All About UFO's

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Expected reply and it makes sense to a certain extent, but is a bit of a strawman argument, because there is more evidence of UFO stuff than people in this thread are aware of (plus a lot of it was suppressed)

I guess it's a question of what you define as 'evidence', hence my question about quantum dots.
There's plenty of articles and YouTube reviews out there that swear they make a difference. How is that evidence less compelling than the evidence of alien bases on the moon?

 

[Petrushka]

The question is not whether there is evidence for UFOs.

The question is whether there is good reason to believe we are being visited by aliens.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

The question is not whether there is evidence for UFOs.

The question is whether there is good reason to believe we are being visited by aliens.

So this is a thread about belief rather than evidence. That explains a lot...

 

[Audiofire]

We have good counter-evidence against the audio snake oil. I like evidence and science just like you.

Back to the topic, Donna Hare has the same kind of facial expressions in this video, which indicates they are part of her consistent personality. Normally with liars, you will have contrived facial expressions that happen suddenly and then don't happen again. The point is she could be telling the truth, and you are gonna have a hard time presenting counter-evidence to that.

 

[AdrianusG]

The question is not whether there is evidence for UFOs.

The question is whether there is good reason to believe we are being visited by aliens.

"The question is not whether there is evidence for UFOs."

Well, There's lot's of people, including some here, that even deny that, so....
And it still just means Unidentified Flying/Submerged (in some cases) Objects.
It simply means, we don't know what they are, or where they come from, while they often defy (what we currently know) of what should be possible within the laws of physics.
And there is a lot we don't know yet, much more than we do know.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Back to the topic, Donna Hare has the same kind of facial expressions in this video, which indicates they are part of her consistent personality. Normally with liars, you will have contrived facial expressions that happen suddenly and then don't happen again. The point is she could be telling the truth, and you are gonna have a hard time presenting counter-evidence to that.

Hang on, are you saying that people who like the effect of quantum dots are liars?

 

[Axo1989]

We have good counter-evidence against the audio snake oil. I like evidence and science just like you.

Back to the topic, Donna Hare has the same kind of facial expressions in this video, which indicates they are part of her consistent personality. Normally with liars, you will have contrived facial expressions that happen suddenly and then don't happen again. The point is she could be telling the truth, and you are gonna have a hard time presenting counter-evidence to that.

No, it's fairly trivial to find 'counter-evidence' of better calibre than the assertions you refer to:

That challenge has remained open for many years: if commercially released NASA photographs in that time period were clear enough to show trees and their shadows, find one. Find any example in books, magazines, scientific papers, anywhere they might have been released. Nobody has yet succeeded – because, I suggest, such images never existed.

Veteran NASA earth photography specialist Paul Lowman confirmed this for me: “Your term ‘preposterous’ is right on. The original Landsats had a ground resolution of 79 meters; Landsats 4 and 5 did better than that, around 30 meters or so. The Skylab S190B camera (18" focal length) could resolve small boats in marinas on the Chicago lake front, and I think a 10 meter resolution would account for that. But no NASA satellite of that era, or for that matter of any era up to now, could resolve pine trees or their shadows.

I've spent some time with air photos and remote-sensing data of various types and vintages for my day job, as it happens, so Hare's confabulations (note that she's not in any way avuncular) are easily dismissed. But as I'm not running an amusing YouTube channel with an audience for debunking, I'll only demonstrate that Whac-A-Mole is obviously possible, but not waste too much time playing it.

 

[mhardy6647]

because there is more evidence of UFO stuff than people in this thread are aware of (plus a lot of it was suppressed)

This is latter day Gnosticism (or Kabbalah, as one prefers).
The notion of special, hidden knowledge essential to understanding The Truth.

Do the "pro-UFO" faction in this thread really believe that Earth's moon has secret hidden alien bases that have been observed but meticulously covered up?
A poll might be interesting.

 

[Mart68]

I guess it's a question of what you define as 'evidence', hence my question about quantum dots.
There's plenty of articles and YouTube reviews out there that swear they make a difference. How is that evidence less compelling than the evidence of alien bases on the moon?

They are not the same thing.

The Quantum Dot people are being genuine but we know the reason they believe is cognitive bias.

Someone claiming they have seen photographs of alien bases on the moon is not caused by cognitive bias.

Either they are making it up, they are mistaken about what they saw, they were being fooled or hoaxed or - the least likely explanation - that they really did see a genuine photograph of a base.

Seems to be a line through this thread of comparisons to audio snake oil, which in my view is not a valid parallel.

 

[Audiofire]

Nice effort. I read the Oberg attempt at debunking. Although she said there were multiple pine trees, which could have covered a suitable area. I still like the motivated debunking effort, but it is not necessarily conclusive.

 

[Koeitje]

Witness testimony by Karl Wolfe about the UFO/ET cover up with regard to the Moon. Cynics can just believe he's a liar seeking fame or fortune, but he seems sincere and died mysteriously later on. I try to be open-minded.

There is zero evidence in this video.

 

[Audiofire]

evidence /ĕv′ĭ-dəns/

noun​

1. A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
   "The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weighed the evidence for and against the hypothesis."
2. Something indicative; an indication or set of indications.
   "saw no evidence of grief on the mourner's face."
3. The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition

 

[Chester]

because there is more evidence of UFO stuff than people in this thread are aware of

How could you possibly know that? You and others are assuming that you have the most knowledge on the subject and therefore we should all believe what you say, but you have no way of knowing if that is true.

 

[Audiofire]

Do the "pro-UFO" faction in this thread really believe that Earth's moon has secret hidden alien bases that have been observed but meticulously covered up?

Nah, but worth knowing about if that is real.

That's quite funny of course and I just wanted to clarify as there appeared to be some satire or humour going on, but I likely misread that.

Nah, I do have some cynicism. Although you appear to be the leader of that camp in the thread.

I'm not being cynical here (wrt to your posts). I don't believe you are acting out of self interest (which is what cynicism means).

You are being cynical to those in the videos, where you insinuate lies or confabulation without evidence.

How could you possibly know that? You and others are assuming that you have the most knowledge on the subject and therefore we should all believe what you say, but you have no way of knowing if that is true.

Fine example of psychological projection. Please beware.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

evidence /ĕv′ĭ-dəns/

noun​

1. A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
   "The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weighed the evidence for and against the hypothesis."
2. Something indicative; an indication or set of indications.
   "saw no evidence of grief on the mourner's face."
3. The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition

Uh uh don’t forget, this is not about evidence it’s about belief. Nice try though

The question is not whether there is evidence for UFOs.

The question is whether there is good reason to believe we are being visited by aliens.

 

[Somafunk]

Do the "pro-UFO" faction in this thread really believe that Earth's moon has secret hidden alien bases that have been observed but meticulously covered up?
A poll might be interesting.

I think we should invite them all to a convention to discuss this important matter, wait till they’re all comfortably seated, lock the doors behind us as we sneak out and throw away the key then head down the pub

 

[Audiofire]

Hang on, are you saying that people who like the effect of quantum dots are liars?

Amusing if you misinterpret so easily.

Uh uh don’t forget, this is not about evidence it’s about belief. Nice try though

This is psychological projection again in a way.

 

[Mart68]

I think we should invite them all to a convention to discuss this important matter, wait till they’re all comfortably seated, lock the doors behind us as we sneak out and throw away the key then head down the pub

'Belief' - 'the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true'

I don't think you're going to find anyone on this thread who is certain about the existence of earth-visiting aliens, bases, flying saucers etc.

Certainly there are some of us who find the topic interesting. What's also interesting is the attitude of some that there are only the binary options of being certain of alien visitation (to 'believe' in it) or to totally dismissive of the whole thing as a complete waste of time.

Possibly due to an academic background in hard science? So the only thing they find interesting is hard science?

Fair enough, but they should appreciate those from a more 'flexible' academic background (in my case History & Philosophy) might find the subject interesting without feeling the need to be intellectually committed to any of the possible outcomes.

 

[Chester]

Fine example of psychological projection. Please beware.

You’ve lost me.

 

[Ken1951]

For me, when one considers the scope and scale of our home galaxy and then the scope and scale of our perceived universe, the idea that we are the only "intelligent" life form stretches credulity orders of magnitude beyond the breaking point. Whether or not any other beings have developed technologies that would allow them to visit this blue dot is another question. So "unidentified" to me is just that. Unidentified.