Leslie Kean

[JO 753]

She has a new book about UFO reports by all sorts of very credible witnesses.

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&q=UFOs+leslie+kean&cid=10507667719574049164&ei=8IB0TPDBGJ_swAW8ibDMDg&sa=title&ved=0CAcQ8wIwADgA#p

Saw her on MSNBC and Colbert tonite. The accounts are actually written by the witnessez.

[fromthehills]

What do you think about it, Jo?

My assumption is that a cover up would only be successful if there were only two witnesses, and one shot the other.

[Gord]

She has a new book about UFO reports by all sorts of very credible witnesses.

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&q=UFOs+leslie+kean&cid=10507667719574049164&ei=8IB0TPDBGJ_swAW8ibDMDg&sa=title&ved=0CAcQ8wIwADgA#p

Saw her on MSNBC and Colbert tonite. The accounts are actually written by the witnessez.

Leslie Kean on Colbert Report talking about her new UFO book 23-Aug-2010:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcfMOCw0Lmk

She seems like a "wants-it-to-be-true"-er.  For instance:  "Something has to be phsyical to be seen on radar."  No it does not.  Radar does, under some circumstances, pick up things that aren't physically there.

[JO 753]

I believe the gummit did a fantastic job uv covering up UFOz. That sumtime after the alienz reveal themselvez to the world in general, the big story will be how the cover up wuz accomplished.

[landrew]

She seems like a "wants-it-to-be-true"-er.  For instance:  "Something has to be phsyical to be seen on radar."  No it does not.  Radar does, under some circumstances, pick up things that aren't physically there.

How is that different from a "wants-it-to-be-hoax"-er?

Just askin'.

[surrounded]

or a wants- to- sell- a- book-er?

[Gord]

She seems like a "wants-it-to-be-true"-er.  For instance:  "Something has to be phsyical to be seen on radar."  No it does not.  Radar does, under some circumstances, pick up things that aren't physically there.

How is that different from a "wants-it-to-be-hoax"-er?

Just askin'.

It's the opposite, duh!

[landrew]

She seems like a "wants-it-to-be-true"-er.  For instance:  "Something has to be phsyical to be seen on radar."  No it does not.  Radar does, under some circumstances, pick up things that aren't physically there.

How is that different from a "wants-it-to-be-hoax"-er?

Just askin'.

It's the opposite, duh!

Not exactly.  When the verdict is firmly in your sights, the process is exactly the same, either way.

[Squishua]

Every December there are 1000's of "sightings" of Santa's sleighride reported by people. Television "news" stations even issue weather reports for the route he will take on the magic sleigh.

Summarily dismissing each and all of them without further scrutiny doesn't seem unreasonable - especially compared to accepting them all as real..

[landrew]

Every December there are 1000's of "sightings" of Santa's sleighride reported by people. Television "news" stations even issue weather reports for the route he will take on the magic sleigh.

Summarily dismissing each and all of them without further scrutiny doesn't seem unreasonable - especially compared to accepting them all as real..

False analogy. Scrutiny is the key to attributing the weight you need to achieve a level of certainty/uncertainty.

[Squishua]

Every December there are 1000's of "sightings" of Santa's sleighride reported by people. Television "news" stations even issue weather reports for the route he will take on the magic sleigh.

Summarily dismissing each and all of them without further scrutiny doesn't seem unreasonable - especially compared to accepting them all as real..

False analogy. Scrutiny is the key to attributing the weight you need to achieve a level of certainty/uncertainty.

I've scrutinized the premise of extraterrestrial spaceships visiting us quite well, and both they and Santa Claus are equally fantastic nonsense.

[landrew]

Every December there are 1000's of "sightings" of Santa's sleighride reported by people. Television "news" stations even issue weather reports for the route he will take on the magic sleigh.

Summarily dismissing each and all of them without further scrutiny doesn't seem unreasonable - especially compared to accepting them all as real..

False analogy. Scrutiny is the key to attributing the weight you need to achieve a level of certainty/uncertainty.

I've scrutinized the premise of extraterrestrial spaceships visiting us quite well, and both they and Santa Claus are equally fantastic nonsense.

Opinion noted.

[Squishua]

Opinion noted.

Thank you!  And indeed, it is only my opinion.

[JO 753]

I've scrutinized the premise of extraterrestrial spaceships visiting us

Hav you scrutinized any uv the reports?

However, wut didnt work for you about the premise?

[Gord]

She seems like a "wants-it-to-be-true"-er.  For instance:  "Something has to be phsyical to be seen on radar."  No it does not.  Radar does, under some circumstances, pick up things that aren't physically there.

How is that different from a "wants-it-to-be-hoax"-er?

Just askin'.

It's the opposite, duh!

Not exactly.  When the verdict is firmly in your sights, the process is exactly the same, either way.

No, I got it in one.  One wants one thing, the other wants the opposite.  You did, after all, ask "how is that DIFFERENT," not "how is that THE SAME."  Therefore, I pointed out the difference, not the similarity.

[landrew]

She seems like a "wants-it-to-be-true"-er.  For instance:  "Something has to be phsyical to be seen on radar."  No it does not.  Radar does, under some circumstances, pick up things that aren't physically there.

How is that different from a "wants-it-to-be-hoax"-er?

Just askin'.

It's the opposite, duh!

Not exactly.  When the verdict is firmly in your sights, the process is exactly the same, either way.

No, I got it in one.  One wants one thing, the other wants the opposite.  You did, after all, ask "how is that DIFFERENT," not "how is that THE SAME."  Therefore, I pointed out the difference, not the similarity.

Except that the mentality is the same, whenever the conclusion comes before the evidence.

Whether its a creationist, "proving" that Darwin was wrong, or a Swiss motel owner "proving" that aliens built the pyramids, or a skeptic "proving" that anything unusual on a radar screen is swamp gas, it's still the opposite of the scientific method.

[Pyrrho]

J. Allen Hynek was the one who came up with "swamp gas" as an explanation. I haven't heard of that being used as an explanation since, except possible as tongue-in-cheek reference to the original statement or as ridicule. It doesn't seem like a hypothesis anyone who wanted to keep their reputation as a learned scholar would present, considering the reaction to Hynek's explanation--which, as the Wikipedia article claims, was not intended to explain all of the sightings in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek

[Squishua]

I've scrutinized the premise of extraterrestrial spaceships visiting us

Hav you scrutinized any uv the reports?

Not these particular reports, no.

However, wut didnt work for you about the premise?

Distance, flight time, energy expenditure, plus a whole new realm of unknown theory and technology to make it possible... remnants of such would be massively more evident than mere word-of-mouth reports.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

An aside: A group of friends and I often attended the Bay Area UFO Expo each September.  It's a carnival.  There's even a booth for aluminum foil hats, which is certainly tongue-in-cheek, but make no mistake - there are some batshit crazy people there.  Gary Busey even got kicked out of one a few years ago.

[OlegTheBatty]

"We don't know what it is, therefore we know what it is." . . . It seems to me there are a few steps missing.

[Gord]

How is that different from a "wants-it-to-be-hoax"-er?

Just askin'.

It's the opposite, duh!

Not exactly.  When the verdict is firmly in your sights, the process is exactly the same, either way.

No, I got it in one.  One wants one thing, the other wants the opposite.  You did, after all, ask "how is that DIFFERENT," not "how is that THE SAME."  Therefore, I pointed out the difference, not the similarity.

Except that the mentality is the same, whenever the conclusion comes before the evidence.

Whether its a creationist, "proving" that Darwin was wrong, or a Swiss motel owner "proving" that aliens built the pyramids, or a skeptic "proving" that anything unusual on a radar screen is swamp gas, it's still the opposite of the scientific method.

Mentality schmentality, you need to ask the proper questions to get the answers you're looking for.


...and by "you," I mean landrew.  It wasn't meant to be a general statement.  

[landrew]

Mentality schmentality, you need to ask the proper questions to get the answers you're looking for.


...and by "you," I mean landrew.  It wasn't meant to be a general statement.  

You mean like a shark lawyer, asking the defendant how often he beats his wife?

Oh wait, you mean, like a creationist asking how could "random chance ever create life?"  Or maybe you meant "how could intelligent life ever have visited earth when interstellar travel is impossible."

Those are all good questions skewed towards getting the "right" answers.

[Gord]

Mentality schmentality, you need to ask the proper questions to get the answers you're looking for.


...and by "you," I mean landrew.  It wasn't meant to be a general statement.  

You mean like a shark lawyer, asking the defendant how often he beats his wife?

Oh wait, you mean, like a creationist asking how could "random chance ever create life?"  Or maybe you meant "how could intelligent life ever have visited earth when interstellar travel is impossible."

Those are all good questions skewed towards getting the "right" answers.

No, I mean like asking "How is that different from a "wants-it-to-be-hoax"-er?" when you want to actually know how it's actually different.  Actually.

Because I answered the question you asked, rather than the one you meant to ask.

P.S.  Sharks have lawyers now?

[landrew]

Mentality schmentality, you need to ask the proper questions to get the answers you're looking for.


...and by "you," I mean landrew.  It wasn't meant to be a general statement.  

You mean like a shark lawyer, asking the defendant how often he beats his wife?

Oh wait, you mean, like a creationist asking how could "random chance ever create life?"  Or maybe you meant "how could intelligent life ever have visited earth when interstellar travel is impossible."

Those are all good questions skewed towards getting the "right" answers.

No, I mean like asking "How is that different from a "wants-it-to-be-hoax"-er?" when you want to actually know how it's actually different.  Actually.

Because I answered the question you asked, rather than the one you meant to ask.

P.S.  Sharks have lawyers now?

Actually Gord, I know that you got my point long ago, that frontloaded conclusions are all similar in the category of anti-scientific reasoning, albeit different in other respects, (as any Mensa member would clearly know) but you do like to have fun, so don't let me spoil it for you by duking it out with you for too long.

[Gord]

Actually Gord, I know that you got my point long ago, that frontloaded conclusions are all similar in the category of anti-scientific reasoning, albeit different in other respects, (as any Mensa member would clearly know) but you do like to have fun, so don't let me spoil it for you by duking it out with you for too long.

Yeah, but you still know you're wrong, though, right?

[landrew]

Actually Gord, I know that you got my point long ago, that frontloaded conclusions are all similar in the category of anti-scientific reasoning, albeit different in other respects, (as any Mensa member would clearly know) but you do like to have fun, so don't let me spoil it for you by duking it out with you for too long.

Yeah, but you still know you're wrong, though, right?

Whatever floats your rubber duckie.

[Squishua]

Yeah, but you still know you're wrong, though, right?

Everyone reading it knows that.  His persistence is quite amusing.

[JJM]

Actually Gord, I know that you got my point long ago, that frontloaded conclusions  writing about myself is important ...

fixed it for you.

Yeah, but you still know you're wrong, though, right?

You are tilting at a windmill, Gord.  It is all about Landrew.

[JO 753]

However, wut didnt work for you about the premise?

Distance, flight time, energy expenditure, plus a whole new realm of unknown theory and technology to make it possible... remnants of such would be massively more evident than mere word-of-mouth reports.

So your skepticizm iz based on the notion that our science iz advanced enuf to declare wut iz & iz not possible.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

To deni a report frum a credible source iz to make an extraordinary claim. And in general the least incredible explanation for theze sitingz iz extraterrestrial vizitorz.

[Squishua]

However, wut didnt work for you about the premise?

Distance, flight time, energy expenditure, plus a whole new realm of unknown theory and technology to make it possible... remnants of such would be massively more evident than mere word-of-mouth reports.

So your skepticizm iz based on the notion that our science iz advanced enuf to declare wut iz & iz not possible.

That's not what I said. Maybe you should re-read what you quoted.

[OlegTheBatty]

To deni a report frum a credible source iz to make an extraordinary claim. And in general the least incredible explanation for theze sitingz iz extraterrestrial vizitorz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA06Z5e1ZFc

[landrew]

Yeah, but you still know you're wrong, though, right?

Everyone reading it knows that.  His persistence is quite amusing.

The facts can also be quite persistent. Please tell me how simple declarations made without supporting arguments are valid.

[JO 753]

That's not what I said.

That's rite. Its the implication uv wut you sed.

[Squishua]

Yeah, but you still know you're wrong, though, right?

Everyone reading it knows that.  His persistence is quite amusing.

The facts can also be quite persistent. Please tell me how simple declarations made without supporting arguments are valid.

Why don't you read through this thread again from the beginning.  There's the supporting argument.

Don't you feel silly now?

[landrew]

Yeah, but you still know you're wrong, though, right?

Everyone reading it knows that.  His persistence is quite amusing.

The facts can also be quite persistent. Please tell me how simple declarations made without supporting arguments are valid.

Why don't you read through this thread again from the beginning.  There's the supporting argument.

Don't you feel silly now?

Not at all. You've contributed nothing to the discussion but empty declarations.

[Squishua]

Very well, if I must:
[paraphrasing for simplicity]
landrew: "what's the difference between a "wants-it-to-be-true"-er and a "wants-it-to-be-hoax"-er?
Gord: "they're the opposite! "
landrew: [moves the goal post and digresses into pontification]

I don't know why this should be repeated, as it's all in the posts above.  Interesting that you act oblivious to it... Have a good night.

[landrew]

Very well, if I must:
[paraphrasing for simplicity]
landrew: "what's the difference between a "wants-it-to-be-true"-er and a "wants-it-to-be-hoax"-er?
Gord: "they're the opposite! "
landrew: [moves the goal post and digresses into pontification]

I don't know why this should be repeated, as it's all in the posts above.  Interesting that you act oblivious to it... Have a good night.

You've obviously chosen to ignore the point I was making; in that the two attitudes are quite similar in that they start with the conclusion first, then work backwards, which is contrary to the scientific method.

The simple declaration that they are "opposites" is not a refutation, but a subjective opinion. For example, what is the opposite of a carrot?  Your debating style appears to consist of saying the other person is wrong and not much else.

[Gord]

The simple declaration that they are "opposites" is not a refutation, but a subjective opinion.

Not subjective, but objective...in that I object to the subject.

For example, what is the opposite of a carrot?

A notcarrot.

What's the opposite of an orange?

[landrew]

The simple declaration that they are "opposites" is not a refutation, but a subjective opinion.

Not subjective, but objective...in that I object to the subject.

For example, what is the opposite of a carrot?

A notcarrot.

What's the opposite of an orange?

Very entertaining, but no relevance to the argument.  It's also a bit ironic that you're the one who claims I can't admit when I'm wrong.

[Squishua]

The simple declaration that they are "opposites" is not a refutation

That's right it is not a refutation! . It is a simple statement of fact; TRUE is the opposite of FALSE (aka "hoax").  Besides, I've only been on this forum for a month and I've figured out Gord likes to have fun with people.  Yet you still feel compelled to defend against this statement.

[landrew]

[quote="landrewl]The simple declaration that they are "opposites" is not a refutation[/quote]
That's right it is not a refutation! . It is a simple statement of fact; TRUE is the opposite of FALSE (aka "hoax").  Besides, I've only been on this forum for a month and I've figured out Gord likes to have fun with people.  Yet you still feel compelled to defend against this statement.[/quote][/quote]

Yes, true is the opposite of false, and it's also the opposite of any of your other declarations I suppose.