|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 19:14:37 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| What would constitute evidence of ancient alien visitation? |
Anything ancient (pre-writing) with an unambiguous depiction of the first hundred primes would represent a slam-dunk, even if it's nothing more than a series of dots and separators, like this:
..|...|.....|.......|...........|.............|.................
Similar descriptions of any other scientific or mathematical truths of which we can be certain that ancient humans were unaware and for which there is no known natural generator would suffice. |
An excellent example of persuasive evidence. Do you have any speculative ideas as to in what form such (pre-writing) evidence (or anything of the same general nature) might be recorded?
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 10/04/2009 : 19:15:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Thank you, Kil! A calm and measured statement of reasoned skepticism, allowing for at least a modicum of imagination and sensible speculation in the pursuit of scientific truth. A relief from the near fanaticism of some apologists for "critical thinking". |
Kil's statement was different from anyone else's here how, exactly? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 19:18:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
An excellent example of persuasive evidence. Do you have any speculative ideas as to in what form such (pre-writing) evidence (or anything of the same general nature) might be recorded? |
Scratches on rocks? Laser etching in a titanium plate? What does the medium matter, so long as it's durable enough to last umpty-ump thousands of years? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jakesteele
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 21:31:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jakesteele
Could you please answer or opine on my simple questions? |
I already asked you some reasonable and simple questions that would need to be answered before your questions can be.Originally posted by jakesteele
Could you please answer or opine on my simple questions? |
Ah, the old "go mute and just repeat some questions" method of dodging discussion of uncomfortable issues.
The problem for you, Jakesteele, is that I'm perfectly happy with a "we don't know" answer to the questions you pose (and that's the only answer you'll get from me if you can't or won't answer my questions). You, quite obviously, have trouble tolerating unknowns like that.
|
Ah, the old "Law of the Avoided Question: Answer the question you would have liked to have been asked rather than the one that was asked. Who cares what the original question was, answer a question that you have prepared an answer for regardless (any question will do, as long as it is related to the subject… and sometimes not even then
And lest we forget: "Law of the “Official Story” (aka. Safe refuge in a harbor) – The Official Story is always right. If the OS says it was a weather balloon, then it was; proof positive, case closed. No question, no doubt, total acceptance."
***Dave W. - "But it's obvious that you do doubt the "Official Story," because a pilot saying "I dropped flares at that time" is a perfectly reasonable explanation, no more evidence necessary. But you think that that's not enough for a "completely definitive conclusion."
So you said you don't doubt the Official Story ("...no more evidence necessary."), then you refuse to answer a couple of simple questions that any debunker worth his salt should be able to answer off the top of his head, and now you say to me, "You, quite obviously, have trouble tolerating unknowns like that."
I think the reason you are so cranky is because of the cognitive dissonance created by holding two conflicting ideas.
If your revised statement is now, "We don't know and I'm fine with that" then what are you arguing about?
You accept the Official Story and now say there is no definitive answer but you still accept the Official Story...? |
Sacred Cows make the tastiest hamburgers |
|
|
|
jakesteele
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 21:42:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
jake said:
All right, let's do it this way: instead of ad hominem we'll replace that with insult.
If you think I am that wacked, then there's no reason to respond to my posts, is there? |
I did say that there is no nice way to tell a person they are wrong, didn't I? You appear to have no understanding of the scientific method. If I grant you the use of "quantum envelope" to mean the borders of our knowledge, it still won't help because you don't appear to understand what those borders actually are.
You should really set down your "investigation" of these "events" and try to fix the problems that are allowing you to fail to comprehend what science is, what it does, and how it works.
After that there might be some chance of having a conversation about these alleged "events" that is something other than you pointing at a bright light and going "ohh lookie! bright lights! I don't know what they are, but I'm going to reject the 1000 things I know they could be and insist on some one finding out exactly what they are, all the while I will ignore basic facts about reality and the scientific method, and I will act outraged when my ignorance is pointed out to me! BOOYA SKEPTICS! TAKE THAT!"
|
Yeah, right, sure, uh-huh. Let's go with what you said and you can do me a favor by educating me on this matter. My needs are very simple and few. I just need the answer to a couple of questions that any decent debunker should know immediately:
1. What is the explanation to the first sighting.
2. How long did the lights hover/descend over Phoenix?
p.s. the LUU-2 information was from the blog of Skeptoid who researched this part of the story...5 minute burn time. Did the lights last longer than 5 minutes? I don't know, please educate me?
Unfortunately, I'm noticing a pattern of trying to stray from the intent of my thread. All I wanted was to get some info on what I percieve to be unanswered questions about both sightings. I don't know if it's allowed, but I could just start a new thread and ask those two questions until someone gives the Official Stories' explanation or people say they don't know, which means it's very hard to accept the Official Story.
I am getting nothing too much more than one of the debunker's law:
"The Law of the Avoided Question: Answer the question you would have liked to have been asked rather than the one that was asked. Who cares what the original question was, answer a question that you have prepared an answer for regardless (any question will do, as long as it is related to the subject… and sometimes not even then."
|
Sacred Cows make the tastiest hamburgers |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 22:26:05 [Permalink]
|
Well, Jakesteele, it's good to see that your threat to ignore me was empty. There can be no meeting of the minds if one side simply refuses to communicate.Originally posted by jakesteele
Ah, the old "Law of the Avoided Question: Answer the question you would have liked to have been asked rather than the one that was asked. Who cares what the original question was, answer a question that you have prepared an answer for regardless (any question will do, as long as it is related to the subject… and sometimes not even then |
Except that my question was directly relevant to yours. As I said, it's impossible for me to answer or even opine on as it stands.| And lest we forget: "Law of the “Official Story” (aka. Safe refuge in a harbor) – The Official Story is always right. If the OS says it was a weather balloon, then it was; proof positive, case closed. No question, no doubt, total acceptance." |
Yeah, I'm sure the fact that I have expressed doubt of the "Official Story" directly to you will be handwaved away by you as a false-flag operation.
But let's ignore that, like civilized people. What did you ask? You asked:I would still like an answer to:
1. What is the explanation to the first sighting. |
And I asked:| Why don't you tell us again what, precisely, was the "first sighting?" Events are obviously being confused here. |
If you're unwilling to go even that far, and claim that I'm just avoiding your question or holding to the "official story" because I asked you for more information, then the problem here is obviously yours.
You also asked:| 2. How long did the lights hover/descend over Phoenix? |
And I asked:| Which lights, specifically? |
And instead of providing an answer, you just repeated your question. There's a lot going on in your head that make these "simple" questions not so simple.| ***Dave W. - "But it's obvious that you do doubt the "Official Story," because a pilot saying "I dropped flares at that time" is a perfectly reasonable explanation, no more evidence necessary. But you think that that's not enough for a "completely definitive conclusion." |
Is this you trying to answer my question? Are the flares allegedly the "first sighting" or are they allegedly the lights which hovered or descended over Phoenix?| So you said you don't doubt the Official Story ("...no more evidence necessary."), then you refuse to answer a couple of simple questions that any debunker worth his salt should be able to answer off the top of his head... |
Well, there's one of your problems: I'm not a debunker. You've concluded that I am, and now seem intent on doing nothing more than being hypocritically rude.| ...and now you say to me, "You, quite obviously, have trouble tolerating unknowns like that." |
Oh, I see what your problem is: you're assuming that I haven't changed my mind.| I think the reason you are so cranky is because of the cognitive dissonance created by holding two conflicting ideas. |
Just more insults (armchair psychology that flies in the face of the available evidence, no less), and no discussion.| If your revised statement is now, "We don't know and I'm fine with that" then what are you arguing about? |
So you're saying that asking you questions is "arguing?" No, you're annoyed that I do have answers to the "it's possible that it's aliens" crappola, which is why you've stopped discussing anything of substance, and have fallen back on insulting me.
By the way, I'd like for there to be a compelling explanation for all of these events. I'm fine with "we don't know" only in absence of any such explanations and people start trying to force-fit magical ETs into our collective ignorance.| You accept the Official Story and now say there is no definitive answer but you still accept the Official Story...? |
Yeah, see why you're confused? You've completely ignored the part where I agreed that if the flares lasted only 5 minutes, then they fail to be an explanation for a three-hour event (unless, of course, they were dropping lots of flares).
I don't give a rat's ass about the "Official Story" if it utterly fails to explain the events as actually observed. I don't actually have a dog in this race (you obviously do, and you're projecting reflexively), but I can certainly see that the "it might have been aliens" dog is so lame it never left the starting line. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 22:34:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jakesteele
Did the lights last longer than 5 minutes? I don't know, please educate me? |
You don't even know how long the lights were reported to have lasted?| Unfortunately, I'm noticing a pattern of trying to stray from the intent of my thread. All I wanted was to get some info on what I percieve to be unanswered questions about both sightings. I don't know if it's allowed, but I could just start a new thread and ask those two questions until someone gives the Official Stories' explanation or people say they don't know, which means it's very hard to accept the Official Story. |
Why would you demand to get either the "Official Story" or an "I don't know?" Why would only those two answers satisfy you? Isn't this just you saying that you're refusing to consider any answer but those which allow you to fill in whatever you want?I am getting nothing too much more than one of the debunker's law:
"The Law of the Avoided Question: Answer the question you would have liked to have been asked rather than the one that was asked. Who cares what the original question was, answer a question that you have prepared an answer for regardless (any question will do, as long as it is related to the subject… and sometimes not even then." |
It's so cute when they think they're being clever by repeating themselves. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jakesteele
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 23:14:53 [Permalink]
|
Can anybody on this site give me some definitive answers to the following questions:
1. What is the Official explanation for the first of the two sightings that started in Henderson, Nevada and lasted approx. 2 hrs. and traveled approx. 243 miles?
2. How long did the actual Phoenix lights last?
3. Did they last more than 5 minutes, which is the burn time of the LUU-2 flares that the National Guard stated it dropped?
|
Sacred Cows make the tastiest hamburgers |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 23:50:30 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| Scratches on rocks? Laser etching in a titanium plate? What does the medium matter, so long as it's durable enough to last umpty-ump thousands of years? |
Any attempt to find such evidence would certainly be aided by at least an educated guess as to what evidence they might be looking for and on what medium it might be recorded.
If some wealthy crackpot individual or institution had funded a search for historical evidence of ETV and had retained you to advise them on what to look for that would be, as you put it, slam-dunk proof of the premise of their search, I assume that you would give them the suggestions you made in your earlier post.
I think their next request might be for suggestions as to on what specific media that critical "message" might be found. Also, without some ideas as to what physical form this proof might take, it seems very unlikely that archeologists, paleontologists and possibly anthropologists might recognize such evidence, even if they were not looking for it.
A pattern of scratches on rocks identical to what you suggested might easily be overlooked by a professional, unless they were aware that something of that nature might be an important artifact. A laser-etched titanium plate would likely receive due attention. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 10/05/2009 : 00:36:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Mabuse......
You said:
Originally posted by jakesteele
As I stated earlier, if you open the door to the possibility of live elsewhere and haven't the vaguest idea of what kind, then bacteria is just as feasible as sentience until we find out differently. |
I disagree. Life on earth has evolved for 3.8 Billion years, and only had space flight for about 50 years. It took 2.5-3 billion years to move from bacteria to multicellular organisms. Not all stars capable of supporting life have that life span to begin with. In another billion years, Earth will be uninhabitable due to solar radiation.
Pick a random date in the history of life, and you're by far most likely to end up on a day when there were only bacteria on earth. Pick a thousand stars in various stages of its development, and they too are most likely to have bacteria. |
I wouldn't know, but it sure sounds like a pretty durable life form to exist in the sturm und drang and temperature of a developed star! |
Way to go nit-picking. You know damn well I meant the becteria were to be fond on life-supporting planets around those 1000 stars (picked for their planets with life on them).
In any event you are disagreeing with Dude, more than jakesteele, |
How so? Please elaborate.
Knowing what we know about the physics, chemistry, and life of earth, I feel rather confident that there's life on other planets. That's not the same as saying such life is visiting us.
I haven't read any of the UAP-reports of the "Phoenix-lights" so I have no opinon on the specifics of it, other than as natural explanations goes, alien visitation is so far down the list it's on the post-it sticker that once was on the backside of the book "Confessions of an Alien Hunter" but is now collecting dust under the fridge.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 00:43:33 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| Kil's statement was different from anyone else's here how, exactly? |
I didn't say that Kil's statement was different from anyone else's here.
But in thinking about it, I would offer that I feel Kil's statement:| I leave the door open this far. If evidence is ever produced (and I don’t mean mysterious lights in the sky) that aliens are visiting us, I would be willing to consider it if enough reputable scientists thought it was worth investigating. And that goes for all claims that we generally regard as almost assuredly false. We must be at least that open, which isn’t very, or we truly do become nothing more than debunkers. |
differs substantially both in content and intent to Dude's statement:.....in the absence of evidence for even the existence of alien life, what we definitely know (and can more or less prove via mathematics) about the physical constraints of the universe, and the total and complete lack of evidence for any ET visiting earth... how is it reasonable to leave any space for that possibility?
|
It appears to me that Kil's position is qualitatively different in intent (and affect) than Dude's! |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 01:00:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jakesteele
Can anybody on this site give me some definitive answers to the following questions:
1. What is the Official explanation for the first of the two sightings that started in Henderson, Nevada and lasted approx. 2 hrs. and traveled approx. 243 miles? |
jakesteele, perhaps you can point us to the authorities responsible for issuing "Official Explanations." I wasn't aware that such an organization existed. Are they not answering your calls or something? What makes you think we'd have better luck?
| 2. How long did the actual Phoenix lights last? |
I don't know. I wasn't there when it happened, nor have I ever been inclined to check the various footage that exists with a stopwatch. Eye-witness reports would probably be futile, since people are notoriously bad at estimating the passage of time. A person could stare at a 5 minute flare and later claim they watched it for 15 minutes. So we'd need uninterrupted video footage. Do you know where we can get any?
| 3. Did they last more than 5 minutes, which is the burn time of the LUU-2 flares that the National Guard stated it dropped? |
Sounds like we won't have the answers to any of these questions until you do a lot more investigating. So why don't you? Why are you here asking us? We aren't "The Keepers of the Official Story," nor are we an information booth. If you want answers, go out and look for them.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 01:30:17 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| I'm confident that even your crusty old brain can discern the alteration you have made between then and now. |
My crusty old brain would not dare, with it's 80-odd years of ever-increasing ignorance, to challenge your yeasty young polymathy! All I can do is point out to you that, in my statement....| To confess the whole truth, these events fascinate me, along with hundreds of other odd, curious, unexplained, mysterious, and highly suspect phenomena. The chances are high that 90+ percent of all this shit is pure, unadulterated bullshit or else extremely ordinary occurences of one kind or another. |
..... the referent "hundreds of other odd, curious, unexplained, mysterious, and highly suspect phenomena." was immediately precedent to the referrer "all this shit"
This sentence structure is completely in accord with Garner's Modern American Usage, the most commonly used textbook on the subject.
There is no alteration, I was talking about two different subjects in the two different posts. Sorry, Dude, not even a nice try! |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 01:59:39 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| Seems to me that you should have learned that any proposed ET explanation has to compete with the physics that we do know. We have reasons to believe that the sightings aren't aliens, so any hypothesis which includes aliens has to be more compelling than those reasons. |
I certainly didn't learn that truism from my 2008 experience on SFN because I didn't have an ET explanation for the puzzle that I presented, nor do I now. A large number of people on this forum assumed that I did, however, and some apparently still do. | We have reasons to believe that the sightings aren't aliens, so any hypothesis which includes aliens has to be more compelling than those reasons. |
There are certainly reasons to doubt that most sightings do not involve live alien beings, but I have heard no compelling ones here, on this thread, nor in the many pages generated in 2008. I personally think it is an interesting and entertaining idea to play with, but I am not, and never have been an advocate for the concept that all unexplained UAP sightings are extraterrestrial in nature. I do not believe that now, and I never have at any time in the past! |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 02:21:02 [Permalink]
|
Humme Humbert......
| That would be the problem of those who think it's occurred, wouldn't it? |
No, it would behoove Kil to answer because he introduced the subject. He also acknowleged his responsibility and responded. Kil said:| The point is, we have no reason to believe that they have occurred. |
and then responded to my query:| Evidence that would satisfy most reputable scientists working in fields where their knowledge would be considered expert in whatever evidence was brought forth for them to study. Since I am not one of those, I would have to rely on their expert opinions, published in peer reviewed journals, and not on internet blogs or forums. I really don't know exactly what that evidence would be, but I strongly suspect it will not be centered on mysterious lights in the Arizona sky. |
Which is a fair enough statement of doubt with which I wouldn't quarrel.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Phoenix Lights flare debris
