call for debaters

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:28 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
TEnginist wrote:I'm still not clear on "viable"--an eyewitness account is "viable as in a coherent hypothesis." I don't understand that--it sounds like you're saying that the account is part of the hypothesis--and i don't understand what you mean by "disjointed evidence."
I can see that you are struggling to understand this concept.

Thank you for struggling to express it more clearly.:)

Let us say there is an incident and we have several forms of evidence including eyewitness testimony. Let us say that all the other evidence, apart from the eyewitness testimony clearly evidences hypothesis "A". If the eyewitness testimony points to hypothesis "B" then you need to account for why all the other evidence is wrong. You can't ignore that evidence. You can however introduce an explanation for why the eyewitness testimony is wrong, as that evidence is in the minority and the most probable hypothesis "A" remains the most probable explanation.

Of course you cannot ignore any of the evidence. In general, being "in the minority" cannot be said to make a hypothesis less probably true--it all depends, of course, on the quality of the other evidence. You've given a specific kind of case where the other evidence "clearly evidences hypothesis 'A'." It's almost like saying, in a case where "A" is the most probable explanation, "A" is the most probable explanation.

Make sure you understand the eyewitnesses going outside from the Christmas party and that the landing indentations were actually rabbit scrapings which still cover Rendlesham forest today.

I don't know the Rendlesham case well enough to argue the pro-saucer side convincingly; but I will say that the seemingly stunning observations of Halt, the recording, the beam of light, etc. all happened not on December 26, but on December 28--long after the party. There is evidence that these things happened on the 28th, and, as you say, we can't ignore any evidence. (As I've indicated above in this thread, the cases I'm most familiar with are Roswell, the Washington National sightings, and the Portage County police UFO chase case--these are the cases I cover in my book.)


Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:In the scientific method, in science, any hypothesis must be falsifiable ( See Karl Popper).
TEnginist wrote:On a windy day, my friend Carl says that the wind almost blew his hat off. Carl's an honest guy, so I believe (the hypothesis) that the wind nearly blew his hat off.

1) Did Carl own a hat?
2) What was the official weather report on that day?
3) Was Carl in that location that day?

See how easy it is to gather more evidence? It's one of the easiest ways of debunking Alien UFO claims, to simply do a tiny amount of research to gather further evidence. Rendlesham forest is a clear example of further evidence debunking the initial claim.

I guess I have to see more clearly exactly what Popper meant by unfalsifiability. I was thinking of it being known that Carl owns a hat, that it was windy, and that Carl was around--and that, given those facts, the claim would seem not to be falsifiable...But I guess even what's supposedly known can be proven wrong. How does this principle fit into the UFO debate?


TEnginist wrote: I'm not following scientific method.
Then stop posting on a science based skeptic forum that requires use of critical thinking and the scientific method. You came here. We didn't go to you. . :D

I thought I was posting on a logic based skeptical forum. Surely you don't mean to say that science and logic are the same discipline. So are you saying that all logic that is not incorporated into the scientific method, no matter how cogent, how compelling, is to be ignored? (My original purpose was to find skeptical debaters for a UFO debate show on the Internet.)


1) How many of the eyewitnesses were drunk at the Christmas party?

Irrelevant re the sightings on the 28th.
2) Are the UFO landing indentations simply rabbit scrapings?

I don't know. What are the arguments pro and con?
3) Did the eyewitness stories change over time?

I guess some did (Penniston's story changed, I think). Are the changes relevant? What are the arguments pro and con?
4) How could the eyewitness read radioactivity on a meter that could not read the described low levels of radioactivity

I don't know if he did--what's the evidence pro and con?

Now balance out the most probable working hypothesis for Rendlesham forest.

Sounds like the makings of a complicated and interesting dialectic!

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Sep 18, 2017 9:19 am

TEnginist wrote: Of course you cannot ignore any of the evidence. In general, being "in the minority" cannot be said to make a hypothesis less probably true-
Yes it does, exactly that. You can account for one discrepancy with greater ease than many. Explain why you thought otherwise?

Do you actually know what the scientific method is?
Do you know what a falsifiable hypothesis is?


TEnginist wrote:I don't know the Rendlesham case well enough to argue the pro-saucer side convincingly;
Well then make that case the first to apply your basic critical thinking skills and application of the scientific method. There was no saucer. I have already linked you to the systematic debunk.

TEnginist wrote:...but I will say that the seemingly stunning observations of Halt,
Read the debunk. His eyewitness accounts change over time. I already told you that.

Haven't you ever wondered why detectives keep asking eyewitnesses the same story?


TEnginist wrote:I guess I have to see more clearly exactly what Popper meant by unfalsifiability.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf-sGqBsWv4


TEnginist wrote:I thought I was posting on a logic based skeptical forum.
You are not using logic otherwise you would have already understood what a falsifiable hypothesis is.

Matthew Ellard wrote: 1) How many of the eyewitnesses were drunk at the Christmas party?
TEnginist wrote:Irrelevant re the sightings on the 28th.
So the story they made up one the first day is still correct on the second day when they are looking at rabbit scrappings? Try harder next time.

Matthew Ellard wrote: 2) Are the UFO landing indentations simply rabbit scrapings?
TEnginist wrote:I don't know. What are the arguments pro and con?
The photos that were taken back then and now are identical. Are you now saying you didn't bother looking at all the evidence?
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham5.htm

Matthew Ellard wrote:3) Did the eyewitness stories change over time?
TEnginist wrote:I guess some did (Penniston's story changed
They changed. So which version of the eyewitness testimony are you going to follow? If you don't know, then drop it as bad evidence.

TEnginist wrote:Are the changes relevant?
Yes. They change according to who is paying him or what TV show he is on.

Matthew Ellard wrote:4) How could the eyewitness read radioactivity on a meter that could not read the described low levels of radioactivity
TEnginist wrote:I don't know if he did--what's the evidence pro and con?
It is set out clearly in Ian Ridpath's debunking. I now understand you have an aversion to reading actual evidence.

I suggest you drop your research until you are prepared to do the hard work falsifying your own claims. Alternatively, you should try a religious forum where evidence is not required and the scientific method is ignored.

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Mon Sep 18, 2017 10:25 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
TEnginist wrote: Of course you cannot ignore any of the evidence. In general, being "in the minority" cannot be said to make a hypothesis less probably true-
Yes it does, exactly that. You can account for one discrepancy with greater ease than many. Explain why you thought otherwise?

The single piece of evidence for "B" might be extremely strong, whereas every piece of evidence for "A" might be extremely weak.

Why so much unnecessary ad hominem invective?

make that case the first to apply your basic critical thinking skills and application of the scientific method.

I already told you that.

Try harder next time.

you didn't bother looking at all the evidence?

I now understand you have an aversion to reading actual evidence.

I suggest you drop your research until you are prepared to do the hard work falsifying your own claims. Alternatively, you should try a religious forum where evidence is not required and the scientific method is ignored.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:48 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:You clearly did not read my reference about mass hysteria. This is a real phenomenon, and can result of large numbers of people, not only believing something weird, but actually seeing it. Flying saucers are an excellent example.


I just red it. I agree that mass hysteria exists. I dont agree that all UFO sitingz can be dismissed az mass hysteria.

You want to know my motive for refusing to believe your story ?


Wut story? I dont hav a story, I hav an opinion on how to think about UFO sitingz.

It is the same motive as any other good skeptic. I am not willing to swallow any old story that lacks credible evidence.


Yes you are.

You immediatly aksept the 'normal' sounding explaneration for a UFO siting. The most prominent flaw iz that theze speculationz automaticly require the witnessez to hav sum sort uv severe mental defect. Most uv your posts on this topic propoze sum sort uv delusion and thats the end uv the story for you - no actual investigation into the witnessez mental fitness. The explanation bekumz the extraordinary claim, yet you require no evidens beyond the say so uv the explainerator.

Did you reconsider all the casez J Allen Hynek dismissed az swamp gas, Venus, baloonz, etc after he admitted he usually did not actually investigate sitingz wile employed by Project Blue Book?
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:29 pm

JO 753 wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:You want to know my motive for refusing to believe your story ?


Wut story? I dont hav a story, I hav an opinion on how to think about UFO sitingz.


That is an important point that seems to be getting lost in the mud.


JO 753 wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:It is the same motive as any other good skeptic. I am not willing to swallow any old story that lacks credible evidence.


Yes you are.

You immediatly aksept the 'normal' sounding explaneration for a UFO siting. The most prominent flaw iz that theze speculationz automaticly require the witnessez to hav sum sort uv severe mental defect. Most uv your posts on this topic propoze sum sort uv delusion and thats the end uv the story for you - no actual investigation into the witnessez mental fitness. The explanation bekumz the extraordinary claim, yet you require no evidens beyond the say so uv the explainerator.


What you just described, JO, is not a skeptic, but rather a cynic.

Many of the objections in this thread are not "good skepticism", they are in fact pure cynicism, and sometimes unnecessarily hostile.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:05 pm

xouper wrote:What you just described, JO, is not a skeptic, but rather a cynic.


You hit the nail on the hed. 'cynic' iz the rite word to clarify the situation. :)
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:44 pm

To Jo

On delusion.
Please do not interpret this as some kind of mental defect. It is a normal attribute of humans. We evolved the tendency to interpret things on the basis of incomplete data.

Imagine a Paleolithic man who sees grass moving. He does not stop to examine it thoroughly like a scientist. Instead, his brain screams "predator " and he runs for his life. This kind of delusion is adaptive, normal, and a part of the make up of every human. We see more than what the actual sighting conveys, because our vision is happening inside the brain, not in our eyes, as our brain builds a model of the world. That model will include things that do not exist, when expectation builds them in.

The same principle applies to flying saucers. An incomplete sighting is re-interpreted by the human brain as an object. As I have told you before, Jo, I am a lover of the night sky and spend a lot of time looking at it. I live in a place away from city lights and the skies are gorgeous. I have seen many things that would be interpreted as flying saucers, if I were so inclined. But unlike our Paleolithic man, I have learned to see what is there. Someone else will see alien spacecraft.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10156
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:51 pm

Lance: I want to quibble with your characterization of delusional. It is rather as you also say: ADAPTIVE.

You have two value laden words/concept in opposition to one another. I prefer the more pragmatic one. You choose which one that is.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:05 pm

Bobbo

I see your point, but in the context of this argument, it is not helpful.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:05 pm

TEnginist wrote: The single piece of evidence for "B" might be extremely strong, whereas every piece of evidence for "A" might be extremely weak.
Wrong. If you have several other pieces of evidence that point to hypothesis "B" and only one eyewitness testimony pointing to hypothesis "A", to to apply hypothesis falsification you would have to explain away the several other pieces of evidence one by one. as apposed to simply explaining errors in one eyewitness statement. Unlike other evidence which leaves physical re-testable evidence (ie finger prints at location, or half-life radioactivity, or photographic evidence) eyewitness testimony is not repeatable and thus is considered weak evidence.

TEnginist wrote: Why so much unnecessary ad hominem invective?
That is because you didn't read the evidence concerning systematic debunking of the Rendlesham Forest UFO claim using the exact methodology that we agreed to examine. If you had you would have immediately grasped :
1) The eyewitness reports kept changing as they were bad evidence,
2) Other eyewitnesses at the exact same location saw nothing,
3) The radiation measuring device could not measure the levels the eyewitness claimed he saw,
4) There was no remaining radiation for even more sensitive measuring equipment to pick up later ( half life)
5) The UFO landing indentations were mere rabbit scraping that are all over the forest,
6) The lights were identified as a lighthouse.

As you claim to be doing this on an academic level including citations ( footnotes) you would have to be deliberately misleading to not quote and identify this evidence.


I'll give you a debate
I propose we now have a proper debate using the Phoenix Lights UFO eyewitnesses. You will need to do your full research into this matter first, so I will give you a week to do this. I strongly suggest you avoid UFO fan websites and first review science, skeptic and the USA military's evidence (which generally does not appear on fan websites). We will then review the eyewitness accounts in light of this hard evidence.

Do you accept this debate?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:10 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Lance: I want to quibble with your characterization of delusional. It is rather as you also say: ADAPTIVE. You have two value laden words/concept in opposition to one another. I prefer the more pragmatic one. You choose which one that is.


I suggest, as we are going to look at a specific case, that we examine faults with the eyewitness statements on a case by case basis. For example, for the Phoenix Lights, if an eyewitness claims a light moving towards him, at night, is at 10,000 feet and no other human has ever been able to accurately guess the height of a light, in the same circumstances, in world history, then the original statement is at fault. That's why I'm saying case by case.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:24 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:I'll give you a debate
I propose we now have a proper debate using the Phoenix Lights UFO eyewitnesses. You will need to do your full research into this matter first, so I will give you a week to do this. I strongly suggest you avoid UFO fan websites and first review science, skeptic and the USA military's evidence (which generally does not appear on fan websites). We will then review the eyewitness accounts in light of this hard evidence.

Do you accept this debate?


That's not a fair choice.

Choose one of the three cases already proposed in this thread.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:36 pm

xouper wrote: That's not a fair choice. Choose one of the three cases already proposed in this thread.
It's a nine page thread, so I wasn't aware there were three set examples to examine. What are they?

Is one Bentwater, as mentioned by Gorgeous?

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:11 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:It's a nine page thread, so I wasn't aware there were three set examples to examine. What are they?

I started this thread in order to find skeptical debaters for a proposed UFO debate show online. The debates will be coordinated with a frequently amended book of best arguments, called The UFO Dialectic, the book and the debates working together to sharpen the arguments over time. The book presents the best arguments I could find pro and con the claim that some UFOs are manifestations of otherworldly intelligences; the book focuses, so far, on three well-known cases: Roswell, the Washington National events of July, 1952, and the Portage County police UFO chase.

In this thread, we’ve discussed the Washington National sightings in some depth. I’ll be happy to debate that case with you—as long as you make your points in a respectful way.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:16 am

TEnginist wrote: 1) Roswell, 2) the Washington National events of July, 1952, and 3) the Portage County police UFO chase.


Pick one and set out your eyewitness statements and citations for those quotes. :D

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19626
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: call for debaters

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:17 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:...Pick one...


Spoiler:
Hi, Io the lurker.

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:38 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
TEnginist wrote: 1) Roswell, 2) the Washington National events of July, 1952, and 3) the Portage County police UFO chase.


Pick one and set out your eyewitness statements and citations for those quotes. :D

As I said, I will debate the Washington National sightings with you--the chapter in my book that deals with this case comprises 22 pages of eyewitness statements, citations, and arguments; I can't reproduce this material in this thread. There are a lot of pages on the web that discuss this case--I think my book offers the best account that I know of, and it's available, but there are many sources. You can have a week (or any amount of time) to research the case, if you want.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:29 am

TEnginist wrote: I will debate the Washington National sightings with you--the chapter in my book that deals with this case comprises 22 pages of eyewitness statements, citations, and arguments; I can't reproduce this material in this thread.
Yes you can. The eyewitness statements are not copyrighted are they? As you are your own publisher, at Truth Engine Books, you can also load them up. Additionally under "fair use" legislation you can load them up for educational discussion.

What is the full title, publisher, and nominated author for your book? Is this it?
The UFO Dialectic: A Critical, Philosophical and Practical Guide to the UFO Debate Kindle Edition
by Richard Crist (Author)


Are you basically saying you don't want us to check your evidence and research?

PS I love the opening chapter in your book, saying Ufologists are like detectives. Detectives gather evidence for criminal investigations under the "beyond reasonable doubt" doctrine rather that civil "on the balance of probability" doctrine. I will be thrilled to see your evidence presenting alien UFOs as "beyond reasonable doubt". :D




Website for your publishing firm "Truth Engine Books"
http://www.truthenginebook.com/
"The cosmic forces, acting through the industry of the founders of the Truth Engine, are working to bring, finally, into full being what is to be the Earth’s most highly-evolved creature: a super-intelligence with a pure heart who will vastly accelerate the resolution of humanity’s controversies, thus providing us with extraordinary knowledge of what’s true, what’s good and what’s beautiful, and thereby bestowing upon us a paradise on Earth."

Good luck with this....... :D

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Tue Sep 19, 2017 3:10 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
TEnginist wrote: I will debate the Washington National sightings with you--the chapter in my book that deals with this case comprises 22 pages of eyewitness statements, citations, and arguments; I can't reproduce this material in this thread.
Yes you can. The eyewitness statements are not copyrighted are they? As you are your own publisher, at Truth Engine Books, you can also load them up. Additionally under "fair use" legislation you can load them up for educational discussion.

I'm not going to publish the content of my book on the Internet. There's a lot of material available to you for your research.

What is the full title, publisher, and nominated author for your book? Is this it?
The UFO Dialectic: A Critical, Philosophical and Practical Guide to the UFO Debate Kindle Edition
by Richard Crist (Author)

That's the book.


Website for your publishing firm "Truth Engine Books"
http://www.truthenginebook.com/
"The cosmic forces, acting through the industry of the founders of the Truth Engine, are working to bring, finally, into full being what is to be the Earth’s most highly-evolved creature: a super-intelligence with a pure heart who will vastly accelerate the resolution of humanity’s controversies, thus providing us with extraordinary knowledge of what’s true, what’s good and what’s beautiful, and thereby bestowing upon us a paradise on Earth."

Good luck with this....... :D

The books and debates fit into a larger system. There's a good description of the system at https://www.facebook.com/truthengine/. I see collective minds as belonging to real, collective, entities (cf. global brain, "metaman," Leviathan, etc.). it's my view that debate reform can vastly increase the collective IQ of the public sphere.

(I wrote the introduction years ago; on re-reading it just now, I saw parts I don't like. I just changed it to:

"The Truth Engine is a way to combine our many minds into a single epic intellect.

"The founders of the Truth Engine are helping to bring, finally, into full being what is to be the Earth’s most highly-evolved creature: a super-intelligence with a pure heart who will vastly accelerate the resolution of humanity’s controversies, thus providing us with extraordinary knowledge of what’s true, what’s good and what’s beautiful, and thereby bestowing upon us a paradise on Earth.")
Last edited by TEnginist on Tue Sep 19, 2017 3:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 3:38 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:On delusion.
Please do not interpret this as some kind of mental defect. It is a normal attribute of humans.


Just kuz everybody haz the same defect duznt mean its not a defect. But in this case, it iznt a defect, its a reaction that haz sum trade offs.

We evolved the tendency to interpret things on the basis of incomplete data.


You are exajerating this to account for UFO sitingz. Its an unreazonable overextension uv the prinsipl. By this lojik you coud dismiss virtually anything you havent experiensed for yourself.

Imagine a Paleolithic man who sees grass moving. He does not stop to examine it thoroughly like a scientist. Instead, his brain screams "predator " and he runs for his life. This kind of delusion is adaptive, normal, and a part of the make up of every human.


Surely you can see how your example iz a mismatch for a UFO witness.

I'll explain anyway.

1. Unless the caveman beleevz he actually saw the lion, there iz no 'delusion'. He saw evidens for a lion and reacted properly. Otherwize he woud be lunch, like hiz sientist caveman frend hoo stopt to take a careful look.

2. An unusual flying object prezents no immediate thret, so there iz no instinctual reaction to prevent closer examination. There iz no reazon for perseptionz to be warped. Many casez involve witnessez taking plenty uv time to try to interpret wut they are seeing and I hav yet to hear uv sumwun reporting flying tigerz, wich woud match your 'evolutionary adaptation' hypothosis.

3. Wy didnt the caveman imajin he saw a tyranosaurous? It woud be sumthing he never actually saw befor, so THAT woud be like a modern day UFO witness.

We see more than what the actual sighting conveys, because our vision is happening inside the brain, not in our eyes, as our brain builds a model of the world. That model will include things that do not exist, when expectation builds them in.


No. The model iz wut we expect to see. You hav not considered this point, even tho I made it at least a week ago. Your argument favorz peepl misinterpreting flying sauserz az passenjer jets more than passenjer jets az flying sauserz.

An incomplete sighting is re-interpreted by the human brain as an object.


You can reazonably uze this to dismiss the plain vanilla lites in the sky at nite sitingz, but wut about the serious casez we are suppozed to be consentrating on in this thred?

I have seen many things that would be interpreted as flying saucers, if I were so inclined.

Lance Kennedy wrote:That model will include things that do not exist, when expectation builds them in.


Therez a strong aspect uv arrogans to sum sientific authority telling a witness that he must be mistaken and then offering up all sorts uv speculationz that strech the imajination to the braking point.

If you pit Dr. Neil degrasse Tyson who wuznt there agenst a fiter pilot who encountered the UFO are you going by wut you want to beleev, the competing credentialz, or the most credible theory?

But unlike our Paleolithic man, I have learned to see what is there. Someone else will see alien spacecraft.


So YOU, amongst all humanz, hav manajed to defeat your inherited flaw?
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:06 am

TEnginist wrote:...and by agreeing to use but one set of rules, they bring into being arguments that are indistinguishable from the deliberations of a single great mind—a mind whose mental power far exceeds that of any individual human intellect.


Sorry, Rich. I'm on your side in jeneral, but your basic premis duznt work. Az all the 100 lesser playerz in a game agenst a chess grandmaster can tell you, IQ iz not additiv.

A super intellect will be created*, but it wont be a collection uv co-operating humanz.



*or haz alredy been. Just Google sumthing and look at the near instant number uv rezults. Then ask your smartest 10,000 frendz to tell you everything they know about the same thing. We mite be obsolete alredy!
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:38 am

JO 753 wrote:
TEnginist wrote:...and by agreeing to use but one set of rules, they bring into being arguments that are indistinguishable from the deliberations of a single great mind—a mind whose mental power far exceeds that of any individual human intellect.


Sorry, Rich. I'm on your side in jeneral, but your basic premis duznt work. Az all the 100 lesser playerz in a game agenst a chess grandmaster can tell you, IQ iz not additiv.

You're a great debater, JO, but I think you're wrong about this one. What if the 100 lesser players made each move together, collaboratively? Would anyone deny that "two heads are better than one"? Or would you deny that brainstorming works? There are many cases where two people in an argument come to a new truth that neither would have discovered on their own (the process is thesis vs antithesis producing synthesis). In general, an organization makes smarter decisions when more people participate in the process--suggestion boxes help a business, for instance, to run more intelligently--it's pretty well accepted that providing better communication systems within an organization raise the Organizational IQ (OIQ). And debate tends to disseminate true belief within an organization--improvement of such a process constitutes an increase in OIQ.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:46 am

On our natural delusion.
It happens. If you look up any of the numerous web sites that discuss optical illusions, you will be able to judge for yourself how your brain sees stuff that is not there. It is expectation. We tend to see what we expect, even when it is not there. That is why today, in tbe world filled with science fiction literature and movies, people see aliens. Before the scifi, people saw witches and demons. Both are non existent, but we see what we expect to see.

It is you, Jo, who is being irrational. In this world of over 7 billion people, if 1 in a million see an 'alien ' each year, that will be over 7,000 claims of aliens. When you look at it in this light, you realise that the hundreds of reports mean little or nothing. It just takes a tiny minority of the population mistaking a light in the sky with a mundane explanation to explain each and every flying saucer sighting. Occam's Razor.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:18 am

TEnginist wrote: I'm not going to publish the content of my book on the Internet. There's a lot of material available to you for your research.
I was only asking for your eyewitness testimonies and citations for the quotes to show the discrepancies. I now know why you don't want to do this. You remembered our little chat about conflicting eyewitness statements and conformity with other forms of evidence. :D

As you are on a skeptic forum, have you read the report by Philip Klass, a fellow of CSICOP (International Skeptics), our host, Michael Shermer's associate and senior editor for Aviation Week Magazine, who wrote the report on the 1952 Washington UFO Flap? Can you quote what he wrote was the cause of the lights? :lol:
PipSmith_DickSmith_Klass_Sheaffer_JohnMerrell_Randi.jpg


Do you have any photographs or videos of this 1952 incident? It was over two weekends. People did have cameras in the 1950's (I'm asking this because of the numerous fake videos.)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:24 am

JO 753 wrote: Sorry, Rich. I'm on your side in jeneral, but your basic premis duznt work. Az all the 100 lesser playerz in a game agenst a chess grandmaster can tell you, IQ iz not additiv.


I think the better statement would be "Highly intelligent or a complete moron......if you don't include all the evidence in your claim.......it isn't worth anything."

Sooooo Richard , would you like to set out the evidence you did not include in your book?
:D

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:43 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toFkU3OK7pI

Richard? Do you think this footage is from 1952?

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:31 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
TEnginist wrote: I'm not going to publish the content of my book on the Internet. There's a lot of material available to you for your research.
I was only asking for your eyewitness testimonies and citations for the quotes to show the discrepancies. I now know why you don't want to do this. You remembered our little chat about conflicting eyewitness statements and conformity with other forms of evidence. :D

Why focus on my book? There are many accounts out there. We're discussing a UFO case; let's stop talking about me.

As you are on a skeptic forum, have you read the report by Philip Klass, a fellow of CSICOP (International Skeptics), our host, Michael Shermer's associate and senior editor for Aviation Week Magazine, who wrote the report on the 1952 Washington UFO Flap? Can you quote what he wrote was the cause of the lights?

I'm unfamiliar with Klass' report, but I know what his opinion about this case was (temperature inversion, primitive radar, inept controllers)--please make the point that you want me to respond to.


Do you have any photographs or videos of this 1952 incident? It was over two weekends. People did have cameras in the 1950's (I'm asking this because of the numerous fake videos.)

I'm not aware of any photos or movies documenting these events.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:56 am

TEnginist wrote: Why focus on my book? There are many accounts out there. We're discussing a UFO case; let's stop talking about me.
The obvious reason is that you are making the extraordinary claim and therefore you must present your evidence.

I'm not really going to spend time finding more conflicting eyewitness testimonies am I?


TEnginist wrote:I'm unfamiliar with Klass' report, but I know what his opinion about this case was (temperature inversion, primitive radar, inept controllers)--please make the point that you want me to respond to.

Ah, so you have now identified that two official reports exist, Klass and the Blue Book that state temperature inversion, that there are no photos and the eyewitness reports are conflicting and in many cases they didn't see anything.

Now please explain to us, using your logic skills, what lead you to believe the eyewitness reports you did keep indicated the various lights, in some varied eyewitness testimonies, were alien UFO?
:D

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:03 am

xouper wrote: That's not a fair choice.
You mean.....picking his choice but not mentioning that one or our Skeptic Society founders was the snr editor or Aviation Week, lived in Washington and wrote an official report on the 1952 Washington UFO flap and wrote updates?

In court that's called "tactics".
:D

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:22 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
TEnginist wrote: Why focus on my book? There are many accounts out there. We're discussing a UFO case; let's stop talking about me.
The obvious reason is that you are making the extraordinary claim and therefore you must present your evidence.

OK. Here's the claim:

On two consecutive weekends, July 19–20 and July 26–27, 1952, two radars at Washington National Airport and one at Andrews AFB picked up targets that appeared to represent solid objects flying above Washington D.C., performing maneuvers that no existing human-made aircraft could have performed. There were numerous radar visual sightings of these objects. The prima facie conclusion is that these objects were manifestations of extraterrestrial visitors.

Now it's up to you to say why I shouldn't draw this conclusion.

I'm not really going to spend time finding more conflicting eyewitness testimonies am I?

More conflicting eyewitness testimonies? I don't know what you mean.

TEnginist wrote:I'm unfamiliar with Klass' report, but I know what his opinion about this case was (temperature inversion, primitive radar, inept controllers)--please make the point that you want me to respond to.
Ah, so you have now identified that two official reports exist, Klass and the Blue Book that state temperature inversion, that there are no photos and the eyewitness reports are conflicting and in many cases they didn't see anything.

I didn't "identify that two official reports exist." What "official" report did Klass write? What was the Blue Book report? To "state" temperature inversion isn't the same as making a good case for it. I didn't identify that "eyewitness reports are conflicting."

Now please explain to us, using your logic skills...

I'm not going to have a discussion with you unless you are respectful. Please stop talking about my motives and abilities.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Tue Sep 19, 2017 3:10 pm

I was hoping to see an actual discussion (or debate, if you will) of the issues, but without the usual shitfest of personal "commentary" that some people on this forum are famous for.

Is that too much to ask?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:19 pm

TEnginist wrote:OK. Here's the claim:

On two consecutive weekends, July 19–20 and July 26–27, 1952, two radars at Washington National Airport and one at Andrews AFB picked up targets that appeared to represent solid objects flying above Washington D.C., performing maneuvers that no existing human-made aircraft could have performed. There were numerous radar visual sightings of these objects. The prima facie conclusion is that these objects were manifestations of extraterrestrial visitors.

(Added) Two official reports were supplied explaining and providing facts that the false radar readings were simply due to atmospheric inversion layers, which are common and well known

Now it's up to you to say why I shouldn't draw this conclusion.

1) No one claimed to have seen any aliens,
2) No aliens contacted anyone,
3) The technical explanation concerning atmospheric inversion layers was officially provided and you didn't bother reading it.



Matthew Ellard wrote: I'm not really going to spend time finding more conflicting eyewitness testimonies am I?
TEnginist wrote:More conflicting eyewitness testimonies? I don't know what you mean.
You have to be kidding.
1) What percentage of people who gave testimonies didn't see anything?
2) How many people saw a red cigar shaped UFO with yellow windows?
3) How many saw blue lights
4) How many saw orange fireballs
5) How many saw comets without tails before sunset ( 8:20pm in July in Washington DC)
Which eyewitness report version are you using for your "It must be aliens" claim?



TEnginist wrote:I I didn't "identify that two official reports exist." What "official" report did Klass write?
You purposely hid the evidence that the CIA released an official report for Blue Book stating it was inversion layers. You purposely hid the evidence that Philip Klass released a report for Aviation Week, saying it was inversion layers. Both these reports feature heavily in most webpages discussing the event.


Matthew Ellard wrote:Now please explain to us, using your logic skills why you conclude these were alien UFOs.
TEnginist wrote:I'm not going to have a discussion with you unless you are respectful.
You have been caught consciously hiding evidence (official reports). You refuse to list and supply your own list of eyewitness reports. You have done no basic research into alternative normal explanations. Why do I need to show you respect?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:23 pm

xouper wrote:I was hoping to see an actual discussion (or debate).
Debates require someone gathers together all the facts first. This is an evidence based skeptic forum.

xouper wrote:Is that too much to ask?
Excellent. You can gather together all the various eyewitness statements, using your kindle device,for $4.34c, that Richard Crist refuses to supply.
https://www.amazon.com/UFO-Dialectic-Cr ... B0118E1T1A

The UFO Dialectic: A Critical, Philosophical and Practical Guide to the UFO Debate (Kindle Edition)
by Richard Crist (Author)


tags : Debunk skeptic UFO

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:40 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:I was hoping to see an actual discussion (or debate).

Debates require someone gathers together all the facts first. This is an evidence based skeptic forum.

xouper wrote:Is that too much to ask?

Excellent. You can gather together all the various eyewitness statements, . . .


Matthew, please pardon my failure to make clear I was interested in being a spectator, not a participant.

Nor do I particularly care when the facts are introduced, as long as eventually they all get in there somewhere.

:pc:

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:45 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:. . . Why do I need to show you respect?


Because treating others with respect (even if you feel they don't deserve it) is an honorable thing to do and shows you have class. I assume this goes without saying: showing respect doesn't weaken your position in any way.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:58 pm

xouper wrote: Matthew, please pardon my failure to make clear I was interested in being a spectator, not a participant. Nor do I particularly care when the facts are introduced, as long as eventually they all get in there somewhere.
Currently we have Richard Crist arguing for alien UFOs by refusing to provide his collected evidence and not doing basic unbiased research. How does that make him any different to Gorgeous, Omniverse, Alan Green (Salomed) , Zeuzzzz, Placid, Confidencia or the other "woo spammers"?

Well.... the obvious reason is that Richard Crist is attempting to promote his book. Alan Green tried that with his Shakespeare code book and promoting a "woo" book on a skeptic forum can cause blowback. :D

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:13 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: you didn't bother reading it.

I didn't even know what report you were talking about. It was your job to cite it, then I would've had to give a response to it.

You purposely hid the evidence...

You have been caught consciously hiding evidence (official reports). You refuse to list and supply your own list of eyewitness reports. You have done no basic research into alternative normal explanations. Why do I need to show you respect? [/color]

A blizzard of unfounded and unnecessary ad hominem insults. Why do you need to show me respect? Well, one reason would be to allow the conversation to continue. This "debate" is over.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:25 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: you didn't bother reading it.
TEnginist wrote: I didn't even know what report you were talking about. It was your job to cite it, then I would've had to give a response to it.

You came to our skeptic forum to debate for the existence of alien UFOs in the Washington 1952 UFO flap and then simultaneously refused to supply your evidence and "research", nor explain all the discrepancies in those same testimonies.

I had to inform you, as you did not know, for the first time, that there are official reports explaining what cuased the false radar readings. Find me any website, on the event that does not mention the Klass and Blue Book reports. :lol:

Why did you ignore and not read this evidence, when you knew it existed? Is that because, as you state, you believe alien UFOs are visiting earth?

Try a UFO fan forum. It's more on your level. :D

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:29 am

I'm interested in continuing the discussion about the Washington case.

I alwayz try to avoid hostility, so you dont need to worry about wasting time on unproductiv bickering.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:36 am

JO 753 wrote:I'm interested in continuing the discussion about the Washington case.
Excellent. Get Richard Crist to supply his evidence or download and post it for us under Fair use legislation.
https://www.amazon.com/UFO-Dialectic-Cr ... B0118E1T1A


Return to “UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest