UFO's Real or Fiction

[Guest Rog]

It would be great if there was another planet with sentient humanoid life, if only to see what paralells in society and culture exist.

[DC 536]

Now, UFOs do exist. But none of them are spaceships from another planet. Every UFO ever seen by a person on Earth has some terrestrial origin.

And how do you know this to be true? You posted that as a fact, when there is more evidence that there is an E.T. origin than there isn't.

 

As for the part in bold, does that mean that those who have seen them from the Space Shuttle or a rocket could be E.T. in origin? N.A.S.A. has many classified documents on the subject, and a lot that has been de-classified in the last ten years that have details on unexplained objects seen by the astronauts.

 

Military pilots have also been hushed about things they've seen, with some of the pilots (and astronauts) being grounded (no jokes about teenage grounding; it's too obvious) for good.

[Guest dpddave]

I dont think Lafdugga actually wrote that post out herself, its seems like something someone doing a study on them wrote.

[DC 536]

She hasn't mentioned quoting it from anywhere else.

[Guest A.C.]

Yahoo! Answers supplies the bulk of the "UFO" half of lafdugga's post.

 

Associates for Scriptural Knowledge provides the Jesus stuff.

[DC 536]

And WETA/LucasArts provide the spaceships?

[Guest A.C.]

To pick up on the "every UFO ever seen by a person on Earth has some terrestrial origin" thing mentioned in one of lafdugga's statements - not true. The planet Venus is responsible for an awful lot of UFO sightings.

[Nimf 324]

I believe in many things I can't prove. Seen UFO's, believe in it. Whether they are little green (or grey) men, I don't know.

[Guest Fiona]

I believe in many things I can't prove. Seen UFO's, believe in it. Whether they are little green (or grey) men, I don't know.

 

I agree 100% just because I haven't seen a lot of things who am I to tell someone else their wrong.

[Guest A.C.]

When someone makes a statement of belief at odds with all available evidence I'd say that it's fair to debate that statement. The tricky thing is to make sure that people realise you're attacking the statement and not the person who's making the statement.

[Guest Fiona]

When someone makes a statement of belief at odds with all available evidence I'd say that it's fair to debate that statement. The tricky thing is to make sure that people realise you're attacking the statement and not the person who's making the statement.

 

Yes I understand but most people believe that if you are attacking something someone says you are casting doubt on the person who said it. I think personally if you make a statement and can justify it I can't tell you your wrong.

[Guest A.C.]

So what's a discussion forum for? If the subject is "Do you believe A or B?" it'll get a bit dull if every time someone posts a woo-woo belief we all just replied with "Oooh!" and "Ahhh!"

[DC 536]

Describe a "woo-woo belief" to me.

[Guest A.C.]

"Woo woo" is a sort of catch-all term for anything that is paranormal - homeopathy, ESP, Reiki, aliens etc.

[DC 536]

IMO, it's an insulting term for describing someone's belief (since "Woo woo" is associated with being crazy).

 

I'm saying the term is insulting, not that you're being insulting A.C. Attacking the statement, not the person making the statement. Is that how you put it?

 

That's another interesting point. The use of the word "attacking" in describing what you are doing. It comes across as much more forceful than "debating" a statement. Is there a reason that the statement needs attacked rather than debated?

[Omega 354]

Aliens practising Reiki through ESP?

 

i'm more inlcined to believe if Alienes than stuff like homeopathy and Reiki. In the kind of Aliens may exist because i've never seen one but homeopathy and reiki are are man made sceme to gouge money off of idiots...

[Guest A.C.]

IMO, it's an insulting term for describing someone's belief (since "Woo woo" is associated with being crazy).

 

I'm saying the term is insulting, not that you're being insulting A.C. Attacking the statement, not the person making the statement. Is that how you put it?

 

I tried to find out where "woo" came from the other day - drew a blank. If you think it's insulting then I apologise.

 

 

That's another interesting point. The use of the word "attacking" in describing what you are doing. It comes across as much more forceful than "debating" a statement. Is there a reason that the statement needs attacked rather than debated?

 

Using a "attack" instead of "debate" in my earlier post was for a couple of reasons.

 

1) I don't like repetition.

2) Because if I'd said "debate the statement and not the person who's making the statement" would make no sense.

3) I don't like repetition.

 

Bear in mind also, your use of semantics to take me to task ignores the various uses of "attack". A mountaineer can "attack the North face" of a mountain - no violence or hate is implied. I can "attack this pile of ironing" - there'll be no fisticuffs there.

[DC 536]

Serious question A.C.

 

Do you believe in nothing you can't explain? Is that your stance at this time?

[Guest A.C.]

Serious question A.C.

 

Do you believe in nothing you can't explain? Is that your stance at this time?

 

No, that's not my position since stating that it is will allow others to tell me that I don't understand how rocket ships work yet they fly to space. I believe in nothing we (as a society) can't provide any proof for.

 

The burden of proof isn't on the non-believer.

[Omega 354]

I think people need to understand the roots of skepticism as opposed to people who in general skeptical. skepticism is really a way of looking at things with doubt, things that are true are things without doubt and therefore things that have doubt cannot be held as a tenable truth.

 

So alienes and UFO's are things we can doubt the existance of and so therefore to a card carrying skeptic they are not true and so you can't believe in them.