The United States of Esoterica

Official forum of binnallofamerica.com
It is currently Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:53 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:43 am 
Offline
British Royal

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:03 pm
Posts: 973
lesley wrote:
The reason I don't like debunkers (different from true skeptics) and especially Randi is that they just expect that everyone should believe their answer even though 99% of the time they have no more actual proof to support that conclusion than does someone who says it was an alien spaceship.

The owl theory is a good example. It is used for everything, aliens, mothman, the flatwoods monster and on and on. Anything strange and especially if it had big eyes was just an owl. They have no actual evidence that it was, but we are suppose to just accept that explanation.


It falls back to: If there is an every day phenomena that perfectly explains something, then why pick a paranormal answer?

There is absolutely zero proof of mothman and 100% proof of owls. What is more likely? That people have seen an owl or other natural animal? Or that people have seen a 6' tall batman with psychic powers?

Also, you said the magic word "theory". It is a theory offered up to provide a logical explanation. They have never said "All of these cases are definitely owls." They say "people are probably seeing owls or something similar". They offer examples as to how an owl can fit the description of witnesses, prove the animals are indigenous to the area and demonstrate what it would look like seeing one.

The other side simply says "it was mothman,/an alien/flatwoods monster, I know it" and they provide no proof at all to back up the claims.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:34 pm 
Offline
Merovingian
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:10 am
Posts: 3892
Location: Land of Enchantment
We are saying the same thing. I think it should be left as unknown unless someone can absolutely prove what it is. However, there are many debunkers that try to make people who don't believe their theory feel stupid. If you don't believe their logical explanation you must be crazy. There are also people on the other side that don't even want to consider that it could be something that wasn't at all unusual. There are plenty of zealots on both sides.

_________________
"So much good, so much evil. Just add water."
Markus Zusak


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2008 3:57 am 
Offline
Y2K Profiteer

Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:15 am
Posts: 2186
Location: Buffalo,NY
vadersp wrote:
Fazer wrote:
vadersp wrote:
Not a valid argument at all. Stars are a verifiable fact. .

Not if it's always cloudy.


Satellites are above the clouds, planes can fly above the clouds, radio telescopes work through the clouds. So yes, even with clouds we can verify stars are there.

As the skeptic would say regarding satellites, planes and radio telescopes;
Skeptic: Blurry dots of white on a black background. You call that evidence?

_________________
When the mob governs, man is ruled by ignorance; when the church governs, he is ruled by superstition; and when the state governs, he is ruled by fear. http://countdowntoapocalypse.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2008 8:42 am 
Offline
British Royal

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:03 pm
Posts: 973
Wrong

The skeptic would say. Can this be duplicated? Yes. Can it be measured? Yes. Can it be verified by anyone? Yes. Can I go on a plane flight & see for myself? Yes. With the abundance of of good, verifiable evidence, is there any reason to doubt stars exist? No.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2008 8:52 am 
Offline
Merovingian
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:10 am
Posts: 3892
Location: Land of Enchantment
vadersp wrote:
Wrong

The skeptic would say. Can this be duplicated? Yes. Can it be measured? Yes. Can it be verified by anyone? Yes. Can I go on a plane flight & see for myself? Yes. With the abundance of of good, verifiable evidence, is there any reason to doubt stars exist? No.


I think that is relative to the time in which we live. I doubt that humans thousands of years ago would have judged by the same criteria. Just as we may not be judging certain things that happen now by a criteria that is thousands of years in the future.

I live with a scientist and know lots and lots of others. To think we know everything or can determine everything based on scientific principals is totally wrong.

_________________
"So much good, so much evil. Just add water."
Markus Zusak


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2008 6:37 pm 
Offline
British Royal

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:03 pm
Posts: 973
lesley wrote:
I doubt that humans thousands of years ago would have judged by the same criteria.


And we're left with religion as a by-product...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2008 6:44 pm 
Offline
British Royal

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:03 pm
Posts: 973
lesley wrote:
I live with a scientist and know lots and lots of others. To think we know everything or can determine everything based on scientific principals is totally wrong.


This thread is about skeptics not believing in stars if they lived in a cloudy city. Ask your scientist pals if they'd dismiss the existence of stars if they've never seen one themselves despite all of the SCIENTIFIC evidence to prove they exist.

Then ask them if they'd accept the existence of something with nothing more than blurry pictures, eyewitness testimony an nothing verifiable or repeatable.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2008 7:22 pm 
Offline
Merovingian
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:10 am
Posts: 3892
Location: Land of Enchantment
vadersp wrote:
lesley wrote:
I live with a scientist and know lots and lots of others. To think we know everything or can determine everything based on scientific principals is totally wrong.


This thread is about skeptics not believing in stars if they lived in a cloudy city. Ask your scientist pals if they'd dismiss the existence of stars if they've never seen one themselves despite all of the SCIENTIFIC evidence to prove they exist.

Then ask them if they'd accept the existence of something with nothing more than blurry pictures, eyewitness testimony an nothing verifiable or repeatable.


Absolutely most scientists DO believe in UFOs. In the true meaning of the word (unidentified flying objects) and not what debunkers want people to think that word means - little green beings from another planet. It is debunkery rule #1

Point out that an "unidentified" flying object is just that,
and cannot be automatically assumed to be extraterrestrial. Do this
whether or not anyone involved *has* assumed it to be
extraterrestrial.

_________________
"So much good, so much evil. Just add water."
Markus Zusak


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2008 7:32 pm 
Offline
British Royal

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:03 pm
Posts: 973
If you're going to use semantics, then UFO is not a matter of belief at all. It is on the same level as an unidentified person.

Also, it is not the skeptic, but the believer that claims UFO's are aliens. The skeptic is the one saying there is a normal explanation and it is fake, misidentified or undetermined/unidentifiable. The believer is the one saying "Nothing from this planet could do that!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2008 7:41 pm 
Offline
Merovingian
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:10 am
Posts: 3892
Location: Land of Enchantment
vadersp wrote:
If you're going to use semantics, then UFO is not a matter of belief at all. It is on the same level as an unidentified person.

Also, it is not the skeptic, but the believer that claims UFO's are aliens. The skeptic is the one saying there is a normal explanation and it is fake, misidentified or undetermined/unidentifiable. The believer is the one saying "Nothing from this planet could do that!"


Some believers do that. However, I have never once heard someone report that they witnessed an alien spaceship from another planet (except for those who are already believers), only that they saw something that was unidentifiable to them and then the debunkers start in about how it couldn't possibly be an alien spaceship. They never tell this person what it was because obviously they have no way of knowing, but they are more than happy to say what it was not and they are completely sure about that. They are as bad as the true believers who are certain in their belief that it was an alien spaceship. Both groups are zealots.

_________________
"So much good, so much evil. Just add water."
Markus Zusak


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2008 7:52 pm 
Offline
British Royal

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:03 pm
Posts: 973
You're merging debunker with skeptic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2008 7:56 pm 
Offline
Merovingian
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:10 am
Posts: 3892
Location: Land of Enchantment
vadersp wrote:
You're merging debunker with skeptic.


I tried to make it clear from my first post on this topic that I was separating skeptics from debunkers. There is no sense in discussing skeptics, they still have open minds to consider all theories. I have nothing against skeptics, but I do zealots -- the ones on both sides.

_________________
"So much good, so much evil. Just add water."
Markus Zusak


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2008 8:29 pm 
Offline
British Royal

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:03 pm
Posts: 973
OK, then this whole thread was pointless. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2008 3:25 am 
Offline
Y2K Profiteer

Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:15 am
Posts: 2186
Location: Buffalo,NY
I was watching UFO Hunters about the UFO's over Edwards AFB during Oct. 1965. There were at least 7 of them that were pinged with radar from several radar stations around the area. They were also seen by everyone on the base including the fighter pilot who took off after them.
Interesting during the show, the voice recordings of those involved included a person in charge of releasing the fighter plane as "The UFO officer".
As the fighter approached the UFO's, they took off into space. Oh well.

_________________
When the mob governs, man is ruled by ignorance; when the church governs, he is ruled by superstition; and when the state governs, he is ruled by fear. http://countdowntoapocalypse.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2008 7:32 am 
Offline
Merovingian
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:10 am
Posts: 3892
Location: Land of Enchantment
Fazer wrote:
I was watching UFO Hunters about the UFO's over Edwards AFB during Oct. 1965. There were at least 7 of them that were pinged with radar from several radar stations around the area. They were also seen by everyone on the base including the fighter pilot who took off after them.
Interesting during the show, the voice recordings of those involved included a person in charge of releasing the fighter plane as "The UFO officer".
As the fighter approached the UFO's, they took off into space. Oh well.


That was my favorite UFO Hunters episode so far.

_________________
"So much good, so much evil. Just add water."
Markus Zusak


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group