Are UFOs real ?

[Jack T. Cross]

Archer, I've got to ask. Even after you realized the response to this:

Why then do you claim they do if you don't know?

Why, of all things, would you then immediately continue attempting a "from ignorance" argument?

What's the thought process?

[Archer77]

Archer, I've got to ask. Even after you realized the response to this:

Why, of all things, would you then immediately continue attempting a "from ignorance" argument?

What's the thought process?

Why do you claim no evidence to the contrary inidcates something is possible?   Did you read the argument from ignorance excerpt I posted?

[Jack T. Cross]

Why do you claim no evidence to the contrary inidcates something is possible?   Did you read the argument from ignorance excerpt I posted?

Archer. Whether you've ever read it, is a better question.

Let me explain this to you, very carefully. I want you to understand, because I think you're an okay guy.

You've been arguing with the idea that I'd made an assertion to suggest absolute consequences (please think about that very carefully, because you're not registering it), which is in fact the exact opposite of what I'd been doing. Right? (It is that bad, yes)

Can you understand that, now?
 
You did that without identifying any particular post. You did that despite seeing the words "possible" and "possibility" perhaps dozens of times. You did that, even after saying this:

...such a possibility as being possible?

Whew. What a thread.

In other words, Archer, your argument is for someone that asserts something which would lead to absolute consequences, the exact opposite of what "possible" and possibility" express. Okay?

Now..do us both a favor, and drop the repeating post action, and respond directly.

[Archer77]

Archer. Whether you've ever read it, is a better question.

Let me explain this to you, very carefully. I want you to understand, because I think you're an okay guy.

You've been arguing with the idea that I'd made an assertion to suggest absolute consequences (please think about that very carefully, because you're not registering it), which is in fact the exact opposite of what I'd been doing. Right? (It is that bad, yes)

Can you understand that, now?
 
You did that without identifying any particular post. You did that despite seeing the words "possible" and "possibility" perhaps dozens of times. You did that, even after saying this:

Whew. What a thread.

In other words, Archer, your argument is for someone that asserts something which would lead to absolute consequences, the exact opposite of what "possible" and possibility" express. Okay?

Now..do us both a favor, and drop the repeating post action, and respond directly.

Did you read the argument from ignorance excerpt I posted? How does the absence of evidence lead you to the conclusion that the subject is therefore more possible?

[Jack T. Cross]

Did you read the argument from ignorance excerpt I posted? How does the absence of evidence lead you to the conclusion that the subject is therefore more possible?

"...more possible"?

 

[Archer77]

It seems a lack of conclusive proof to the contrary can't help but to reveal such a possibility, doesn't it?

How does no conclusive proof to the contrary reveal such a possibility or anything at all about a subject?   

If you believe that human history goes further back than what's known, it shouldn't take a huge leap to think that we humans may have gone into space in the past, meaning that any potential presence of something called 'aliens' could likely be ourselves.

What do you base this claim on?  Why doesn't it take a huge leap to arrive at this conclusion?  If you belive its so easy to conclude such an opinion you must have a basis for that conclusion.

[Jack T. Cross]

Gee, Archer. As a human being here on earth, I can tell you that we are surrounded by certain forces, studied through a pursuit called science.

We can (and do) make use of these studies through a second pursuit known as technology, which allows us to manipulate the forces for our own benefit.

Through this, we create an obligation to ourselves and to others, to continue our studies and practices, which may include (and has included) activity in space.

(btw, archer: please remember that everything you do and say, reflects upon yourself. if your ego won't let you acknowledge that you fucked up - as you did when you'd assumed a false assertion from my side - and you continue to grasp at imaginary straws even after being corrected, it will make you appear to be either very insecure or very dumb, or both)

But if you must, then carry on as you were.

[Archer77]

Gee, Archer. As a human being here on earth, I can tell you that we are surrounded by certain forces, studied through a pursuit called science.

We can (and do) make use of these studies through a second pursuit known as technology, which allows us to manipulate these forces for our own benefit.

Through this, we create an obligation to ourselves and to others, to continue our studies and practices, which may include (and has included) activity in space.

(btw, archer: please remember that everything you do and say, reflects upon yourself. if your ego won't let you acknowledge that you fucked up - as you did when you'd assumed a false assertion from my side - and you continue to grasp at imaginary straws even after being corrected, it will make you appear to be either very insecure or very dumb, or both)

But if you must, then carry on as you were.

It seems a lack of conclusive proof to the contrary can't help but to reveal such a possibility, doesn't it?

How does no conclusive proof to the contrary reveal such a possibility or anything at all about a subject?   The argument from ignorance excerpt I posted specifically mentions no evidence to the contrary.   Didnt you read it?


Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[2] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

If you believe that human history goes further back than what's known, it shouldn't take a huge leap to think that we humans may have gone into space in the past, meaning that any potential presence of something called 'aliens' could likely be ourselves.

What do you base this claim on?  Why doesn't it take a huge leap to arrive at this conclusion?  If you belive its so easy to conclude such an opinion you must have a basis for that conclusion.  What is the basis for your conclusion?   Why are they likely to be ourselves?  How do you know human history goes back further than we know?

[Jack T. Cross]

Okay, Archer. If you want to go this route, we'll go this route. From your post:

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[2] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

Please categorize for me within the choices, and we'll go from there.

[Archer77]

Okay, Archer. If you want to go this route, we'll go this route. From your post:

Please categorize for me within the choices, and we'll go from there.

It seems a lack of conclusive proof to the contrary can't help but to reveal such a possibility, doesn't it?

[Jack T. Cross]

I say three...how about you?

[Archer77]

I say three...how about you?

Gee, Archer. As a human being here on earth, I can tell you that we are surrounded by certain forces, studied through a pursuit called science.

We can (and do) make use of these studies through a second pursuit known as technology, which allows us to manipulate these forces for our own benefit.

Through this, we create an obligation to ourselves and to others, to continue our studies and practices, which may include (and has included) activity in space.

(btw, archer: please remember that everything you do and say, reflects upon yourself. if your ego won't let you acknowledge that you fucked up - as you did when you'd assumed a false assertion from my side - and you continue to grasp at imaginary straws even after being corrected, it will make you appear to be either very insecure or very dumb, or both)

But if you must, then carry on as you were.

It seems a lack of conclusive proof to the contrary can't help but to reveal such a possibility, doesn't it?

How does no conclusive proof to the contrary reveal such a possibility or anything at all about a subject?   The argument from ignorance excerpt I posted specifically mentions no evidence to the contrary.   Didnt you read it?


Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[2] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

If you believe that human history goes further back than what's known, it shouldn't take a huge leap to think that we humans may have gone into space in the past, meaning that any potential presence of something called 'aliens' could likely be ourselves.

What do you base this claim on?  Why doesn't it take a huge leap to arrive at this conclusion?  If you belive its so easy to conclude such an opinion you must have a basis for that conclusion.  What is the basis for your conclusion?   Why are they likely to be ourselves?  How do you know human history goes back further than we know?

[Jack T. Cross]

Just be more careful with what you say, Archer. That's all.

[Archer77]

Just be more careful with what you say, Archer. That's all.

Gee, Archer. As a human being here on earth, I can tell you that we are surrounded by certain forces, studied through a pursuit called science.

We can (and do) make use of these studies through a second pursuit known as technology, which allows us to manipulate these forces for our own benefit.

Through this, we create an obligation to ourselves and to others, to continue our studies and practices, which may include (and has included) activity in space.

(btw, archer: please remember that everything you do and say, reflects upon yourself. if your ego won't let you acknowledge that you fucked up - as you did when you'd assumed a false assertion from my side - and you continue to grasp at imaginary straws even after being corrected, it will make you appear to be either very insecure or very dumb, or both)

But if you must, then carry on as you were.

It seems a lack of conclusive proof to the contrary can't help but to reveal such a possibility, doesn't it?

How does no conclusive proof to the contrary reveal such a possibility or anything at all about a subject?   The argument from ignorance excerpt I posted specifically mentions no evidence to the contrary.   Didnt you read it?


Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[2] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

If you believe that human history goes further back than what's known, it shouldn't take a huge leap to think that we humans may have gone into space in the past, meaning that any potential presence of something called 'aliens' could likely be ourselves.

What do you base this claim on?  Why doesn't it take a huge leap to arrive at this conclusion?  If you belive its so easy to conclude such an opinion you must have a basis for that conclusion.  What is the basis for your conclusion?   Why are they likely to be ourselves?  How do you know human history goes back further than we know?

[Kim Jong Bob]

I am not a sci-fi Freak but watched some NASA films from space Encounters...really does make you think when ex Astronauts speak out about it  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/5201410/Are-UFOs-real-Famous-people-who-believed.html

no but the holocaust is 

[OzmO]

After reading your last few posts with Archer, Jack, you are either big time troller or just a pathetic moron.

I suggest you answer his questions, ENGAGE IN PRODUCTIVE DIALOG, and stop pretending you are having a different conversation with him.  

[Jack T. Cross]

After reading your last few posts with Archer, Jack, you are either big time troller or just a pathetic moron.

I suggest you answer his questions, ENGAGE IN PRODUCTIVE DIALOG, and stop pretending you are having a different conversation with him.  

Any particular reason why you felt the need to only acknowledge reading the "last few posts", OzmO?

[OzmO]

Any particular reason why you felt the need to only acknowledge reading the "last few posts", OzmO?

Re-read my post.  Last warning.  Otherwise as far as I am concerned you are trolling and will be dealt with accordingly.  

[Donny]

check out the Video about the Russian Proton Rocket...

[OzmO]

nothing like a grainy moving blip as proof.

[Donny]

 
http://www.alien-ufo-pictures.com/alien_pictures2.html

[OzmO]

http://www.alien-ufo-pictures.com/alien_pictures2.html

Sweet!    It was discovered in 2002.  Has DNA testing been done?  Has there been a peer reviewed scientific investigation?

[Donny]

Sweet!    It was discovered in 2002.  Has DNA testing been done?  Has there been a peer reviewed scientific investigation?

Being honest i do not know. i just got into watching all this NASA film futage because i saw a film about UFOs and thought WTF. However when you watch some interviews with ex Astronauts...makes you think. I canīt believe all that NASA film futage is fake.

[OzmO]

Being honest i do not know. i just got into watching all this NASA film futage because i saw a film about UFOs and thought WTF. However when you watch some interviews with ex Astronauts...makes you think. I canīt believe all that NASA film futage is fake.

Yeah, I have seen some of it.  But the problem is, those things they saw weren't identified one way or another.  Could have been debris.

[Donny]

Yeah, I have seen some of it.  But the problem is, those things they saw weren't identified one way or another.  Could have been debris.

yes but as more Astronauts have said, under controll from intelligent life. We are talking Top Men you were Hand picked to go up there. I believe them.