Debunkers Take It In The Teeth Again

reply to post by sir_slide


This is an interesting link - only Police reports
...policeufo.com...

reply to post by newcovenant


Thank you man, appreciate it.

reply to post by WolfofWar


Thank you for your simplistic analysis of powers you have no grasp on....appreciated....HA!

Originally posted by sir_slide
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Thank you man, appreciate it.

List of UFO sightings en.wikipedia.org...
UFO sightings in outer space en.wikipedia.org...
UFOs and Extraterrestrial Life www.ufoevidence.org...

The study also examines the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, and attempts to draw inferences about technological achievements on other worlds. It concludes that there is a growing case for the reality of UFOs, and that intelligent extraterrestrial life almost certainly exists.

reply to post by sir_slide

Are you suggesting my information is incorrect?

I can assure you its not. Honestly, if you've completed 4th grade of your Elementary educated, you should know the answer to this.

Also, I could have gotten more in depth, but with the general combined I.Q. level of this thread, I was worried your brains would melt. You are allowed to believe things, but don't be ignorant. Your thread loses a lot of its integrity when you act intentionally stupid.

Notice when a thread is created about a specific person's UFO claims and that person's claims cannot be substantiated, the thread turns into an attempt to prove the claim by-proxy, the believers citing unrelated cases, as if these validate the original claimant.

reply to post by WingedBull


Welcome to the unfortunate status-quo of UFOlogy.

Kind of disappointing that a potential real phenomenon is diluted by such tactics, isn't it?

reply to post by WolfofWar


If the discussion is reduced to arguing it's validity by proxy, it demonstrates the weakness of the original claim. And it demonstrates, though they will never admit it, the supporters know how weak it is.

PS: All scientists are skeptics by nature. Calling a scientist a skeptic in a pseudoscientific publication is disingenuous at best.

Of course.

However, all true scientists who want to adhere to the scientific principle MUST make a distinction between an empirical sceptic and a platonic sceptic, AND strictly adhere to empirical scepticism.

Platonic scepticism is not science, it is dogmatic scientISM masquerading as science.

Many, if not most sceptics fall often or most of the time into the camp of platonic scepticism. And that is a very sad state of affairs, although nothing new (re: Planck on science advancing one funeral at a time).

For those interested in corroborated empirical data, I suggest the John B. Alexander book as a compilation summary out of the recent publications. It contains both debunkings as well as proof of not-explained-away UFOs.

Wang made a very interesting claim and OP was right to draw our attention to it.

While we wait for references to Wang's original work, it's worth reflecting on the significance of his claims. While there are many reports, including some radar data, of UAPS accelerating into space after they have carried out near-ground 'surveys' here, there's little data on what UAPs do before they arrive.

Wang's data (assuming he has some) suggests that some UAPs may 'hover ' over their ground targets on Earth for some minutes at distances of 1000 km or so before homing in to make detailed studies.

Designers of the Dawn prove, currently investigating Vesta, would love to able to engineer craft with such capabilities.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Wouldn't be surprised if Chinese space propulsion engineers aren't already in touch with Wang.

I find it amusing that no mention is made of Dr. Peter Sturrock's survey of the AAS. As for the skeptics who haunt the OP for presenting only one astronomer, I would suggest this is even worse for them. One would expect the self-proclaimed skeptic, defender of rationality and science (yeah right, which of the skeptics here even has a university degree?), to have read up on the topic and literature. Not so, obviously.

Sturrock, who is an emeritus professor of applied physics at Stanford University, has written much on UFOs. His survey paper should be available on the scientific exploration website. About 5% report anomalous sightings, and Sturrock also found that skepticism and opposition to further study correlated with lack of knowledge and study. What a surprise, eh?

Debunkers take it in the teeth?

What?

I'd say that if you believe the UFO phenomena to be intelligent extraterrestrial life that's stopping nuclear bombs and so forth; that these believers are doing your head in. These beliefs are detrimental to your mental health.

reply to post by Swills


Yeah, Swills is right...

What's wrong with his name? Is it like Dick or John? This is isn't 4chan kid, members of ATS are usually more mature. Move along.

Originally posted by Doron
Meh, just more verbal diarrhea without any evidence. Stop talking and give us some good footage of these supposed UFO's.

'Debunkers take in the teeth again' my A$$.

You know what is stupid about debunkers? That they refuse to admit a UFO is an aicraft. A military craft never seen or heard of also counts as 'UFO'.So the way you say it, sounds like 'no unknown crafts exist' oh really? Due to the vague and contradictory documentation of aliens no one can jump to conclusions but hey, UFOs could mean lots of crafts you don't see in daily life.