UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record

[Physics-Learner]

re: bolded: This is very good, but very difficult to maintain in life, especially during times of high stress. Remember that at some point your thinking has to find some patterns, and if you don't choose them, they choose you.

hi lisa,

i am not sure i know what you mean by "patterns in thought" ? that term has a negative connotation for me, because it makes me think about a person thinking a particular way, just because. a bit akin to bias or prejudice.

i have strong opinions about a lot of things, if i have studied them because they are important to me. but some things i may have studied but don't have strong ideas, since i don't feel i have any sort of real grasp on the information.

with ets, i don't have access to any real information. and it is one topic that, if true, is going to have a ton of conflicting information, whose intent is to confuse. since i have nothing concrete that i can depend on, i must also logically admit that i have no idea.

i feel the same about the existence of god. because there is no information, it is irrational to believe or not believe. so by my definition, most people on the planet are irrational with regards to this topic.

i agree pretty much with the above post, regarding respecting other people's opinions. i am going to regard an opinion from a doctor about a medical issue more so than a person on the street. likewise, i put more stock in a pilot or military person about ets than a person on the street.

however, i dislike the medical community as a whole, and attempt to take care of myself, so that i don't need them. so i am not in love with the medical or the military community.

that doesn't mean i accept them lock, stock and barrel, no questions asked. but it does mean that when 100+ military people come out and say the same thing, it is more worth listening to than 100+ ordinary citizens. (with regards to ets, disarming missiles, etc.)

 

[Physics-Learner]

hi andre,

yes, you might be able to fool me, if you wanted to. but most things that you might tell me, it would not make much difference to me.

but if you told me you saw a ufo, i would have doubts for sure. and of course, if i don't know you, then i can't rely on your trustworthiness, since i don't know if you are or not.

i am not gullible. i am simply saying that when lots of pilots and such are all telling me the same thing, i simply can't discount that because it does not meet my prior thought processes about that topic.

to do that would be just silly and stubborn.

i had my first real awakening at about 25. before that i was an excellent student, and gobbled down everything my teachers said.

being raised catholic, jfk was a notch above the pope here in this country. as a little boy, i almost thought of him as a saint.

i started hearing time and again (as i got older) stuff about him that i absolutely discounted. when i finally accepted the fact that he was a big jerk, it really got me thinking about just how much of my other knowledge was simply acceptance of things that i was told.

so i seldom, if ever, rationalize about anything any more. and i try not to jump to hasty conclusions, since i am most apt to be short on some of the facts.

and upon listening to you, i would also try to figure out if there would be some benefit to you to lie to me.

if you were the first pilot to tell me you saw a ufo, i would probably not put much stock in it, and quite possibly write it off rather quickly. but if you were the umpteenth pilot who told me the same thing, at some point, i would begin to realize that there may be something to all of this.

 

[Andre]

and upon listening to you, i would also try to figure out if there would be some benefit to you to lie to me.

Perhaps this:

As a superior pilot one is infallible and one never makes a mistake. So if one returns from a mission unsuccessfully, one cannot possibly admit that one goofed, while being scared to hell. Hence one has to cook up a story about supernatural events that prevented a successfull mission.

And there are probably psychological mechanisms how that pilot rewires himself to ban out the truth from memory eventually and replace that with his version.

 

[Physics-Learner]

i can see someone doing that. it does not seem likely that 100+ people, both pilots and military personnel, would all be doing the same thing.

it is a bit of a numbers game. that does not mean that there does not need to be proof at some point.

but in this case, i think proof is something that will end up being forced. which generally means that the forcers gradually get up enough power to do so.

as more and more military people come forward, that opens up possibilities of real and actual information being given to us.

maybe it is a bunch of hooey, maybe it isn't ?

but things tend to work in small increments. 20 years ago, it looked like we would never lose the grasp of big oil. but we are now finally getting electric vehicles. and they will soon make the gasoline car extinct.

this did not happen overnight. and i am still not positive why it is happening now. but it is. i suspect that it is the only way the bigwigs have of keeping our economy going at all, and thereby keeping their status. that is based upon my 56 years of understanding greed and how life works.

 

[jreelawg]

You're making the argument to authority, and in fact, arguing for the validity of a fallacy; that's a non-starter.

I think your misunderstanding the meaning behind "appeal to authority" as a fallacy. First of all, in order for it to be a fallacy, you need to consider it in the context of absoluteness, for a lack of better words. For example, if a foot doctor says you have toenail fungus, it is not necessarily the truth based on the logic that would read, "Person A is a foot doctor. Person A says you have foot fungus.

So yeah, your right, as a deductive argument it would not be valid. But, deductive logic means working with assumptions. Without making assumptions you have nothing to work with in deductive logic. From certain assumptions, you can deduce what is true given said assumptions. For example, you could say, "Foot doctors are always correct in diagnosing foot fungus. A foot doctor says you have foot fungus. You have foot fungus."

Point is a qualified person does have more credibility, and deductive logic has nothing to do with it. It is not fallacious to trust someone based on who they are. In philosophy, really nothing can be proven. Well, I think the one thing philosophers say can be proven, was, "I think, therefor I exist. Personally I take issues with the actual profoundness of that argument.

So basically my conclusion is that if you want to say that affording more trust or credibility in certain people is wrong, and that nobody can be relied upon, then you might also get used to the idea of not knowing anything at all except that you exist.

 

[jreelawg]

Perhaps this:

As a superior pilot one is infallible and one never makes a mistake. So if one returns from a mission unsuccessfully, one cannot possibly admit that one goofed, while being scared to hell. Hence one has to cook up a story about supernatural events that prevented a successfull mission.

And there are probably psychological mechanisms how that pilot rewires himself to ban out the truth from memory eventually and replace that with his version.

See now here you've made a fallacious deductive argument.

 

[Andre]

See now here you've made a fallacious deductive argument.

If that would be my first paragraph, could you elaborate?

If it's the second, please consider it taken back. It's completely irrelevant. No need to turn it into a strawman.

 

[Andre]

It is not fallacious to trust someone based on who they are. .

I'm a car salesman and this car used to be from an old lady...

 

[jreelawg]

See now here you've made a fallacious deductive argument.

"As a superior pilot one is infallible and one never makes a mistake. So if one returns from a mission unsuccessfully, one cannot possibly admit that one goofed, while being scared to hell. Hence one has to cook up a story about supernatural events that prevented a successfull mission." Andre

I think you should post this paragraph in the homework section and say what's wrong with it. I am going to assume that superior pilot one, and one, are the same subject. First thing I notice, is that the pilot is assumed to never make mistakes. So yeah they couldn't possibly admit one, because it's impossible for them to make one based on your premise. Then your last sentence is out of nowhere land.

 

[Andre]

Ah, of course, but I was just reflecting what could have been on the mind of this pilot. It was not supposed to be a proper line of reasoning. He himself is certain that he is infallible, so he cannot goof and if he did, it must have been something else.

Second most important point for him is that the non flyers are convinced that he is the superior pilot. And as he can tell anything he wants, being the authority, he will do so. After all, the military as I said, is about convincing the others that you can do your job, rather than proving that you can.

More thoughts of a fighter pilot

 

[jreelawg]

I'm a car salesman and this car used to be from an old lady...

Not trusting a car salesman for whatever reason is the same as trusting someone for some reason.

It isn't fallacious to not trust a car salesman. The argument for not trusting them could be just that their job is to sell you a car and they have a financial incentive to mislead you if it helps them do so. Or you could say that statistically they are prone to dishonesty when selling cars. It would be a fallacy to say that car salesmen always lie. And it would be a fallacy to say that the amish always tell the truth.

 

[Andre]

Exactly, so how about trusting a fighter pilot, whose main objective is to seem to be infallible to his admirers?

 

[Physics-Learner]

I'm a car salesman and this car used to be from an old lady...

LOL andre,

but used car salesmen are known not to be trusted. it is their job to sell you a lemon.

ditto with real estate agents, lawyers, and most anyone trying to sell you something. people know to watch out, because the person they are dealing with is trying to take your money.

people skilled in something at least have better knowledge in said something than someone who doesnt.

so again, you respect that knowledge base, and of course must still need to discern what motives they may have.

 

[Physics-Learner]

Exactly, so how about trusting a fighter pilot, whose main objective is to seem to be infallible to his admirers?

andre,

that is not his main objective.

 

[Andre]

Point is that the mystification Tehran UFO incident (failure of aircraft systems) is based on the pilots reporting that, without these things there is not a lot left. So in that case it is essential.

 

[jreelawg]

Exactly, so how about trusting a fighter pilot, whose main objective is to seem to be infallible to his admirers?

I would argue that shouldn't be a fighter pilots main objective. Their main objective should be their duties, their orders, and their mission. But I get your point, they probably don't like admitting mistakes. Problem I see though, is that my view has been that making up a story about a supernatural event isn't going to win you very much credibility will it? Won't people be like, this guy is crazy, maybe we should have him cleaning the toilets instead of flying multi million dollar equipment? I have always heard people are afraid to say they saw a UFO because they lose credibility by doing so. Maybe if you knew you could get away with it and have your superiors convinced, you might try and make up a bogus story.

But anyone can lie. Their expertise as a fighter pilot isn't what gives them more credibility as a truth teller, well, maybe to a certain extent. Mostly, what makes them different, is that they were their, they had the tools which would enable them to get a look. Maybe they had been scrambled to investigate something caught on radar, and they saw something specific.

The point is not that they are immune from dishonesty, but that they have a unique position in which it is possible for them to better investigate or observe things in the sky.

So let's say that a large percentage of NASA pilots, astronauts and employees are convinced that Earth is being visited by extraterrestrials, it would be more profound to me, than if a large percentage of mental patients were convinced of the same thing.

 

[Physics-Learner]

i concede the point that a pilot can have other motives.

what will it take for you to concede the point that MULTIPLE military people and pilots give more credibility to the issue than a bunch of citizens whose main goal may actually be to get attention ?

 

[Physics-Learner]

.

So let's say that a large percentage of NASA pilots, astronauts and employees are convinced that Earth is being visited by extraterrestrials, it would be more profound to me, than if a large percentage of mental patients were convinced of the same thing.

LOL - exact a mundo.

 

[Andre]

Is there any substantiation for the idea that a large percentage of NASA pilots, astronauts and employees are convinced that Earth is being visited by extraterrestrials?

For the record, I was thinking that we were discussing the Tehran incident, which is mostly based on the narratives of two pilots.

I merely argued why using the Argumentum ad verecundiam does not hold ground, not even as an argument of autority. So replacing that by NASA people etc, seems not very relevant here.

 

[nismaratwork]

Perhaps this:

As a superior pilot one is infallible and one never makes a mistake. So if one returns from a mission unsuccessfully, one cannot possibly admit that one goofed, while being scared to hell. Hence one has to cook up a story about supernatural events that prevented a successfull mission.

And there are probably psychological mechanisms how that pilot rewires himself to ban out the truth from memory eventually and replace that with his version.

Cognitive Dissonance theory; when you resolve the dissodance, you reinforce the choices you make, sometimes to the point of self-deslusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

 

[nismaratwork]

i concede the point that a pilot can have other motives.

what will it take for you to concede the point that MULTIPLE military people and pilots give more credibility to the issue than a bunch of citizens whose main goal may actually be to get attention ?

A logical argument free of fallacies.

 

[Physics-Learner]

certainly not a large percentage. most of the on-ground sightings seem to revolve around missile areas. so most of NASA would be uninvolved.

but there are 100+ such people coming out with stories. to me, that is an extremely high number, such that it now becomes silly to me not to give it some credence.

hopefully the ball is rolling towards real information actually being given to us.

 

[nismaratwork]

certainly not a large percentage. most of the on-ground sightings seem to revolve around missile areas. so most of NASA would be uninvolved.

but there are 100+ such people coming out with stories. to me, that is an extremely high number, such that it now becomes silly to me not to give it some credence.

hopefully the ball is rolling towards real information actually being given to us.

Have you read the "Fatima, Miracle of the Sun" thread? 70,000 people claimed to see that. What's your take on that?... have you suddenly found religion again?

 

[jreelawg]

Is there any substantiation for the idea that a large percentage of NASA pilots, astronauts and employees are convinced that Earth is being visited by extraterrestrials?

For the record, I was thinking that we were discussing the Tehran incident, which is mostly based on the narratives of two pilots.

I merely argued why using the Argumentum ad verecundiam does not hold ground, not even as an argument of autority. So replacing that by NASA people etc, seems not very relevant here.

I couldn't tell you what percentage of them believe what. Just making my point that some people are more credible than others. I do know that their are plenty of retired NASA guys who have opinions on the subject. I doubt an acting NASA employee would be likely to publicly state a belief in ET visitation. There might be laws, or at least orders preventing some pilots and astronauts from reporting everything they see in the sky.

 

[Physics-Learner]

A logical argument free of fallacies.

i need to laugh. you remind me of thomas in the bible. hopefully some day we will be able to touch the wounds of an et. i suppose that is the only way that you will be convinced.

i may need that as well, to be convinced. but my thought processes seem to be on an incremental scale, as opposed to all or nothing.

 

[nismaratwork]

I couldn't tell you what percentage of them believe what. Just making my point that some people are more credible than others. I do know that their are plenty of retired NASA guys who have opinions on the subject. I doubt an acting NASA employee would be likely to publicly state a belief in ET visitation. There might be laws, or at least orders preventing some pilots and astronauts from reporting everything they see in the sky.

You FIND people to be more credible, which is based on assumptions and mystique... that's the precise fallacy that Andre is has explained more times than I care to consider.

 

[nismaratwork]

i need to laugh. you remind me of thomas in the bible. hopefully some day we will be able to touch the wounds of an et. i suppose that is the only way that you will be convinced.

i may need that as well, to be convinced. but my thought processes seem to be on an incremental scale, as opposed to all or nothing.

Don't assume that you know what I believe based on this discussion, because belief has nothing to do with skepticism and science. That is also what Andre is trying to teach you.

 

[Physics-Learner]

when you want to know something about topic A, do you not go to someone who has knowledge about topic A ?

that seems to be basic common sense. one may certainly get multiple opinions, and still not be completely convinced of something. but not to lend more credence to someone in the know as opposed to someone who does not have such skills seems completely ridiculous to me.

 

[jreelawg]

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

 

[nismaratwork]

when you want to know something about topic A, do you not go to someone who has knowledge about topic A ?

that seems to be basic common sense. one may certainly get multiple opinions, and still not be completely convinced of something. but not to lend more credence to someone in the know as opposed to someone who does not have such skills seems completely ridiculous to me.

Topic A is UFO's; which of the authorities you're relying on has knowledge of that, without you presupposing that they do and closing the fallacious circle?

 

[jreelawg]

Topic A is UFO's; which of the authorities you're relying on has knowledge of that, without you presupposing that they do and closing the fallacious circle?

Which authorities am I relying on who have information about that. Or am I presupposing that they do and closing a fallacious circle?

rely |riˈlī|
verb ( -lies, -lied) [ intrans. ] ( rely on/upon)
depend on with full trust or confidence : I know I can rely on your discretion.
• be dependent on : the charity has to rely entirely on public donations.

Nobody has stated a full trust or confidence on anyone here. To some people, every question doesn't require an official fully confident and direct belief. Some people have a sliding scale of confidence, in both people, and possibilities, wether it be competing scientific hypothesis, or if it will rain next week.

Lets make a scale from 1-1000 of confidence in the hypotheses that we are being visited by extraterrestrials. Maybe someone who was a 1 based on the rantings of a lunatic, turned into a 25 when they heard their friend described to them a supposed UFO they saw. Then that same person heard a group of pilots testify that they saw a UFO and things seemed consistent, then they did some research and found that some astronauts, world leaders, astronomers, military personal, also have claimed to have seen something. Maybe that person now has a level of 75 out of a thousand in confidence that extraterrestrials are visiting earth? Maybe everyone has their own level of confidence in different hypotheses. Or maybe your right, and having any confidence in anything at all is fallacious?

The knowledge I am presupposing they could potentially have is the knowledge they claim to have. Of course then I take into consideration that they may be mistaken or dishonest. I try and get an understanding of how capable this person is, how much does the testimony sound like a mistake, would it require a delusion, hallucination, or illusion to make? Does this person seem delusional, was there any obvious reason why they would be hallucinating, could an illusion actually account for it? Is this person qualified to identify things, or phenomenon which might fool a person? Then I look at them to try and figure out how trustworthy they are. Do they have any history of dishonesty? Do they change their story around a lot? Do they look like they are acting? Is there a conflict of interest? Etc.

Now you can't tell for sure if someone is lying or not, or if they made a mistake or not, but you can still take into consideration ideas and possibilities which are not absolute.

 

[nismaratwork]

Which authorities am I relying on who have information about that. Or am I presupposing that they do and closing a fallacious circle?

rely |riˈlī|
verb ( -lies, -lied) [ intrans. ] ( rely on/upon)
depend on with full trust or confidence : I know I can rely on your discretion.
• be dependent on : the charity has to rely entirely on public donations.

Nobody has stated a full trust or confidence on anyone here. To some people, every question doesn't require an official fully confident and direct belief. Some people have a sliding scale of confidence, in both people, and possibilities, wether it be competing scientific hypothesis, or if it will rain next week.

Lets make a scale from 1-1000 of confidence in the hypotheses that we are being visited by extraterrestrials. Maybe someone who was a 1 based on the rantings of a lunatic, turned into a 25 when they heard their friend described to them a supposed UFO they saw. Then that same person heard a group of pilots testify that they saw a UFO and things seemed consistent, then they did some research and found that some astronauts, world leaders, astronomers, military personal, also have claimed to have seen something. Maybe that person now has a level of 75 out of a thousand in confidence that extraterrestrials are visiting earth? Maybe everyone has their own level of confidence in different hypotheses. Or maybe your right, and having any confidence in anything at all is fallacious?

The knowledge I am presupposing they could potentially have is the knowledge they claim to have. Of course then I take into consideration that they may be mistaken or dishonest. I try and get an understanding of how capable this person is, how much does the testimony sound like a mistake, would it require a delusion, hallucination, or illusion to make? Does this person seam delusional, was there any obvious reason why they would be hallucinating, could an illusion actually account for it? Is this person qualified to identify things, or phenomenon which might fool a person? Then I look at them to try and figure out how trustworthy they are. Do they have any history of dishonesty? Do they change their story around a lot? Do they look like they are acting? Etc.

Now you can't tell for sure if someone is lying or not, or if they made a mistake or not, but you can still take into consideration ideas and possibilities which are not absolute.

Are you asking questions, or sharing propoganda?... I'm not clear, nor was that post directed at you, which is why it was in response to PL.

 

[jreelawg]

Are you asking questions, or sharing propoganda?... I'm not clear, nor was that post directed at you, which is why it was in response to PL.

If you asked someone if think it was going to rain next month at 5:45 AM, Honolula beach ,Hawaii, would you get a yes or no answer? If they said maybe, would you take it as a yes and call them fallacious?

 

[nismaratwork]

If you asked someone if think it was going to rain next month at 5:45 AM, Honolula beach ,Hawaii, would you get a yes or no answer? If they said maybe, would you take it as a yes and call them fallacious?

Please try fishing elsewhere.

edit: Propaganda: "A monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)

 

[Physics-Learner]

hi nis,

both myself and jr are attempting to tell you the same thing - some people, based upon occupation, have better probabilities of knowledge about topics.

some people have better knowledge about disarming of nuclear missiles than others do.

there are all sorts of ufo sightings reported by average joes that are proven to be deliberate hoaxes, in order to get attention.

common sense tells me that military people are not nearly as apt to promote deliberate hoaxes, in order to get attention.

that leads toward said military people having more credence.

i really think we are now beating a dead horse.

i do question your decision making. and i guess you question mine. i am happy to leave it at that.