4 ms·

UFO believers? They believe that its... unidentified?

bostonsre 5y ago
Sure, why not? There are those that dismiss all sightings as aberrations and lies and don't believe there are actual objects that are flying around our atmosphere. Then there are people that believe there are actual objects that are flying around but don't know wtf they are.
- wumpus 5y ago
  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I think you're misrepresenting the first group.
  - bostonsre 5y ago
    What does requiring extraordinary evidence have to do with there being two different buckets of people, those that believe in there being actual unknown objects and those that don't believe there are actual unknown objects flying around? Or how am I misrepresenting them? To be skeptical and not believe in them seems logical to me as does believing there is some weird unknown (from the standpoint of the US government) crap flying around (the david fravor interviews and the videos released by the pentagon are definitely something that made me go from no friggin way do they exist to making me pause and go wtf.. i guess its plausible that their is weird unknown stuff flying around).
Smoosh 5y ago
I would hope that anyone rational would accept that based upon the evidence to date and our current knowledge of astronomy and physics, extra-terrestrial visitation is possible, but very unlikely. Thus it becomes a case of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". But instead, all we have is blurry, shaky footage. Or some phenomena such as lens flare. And the claim that "what 'they' are doing is impossible according to our physics, so it must be extraterrestrial." So much willing misinterpretation and jumping to an unsupported conclusion. Now, efforts like that described in the article to obtain more evidence would usually be good, but you can't prove a negative, and no amount of undetected aliens, or explained and discarded "evidence" will convince the true believers that ufos are not real aliens.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  My point was that the wording is rather bizarre, it sounds as if the term 'UFO' is being equated with 'definitely probably aliens' instead of 'Unidentified Flying Object' For example: I believe in UFOs, there's no way we have positively identified very last thing flying through our atmosphere. That doesn't mean I think they're living extraterrestrial visitors though

Sure, why not? There are those that dismiss all sightings as aberrations and lies and don't believe there are actual objects that are flying around our atmosphere. Then there are people that believe there are actual objects that are flying around but don't know wtf they are.

wumpus 5y ago
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I think you're misrepresenting the first group.
- bostonsre 5y ago
  What does requiring extraordinary evidence have to do with there being two different buckets of people, those that believe in there being actual unknown objects and those that don't believe there are actual unknown objects flying around? Or how am I misrepresenting them? To be skeptical and not believe in them seems logical to me as does believing there is some weird unknown (from the standpoint of the US government) crap flying around (the david fravor interviews and the videos released by the pentagon are definitely something that made me go from no friggin way do they exist to making me pause and go wtf.. i guess its plausible that their is weird unknown stuff flying around).

Smoosh 5y ago

I would hope that anyone rational would accept that based upon the evidence to date and our current knowledge of astronomy and physics, extra-terrestrial visitation is possible, but very unlikely. Thus it becomes a case of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". But instead, all we have is blurry, shaky footage. Or some phenomena such as lens flare. And the claim that "what 'they' are doing is impossible according to our physics, so it must be extraterrestrial." So much willing misinterpretation and jumping to an unsupported conclusion. Now, efforts like that described in the article to obtain more evidence would usually be good, but you can't prove a negative, and no amount of undetected aliens, or explained and discarded "evidence" will convince the true believers that ufos are not real aliens.

netizen-936824 5y ago
My point was that the wording is rather bizarre, it sounds as if the term 'UFO' is being equated with 'definitely probably aliens' instead of 'Unidentified Flying Object' For example: I believe in UFOs, there's no way we have positively identified very last thing flying through our atmosphere. That doesn't mean I think they're living extraterrestrial visitors though