Three UFOs Flying Around ISS. Ground Control order: 'Endeavour please pause the playback!'

Originally posted by Dastardly666
What are science based conclusions?

A conclusion based on facts and evidence, not logical fallacies.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
Are you or anyone else on ATS a scientist to give science based conclusions?

One does not need to be a scientist to give a science-based conclusion. They only need facts and evidence.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
You do know that the best scientists have been wrong before.

That is true; however, you are engaging in another logical fallacy. That someone at some other time may have been wrong about an unrelated subject does not mean we are wrong now. The only thing that matters are facts and evidence. If you think the objects are not prosaic debris, present evidence that supports your conclusion or disconfirming evidence that shows our's to be wrong.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
Its worrying that many on ATS are very willing to give definite answers on something when they are not 100% sure themselves.

There is no such thing as a 100% definitive answer in science. There is always a chance that new evidence will appear that forces us to change our conclusions. If there is better evidence to support a different conclusion, please present it. In the light of there not being evidence to support another conclusion or disconfirming evidence against our conclusion, we can safely say the best answer, as supported by the evidence is these are debris.

If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, you would present it. But you do not; so instead you are trying to argue it through red-herring logical fallacies.

reply to post by Dastardly666


You have yet to provide evidence that supports your conclusion that the objects in the video are not mundane. Instead, you are relying on logical fallacies, misrepresentation of arguments and personal attacks. Please provide evidence to support your conclusions.

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by Dastardly666
What are science based conclusions?

A conclusion based on facts and evidence, not logical fallacies.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
Are you or anyone else on ATS a scientist to give science based conclusions?

One does not need to be a scientist to give a science-based conclusion. They only need facts and evidence.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
You do know that the best scientists have been wrong before.

That is true; however, you are engaging in another logical fallacy. That someone at some other time may have been wrong about an unrelated subject does not mean we are wrong now. The only thing that matters are facts and evidence. If you think the objects are not prosaic debris, present evidence that supports your conclusion or disconfirming evidence that shows our's to be wrong.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
Its worrying that many on ATS are very willing to give definite answers on something when they are not 100% sure themselves.

There is no such thing as a 100% definitive answer in science. There is always a chance that new evidence will appear that forces us to change our conclusions. If there is better evidence to support a different conclusion, please present it. In the light of there not being evidence to support another conclusion or disconfirming evidence against our conclusion, we can safely say the best answer, as supported by the evidence is these are debris.

If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, you would present it. But you do not; so instead you are trying to argue it through red-herring logical fallacies.

edit on 26-5-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)

But you have not provide any evidence to support your claims apart from the say so from other members.

Don't ask me to provide evidence because I never said it was definitely something. But you and others appear to do so look forward to your evidence.

Originally posted by WingedBull
reply to post by Dastardly666

 

You have yet to provide evidence that supports your conclusion that the objects in the video are not mundane. Instead, you are relying on logical fallacies, misrepresentation of arguments and personal attacks. Please provide evidence to support your conclusions.

Again, I never said it was definitely something. But you did so you must provide the evidence which proves 100% that is is what you are saying.

Ball is in your court.

Originally posted by Dastardly666

Originally posted by WingedBull
reply to post by Dastardly666

 

You have yet to provide evidence that supports your conclusion that the objects in the video are not mundane. Instead, you are relying on logical fallacies, misrepresentation of arguments and personal attacks. Please provide evidence to support your conclusions.

Again, I never said it was definitely something. But you did so you must provide the evidence which proves 100% that is is what you are saying.

Ball is in your court.

You've been asked to go do some reading on the scientific method, and it would greatly benefit your credibility if you could advance beyond such silly demands. You are saying the same thing as the asserttion that to avoid jail an accused person must prove their innocence.

You don't seem to understand the basic concept of 'burden of proof'.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Dastardly666

Originally posted by WingedBull
reply to post by Dastardly666

 

You have yet to provide evidence that supports your conclusion that the objects in the video are not mundane. Instead, you are relying on logical fallacies, misrepresentation of arguments and personal attacks. Please provide evidence to support your conclusions.

Again, I never said it was definitely something. But you did so you must provide the evidence which proves 100% that is is what you are saying.

Ball is in your court.

You've been asked to go do some reading on the scientific method, and it would greatly benefit your credibility if you could advance beyond such silly demands. You are saying the same thing as the asserttion that to avoid jail an accused person must prove their innocence.

You don't seem to understand the basic concept of 'burden of proof'.

Now that you mention jailed people, here is an example of your thought process.

He is guilty because he looks like the person who did it. Thats it! This is your argument. This is your burden of proof.

I have seen no evidence but only 'thats what it looks like so that is what it is'.

And how many times have you tried to debunk UFO video footage with the same explanations and lack of evidence?

I've seen something pretty much exactly like this with naked eyes during dark night, alot of unusual stuffs keep moving..and i saw one exactly like captured in this video.

Originally posted by WingedBull
A conclusion based on facts and evidence, not logical fallacies.

That should be illogical conclusions.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
But you have not provide any evidence to support your claims apart from the say so from other members.

Yes we did provide evidence, in as Weedwacker said, the objects look just like and behave just like, mundane debris. You are now ignoring evidence that before you acknowledged and again acknowledge in Mr. Oberg's post.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
Don't ask me to provide evidence because I never said it was definitely something.

Yes, you are making a definitive claim; that myself, Mr. Oberg and Weedwacker are wrong but you have provided no disconfirming evidence. If you believe us to be wrong, provide the evidence to support it.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
Again, I never said it was definitely something.

Yes, you have repeatedly stated that we are wrong. However, you have yet to provide disconfirming evidence.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
But you did so you must provide the evidence which proves 100% that is is what you are saying.

In science, nothing can be proven 100%; there is always a chance there is disconfirming evidence, evidence that supports another conclusion, or evidence that does not change the conclusion but modifies it. You come to the best conclusion based on the available evidence.

You would do well taking a basic science course or read books on the subject of science; it is obvious you have grave misunderstanding about it.

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by Dastardly666
But you have not provide any evidence to support your claims apart from the say so from other members.

Yes we did provide evidence, in as Weedwacker said, the objects look just like and behave just like, mundane debris. You are now ignoring evidence that before you acknowledged and again acknowledge in Mr. Oberg's post.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
Don't ask me to provide evidence because I never said it was definitely something.

Yes, you are making a definitive claim; that myself, Mr. Oberg and Weedwacker are wrong but you have provided no disconfirming evidence. If you believe us to be wrong, provide the evidence to support it.

Thanks for proving my point.

You said your evidence is that the objects look like and behave like mundane debris. What is scientific about that? This is not evidence alone to prove 100% that the objects are mundane debris.

The same is said about orbs being Chinese lanterns or UFOs with flashing lights being planes. This is the usual 'scientific' explanation put forward by skeptics. Some will believe you and some will not so don't take it personally.

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by Dastardly666
Again, I never said it was definitely something.

Yes, you have repeatedly stated that we are wrong. However, you have yet to provide disconfirming evidence.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
But you did so you must provide the evidence which proves 100% that is is what you are saying.

In science, nothing can be proven 100%;

Again you prove my point which is what I am trying to make. Maybe share this with your fellow skeptics. And be sure to remember this when you view videos of UFOs and hear stories of UFOs and aliens.

One more thing, I'm not saying that every UFO in the sky is an alien spaceship. I'm just not willing to accept anything below 100% to explain what something definitely is.

Originally posted by Dastardly666

Originally posted by thesneakiod
Ive been here not long after or before weedwhacker and phage joined, or registered. I and i can safetly say ive never seen them take part in a thread where their sole purpose isnt to debunk the subject.

Every site like this needs an arguement for both sides, but to do it constantly?

Sorry but thats just weird.

Why do they even come here?

Interesting and valid point.

Soon you will see these members and others who support them come here and claim they believe in UFOs and aliens but want evidence! Even when evidence does naked break dance in front them, they will ignore because its not what they want to see. But to give them their due, there are not the only ones who think they know everything about everything!

D, I like many, many other members here have seen a plethora of evidence, some of it personally, but nothing that stands out as definitive PROOF. We have all seen the strangest of strange do what it does but I personally have never seen anything that made me say, "Bingo! Thats it! Discussion over, proof has been provided." It has to do with how determined any given individual is to get at true solid physical proof. A type of proof that all persons observing it, touching it, smelling it, drinking a beer with it and taking a piss with it could utterly not deny. You know, kind of like the car in your driveway type of real. I intend to never compromise my drive towards proof of this kind by lazily accepting speculative and tenuous (at best) evidence as a stamp of proof. I don't throw it out but steer very clear of allowing it to "fictionalize" my perceptions of any given event.

Yes, there is without a doubt many instances of unexplained phenomena out there in the world. But just because it is unexplained or unknown doesn't mean it is good evidence toward proof of anything. It is simply unknown, that is all. I can wholly accept just that fact, that it is unknown, until further data or facts arise to advance any particular theory about it. Some things may NEVER be known. Thats fine by me but it won't stop me from looking further into it but I refuse to allow speculation drive me towards any definitive conclusions.

And, for the bazillionth time, UFO's EXIST! Objects which can not be identified are seen every day and night. ALIENS mathematically must very well likely EXIST! There is NOTHING to BELIEVE in! Leaving theology, belief and faith out of the UFO equation makes it so much easier for me to see the facts for what they are. You get to keep your cash and you don't get locked into singular thinking....flame away.

Just to stay on topic in the thread, for me, there is no reason to go outside of thinking this is anything but companion debris from the shuttle or ISS. Unless it acts or looks like anything but debris there is no reason for me to go past concluding it is anything but debris because most persons are aware that human spacecraft leave crap everywhere when doing just about anything in space, right? Let's not let common sense get in the way, eh? Now if you show me a vid where it stops in front of the camera, rotates and reverses direction (you know, non ballistic behavior?), or does anything else debris shouldn't do, then we really have something to be passionate about, wouldn't we?

And please don't ask for me to provide you with 100000% proof, if you choose ( yes, its a choice) to see it there is more than that in this thread from others much more versed in this than I. That kind of proof doesn't exist anyway because we are dealing with perception and reality here. Hell, I cant even 100% prove to you my car is actually in my driveway...

reply to post by Arken


I want to see, in the original NASA Mission site, the whole Docking Approach scene!
Link please. Thanks.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
Again you prove my point which is what I am trying to make. Maybe share this with your fellow skeptics. And be sure to remember this when you view videos of UFOs and hear stories of UFOs and aliens.

I am afraid you have no point or at least not one that anyone does not acknowledge or understand. Nothing can be proven 100%; we can only draw the best conclusion drawn from the best available evidence. If the best available evidence points to a conclusion, then we must accept that conclusion until better evidence becomes available. That is one of the most basic fundamental principles of science. While nothing can ever be proven 100%, no matter how large or small that remaining percentage may be, it alone does not disprove a conclusion; there may be disconfirming evidence or evidence that better fits another conclusion. What you are attempting is a God-of-the-Gaps argument, that because something hasn't been demonstrated 100% that then it must be false; that is untrue, you must in turn demonstrate why it is false, provide evidence to support your conclusion. You have not.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
I'm just not willing to accept anything below 100% to explain what something definitely is.

Are we to take it then you are admitting that you do not believe that UFOs are alien craft?

Originally posted by Dastardly666
Thanks for proving my point.

The only point being proven is your complete scientific illiteracy.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
You said your evidence is that the objects look like and behave like mundane debris. What is scientific about that?

Because in science, you draw a conclusion based on the best available evidence.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
This is not evidence alone to prove 100% that the objects are mundane debris.

100%? Of course not. But the best evidence available, based on what we know about the look and behavior of debris, points to that conclusion.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
The same is said about orbs being Chinese lanterns or UFOs with flashing lights being planes. This is the usual 'scientific' explanation put forward by skeptics.

So? If that is what the evidence supports, then that is what the evidence supports. A conclusion doesn't stop being right simply because it has been used an arbitrary number of times.

Originally posted by Dastardly666
Some will believe you and some will not so don't take it personally.

No one is taking it personally. The only person that has been making personal attacks has been you.

Originally posted by Dastardly666

One more thing, I'm not saying that every UFO in the sky is an alien spaceship. I'm just not willing to accept anything below 100% to explain what something definitely is.

See, this is what belief will do to you. You have absolutely locked your mind into this box...like others have said, 100% is unobtainable. Hell, maybe 70% isn't. This is a choice YOU have made. That isn't our problem...

Originally posted by Lost_Mind

Originally posted by Dastardly666

Originally posted by thesneakiod
Ive been here not long after or before weedwhacker and phage joined, or registered. I and i can safetly say ive never seen them take part in a thread where their sole purpose isnt to debunk the subject.

Every site like this needs an arguement for both sides, but to do it constantly?

Sorry but thats just weird.

Why do they even come here?

Interesting and valid point.

Soon you will see these members and others who support them come here and claim they believe in UFOs and aliens but want evidence! Even when evidence does naked break dance in front them, they will ignore because its not what they want to see. But to give them their due, there are not the only ones who think they know everything about everything!

D, I like many, many other members here have seen a plethora of evidence, some of it personally, but nothing that stands out as definitive PROOF. We have all seen the strangest of strange do what it does but I personally have never seen anything that made me say, "Bingo! Thats it! Discussion over, proof has been provided." It has to do with how determined any given individual is to get at true solid physical proof. A type of proof that all persons observing it, touching it, smelling it, drinking a beer with it and taking a piss with it could utterly not deny. You know, kind of like the car in your driveway type of real. I intend to never compromise my drive towards proof of this kind by lazily accepting speculative and tenuous (at best) evidence as a stamp of proof. I don't throw it out but steer very clear of allowing it to "fictionalize" my perceptions of any given event.

Yes, there is without a doubt many instances of unexplained phenomena out there in the world. But just because it is unexplained or unknown doesn't mean it is good evidence toward proof of anything. It is simply unknown, that is all. I can wholly accept just that fact, that it is unknown, until further data or facts arise to advance any particular theory about it. Some things may NEVER be known. Thats fine by me but it won't stop me from looking further into it but I refuse to allow speculation drive me towards any definitive conclusions.

And, for the bazillionth time, UFO's EXIST! Objects which can not be identified are seen every day and night. ALIENS mathematically must very well likely EXIST! There is NOTHING to BELIEVE in! Leaving theology, belief and faith out of the UFO equation makes it so much easier for me to see the facts for what they are. You get to keep your cash and you don't get locked into singular thinking....flame away.

Just to stay on topic in the thread, for me, there is no reason to go outside of thinking this is anything but companion debris from the shuttle or ISS. Unless it acts or looks like anything but debris there is no reason for me to go past concluding it is anything but debris because most persons are aware that human spacecraft leave crap everywhere when doing just about anything in space, right? Now if you show me a vid where it stops in front of the camera, rotates and reverses direction (you know, non ballistic behavior?), or does anything else debris shouldn't do, then we really have something to be passionate about, wouldn't we?

And please don't ask for me to provide you with 100000% proof, if you choose ( yes, its a choice) to see it there is more than that in this thread from others much more versed in this than I. That kind of proof doesn't exist anyway because we are dealing with perception and reality here. Hell, I cant even 100% prove to you my car is actually in my driveway...

Firstly, thanks for your post I appreciate the time you put into it and I agree with much of what you said.

For the objects in question, to say its definitely space debris or even an alien space ship without providing 100% evidence is misleading. I appreciate the opinions and view points of others however to say its fact without the proof is wrong. My point is, no-one has been in space to know how each object behaves in space and what objects are up there. Like many here, I've never seen space debris. There was no scientific explanations given by the posters on this thread. And I should not have to provide evidence to prove anything as I am not the one saying the object is definitely something. Just because it looks like something it doesn't mean it is that. We have no distance or other information to suggest what we are seeing is indeed space debris or some other mundane object.

I'm not saying I am right, I just want more evidence to make me happy that what we are seeing is debris and not something else.

I obviously cannot reply to every post so here is how it is.

As it stands, the persons who are in dialogue with me want to prove they are right and I am wrong.

We are going around in circles and I am made my point. Again, I am not saying I am right but what I am saying is that it is wrong to say something is this without proof.

To prove you are right, provide the evidence proving the objects are 100% debris or whatever else you wish to call it instead of turning this into something off-topic, which is what skeptics usually do when they cannot win.

Originally posted by Dastardly666

Thanks for proving my point.

You said your evidence is that the objects look like and behave like mundane debris. What is scientific about that? This is not evidence alone to prove 100% that the objects are mundane debris.

To prove a person 'not guilty' in court it is NOT required to prove who ELSE did it -- the presumption is always one of the accused's innocence. If there is sufficient doubt of the 'proof of guilt' [proof of extraordinariness], the presumption of innocence stands.

The burden of proof is similar with 'UFO' claims.

To establish that an extraordinary explanation is required, one must prove that all prosaic explanations fail.

It is not up to the defenders of prosaic explanations to PROVE they are true, just that they are reasonably possible.

That makes them, by default, logically superior to claims that current models of reality have failed.

That you don't get it -- that you argue exactly the opposite -- indicates that what you think you know about logic and science is bass ackwards.

You have control over this. LEARN.