Can You Trust Them?

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby James Carlson » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:42 am

I've got to admit, you make a very convincing case -- VERY convincing. All the same, I personally find it difficult to get past it. My reasoning is without doubt emotional as opposed to technical or scientific, but -- to my mind, anyway -- a lie is a lie is a lie, and I have a problem with conclusions that are based on them. The whole ends justifies the means argument is the same one being used by UFO proponents, except their target is the USAF. They don't trust the USAF, and we don't trust them -- all circular. Granted, their arguments are fundamentally flawed as a result of their imperfect understanding of classification protocols and military procedures, but their motivation is pretty much the same. In any case, it's a problem for me, not for everybody else; I certainly agree with the conclusions reached, but the method still bothers me from both sides of the issue.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM


Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby Frank Stalter » Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:04 am

nablator wrote:
astrophotographer wrote: However, they ignore the fact that less than half of the reports filed from that time period only mentioned the triangle and the other half reported only a formation of lights and those lights were shifting in formation (not to mention the only video tape showing significant shifts in formation). One has to be careful when evaluating the testimony of one witness.

Or even of many witnesses. I saw the National Geographic documentary in which they "prove" that it was a huge alien craft... it could not have been anything else... even when the witnesses said the "craft" was transparent... Then they show the paths plotted from multiple witnesses' testimony, and you would think Phoenix was invaded by an armada of alien spaceships. Many paths were the same, obviously, but trusting 100% direction and altitude assessment made from memory by eyewitnesses created a War of the Worlds scenario.


My understanding is that some witnesses described the vehicle as translucent which is a little different than transparent. Metals with both properties are currently manufactured.
Frank Stalter
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:37 am

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby astrophotographer » Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:36 am

I recall only one stating translucent or transparent and that was Mike Fortson. He added it only appeared that way when it passed in front of the moon (mentioning the moon changed color and its appearance looked like the fumes from a gas can). Before and after it passed in front of the moon, it was black. Tim Ley mentioned behind the object the sky was "wavy" but he insisted the structure of the object was black. In both cases, they could very well have been describing exhaust from aircraft.
One has to go through all the reports but I don't recall seeing any (at least from the reports pre-2000) that described "translucence/transparency" other than these two (and Ley did not even describe the object that way, just the sky behind it).
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby Buckwild » Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:14 am

Hi guys,

I totally agree with Arbitrageur, there sure is a pedagogical aspect involved in the making of intentional hoaxes.

If I ever make fake ufos and in theory, I know how to do it well, it will not only be fun to see how ufo-believers and skeptics react, but it will be a learning (socialwise) experience and a technical experience as well. Like Eric Maillot stated once, before you can become a good ufologist, you should be a great ifologist.(i as identified)

I would even add that thinking about different ways to make hoaxes is very important.

After all, passivity might be the greatest enemy in the battle to overcome ignorance & belief-systems.

Cheers,
Buck
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby philliman » Sun Feb 20, 2011 7:56 pm

James Carlson wrote:
nablator wrote:Ufology should not be about "who do you want to believe?" (religious thinking), but about "where's the evidence?" (critical thinking).

Bravo!!!!

Yes, very well said. Unfortunately many people just want to believe and that's why you can still find some liars and frauds lecturing on conferences. Otherwise they all would have been already sorted out by the community.
philliman
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:51 pm

Can You Trust Them? NO you can't !

Postby Buckwild » Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:12 pm

Hi folks,

Remember what I was saying about some french ufo-skeptics...and how you should trust no one.

Well, it happened again and we have a witness :arrow: Nablator

Ok, since the battle is not totally over, I won't present this information right now but what I could tell you is that the person involved this time is one of the biggest ufo-skeptics in France (just like the other dude I nailed) and a Ufologist since a long time.

I'll demonstrate by a+b that this person is just lying, but lying big time and I just nailed him on the biggest skeptic forum in Quebec. :mrgreen:

Trust me guys, some ufo-skeptics are just as bad as their counterparts, if not worse ! It's time to get them exposed.

Coming soon...

Update :

ps : Careful Nab', you might get splashed in the process. I know that members here could careless about the S.O team you clearly "belong" to.

pps : that dude just threatened me (private message), this is hillarious and he asked moderators to cancel his account and now my messages are being moderated. In other words, they read them before they post them. This is better than expected, this is great !

Cheers,
Buck
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby Buckwild » Sat Apr 02, 2011 9:57 pm

Here it is. Since it is too long & tedious and a little complicated to translate everything, here is a short version.

It all started when I posted this document* about what is considered by these guys to probably be Ball Lighning (BL). As you remember, I posted this document here in this forum :
* http://fulmineglobulare.xoom.it/index.php?lang=en

My original message here : http://www.sceptiques.qc.ca/forum/ovnis ... 5-200.html
Please watch the video, it is very important for you to do so in order to understand everything.

I then asked Nablator to give his take and he did. I have to say that I agree with him, it could be a laser, but that’s not the point.

Then the dude said this :

I agree with you Nab. If BL exist (it is a very controversial subject, even as we speak), we’re not within the criterias generally accepted for BL. That’s not even taking into account that this point goes upstream and testimonies (reliable ?) tell us that BL is very light.


Then I wrote:

Objectively, what allows you to assume that this luminous point is in or on (i.e : the surface) the water ? By saying “very light”, did you intend to say that some witnesses stated/deducted that wind/breeze did have an influence on the supposed phenomena ? (which would be unappropriated in reasoning terms)


His answer :

Quoting me : By saying “very light”, did you mean to say that some witnesses stated/deducted that wind/breeze did have an influence on the supposed phenomena ? (which would be unappropriated in reasoning terms)


Exactly and this way of reasoning is unappropriated, but like with all testimonies...you know the answer.


Now, that’s where & when the lies start, he is going to explain what he meant :

When I wrote “That’s not even taking into account that this point goes upstream etc...” I am not talking about the luminous point, which if you noticed does not go upstream* but transversally, the point going upstream is related/connected to the sentence I wrote just before and is related/connected to “the criterias generally admited for BL” Is it more clear ?


* upstream in french also means "seems to contradict" and point just like in english = laser/luminous point or making a point in a discussion

My answer (part of it) :

Yes, it is very clear, by using “etc...” you removed the exact sense of your sentence, which was :

If BL exist (it is a very controversial subject, even as we speak), we’re not within the criterias generally admited for BL. That’s not even taking into account that this point goes upstream and testimonies (reliable ?) tell us that BL is very light.


You see, it's called lying, I won't translate everything and my little logical demonstration, since I am sure that you already understood where the lie is. He should have said "hey, I was wrong to state that the light was either in or on the surface, since I have nothing to back that hypothesis" Who cares...? And he could even be right.

The argument he used "I am not talking about the luminous point, which if you noticed does not go upstream but transversally" is just bunk as well, if this luminous point was either on the surface or in the water and moved transversally or in circles and even doing zig-zags fot that matter, it still (sure) was going up & upstream. Just watch the video.

So you see, it's no big deal but when you are lying like that, man, you just burn yourself and this is why he got so mad. His friends from the "S.O Team" (forum) tried to back him up but they didn't bring any counter arguments, same with him...and now my messages are being moderated and he threatened me just because I told him that he was/is a liar. Cannot even say the truth nowadays ? If he did not use his real name, we might not have seen this drama, that's what I think. Ego is probably the answer in this scenario.

Cheers,
Buck
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Re: Can You Trust Them? NO you can't !

Postby nablator » Sat Apr 02, 2011 10:21 pm

Bucky is getting all emotional.

Again.

About nothing.

<Yawn>
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: Can You Trust Them? Guess not !

Postby Buckwild » Sat Apr 02, 2011 11:19 pm

Hi Nab',

That stuff is crystal clear. If it was not and If I was wrong, he would have presented some undebunkable/unambiguous arguments. Instead, he got all pissed, said that I was the liar, threatened me and asked for his account to be cancelled.

If that's not proof, I call that lines of evidence bro'. The funny thing is to watch some of the S.O crew come over to his rescue when they all fail to do so, making his case even worse. It's so obvious, one for all and all for one, does not matter if the guru is right or wrong.

What a bunch of dumb a___s ! :mrgreen:



Cheers,
Buck
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby James Carlson » Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:05 am

Well, I'm not certain I understand the argument, because I don't really know anything about ball lightning; a friend of mine insisted for years that he and his older brother saw ball lightning once when lightning burned out his television antenna and apparently took out the electricity in the whole house. He said as soon as the lights inside blew, he and his brother watched the ball lightning come out of the back of his television; the T.V. was up against a corner with one side being a stone wall, and the other panelled, and he watched it bounce off of the stone, move slowly across the room and just kind of fade out before it hit anything else. They were both scared to death, because they were alone in the house at the time, but when their parents came home, they described what happened, and their father said it was ball lightning, and told them they were lucky to see it. This would have been around 1975, I guess, but he didn't tell me the story until the 1980s. I can't say for certain that it's true, but I do trust him, and I don't see what he could have gained by making the story up. I would say that the fact it was floating suggests that it wasn't very "weighty", but like I said, I really don't know much about the subject.

In any case, I stand by my own insistence that lying and the conclusions people reach as a result of lies told have no place outside of a known work of fiction. That reasoning wouldn't work very well for someone involved in military espionage or someone hired to work out security protocols for a wealthy businessman, but since I don't do anything like that, a code of honesty tends to work very well for me. I don't have to remember a lot of different stories to tell based on the current audience, and I don't have to worry about people questioning everything I say and do, because I can't be trusted. I've heard people argue that honesty forces a man into constraints that eventually curtail his freedom to act, but try to exercise your freedoms when people don't know whether or not they can trust you, and you'll quickly find the errors in that line of thought. Honesty bestows freedom, because as long as you're honest, it really doesn't matter whether people believe you or not; if you tell lies or act in a dishonest manner, you're always trying to figure the odds while working out whether or not this lie can be safely told to this individual, or does he possess enough knowledge to discover your deceit, or to conclude that you're actually a man of low or worthless character, and is he going to eventually compare notes with someone to whom you've given a different version or told a different lie? I assure you, as long as you're honest, it doesn't matter a damn what people think about you, because all you've done is illuminate yourself. If they don't like what they see, they can damn well look elsewhere; there's not a man on earth who can shame you or otherwise discount your assertions, if all you're doing is telling the truth. No fault can be discovered in a man who's telling the truth; if others don't like what you affirm, all they can do is find fault with the events that you've described. Self-knowledge at that level bestows an incredible degree of freedom. Telling lies demands commitment to the lie, which very often continues to evolve; I can't even imagine the stress that sort of commitment infuses within a person. On the other hand, nobody has to commit to the truth -- they just have to recognize it. As for the rest of the world, screw 'em if they don't like what you have to say; the fault will always lie within them, not you. And since freedom is an internal and subjective concept, being honest gives it to you in spades.

That's my opinion, anyway.

As for your description of the above, it seems, if I understand correctly, that he's saying the fact that either the luminous point going upstream is contrary to criteria already established for ball lightning OR it acts in a manner that contradicts the testimony of witnesses who have observed ball lightning in the past, both of which suggest that the luminous point was NOT ball lightning, but something else entirely (and keep in mind that I honestly don't know what the criteria is for defining ball lightning). His use of "etc." can therefore be interpreted as either "other criteria of ball lightning that the luminous point also doesn't encompass" OR "any additional differences that may exist between the luminous point and the known characteristics of ball lightning that may not necessarily contradict what we already know." I think ...

In other words, he saying, "That’s not even taking into account that this point not only goes upstream, but possesses other characteristics as well that suggest it is not ball lightning, but something else."

Of course, "etc." could also indicate the rest of the sentence he first stated, as in: When I wrote “That’s not even taking into account that this point goes upstream and testimonies (reliable ?) tell us that BL is very light”, I am not saying that the luminous point is going "upstream", because you can see it doesn't go "upstream"; I'm saying that it's characteristics "seem to contradict" what we already know about ball lightning, such as the fact that BL is very light. In other words, the luminous point seems to contradict known criteria for ball lightning."

I'm not sure that qualifies as a "lie", because to me it sounds like he's simply saying "I'm not suggesting it was going 'upstream' -- I'm suggesting that it 'seems to contradict' the criteria for ball lightning."

The fact that it was all said in a language I'm not familar with, however, means I'm probably missing some subtle nuances that I'm not aware of.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby Buckwild » Sun Apr 03, 2011 2:51 pm

Hi James,

Thx for giving your input.

The fact that it was all said in a language I'm not familar with, however, means I'm probably missing some subtle nuances that I'm not aware of


That's the problem I had with presenting this little drama in another language.
I think I did a pretty good job translating our exchanges since Nablator who is very fluent in English did not correct me yet. The thing you have to remember is this :

Quoting me : By saying “very light”, did you mean to say that some witnesses stated/deducted that wind/breeze did have an influence on the supposed phenomena ? (which would be unappropriated in reasoning terms)


Exactly and this way of reasoning is unappropriated, but like with all testimonies...you know the answer.


The word "exactly" in his answer shows that the last sentence was not connected/linked to the first one. Replace wind/breeze by river stream/current and there you go, it means the same thing. Here is the last sentence :

That’s not even taking into account that this point goes upstream and testimonies (reliable ?) tell us that BL is very light.


Here is the first one :

I agree with you Nab. If BL exist (it is a very controversial subject, even as we speak), we’re not within the criterias generally accepted for BL.


It's pure logic here, he meant to say that since witnesses say that BL is very light, it cannot go upstream but when he then used the word "transversally" as an escape so to say, he failed because you could cross a river transversally (with an angle) and still go upstream. And that's exactly what the point of light did (visually) and he watched the video since he gave that detail. :arrow: Indicating that this is another lie !

Like I said, his violent reaction afterwards sure indicates that he was lying, he could get pissed off, no big deal but threatening me and asking moderators to cancel his account is another thing. Usually people do that when they are nailed and want to escape criticism and confrontation. Not all the times you might say but in this case, it was imo the final nail in the coffin.

And remember that I would not have presented this drama if I knew there was a slight chance that I was wrong, knowing that at least one member here (two actually with Gilles.F) are not only fluent in English but are also members of that french speaking Canadian forum and moderators in the forum where that dude is one of the administrators.

Skeptics can also lie, they are humans after all and longtime ufologists usually have a big ego, I know it for a fact. They just hate it when newcomers prove them wrong.

Cheers,
Buck
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby Access Denied » Sat Apr 09, 2011 5:24 pm

Buckwild wrote:Skeptics can also lie, they are humans after all and longtime ufologists usually have a big ego, I know it for a fact. They just hate it when newcomers prove them wrong.

If these are your best examples of the former, I'm not impressed... :)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby Buckwild » Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:04 pm

Access Denied wrote:
Buckwild wrote:Skeptics can also lie, they are humans after all and longtime ufologists usually have a big ego, I know it for a fact. They just hate it when newcomers prove them wrong.

If these are your best examples of the former, I'm not impressed... :)


Hi AD,

I am not impressed neither, but a lie is a lie, no matter it's size. Just today as I was reading a skeptical forum, I've found out that someone was talking about me (a well known skeptic) and how I was banned (ejected in his own words) from a Canadian skeptical forum (the one mentionned above). The funny thing is, I asked them to erase/cancel my account because they did not let me start a new thread where I was exposing his words without giving the link.

That was his first lie, then the second one is that this same guy said that since I was kicked out of the forum, conversations/messages in the ufo-section of this forum were more interesting. Yeah, right, noboby even posted anything, besides some member showing somebody else how to use the forum and he did it 2 days before* I asked the moderators to cancel my registration/account :arrow: (on April 8th)

* http://www.sceptiques.qc.ca/forum/souco ... ml#p263853
http://www.sceptiques.qc.ca/forum/ovnis.html
http://www.sceptiques.qc.ca/forum/extra-terrestres.html


I can prove* all that if you ask me, you could even contact the moderators of the Canadian forum and expose my lies if I lied.

* here is part of the proof (just do an automatic translation, corresponding links are provided, pretty confusing & funny story inside) : http://www.rationalisme.org/forum_athei ... 009#p37009

Here you can see that I still posted messages on the april 6th (my last message as a matter of fact) :
http://www.sceptiques.qc.ca/forum/dieud ... 07-25.html

Some Ufo-skeptics hate me and I can understand it, I expose their lies and their fallacious arguments when I spot them, why ? Because "truth" regarding ufos should be on their side but when you scrap the surface, you find some ugly stuff too. I just don't trust no one and don't expect to be trusted, this is why I want you to contact the moderators of this forum and ask them. Just for you to verify if you can trust me... 8)


Cheers,
Buck
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby Access Denied » Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:07 pm

Hey Buck,

I think people disagreeing about some things, especially on some of the finer details or how things went down, is just a normal, inevitable part of life. I think all your examples show in that respect is that skeptics and believers are human too…

I don’t have the time at the moment, or frankly even the inclination, to get involved in what looks like a relatively minor dispute between you and other forums/personalities and I must say any further discussion of the matter in this thread is off topic.

That said, you’re certainly welcome to discuss the issue in the Latrine which is where all the forum drama goes here in case you haven’t noticed.

Thanks,

Tom
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Previous

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests

cron