I Just Saw Something

thecactus · Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland

Why couldnt it of been a plane? because youve ruled it out, are all planes noisy? some are more quieter than others, are you aware of EVERY single aircraft in operation today, there flying altitudes and cruising speeds aswell as there db level?
It could of quite easily of been a light aircraft.

Any plane I have seen has more than one large bright white light in the centre; they have several smaller lights, usually at least four showing the shape

This was in the countryside; it was dead dead quiet (we can hear a car travelling along the road miles away) the craft was totally silent

A chinese lantern doesnt have to flash, its quite easy to attach a micro LED and send it on its way, with the LED brighter than the flame. Ive noticed in stores a new fad taking over from chinese lanterns, balloons with LED's inside, it could of been one of them.

We watched this come from a couple of miles away, over us then travel another couple of miles; it did not climb in altitude at all; I have seen many lanterns, and I assume balloons too Rolling Eyes

- they all climbed (usually straight up into cloudbase) THIS OBJECT WAS INTELLIGENTLY OPERATED

As for showing my maturity, its showing my ability not to jump to an immediate conclusion that ET was out for a joy ride.

YOU have come to the conclusion that it WAS alien, because you couldnt identify it, revert back to the "walking down a road" post.

Im not dismissing your sighting at all, calling you a liar or a loony, but your intent on saying that it WAS an alien craft of some shape or form and nothing will stand in your way.

I have never concluded once that it was alien - point out where I said that, or just get your facts right before opening your gob

carlos2010 · Joined: 23 Oct 2010 Posts: 288

First off, let me point something out which should be blatently obvious to any one with an ounce of intelligence.

I HAVE NOT OPENED MY GOB, YOUR ARE READING WORDS ON A SCREEN, THEREFORE I AM NOT SPEAKING OR OPENING MY GOB. ANY ONES INABILITY TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN TYPING AND THE PRODUCTION OF SOUND SHOULD TURN OFF THERE COMPUTER AND GET SOME FRESH AIR.

You clearly stated that it was your first UFO sighting and totally dismissing the chance that it could of been man made, therefore it must be something not from this planet. If your not coming to the conclusion that its alien, why dismiss any other possibility?

Aircraft usually only have large lights on when landing or taking off so with out knowing if your near an airport thats irrelevant, and just because the planes YOU have seen have multiple lights, doesnt mean planes exist which dont have multiple lights.

Most military aircraft will fly with out navigation lights on, maybe for some reason this had a bright light on and UAV's can be virtually silent in flight.

Chinese lanterns can travel for miles on air currents and by the aid of thermals. I have set one off with my phone number attached and recieved a call 2 days later from Hull, the other side of the country to myself. They can climb then decend several times during there flight and travel in a straight line.

The object you saw didnt change direction and didnt climb or decend, so because it went in a straight line YOU are certain it is "intelligently controlled"

I can release the hand brake on my car and watch it roll down a hill and it will travel in a straight line, does it mean it is intelligently controlled?

Maybe it is good to have an open mind, but I think your brains have fallen out.

thecactus · Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland

You clearly stated that it was your first UFO sighting and totally dismissing the chance that it could of been man made

Laughing

I said the opposite Rolling Eyes

read what I wrote again
I have already explained why it is none of the above.

First off, let me point something out which should be blatently obvious to any one with an ounce of intelligence.

I HAVE NOT OPENED MY GOB, YOUR ARE READING WORDS ON A SCREEN, THEREFORE I AM NOT SPEAKING OR OPENING MY GOB. ANY ONES INABILITY TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN TYPING AND THE PRODUCTION OF SOUND SHOULD TURN OFF THERE COMPUTER AND GET SOME FRESH AIR.

You mean 'their' computer? I see your pushing that powerful intellect to the max. By the way, 'opening your gob' is just a figure of speech, but I guess an imbecile like you couldn't work that out for yourself. Laughing

To be honest I don't want to talk to you again (I never really did when I saw your faggoty name) so do me a favour and don't reply to anything I post in future.

flossy · Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 12:41 am Post subject:

come on guys, be nice, there no need for name calling is there?

carlos2010 · Joined: 23 Oct 2010 Posts: 288

thecactus · Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland

D B Sweeney · Posted: Wed May 11, 2011 12:29 pm Post subject:

Perhaps they won't be giving you a sighting because you are to closed!!!

Scientists and skeptics are closed-minded and are not open to other possibilities (not open-minded) is a common response from those convinced of their own interpretation of something they've seen that they're sure is paranormal.

This is by far, the most perverse, corrosive, and commonly touted criticism that the ill-informed direct towards mainstream science. The underlying idea is that scientists are too strict and constrained in their thinking. By this account, science is seen as rigid and unforgiving. The basic suggestion being made is that scientists themselves are supposed to be so ‘closed-minded’ that they will not ‘open their minds’ to other possibilities (the implication here is that these ‘other possibilities’ are actually ‘paranormal possibilities’). As a viable argument against science it is an irrelevance and a folly. This claim can occur for a variety of reasons and reflects a number of diverse errors in thinking and reason. Before the fundamental fallacies of this type of argument against science are addressed it is important to consider just what being open-minded really means (as opposed to what pseudoscience would like it to mean).

In contrast to popular opinion, being open-minded does not mean considering all and every possibility as equally viable. This is impractical and besides, many ideas and claims are completely unsupported by the evidence or are also simply ridiculous. Should we view the idea that homeopathy can cure illnesses, as being evidentially equivalent to that of mainstream medicine? The claim that the earth is flat is not as valid and evidenced as the fact that it is round – so why should we view them as equal? Is the idea that aliens may have abducted someone in the night and then returned them as equally plausible as the idea that maybe they dreamt it? For all these instances, the current evidence suggests a clear answer – no! All ideas are not equally valid, ideas that are supported by reason, and more evidence of a higher quality are more probable and more relevant than those ideas that have neither. Once acknowledged we can see that one of the main claims of pseudoscience; that of all ideas being equally valid, is clearly ridiculous. The fundamental mistake of pseudoscience is to misrepresent and misunderstand what being open-minded really means.

Therefore, being open-minded certainly does not mean accepting all manner of claims and weird ideas equally. It is not the case that all ideas and claims have equal evidential weight. To accept claims uncritically, in the absence of supporting evidence, has nothing to do with being open-minded. Accepting claims purely on the basis of belief and wishful thinking is to be credulous. Open-mindedness is often confused for credulity; the two are not the same thing. The implicit theme running through this line of fallacious argument generates a kind of false argument in that if scientists and sceptics do not endorse and embrace pseudoscientific arguments as true, this is because they must be 'closed-minded' (as opposed to the more likely explanation of the argument simply being false).

What pseudoscience fails to acknowledge is that to be truly open-minded, the researcher must entertain and consider the possibility that an idea may be true, and entertain the possibility that an idea may be completely false. Therefore, open-mindedness means the researcher is open to both possibilities! There is nothing closed minded about openly and objectively considering an idea or claim and then rejecting it. Pseudoscience seems to see open-mindedness as the uncritical acceptance of unsupported claims and ideas; to accept that which they hope is true, as opposed to that which is more likely to be true. Pseudoscience basically states that any idea should be accepted with an 'open-mind' and thus, such acceptance indexes an open mind. Clearly it does not. Pseudoscience completely fails to entertain the possibility that science has considered their suggestions, claims and arguments and merely rejected them in a fair and reasoned manner. Pseudoscience does not realise that the views of science are actually based on a considered approach. Scientists have done nothing wrong other than to back the idea with the highest quality evidence, supporting the most reasoned and the most likely account.

The reality is that science deals with the most probable and most plausible arguments and claims. Such plausibility and probability emerges through the existence of empirical data, objective facts, evidence, logic and reason. This process does not result in closed-mindedness to other possibilities, but open-mindedness to all plausible probabilities. That is to say, it results in open-mindedness to the most likely and true explanations. Being an open-minded person means considering ideas and arguments on these criteria. If the argument or claim being made can be shown to be correct, then an open-minded person will modify their views accordingly – indeed science would demand this in the face of good quality evidence. If the argument is found wanting in a number of fundamental aspects, it will be soundly rejected and with good reason.

Another problem with the ‘closed-minded’ argument against science is that it is a form of generic ad-hominem fallacy. However, instead of being directed at one person, it attacks a whole system of thought as opposed to dealing with the testable and refutable knowledge and understanding it generates. This charge is usually made by those who cannot provide any high quality data for their pet-theories or do not like the high-quality evidence science has produced. The net consequence is to attack science itself as a system of knowledge. It is also often applied in and an ad-hoc manner, where the scientist is only categorised as being closed-minded when it becomes clear they do not concur or support the position of the pseudoscientist. It has nothing to do with whether the scientist has good reason to disagree, or has evidence of a higher quality that comes to a different conclusion – the ‘close-minded’ claim gets touted simply because the pet-theory of the pseudoscientist is soundly refuted. Attacking science in this manner is an irrelevance. It is also a debating technique to shift the arguments away from the fact pseudoscience has no objective evidence or sound underlying logic. In other words, it is an attempt to hide the fact that pseudoscience struggles to produce evidence. The closed-minded argument is also a form of straw-man argument. Like all the other fallacies listed in this paper, the closed-minded claim attacks an incorrect representation of science and what being open-minded really is. This makes it easier for the pseudoscience to attack science – but in reality what they are attacking, is not the reality of science, but their straw-man which is easier to knock down.

To summarise, the objective nature of science, the acknowledgement of all scientific knowledge being regarded as provisional, the explicit methods and need for independent replication, clearly show that the process of science is indeed open-minded. In contrast to the common perception, science is not about debunking ideas and rejecting claims out of hand; it is about investigating them in a serious, sensible, and reliable manner. The explicit acknowledgement to scientific knowledge being provisional is of course in complete contrast to a belief-system or pseudoscience. Under these latter circumstances any knowledge is final, fits with pre-existing belief, is biased, swayed by irrelevant emotions and wishful thinking, cannot be questioned, and must be accepted. These beliefs require only that the individual accept them in an unquestioned manner. However, for science all knowledge is open to be independently evaluated, tested, confirmed, revised or rejected. It is somewhat ironic that belief-systems and pseudoscience charge science with being “closed minded”! Clearly, by making an explicit commitment to all knowledge being provisional (as opposed to unquestionable), this is the most open-minded stance any knowledge system can take.

DB

thecactus · Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 3196 Location: Northern Ireland

Agentscott · Joined: 08 Feb 2011 Posts: 1042 Location: Essex

All that huge explanation of why we cant be open minded is a load of rubbish.
No explanation is going to convince me that I must not consider all angles and thats where all that is leading you.
I should prepare an essay on the word 'Open' to counter it, I won't though because there is nothing wrong with being open....even science when it's not being used wrong encourages openess, scientists are the first to create hypothosis and then test them, that means that at some point they are open.
Only when you put paranormal into the mix the mainstream scientific shutters slam closed in cases but the proper science people should really be embrace the challenge and remain open and get experimenting and proving their theories.

D B Sweeney · Posted: Thu May 12, 2011 6:26 am Post subject:

All that huge explanation of why we cant be open minded is a load of rubbish.

Why is that then?.

Only when you put paranormal into the mix the mainstream scientific shutters slam closed in cases but the proper science people should really be embrace the challenge and remain open and get experimenting and proving their theories.

I know you're not a scientist Agentscott but how would you go about proving that your amazing aerial displays were secret military technology or alien spacecraft?. Do you think scientists have access to any greater degree of analytical tools than you do?.

DB

D B Sweeney · Posted: Thu May 12, 2011 6:39 am Post subject:

flossy · Posted: Thu May 12, 2011 8:16 am Post subject:

welcome back DB, i did wounder where you had got to Wink

Agentscott · Joined: 08 Feb 2011 Posts: 1042 Location: Essex

Hello DB, I though that yoyu had crumbled and become a beleiver! Great to see you back.
All that evidence to suggest otherwise and you still play dumb.
Which sector of the M*D do you work for? The mountain secret base sector?
Carlos seemed to have known exactly what Cactus has seen and I thought thats imposible so with no actuall first hand experience, how could he suggest what it was? plus Cactus knows it wasn't anything normal, weve ruled all that out now so there is not to many explanations left.

Your long explanation doesn't work for me because I think science does accept possibillity of unkown and only certen Govs are repressing the freedoom to reasrch anything they like. Did they tell the early alchemists, 'no there are only four elements', no,Scientists just don't want to loss their reputation or carrear and also they have all been spoon feed what to accept and what not to.
As I said earlier it's a real scientist who embraces the unkown, did Darwin know that evoltion occours before his reaserch? No he had to open the doors into the unknown to prove religion wrong.
I'm opening doors but they are opposing science rather than religion as Darwin did.
I know something of science actually DB and I know that they are the best choices to study something, wouldn't want a plumber reaserching big things like this or a butcher for that matter.
Scientist don't have the funding in this area though but thats the powers fault.
Who is tricking us.....M*D, F*I, N*SA, GOVS, ect....

D B Sweeney · Posted: Thu May 12, 2011 9:09 am Post subject:

You're a sucker for a conspiracy theory Agentscott. We've. you've, I've not ruled anything out about the Cactus and his UFO experience.

No one is tricking us - you can only trick yourself.

DB

bitterbuck1 · Posted: Thu May 12, 2011 9:19 am Post subject:

I too am glad to see you back DB.
Very Happy