Philosophy Now Forum

Conde Lucanor wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Incorrect!! You said, and I quote, "You keep forgetting," an assumption, a projection of you, onto me. Within those words, you speak as if you can probably know me, thus speaking for me, or that I have “said”/inferred as much, which you can't necessarily do, and in this particular case, you failed to do.

We had discussed earlier about more precise implications of the term "ET", which should have been enough to acknowledge that each one would take us to a different debate, but you came back to use the term vaguely, so that's why you "keep forgetting". No projections, no assumptions, no mind reading, just the obvious conclusion obtained from you arguments.
No, we had not discussed at all, rather you had posed such. Obviously, I'm not willing to go there, to say what it is that those UFO's are, as no one can necessarily know, at this time. That you want to go there is immaterial. Again, what's the point of throwing straw men at one another? You believe this, and I believe that, gets anyone nowhere.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Which in fact is completely wrong. As Ufology only contains the 'study of unidentified flying objects,' in it's meaning, i.e., there appears to be objects, that are flying, that have as yet to be identified. And it is completely common sense, that some study them, so to be finally identified.

It's so obvious that you have not been familiar with UFOlogy literature,
A false assumption on your part, I possibly know more about it that you do.

the key claims of UFOlogists, etc., so I won't argue much about it.
No, I'm saying that by definition, those that attach more to ufology, than just the study of UFO's, actually require another name, (title), as Ufologists does not say enough, as it only speaks of the objects. They should be called "extraterrestrialologists," or something similar.

I just will recommend that you get to know the subject a little more,
Yet your initial only spoke of UFO's make up you mind. DO I REALLY HAVE TO SHOW YOU THE DEFINITION OF UFOLOGY AGAIN? NO ONE'S THAT DENSE! THE WORD IS BEING USED INCORRECTLY!

get acquainted with Von Daniken's theories about aliens passing on information to ancient civilizations (supposedly, their astronomical knowledge, building skills and iconographic representations are to be credited to extraterrestrial visitors).
No need, been there, done that!

In fact, a big part of UFOlogy is about attributing an extraterrestrial origin to almost everything on Earth.
THE WORD IS BEING USED INCORRECTLY!

If pancakes are round, it's most likely because of some secret cultural code shared with alien visitors.
It makes perfect sense that you just said so!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:You tell me, where the lack of common sense is, that one should embrace ufology, so as to identify the cause of these occurrences. Considering the above, it’s absolutely true, that your initial comment was completely wrong, right from the start, not thought out very well. Probably due to your obvious lack of understanding of some English definitions; keep trying you’ll get there.

We weigh common sense in the actual study of a subject, its approach and conclusions, not in the intentions of studying the subject.
Really don't know what your point is here. What is currently "common sense" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with truth, it's just the sense that's currently common.

It's OK to study the hypothetical influence of the stars on people's behavior, but that does not mean Astrology does not clash with common sense.
Yet the stars has everything to do with human behavior!

The same with UFOlogy.
Yet, that UFO's exist, is in fact the current common sense of it.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote:Von Daniken goes so far as to mess with archaeology.

A reasonable possibility to explore, so as to leave no stone unturned, no? (Pun intended!)

Who cares what anyone's measures are, as long as questions are ever asked? Who decides to close the book; prematurely? In this universe, of ever dimension, like ones mind, born of it, ever open, expanding, surely the truth shall come when the animal, no longer is capable, of asking questions, as the universe surely, eventually provides!

Well, sure, you are always entitled to such poetic licenses, but actually the universe does not speak.
Who said the universe speaks? But if someone had, I for one understand metaphor, you? Though poetic, also true!

For people to explore possibilities, that's OK, but to come up with ridiculous theories based on poor research (if any) and even poorer reasoning,
Surely if this is true...

then we are entering domains that share borders with superstition and plain ignorance.
...then this follows.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:The concept of Common Sense is exactly as those dictionaries defined it.

And yet you keep using a defintion of your own, not found in the dictionary definitions that you pulled out.
Not at all, I just understand why they make the distinction in the first place. I have faith that you'll eventually figure it out. I'm rooting for you.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:You have attempted to “dictate,” what is, in fact, commonsensical, as it pertains to the possibility of ET’s,

And there you go again, moving the discussion around the subject of "ET's", as a general, vague term, despite the fact that the argument being weighed is my statement: "UFOlogy defies common sense".
No, it's you that believes that Ufology and the existence of ET's are mutually inclusive; I've said no such thing.

Where you have gone wrong thus far, is that you assume far too much. Bringing preconceived notions to the argument, based upon your parroting of others, as if their version of things is the only one, which actually lends credibility to that version. I do not read anyone, necessarily taking it verbatim, like a parrot. If you care to portray one of them, much like a clone, and argue another, seeing them as a clone, you're arguing with the wrong person. To reiterate, I do not read anyone, taking their words as necessarily factual, and only ever apply my filters, after seeing that their take is flawed. Even still I only ever see it a possibility, sometimes as probability, it all depends, on how much other data I've accumulated, that I know is true, supports it.

I didn't say "ET's defy common sense" because I'm perfectly aware that the term can imply several things. To abandon any ambiguities, I proceeded in several instances to make distinctions between UFO's, SETI, basic forms of alien life, complex forms of alien life, etc.,
And so I have my own way of seeing it as well.

and specified different grades of common sense between them.
There are no grades of common sense, it is, what it is, and neither you nor I can change it. You forever confuse your sense with that which is common, and that's not necessarily true.

You can, of course, keep conveniently ignoring those statements and come back to talk vaguely about "ET's", since stepping out of that comfortable zone will place your arguments in the big trouble zone.
This round of your logic makes you sound like a retard, no disrespect to mentally challenged peoples intended. In the same breath you speak of my vagueness, then profess to know that if I no longer am, that it shall surely be in "big trouble," how is that possible? Mind reader, anyone????? And at the same time, another flaw in your logic: It was you that gave 3 instances of possible discourse as to ET's, and I inferred, the probability of others, yet you seem to be capable of knowing which it is that I shall follow, once I choose not to be vague, Miss Cleo, anyone??? Did you take a logic course in college? Did you understand it? Psychology would help too, as then you'd be less likely to project, yourself onto others, as you seem to simply be arguing with yourself, as you choose my logical course, devoid of vagueness, as if you could really know it, of 'your own' accord.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: That in fact common sense is that sense that is in fact the most common, i.e., shared by the largest group of people. That is in fact what is meant by “common.” Look up “common” if you don’t believe me.

A sense of taste is shared by humans,
yes!

and yet not all people applies this natural feature the same way and with the same results,
Agree!

because of cultural influences.
And otherwise!

As I explained before, common sense, even though a innate feature,
I'm sure you mean to say that some have the ability to choose that which shall soon be most common, making it such, defining what currently is 'common sense,' and some don't. Of course I'm speaking of any particular bit of knowledge, that is in fact true. Which can be subject dependent. And does not speak of inequality, only ones lack of honesty, "as glittering prizes and endless compromises, shatters the illusion of integrity," (Rush-Spirit of Radio).

only takes shape in a cultural context (experience),
Not necessarily, rather dependent upon ones definition of culture, I see the earth as one culture, you?

where the development of knowledge (education) plays a key role.
Of course, as it comes from everywhere, open your eyes, take a deep breath, listen, feel the electromagnetic energy and then finally try and put it into words, then you're ready to listen to others, as they tried to put their's into words! One must first be grounded, feet firmly planted, sensing the vibrations of existence, the universes pulse, nature, as she speaks! The "Miracle of Life," (Yes-Miracle of Life), the chain of creation, the universes' fruit!

For ancient stone age hunters, ignorant of basic laws of the universe, it was within common sense to think that lightning was caused by divine forces from an invisible dimension.
Probably!

What made it commonsensical was not how many people believed it, but that it was a reasonable explanation in proportion to the knowledge tools available.
You act as though the word 'common,' is not contained in the phrase "Common Sense!"

But it is not anymore within common sense to 21st century urban population, with education and enough access to knowledge tools as to know which are the real causes of lightning.
Not true!

Sure enough, people from anywhere can choose to ignore the fundamental pillars of knowledge of our time and wander around obscurantism and superstition. They can do so, against common sense.
You seem to be confusing what is, in fact, currently common sense, with ones capability of blazing the trail in common sense, the first to realize, such that the rest need not much convincing. Make no mistake, common sense does not necessarily contain truth, until it is well established, via empirical data, and the more time, of nothing to the contrary, lends to it's credibility. If the common sense deems ET's are real, then it can be seen through statistics, a survey, which doesn't necessarily mean that, that particular sense that is most common, is in fact absolutely true, just that most people believe it to be true, and it very well may be! Yet the proof shall be in it standing the test of time, such that only time shall tell. That means neither you nor I, just now, But I'd wager I'm right, and I'm sure you would as well.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Not as far as common sense goes, no! As at least to me it’s obvious that as to ability it’s the saturation of knowledge amongst the populous, pure and simple. An example: long ago it was in FACT “common sense” that the world was flat. You could ask anyone of that time, and most would say “flat.” However today, the “common sense” as to the worlds shape is spheroid. So what changed? The saturation of knowledge as it reaches the majority of the masses, that’s what changed, pure and simple.

Actually, the flat Earth myth is a good example of why common sense has less to do with statistics and more with what is reasonable expected.
There you go again believing that common sense and truth are necessarily the same thing, that they are mutually inclusive, and I say not necessarily!

It turns out the Earth's roundness was known by educated cirlces in many societies since early centuries. From their perspective, it was what common sense dictated, regardless of what the rest of their fellow citizens believed (although I cannot tell whether it was something different). It can be argued that this would be a specialized form of knowledge, therefore not agreeing with one of the dictionary definitions of common sense, but it's obvious that sound practical judgement does not exclude judgement about truth propositions of any kind, so once those propositions and their rationalizations are out there, they have become available to non-specialists as general knowledge. For the same reason, no matter if someone convinced the majority of people with basic education in today's world (and it came out in a survey) that the Earth is flat, it wouldn't make all of the sudden the idea to be common sense. And yet you will stand by it as being commonsensical, even if it didn't fit your particular knowledge of the subject.
It would seem it's hard for you to look at history, and see it as it unfolded, without injecting today into it, much like those silly Hollywood movies, and so I don't really blame you for not being able to keep them separate.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:TELL ME HOW ONE CAN KNOW WHICH PARTICULAR BIT OF, BELIEVED TO BE, KNOWLEDGE, IS COMMON SENSE AND WHICH IS NOT!" What? Your magical mind-reading ring of confidants? Do you hear voices in your head? Are you schizoid?

Certainly not statistics, since common sense has nothing to do with what the majority believes. As what is "commonly shared",
That's exactly what it does, you keep ignoring the word "COMMON."

it applies to the innate human features of reasoning,
Yes, I know you got the "senses" part of it right, you have from the beginning, YET YOU FORGET COMMON, seemingly not understanding how the two words fit together, modifying one another, to form a whole new concept!!!!!!!

but also to the paradigms of science and logic reasoning, not necessarily in their specialized form.
Just put the two words together, and stop your rationalizations, as you add your own set of words, so as to appease your self.

For example, since I'm aware of the existence of gravity, and not having evidence of "telekinetic" forces, I can propose that objects levitating by the influence of someone's mind is an idea lacking common sense.
I think most would agree with you here, what does that survey say? What is the most common belief as to gravity and telekinetic forces?

Those who do believe it might be in the ring of confidants of magical mind-readers, schizoids, and so on.
That's possible! Unlike you I don't try and dictate common sense, I let the common belief speak of what the current common sense of any particular matter is.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:let us be clear as to what common sense is. It is the sense that is most common. Look up common, please. OK, I'll do it for you, here are the first five definitions:

com·mon [kom-uhn]
adjective, com·mon·er, com·mon·est.
1. belonging equally to, or shared alike by, two or more or all in question: common property; common interests.
2. pertaining or belonging equally to an entire community, nation, or culture; public: a common language or history; a common water-supply system.
3. joint; united: a common defense.
4. widespread; general; ordinary: common knowledge.
5. of frequent occurrence; usual; familiar: a common event; a common mistake.

Not happy with your ambiguities and generalizations, you now resort to an even more general category. Anyway, interesting to note those meanings of the word which describe groups of "two or more", "frequent", etc., do not necessarily denote a majority. On the other hand, "an entire community, nation, or culture" and "all in question", denote a complete, indivisible unit, which leaves outside any statistical separation of majority and minority.
That's exactly what it does, as a means to delineate, meaning something worth considering, common has to mean majority, else potentially multitudes of common, thus meaninglessness, not worth mentioning, of no real consequence!! You seem not being able to understand the meaning of many simple concepts.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote:Remember, you are the one waving statistics, not me.

Exactly, meaning while mine is based upon some facts, though arguably potentially containing some margin of error, yours is simply your opinion, that you project upon others.

It might come to a surprise to you, but statistics are far from being synonym of "facts".
There you go again assuming common sense holds any necessary truth value. You forget time and the history of any particular concept, and forget your place on the timeline.

I will go even further and will say that is one of the poorest methods of defining what facts are.
I agree, yet why bring it up? Facts has nothing necessarily to do with "Common Sense." Except that eventually, after much time, common sense seems to contain some truth, yet time the only real judge.

Data is never neutral, there's always some type of bias introduced (on purpose or not) by the researcher, unarguably shaped by his/her own opinions.
Exactly, as they try an dictate what the current common sense is, pertaining to any particular subject. I instead, always the consummate observer, allow it to unfold naturally.

And that's why it is always possible (and quite usual, actually) to design surveys to match the results the researcher intended.
Now you speak of fixing results, lies, one might believe you a liar, if you continue as such. I only ever spoke of honesty, that the scientific method affords.

And even if surveys outlined any facts,
Only facts as to what is currently common, not that what is currently common is necessarily fact.

I don't think the fact of the existence of people's opinion carries more weight than the fact of existence of any particular opinion, including yours or my own.
Well it sure seems otherwise!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote:The fact that we are here just means that we are here,

No, it means that the universe is such that it can cause life to exist as it has here on earth.

That's just a simple speculation of yours, with no empirical basis and unsupported by sound reasoning.
Well all of science would say otherwise. You're entitled to your own opinion though. Pardon me but I tend to agree with science in this case.

All we know is that life had an origin here on Earth,
You seem to have forgotten that a unique set of elements and conditions predated life, as we know it, causing earths life to springing forth as it has.

and since then we have a history of living nature.
Not really, a complete history!

But your belief comes from the assumption that this was a linear, telelogical history of nature, which cannot help but go from unicellular organisms to mammals and hominids.
Please speak for yourself, I'm really getting tired of you putting words in my mouth. That you can see it no other way is immaterial. Stop projecting!

Your speculation keeps going
And so yours
and you claim that maybe the process is replicated in another way,
Here you oh so obviously contradict yourself, is the process replicated or differentiated?

but you don't offer any description and explanation of those alternatives.
And you would not know of this process unless you'd experienced it, which does not necessarily mean it's exclusive, that there can be no differential process, of similar resultants.

It seems like you just wish they existed.
And it would seem you have a double jointed spine. I'm thinking Ramses II!!! Can you say megalomania. How important do you really think you are. Just "dust in the wind" my friend, just "dust in the wind." (Kansas-Dust in the Wind)

Does your death somehow scare you, fill you full of fear, that you then deny the possibility of other life, fear my friend, "the mind killer" (Dune)

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Yet you are the one that is anthropomorphizing ET’s, not I.

The concept itself of civilization is anthropocentric, because human civilization is the only one ever seen. And the UFO myth, as well as some versions of SETI, cannot stand in their feet without the anthropocentric view of aliens, regarded as highly civilized, highly technological, social animals.
All a matter of perspective! Subject to change! There is no shining example of life, in only considering the man animal. Without him it's possible, sure!
So one thing leads to another.
But not necessarily in the same exact way!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote:We had discussed earlier about more precise implications of the term "ET", which should have been enough to acknowledge that each one would take us to a different debate...

No, we had not discussed at all, rather you had posed such. Obviously, I'm not willing to go there, to say what it is that those UFO's are, as no one can necessarily know, at this time.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote:It's so obvious that you have not been familiar with UFOlogy literature, the key claims of UFOlogists, etc., so I won't argue much about it.

A false assumption on your part, I possibly know more about it that you do.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: No, I'm saying that by definition, those that attach more to ufology, than just the study of UFO's, actually require another name, (title), as Ufologists does not say enough, as it only speaks of the objects. They should be called "extraterrestrialologists," or something similar.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote:It's OK to study the hypothetical influence of the stars on people's behavior, but that does not mean Astrology does not clash with common sense.

Yet the stars has everything to do with human behavior!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:There are no grades of common sense, it is, what it is, and neither you nor I can change it.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:This round of your logic makes you sound like a retard, no disrespect to mentally challenged peoples intended. In the same breath you speak of my vagueness, then profess to know that if I no longer am, that it shall surely be in "big trouble," how is that possible? Mind reader, anyone?????

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote:Actually, the flat Earth myth is a good example of why common sense has less to do with statistics and more with what is reasonable expected.

There you go again believing that common sense and truth are necessarily the same thing, that they are mutually inclusive, and I say not necessarily!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:That's exactly what it does, as a means to delineate, meaning something worth considering, common has to mean majority, else potentially multitudes of common, thus meaninglessness, not worth mentioning, of no real consequence!! You seem not being able to understand the meaning of many simple concepts.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Now you speak of fixing results, lies, one might believe you a liar, if you continue as such. I only ever spoke of honesty, that the scientific method affords.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:No, it means that the universe is such that it can cause life to exist as it has here on earth.

Conde Lucanor wrote:That's just a simple speculation of yours, with no empirical basis and unsupported by sound reasoning.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Well all of science would say otherwise. You're entitled to your own opinion though. Pardon me but I tend to agree with science in this case.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote:it applies to the innate human features of reasoning,

Yes, I know you got the "senses" part of it right, you have from the beginning, YET YOU FORGET COMMON, seemingly not understanding how the two words fit together, modifying one another, to form a whole new concept!!!!!!!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote:All we know is that life had an origin here on Earth,

You seem to have forgotten that a unique set of elements and conditions predated life, as we know it, causing earths life to springing forth as it has.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:And you would not know of this process unless you'd experienced it...

Conde Lucanor wrote:...a whole bunch of discombobulated stuff of no real consequence at least as it pertains to me....

Arising_uk wrote:But we know what they are? As the stealth fighter showed us that the military is at least a couple of decades ahead of where we supposed them to be, hence all the triangular sightings when they were being created and now it looks like saucer plasma engined planes may be on the horizon.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Pure speculation.

Remember Arising, that you're talking to one that worked with aircraft for 16 years. Some of my training was called Recco, at that time via "silhouette," I could name all US, Soviet, British, French, Canadian, Australian, Iraqi, and others, airborne and surface tactical platforms. And I was extremely good at it, usually getting over 100, (they had extra credit silhouettes for the not so fortunate.)

No, IMHO those instances had nothing to do with stealth, but let me further delineate, specifically I'm referring to the ones with 5 lights equidistant, along the bottom of the UFO, shinning down, which are not consistent with landing lights. In addition the relative ground speed and size of the craft, are not consistent with the B-2, though the shape is similar, but not exact. There are many sightings, and apparently I've not seen them all, as they keep coming, and I'm interested in the topic.

In pitch black, new moon, only starlight, I could tell if airborne contacts were opening, closing, approximate altitude separation, and heading (magnetic of course). Sure some sightings are explainable as military, especially those that resemble para-flares, that are dropped to slowly descend, lighting a nighttime battle field. The military is constantly doing training exercises, often jointly with their allies, at sea or on designated ranges throughout the world, I was involved in many. Remember that my platform was patrol, ASW, some reconnoissance and SAR, not fighter or attack.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:First, I never agreed that we were talking about any particular theory out there, maybe you are, but it's to yourself that you speak.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:As far as I've been concerned we've always been talking about your and my beliefs on the subject of UFO's, and that's it, comprende?.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Second, I'm really starting to feel very sorry for you, that you are seemingly incapable of remembering the sequence of who said what first. You were the first to mention ET's as they pertain to UFO's not I, check back a page or two if you don't believe me.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Neither have I agreed that Ufology has anything to do with anything other than UFO's. I even provided you with the definition, yet you still say that Ufology pertains to ET's. That you or anyone else believes otherwise is of no real concern of mine, believe what you want to believe.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:My final words to you, unless you stop your BS, is that I have seen UFO evidence that was in fact not falsified, and heard testimony from pilots, and NASA employees. Such that I feel comfortable saying that I know there are UFO's, but as to what they are, one cannot be sure.

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Pure speculation.

True but pretty good speculation given that at the time the UFO sightings were of triangular spaceships.
OK, actually I lumped chevron shaped into the triangular shaped, so that's my mistake. I am specifically speaking of the chevron shaped, which are somewhat like the B-2 if it's outermost wing profile was continued to the intersection of both sides.

Remember Arising, that you're talking to one that worked with aircraft for 16 years. Some of my training was called Recco, at that time via "silhouette," I could name all US, Soviet, British, French, Canadian, Australian, Iraqi, and others, airborne and surface tactical platforms. And I was extremely good at it, usually getting over 100, (they had extra credit silhouettes for the not so fortunate.)

How would you identify the silhouette of a plane you've never seen before?
You seem to forget that I worked for the US DOD, for those like me there were no aircraft that were "never seen before," except for UFO's, as differentiation was the "job," we had a "need to know," so as to recognize whether "friend or foe." At that time I had a secret clearance.

No, IMHO those instances had nothing to do with stealth, but let me further delineate, specifically I'm referring to the ones with 5 lights equidistant, along the bottom of the UFO, shinning down, which are not consistent with landing lights. In addition the relative ground speed and size of the craft, are not consistent with the B-2, though the shape is similar, but not exact. There are many sightings, and apparently I've not seen them all, as they keep coming, and I'm interested in the topic.

What instances? You mean lately? If so they I'd say you are seeing something new from the military again, two odd decades between what the public knows and whats actually being done is a big time in engineering terms.
No, I'm talking specifically about UFO's that I have seen in the past, on video as I have been following this phenomena for many years.

In pitch black, new moon, only starlight, I could tell if airborne contacts were opening, closing, approximate altitude separation, and heading (magnetic of course). Sure some sightings are explainable as military, especially those that resemble para-flares, that are dropped to slowly descend, lighting a nighttime battle field. The military is constantly doing training exercises, often jointly with their allies, at sea or on designated ranges throughout the world, I was involved in many. Remember that my platform was patrol, ASW, some reconnoissance and SAR, not fighter or attack.

So you think UFO's are spaceships with aliens in them?
I have no idea what they are. They could be, or they could be some universal or atmospheric phenomena.

For instance I've only ever personally seen something in the air that I didn't fully understand, once. During mid day, I saw multiple fireballs neatly in a row approaching (closing) my position, obviously angularity descending from a higher altitude. They were very low, approximately 100 meters. Then their original trajectory ceased, then dropping straight down, disappearing in a cascade in mid air. There was no accompanying sound at all. It was truly fire in the sky. I attributed it to meteorites, though this was nothing like a high altitude "shooting star." I reasoned that it was the end of a meteorites path. The problem was that it was very fast in progression, such that I didn't have much time to fully evaluate it. Which I really hated, so I watched the skies for quite some time to try and find more occurrences, so as to more fully analyze. Unfortunately those were all there were.

Conde Lucanor wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:First, I never agreed that we were talking about any particular theory out there, maybe you are, but it's to yourself that you speak.

That may be precisely the point: very unlikely that you will agree to go beyond your own naive speculations.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:As far as I've been concerned we've always been talking about your and my beliefs on the subject of UFO's, and that's it, comprende?.

Yeah, that's clear. You just state your beliefs, I argue about the validity of mine. You don't have to, but then you should have no problem with my statement about UFOlogy being contrary to common sense.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Second, I'm really starting to feel very sorry for you, that you are seemingly incapable of remembering the sequence of who said what first. You were the first to mention ET's as they pertain to UFO's not I, check back a page or two if you don't believe me.

UFO's imply ET's, but ET's don't imply UFO's. Simple concept. That I mention ET's in the context of dealing with UFOlogy, has nothing to do with your inability to make a distinction between those two terms.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Neither have I agreed that Ufology has anything to do with anything other than UFO's. I even provided you with the definition, yet you still say that Ufology pertains to ET's. That you or anyone else believes otherwise is of no real concern of mine, believe what you want to believe.

I already dealt with this. Why you choose to ignore the framework of UFOlogy and define it in your own terms, that's symptomatic of your unawareness of the key claims of UFOlogy. But I may agree that you just prefer to remain in the shallowness of your own beliefs, disregarding everything else.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:My final words to you, unless you stop your BS, is that I have seen UFO evidence that was in fact not falsified, and heard testimony from pilots, and NASA employees. Such that I feel comfortable saying that I know there are UFO's, but as to what they are, one cannot be sure.

Sure, you may think there are UFO's, just the same that some people think there are ghosts and fairies and that they have seen them, but as for evidence, none has come up to the surface. There's plenty of testimony in UFOlogy books and other material about "paranormal" activities, none of which stand scientific analysis.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:OK, you're officially an IDIOT, and I'm done with you. I have made no speculations. Does you DUMB ASS know what it means to be AGNOSTIC? Look up the definition DIPSHIT! Same thing in the case of ET's, you shit for brains freak!

Quit talking to "YOURSELF" and you might be taken more seriously.

You my friend are an IMBECILE, that has no idea how to listen, only project your expectations onto others. It's not that I, just don't disagree with your MORONIC ass, that you constantly expose, I disagree with many others as well, some that state there "ARE" ET's and some that state there "AREN'T" ET's, god you're dense. Granite has nothing on you BOY!

That's all we need around here, another squirrel on cocaine.

Do you know why you're such a BRAIN DEAD FUCK? Because in the same breath you condemn those that believe in such things, you defend their dogma. You are truly one with a MPD.

Later freak!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:You seem to forget that I worked for the US DOD, for those like me there were no aircraft that were "never seen before," except for UFO's, as differentiation was the "job," we had a "need to know," so as to recognize whether "friend or foe." At that time I had a secret clearance.

No, I'm talking specifically about UFO's that I have seen in the past, on video as I have been following this phenomena for many years.

I have no idea what they are. They could be, ...

or they could be some universal or atmospheric phenomena.

For instance I've only ever personally seen something in the air that I didn't fully understand, once. During mid day, I saw multiple fireballs neatly in a row approaching (closing) my position, obviously angularity descending from a higher altitude. They were very low, approximately 100 meters. Then their original trajectory ceased, then dropping straight down, disappearing in a cascade in mid air. There was no accompanying sound at all. It was truly fire in the sky. I attributed it to meteorites, though this was nothing like a high altitude "shooting star." I reasoned that it was the end of a meteorites path. The problem was that it was very fast in progression, such that I didn't have much time to fully evaluate it. Which I really hated, so I watched the skies for quite some time to try and find more occurrences, so as to more fully analyze. Unfortunately those were all there were.

Conde Lucanor wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:OK, you're officially an IDIOT, and I'm done with you. I have made no speculations. Does you DUMB ASS know what it means to be AGNOSTIC? Look up the definition DIPSHIT! Same thing in the case of ET's, you shit for brains freak!

Quit talking to "YOURSELF" and you might be taken more seriously.

You my friend are an IMBECILE, that has no idea how to listen, only project your expectations onto others. It's not that I, just don't disagree with your MORONIC ass, that you constantly expose, I disagree with many others as well, some that state there "ARE" ET's and some that state there "AREN'T" ET's, god you're dense. Granite has nothing on you BOY!

That's all we need around here, another squirrel on cocaine.

Do you know why you're such a BRAIN DEAD FUCK? Because in the same breath you condemn those that believe in such things, you defend their dogma. You are truly one with a MPD.

Later freak!

Well, you even went so far as to make a fool of yourself expressing like that in a Philosophy forum. If you're posting from a bar, just go on getting drunk and get over it. It's just a subject to discuss, man, not a life or death situation. Please!!!

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:You seem to forget that I worked for the US DOD, for those like me there were no aircraft that were "never seen before," except for UFO's, as differentiation was the "job," we had a "need to know," so as to recognize whether "friend or foe." At that time I had a secret clearance.

So in the 70's you knew the stealth fighter was flying?
70's? What are you talking about? I entered into my "first" 6 year contract in Nov 1974 yes, so what's that got to do with anything? I worked for the US DOD until Nov. 1991. There were no stealth fighters/bombers in 1974 to my knowledge.

You knew they were being developed before that?
The B-2's? No! Try 1989 for it's first flight, according to Wikipedia. But seriously, I'm not supposed to either confirm or deny many things, like specific recco platforms, time frames, specifications, kill ratios, weapon locations, destinations etc. Though there are some things I can talk about. We actually gave tours of the P3-C Orion to the local schools, explaining the aircraft's mission and what each on-board station was responsible for, i.e., pilot, copilot, flight engineer, tactical coordinator, navigation/communication, sensor stations I and II, sensor station III, ordinance, and finally "in flight technician."

I assume that secret clearance comes in levels.
No, but in all cases one is told what they need to know for their job. There are higher levels than secret of course, such as top secret, and others.

No, I'm talking specifically about UFO's that I have seen in the past, on video as I have been following this phenomena for many years.

That you've seen? Or on video?
Like I've said, that I've seen on video. I've been following this stuff for years, always hopeful for definitive proof, of something that can be said to be in fact of extraterrestrial origin.

I have no idea what they are. They could be, ...

Many things could be, on a scale of 1 - 10 with 10 being true where do you rate the idea that they are alien spaceships?
Arising you should know me well enough by now, to know that no one can nail me down on something I'm not willing to commit to. I really have no idea, and prefer not to give either side a numerical rating of credibility.

or they could be some universal or atmospheric phenomena.

I'll give this a 2 with a 1 for military if they were machines.
I don't understand what you're getting at here. I believe that some things may appear to be mechanical in nature, yet actually be organic, or otherwise universally explainable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessdalen_light
At the bottom of this page, where it says: "see also" there is a link for "ball lightening." I've actually seen that in real life as it floated down the tube of the P3C Orion.

For instance I've only ever personally seen something in the air that I didn't fully understand, once. During mid day, I saw multiple fireballs neatly in a row approaching (closing) my position, obviously angularity descending from a higher altitude. They were very low, approximately 100 meters. Then their original trajectory ceased, then dropping straight down, disappearing in a cascade in mid air. There was no accompanying sound at all. It was truly fire in the sky. I attributed it to meteorites, though this was nothing like a high altitude "shooting star." I reasoned that it was the end of a meteorites path. The problem was that it was very fast in progression, such that I didn't have much time to fully evaluate it. Which I really hated, so I watched the skies for quite some time to try and find more occurrences, so as to more fully analyze. Unfortunately those were all there were. [/color]

I once watched a meteorite that looked like a two foot big fireball in my vision and landed the other side of some trees, all with no sound. I put it down to it being a meteorite, after all I've seen rainbows that look like they end in a garden 500 yards away but in reality are a torus high in the sky.
I don't think my meteorite made it to the ground, I think I witnessed it's final moments of burning up, complete, such was the way the fireballs seemed to drop into nothingness. It was one of my most spectacular moments. As a flyer I've also watched Saint Elmos Fire dancing on the windshield in the cockpit, somewhere out in the middle of the pacific ocean, with nothing but starlight, beautiful.


I have no problem with UFO's as unidentified objects in the sky, I have a great problem with them being alien spaceships for a whole host of reasons.
Yeah? Name them, if you will.

Kuznetzova wrote:Several professional pilots have reported very elaborate experiences with Unidentified Flying Objects. In some cases the cigar-shaped "craft" was larger than 6 football fields across, and followed their plane for time spans as long as 45 minute before "zipping away" at an impossible speed.

When we hear about these stories today, (in 2014) we automatically time the events to the early 1990s or prior, with no other knowledge. We can do this estimation because the world today is awash in cellphones, small enough to fit in our pockets, which can instantly snap photographs and even video. In any other situation, the pilots would have filmed or photographed, such a strange object using the cellphones in their pockets, particularly if they had a full 45 minutes to do so.

With the proliferation of cellphones in the hands of the public, and even in the pockets of every adolescent, we should be seeing UFO sightings every night on the evening news. And they should be captured by the multiple cellphones at hand. Footage shot by multitudes of witnesses from several angles should be all over the internet on websites and forums specifically dedicated to the topic.

And yet, in the spring of 2014, there is nothing. Forums and websites dedicated to UFOs still repeat the same old stories over and over, always from prior to 1997ish. How convenient! This state of affairs should raise serious questions about the reliability of all UFO sightings and ET abduction stories from all of history, and not just recently.

A notable exception is the 2006 O'Hare Int. Airport sighting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O%27H ... O_sighting
It is preposterous to me, that no one caught this "disk" on their cellphone. (It must have been floating there for barely a few seconds?)

As a marginal corollary to this UFO-Cellphone-Problem, is that we should also be seeing an uptick in paranormal phenomena. Particularly ghosts and poltergeist evidence should be increasing in tandem with the increase of cellphones and computer tablets which can instantly capture these events. And yet, nothing. The spirits apparently seem to know if they could be filmed?

Both topics should segue nicely into reliability of eye-witness testimony and issues of preponderance of evidence. This is particularly important to this forum, which has spent 24 pages debating the topic of Near-Death Experiences (NDEs), and getting nowhere with it.