Skeptic misses point behind UFO book

a reply to: Scdfa

It seems disinformation is not limited to earthlings. Or NASA. Or Fox News.

Thank God I can go to a news channel and find reporting with a conservative slant, its what I want to listen too. I dont want to hear some liberal nonsense from CNN. The people who watch Fox *know* this, there is no deception... Skeptics arent going to join MUFON and believers arent going to join the Skeptics society. The govt/NASA are never going to willfully admit that our sovereignty as a nation is in question. Its just a matter of perspective.

Going back to the Yukon case since the thread is winding down, something I am missing which is probably easily answered. Im not sure if the case is solved by the re-entry or not, it wasnt well received in general here at ATS. Either way, why didnt witnesses perceive this mothership hurling to the ground and creating what I would guess would be a sizable impact?

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Originally I would have thought some cases like the Yukon case would have needed to be a fool blown hallucination

This is why I love you, you have such a turn of phrase, it always puts a smile on my face/ Thanks

I hope the fool used protection.

You don't have to be an a-hole all the time, do you? Like I said, predictability is not your best trait, makes for easy fishing and since you took it, why don't you start your own thread instead of junking up the forum? Why not contribute something other than talking about yourself? Every thread doesn't have to be about you or does it?

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: Blue Shift

But we all know that chairs exist. Not so with aliens or alien craft. That would require more verification by experts. More confirmation. I suppose it boils down to personal preference. Maybe you're the kind of person who just believes whatever anybody tells you if they seem like an "honest person."

Require more verification by experts? What experts? I first encountered aliens directly in 1966. I'm about as close to an expert as you're going to find. I don't want to be off-topic, so I won't discuss my personal experiences here, but you were asking how I came to my conclusions.

Quite honestly, I don't believe you.

originally posted by: Scdfa a reply to: Blue Shift Require more verification by experts? What experts? I first encountered aliens directly in 1966. I'm about as close to an expert as you're going to find. I don't want to be off-topic, so I won't discuss my personal experiences here, but you were asking how I came to my conclusions. Quite honestly, I don't believe you.

a reply to: Scdfa


It's not that I don't believe you. Too many people have had too many experiences
with similarities to all be lying or be explained away by Jedi mind tricks. However, you have to understand why your word alone isn't enough proof to convert some people into acceptance. Even someone who believes in aliens and other stories from other people might not just believe you on a whim. In fact, in order to strengthen your cause of converting others you should be glad that they require more solid evidence and you should encourage that hunt. It will only make the case, once properly built, that much more difficult to refute.
Having said that, I also agree you should start your own thread about your story where you can go into more detail and perhaps get corroborative stories from others.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
Either way, why didnt witnesses perceive this mothership hurling to the ground and creating what I would guess would be a sizable impact?

I'll give you some hints and see if you can figure out the rest from that.

How fast are satellites going in orbit?
How fast was this Genesis satellite going when it hit the ground?

The fireball was most luminous over Nevada. Sky watchers as far away as 100 miles from the reentry path could see the capsule glowing 10 to 100 times brighter than Venus. In fact, the light was as bright as a fat crescent Moon.

Genesis satellite


Would it still have been glowing brightly at the speed it impacted the ground? (Was it going slower than an airplane? Do airplanes glow?)

I wouldn't call that Genesis impact "sizable".

a reply to: Scdfa

For those new to this neighborhood, I urge them to read my own reports to see if -- as I believe -- EVERYTHING that Scdfa has reported about my views is so garbled [even fully imaginary] as to be useless for rational conversation. IMHO.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
Going back to the Yukon case since the thread is winding down, something I am missing which is probably easily answered. Im not sure if the case is solved by the re-entry or not, it wasnt well received in general here at ATS. Either way, why didnt witnesses perceive this mothership hurling to the ground and creating what I would guess would be a sizable impact?

Arby has given an answer, but let me add that satellite reentries occur at very shallow angles, trigger fireballs at about 50-60 miles up while moving 5 miles per second horizontally, last about 1-2 minutes before slowing to where the fireball extinguishes, continues horizontally while slowing more, another few minutes. Depending on density, pieces hit the ground at a few hundred feet per second, often a lot less [tanks come down so gently they hardly even dent the ground].

The significance of the Yukon case is, to me, enormous, along with a few dozen others where fireball swarms were consistently misinterpreted as a large structure with mounted lights. Without such documented events, I could not have believed how common this misperception could be.

Proof of aliens? For me it is sufficient to show the craft are physical and not made on earth. Not made on earth = alien. Roswell?

a reply to: 111DPKING111

Thank God I can go to a news channel and find reporting with a conservative slant, its what I want to listen too. I dont want to hear some liberal nonsense from CNN. The people who watch Fox *know* this, there is no deception...

Actually, when it comes to Fox news, there is indeed deception.

Fox admitted in a court of law that they intentionally broadcast false information, not my opinion, their sworn testimony.

In fact, their defense was that they had the right to broadcast false information under the first amendment. Look it up, they freely admit to lying.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Originally I would have thought some cases like the Yukon case would have needed to be a fool blown hallucination

This is why I love you, you have such a turn of phrase, it always puts a smile on my face/ Thanks

I hope the fool used protection.

You don't have to be an a-hole all the time, do you? Like I said, predictability is not your best trait, makes for easy fishing

and since you took it, why don't you start your own thread instead of junking up the forum? Why not contribute something other than talking about yourself? Every thread doesn't have to be about you or does it?

You mean you weren't intentionally being funny? My mistake, I though your use of "fool blown hallucination" was clever and funny. I should have known better.

By the way, I'm contributing to this thread, you should try it. You haven't even mentioned Kean or Oberg, have you? So why don't you start your own thread instead of junking up the forum? Why not contribute something other than talking about yourself? Every thread doesn't have to be about you or does it?

Sorry to paraphrase, but the shoe fits you better.

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: 111DPKING111

Thank God I can go to a news channel and find reporting with a conservative slant, its what I want to listen too. I dont want to hear some liberal nonsense from CNN. The people who watch Fox *know* this, there is no deception...

Actually, when it comes to Fox news, there is indeed deception.

Fox admitted in a court of law that they intentionally broadcast false information, not my opinion, their sworn testimony.

In fact, their defense was that they had the right to broadcast false information under the first amendment. Look it up, they freely admit to lying.

I did.

It's a lie.

www.snopes.com...



This was also a lie:

news.yahoo.com...

And this:

news.yahoo.com...

And this:

www.politico.com...

And this:

www.cbsnews.com...

And this:

www.washingtonpost.com...

Trust no one.

originally posted by: TheBolt

originally posted by: Scdfa a reply to: Blue Shift Require more verification by experts? What experts? I first encountered aliens directly in 1966. I'm about as close to an expert as you're going to find. I don't want to be off-topic, so I won't discuss my personal experiences here, but you were asking how I came to my conclusions. Quite honestly, I don't believe you.

a reply to: Scdfa


It's not that I don't believe you. Too many people have had too many experiences
with similarities to all be lying or be explained away by Jedi mind tricks. However, you have to understand why your word alone isn't enough proof to convert some people into acceptance. Even someone who believes in aliens and other stories from other people might not just believe you on a whim. In fact, in order to strengthen your cause of converting others you should be glad that they require more solid evidence and you should encourage that hunt. It will only make the case, once properly built, that much more difficult to refute.
Having said that, I also agree you should start your own thread about your story where you can go into more detail and perhaps get corroborative stories from others.

No. My experiences fill a book, and I'm working on that book. I will not tell it piecemeal. I'm willing to answer questions if they are very specific.

I am contributing on-topic in this thread, and I plan to continue to do just that.

The only reason my experience was mention again very briefly was because I was asked directly how I came to the conclusion aliens are real.

But you mistake my intent when you suggest I'm here to convert or convince people. I can't change anyone's mind, that comes from within. I'm really talking to the people that are past that point of debate in this issue. The interesting questions come after that debate.

Now, please, back on topic, because certain people in here really want to silence anything I have to say.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: 111DPKING111

Thank God I can go to a news channel and find reporting with a conservative slant, its what I want to listen too. I dont want to hear some liberal nonsense from CNN. The people who watch Fox *know* this, there is no deception...

Actually, when it comes to Fox news, there is indeed deception.

Fox admitted in a court of law that they intentionally broadcast false information, not my opinion, their sworn testimony.

In fact, their defense was that they had the right to broadcast false information under the first amendment. Look it up, they freely admit to lying.

I did.

It's a lie.

www.snopes.com...



This was also a lie:

news.yahoo.com...

And this:

news.yahoo.com...

And this:

www.politico.com...

And this:

www.cbsnews.com...

And this:

www.washingtonpost.com...

Trust no one.

Trust no one from Fox News, anyway:

www.politifact.com...

originally posted by: Scdfa
Thank God I can go to a news channel and find reporting with a conservative slant, its what I want to listen too. I dont want to hear some liberal nonsense from CNN. The people who watch Fox *know* this, there is no deception...
Actually, when it comes to Fox news, there is indeed deception.
Fox admitted in a court of law that they intentionally broadcast false information, not my opinion, their sworn testimony.
In fact their defense was that they had the right to broadcast false information under the first amendment. Look it up, they freely admit to lying.

originally posted by: draknoir2

I did.
It's a lie.
"www.snopes"

This is to-o-o-o-o-o delicious to belabor. Just savor the moment.

a reply to: JimOberg

This is to-o-o-o-o-o delicious to belabor. Just savor the moment.

Well, I will defer to the member of CSICOP on all matters pertaining to deliberately disseminating false information to further an agenda.

originally posted by: Scdfa
Require more verification by experts? What experts? I first encountered aliens directly in 1966. I'm about as close to an expert as you're going to find. I don't want to be off-topic, so I won't discuss my personal experiences here, but you were asking how I came to my conclusions.

I have no doubt that you believe that you encountered what you consider to be "aliens." But you know that your belief isn't objective, verifiable proof -- a set of things that would make it impossible for me not to believe.

And even then, I would want to include you in my list of experts, along with top people in the fields of electronics, materials science, biology (if it was an alien creature), and so on. It would really help me a lot of both you and Jim Oberg both confirmed that as far as you both knew, the thing in question was alien. The more the merrier, because to a certain degree reality is consensual. I've never personally seen the Eiffel Tower, but I'm 99.999 percent sure it exists, for all the reasons I mentioned.

a reply to: Scdfa

By the way, I'm contributing to this thread, you should try it. You haven't even mentioned Kean or Oberg, have you? So why don't you start your own thread instead of junking up the forum? Why not contribute something other than talking about yourself? Every thread doesn't have to be about you or does it?

Sorry to paraphrase, but the shoe fits you better.

I have been discussing misperceptions at length which is pretty much at the heart of the matter. Any comments?

Another key theme relevant to the question of Kean's cavalier attitude towards verification of evidence -- which point I think I've made with the ten examples cited, which NOBODY has disputed the prosaic explanations for.

The idea has been offered that in a collection of unexplainable cases, the more that are explained, the MORE likely that some of the remaining are genuinely anomalous.

That is, the more often a person has been proved wrong that a list of cases is anomalous, the more likely they will turn OUT to be right "at least once".

I've got a nagging feeling there's something fundamentally flawed about that logic. It's sort of a 'heads-I-win-tails-you-lose" proposition.

Perhaps the underlying logical flaw is the tacit assumption that IF all these cases WERE only caused by prosaic stimuli, then it is obvious we would, with enough work, be able to FIND every single one of those prosaic causes?

Is that what anybody is trying to slip by as an untested assumption?

Instead, in my view there will almost always be, in any subject, a natural residue of unexplainable events whether or not there was an anomalous agency at work. Life's just like that'

Want examples from ufology?

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: 111DPKING111

Thank God I can go to a news channel and find reporting with a conservative slant, its what I want to listen too. I dont want to hear some liberal nonsense from CNN. The people who watch Fox *know* this, there is no deception...

Actually, when it comes to Fox news, there is indeed deception.

Fox admitted in a court of law that they intentionally broadcast false information, not my opinion, their sworn testimony.

In fact, their defense was that they had the right to broadcast false information under the first amendment. Look it up, they freely admit to lying.

I did.

It's a lie.

www.snopes.com...



This was also a lie:

news.yahoo.com...

And this:

news.yahoo.com...

And this:

www.politico.com...

And this:

www.cbsnews.com...

And this:

www.washingtonpost.com...

Trust no one.

I *might* even be considered liberal and find this rather enlightening and even slightly enjoyable.

a reply to: JimOberg

That is, the more often a person has been proved wrong that a list of cases is anomalous, the more likely they will turn OUT to be right "at least once".

I've got a nagging feeling there's something fundamentally flawed about that logic. It's sort of a 'heads-I-win-tails-you-lose" proposition.

This is essentially how casinos make money.