Quote:I looked at that OP photo several times and not once did i believe it was a hovering object.
Ofcourse you didn't. All you do is look for excuses to dismiss the evidence. That's what skeptics do. It doesn't surprise me abit.
Why didn't you question it? This is another swing and a miss for you MR, street lights and now this photo flip. It's been said several times, " a still photo is the worst evidence you can offer" proven once again.
Quote:Again, ad infinitum, it is a UFO. No one disputes that. But you cannot claim to know it's not man-made while asserting it is completely unidentified. That's just flat out contradictory.
Yes I can. You can eliminate various suspects for a murder, and still have the murderer remain unidentified. He's not the husband. He's not the ex-lover. He's not the co-worker. But that doesn't mean you've identified the murderer. Same with ufos. We can tell by the flight characteristics of the ufo it is not manmade or natural in origin. But we have not therefore identified what it is.
You can only eliminate suspects with positive evidence, like a verified alibi, lack of their fingerprints but someone else's, or other evidence that definitely points to another, specific suspect. People who have no relation to or interaction with the victim never become suspects in the first place. As with all things evidence-related, you continue to prove you have no clue (pun intended).
Yes, it is the same with UFOs. You have to have positive corroborating evidence to dismiss the most likely explanation. Hearsay is not corroborated evidence.
Quote:
Quote: You can only "try to disprove or discredit" what is accepted as or presumed a given.
No you can't. You can eliminate a possibility, but that doesn't necessarily mean that possibility was an accepted belief by anyone. That we eliminate the null hypothesis simple means we eliminate the hypothesis as a possibility. And we can only do that by rejecting the null hypothesis from the outset. We do not accept it at any point, like you erroneously do.
Every sane person believes that most things have mundane explanations, because the vast majority of all experience and knowledge is mundane. This is accepted by every sane person. The null hypothesis cannot simply be eliminated; it can only be refuted with substantiated evidence. And "rejecting the null hypothesis from the outset" proves your confirmation bias. You just reject it, out of hand, due to your dogmatic beliefs.
There's nothing erroneous about accepting the vast majority of experience and knowledge, but that tells us a lot about your relationship with common experience and fact.
Quote:
Quote:And it completely belies every study done on the reliability eyewitnesses...not that you would every read them.
I know there's an internet meme pushed by skeptics all about how eyewitnesses are unreliable. Yet noone does any studies on how many cases are solved on eyewitness testimony. Literally thousands everyday based on what someone saw and heard when the crime was committed. Men are regularly sent to prison on such testimonial evidence. If it wasn't reliable, this wouldn't be happening. Yet in the overwhelming number of cases, this is exactly what is happening. Eyewitness accounts are among the best forms of evidence in crime cases, traffic cases, and news stories. Ofcourse they're reliable.
Not a meme; actual scientific studies...which you will no doubt ever read. Zero cases are "solved" by eyewitness testimony alone. Cases are solved by evidence that supports witness statements, otherwise it's all he said, she said, which has no resolution in criminal law. Yes, many men have been sent to prison on eyewitness testimony, but:
Studies by Scheck, Neufel, and Dwyer showed that many DNA-based exonerations involved eyewitness evidence.
...
Evaluating the credibility of eye-witness testimony falls on all individual jurors when such evidence is offered as testimony in a trial in the United States.[6] Research has shown that mock juries are often unable to distinguish between a false and accurate eyewitness testimony. "Jurors" often appear to correlate the confidence level of the witness with the accuracy of their testimony. An overview of this research by Laub and Bornstein shows this to be an inaccurate gauge of accuracy.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness...eliability
Juries aren't known for being 100% objective, which is why lawyers use manipulative tactics and emotional appeal to sway them.
No, "unnamed sources" in news stories are the least reliable form of information. Traffic cases are typically unimportant enough to hinge on the authority of the citing officer. Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Quote:
Quote:The burden is on you to demonstrate the extraordinary, requiring extraordinary evidence, not on me to demonstrate the ubiquitously self-evident mundane.
Photo and eyewitness accounts of ufos IS extraordinary evidence of ufos. If ufos are physical objects, they will have physical effects on our world. Providing evidence of these, as in burnt circles in grassy fields, radiation effects on eyewitnesses, car engines shutting off, radar video, and white powder residue left at the landing sites, IS extraordinary evidence.
Poor quality photos do nothing to corroborate accounts of how something moved or what it sounded like. None of the evidence you mention requires an extraordinary explanation...which means it is not extraordinary evidence.
Quote:
Quote:You are presuming it's not man-made or natural...even though we only know for a fact that the man-made and natural exist.
Thousands of ufo photos and eyewitness accounts refute that. What ufo evidence lacks in repeatability it more than makes up for in sheer preponderance.
No, they don't. You just keep proclaiming your belief without any compelling evidence.
Evidence of one crime cannot be corroborated by evidence of a completely different crime committed by someone else. Very basic reasoning skills.
Everything that needs to be said about this has been said. At this point I'd only be repeating what I posted. I showed you the reasons this photo is a genuine ufo. I showed you how eyewitness testimony is absolutely crucial in traffic court, criminal court, and on the news. And I provided numerous compelling cases of ufos supporting their existence. At this point there's really nothing more to say. UFOs exist. Deal with it.
SyneDec 17, 2018 04:22 AM (This post was last modified: Dec 17, 2018 04:30 AM by Syne.)
(Dec 17, 2018 03:49 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
(Dec 17, 2018 03:43 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Dec 17, 2018 03:27 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:I looked at that OP photo several times and not once did i believe it was a hovering object.
Ofcourse you didn't. All you do is look for excuses to dismiss the evidence. That's what skeptics do. It doesn't surprise me abit.
Then why does the picture of the guy himself show him holding the picture right side up? Because there's a good reason it doesn't look right the other way. Even if you believe it's an alien spacecraft.
But we know you can't muster even enough skepticism to doubt the picture's orientation, which is completely immaterial to the claim of alien origin. That's how desperate your belief is.
LOL! So what? He's holding the picture the other way. What does that have to do with the photo not being authentic? The photo is a photo either way. You're desperate for any excuse to dismiss the photo.
No one said the photo wasn't authentic or dismiss it at all. You really can't help arguing straw men, can you? Just that desperate to justify your dogmatic belief.
You are mighty defensive about Zin simply saying it didn't look like it was hovering that way. He didn't saying anything about its origin, one way or the other.
(Dec 17, 2018 04:22 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: Everything that needs to be said about this has been said. At this point I'd only be repeating what I posted. I showed you the reasons this photo is a genuine ufo, I showed you how eyewitness testimony is crucial in traffic court, criminal court, and on the news. And I provided numerous compelling cases of ufos supporting their existence. At this point there's really nothing more to say. UFOs exist. Deal with it.
IOW, you'd only keep repeating your straw man arguments (that anyone has said the photo wasn't genuine), completely flubbing your comprehension of the null hypothesis, facts, and evidence, ignoring studies about unreliable witnesses that have led to convictions later exonerated with DNA evidence, proclaiming weak evidence as "fact" and "extraordinary", conflating multiple unrelated incidents as magically corroborative, and just generally proselytizing your dogmatic beliefs.
UFOs do exist. No idea how you'll ever manage to read and comprehend that simple sentence.
Quote:UFOs do exist. No idea how you'll ever manage to read and comprehend that simple sentence.
Exactly.... Syne, I thought you were strong in your debate with MR on this topic. I'd hit the LIKE button if there was one.
Those 3 words appear quite simple to understand to me but it appears not so for others. As to why, this is almost as great mystery as the UFO's themselves.
SyneDec 17, 2018 05:22 AM (This post was last modified: Dec 17, 2018 07:26 AM by Syne.)
(Dec 17, 2018 05:07 AM)Zinjanthropos Wrote:
Quote:UFOs do exist. No idea how you'll ever manage to read and comprehend that simple sentence.
Exactly.... Syne, I thought you were strong in your debate with MR on this topic. I'd hit the LIKE button if there was one.
Those 3 words appear quite simple to understand to me but it appears not so for others. As to why, this is almost as great mystery as the UFO's themselves.
Thanks Zin.
I don't know that it's all that mysterious. Some people just feel an overwhelming need to imbue their otherwise meaningless world with the extraordinary. When people have trouble finding meaning within themselves, they get progressively desperate to find meaning externally...even if they have to stubbornly ignore all reason to do so. It might be the one saving grace (pun intended) of religion that its significance is largely internal, so there are fewer of them claiming to have proof. If only the alien cult could become more spiritual. Where's the alien messiah?
(Dec 17, 2018 07:46 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: LOL @ Syne disparaging my belief in a ufos as his own magic skydaddy fantasy. Is it really that bad?
Hey, I'm not the one trying to convince others to believe in things I can't demonstrate. I disparage Ostro for making unsupportable claims about god too. You're two peas in a pod.
(Dec 17, 2018 07:46 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: LOL @ Syne disparaging my belief in a ufos as his own magic skydaddy fantasy. Is it really that bad?
Hey, I'm not the one trying to convince others to believe in things I can't demonstrate. I disparage Ostro for making unsupportable claims about god too. You're two peas in a pod.
Right. Because, unlike my belief in ufos, you can't demonstrate your religious beliefs. That says alot for them, doesn't it?
(Dec 17, 2018 07:46 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: LOL @ Syne disparaging my belief in a ufos as his own magic skydaddy fantasy. Is it really that bad?
Hey, I'm not the one trying to convince others to believe in things I can't demonstrate. I disparage Ostro for making unsupportable claims about god too. You're two peas in a pod.
Right. Because, unlike my belief in ufos, you can't demonstrate your religious beliefs. That says alot for them, doesn't it?
Like I said, you and Ostro think you can demonstrate things you can't.
I'm intellectually honest enough to realize what I can't. I believe many things I cannot demonstrate. I cannot demonstrate that I am not a brain in a jar. Nor can I demonstrate that something is beautiful...you either find it so or not.