call for debaters

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:20 am

JO 753 wrote: You havent been keeping up with subatomic reserch & theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles
http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.ijtmp.20140403.08.html

Jo 753? Not one of those links was an example of matter being turned into something else and back again. Please read your links before posting them.

JO 753 wrote:And you havent thot thru the subject at all.
Jo I studied radioactive decay of atoms at university so I could do carbon dating in anthropology. You don't know what an atom is. You have no idea an electron is. You are pretending that complex normal molecules can magically be turned into photons or some other mass-less thingee that can go faster then light and be turned back again. :lol:


JO 753 wrote:If you had, it may hav occured to you that we still hav quite a wayz to go in figuring out the nature uv the universe.
Jo 753, you fool. Scientist are yet to explain how existing observable phenomena works (like wave particle duality). There is no scenario of magical spirits turning from atoms to photons and back again that needs a scientific explanation. Star Trek wasn't a documentary.

JO 753 wrote:The Wiki article linked to, for example, never mentionz the fact that there must be a level below subatomic particlez.
There are 10 dimensions and time in String Theory Jo 753. The article doesn't mention that either. You need to look at the article on String theory, to read that. That's how articles work.
Do you have a point?

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

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

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:30 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Questions for Jo 753 and Richard Crist
1) Explain why highly intelligent aliens would slowly gather around Washington DC over some months, only during the evenings, and fly their spaceships in a totally random manner, that imitated false readings on a ground radar due to an inversion?

2) What specific communication, or message or activity or purpose did the aliens wish to achieve by imitating normal ground radar false readings for a few months? How did the aliens identify this was a
communication


3) Why did the aliens never come back to Washington DC when the ground radars were later updated?


Are you asking for speculation about possible motives? How is that even relevant?

What argument are you trying to make by asking those questions?

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:41 am

If eyewitness testimony is always wrong, as some people here seem to be claiming, then why is it allowed in court at all?

Or is it the case that each instance of eyewitness testimony must be refuted individually with facts and not by innuendo?

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

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:48 am

TEnginist wrote:I don't want to debate you any more. See definition #4: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charity

You specifically came to this forum. See definition #1 The forum motto: "The Skeptic Society : Promoting science and critical thinking."

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

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:54 am

xouper wrote: Are you asking for speculation about possible motives? How is that even relevant?
1) False readings by ground radar have been observed numerous times and can be repeated as an experiment.

2) Aliens in spaceships imitating ground radar false readings, have never been observed and there is no evidence aliens even exist, let alone imitate false radar reflections.

Therefore under what is called "The scientific method" what would be the more probable working hypothesis. 1 or 2 ?

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

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:56 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
TEnginist wrote:I don't want to debate you any more. See definition #4: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charity

You specifically came to this forum. See definition #1 The forum motto: "The Skeptic Society : Promoting science and critical thinking."


Yes, but the forum motto is not "treat others with disrespect and hostility", as you have done repeatedly in this thread.

In fact, your personal comments are dangerously close to being a violation of the rules of this forum:

Level 4: Repeated, off-topic personal attacks that continue beyond a single page in a given topic.


Not to mention that you have repeatedly violated the guidelines of this forum:

Never Forget that the Person on the Other Side is Human

. . . Do not attack people if you cannot persuade them with your presentation of the facts. Screaming, cursing, and abusing others only serves to make people think less of you and less willing to help you when you need it.

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

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:58 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: Are you asking for speculation about possible motives? How is that even relevant?
1) False readings by ground radar have been observed numerous times and can be repeated as an experiment.

2) Aliens in spaceships imitating ground radar false readings, have never been observed and there is no evidence aliens even exist, let alone imitate false radar reflections.

Therefore under what is called "The scientific method" what would be the more probable working hypothesis. 1 or 2 ?


Then what was the point of asking for speculation about possible motives (in questions 1, 2, and 3)?

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

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:04 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:1) False readings by ground radar have been observed numerous times and can be repeated as an experiment.


I do not dispute that fact. Are you arguing that this means that all anomalous radar readings can be dismissed as false?


Matthew Ellard wrote:2) Aliens in spaceships imitating ground radar false readings, have never been observed . . .


How do you know that?
Last edited by xouper on Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:04 am

xouper in this very same thread wrote:I've been informed that it is not my place to comment on other people's behavior on this forum.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=28569&start=200#p602574

xouper wrote: Yes, but the forum motto is not......
Can you just go away? Norma and Sweetpea followed me around the forum telling me what to do and how to behave. Have you taken over their job? Why don't you go pester them with your forum etiquette opinions.
Last edited by Matthew Ellard on Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:07 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: Yes, but the forum motto is not......
Can you just go away?


No.

If you feel it is OK to make disparaging remarks and whine about the behavior of others here, then you have no moral high ground to complain if you get the same in return.

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

Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:21 am

xouper wrote:I've been informed that it is not my place to comment on other people's behavior on this forum..
You're a bit mad aren't you? :lol:

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 » Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:45 am

:lol:

Chill out, Matt. Youre going off the deep end agen.

Pleez reread the last few pajez uv your repliez to me and untangle the stuff you came up with from wut I hav ritten. Then if you hav sumthing worth responding to, post it in a reazonably polite manner.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

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

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:55 am

xouper wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:1) False readings by ground radar have been observed numerous times and can be repeated as an experiment.


I do not dispute that fact. Are you arguing that this means that all anomalous radar readings can be dismissed as false?
Why don't you think for yourself rather than pester other people to do it for you? This is just one crack in your facade of being objective. You aren't. Its just an endless quibble all the way down.

Repeatable false radar readings is proof that anomalous radar readings cannot be taken as proof of alien aircraft. Why would you care if Matt got it right or wrong when you can figure it out yourself?

xouper wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:Aliens in spaceships imitating ground radar false readings, have never been observed . . .


How do you know that?


Because no one over 12 years old thinks there are aliens that visit Earth. An accepted baseline to be disproven with overwhelming evidence...... eg: an interview on camera.
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
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 24, 2017 2:11 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:1) False readings by ground radar have been observed numerous times and can be repeated as an experiment.


I do not dispute that fact. Are you arguing that this means that all anomalous radar readings can be dismissed as false?
Why don't you think for yourself rather than pester other people to do it for you?


I ask because Matthew's argument is perhaps not logically valid. It seems to contain the fallacy of faulty generalization (jumping to a conclusion based on a subset of the data).

So I ask for clarification in case I have misinterpreted his argument.


bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Repeatable false radar readings is proof that anomalous radar readings cannot be taken as proof of alien aircraft.


No it's not. It casts reasonable doubt on the claim, and increases the burden of proof by the claimant, but it does not refute the claim.

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

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 24, 2017 2:13 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:I've been informed that it is not my place to comment on other people's behavior on this forum..
You're a bit mad aren't you? :lol:


If it is not my place to do that then neither is it your place. If I am a bit mad, then by your logic, so are you.

Secondly, it seems no one noticed the hypocrisy of the person who commented on my behavior in this forum. Apparently that was too subtle for some people here.

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Sep 24, 2017 3:30 am

JO 753 wrote: Chill out, Matt. Youre going off the deep end agen.
Nope. This is exactly the same behaviour I offer to Gorgeous, Placid, Zeuzzz, the holocaust deniers, Freebill, Placid and so on.

If you come to the Skeptic Society, making a BS claim, then you get the same treatment.

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

Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Sep 24, 2017 3:38 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Why would you care if Matt got it right or wrong when you can figure it out yourself?
Xouper is just another Norma or Sweetpea. I'm used to my "fans" demanding attention. :lol:

xouper in this very thread, three days ago wrote: I explained that I would be spectating, not participating, and that it is not my burden to respond to your request for data.....
:lol: So why are you still asking me questions? Go away. :lol:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=28569&p=605287&hilit=participating#p605287

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 » Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:09 am

You are basing your entire case on temperature inversion. It haz been dismissed repeatedly, yet you keep reviving it, claiming it az a conclusiv debunk uv alien spasecraft.

Why dont you try offering a reazonable explanation that also accounts for the eye witnessez?
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 » Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:38 am

To Xouper

On this topic it is not necessary for skeptics to prove there are no aliens. Our role is to question the supposed evidence and point out that it is too weak to draw the conclusions that the alien believers draw.

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:42 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
JO 753 wrote: Chill out, Matt. Youre going off the deep end agen.
Nope. This is exactly the same behaviour I offer to Gorgeous, Placid, Zeuzzz, the holocaust deniers, Freebill, Placid and so on.

If you come to the Skeptic Society, making a BS claim, then you get the same treatment.


Except I have not made any BS claims here.

Big difference.

I do not deserve to be treated like a holocaust denier. You know that. And so does everyone else here.


Matthew Ellard wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Why would you care if Matt got it right or wrong when you can figure it out yourself?
Xouper is just another Norma or Sweetpea. I'm used to my "fans" demanding attention. :lol:


Sorry, but everyone here knows full well I am not anything like Norma or Sweetpea or a holocaust denier.

Your characterization is way off base, Matthew, and everyone here knows it.


Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper in this very thread, three days ago wrote: I explained that I would be spectating, not participating, and that it is not my burden to respond to your request for data.....
:lol: So why are you still asking me questions? Go away. :lol:


No.

I am entitled to change my mind and ask questions of the participants.

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:50 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:To Xouper

On this topic it is not necessary for skeptics to prove there are no aliens.


I agree. That's why I have not asked for such "proof".


Lance Kennedy wrote: Our role is to question the supposed evidence and point out that it is too weak to draw the conclusions that the alien believers draw.


I agree.

But in the process, when you make claims yourself, then your claims are also subject to the same skeptical process.

When I apply the skeptical process to your own claims, that does not mean I claiming there are aliens. I'm not.

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 » Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:53 am

Xouper

If you are, in fact, being a true skeptic, why are you tacitly supporting those pushing claims with insufficient evidence ?

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 24, 2017 5:07 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

If you are, in fact, being a true skeptic, why are you tacitly supporting those pushing claims with insufficient evidence ?


I'm not supporting them. You made that erroneous assumption all on your own.

You claim there is insufficient evidence for aliens. Perhaps that's true.

I will reserve judgement until I have evaluated all the evidence, pro and con. Like a good skeptic should.

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

Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:10 am

xouper wrote: Except I have not made any BS claims here.
That's right. Richard Crist and Jo 753 have presented their bull-shit claims. You are simply imitating Norma and Sweetpea by denying you are participating and then simultaneously participating.

As you are now participating, make yourself useful and post Richard Crist's logical conclusions on the Washington 1952 UFO flap, under fair use legislation, so we can see his wares. That is of course, unless you have changed your mind again.

Perhaps Richard Crist will enjoy the previous UFO debates

The Phoenix Lights as argued by Mary the holocaust denier and Jo 753. They had 700 eyewitnesses but could only find two to quote.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=25608&p=514880&hilit=Phoenix#p514880

"I was abducted by aliens" by Le Penseur who forgot that if you are taken to a secret UFO base and are posting on the forum that you needed to get home to post on the forum. ( He deleted all his posts to try again with new facts, on another forum)
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12898&p=192850&hilit=Le+penseur#p192850

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

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:50 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: Except I have not made any BS claims here.
That's right. Richard Crist and Jo 753 have presented their bull-shit claims.


Then complain to them, not to me.

It is not justifiable for you to dump on me for what someone else does.


Matthew Ellard wrote: You are simply imitating Norma and Sweetpea by denying you are participating and then simultaneously participating.


I am entitled to change my mind and ask questions of the participants, especially when clarification is indicated.

In any case, your unfounded accusation that I am like Norma or Sweetpea is not only uncalled for, it is dishonest. And you know that. You are not fooling anyone with your {!#%@}, Matthew.


Matthew Ellard wrote:As you are now participating, make yourself useful and post Richard Crist's logical conclusions on the Washington 1952 UFO flap, under fair use legislation, so we can see his wares.


I am not required to defend claims I did not make.

Besides, no one needs me to post it. Anyone who wants to see what he says in his book can do so for free, so it is not reasonable to blame me if you don't have that information.

In any case, I notice you have not answered all my requests for clarification of your arguments.

If I were feeling mean-spirited, I might be tempted to pull a "Matthew" and ask, what are you hiding, why are you avoiding my questions, are you batshit crazy?

But I'm not going to do that.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: call for debaters

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:45 pm

xouper wrote:
xouper wrote:
TEnginist wrote:My eBook, The UFO Dialectic, will be free for five days starting tomorrow. It's at goo.gl/ZkUVBU .


Thanks for that. Much appreciated. I look forward to reading it.

For those who don't want to click on a link that you don't know where it's going, you can also go straight to amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0118E1T1A/


I now have a copy of the book. Anyone else?
I DL'd it, but haven't read it yet. Will do so later.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: call for debaters

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:20 pm

JO 753 wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Hence the reason for my conclusions. Eyewitness testimony without supporting physical evidence creates reasonable doubt.
So all the MIB need to do...
Now you're creating a conspiracy to explain the lack of physical evidence?

JO 753 wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:The town drunk, the upstanding citizen, and the scientist are all equally subject to the limitations of the brain, which attempts to fit sensory stimuli into its model of reality...even if it has to delete portions of that stimuli, alter the perception of them, and fill in the blanks via assumption.
How often do jiant flying discs land at major airports and disembark weird creaturez? Must happen fairly often and everybody just "deletes, alterz and fillz in the blanks to fit their model uv reality."
That's not the content of the overwhelming majority of testimony in which claims of seeing a UFO—and let's remember that means a flying object that has not been identified—are transformed into claims of seeing an alien spacecraft, i.e., the witness is not testifying to the characteristics of what he has actually seen, but is making an erroneous conclusion in identifying the UFO based on his own biases. If I were an attorney, my objections would be:
• assumes facts not in evidence
• calls for speculation
• calls for a conclusion
• improper characterization of evidence
• narrative (not factual) testimony

JO 753 wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:One doesn't presume that eyewitness testimony is factual unless it can be proven not to be.
True. But you also do not prezume its false just kuz you dont like it.
But you can presume it's true because you do like it? When the eyewitness testimony alleges extraordinary events, I absolutely can presume it's false in the absence of supporting evidence. Do you accept Gorgeous' contentions that she has had OBEs, has interacted with aliens, possesses precognition, etc? Or do you presume her witness testimony is false since she claims extraordinary events without supporting evidence?

JO 753 wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:The burden of proof lies on the witness to prove his testimony factual; it's not on me to disprove it.
Suppoze he can not. Suppoze its sumthing you really care about.
Now you're asking me to suspend my disbelief based on my emotional attachment to the issue...which is exactly what you're doing. That's no way to judge evidence, because it would result in believing people who claimed to have seen ghosts, Bigfoot, faeries, and other supernatural phenomena, simply because you were emotionally attached to the claim being true.

JO 753 wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Example: I sat on a jury for the trial of a man accused by his former girlfriend of assault and battery. Two witnesses testified to the alleged crime. Based solely on the content of their testimony, it was clear that both were lying. One witness was 20 meters away and in the process of getting a permanent wave. She was nearsighted and not wearing her glasses when the alleged event occurred. The other witness was standing outside, approximately a meter from the plate glass window of the salon...and the time of day and orientation of the salon proved that she could not have seen anything inside the salon, because the sun would have been reflecting from the glass, presenting her with only a reflection of herself and the environs outside. Interestingly, several others who were present when the alleged event occurred, and who were in a position to accurately testify, were not called by the prosecution.

Both witnesses lied, and it was evident from their own words. Had I accepted their testimony as factual, an innocent man would have been convicted. However, during deliberation, I presented my argument to my fellow jurors, backing it up with the physical evidence the prosecution provided and which I requested, and convinced them the case was fraudulent. All jurors except me were ready to make their decisions the instant we began deliberating, and their decisions were based on the testimony of the two witnesses.
But there are a few problemz with this az an example for your pozition on eyewitness testimony.

Az you prezented it here, it wuznt their own wordz that discredited them, it wuz evidens uncovered in an investigation.
Read it again. It was their own words that discredited them. The first witness admitted that she wasn't wearing her glasses, and testified to her own nearsightedness. The second witness described her location and, given the time of day, she could not have seen the events to which she testified. I picked up on this, then used the physical evidence during deliberation to support MY testimony that both witnesses were lying.

JO 753 wrote:I never claimed witness testimony outwayed fizikl or sercumstantial evidens or lojik.
Yet we've discussed the logic of a number of different witness statements, and you've chosen to find illogical reasons to believe them, like the MIB, the possibility of technology that could defy the laws of the universe, alien civilizations spanning the galaxy, etc.

JO 753 wrote:Why woud you beleev them without further investigation? Did the defens put them on the witness stand?
Two others testified. The third witness was the salon's receptionist; she claimed to have been otherwise occupied during the alleged altercation and could neither support nor deny whether it actually happened. The fourth witness was another customer; her testimony was simply that she did not witness the alleged altercation, which was odd, since her proximity to the alleged event seemed to indicate that she would have seen it, had it occurred. So these two witnesses were a wash from both the prosecution's and the defense's perspective.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:56 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
TEnginist wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:The issue with your willingness to accept witness testimony as evidence is that, in doing so, you must draw a conclusion on whether the witness is credible and his testimony believable, which is an utterly subjective process, especially if you are emotionally attached to the issue about which he is testifying. Citing witness testimony proves nothing...except it shows the lengths to which you will go to sustain your belief.

I can’t believe that your blanket and extreme condemnation of eyewitness testimony accurately expresses what you really think.
You are correct in that I failed to clarify my statements.


I think your views, as clarified, on the evidential value of eyewitness testimony are thoughtful and sophisticated. It seems as though you might even agree, to some degree anyway, with my own views on the question. Here’s the way I would frame the issue:

Imagine two scales:

1) Strength of evidence for a claim: zero (very weak) to 100 (very strong)
2) “Extraordinariness” of the claim: zero (completely non-extraordinary) to 100 (extremely extraordinary)

Different kinds of evidence will, in general, be located at different places on the Strength-of-evidence scale:

Eyewitness testimony of an unreliable person is very low on the scale.
Eyewitness testimony of a reliable person is moderate to high on the scale.
Physical evidence is very high on the scale.

Principle P:

The higher on the extraordinariness scale a claim is (as determined independently of the present evidence), the higher the evidence for it has to be on the strength scale to be able to justify the claim.

So, if the claim is extremely high on the extraordinariness scale, generally speaking, only the most reliable witness testimony or physical evidence is likely to be able to justify it. (I imagine that the steadfast skeptic will not agree with the “most reliable witness testimony” part of this sentence.)

So, where is the claim of extraterrestrial visitation located on the extraordinariness scale? That depends on what is meant by “extraordinary.” “Extraordinary” can mean a number of different things: “surprising” (“unexpected”), “out of the ordinary” (“rarely or never encountered before”), “exceptional”, “unbelievable”, “remarkable”, “improbable”.

If “extraordinary” is taken to mean “out of the ordinary” or surprising,” then alien visitation would be located high on the extraordinariness scale, but It seems that only when “extraordinary” is taken to mean “improbable,” will Principle P be true.

Now, if a claim is extremely improbable, only extremely reliable witness testimony or physical evidence is likely to be able to justify it. But, in my view (and this may be where I and many skeptics will disagree), the claim of extraterrestrial visitation is not extremely improbable; it is neither probable nor improbable (as determined independently of evidence for flying saucers), and, therefore, it can be justified by any reliable person’s eyewitness testimony.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10406
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: call for debaters

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:16 pm

No anecdotal testimony can be high on the evidentiary scale.

1) We do not perceive directly - all perceptions are the consequence of our brains processing data from our sensors. There is no person immune from processing biases.
If we expect to see a particular phenomenon, then we will tend to see it even when it is not present. If we expect to not see that phenomenon, then we will tend to not see it even when it is there. Our misperceptions tend toward our biases/expectations.

2) Our memories are not precise reproductions. Our brains recall a few salient (to us) points, then fill in the rest, again, influenced by our biases.

So, there are at least two times the data is filtered by our biases before we can relate the experience to another person.

Ask any cop: The number of different reports by eyewitnesses to a traffic accident is almost as great as the number of eyewitnesses.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

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 » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:33 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:Now you're creating a conspiracy to explain the lack of physical evidence?


I didnt create it. Hoyt Vandenberg did.

You seem to be avoiding the fact that the organization that wuz suppozedly investigating reports wuz a PR project to downplay them.
Project Blue Book and Grudge, its immediate predisesor, investigated reports mainly to produse explainerationz for the public. Grudge wuz apparently too obvious, so got shut down and replased by Blue Book.

The 1st investigation, Sign appearz to hav been lejit and Mr. Vandenberg didnt like the rezults.

If I were an attorney, my objections would be:
• assumes facts not in evidence
• calls for speculation
• calls for a conclusion
• improper characterization of evidence
• narrative (not factual) testimony


How are the suppozed debunking testimonyz better?

JO 753 wrote:True. But you also do not prezume its false just kuz you dont like it.
But you can presume it's true because you do like it?


I dont prezume either way. I juj wich iz more likely. If reliable evidens contradicts it, and that includez contrary testimony that seemz better for wutevr reazon, I can chanje that jujment.

Its likely that credible witnessez are telling the truth about wut they saw. Its unlikely that a credible witness will put hiz career at risk over sumthing he iznt sure about.

When the eyewitness testimony alleges extraordinary events, I absolutely can presume it's false in the absence of supporting evidence.


An unsupportable attitude. Completely unsupportable considering the amount uv information we need to beleev in order to function in the sivilization we hav bilt.
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 » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:49 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:No anecdotal testimony can be high on the evidentiary scale....
Ask any cop: The number of different reports by eyewitnesses to a traffic accident is almost as great as the number of eyewitnesses.

If the radar experts in the room say that when the interceptors arrived, the unknown targets disappeared from the radar screen, and that when the interceptors left, the targets reappeared, why are these claims not to be trusted? Is the human brain so utterly feeble that several careful professionals can't be trusted to relay a simple fact? This example is nothing like the traffic accident, where successive and chaotic events happen quickly, where witnesses see the accident from different angles, etc.

Another example of anecdotal testimony that's very high on the evidence scale: If your favorite and trusted cousin tells you, "We were having an argument and Uncle Bob came in and complained about the noise." Isn't that very high on the evidence scale? Isn't my belief that Uncle Bob came in and complained justified?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10406
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: call for debaters

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:10 pm

TEnginist wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:No anecdotal testimony can be high on the evidentiary scale....
Ask any cop: The number of different reports by eyewitnesses to a traffic accident is almost as great as the number of eyewitnesses.

If the radar experts in the room say that when the interceptors arrived, the unknown targets disappeared from the radar screen, and that when the interceptors left, the targets reappeared, why are these claims not to be trusted? Is the human brain so utterly feeble that several careful professionals can't be trusted to relay a simple fact? This example is nothing like the traffic accident, where successive and chaotic events happen quickly, where witnesses see the accident from different angles, etc.

The study that was referenced in my psych class way back when was done with radar techs working in the NORAD system. Their errors (false positives, false negatives) followed their biases/expectations.

Nobody is immune to this because our brains all work by the same mechanisms.

Another example of anecdotal testimony that's very high on the evidence scale: If your favorite and trusted cousin tells you, "We were having an argument and Uncle Bob came in and complained about the noise." Isn't that very high on the evidence scale? Isn't my belief that Uncle Bob came in and complained justified?


Providing trivial, mundane examples in a discussion on the reliability of witnesses to extraordinary phenomena is both fallacious (false analogy/category error) and disingenuous. I'm sure you can do better.
Last edited by OlegTheBatty on Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

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

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:10 pm

xouper wrote: In any case, I notice you have not answered all my requests for clarification of your arguments.

As you are not participating and I have no interest in your opinion, I will let Jo 753 and Richard Crist ask their questions concerning their claims.

I have been waiting for seven days for them to explain why their "highly advanced aliens" imitated normal ground radar false readings and only came for several months in July 1952 when the ground was heating up confirmed inversion layers and disappeared 65 years ago when new radar systems were installed.
:lol:
alien on holiday.jpg
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

Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:21 pm

TEnginist wrote: If the radar experts in the room say that when the interceptors arrived, the unknown targets disappeared from the radar screen,.....
...it means the jet aircraft has disturbed the inversion layer and also explains rapid direction changes in the false images (ripples)
ripple in reflection.jpg

Are you and Jo 753 now denying basic known physics?

Do either you or Jo 753 have a clue how radar actually works?
:lol:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:52 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
TEnginist wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:No anecdotal testimony can be high on the evidentiary scale....
Ask any cop: The number of different reports by eyewitnesses to a traffic accident is almost as great as the number of eyewitnesses.

If the radar experts in the room say that when the interceptors arrived, the unknown targets disappeared from the radar screen, and that when the interceptors left, the targets reappeared, why are these claims not to be trusted? Is the human brain so utterly feeble that several careful professionals can't be trusted to relay a simple fact? This example is nothing like the traffic accident, where successive and chaotic events happen quickly, where witnesses see the accident from different angles, etc.

The study that was referenced in my psych class way back when was done with radar techs working in the NORAD system. Their errors (false positives, false negatives) followed their biases/expectations.

That's interesting. Can you remember what study that was? The details are important. I don't believe one can infer that mistakes can easily be made in all cases from the fact that mistakes were made in some cases--cases can be different. That's why the study's details are relevant. I can understand errors when dealing with, say, subtle properties of radar targets, but there's nothing subtle about blips that the controllers and experts took to be unambiguously solid being there and then not being there. But maybe the study would be relevant; as I said, it's interesting.


Another example of anecdotal testimony that's very high on the evidence scale: If your favorite and trusted cousin tells you, "We were having an argument and Uncle Bob came in and complained about the noise." Isn't that very high on the evidence scale? Isn't my belief that Uncle Bob came in and complained justified?


Providing trivial, mundane examples in a discussion on the reliability of witnesses to extraordinary phenomena is both fallacious (false analogy/category error) and disingenuous. I'm sure you can do better.

It wasn't disingenuous--I'm an honest person. I was responding to your claim that "No anecdotal testimony can be high on the evidentiary scale." I thought that you really believed that, as some skeptics do. But now I suspect that you do, in fact, accept that some anecdotal testimony can be high on the evidentiary scale, and that what you meant was something like, "No anecdotal testimony can be high enough on the evidentiary scale to justify belief in a claim that is high on the extraordinariness scale."

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 25, 2017 12:38 am

There is no such thing as "unambiguously solid" radar returns. Its ALL just reflected energy....if not beamed in directly.

Matts comment reminded me of a winter time warning when flying into Alaska: "Beware, suspected White Out conditions may occur." Thats when its below freezing and the temperature dew point spread is zero. The skies can be clear blue with visibility for 50 miles. You come in and land........and its zero visibility with ice fog. as Matt said: the stability of the air was disrupted. Not so bad on approach....but you want to make darn sure you don't miss the approach...because you aren't going back for another try.

Fun times with atmospheric physics.
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?

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Sep 25, 2017 1:33 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:There is no such thing as "unambiguously solid" radar returns. Its ALL just reflected energy....
Thank you.

"Anomalous Propagation in Radar
The technical term is called anomalous propagation or simply, ground clutter. Anomalous propagation or AP happens when a radar beam is emitted and is then refracted or deflected.

Inversions most often develop at night under calm, clear conditions. During the day, the sun’s energy heats the surface of the earth. At the same time, the surface emits that captured infrared radiation (IR) right back. At night, however, we lose the surface heating from the sun but the ground continues to emit the IR back out. With little clouds overhead, the infrared radiation easily escapes into space. This net loss of heat enables the air very close to the surface to cool, moreso than the air just above. As a result we have stability (cold air is more dense than warm air) and a temperature inversion has formed.
"

So we have false readings in Washington DC, that increase as summer comes in, that peaks in July (mid summer).

Captain Ruppelt confirms there is an inversion layer at 1000 feet on each night.

Sunset in Washington DC in July starts at 8:10pm when the false readings commence.

The airborne radar picks up on the reflected object on the ground ( the Mt Vernon steamboat)

When the Jets fly through the bogey's target location, in the inversion layer, the signal disappears or moves extremely rapidly. Sometime the false readings reappear as the inversion layer reforms.


Here is the original quote from USAF Report for case 1661 "Washington DC 1952)

"One ARTC controller worked a USAF B-25 (AF 8898 ?) for about 1 hr 20 mins about 2230 EDT. B-25 was vectored in on numerous targets and commented that each vector took him over a busy highway ir intersection. Maj Fournet (AFOIN-2A2) and Lt. Holcomb (USN, AFOIN-2C5) arrived at ARTC Center at about 27/0015 EDT. Lt. Holcomb observed scopes and reported "7 good, solid targets". He made a quick check with airport Weather Station and determined that there was a slight temperature inversion (about 1 degree) from the surface to about 1000'. However, he felt that the scope targets at the time were not the result of this inversion and so advised the Command Post with the suggestion that a second intercept flight be requested. (2nd intercept flight controlled by ARTC, but no strong targets remained when they arrived. They were vectored on dim targets with negative results.) Maj. Fournet and
Lt. Holcomb remained in ARTC Center until 0415, but no additional strong targets were picked up; many dim and unstable targets (assumed due to temperature inversion) were observed throughout the remainder of the period.


Does Jo753 and Richard Crist accept that the weak and unstable targets were inversion layer reflections or do they claim every target was an alien UFO buzzing Washington DC?

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

Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Sep 25, 2017 1:36 am

TEnginist wrote:If the radar experts in the room say that when the interceptors arrived, the unknown targets disappeared from the radar screen, and that when the interceptors left, the targets reappeared, why are these claims not to be trusted?
Why don't you trust the same radar experts when they said the weak and unstable readings were due to inversion layers.

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

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Sep 25, 2017 2:17 am

Funny aliens.jpg

Meanwhile the highly advanced alien commander interviews his highly advanced UFO pilots

Alien Commander : "So how did the mission go?"
Alien Pilot : "We kept turning on and off anti-radar shields for several months until they sent up some aircraft."
Alien Commander : ..."and then?"
Alien Pilot : "We just flew away in a random directions or turned off the anti-radar sheilds"
Alien Commander : "Why did you do that?"
Alien Pilot : "I don't know"
Alien Commander : "Why didn't you do this at other places?"
Alien Pilot : "I don't know"
Alien Commander : "Did you try to communicate with the humans in any way?"
Alien Pilot : "Nope we just flew around at random for no reason in Washington DC"
Alien Commander : Why didn't you ever return to do it again?"
Alien Pilot : "I don't know."
Alien Commander : "What was the point in doing any of this?"
Alien Pilot : "I haven't got a clue. All the other aliens are doing the same thing."
Mission accomplished.jpg
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

Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Sep 25, 2017 2:26 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:Now you're creating a conspiracy to explain the lack of physical evidence?
JO 753 wrote:You seem to be avoiding the fact that the organization that wuz suppozedly investigating reports wuz a PR project to downplay them.
That's right Jo 753. At no point did the USAF have any interest in new Soviet aircraft, satellites or missiles (UFOs) during the cold war.

Project Blue Book had two goals:
1) To determine if UFOs were a threat to national security, and
2) To scientifically analyze UFO-related data.


Where does it say alien UFOs?


Return to “UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest