Registered: 02/15/00
Posts: 35572
Loc: Space Coast, USA
You're missing the point.
A crazy person, or anyone with poor judgement, can observe. They can even accurately report those observations.
Their conclusions are suspect at best, worthless most likely. That's the thing I don't get. Why is it that people always seem to take the two together? An accurate observation does not imply an accurate conclusion. The observations can be accurate but incomplete, and the conclusions could change based on more data. Likewise you could be hard of hearing, legally blind, and have poor sense of touch and still be able to correlate a mass of data to an accurate conclusion despite the fact that you couldn't tell between a duck and a swan at 5 paces. They could report last night there was thunder, lightning, and intense rain. They could then say it was because God was bowling and spilled his beer on their location. Since you know there was thunder, lightning, and rain there, and they accurately reported that, will you naturally believe he was correct that God knocked over his Miller Lite?
And that guy doesn't look like a lazy bum. He cared enough to wear a nice suit, didn't he? No, he consciously decided to make his hair look like that. Which means most likely A) he likes it like that. Ergo he's a whacko. Remember whackos can be smart, very smart, but they're still whackos. The guy might be able to solve the grand unified field theory, but just because he tells you rats have a hidden love of contemporary jazz doesn't mean you should take it seriously.
Also, being an expert in something doesn't mean you're an expert about anything else! I sure wouldn't want my dentist replacing the transmission in my car. A psychiatrist can't determine if someone saw what they said they saw. They can only determine that person BELIEVES they saw what they said they saw, that they're sincere. I suppose it's not possible in your mind that someone who is sincere could be mistaken? You don't have to be a liar to be wrong.
Oh, and if anyone actually bothered to read my posts, you'd see I did not in fact make a single comment about UFOs, ETs, or any of that. My comments were directed, squarely, at the guy in that picture. He could be talking about cell phone data plans, the price of tea in China, or how many angels dance on the head of a pin, and I wouldn't buy what he said. If he told me my own name I'd double check it before believing it.
But no, of course not. You take my dismissal of Mr Crazy Hair based on the fact that he thinks that's a good look to imply I have this entire outlook on the topic Mr Crazy Hair is discussing. They are TOTALLY SEPARATE.
In the same way, if I looked I would probably find a range of topics that I agreed with Hitler on in addition to the stuff where he was a whacko. You would also probably find a range of things I disagreed with Abraham Lincoln on. For instance, Hitler might have hated eating eggs for breakfast. I hate them. Perhaps Lincoln loved them. Does that mean I think Hitler was the better man?
I can't believe I even have to explain this.
The Jedi Master
_________________________
The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
A crazy person, or anyone with poor judgement, can observe. They can even accurately report those observations.
Their conclusions are suspect at best, worthless most likely. That's the thing I don't get. Why is it that people always seem to take the two together? An accurate observation does not imply an accurate conclusion. The observations can be accurate but incomplete, and the conclusions could change based on more data. Likewise you could be hard of hearing, legally blind, and have poor sense of touch and still be able to correlate a mass of data to an accurate conclusion despite the fact that you couldn't tell between a duck and a swan at 5 paces. They could report last night there was thunder, lightning, and intense rain. They could then say it was because God was bowling and spilled his beer on their location. Since you know there was thunder, lightning, and rain there, and they accurately reported that, will you naturally believe he was correct that God knocked over his Miller Lite?
And that guy doesn't look like a lazy bum. He cared enough to wear a nice suit, didn't he? No, he consciously decided to make his hair look like that. Which means most likely A) he likes it like that. Ergo he's a whacko. Remember whackos can be smart, very smart, but they're still whackos. The guy might be able to solve the grand unified field theory, but just because he tells you rats have a hidden love of contemporary jazz doesn't mean you should take it seriously.
Also, being an expert in something doesn't mean you're an expert about anything else! I sure wouldn't want my dentist replacing the transmission in my car. A psychiatrist can't determine if someone saw what they said they saw. They can only determine that person BELIEVES they saw what they said they saw, that they're sincere. I suppose it's not possible in your mind that someone who is sincere could be mistaken? You don't have to be a liar to be wrong.
Oh, and if anyone actually bothered to read my posts, you'd see I did not in fact make a single comment about UFOs, ETs, or any of that. My comments were directed, squarely, at the guy in that picture. He could be talking about cell phone data plans, the price of tea in China, or how many angels dance on the head of a pin, and I wouldn't buy what he said. If he told me my own name I'd double check it before believing it.
But no, of course not. You take my dismissal of Mr Crazy Hair based on the fact that he thinks that's a good look to imply I have this entire outlook on the topic Mr Crazy Hair is discussing. They are TOTALLY SEPARATE.
In the same way, if I looked I would probably find a range of topics that I agreed with Hitler on in addition to the stuff where he was a whacko. You would also probably find a range of things I disagreed with Abraham Lincoln on. For instance, Hitler might have hated eating eggs for breakfast. I hate them. Perhaps Lincoln loved them. Does that mean I think Hitler was the better man?
I can't believe I even have to explain this.
The Jedi Master
Have you actually watched the videos I posted or done some research about it?. The fact they are kids doesn't mean they are unable to describe what they saw. A psychiatrist can detect if these kids had mental problems so he admitted it wasn't the case. Did you actually see the drawings and descriptions these kids make. They are so dumb they can't even describe what they saw?.
A cop sees an object hovering above him and suddenly that object disappears but because he is a cop he should be supposed not to be able to describe it and make drawings of what he saw just because he doesn't have a master degree in physics??!!.
That tactic of dismissing someone just because he is a kid, a cop or a farmer is old and it is proven that's not true. To be able to describe something you don't need to be rocket scientist just have a normal adult, thinking brain and common sense.
About the guy of history channel, sadly UFO documentaries except for very few they are pure sensationalism garbage for the ignorant crowd. But there will always be someone saying that what happened for example in The Rendlesham Forest was just lights and mass hallucinations.
_________________________
"Any fool can write code that a computer can understand. Good programmers write code that humans can understand" - Martin Fowler.
_________________________
"Any fool can write code that a computer can understand. Good programmers write code that humans can understand" - Martin Fowler.
Registered: 01/08/01
Posts: 2180
Loc: Miami, Florida - United States...
There was something lost in translation here. jt_medina and Jedi Master both are correct but are talking about two very different matters. Jedi Master is making a comment of the History Channel: Ancient Astronauts television show "expert" and jt_medina is responding to it thinking Jedi Master is mocking the "Zimbabwe School UFO" incident. There are very strong points that E.T. exists and are/were visiting this planet but Jedi Master does have a point, people conclude immediately of what they have witnessed without further investigation. For example, how would any of us actually know that these UFO are extra terrestrial in origin instead of it being a time machines from our own civilization, new black ops technology, inter-dimensional phenomenon or proof that our "reality" is just "someone's" very advanced simulation (i.e. Matrix)? It could also be a mix of all of these items or none at all. What I would suggest is to take this matter seriously and provide scientific research to gather evidence to make a conclusion or at least a theory of what could these sightings be.
I used to know an ex Air Force intellegence officer that claimed there were such things and is now a SF writer. We had some interesting chats about UFO's and aliens.
_________________________
"If you really want to experience flight in this life then you have to strap a DC-3 to your ass." “Buffalo” Joe McBryan President & Captain Buffalo Airways
Blade_RJ
Simhq Weather man, dropping rain in your parade
Hotshot
Registered: 05/02/05
Posts: 7383
Loc: brasil
Here is a interesting case operation saucer (operação prato),air force sends someone to investigate ufo sightings in amazon,reports details the aircraft,the officer speak openly,and months later he "suicides" and the family is denied an authopsy...
That's a very interesting case. Here the interview to Colonel Uirangê Hollanda just before his death.
_________________________
"Any fool can write code that a computer can understand. Good programmers write code that humans can understand" - Martin Fowler.
Previous Topic
Index