Added: 2 years ago
From: MichaelShermer
Views: 11,295
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (290)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Interpretational observation of a group of elementary defined entities in the embodiment of a concept with a tidal direction give us the illusion of a reality, which is so undeniable because we are 'embedded into its partiality'. Observing the universe from out of this one, would be so interesting, but we would probably fall out of synchronicity with this one.

  • "Evolution is the universal creation story for all religions." - Michael Dowd

    I do agree on the evolutionary perspective that are morals were for us to survive as a social species in a tribe. Now that we have pluralistic societies that are far larger, we see more conflict within these nations and as with international relations as well. Although, I would argue that some of our universal morals don't seem to fit with our evolutionary past.

  • John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

  • @TheK1ngdom What kind of a sick father has his son murdered?

    FACT: Christianity is a deluded death-cult which has caused untold misery and violence throughout history.

  • 'dogseatsnakes' :) heh...

  • I know this is off topic but Michael Shermer is a very sexy man. There is something about a man who is well mannered, intelligent, courageous and handsome.

  • I was wondering today why are certain beliefs considered weird ? I mean ghosts for example , what is so weird about the idea of ghosts ?

    I dont believe that there are ghosts in the current reality version.But i do think that labeling things like "weird idea" and "supernatural" is nothing more than labeling.

    And if you look at the nature of reality from an open mind perspective then the idea of a "fixed solid world" should be labeled "supernatural" or "weird idea" too ?

  • You don't understand why people use the term "supernatural"? Its used to describe something that cannot be explained by natural laws; something that either violates these laws or exists outside of them. Such as ghosts,God, demons, angels,etc. As to what is so weird about ghosts, well there has never been any actual proof of thier existence. Also, the idea that the "spirit" (whatever that actually is) of a deceased person can float around unseen bothering living people seems pretty strange to me.

  • What feels strange or not is highly subjective.Computers would feel strange and would be even labeled as "supernatural" by the primitive tribes.

    The reality is NOT fixed solid thing , its not "physical" , yet people believe they are physical beings.That sounds weird to me too :P

    And what makes you think that ghosts if they existed (im not saying they do , but if they did)had to break any natural laws ? The quantum physics violates natural laws too , it feels and sounds strange.Supernatural ?

  • When i said "quantym physics" violates natural laws i meant newton laws , sorry my bad :D

  • This is a great little video because 1) it explains very well the contents of Michael's books as well as how each evolved from his central theme of critical thinking, and 2) it demonstrates the real personality of the guy. I've gotten to know him a bit over the past several years, and I can tell you from personal experience that he's every bit as friendly and "real" as this vid suggests. Please ignore the ridiculous accusations of the 9/11 Truthers and others who spread lies about him.

  • Comment removed

  • where are these available? books-a-million?

  • Why People Believe Weird Things is an excellent book. I highly recommend it.

  • I'm awaiting hypotheses that don't make ME laugh!

  • Let's apply science!

    Observation....yes

    Hypothesis....aliens? natural explanation since billions of stars could be advanced civilizations. In cases with only ONE witness may be hallucination.

    Tests... many consistent but hoaxing IS possible. Not repeatable due to it's nature.

    Theory... difficult to make assumptions due to human limitations.

  • When I hear the explanation of scoffers, they are nearly as ridiculous as the 2012 truthers. Skepticism? sure! Scoff? not! Until this is taken seriously it won't be given the valuable input it needs.

  • Two parents get grilled over their religious beliefs

    watch?v=GZfqJR_rqNY&feature=ch annel_page

  • Long live democracy and freedom of speech!

  • Conspiracy theory? I prefer the term 'conspiracy claim'.

  • 'Conspiracy theories' are very troubling. On the one hand, it is feasable and some politicians have been caught red handed. On the other, it's the road to madness, untestable and filled with political and religious bias. That's why I am very dis-trustful of conspiracy theories, and I loathe the term 'theory' being used as it dilutes the term in the scientific sense.

  • Conspiracy Theorist (CT) seem to rally against the status quo. There are two lines of thought that parallel each other, but are diametrically opposed.

    Either the CT are unjustifiably suspicious of a just status quo. or

    Or the CT are justifiably suspicious of an unjust status quo.

    Judging this by the standards of human nature I tend to lean toward the latter line of reasoning.

  • Politics really is awkward. On one hand, we have freedoms unparalleled compared to even a few decades ago and many despotic regimes would love nothing more than to undermine western values of free speech. On the other, what is our freedom if it can't be used. I get the feeling that governance is easier said than done aswell. It's like team sport armchair managers: they all think they know the answers, but give them the reigns and they'll be useless. tbc.

  • cont/ the most successful politics is nearly always moderate.

  • IMHO: I'm a political moderate.

  • uzebdrumz says "stop thinking and shut up". Spoken like a true theist.

  • Be careful or I'll stone you to death because that's what my book tells me to do, and I cannot question my 2000 year old anachronistic shit scroll...it's two ply, so it's soft where it matters!

  • If the category is labeled things that people believe but have no evidence for believing. Then alien abductions, flying saucers from other planets, past visits from ancient aliens, ghosts, JFK conspiracy theories, 911 conspiracy theories, remote viewing, psychic powers, and gods of any sort. Then it is appropriate to put all of these thins in the same category.

  • How can you put Ghosts in the same category as Aliens?

    I also don't understand who this guy can throw "Conspiracy Theories" in the mix too...

    As if there have NEVER been ANY actual conspiracies... LOL (In FACT there have been hundreds throughout history)

    How much of this is healthy skepticism and how much of it is disinformation?

    This guy is a closed-minded bore with absolutely no personality... I much prefer Derren Brown and James Randi...

  • and your video was a lot better... really close minded guy michael is because he doesn't take your global conspiracy theory into account. go buy a brain.

  • "How can you put Ghosts in the same category as Aliens?"

    Stuff people believe in that has no compelling evidence.

  • "Stuff people believe in that has no compelling evidence."

    According to you. Proclamation, Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion)

  • Definately James Randi.

  • 4 volumes in a trilogy?

  • Hi Michael, I'm a theist and I have a book that was written approximately 2000 years ago that is the word of god, is the only story of human development, is the basis of all morality, and explains nothing. So stop thinking and shut up.

  • YEAH STOP THINKING!1!!1

  • uzebdrumz you should be on Comedy Central.

  • I've read Why Darwin Matters, and The Science of Good and Evil. Both very good reads.

  • you yourself believe in many absurd things than paranormal/supernatural.

  • Love your books (read them all) and am happy to see you becoming more active on YT. Looking forward to what you'll post in the future and hope it has more "meat". ;-) What you do is important.

  • The most important thing I've learned from reading Michael Shermer's books is to be skeptical - even of his claims.

  • Also Shermers work on supposed alien abductee psychology was very good and thought provoking also. I think most who claim abduction are likely delusional.

  • I agree, I've suffered from sleep paralysis, but I never thought I was abducted.

    Again, I agree, Shermer, presents his case well and makes valid points, but then don't forget his real motivation, money, and that can create a bias.

    Another person who presents solid ideas and valid points is Stanton Friedman. Although I disagree with some of his skepticism, I agree with most of it.

  • We still need ppl like Shermer and Friedman to keep us thinking over these things because it's a fascinating topic. It seems to put a fly in the ointment of skepticism but religious minded individuals hate it all the more because it really undermines the notion of certainty about an all powerful god. I'm not suggesting 'chariot of the gods' nonsense but I could be here all day qualifying all my thoughts.

  • I certainly think it's good to apply skepticism to the alien/ufo issue but if it's not taken seriously, then it COULD be the next religion. There are billions of galaxies each with 100's of billions of stars, and research SUGGESTS (in capitals since I don't want to be accused of deception) that our planet is not particularly special.

  • Expanding on 'then it COULD be the next religion' :ppl predictably make WAY too many assumptions on the issue.

  • I think it does already represent various Earth religions. There are Neolithic petroglyphs on every continent that are amazingly similar in representation.

    If you throw in the various reports from figures from history; Alexander the Great, Nuremberg, Germany in 1561, and probably most religious mythology.

    The cargo cult of New Guinea and other Micronesian and Melanesian countries in the southwest Pacific Ocean represent this example best.

  • 1. I don't discount the possibility of alien life or even intelligent alien life existing elsewhere in a Universe that is so vast. I just think it highly unlikely they have visited us and I see no compelling evidence to suggest otherwise.

    2. We haven't found life elsewhere yet and we haven't found an Earth-like planet elsewhere, yet.

  • I appreciate your points, but I feel this is a somewhat subjective issue. It does not fall under the category of the scientific method, however should one instantly dismiss ALL alien experience claims as delusion? What about all the serious pilots during world war 2 and the fu fighters? I think that's compelling. But skepticism is fair also.

    About point 2: we await results from the new telescope satellites and our reach may not be adequate just yet.

    tbc

  • "however should one instantly dismiss ALL alien experience claims as delusion? "

    No you use your critical thinking tools and examine the evidence. Is it more likely that someone seen an alien spacecraft or is it more likely someone seen something in the sky(of which there are millions of things it could be) that they just don't understand. I have read witness accounts of people freaked out as they were seeing a white circular light following them when they were driving. It was the moon.

  • That's subjective, is it not? So we apply Occham's razor. The question should be: is there anything supernatural about the alien hypothesis when there are billions of billions of stars and physics (which I've studied for many years and near got a degree in) only provides explanations for what we KNOW about our universe? I think one is NOT applying Occham's razor about 100's of passengers including the pilots seeing intelligently controlled hypermanouverable craft as the moon!

  • "That's subjective, is it not?"

    What is?

    "I think one is NOT applying Occham's razor"

    I agree, but I would likely disagree with you on the one. It would be cool if aliens existed and even cooler if they visited(and were peaceful). Alas I am a scientist and sceptic, I require a standard of evidence. 100s of eyewitness testimony is not good enough.

    The moon example was just too point out that people are irrational and jump to wild conclusion before thinking.

  • Yes, I appreciate your reply. What I think is needed is a mature attitude to this issue rather than one of emotion over-running it. There are many ways to hypothesise this issue, and many approaches. By being a scientist you must also agree that as such phenomena have been observed, they require serious investigation and hypotheses. Mass religious experiences have good psychological explanations since the ppl who attend expect something to happen which helps create the illusion... tbc

  • "they require serious investigation and hypotheses"

    There are at least six large scale scientific studies6, all usually ignored.

  • cont/ but in many ufo cases there is no such expectation. Even if a pilot tells the passengers he can see something, if it weren't happening I doubt all those passengers on those planes could delude themselves. They are more likely to think 'well, I just can't see it'. The question is: WHAT are they seeing? How are they seeing or percieving it? Yes, I've heard about the atmospheric phenomena one, but there are still cases that defy that too...tbc

  • "WHAT are they seeing? How are they seeing or perceiving it?"

    My question is why are these highly trained veteran pilots with responsibility of human lives afraid to report many of these sightings even with radar verification? Either we trust their eyewitness testimony or we don't, but we don't entrust people we think are crazy for seeing unpopular by opinion objects with the safety of our lives. Makes zero sense!

  • "My question is why are these highly trained veteran pilots with responsibility of human lives afraid to report many of these sightings even with radar verification?"

    Pareidolia.

  • Pareidolia: A psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant.

    What the fuck, that doesnt even sense in this context. Well like your buddy mjhavok you have no idea what youre talking about, no clue, nothing, youre in over your head you

  • dont know how to back out and save face at the same time, you can't so suck it up and give up. I recomend doing some "real" research and then come back with something real to discuss.

  • "Pareidolia: A psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant."

    Yes, such as seeing UFO's as alien craft when they might in fact be terrestrial. Every time you cotinue to insult me you prove just who the real liar here is with your smoke and mirrors.

  • "Yes, such as seeing UFO's as alien craft when they might in fact be terrestrial."

    Once again a total and complete lack of any knowledge and understand.

    "real liar here is with your smoke and mirrors."

    Once again, this is not a super double top secret stuff that I am POINTING out, this NOT an OPINION, which is all you got. Keep trying.

  • "Once again a total and complete lack of any knowledge and understand. "

    Really? Are they Extra-Terrestrial, Genius? Where's your evidence that they are CONCLUSIVELY NOT OF THIS EARTH? I've asked you repeatedly and you've ignored my request.

  • "Once again, this is not a super double top secret stuff that I am POINTING out, this NOT an OPINION, which is all you got. Keep trying."

    YOU keep trying to push vague pictures and eyewitness reports (which as I've already pointed out will NEVER be infallible fue to the fallible nature of memory and recall) as though they're conclusive evidence of extra-terrestrial UFO's. As I stated, I'm a skeptic, not a gullible fuckwit like you.

  • And now all you have is spam. Grow up kid.

  • cont/

    Jump to conclusions? No.

    Take seriously? Yes.

  • btw. Expectation also happens in ufo cases where supposed 'hot spots' are. So skepticism should be applied in such cases.

  • The flaw in this nihilistic debunking is the false assumption of a geocentric technological superimposition. Many of the "opinions' proclaimed project terrestrial knowledge and understanding onto this phenomena and then continue this false projection of currant technological advancements on to an unknown intelligence completing Appeal To False Authority .

  • No you use your critical thinking tools and examine the evidence. Is it more likely that someone seen an alien spacecraft or is it more likely someone seen something in the sky(of which there are millions of things ...It was the moon."

    Your critical thinking appears to be opinion and research by proclamation. This provides ZERO and is profoundly demonstrates several fallacies in, but one stands out, Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion)

  • cont/ as I pointed out earlier: how do you go about testing these hypotheses with, at present, relatively insufficient experimental equipment. That's why I appreciate skeptical viewpoints.

  • I agree, but skepticism is only effective if it doesn't work against critical thinking and is pursuant to answers or at least indicates a direction that points to a possible solution even if this involves lateral thinking however unpopular an idea is.

    Bias subjectivity cannot dictate the objectivivity.

  • Good comment. I was thinking of an interesting hypothesis. What if travel was easier between stars that where in line with the centre of the universe, since expansion under the big bang theory could give the light speed limit an extra 'push'?

  • I think what we'll discover eventually is that there are several modes of propulsion that are capable of interstellar and Intergalactic travel.

    I feel confident that distances we perceive are a manufacture of our inadequate intellect to understand the true nature of space-time. String theory predicts at least 11 higher dimensions and this may account for the peculiar and incongruent weakness of gravity.

    Once this concept is understood its just a matter of applying it.

  • Yes. I've heard those ideas, including worm hole hypothesis, but I thought I would mention this idea since it might have interesting implications. Please bear in mind I said IDEA, not verified THEORY. It seems at one point space time was expanding at speeds in excess of light speed.

  • "I agree, but skepticism is only effective if it doesn't work against critical thinking"

    I think you need to look up what "scepticism" and "critical thinking" actually are.

  • I like Schermer but on ufology he gets stuck on how to respond to some cases. The science for some ufology is pretty good, but he does make a good point when he says extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The alien and UFO topic is inthe grey area(excuse pun) between science and pseudoscience. Claims have to be treated with care and honest skeptical enquiry but some cases are compelling.

  • "The science for some ufology is pretty good"

    I disagree.

  • "The science for some ufology is pretty good"

    Please explain.

  • Flight recordings from fighter pilots have recorded extreme flight paths by ufo's that appear to be intelligently controlled. Witness reports from ground level consistent with the path followed by the pilots. This has gone on for decades. If they are millitary tech the science of the vehicles would be out by now, strong as the secrecy is.

  • Actually I don't think matters if it's a secret of not. It the tech isn't allowed into general manufacturing then it's just not seen.

    For instance, the military recently declassified the use of the Biefeld-Brown Effect. You see this called the "lifter" tech on the net. It uses electrograivitics or electric dipoles thats generate self-acceleration toward the positive pole.

    It's been somewhat declassified as used on the B-2 stealth.

    This tech is 80yrs old, but very fascinating.

  • Yes, interesting, but hardly in the ufo league.

  • Trust me, I detest getting into a "proof or "evidence" match. I've argued enough pro evolution vs. creationism or intelligent design to know the game well.

    But that, I think, is the problem. There's been an association with things like religion and other paranormal enough that its diluted extra solar intelligence to the crazy file, which I think is a huge mistake and seems suspiciously categorized that way.

  • Yeah. I'm right in the middle on this issue, it's good to be skeptical, but how do you retest the alien/ufo issue so it fits nicely into the scientific method, on the other side of the coin ppl have been profoundly affected by this issue and good data catalogued.

  • Well there isn't. Take the Phoenix sighting in March 13, 1997. There were 5000 reports of a delta or boomerang shaped craft over a 3hr period. It was dismissed and squashed in the news media. How do you dismiss 5000 ppl reporting this to a hallucination? Isn't that unusually suspicious?

    The ex-Governor., who initially, ignored it, admitted to seeing this craft that was a mile in length on camera. It doesn't any sense. It seems like a very confusing game to me and I don't know the rules.

  • 'well there isn't...' Sorry, which msg were you replying to.

  • 'I don't know the rules'. You're not alone, and I wouldn't be so sure the govt knows all either. They may even feel as uncertain as the public witnesses.

  • "5000 reports ... dismissed and squashed ... How do you dismiss 5000 ppl reporting this to a hallucination?"

    In Kosovo in 1990, 4,000 people in one particular town were suddenly struck down by a mysterious illness. Doctors were dumbfounded.

    Further research showed that the illnesses were psychological in nature - probably generated by the villagers belief that they were under a poison-attack by Serbian Forces.

    The plural of "delusion" isn't "evidence".

  • Interesting, but I don't see any parallel. There wasn't any Phoenix city wide social stress that representing any danger or reason so many would hallucinating, specifically, 5 large extremely bright lights attached to a 1000m wide delta wing shaped object traveling slowly over the area for 3hrs.

    5000 average people on an average night in the US all spontaneously hallucinating the same precise object seems far more absurd that actually seeing something.

  • In this case, it highly likely to be military. It's rumored they have a type of highly maneuverable stealth blimp configured for high speed and large capacity storage.

    This makes sense as black ops project, but no sense as to why it was spooking the residents over Phoenix.

    A very strange event that still persist till now, but kept out of the main stream, which goes back to media black out that military is know to do when necessary.

  • *sigh*

    No, numbnuts. It doesn't matter how many people saw it.

    The problem is exacerbated by the fact that you're lying - 5,000 people did NOT see what you report. But even if they had all reported seeing the exact same thing, it would not be evidence for what you are claiming. That' just not the way we do science, or any kind of investigative work. And as long as you continue to approach these problems with such an irrational methodology, you're going to keep getting marginalized as a loon.

  • That isn't science. Do you have these flight recordings? Have all reasonable explanations been logically excluded?

  • Interesting books. Will read them, Michael.

  • Dr. Shermer is a brilliant guy, and I've had the pleasure of reading two of his books. But the title of this particular video confuses me. Why "Belief Trilogy"? I think he presented five books here.

  • Thanks for sharing Mike!

  • I think religion IS in conflict with science on a lot more than Shermer acknowledges.

    Morality (What is good moral values, Repentence)

    Politics ("Bush being told by an invisible friend to invade Iraq")

    Stemcell research

    Euthanasia

    Contraception

    History

    Etc

  • Perhaps it is time, Mr. Shermer, to bring metaethics down from the heavens and discuss some of the issues regarding the foundations of moral reasoning. Divine command theories are prevalent among believers so there might be a productive point of departure that will bear some fruit in terms of a skeptical approach to ethics in general.

    I don't know if this is a book-length topic, but I'll bet you've got something that might go in that direction anyway.

    Just a thought.

  • Darwin matters Mr Shermer  matters......

  • hurray

  • Go Shermer!

  • He needs to write another one called "How to be a Geocentric Nihlist"

  • Why is that?

  • I don't agree with his debunking and denial of the UFO's and aliens phenomena.

    Shermer blatantly ignores the mountains of G0ov't/Military and civilian sightings. It's not like its few rednecks running around babbling about anal probes.

    There is rooms full of photos and now video's of unexplained craft.

    How can you debunk that? Yet he acts as if it's all hallucinations, planets, misidentified plans, atmospheric inversion layer, or swamp gas.

    Logically is doesn't make sense to deny it all.

  • I have never seen this rooms full of videos and photographs.....have you?

  • "I've seen enough unexplainable videos,"

    Cite examples. Many of them have been debunked as blatant frauds. I can point to several computer-generated examples to begin with.

    "talk to eye witnesses,"

    Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, as has been proven in court mny times when a previously convicted prisoner is released after evidence exonerates them.

    "and have seen an objetc hovering over a house that was unidentifiable-"

    Unidentifiable, perhaps, TO YOU. Alien? Not necessarily.

  • Let me clear this up for you so I'm not misunderstood and you don't feel the need to be condescending. There are 2 issues,

    1. UFO's : Anything flying that is unidentified is a UFO, I agree.

    2. Could an advanced intelligence travel intergalactically?: I don't think vast distance is a barrier.

    Currently there are no answers to either, but the FACT still remains, there is a physical phenomena beyond current understanding than CANNOT be debunked or denied.

  • "I don't think vast distance is a barrier."

    It seems the only barrier is your imagination.

  • Well atleast I have one.

  • oh snap.

  • Ur funny.

  • You have not responded to these citation yet?

  • This is laughable. You expect me to detail this in 500 characters?

    Ok here you go, if you can debunk these then you will have done what no others have. Just think you'll be famous if you can.

    Los Angeles Times December 11th, 1941

    Washington, DC July 19, 1952

    Trinidad, Brazil: January 16, 1958

    Bentwaters, England: December 27, 1980

  • I'm an atheist free thinker and general skeptic but I certainly think there are a minority of cases that defy skepticism. Is it possible that aliens could have visited earth? The evolutionary timescales and possibilities for enhanced technology suggest it possible, although there is still more to be found out and verified beyond doubt. What bothers me about the ufology pop culture is the massive assumptions made beyond mere contact to conspiracy etc. There's just a complete lack of evidence.

  • I agree, thats why I am a skeptic on one level and on another keep a very open mind.

    There are 100s if not 1000's of cases with empirical evidence, not just hear say and or confused eyewitness testimony, but the whole issue, even though its a FACT the Gov't/Military keeps close tabs on this issue, is swept under the media rug and consistently demoted to the giggle factor and loony file.

  • What scares ppl the most regardless of philosophy or belief or lack of, is not knowing.

  • What I really think scares people is the question is this it? As in is this all humans are, just a bunch of evolved primates scurrying around the finite area on this planet killing each other over who's God is better and dirt while being scared of our own shadow.

  • "I agree, thats why I am a skeptic on one level and on another keep a very open mind."

    Scepticism is having an open mind but not so much that it falls out. Scepticism is using evidence and logic to work out what is most likely to be true.

    "There are 100s if not 1000's of cases with empirical evidence,"

    There are hundreds of people saying they have seen ghosts, bigfoot, Elvis etc. Anecdotes are just not good enough.

  • True, but one is not the other.

  • "but the whole issue, even though its a FACT-"

    According to you?

    "the Gov't/Military keeps close tabs on this issue,"

    They have to take all reported sightings seriously in case one of them is ever genuine in the future. They're not about to fall foul of the "Boy who cried wolf too often" fallacy.

    "is swept under the media rug and consistently demoted to the giggle factor and loony file."

    That would probably be because they have a good reason to do so, such as hoaxes and lack of evidence.

  • Yeh, you win, it's all a hallucination. Ten's of thousands of people across the planet are full of shit. I get it, you want to feel safe and comfy here on planet Earth where humans are in full control of our destiny. I'm happy for you, hope it works out.

    Glad they don't apply that evidence to quantum physics or we wouldn't have all this wonderful tech. that was just fantasy a few decades ago.

  • "Ten's of thousands of people across the planet are full of shit."

    Most likely yes. And your appeal to ridicule and sarcasm goes in the bin.

    "you want to feel safe and comfy here on planet Earth where humans are in full control of our destiny-"

    What's your point?

    "Glad they don't apply that evidence to quantum physics or we wouldn't have all this wonderful tech."

    Quantum Theory is STILL an Emerging field. And they have EVIDENCE. NOT Conjecture, speculation and unfounded assumptions.

  • "I get it, you want to feel safe and comfy here on planet Earth where humans are in full control of our destiny. "

    You are reading way too much into his responses. Way too much.

    "Glad they don't apply that evidence to quantum physics or we wouldn't have all this wonderful tech."

    Lmao thanks for showing you have no clue about Quantum Physics because all the evidence shows it works. It is counter intuitive but because the evidence supports it and we use it, it is accepted.

  • "Ten's of thousands of people across the planet are full of shit."

    Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Astrology, Homeopathy, Psychics, Scientologists. Need I go on?

    I think a lot more than ten's of thousands of people across the planet are brimming with shit.

  • "Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Astrology, Homeopathy, Psychics, Scientologists. Need I go on?

    I think a lot more than ten's of thousands of people across the planet are brimming with shit."

    I agree those examples are full of shit.

  • As for what I saw, well it was extremely strange. It was 3am, my wife and I saw the lights from 5 to 8 miles away, which we thought was either a planet at first, then a small plane landing, then as we approached, it was 6 very large white lights in a vertical V shape hovering silently over a 2 story farm house and as large. The lights were so intense they were fluorescing the dust particles, but the object seemed to absorb whatever light shined on it, I could not identify it.

  • Los Angeles Times December 11th, 1941

    Washington, DC July 19, 1952

    Trinidad, Brazil: January 16, 1958

    Bentwaters, England: December 27, 1980

    You have not responded to these citations yet.

  • go to a psychiatrist, because you're fucking crazy.

  • Unexplainable by you perhaps, but even if they are unexplainable by everyone why is "spaceship" the most reasonable explanation?

    Eye witness are notoriously unreliable.

  • "There is rooms full of photos and now video's of unexplained craft. How can you debunk that?"

    Using the same cognitive faculties that make you think that Independence Day is not a documentary.

    These "photos" and "videos" are anything but compelling. Photoshop and Sony Vegas are powerful tools and these "media" you speak of don't even qualify as quality production.

  • Independence Day is not a documentary

    Feel better? Think youre really being witty or a condecending idiot? Guess which I think?

    Please, either be serious about this discussion or dont waste my time. Ive considered these factors for several years and from different angles.

    Except there are video and photo evidence thats been studied and unexplained long before it was practical or affordable by the average citizen to create hoax's.

  • Well you said "There is rooms full of photos and now video's of unexplained craft. How can you debunk that" and I just pointed out that the photos and video in independence day are of much higher quality and I don't think they are real spaceships.

  • "Please, either be serious about this discussion or dont waste my time. "

    Asking me to be serious about the ridiculous is not fair.

  • I dont know, you seem very capable of being far more ridiculous and idiotic at the same time and I'm confident you haven't even shown all your similar amazingly useless skills yet.

  • "So which is it, do we trust these individual or not or only when it fits your particular accepted paradigm?"

    False Dichotomy. Once again, SOLID evidence is required. Anecdotal eyewitness accounts are insufficient.

    "I dont know, you seem very capable of being far more ridiculous and idiotic at the same time and I'm confident you haven't even shown all your similar amazingly useless skills yet."

    Ad Hominem Attack.

  • "False Dichotomy. Once again, SOLID evidence is required. Anecdotal eyewitness accounts are insufficient."

    So you disagree those trained as professional observers such as military or commercial pilots are not qualified or to be trusted as eyewitness testimony?

    "Ad Hominem Attack"

    These statements are not directed toward. They are toward another commenter who is ad hominem attracts.

  • "So you disagree those trained as professional observers such as military or commercial pilots are not qualified or to be trusted as eyewitness testimony?"

    The comment you responded to explains why. You've completely disregarded it. The President of the United States of America can claim he or she saw a UFO and I wouldn't accept it unless there was SOLID evidence to back it up.

    And go lok up the definition of Ad Hominem Attack.

  • "So you disagree those trained as professional observers such as military or commercial pilots are not qualified or to be trusted as eyewitness testimony?"

    Argument from authority?

  • ..who is using ad hominem attacks.

  • "and I'm confident you haven't even shown all your similar amazingly useless skills yet. "

    I think I will have to hunt for my Retard to English dictionary to translate this.

  • And if one incident is unable to explain who is in the craft, but able to determine its not something manufactured on Earth then it shouldn't be debunked with ridiculous explanations just because it has a giggle factor in our society and we're supposed to think since we can't travel intergalactically that no one can, that'd be like primitive thinking since they can't fly, no one can, it just don't make sense.

  • "And if one incident is unable to explain who is in the craft, but able to determine its not something manufactured on Earth-"

    When and where has this been done?

    "-we're supposed to think...[SNIP!]...since they can't fly, no one can, it just don't make sense."

    There is this barrier we call the light barrier. Physically it's impossible to cross using Einsteinian Physics. Until you can demonstrate a way around this, all bets are off.

  • Bet back on, checkout this presentation.

    watch?v=pJJ-4lnwrck&feature Debunk this if you like or even can, I doubt it you'll even understand it, but the fact remains there is science that predicts superluminal capabilities.

  • "watch?v=pJJ-4lnwrck"

    Funny how this hasn't been put through Peer Review... What do these people have to hide by not doing so?

    "Debunk this if you like or even can, I doubt it you'll even understand it,"

    You continue making insults don't you? Well no dice. As I said before... All bets are off and they WILL NOT BE BACK ON until you can provide EVIDENCE and NOT Propaganda.

  • I wasn't here to prove anything; you can do your own research. This is my option, not fact. And it wasn't so much an insult as fact, because I'm an engineer and I barely understood it my self.

  • "This is my option, not fact."

    As obvious as the a Mobius strip is long.

  • My bad, my opinion, I meant.

  • Got as far as 14 seconds in: Pictures of known UFO Hoaxes and a couple of known military test craft.

    29 seconds in: The narrator is now falling on ancient indian texts.

    45 seconds in: We've seen images of what appear to be clever photoshopped snaps that look like they might be modern tech. And... Liquid Metal? I think someone's watched Terminator 2 a little too often.

    1:02 presents us with an image of superconductor tech. Problem: It requires cooling at close to absolute zero.

    I could go on.

  • You could, but I would't advise it.

  • "You could, but I would't advise it. "

    No, perhaps not. Let's save you any further embarrassment.

  • Hey I fully admit its fringe, but at the same time I'm not ignoring it.

    I witnessed something that was extremely unusual and thats where I stand.

    I've done further research and the research points to physical phenomena that are unexplained with conventional understanding.

  • TV Shows like The X-Files and Fringe are not based in the real world.

  • "TV Shows like The X-Files and Fringe are not based in the real world"

    Hey asshole, is it really necessary to be that much of a prick,.

    There is a global phenomena no matter how many sarcastic dipshit not even slightly humors quips you think you're being original with, but keep trying, it might get funnier.

    Please continue to demonstrate your lack of critical thinking.

  • "Hey asshole, is it really necessary to be that much of a prick,"

    Insulting behaviour. This was eventually to be expected.

    "Please continue to demonstrate your lack of critical thinking."

    Hypocrisy.

  • Once again these are not directed toward you please disregard unless you prefer to responding for someone else besides your self

  • "Please continue to demonstrate your lack of critical thinking. "

    lmao the irony.

  • "Hey asshole, is it really necessary to be that much of a prick,."

    Necessary? No. Fun for me? Yes.

    "There is a global phenomena no matter how many sarcastic dipshit not even slightly humors quips you think you're being original wit"

    Thanks for correcting me. I was under the delusion that sarcasm was the best weapon against global phenomena.

  • So how does your requirement for a credible witness testimony work and at what point do we not trust the affidavit of a witness?

    By your logic we should discount all military, commercial, and professional eyewitness accounts. That would mean dismissing thousands of individuals we trust daily who are responsible for our lives such as pilots and policemen.

    So which is it, do we trust these individual or not or only when it fits your particular accepted paradigm?

  • "So how does your requirement for a credible witness testimony work and at what point do we not trust the affidavit of a witness?"

    Simple. Corroborating SOLID evidence. No contradictions.

    "By your logic we should discount all military, commercial, and professional eyewitness accounts."

    Yes, if there's nothing else to back it up. You've just committed the argument from authority fallacy.

  • "Simple. Corroborating SOLID evidence. No contradictions"

    Boolean Syndrome fallacy. This phonomenma can constrained to a false set of rules.

    Complex Question

    "Yes, if there's nothing else to back it up. You've just committed the argument from authority fallacy."

    Falsified Inductive Generalization and fallacy. You're attempting to obvuscate the entire principled structure of the underlying evidence.

  • "You're attempting to obvuscate the entire principled structure of the underlying evidence."

    Err... No. I'm simply stating that ~SOLID evidence is required, and that unreliable eyewitness testimony is insufficient.

    "You have not responded to these citation yet?"

    No, because they're hoaxes and I'll get to them in due course. I do NOT work to your timescales.

  • "Err... No. I'm simply stating that ~SOLID evidence is required, and that unreliable eyewitness testimony is insufficient."

    Err..yes it is.

    "they're hoaxes " Only according to you.

  • "Err..yes it is."

    Indeed it is... Insufficient.

    "Only according to you. "

    Wrong.

  • "Indeed it is... Insufficient."

    Are you going to say "nyah, it isn't" next?

    "Wrong"

    Negative

  • "Are you going to say "nyah, it isn't" next?"

    Appeal to ridicule.

    "Negative "

    Indeed. Without evidence, your position is exactly that.

  • "Appeal to ridicule."

    Well I "nearned" it from you.

    "Without evidence"

    National Archive, hello?

  • You can say "National Archive" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the "evdence" contained in the national archive IS EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY AND VAGUE IMAGERY. Where are the logs from GPS and IR and RADAR? Simply stating that Radar accounts exist without providing the raw data is asinine. Where are the confirmed corroborating DETAILED accounts of the SAME sighting?The ONLY detailed accounts are narrowed down to man-made objects not known to the public at the time of the sighting.

  • "You can say "National Archive" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the "evdence" contained in the national archive IS EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY AND VAGUE IMAGERY."

    Boolean Syndrome

  • "Boolean Syndrome "

    This is getting ludicrous. You obviously cannot back up your claims and have to resort to using such tactics as evasiveness and resorting to throwing out logical fallacy accusations. Since you cannot provide the evidence, I think this discussion is over.

  • " resorting to throwing out logical fallacy accusations"

    Beacause that's all you got.