|
|
Post by Count Zero on Sept 28, 2010 2:30:32 GMT -4
Because, even if the guy has flawed evidence, there must by a small grain of truth in his statements ...  Nnnnno. |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 28, 2010 11:15:38 GMT -4
Because, even if the guy has flawed evidence, there must by a small grain of truth in his statements... Does this work for all statements? |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 28, 2010 13:14:54 GMT -4
CNN and Fox have both picked up this story.
|
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 28, 2010 18:40:04 GMT -4
Lets debate this: a certain number of military officers have decided to break their silence (and potentially violate Non-disclosure Agreements) to say us that something completely unexpected (and that shouldn't have happened) happened at certain time during their service and that event, all of them seem to agree, put a serious risk on the safety of nuclear silos. A person with a certain reputation gathers them all in a meeting to discuss their experiences about such event. Does the fact that that certain person is known to be stubborn takes out legitimacy to those officers claims?
|
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Sept 28, 2010 20:13:45 GMT -4
In your original post you said you were skeptical about UFOs, when are you going to show some of this skepticism? You've done nothing but argue on behalf of these dubious claims.
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 28, 2010 21:58:05 GMT -4
Lets debate this: a certain number of military officers have decided to break their silence More like they decided to break wind together. A person with a certain reputation Who is also the chief windbag. So far this is an unimpressive way to start a "debate." |
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 28, 2010 22:57:33 GMT -4
In your original post you said you were skeptical about UFOs, when are you going to show some of this skepticism? You've done nothing but argue on behalf of these dubious claims. Here it comes (as asked). I can take their statements as such, that something unknown happened there but then, to make an obviously political argument out of that such as "ET is angry with the nukes" is just nonsense (yet). The event experienced by that people must have something sort of life changing. I'm not going to say "UFOs are coming" until compelling evidence is shown, but to dismiss the allegations of , lets say, numerous people with a very specific training just because, unfortunately, no one has been able to gather irrefutable evidence of such things is also nonsense. There are lots of witnesses but no compelling *enough* evidence shown... However, there is one thing that worries me, IF (big if) they are telling the truth, then the nuclear capabilities (or something else) in the world might come off control because of this phenomena, which needs to be thoroughfully studied because it is a public safety concern. Just imagine the case in that one UFO is flying in the same path of an airliner... |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 28, 2010 23:45:44 GMT -4
Okay, but all their statements are easily shown to be wrong by actual documentation. Some who are "breaking their silence" have been doing so for quite some time with no consequences. Some weren't even actually there when the event they're "breaking their silence" about happened. Robert Hastings has been shown to deliberately misrepresent communications so that things directly contradicting him somehow come out supporting him instead.
Have you looked into what they're claiming at all? Are you just taking their words that they're telling the truth? We're not rejecting their reports out of hand. We're saying that all the non-subjective evidence presented shows that their reports are wrong. Do you see the distinction?
|
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 29, 2010 10:22:19 GMT -4
Okay, but all their statements are easily shown to be wrong by actual documentation. Some who are "breaking their silence" have been doing so for quite some time with no consequences. Some weren't even actually there when the event they're "breaking their silence" about happened. Robert Hastings has been shown to deliberately misrepresent communications so that things directly contradicting him somehow come out supporting him instead. True, true. Well, it's their truth, it's up to us to look at the facts and say: "maybe this <insert something> all can explain what happened there..." What concerns me is why do they expose to the ridiculous if they aren't really certain of what they are saying? Something must have compelled those guys to go into the limelight of media and us, critics. I see, but all this kind of affairs are always subjetive. |
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 29, 2010 11:06:54 GMT -4
What concerns me is why do they expose to the ridiculous if they aren't really certain of what they are saying? Personal certainty is separate from a demonstration of factual content or even plausibility. Speculation on possible motives will not answer any questions about the veracity of the claim. Plenty of people prefer being ridiculed by most to being ignored by all. |
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 29, 2010 12:04:41 GMT -4
What concerns me is why do they expose to the ridiculous if they aren't really certain of what they are saying? Personal certainty is separate from a demonstration of factual content or even plausibility. Speculation on possible motives will not answer any questions about the veracity of the claim. Plenty of people prefer being ridiculed by most to being ignored by all. I like the last part, "Plenty of people prefer being ridiculed by most to being ignored by all". I wonder if those guys really needed their 15 minutes of fame. Oh well, time will tell what tiny bit of truth lies beneath all this... Perhaps some day in the future we will say, "they told us about this so long ago..."  |
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 29, 2010 12:20:36 GMT -4
I wonder if those guys really needed their 15 minutes of fame. Speculation on an individuals motives is a poor substitute for factual input in a debate. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 29, 2010 12:30:30 GMT -4
Well, it's their truth, it's up to us to look at the facts and say: "maybe this <insert something> all can explain what happened there..." What concerns me is why do they expose to the ridiculous if they aren't really certain of what they are saying? Something must have compelled those guys to go into the limelight of media and us, critics. Backwards. They are the ones making the claims, so they are the ones who need to provide evidence. That's how these things work. They want you to believe we should prove them wrong, but that's not how it works. Can they show anything other than their own unsupported words? And since most people don't seem to realize they have to and are perfectly willing to believe unsupported words if they come from People We Can Trust, what ridicule? In fact, the only one getting ridiculed here is Robert Hastings, and then exclusively on his lousy investigatory skills and poor board etiquette. |
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 30, 2010 9:14:06 GMT -4
Oh well, time will tell what tiny bit of truth lies beneath all this... Perhaps some day in the future we will say, "they told us about this so long ago..." My prediction is that, if some day there is some correspondence between what Hastings says and some real events of the day, the connection will be purely happenstance. The far more likely scenario however, is that at some point an equally credulous UFO proponent will look at some trivial events and make up a story about how Hastings laid it out for us and we didn't believe him. |
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 30, 2010 9:57:31 GMT -4
I wonder if those guys really needed their 15 minutes of fame. Speculation on an individuals motives is a poor substitute for factual input in a debate. Speculation on an individual's motives is a very valid input for debate. In this case, those guys went there because they felt the need to tell that something happened there, unfortunately for them, their evidence is circumstantial. Very bad for them that their evidence is largely circumstantial. What motivates us who know (despite the fact that we never set a foot on) that men went to the Moon to debate such facts with the hoax believers? I think the same can be applied to those guys and analysing why they did it might give a better perspective of the whole matter (if there's one). |
|
