call for debaters

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19810
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: call for debaters

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Oct 01, 2017 6:36 am

There's another source. This subforum holds enough horse p...ower to built a mansion with it. :-P
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

No Formal Debate

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:00 am

What I don't get is how I'm meant to find an independent moderator who knows Richard Crist's specific "Truth Engine" moderation rules, that no one has used before apart from Richard Crist? :D

I also think it's a little bit odd that Richard ignores our Skeptic Society's motto "Promoting Science and critical thinking" by asking us to replace our 2000 year old evolved, frame work or peer reviewed assessment with something he needs for his book. :D

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11126
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:53 am

TEnginist wrote: I'd like to see good arguments on both sides, but I think that the formality of the rules can inhibit creativity.

How so? Creativity cannot be confined....you find it within the rules provided. Sounds like an excuse to me...........

.........and likewise for Matt............except Matt stated a good reason: having to find a moderator.

A transparent excuse vs a reasonable concern. Looks like Matt is ahead by one already.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: call for debaters

Postby Poodle » Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:57 am

"I designed the Truth Engine entirely by myself" ... Dr. Richard Crist

That a cracking start for a collaborative project. :D

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12413
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:45 pm

Wut happened to the moderated debate?

Were you bilding a new arena & then a Teamsterz strike happened?
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:38 pm

JO 753 wrote:Wut happened to the moderated debate?
Well, I challenged Richard Crist to have a formal debate here but he insisted that we use his "Truth Engine" method.

The first problem is that there is not such thing as the "Truth Engine" method. The second problem is that I can't find an independent moderator who knows the "Truth-Engine" method, as it doesn't exist. Richard Crist was going to be both moderator and debater and make rules up as he went. :D

The third problem was that Richard Crist refused to write down his alternative hypothesis to explain all the facts. In essence, you can't have a formal debate for two alternative hypotheses if one team won't state what their alternative hypothesis is.

The fourth reason was that Richard Crist was not going to provide any evidence and stated we had to read his book for "his facts". He was simply trying to plug his book, which even you and I didn't bother reading.

The fifth reason, was Richard Crist was a bit lazy and hadn't done any research but published a book anyway, yet I kept quoting reports and facts he was unaware of. Richard would have to do some actual research work and modify his book to incorporate the facts.

Finally, I think Richard worked out I had my paws on experiments, where inversion layers gave false ground radar readings which disappeared when an aircraft flew through the inversion layer and his entire sole remaining evidence, was his gut-feeling that couldn't happen.

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:11 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
JO 753 wrote:Wut happened to the moderated debate?
Well, I challenged Richard Crist to have a formal debate here but he insisted that we use his "Truth Engine" method.

But you challenged JO to the debate:
OK. Jo 753. Do you want to debate on Richard Crist's behalf?


Anyway,
The first problem is that there is not such thing as the "Truth Engine" method.

Of course there is.

The second problem is that I can't find an independent moderator who knows the "Truth-Engine" method,

It's silly to imply that no one could learn the simple method.

as it doesn't exist.

Of course it exists.

Richard Crist was going to be both moderator and debater

Of course I wasn't.

and make rules up as he went. :D

There might've been a little bit of experimentation--it's a new method. So what? :D

The third problem was that Richard Crist refused to write down his alternative hypothesis to explain all the facts.

Of course you don't begin a debate by presenting an entire account of your point of view, complete with all your evidence and every response to every objection; if you did, there'd be no reason for a debate--all these things come out in the debate. A great debate can begin with a simple sentence.

you can't have a formal debate for two alternative hypotheses if one team won't state what their alternative hypothesis is.

I never said I wanted to participate in a formal debate. I have no interest in formal debates. Anyway I did state my claim, briefly, and of course that's all that's required in a debate. (And I said I'd put my chapter up on the web.)

The fourth reason was that Richard Crist was not going to provide any evidence

Of course I provided what I take to be evidence and said I'd put my chapter up on the web.

and stated we had to read his book for "his facts".

Of course, if you wanted to see "my" facts, you would've had to read my book; but I gave my book away on Amazon, for free, for five days. But the facts in these cases are available all over the place. There was no reason to insist on seeing "my" facts.

He was simply trying to plug his book

Uncharitably false. I didn't expect to sell a single book, and didn't give it a second thought. I wanted to find debaters for a UFO debate show.

The fifth reason, was Richard Crist was a bit lazy and hadn't done any research

Uncharitably false.

I kept quoting reports and facts he was unaware of.

There's some truth in that--I hadn't used the Bluebook report (but I used Ruppelt's book).

Richard would have to ... modify his book to incorporate the facts.

That's how the Truth Engine method works.

Finally, I think Richard worked out I had my paws on experiments, where inversion layers ... disappeared when an aircraft flew through the inversion layer and his entire sole remaining evidence, was his gut-feeling that couldn't happen.

I felt it couldn't happen, but would've wanted to hear more about it--if your debate style wasn't so utterly insufferable, I would've pursued it.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:09 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:The first problem is that there is not such thing as the "Truth Engine" method.
TEnginist wrote:Of course there is.
Where on your website are the rules for a "Truth Engine" debate? Link us.


Matthew Ellard wrote:The second problem is that I can't find an independent moderator who knows the "Truth-Engine" method, which doesn't exist,
TEnginist wrote:It's silly to imply that no one could learn the simple method.
What simple method? Where on your website are the rules for a "Truth Engine" debate? Link us.


Matthew Ellard wrote:and make rules up as he went. :D
TEnginist wrote:There might've been a little bit of experimentation--it's a new method. So what?
Where on your website are the rules for a "Truth Engine" debate? Link us.


Matthew Ellard wrote:The third problem was that Richard Crist refused to write down his alternative hypothesis to explain all the facts.
TEnginist wrote:Of course you don't begin a debate by presenting an entire account of your point of view,
Yes you do. It's the alternative hypotheses that are being debated. That's what you are debating, otherwise you are mutually exploring.


Matthew Ellard wrote:you can't have a formal debate for two alternative hypotheses if one team won't state what their alternative hypothesis is.
TEnginist wrote:I never said I wanted to participate in a formal debate.
TEnginist titled this tread and wrote wrote:"call for debaters"
Why didn't you write "Call for people to use Truth Engine Method"?


Matthew Ellard wrote:The fourth reason was that Richard Crist was not going to provide any evidence
TEnginist wrote: Of course I provided what I take to be evidence and said I'd put my chapter up on the web.
Well post your evidence......I have been waiting for more than a month and Jo 753 hasn't read your book either.

TEnginist wrote: but I gave my book away on Amazon, for free,
Only one person here has Kindle. Just post your evidence. You own the copyright. You post it.

Matthew Ellard wrote:Finally, I think Richard worked out I had my paws on experiments, where inversion layers ... disappeared when an aircraft flew through the inversion layer and his entire sole remaining evidence, was his gut-feeling that couldn't happen.
TEnginist wrote: I felt it couldn't happen, -
......or you could have done some basic research to see it was common......

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10749
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:07 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
TEnginist wrote: but I gave my book away on Amazon, for free,

Only one person here has Kindle.


I've read his book. And I don't have a kindle. I read it on my iPad.

There is a free app that will enable you to read kindle ebooks on almost any device, windows, android, apple, etc.

Not having a kindle device is a bad excuse for not having read the book.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10749
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:12 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:. . . Richard Crist was a bit lazy and hadn't done any research but published a book anyway, . . .


If you had read the book, you would know that is blatantly false.

I strongly recommend you retract that false allegation, Matthew.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12413
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:19 am

Really, I think Austin saw storm cloudz gathering on the horizon for you, Matt. It woud hav been a continuation uv the debate here in wich you hav repeatedly ignored major aspects uv the story.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10749
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:57 am

Having read the book, there are some things in it that concern me. Some of the logical inferences do not seem justifiable.

Should I bring that up here in this thread or wait for the "debate"?

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:15 pm

xouper wrote:Having read the book, there are some things in it that concern me. Some of the logical inferences do not seem justifiable.

Should I bring that up here in this thread or wait for the "debate"?

I hope you bring it up here, xouper. That "debate" may never happen!

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:10 pm

xouper wrote: Not having a kindle device is a bad excuse for not having read the book.

Again, I suggest you {!#%@} off. Either Richard Christ is going to present his evidence on the forum or he isn't. I don't want to go finding applications to read and promote his book when he can simply post his evidence here.

He came here to promote his book. Either he is going to present the evidence on the forum, that he made his claim, or he isn't.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:15 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:. . . Richard Crist was a bit lazy and hadn't done any research but published a book anyway, . . .
xouper wrote: If you had read the book, you would know that is blatantly false.

I strongly recommend you retract that false allegation, Matthew.
Richard Christ admitted in clear language that he didn't bother reading the official Blue book report into the Washington DC flap. He is arguing against that report or did you forget that on purpose again. :lol:
Richard Crist wrote:.There's some truth in that--I hadn't used the Bluebook report (but I used Ruppelt's book).

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:24 pm

xouper wrote:Should I bring that up here in this thread or wait for the "debate"?
There is no debate. Richard Christ refused an offer for a formal debate and instead demanded we use his "Truth Engine Method"

Did you bother to read anything on his website?

"The founders of the Truth Engine are helping to bring, finally, into full being what is to be the Earth’s most highly-evolved creature: a super-intelligence with a pure heart who will vastly accelerate the resolution of humanity’s controversies, thus providing us with extraordinary knowledge of what’s true, what’s good and what’s beautiful, and thereby bestowing upon us a paradise on Earth.

But how is it possible that the Truth Engine builders can help bring into being a super-intelligence? They can do it by harnessing the power of synergy: by creating forums, by organizing, and participating in, myriad public debates about all our controversial issues, by coordinating these debates with amendable books of best arguments (pro and con) called Truth-Engine books (the books are used to guide the debates, and the debates inspire changes to the books), and by agreeing to use but one set of rules,"
http://www.truthenginebook.com/

Harnessing "Synergy" to create a "super being" is not a debate, in case you don't know what a "debate" is.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:33 pm

JO 753 wrote:Really, I think Austin saw storm cloudz gathering on the horizon for you, .
No Jo 753. Richard Crist refused to have a formal debate. There was nothing for Austin to do.

Do I need you to draw pictures for you, so you understand that?
:lol:

JO 753 wrote:Matt. It woud hav been a continuation uv the debate here in wich you hav repeatedly ignored major aspects uv the story
Firstly, you admitted you didn't bother to read Richard Crist's book and thus his evidence for his "alien story" yourself. Secondly, you didn't even know the official Blue Book report on Washington DC existed until I informed you and Richard Christ. Thirdly, neither you or Richard Christ were aware that the false readings had been ongoing for some months until I informed you. :lol:

Fourthly, neither you or Richard Crist have set out your working hypothesis to allow any debate to occur despite being asked to do so eight times. You two will never do that because you can't supply any facts that it "was aliens". :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:38 pm

TEnginist wrote: I hope you bring it up here, xouper. That "debate" may never happen!

I think that Xouper has made it clear, and, as he is the only person here to read your book, that he will accept your "Truth Engine Method" offer and you two can knock yourselves out on the "Truth Engine" UFO fan website modifying articles in a book that you sell for profit. :lol:

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:00 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:he is the only person here to read your book

43 people downloaded my free book.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:03 pm

The religious mind set

Christian : "You atheists are wrong. Evolution is not true."
Skeptic : "Have you ever read a book on evolution?"
Christian : "No"

Richard Crist & Jo 753 : "The official report on the Washington DC flap is not true"
Skeptic : "Have you actually read the official Blue book report on Washington DC"
Richard Crist & Jo 753 : "No"

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10749
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:03 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:Should I bring that up here in this thread or wait for the "debate"?

There is no debate.


OK.

I was just asking to make sure. There may have been things going on behind the scene (by PM) that I was not privy to. No need to get your panties all in a twist, Matthew.


Matthew Ellard wrote:
TEnginist wrote: I hope you bring it up here, xouper. That "debate" may never happen!

I think that Xouper has made it clear, and, as he is the only person here to read your book, that he will accept your "Truth Engine Method" offer . . .


I did not accept any such offer.

I merely offered to discuss some issues here in this thread. Nothing more.

WTF is the matter with your reading comprehension these days? Assume much?


Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: Not having a kindle device is a bad excuse for not having read the book.

Again, I suggest you {!#%@} off.


No.

I have just as much right to be here as you do, Matthew.

And I stand by my observation.


Matthew Ellard wrote:I don't want to go finding applications to read and promote his book when he can simply post his evidence here.


Oh, you poor little crybaby.


Matthew Ellard wrote:He came here to promote his book.


And then he gave it away for free to anyone here on the forum who wanted one.

That certainly put a lot of money in his pocket.

Your accusation is irrational and pathetic, Matthew.


Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:. . . Richard Crist was a bit lazy and hadn't done any research but published a book anyway, . . .

If you had read the book, you would know that is blatantly false. I strongly recommend you retract that false allegation, Matthew.

Richard Christ admitted in clear language that he didn't bother reading the official Blue book report into the Washington DC flap.


So what.

You claimed he did not do ANY  research.

That is clearly a false allegation, Matthew, and as a lawyer you know damn well it's false.

Keep it up, Matthew, and that will just add further evidence of malice on your part.

This is not a game, Matthew.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:05 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:he (Xouper) is the only person here to read your book
TEnginist wrote:43 people downloaded my free book.
Name the other members here who downloaded it. :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:09 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote: I think that Xouper has made it clear, and, as he is the only person here to read your book, that he will accept your "Truth Engine Method" offer . . .
xouper wrote: I did not accept any such offer.

Now think really hard....if Richard Crist is not going to debate here, is not going to post his evidence here and is only going to use his "Truth Engine Method"......then how are you going to debate him on some of his claims on our forum.

What do you think I have been saying for the last three pages?
:lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:14 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:I don't want to go finding applications to read and promote his book when he can simply post his evidence here.
xouper wrote:Oh, you poor little crybaby.

"Here is a five hour You Tube that explains my position". :lol:

Isn't it fantastic that you now accept You tubes and personal books as evidence from people who refuse to actually write down their claims and evidence are, on the forum they made their claims.

Salomed would be proud of you.
:lol:

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10749
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:34 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
TEnginist wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:he (Xouper) is the only person here to read your book

43 people downloaded my free book.

Name the other members here who downloaded it.


As a lawyer, shirley you know he does not have permission to do that.


Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:I think that Xouper has made it clear, and, as he is the only person here to read your book, that he will accept your "Truth Engine Method" offer . . .

I did not accept any such offer.

Now think really hard....if Richard Crist is not going to debate here, is not going to post his evidence here and is only going to use his "Truth Engine Method"......then how are you going to debate him on some of his claims on our forum.


I am not going to "debate" him. We are simply going to discuss some issues I have with his book. Nothing more.

Not everything on this forum needs to be confrontational, Matthew.


Matthew Ellard wrote:Isn't it fantastic that you now accept You tubes and personal books as evidence from people who refuse to actually write down their claims and evidence are, on the forum they made their claims.


Now you are just being stoopid.

I have done none of what you accuse me of doing.

Where do you get this {!#%@}, Matthew? Head up your ass much? Is this how they taught you to behave in law school?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:43 pm

xouper wrote:As a lawyer, shirley you know he does not have permission to do that.
As a lawyer I read his website where he owns all copyright, including the copyright of anyone who contributes to his book.

I have already clearly stated that. Did you forget on purpose?


"Note that all submissions will become the property of the Truth Engine."
http://www.truthenginebook.com/logos.html

Try harder next time. :lol:

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10749
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:51 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:As a lawyer, shirley you know he does not have permission to do that.

As a lawyer I read his website where he owns all copyright, including the copyright of anyone who contributes to his book.

I have already clearly stated that. Did you forget on purpose?

"Note that all submissions will become the property of the Truth Engine."
http://www.truthenginebook.com/logos.html

Try harder next time. :lol:


The customers who downloaded his book from amazon did not "contribute" to his book.

He still does not have permission to post any customer's name here.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:59 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:Name the other members here who downloaded it.
xouper wrote:As a lawyer, shirley you know he does not have permission to do that.
It's a forum, you idiot. He can ask.

xouper wrote:I am not going to "debate" him.
Of course you won't. You're trolling. :lol:

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10321
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby Pyrrho » Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:11 am

Locking this thread for a cooling-off period. Combatants are to find a blackboard and write "Civility" on it 100 times.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10321
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby Pyrrho » Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:07 pm

I was reminded about this and was asked how much longer it would remain locked. Sorry it slipped my mind.

Unlocked, with a warning that persons who post personal attacks will be locked out of this section of the forum for a few days.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:28 am

Here is my overview on this thread.

Richard Crist has composed a method, the Truth Engine method, that he thinks will allow different arguments to be consolidated and discover new things about the topic on hand. Contributors would then appear in books that he self publishes. This was why he started this thread calling for debaters to his website.


"But how is it possible that the Truth Engine builders can help bring into being a super-intelligence? They can do it by harnessing the power of synergy: by creating forums, by organizing, and participating in, myriad public debates about all our controversial issues, by coordinating these debates with amendable books of best arguments (pro and con) called Truth-Engine books (the books are used to guide the debates, and the debates inspire changes to the books), and by agreeing to use but one set of rules,"
http://www.truthenginebook.com/

The specific topic for his test run was "The 1952 Washington UFO Flap" which he has already discussed in his first book in the series. "The UFO Dialectic: A Critical, Philosophical and Practical Guide to the UFO Debate"

I then criticised this for the following reasons.

Firstly, the Truth Engine method is not a debating method and is simply Richard editing what he likes or doesn't like, where he acquires the copyright of contributors and sells the book for commercial gain. This would happen away from our forum.

Secondly, the Skeptic Society already uses standard evolved debating rules and if any debate should take place it should be here where he made his claim the Washington UFOs were alien UFOs.

Thirdly, Richard Crist refused to post his evidence for his claim, he has on hand in his book and insisted we read his book, which is the equivalent of "arguing by You-Tube links" rather than presenting evidence on the forum.

Fourthly, we discovered that Richard Crist does not accept the official report explaining the false ground radar readings, but simultaneously never actually read that official report. It became apparent that many facts concerning the event were unknown to Richard Crist.

Finally, it all became fluff, because Jo 753 and Richard Crist did not set out any working hypothesis for their alien UFO claims that included all the Washington 1952 facts, which is required by the scientific method. It then devolved into "How do you know there weren't aliens?" which ignored that a reasonable working tested hypothesis, claiming temperature inversions already existed that deals with all the facts.
Radar inversion layer.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:07 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: the Truth Engine method is ... where he acquires the copyright of contributors and sells the book for commercial gain.

People making suggestions wouldn’t be doing it to make money but to take advantage of the opportunity to influence the direction of the public controversy; it would be like writing letters to the editor or calling a radio talk show. I wouldn’t be forcing anyone to contribute. But, anyway, I think I may follow JO 753’s advice and put the book on the Internet, making it more like a moderated wiki.

The rest of Matthew’s criticisms would be easy to respond to, but I’m not interested in debating him.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:26 am

TEnginist wrote:People making suggestions wouldn’t be doing it to make money but to take advantage of the opportunity to influence the direction of the public controversy
You mean Skeptic Society members, who have actually done the hard research, who are already published, and so, thus, you are eliminating the best contributors?

You do realise the Skeptic Society has its own publications?
Skeptic Magazine.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11126
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:04 am

Well done Matt. So logical and persuasive, your opposition has dissolved into a puddle of non-response....a self moderated wiki "leaks" if you will.

A fanciful delusional scammer.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12413
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:51 am

No, bobbo. Not well dun at all.

Matt's explaineration coverz only the radar readingz, not the visual sitingz or the combination visual/radar sitingz. And even at that, the inversion layer theory wuz not taken seriously by the radar operatorz or their superiorz to begin with and wuz disputed by experts in later hearingz.

Then to put a final nail in the coffin, the creatorz uv the 'theory' are well established az liarz hooz only purpose wuz to make reports go away.

Dont be a bleevr.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11126
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:22 am

Jo: my conclusion was reached after reading the first three rebuttals. I simply have no interest at all in anyone who claims to know what an Unknown Flying Object "is." You can't prove (to me) it isn't X. X = the insanity chosen.

I'll say again: one off "events" of any character whatsoever are unconvincing. Reality repeats itself often enough for a general consensus to form around it.

Its possible, but not likely, that some one of the thousands of singular events are actually true................... but I and any other reasonable person will wait for the consensus to form= = = = = = EVEN THOSE who experience and believe in the singular event. Being "rational" requires that patience.

Childish, not to.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12413
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Fri Oct 20, 2017 8:32 am

Reality iz not dependent on "consensus".
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10321
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby Pyrrho » Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:14 am

Warning issued for this post:

viewtopic.php?f=7&p=610054#p610054 .

I meant what I posted about personal attacks.. bobbo is locked out of this section of the forum until Monday. He will have read-only access.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:03 am

JO 753 wrote: Matt's explaineration coverz only the radar readingz, not the visual sitingz or the combination visual/radar sitingz.
Excellent. Jo 753 will now set out the visual eyewitnesses for the Washington 1952 UFO flap and what they saw. I will add their locations, That's what I have been waiting for. :D

JO 753 wrote:And even at that, the inversion layer theory wuz not taken seriously by the radar operatorz or their superiorz to begin with and wuz disputed by experts in later hearingz.
No Jo 753. You still haven't read the official report. Every single radar operator accepted the false radar readings were due to inversion layers for the several weeks leading up to the weekend. On that weekend they also dismissed any unstable radar return as also from an inversion layer.

You simply didn't know this because you haven't read the official report.
:D

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: call for debaters

Postby Poodle » Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:10 am

Here's what I've learned so far ...
1. There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life.
2. There is no evidence whatsoever against the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life.
3. Neither the Truth Engine method nor formal debate will alter points 1 and 2 above.
4. Using either of those methods, not a single person will be persuaded to change long-held beliefs.
5. Some people do not understand the laws of copyright.

All in all, one of our more productive threads, then.


Return to “UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests