really reply to a post are those who
> > > question them, or those who oppose them. The people that
> > > agree with the post do not usually reply.
> >
> > By that logic I assume that as many people are agreeing with me as with
> > you. And the same again for each of the other people disagreeing with
> > you. That means that you are still very much in the minority.
>
> Are you automatically assuming this negative, or do you
> somehow know for sure?
Hey, it's your logic. You tell me if you were assuming the negative or
not.
> > > It has already been proven
> > > that the Pseudo-Skeptic automatically assumes a negative even
> > > when such a negative cannot be proven in the first place.
> >
> > But you do the same. Every night and day you operate on that same
> > principle. How do you know that just as you are lying down on your bed to
> > go to sleep a huge spike isn't going to penetrate the bed and
> > yourself? Have you disproved the possibility? No. You assume that it won't
> > happen (or you have a death wish and are constantly dissappointed). It can
> > never be disproved that a huge spike will impale you as you lie down
> > before you actually lie down. So why do you lie down when the possibility
> > of impending death is there? Do you want to die?
>
> Again, you are missing the point of the argument. I pointed
> out in both these recent posts that the Pseudo-Skeptic has
> never disproved the likelihood of our being visited by aliens.
Answer my questions.
> > > They
> > > simply say "Its not my job, so who cares anyhow,"
> >
> > Is it their job? Or are they lawyers, doctors, businessmen that actually
> > do the things they are paid to do? Why should they let their job suffer
> > because somebody thinks he saw an alien last night? If it isn't their job
> > they shouldn't be doing it. Are you a medical doctor? If you saw a man
> > collapse with chest pains would you cut open his chest and fix him? Or
> > would you alert somebody who knew what they were doing? If it isn't your
> > job or your duty you needn't be doing it. It is your duty to phone an
> > ambulance. It is not your duty to put a man's life at risk by performing a
> > technique you saw on ER. If it is not your job to perform heart surgery
> > you shouldn't be doing it. You don't have the training or the
> > experience. If it isn't someone's job to analyse claims about the
> > paranormal they shouldn't be doing it. They won't have the training or the
> > experience. They will make mistakes and may wrongfully conclude that a
> > piece of evidence is good. Or is this what you want?
>
> Oh, man. Here we go with "Purple Cow Arguments," again.
Oh brother, here we go again. Let me guess - answering a point raised by
you is off-topic, right?
> I never
> wrote that everybody should quit their current jobs and only
> research the liklihoods of our being visited by aliens.
Did I say you did?
> You are
> once again avoiding the ACTUAL argument. I wrote that people
> should take their time and look at the evidence at hand. I never
> asked anyone to give up their entire lifestyles as doctors etc.
YOU were the one outraged by the unwillingness of Pseudo-Skeptics to
thoroughly analyse evidence of alien visitation presented to them. The
definition of a Pseudo-Skeptic that you gave earlier specified nothing
about a particular career path. Therefore they can be doctors, lawyers,
chefs, window cleaners, etc. I was questioning your apparant outrage at
the fact that these people were not doing something that was neither part
of their job nor their duty to do (as was made clear by the fact that
they said it wasn't their job to do such a thing). I want to know why you
think these people, who are clearly not being employed to analyse
evidence of alien visitation (deduced because of your statement from
them, "It's not my job"), SHOULD care about evidence of alien
visitation. Why do you want to force them to care about the same things
you do?
> I am trying to get our society OUT of the Dark Ages, I am not
> trying to set it deeper. This is the shrewdest example of a
> "Purple Cow Argument" that you have yet to post.
I think you've read too much into it. It's not a clever PCA(TM) hidden
beneath a benign example, it's just a benign example. When you hear hooves
do you think of horses or zebras?
> -Here is an example of an Off-Topic purple cow argument-
> What if I have cancer? What if someone discovers a cure for my
> cancer, and my doctor is a Pseudo-Skeptic who automatically assumes
> the cure to be a hoax? What if I die? Would he simply say that
> he does not care because it was not his job to find a cure in
> the first place?
Oh, is THIS what you think a Pseudo-Skeptic is? Someone that assumes
EVERYTHING false? I thought they only thought this of things like evidence
of alien visitation.
Assuming I am right in thinking that you believe Pseudo-Skeptics to
believe everything false there is a flaw in your logic. Such a person
could never survive. He would starve to death shortly after becoming a
Pseudo-Skeptic. He wouldn't believe in anything - not even his own
existence. Even if we allow him the dignity of believing things false
until they are proven true he will die. I'm sure you know (or have been
told) that nothing can be proven about the "real world". It's impossible
to absolutely prove that food exists, so to our Pseudo-Skeptic food
doesn't exist. Therefore he wouldn't eat it. Therefore he would
die. Therefore Pseudo-Skeptics don't exist (for very long) and they
certainly wouldn't be able to argue with anyone - they wouldn't believe in
them.
It's no wonder that I've never met a Pseudo-Skeptic. The poor things.
> (I do not mean anything by this Purple Cow
> Argument, I am pointing out that with these Off-Topic arguments
> you can confuse the reader into thinking about something other
> then what is actually being discussed in the discussion.)
And we must stifle thought. We don't want to encourage critical thinking.
> I know
> that even if you are a Pseudo-Skeptic you don't want people to
> die, and neither do I.
A Pseudo-Skeptic, by your apparant definition, wouldn't care one way or
another - he wouldn't believe in people.
> If I did not write this justification,
> my above example may have confused people into thinking that.
> The fact of the matter is that you cannot disprove the liklihoods
> of our being visited by aliens, nor the referred to evidence from
> the recent Fox telecast. It is still your choice if you want to
> allow yourself to accept these possibilities or not. I am not
> the bad guy here. I am just the writer of the posts from Flagship1.
Why can't he write them himself?
Mark_H
Mark
You are wrong. I've attacked the logic of your arguments, demonstrating
with the use of examples the inconsistent conclusions that they lead
to. Your arguments are either invalid or worthless.
> > > Their only
> > > hope at defending themselves is to create an OFF-TOPIC argument
> > > and attempt to disprove that in place of mine with possible
> > > hopes of confusing the reader. Why don't you try to disprove
> > > my "ACTUAL" argument. Come on Mark, why don't you give it a
> > > try? Hmm. Is that a purple cow, I see?
> >
> > Oh dear. More goading. I thought I had seen the last of that infantile
> > behaviour when I left primary school. What's next? Are you going to
> > "double-dare" me?
>
> O.K. I "double-dare" you to attempt to attack my ACTUAL argument.
Well, seeing as I've already picked them apart and shown them to be either
invalid or worthless I don't think I'll bother to do it again. I'll refer
you to my earlier posts.
> All I seen were grammar attacks.
I've corrected some (repeated) misuse of punctuation. Is that what you are
referring to? Or are you referring to my attacks on the "grammar" of your
arguments? The logical syntax beneath them? Because I have used this valid
method of argument to demonstrate the fallacies in your propositions.
> You never made an actual
> attempt at trying to disprove or counter any of my arguments.
You have never even begun to broach any of the countless arguments and
challenges that I have put to you, whilst I have repeatedly shown your
arguments to be worthless or invalid.
> > In an attempt to start again, I'm going to ask you to condense your
> > arguments down so that I can present my views on them once and once
> > only. When you reply to this, take a paragraph to explain each of your
> > arguments. Then I'll reply to them. How does that sound? You are quite
> > welcome to cut and paste from your old posts, if you like.
> >
> > I look forward to evaluating your arguments.
>
> Is that a purple cow I see over there? Please note that the
> referred to material from the recent Fox telecast was never
> disproven beyond all reasonable doubts.
That's your argument? That's your entire argument? You condensed your
arguments down into "Is that a purple cow I see over there? Please note
that the referred to material from the recent Fox telecast was never
disproven beyond all reasonable doubts"? What kind of argument is
that? The weakest kind. The straightforward evasion of a direct
question. Could it be that you have something to hide? A lack of any good
arguments, perhaps?
Mark_H
Widdershins
wrote:
Sorry, Mark, I have to chime in here. This whole thread is
beginning to give me a migraine.
>On Mon, 8 May 2000, Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote:
>
snip
>> > > I can only point out that it is a fact that the
>> > > liklihoods of our being visited by paranormal alien spacecrafts
>> > > were never disproven.
Hold it right there. Flaggie, you have repeatedly been shown
that it is logically impossible to prove a negative. You were also
told so by that beacon of reason in alt.paranormal, Bruce Daniel
Kettler. You haven't been able to get your mind around that fact
though it has been repeated many times by more than one person.
Tell you what: I propose a counter-challenge. If you undertake this
challenge, and are successful, I will take your challenge. The counter
challenge is this: I aver that I am the Supreme Being in the entire
universe. You must disprove my assertion. You must erase all
reasonable doubt my claim. I will answer all your questions
regarding this claim.
When you have successfully completed this challenge, I will
undertake yours. Sound fair?
Oh, and I'll release you from my killfile to see if you take the
challenge, or not.
Widdershins
Ken Bowden
wang...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> >> >There was a sharp turn and "increase" in acceleration of the object.
> >> >I find it hard to believe that it was an ordinary piece of ice
> >> >or space debris.
> >>
> >> I realise that. That comes about because you don't understand
> >> physics, optics, perspective, depth, or science in general.
> >
> >I have a vast understanding of many of these issues.
>
> It's obvious to everyone Flaggy, that you do not in fact understand
> basic physics, optics or anything. If you did, then you would
> understand basic newtonian physics.
Tell us, Learned Man, how ancient monuments such as the Lines, the
pyramids and any of scores of other artifacts which still confound the
world's leading researchers were built.
There is more between Heaven and Earth than what your ego can handle.
-- Ken
Ken Bowden
wang...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> Any theory that ancient Egyptians could not build such monuments come
> from pyramidiots who assume that ancient man was incapable of creative
> thought. It all comes about because when European explorers got
> there, they looked at the locals, saw that they had no steam trains,
> no "civilisation" therefore could not have constituted such great
> works.
>
>
>
>
> Hey, cool idea on the plasmaman website huh? Hope you make lots of
> money out of the film. Keep up the conspiracy stuff, but pitch it to
> Hollywood.
>
For many years, while a natural sciences student at Humboldt, I felt as
you did: that there was a reason for everything and that without much
effort, I could know those reasons. My life took a different path,
however. Perhaps we should agree to disagree?
You have my appreciation for answering my questions directly and without insult.
There are no plans to sell my brother's story to Hollywood that I know of,
nor would we be interested in such a sale. My brother appears on radio
shows covering such topics regularly. I invite you to listen.
Ken Bowden
wang...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> OK, I will. Does it come across net radio?
>
> BY the way, go here:
>
> http://www.netdesignlab.com/phactboard/messages/1015.html
>
>
> more on Pyramids.
Thank you for the link. I believe Russell's next appearance, with
Australian host David John Oates, is widely syndicated in Austrailia.
Ken Bowden
wang...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> Seriously though, I'm interested in why you can maintain a website,
> which purports to expose all sorts of conspiracies, send all sorts of
> stuff across the web, and yet you are not afraid of Echelon.
>
That's quite easy. People like you dismiss stories like Russell's. We pose
no real threat to any superstructre of control on the peoples of the
world. If we did, we simply would no longer exist.
-- Ken
Widdershins
<wang...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>On 08 May 2000 19:00:56 EDT, sini...@concentric.net (Widdershins)
>wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>>The counter
>>challenge is this: I aver that I am the Supreme Being in the entire
>>universe.
>
>I've always believed that Widdy. I have an altar in your honour
>
>> You must disprove my assertion. You must erase all
>>reasonable doubt my claim. I will answer all your questions
>>regarding this claim.
>>
>>When you have successfully completed this challenge, I will
>>undertake yours. Sound fair?
>>
>>Oh, and I'll release you from my killfile to see if you take the
>>challenge, or not.
>>
>>Widdershins
>>
>>
>
>
>Wally
>Archbishop of the One, Only and Everlasting True Church of
>Widdershins, Supreme Being of the Universe.
I will see that you're well looked after in the afterlife.
Widdy
Maybe a sainthood.
Lance C. Johnson
sini...@concentric.net (Widdershins) wrote:
> On Mon, 8 May 2000 23:10:16 +0100, Mark <mk...@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> Sorry, Mark, I have to chime in here. This whole thread is
> beginning to give me a migraine.
> >
> snip
> >> > > I can only point out that it is a fact that the
> >> > > liklihoods of our being visited by paranormal alien
> spacecrafts
> >> > > were never disproven.
> that it is logically impossible to prove a negative. You were also
> told so by that beacon of reason in alt.paranormal, Bruce Daniel
> Kettler. You haven't been able to get your mind around that fact
> though it has been repeated many times by more than one person.
> Tell you what: I propose a counter-challenge. If you undertake this
> counter
> challenge is this: I aver that I am the Supreme Being in the
> entire
> reasonable doubt my claim. I will answer all your questions
> regarding this claim.
> When you have successfully completed this challenge, I will
> undertake yours. Sound fair?
> Oh, and I'll release you from my killfile to see if you take the
> challenge, or not.
> Widdershins
You realize what he's going to say, don't you? He's going to say "You
seem to be missing my point. Please keep in mind that I was mainly
discussing the special that appeared on FOX. Your remarks are
OFF-TOPIC and are an attempt to confuse the reader. Why don't you
address my point?" ...Or some crap like that.
See, Flagship truly doesn't understand the concept of making
comparisons to show that an argument is faulty. It completely alludes
him. My theory? He's delusional.
Lance C. Johnson
> arguments and
> > challenges that I have put to you, whilst I have repeatedly
> shown your
> > arguments to be worthless or invalid.
> You never attempted to show that the ACTUAL argument relating
> to paranormal aliens visiting our planet is faulty.
Further proof of the delusions of Flagship 1. Mark showed that your
logic was faulty...his grammar corrections were something else
altogether.
Flagship, you really are hopeless. How come so many of us can
understand what Mark is saying, yet you are so totally confused?
Cyberia
I missed flagship's post on one of myfavorite subjects (STS-48 video
footage). DAMN !
Anyway...
Here are links, Flag, to someone (Jim Oberg) who has a bit more knowledge
about these matters than do you. The movement of the particle of ice was
caused by a firing of one of the shuttle's RCS thrusters. If you have any
doubt, check the second of these links, where the orbiter's telemetry shows
the precise timing of this firing. This issue has been explained far beyond
the required level of credibility, only a total *cretin* would continue to
cling to the UFO "explanation".
http://www.debunker.com/texts/sts48_ufo.html
http://www.igs.net/~hwt/zigzag.html
If you think you can refute this man's testimony, please have at it. I would
love to read it.
--
---------------
SeeYa !
--------------
Hello....... Is this thing on ?
"Wally AngleseaT" <wang...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:qggehs4sm3gk5adrm...@news.ozemail.com.au...
> On Mon, 08 May 2000 19:35:15 GMT, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
> <parano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Re: Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
> >
> >-Groups Removed-
> >alt.bonehead.flagship1
> >alt.usenet.kooks
> >sci.skeptic
> >
> readded.
>
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >> >There was a sharp turn and "increase" in acceleration of the object.
> >> >I find it hard to believe that it was an ordinary piece of ice
> >> >or space debris.
> >>
> >> I realise that. That comes about because you don't understand
> >> physics, optics, perspective, depth, or science in general.
> >
> >I have a vast understanding of many of these issues.
>
> It's obvious to everyone Flaggy, that you do not in fact understand
> basic physics, optics or anything. If you did, then you would
> understand basic newtonian physics.
>
>
>
> >This
> >is where you are missing my point. The fact of the matter
> >is that there is a great possibility that we are in fact
> >being visited by paranormal aliens. Please also keep in
> >mind that none of the material referenced from the recent
> >Fox telecast was disproven in this thread.
> >
>
> BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHZ!!
>
> Of course it was. The whole thing is a fraud, aimed at pathetic
> individuals like yourself, who swallow anything that is presented to
> them as gospel
>
>
>
> >> >What makes you think that it was ice etc? If you
> >> >do not believe in the existence of an ether, then how can such debris
> >> >make such a sharp turn in midspace?
> >>
> >> Flaggy, Newtonian physics alone should tell you this. Ever seen a
> >> leaf falling, and then have a sudden change of direction? It's
> >> usually brought about by a force operating on it to change it's
> >> direction. I usually attribute that to the wind. I don't believe
> >> paint flecks, leaves, or snowflakes and ice are operated by little
> >> green men or fairies. You obviously do, because you don't have the
> >> common sense to actually question your preconceived notions.
> >
> >Please keep in mind that I am mainly discussing the
> >recent Fox telecast aired in the United States. Can
> >you please rephrase your statement, and explain how
> >it relates to the recent Fox telecast? I may be
> >missing your point here.
>
> If you are unable to understand basic physics, and that an outside
> force operating on an object can change it's direction, then how can
> anyone explain anything to you?
>
>
> >
> >> >With the distance of the object from
> >> >the shuttle, how and why do you believe that its sharp movement was a
> >> >result of the reaction engines firing? How would this engine firing
> >> >result in the sharp angle of direction the object shifted, VS its
> >> >velocity? How would the firing of the engines cause the rate of
> >> >acceleration of the distant object to increase so rapidly?
> >>
> >> Ever seen the wind flaggy? what do you think the forces of a shuttles
> >> engines actually are flaggy?
> >
> >It is the fact that the object shifted in a direction that
> >is somewhat toward the shuttle then started to swiftly
> >accelerate at a rapid rate. I highly doubt that its sudden
> >movement at that extreme rate of acceleration was the
> >result of the firing of the reaction engines, as you have
> >termed them.
>
> Then you are an idjit.
>
>
>
> <SNIP>
Ken Bowden
<Pine.GSO.4.10.100050...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu>, Avital
Pilpel <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 May 2000, Ken Bowden wrote:
>
> > In article <tujehsgfnk12oedu9...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
> > wang...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Seriously though, I'm interested in why you can maintain a website,
> > > which purports to expose all sorts of conspiracies, send all sorts of
> > > stuff across the web, and yet you are not afraid of Echelon.
> > >
> >
> > That's quite easy. People like you dismiss stories like Russell's. We pose
> > no real threat to any superstructre of control on the peoples of the
> > world. If we did, we simply would no longer exist.
>
> <yawn>
>
> You are a perfect example of the type of people Isaac Asimov once
> described. To quote from memory:
>
> "Many people have a strong desire to feel themselves as rebels and heroes
> for a great cause. However, to rebel against *real* opressive governments
> or conspiracies (say, the Mafia) is very dangerous, and very few people do
> it. Instead, they invent all kinds of conspiracies by the perfectly safe
> "scientific establishment", so they can see themselves as rebels without
> risking so much as a hangnail."
>
> Avital Pilpel
Pseudo-intellectuals like you, in between buggering little boys, usually
like to quote Camus's boring thesis on the Rebel; that being, he is search
of values that work for him.
I, however, am simply telling of an experience that happened to my
brother. Should that frighten you or challenge your sensibilities, I'd
advise you not read my posts.
Truth often hurts.
Wally Anglesea™
<parano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Re: Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
>
>-Groups Removed-
>alt.bonehead.flagship1
>alt.usenet.kooks
>sci.skeptic
>
readded.
<SNIP>
>> >There was a sharp turn and "increase" in acceleration of the object.
>> >I find it hard to believe that it was an ordinary piece of ice
>> >or space debris.
>>
>> I realise that. That comes about because you don't understand
>> physics, optics, perspective, depth, or science in general.
>
>I have a vast understanding of many of these issues.
It's obvious to everyone Flaggy, that you do not in fact understand
basic physics, optics or anything. If you did, then you would
understand basic newtonian physics.
>This
>is where you are missing my point. The fact of the matter
>is that there is a great possibility that we are in fact
>being visited by paranormal aliens. Please also keep in
>mind that none of the material referenced from the recent
>Fox telecast was disproven in this thread.
>
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHZ!!
Of course it was. The whole thing is a fraud, aimed at pathetic
individuals like yourself, who swallow anything that is presented to
them as gospel
>> >What makes you think that it was ice etc? If you
>> >do not believe in the existence of an ether, then how can such debris
>> >make such a sharp turn in midspace?
>>
>> Flaggy, Newtonian physics alone should tell you this. Ever seen a
>> leaf falling, and then have a sudden change of direction? It's
>> usually brought about by a force operating on it to change it's
>> direction. I usually attribute that to the wind. I don't believe
>> paint flecks, leaves, or snowflakes and ice are operated by little
>> green men or fairies. You obviously do, because you don't have the
>> common sense to actually question your preconceived notions.
>
>Please keep in mind that I am mainly discussing the
>recent Fox telecast aired in the United States. Can
>you please rephrase your statement, and explain how
>it relates to the recent Fox telecast? I may be
>missing your point here.
If you are unable to understand basic physics, and that an outside
force operating on an object can change it's direction, then how can
anyone explain anything to you?
>
>> >With the distance of the object from
>> >the shuttle, how and why do you believe that its sharp movement was a
>> >result of the reaction engines firing? How would this engine firing
>> >result in the sharp angle of direction the object shifted, VS its
>> >velocity? How would the firing of the engines cause the rate of
>> >acceleration of the distant object to increase so rapidly?
>>
>> Ever seen the wind flaggy? what do you think the forces of a shuttles
>> engines actually are flaggy?
>
>It is the fact that the object shifted in a direction that
>is somewhat toward the shuttle then started to swiftly
>accelerate at a rapid rate. I highly doubt that its sudden
>movement at that extreme rate of acceleration was the
>result of the firing of the reaction engines, as you have
>termed them.
Then you are an idjit.
<SNIP>
--
Wally Anglesea™
wrote:
<SNIP>
>The counter
>challenge is this: I aver that I am the Supreme Being in the entire
>universe.
I've always believed that Widdy. I have an altar in your honour
> You must disprove my assertion. You must erase all
>reasonable doubt my claim. I will answer all your questions
>regarding this claim.
>
>When you have successfully completed this challenge, I will
>undertake yours. Sound fair?
>
>Oh, and I'll release you from my killfile to see if you take the
>challenge, or not.
>
>Widdershins
>
>
Wally
Archbishop of the One, Only and Everlasting True Church of
Widdershins, Supreme Being of the Universe.
--
Wally Anglesea™
Bowden) wrote:
>In article <qggehs4sm3gk5adrm...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
>wang...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
>>
>> >> >There was a sharp turn and "increase" in acceleration of the object.
>> >> >I find it hard to believe that it was an ordinary piece of ice
>> >> >or space debris.
>> >>
>> >> I realise that. That comes about because you don't understand
>> >> physics, optics, perspective, depth, or science in general.
>> >
>> >I have a vast understanding of many of these issues.
>>
>> It's obvious to everyone Flaggy, that you do not in fact understand
>> basic physics, optics or anything. If you did, then you would
>> understand basic newtonian physics.
>
>Tell us, Learned Man, how ancient monuments such as the Lines, the
>pyramids and any of scores of other artifacts which still confound the
>world's leading researchers were built.
Oh, NO, not the Pyramids Again??????
Ok, try here:
http://graham.neb.net/westernciv/theories.html
http://www.touregypt.net/construction/
Any theory that ancient Egyptians could not build such monuments come
from pyramidiots who assume that ancient man was incapable of creative
thought. It all comes about because when European explorers got
there, they looked at the locals, saw that they had no steam trains,
no "civilisation" therefore could not have constituted such great
works.
Hey, cool idea on the plasmaman website huh? Hope you make lots of
money out of the film. Keep up the conspiracy stuff, but pitch it to
Hollywood.
Wally Anglesea™
Bowden) wrote:
>In article <9biehsomlllvj9908...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
>wang...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
>>
>> Any theory that ancient Egyptians could not build such monuments come
>> from pyramidiots who assume that ancient man was incapable of creative
>> thought. It all comes about because when European explorers got
>> there, they looked at the locals, saw that they had no steam trains,
>> no "civilisation" therefore could not have constituted such great
>> works.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey, cool idea on the plasmaman website huh? Hope you make lots of
>> money out of the film. Keep up the conspiracy stuff, but pitch it to
>> Hollywood.
>>
>
>For many years, while a natural sciences student at Humboldt, I felt as
>you did: that there was a reason for everything and that without much
>effort, I could know those reasons. My life took a different path,
>however. Perhaps we should agree to disagree?
>
>You have my appreciation for answering my questions directly and without insult.
>
>There are no plans to sell my brother's story to Hollywood that I know of,
>nor would we be interested in such a sale. My brother appears on radio
>shows covering such topics regularly. I invite you to listen.
OK, I will. Does it come across net radio?
BY the way, go here:
http://www.netdesignlab.com/phactboard/messages/1015.html
more on Pyramids.
>
>-- Ken
Wally Anglesea™
Bowden) wrote:
>In article <7bjehski2npru30u1...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
>wang...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
>>
>> OK, I will. Does it come across net radio?
>>
>> BY the way, go here:
>>
>> http://www.netdesignlab.com/phactboard/messages/1015.html
>>
>>
>> more on Pyramids.
>
>Thank you for the link. I believe Russell's next appearance, with
>Australian host David John Oates, is widely syndicated in Austrailia.
Oh no, Oates????? Oates???? The same Oates who supposedly had Benneth
on once? He's held in as much respect as Art Bell over there.
Sigh. The things I have to do to checkup on things.
Seriously though, I'm interested in why you can maintain a website,
which purports to expose all sorts of conspiracies, send all sorts of
stuff across the web, and yet you are not afraid of Echelon.
Scott Craver
>
>Tell us, Learned Man, how ancient monuments such as the Lines, the
>pyramids and any of scores of other artifacts which still confound the
>world's leading researchers were built.
Still confound the world's leading researchers? Really?
Can you name names? What "leading researchers" are incapable
of explaining how these things were built? What about the
lines, for instance, is so impossible?
>There is more between Heaven and Earth than what your ego can handle.
There are indeed wonders out there, just sitting there, ignored,
while you try to find space alien patterns in Jethro and Joe-bob's
crop circles.
The desire to blanket all the amazing things in the universe with
a single explanation that Aliens did it is a terrible dismissal,
turning your back on the awesome vistas of physics, of life,
of the human spirit. As another poster pointed out, much of the
belief that the pyramids could not have been built by people is
based on a characterization of ancient people as just plain stupid,
unmotivated, uncreative, as unable to cope without planes and
power tools as modern man.
>-- Ken
-Scott
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
Mark wrote:
> You are wrong. I've attacked the logic of your arguments, demonstrating
> with the use of examples the inconsistent conclusions that they lead
> to. Your arguments are either invalid or worthless.
I do not believe that I am wrong in regards to what I
have written above. All that you had to present were
grammar attacks and Purple Cow Arguments here. None of
the evidence referred to from the recent Fox telecast
relating to paranormal aliens visiting our planet was
disproven.
> > > > Their only
> > > > hope at defending themselves is to create an OFF-TOPIC argument
> > > > and attempt to disprove that in place of mine with possible
> > > > hopes of confusing the reader. Why don't you try to disprove
> > > > my "ACTUAL" argument. Come on Mark, why don't you give it a
> > > > try? Hmm. Is that a purple cow, I see?
> > >
> > > Oh dear. More goading. I thought I had seen the last of that infantile
> > > behaviour when I left primary school. What's next? Are you going to
> > > "double-dare" me?
> >
> > O.K. I "double-dare" you to attempt to attack my ACTUAL argument.
>
> Well, seeing as I've already picked them apart and shown them to be either
> invalid or worthless I don't think I'll bother to do it again. I'll refer
> you to my earlier posts.
This is not what you done. You only criticized the syntax
and grammar of my arguments. You never made an attempt to
counter or disprove the actual argument itself.
> > All I seen were grammar attacks.
>
> I've corrected some (repeated) misuse of punctuation. Is that what you are
> referring to? Or are you referring to my attacks on the "grammar" of your
> arguments? The logical syntax beneath them? Because I have used this valid
> method of argument to demonstrate the fallacies in your propositions.
You never produced a counter theory, nor have you attempted
to disprove the actual argument. You may have questioned the
syntax/format of my arguments, but you never challenged the
argument itself. The liklihoods of our being visited by aliens
were never disproven. This is a fact. You can question its
syntax, but it is still a fact. This fact was proven when
nobody attempted to challenge my previous thread. In this
thread, I am mainly discussing the recent Fox telecast that
relates to paranormal aliens being caught on tape.
> > You never made an actual
> > attempt at trying to disprove or counter any of my arguments.
>
> You have never even begun to broach any of the countless arguments and
> challenges that I have put to you, whilst I have repeatedly shown your
> arguments to be worthless or invalid.
You only criticized the STRUCTURE and SYNTAX of the arguments.
You never attempted to show that the ACTUAL argument relating
to paranormal aliens visiting our planet is faulty.
> > > In an attempt to start again, I'm going to ask you to condense your
> > > arguments down so that I can present my views on them once and once
> > > only. When you reply to this, take a paragraph to explain each of your
> > > arguments. Then I'll reply to them. How does that sound? You are quite
> > > welcome to cut and paste from your old posts, if you like.
> > >
> > > I look forward to evaluating your arguments.
> >
> > Is that a purple cow I see over there? Please note that the
> > referred to material from the recent Fox telecast was never
> > disproven beyond all reasonable doubts.
>
> That's your argument? That's your entire argument? You condensed your
> arguments down into "Is that a purple cow I see over there? Please note
> that the referred to material from the recent Fox telecast was never
> disproven beyond all reasonable doubts"? What kind of argument is
> that? The weakest kind. The straightforward evasion of a direct
> question. Could it be that you have something to hide? A lack of any good
> arguments, perhaps?
You are still avoiding the argument here. You are once again
only questioning its grammatical structure. It is a fact that
these issues of paranormal aliens visiting our planet were
never disproven. This is not a weak argument, because up to
now, all you were capable of questioning was its grammar
instead of its ACTUAL content. Once again, you never made
an attempt to disprove or counter the actual argument.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
-Groups Removed-
alt.bonehead.flagship1
alt.usenet.kooks
sci.skeptic
"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 08 May 2000 19:35:15 GMT, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
> <parano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Re: Paranormal UFOs Caught on Tape.
> >
> >-Groups Removed-
> >alt.bonehead.flagship1
> >alt.usenet.kooks
> >sci.skeptic
> >
> readded.
No Need.
> <SNIP>
>
> >> >There was a sharp turn and "increase" in acceleration of the object.
> >> >I find it hard to believe that it was an ordinary piece of ice
> >> >or space debris.
> >>
> >> I realise that. That comes about because you don't understand
> >> physics, optics, perspective, depth, or science in general.
> >
> >I have a vast understanding of many of these issues.
>
> It's obvious to everyone Flaggy, that you do not in fact understand
> basic physics, optics or anything. If you did, then you would
> understand basic newtonian physics.
What is leading you to this negative conclusion? I may be
missing your point here. I feel that I have a great
understanding over a majority of those issues. I do not
feel that our perceptions are limited to optics, though.
As a paranormalist I do not look for absolutes. I believe
that there is much more to things then what meets the eye.
Please keep in mind that I am mainly discussing the recent
Fox telecast relating to paranormal UFOs being caught on
tape.
> >This
> >is where you are missing my point. The fact of the matter
> >is that there is a great possibility that we are in fact
> >being visited by paranormal aliens. Please also keep in
> >mind that none of the material referenced from the recent
> >Fox telecast was disproven in this thread.
> >
>
> BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHZ!!
>
> Of course it was. The whole thing is a fraud, aimed at pathetic
> individuals like yourself, who swallow anything that is presented to
> them as gospel
You may be missing my point here. The liklihoods of our
being visited by aliens were never disproven. If something
is disproven, I usually let go of an issue. As long as it
has yet to be disproven beyond all reasonable doubt, I accept
the likelihood and I continue to ask questions and look
for the best answers. This is what I do as a paranormalist.
> >> >What makes you think that it was ice etc? If you
> >> >do not believe in the existence of an ether, then how can such debris
> >> >make such a sharp turn in midspace?
> >>
> >> Flaggy, Newtonian physics alone should tell you this. Ever seen a
> >> leaf falling, and then have a sudden change of direction? It's
> >> usually brought about by a force operating on it to change it's
> >> direction. I usually attribute that to the wind. I don't believe
> >> paint flecks, leaves, or snowflakes and ice are operated by little
> >> green men or fairies. You obviously do, because you don't have the
> >> common sense to actually question your preconceived notions.
> >
> >Please keep in mind that I am mainly discussing the
> >recent Fox telecast aired in the United States. Can
> >you please rephrase your statement, and explain how
> >it relates to the recent Fox telecast? I may be
> >missing your point here.
>
> If you are unable to understand basic physics, and that an outside
> force operating on an object can change it's direction, then how can
> anyone explain anything to you?
First, I understand that you do not believe in the existence
of an ether. Second, even with the presence of an ether there
is the question of what made the object (quickly accelerate)
in the direction that it did. There are also many more unknown
variables that can play a role in this issue as well. It is still
your choice if you want to accept these paranormal possibilities
or not.
> >> >With the distance of the object from
> >> >the shuttle, how and why do you believe that its sharp movement was a
> >> >result of the reaction engines firing? How would this engine firing
> >> >result in the sharp angle of direction the object shifted, VS its
> >> >velocity? How would the firing of the engines cause the rate of
> >> >acceleration of the distant object to increase so rapidly?
> >>
> >> Ever seen the wind flaggy? what do you think the forces of a shuttles
> >> engines actually are flaggy?
> >
> >It is the fact that the object shifted in a direction that
> >is somewhat toward the shuttle then started to swiftly
> >accelerate at a rapid rate. I highly doubt that its sudden
> >movement at that extreme rate of acceleration was the
> >result of the firing of the reaction engines, as you have
> >termed them.
>
> Then you are an idjit.
Invalad Statement.
> <SNIP>