Interesting UFO discussion (1 Viewer)

[TonyD]

simple?

 

[Chris Lockwood]

It's newsworthy because the man is such a prominent figure. His beliefs are partly based on documents he's seen. I don't think he claimed he saw aliens himself, so what does that have to do with it?

 

[Bryan X]

Being a prominent figure isn't a substitute for evidence. For all the headlines I was expecting more than second+ hand accounts and refusal to name sources. Having heard him speak about this on the radio, it was no more than him admitting he's never seen any evidence himself of aliens, but has been told they exist by others all the while refusing the name sources. Not very newsworthy to me, but as always, YMMV.

 

[Will_B]

At this point, he should indeed name names. Even if they violated whatever security oaths are part of their jobs, chances are they aren't in those jobs anymore -- and if they are elderly, chances are they won't be held to those oaths -- they very likely won't be imprisoned or lose their pensions. Particularly since such retaliation would imply that what they said was true. Chances are they'll be fine.

 

[Bryan X]

One source, Mitchell said, is dead. Yet he still refused to even name that person.

My guess is he doesn't know any more than anyone else who has talked to people back in the day "who claimed to have knowledge of aliens and cover-ups". He just happens to be a former astronaut so it somehow is supposed to lend weight to his unsubstantiated claims.

 

[Will_B]

Well he better hurry up then, or this will really be seen as a generational blunder that screwed all subsequent generations out of some rather important info.

 

[RobertR]

Yes, it's a variant of the "argument from authority", as in "I'm right because authority X agrees with me".

 

[Chris Lockwood]

Bryan, of course it makes a difference who says something.

When an astronaut who walked on the moon says he believes we have been visited by aliens, that is news.

It's not automatically true, but it is newsworthy, because prominent people like that don't often make such statements.

If Joe Blow says he believes in aliens, it's not a big deal, because many people do. But most of them have not been to the moon.

I don't know if he claimed to have evidence, but he's free to state his opinion either way.

 

[KevinGress]

It's little more than a famous person's opinion being given credence. Yes, being an astronaut sounds better as that person's career is connected to space, but like Bryan said, opinion, even given from an astronaut, should hold no weight, unless backed by evidence.

 

[Will_B]

Dying to make a WMD reference here, but can't.

 

[TonyD]

well, you just did, but what is it? (wmd)

 

[Will_B]

It's politics. Suffice to say, we do give some people more benefit of the doubt, and although this does tend to work fairly well, sometimes our trust is misplaced. But it works well enough. Mostly!

 

[drobbins]

Especially if the opinion was given while the astronaut is in zero gravity.

 

[Bryan X]

You guys are killing me!

 

[Chris Lockwood]

Since when do opinions require evidence? They don't, if you know what the word means.

 

[Bryan X]

I enjoy a good discussion, but let's not drag this down wtih patronizing comments.

If you have heard Mitchell speak, then you realize that he is not stating this as his opinion. He's flat out saying it is a fact that we ARE and HAVE BEEN visited by aliens. He says he KNOWS and has seen incontrovertible evidence. He just refuses to share it with us.

 

[Cees Alons]

They do if you want to discuss them. If not, the discussion can be very short (and close to meaningless) anyway.



- "Your Klungs speakers sound much better if you place them upside down."
- "Really? I don't hear a difference! And anyway, why is that?"
- "Someone who owns one told me."
- "You don't own them yourself? And you didn't answer my question of 'why?'
- "Since when do opinions require evidence?"


- "Two plus two equals eight, I think."
- "Most of the evidence point in a, uhm, lower direction."
- "Since when do opinions require evidence?"


- "The Earth is not exactly flat, but more or less concave. Keeps the water in, you know!"
..............



But something you CAN discuss is the quality of a stated opinion, or if you agree with it.


Cees

 

[RobertR]

And if someone says an extraordinary claim is fact, he is obligated to provide extraordinary evidence if he wants people to believe him (else why bother to make the claim?). Mitchell hasn't bothered to provide any evidence at ALL, let alone extraordinary evidence.

 

[Bob McLaughlin]

 

[Buzz Foster]

I'll say this:

As a skeptic and adherent to science, I have to believe that life is not unique, though it is probably rare. Even here on our own planet, we live on a knife-edge of habitability.

As an air traffic controller for 20 years, I have NEVER seen anything suspicious in the sky or on radar. I have seen what was obviously a light aircraft being joy-ridden to close to where it shouldn't be and asked "who the fuck is that dumbass?". In that sense, yes, I have observed unidentified flying aircraft.

However, I have also received calls at work from people who observed helicopters and wanted to know what those "unidentified flying objects" were. When told that they were a flight of helicopters on a training mission, the response was "I knew you'd say that!".

I have nothing to hide on the subject, but I have to tell you that as someone who looks at shit flying in the sky for a living, my "close" (ha-ha) encounters with the UFO faithful are much more like the religeous devout than the scientists they claim to be. I am immediately suspect, since I am a government employee, and therefore a "government agent".

I can't take seriously anything involving shaky photographs, "orbs", or vast theories built on government conspiracy (trust me...the government isn't that competent...I know!).