UFO ORB With Mothership Photo, Maybe Best Ever!

Goodness!

Still tired and groggy. I don’t know that I’ll get into the photo analysis. Not my strength.

Some photos ‘look convincing’ to me and some don’t.

That’s okay. There’s nothing to analyze, actually, at least not from their side. It’s been around 48 hours or so and still there’s no link to the original, and no doubt there never will be.

I usually don’t get THAT excited pro or con about an individual pic no matter how unusual and how evidently unhoaxed.

I let puzzle pieces build up eventually saying the same thing from a 8-12 or more sources before I put tons of stock in the drift, trend, assertions etc.

The original specs may not come out very soon, if ever.

Well, Quix, you may not get too thrilled over an image, but it appears that Christine Dickey, supposedly a MUFON "investigator", has a history of claiming lens reflections are flying saucers, and she has plenty of mental cripples to aid and abet besides Nussbeck. Oh, and she's had contact with Leo Sprinkle. Hell, she might as well have had an affair with that shyster Budd Hopkins, for all it would do her "credibility".

There's even an assclown who says one of her typical lens reflection images has many different aliens!?! It's a zoo ship, for crying out loud.

My best man at my wedding ended up being a colleague of Dr Leo Sprinkle.

Said he was quite a solid, reasonable fellow.

He might be a nice guy, but he thinks he's been abducted by aliens too, which of course makes him very suspect.

And I've done a little more looking into Mzzzzzzzz. Dickey. She's nuts. She's not an "investigator". She creates "evidence".

Christine: I never know when these objects will show up and they do not always show up every night. As I said before I can always tell when they are around by the energy and excitement I feel when they are near. I am hoping to get others out there to photograph as often as possible, because I think this is the only way to end the secrecy surrounding these events. Obviously these ETs want us to know they are out there. Also from one of my photos that shows a UFO with windows, I was able to get a face to show up, only after having a dream in which the ET himself told me how to do it. It was a very difficult process.

Her explanation is entirely plausible when dealing with spiritual dimensional forces from hell.

Sorry you seem to have no appreciation for the truth of her experience.

She doesn’t have properly true labels for what she’s experiencing but her experiences are REAL. i.e. they are NOT figments of her imaginations. Outside-of-her-agents ARE influencing her in dastardly ways.

She could be free of them but she has been seduced into thinking that they are wonderful or at least benign.

A great pity, that.

Sorry you seem to have no appreciation for the truth of her experience.

It's her truth, her reality. Again, where's the camera originals? That's a useless question, of course, because we'll never see them. She'll try and make a name for herself, and is likely dying for her 15 minutes with Nouri, but she'll provide no "evidence" and do your side no favors.

A child could debunk her.

Goodnight. Another long day awaits.

Oh yeah, almost forgot:

Her explanation is entirely plausible when dealing with spiritual dimensional forces from hell.

Then perhaps someone with such a tender psyche has no business in a place that shops around such horrific idiocy as astrology?

What a shame. We missed "Dr." Louis Turi, divine astrologer. *snicker*

But hey, Jeff Harman can still save us from spiritual attacks on the aura, whatever the **** that means.

Later.

Occultish stuff such as horoscopes etc. and UFO abduction stuff are OFTEN correlated together . . .

another clue that they all have to do with the king of hell and his horrific plans for the END TIMES.

Wow! It looks just like the “Space Invaders” arcade game!

UFO PING LIST PING:

Here’s a interesting thread from ATS:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread448905/pg1

Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies

The excellent thread, “skeptics dilemma” started by Platosallegory has inspired this thread. I think there is a very severe problem of pseudoskepticism on this forum and it impairs the enjoyment of some on this forum(yours truly included) I also think that this forum can benefit from more clear thinking, and thus I am writing this brief primer on logic focussed particularly on the subject matter of Aliens and UFO’s. I will discuss the common fallacies used by pseudoskeptics and offer a rebuttal.

I first want to clarify what I am not attempting to do.

I am not attempting to prove anything. Simply because I am going to debunk common pseudoskeptical arguments, does not mean that the believers arguments have been proven. Rather, all I am going to do is use the principle of non-contradiction in logic and show that the arguments used by pseudoskeptics are logically contradictory.

I am not vilifying skepticism. It is not possible for me to vilify skepticism without contradicting my own skepticism. We are all believers and skeptics, only that what we believe and what we are sceptical about varies from person to person.

That said, there is an ideal skeptic. That is somebody who withholds judgement until they have explored all available evidence in a case. A skeptic is thus an investigator and their job is to investigate. Then, after the investigation is complete, the skeptic is able to offer a hypothesis which can account for all of the available data.

Somebody who does not investigate a case is not a skeptic, they are merely doubters. Somebody who attempts to investigate, but makes suppositions, does not take into account all available evidence, distorts evidence to fit their hypothesis is a pseudoskeptic.

From hereof we will look at the common fallacious arguments used by pseudoskeptics in the context of Aliens and UFO’s. I do not claim to be exhaustive, I can only look at a limited set of arguments. If there are arguments not covered hereon that you think are fallacious and want me to debunk them, just request it and I will do so in another post in this thread.

I just want to say as a cautionary note. I am not trying to be some crusader against pseudoskeptics or pretend to be a master of logic. I am merely making a contribution to the forum in hope that it will contribute to more clear thinking on this forum and to create awareness on how to discern the common fallacies used by pseudoskeptics to facilitate more healthy and constructive discussion. I also hope these rebuttals are used by members who encounter fallacious pseudoskeptical arguments.

Now let us look at the common fallacies one by one(some of my rebutals will use material in Platosallegory thread)

Argument: There is no proof or evidence that ET exists. Yes, it is true that the SETI equation shows that the probability of ET is very likely, but this is not proof in and of itself, only a mathematical possibility. Therefore ETH is not a valid explanation.

Rebuttal: This is an invalid and logically contradictory argument. For the following reasons

1) There is significant evidence and proof that ET exists. It is the job of the skeptic to investigate this evidence and ‘proof’ and come to a judgement on it.
2) The probability of life on planets is 100%. This is not a mathematical possibility, but an empirical fact. Planet Earth is a planet and it is teeming with very diverse life, and it is commonly accepted by science that life appeared on this planet quickly after the Earth was born. It is an empirical fact that the phenomenon of life on planets is a part of our observable universe. Therefore there is no reason to speculate that life cannot be possible elsewhere.

My opponent may argue that it is possible that life only formed on planet Earth and nowhere else. They may even point out that sample size I have of life in the universe is only one instance and this is not enough to make a generalization.

Rebuttal: This is an argument from possibility fallacy. It is possible that Earth is the only planet that has life, but it is also possible that that Earth is not the only planet that has life. Mere possibility is not enough to make a case.

The opponents argument is also self-contradictory. It is possible that there are no other minds in the world, I am the only one that has mind and everybody else is either a machine or imaginary. There is only one instance of mind, my own mind, so can I generalise from such a sample? The chances are the opponent takes this generalization for granted in his everyday life. In which case I can take ET for granted as well.

In conclusion: ETH is a valid hypothesis and forms a part of our observable universe.

Argument: It impossible for ET to travel here. The distances in space are astronomical, it would take thousands, if not millions of years to reach planet Earth even at the speed of light. But it is impossible to travel at the speed of light.

Rebuttal: This is an argument from incredulity. The opponent does not believe a ET would make a trip from their home planet to Earth because the time it would take to get here is perceived to be too long and so it is unbelievable that ET would try. Just because something seems unbelievable it does not mean it cannot happen. It is unbelievable that somebody would survive a fall from a very high building, but it does happen.

It is assumed that that the ET would be using FTL. Not necessarily. There are space craft planned on Earth that can reach a high percentage of the speed of light and they use as propulsion sources of energy available in the universe(hydrogen, sunlight) Thus an ET craft could do the same.

Finally, the limitation of the speed of light does not apply to ET. This is because the speed limit of the speed light is one based on the predicates of General Relativity theory which states that if a mass is accelerated towards the speed of light its mass would become infinite and thus it would need an infinite amount of energy. Therefore FTL is impossible

This is only a theory, there is no scientific theory which is conclusive or proven. A theory is only based on observations made in an observable universe and when new observations are made theories have to be adjusted, sometimes even rejected. As ET’s are a part of an unobservable universe, we cannot generalise any of our scientific theories to them. So none of the predicates of GR actually apply to them.

All observations made in science are effects only, not causes. Mass itself is an effect, not a cause. Therefore finding a way to manipulate causes will manipulate effects. Take for example electricity, an electric current produced by a generator is an effect. When one learns the antecedent causes for the generation of electricity, one can manipulate the electric current generated with a transformer. There is no reason to believe that an ET race cannot learn to manipulate the mass-effects caused by the speed of light travel or overcome the speed of light barrier.

In conclusion: The argument that ET cannot get to Earth is invalid.

Argument: It is completely absurd that that an advanced ET race would come here and fly around in our skies like drunk pilots, abduct humans, make crop circles and mutilate cows.

Rebuttal: This is again the fallacy of incredulity. If something seems unbelievable to us, it does not mean it does not happen. The behaviour of an alien race may seem strange to us, but then again behaviours of other cultures on our planet seem strange. Some cultures have rituals where the offspring kills their parents when they reach old age. That’s even stranger to me than some alien race doing any of the aforementioned.

Abduction for the purposes of scientific investigation is not really strange at all. We humans are constantly abducting animals for the purpose of scientific investigation. So we have no valid objection to the abduction phenomena, other than perhaps an ethical objection.

Argument: If ET exists and are visiting us, why don’t they just reveal themselves? Why would they hide? Its illogical.

Rebuttal: But who says they are hiding? They maybe hiding from some, but it does not mean they are hiding from everyone. There are many people who claim they have encountered ET directly and many high-level witnesses in the government that have claimed contact has taken place. If their claims are true, ET is only hiding from some and not everyone.

Why would ET not reveal themselves? I am tempted to give the usual speculative explanation of an intergalactic prime directive, but I will desist. Instead the objection of the opponent can be dismissed like the previous argument. It is another argument from incredulity fallacy.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

posted on 24/3/2009 @ 18:55 single this post “quote”REPLY TO:

Argument: There is no scientific physical evidence of UFO‘s. No UFO samples. No ET DNA samples etc

Rebuttal: This is an impossible demand. If any of this evidence even existed, what are the chances that this evidence would be mailed to the opponents home address for their personal inspection? Highly unlikely. Most people will have to rely on the authority of scientific experts who have handled the evidence. As they cannot handle the evidence themselves, they will have to simply trust the scientists.

There is a big problem with evidence from testimony. It is subject to whether you believe the authority or disbelieve them. There are many authority figures who have actually claimed to have handled UFO’s, ET’s and ET metal samples. Marcel Vogel, the award winning scientist from IBM, publicly stated that the metal sample Billy Meier(the ET contactee) gave him could not have been manufactured on this Earth. The officials in the Roswell case who claim to have handled the UFO metal debris claim the metal has alien properties(it sounds very similar to modern shape memory alloys) Some scientists have testified that transistors are actually reverse engineered ET technology.

So it is not the case that there are not authorities figures who have not handled ET physical evidence. If the opponent is genuinely sincere about their argument, now that it has been demonstrated such evidence allegedly exists and some scientists have handled it, they should accept it as proof. If not, the opponent must withdraw their argument as invalid because of their duplicity.

I anticipate an objection. The objection is that there are no peer reviewed scientific physical evidence of UFO’s, therefore any scientific evidence that is not peer reviewed must be dismissed. This argument is invalid, because it commit’s the fallacy of appealing to an authority of some entity(a peer group) If some authority dismisses a scientists evidence, it does not mean that the scientists evidence is false, it simply means the authority doesn’t like it.

Argument: If we accept ET UFO’s exist and is visiting us, then we may also have to accept goblins, big foot, loch ness monster and whatever to exists.

Rebuttal: This is a slippery slope fallacy. There is absolutely no premise that entails that if you accept ET’s existence you have to accept other paranormal claims. All different paranormal claims, just like any claim, is to be treated individually.

The opponent may counter by saying that it is difficult to distinguish a UFO from other claimed paranormal phenomena(spirits, plasma balls, orbs). This maybe true in some cases, but not all. In cases which describe actual physical crafts, sometimes in rather vivid details, except these physical craft are displaying alien behaviour and look alien, one can eliminate all of the other paranormal possibilities

Argument: The UFO and ET reports by individuals are not necessarily true. They may claim a physical aircraft, but their data could be wrong. They could be lying, they could have misidentified something else for the UFO such as planet Venus, car headlights, swamp gas.

Rebuttal: Merely argument from possibility is not enough. Yes, all the above counter-hypothesis may be true, but they may be false as well. It is the job of the skeptic to investigate all the available data, eliminate all hypothesis that do not fit the data, and then come up with a hypothesis that explains the available data.

If the skeptic does not do that and instead makes suppositions, distorts the data, dismisses available data ,then it is invalid. Here is a simple hypothetical example of a distortion of data reproduced from another from a post of mine in Platos allegory’s topic.

The dialogue above is inspired slightly by the movie contact, when Jodie Foster in the end has to admit to the skeptics that as a scientist it is possible that she did not experience her journey. The tactics employed by the skeptic above are similar to tactics lawyers use in court rooms. It is not scientific at all and nor is it ethical. It is a bastardization of scientific research.

Let us look at the problems in the skeptics dialogue with the UFO witness:

1. The skeptic is overtly influencing the UFO witness and asking him leading questions
2. The skeptic is using arguments from possibility to negate the UFO witness experience - “It is possible you saw a car headlight” it is also possible that he did not see a headlight, but a UFO. Therefore it is an invalid argument.
3. The skeptic is not listening to the UFO witness, everything the witness says is explained away using the argument from possibility fallacy - “My girlfriend also saw it” - “But it is possible it was a shared delusion”

The skeptic fails to account for the available evidence in this witness testimony. He claims that it was a headlight of some car, but the witness tells him he knows what a headlight looks like. The skeptic should be rejecting his hypothesis now, but instead he ends up debating it with the UFO witness. Then the UFO witness reveals that more than one witness say it, making it unlikely that two people would be seeing a hovering metallic, orange light emitting mothership in a headlight. Nor does the skeptic explain how a car headlight could look like the described UFO.

These tactics are all fallacies and rhetoric, but regularly used by pseudoskeptics to dismiss everything they don’t like. Pilot testimonies - “It is possible that the pilot was dreaming” Radar reports - “It is possible the radar equipment malfunctioned” In all these cases the skeptic is debating a counter-claim and thus has a burden of proof themselves, but they behave as if they are immune from it.

I have tried to account most of the general fallacious arguments pseudoskeptics produce. This has been one of my longest posts on ATS yet, the word count is approx 3000 and I have taken a few hours to compose it. I had a bit of spare time in the evening today so I have used it to write this. I hope this has been useful and helpful to others and I permit and encourage my debunkings to be used whenever one encounters these fallacious arguments.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

That's a long rambling piece by a kook who wants to desperately be taken seriously*, but what does it have to do with the subject of this thread, Dickey, (and her Enablers), who manufactures "evidence"?

*The fallacy of incredulity! Say it in your best booming Ted Cassidy voice.

END TIMES LIST C PING:

I think the author of the ATS Opening Post in that thread makes some good points about the

typical ‘debunker’s’

idiotic notions.

I realize mileage may vary.

I still possess no great miracle working skills or anointing to force the willfully blind into having eyes to see and ears to hear and actually perceiving enlightening facts and information, evidence . . . for what it’s worth.

However, in the last 72 hours, we have had world leaders come forth and brazenly admit that they are shredding National Sovereignty toward submission of all nations to a GLOBAL GOVERNMENT as Biblically predicted more than 2,000 years ago and again 2,000 years ago.

We have RELIGIOUS idiots hereon who are determined to be clueless about such facts—STILL—I suspect. Will they remain brain-dead and clueless when the AntiChrist demands the computer chip MARK OF THE BEAST implant be injected into THEIR hands or foreheads??? One is led by their behavior and attitudes to suspect so.

Similarly, there will come a time when the DEBATABLE perceptions, constructions on reality etc. about UFO’s will no longer be an option because of the brazen daily displays and discussions in the Main Stream Media.

Are you remotely prepared for that time that’s looming disturbingly closer and closer?

Okay, Quix, then why don’t those space aliens drop their obsession with buggery and crop mutilation and save us from ourselves?

And Christine Dickey is a kook, a faker, just another carnival barker, no matter the attempts to drift off topic.

Harvest is near, but they only want to eat the brains of the humanoids who have abstained from smoking cannabis.

=8-0

Okay, who's got the Wacky Weed?!

I haven’t examined Christine’s stuff very closely.

You could be right.

You could be wrong.

She could be a mixture.

She could be deluded.

She could be possessed

and still citing SOME valid info.

In terms of the ET’s ‘saving us from ourselves’

What do you think all the hoopla about global warming and forced decreasing of the population is all about?

The oligarchy got those orders from . . . hell . . . via the purported ET’s.

Such will be overtly public in the MSM far too soon.

Stand by.

I haven’t examined Christine’s stuff very closely.

Then it's about time you have. She can be easily dismissed in a little more than a heartbeat, and you won't even get a headache. ;)

What do you think all the hoopla about global warming and forced decreasing of the population is all about?

The oligarchy got those orders from . . . hell . . . via the purported ET’s.

Now wait a minute. You hucksters can't have it both ways. So are space aliens having sex with us or not? Are my hopes of being seduced by that hot polka babe Aura Rhanes forever dashed?