 Official News: Ufo Landed In Kazakhstan!!!!!!!!!!!  |
Tomos 
Infidel
Registration Date: 15-04-2007
Posts: 2,276
Helpfulness rating:
 |
|
Cynik, if you want this thread to go somewhere you need to start providing some genuinely interesting UFO cases. Give us some details on what was observed, what the evidence was, where it was reported, by whom, and what the conclusions were. There's no need to write reams of text, just some good summaries will do for now. Only then can you expect people to start having proper debates with you on this issue.
The Kazakhstan story just doesn't seem interesting at all. It lacks credibility. There's hardly anything to talk about. There's no photographs, no first-hand testimony, no analysis of the 'UFO' material, no details, no credible witnesses.
Sorry to get personal here mate but you do have a tendency to come across as very defensive and hostile at times. The 'you're either with me or against me' attitude is a real conservation-stopper and people find it difficult to debate with you, particularly when they disagree.
Anyway, let me ask you a few questions on the subject of UFOs (sorry for the courtroom-like interrogation, but I'm genuinely interested in your answers):
1. What standards of evidence do you apply to UFO stories before you accept them as real, and not simply the result of misreporting, human errors and hoaxing?
2. You often attack the 'established' media for being corrupt and being involved in a conspiracy to prevent the truth from reaching the masses. (Correct me if that's wrong). Why then, do you cite 'established' media sources when they report favourably on UFO stories? Do you not think you're using double-standards by doing that?
3. Do you truly believe that aliens are on this planet right now? If so, what has convinced you of this and can the existence of these aliens be verified?
4. What does being 'open-minded' mean to you? You say Greyone is the only other open-minded person here. Do you equate open-mindedness with acceptance of your position? If someone disagrees with you are they, by definition, close-minded?
__
MySpace | Soundcloud | Drumnbass.be | Facebook
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Carl Sagan
|
|
|
29-05-2009 20:29 |
|
|
cynik
Cp6uja
Registration Date: 15-03-2005
Posts: 5,646
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
|
|
29-05-2009 23:05 |
|
|
Tomos
Infidel
Registration Date: 15-04-2007
Posts: 2,276
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by cynik
not even answering that. how ridiculous is a mod trolling? you could have pmd me your suggestions
other news follows |
Mate, I'm trying to open up a debate with you. I asked you some questions about UFOs, why you believe in aliens and to provide some good UFO cases. What's ridiculous about that?
__
MySpace | Soundcloud | Drumnbass.be | Facebook
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Carl Sagan
|
|
|
29-05-2009 23:25 |
|
|
cynik
Cp6uja
Registration Date: 15-03-2005
Posts: 5,646
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
I dont want a debate mate. noone was mentioning aliens either. ufos have been mentioned and an alien embassy as some of the weird things that people around the world report. but you just wont let it be dontcha. its laughable
__
https://soundcloud.com/tsai-vidro-voves
|
|
|
29-05-2009 23:54 |
|
|
Tomos
Infidel
Registration Date: 15-04-2007
Posts: 2,276
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
I give up. It's impossible to have a civil and intelligent conversation with you cynik, it's like trying to suck blood out of a stone. You complain when people make jokes, you complain when people ask you to provide some good evidence for UFOs and you complain when people ask you questions about UFOs. The only thing you've proven in this thread is how pointless it is to talk to you about UFOs.
__
MySpace | Soundcloud | Drumnbass.be | Facebook
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Carl Sagan
|
|
|
30-05-2009 10:02 |
|
|
cynik
Cp6uja
Registration Date: 15-03-2005
Posts: 5,646
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
|
|
30-05-2009 10:06 |
|
|
Greyone
Master Producer
Registration Date: 01-04-2005
Posts: 6,285
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
|
|
30-05-2009 11:23 |
|
|
cynik
Cp6uja
Registration Date: 15-03-2005
Posts: 5,646
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
|
|
01-06-2009 07:51 |
|
|
Tomos
Infidel
Registration Date: 15-04-2007
Posts: 2,276
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
I don't know anything about this case, so I can't really comment on it, but the above article is definitely not favourable to the UFO hypothesis. It's actually a fairly decent argument against the UFO idea, which the writer says was basically the result of Russian pseudo-science. It says:
"Most scientists today believe that the Tunguska event was caused by an asteroid or a comet that heated so rapidly upon plunging into the atmosphere that it blew up some five miles above the surface with an explosive force of 10 to 15 megatons. But that conclusion is far too rational for Russians like scientist Yuri Lavbin, who heads the Tunguska Space Phenomenon public state fund. It was Lavbin who in July announced that he would lead an expedition to Siberia and stated, 'We intend to find proof that not a meteorite but an extraterrestrial spaceship crashed with the Earth.'"
And concludes with:
"Oberg predicted that the Tunguska spacecraft story, in various forms, would endure and that gullible members of the press would continue to be hoodwinked by Russian UFOlogists. More than two decades later, his prediction stands unchallenged."
Like I said, I don't know anything about this case so I have no idea what caused it, but you need to be careful not to misconstrue.
__
MySpace | Soundcloud | Drumnbass.be | Facebook
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Carl Sagan
|
|
|
01-06-2009 08:47 |
|
|
cynik
Cp6uja
Registration Date: 15-03-2005
Posts: 5,646
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Tomos
I don't know anything about this case, so I can't really comment on it, but the above article is definitely not favourable to the UFO hypothesis. It's actually a fairly decent argument against the UFO idea, which the writer says was basically the result of Russian pseudo-science. It says:
"Most scientists today believe that the Tunguska event was caused by an asteroid or a comet that heated so rapidly upon plunging into the atmosphere that it blew up some five miles above the surface with an explosive force of 10 to 15 megatons. But that conclusion is far too rational for Russians like scientist Yuri Lavbin, who heads the Tunguska Space Phenomenon public state fund. It was Lavbin who in July announced that he would lead an expedition to Siberia and stated, 'We intend to find proof that not a meteorite but an extraterrestrial spaceship crashed with the Earth.'"
And concludes with:
"Oberg predicted that the Tunguska spacecraft story, in various forms, would endure and that gullible members of the press would continue to be hoodwinked by Russian UFOlogists. More than two decades later, his prediction stands unchallenged."
Like I said, I don't know anything about this case so I have no idea what caused it, but you need to be careful not to misconstrue. |
I would much prefer you react differently mate, but you bite the bait and use the reporters generally neutral point of view (btw that is how journalists should do their jobs) as a starting point for an (another failed) attempt at a debate, stating how he is against the theory. in all honesty, what do you need from a journalist, to make up your own mind, because thats how you react upon reading this, and prove right my statements in previous posts
and here is the difference between you and me, my friend:
I DONT WANT NO GODDAMN JOURNALSISTS OPINION. I want him to report, give different views (what is most funny, he did! but you dont see that) and LET US DECIDE what to believe. who in the world gave him the power to take views? that is low quality journalism.
but the times article is an attempt, I tried to make you see, but alas, again prove your narow mindedness. there are more articles mentioned, are those journalists in your opinion retards not worthy of your notice? do I sense a bit of faschism there?
but, out of your destructiveness, you fail to see the point, and a constructive one, in favor of the Times guy: AT LEAST HE REPORTS
by failing that you once again prove your destructiveness... another trollign post
since you so much love the debate, tell me how the russians have a state sponsored fund stilll researching a 100 years old event. I cant believe theyre that mad??? but if a BBC journalist tells you so, maybe you would believe so?
__
https://soundcloud.com/tsai-vidro-voves
|
|
|
01-06-2009 10:39 |
|
|
Tomos
Infidel
Registration Date: 15-04-2007
Posts: 2,276
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
Cynik. You're overreacting again and assuming things on my behalf which just aren't true. The only thing I was trying to point out was the fact that the article in TIME magazine didn't support the UFO hypothesis, as you claimed. I wasn't attacking you personally and I wasn't rubbishing the story. Like I said twice, I don't even know anything about the story, so I don't have an opinion on it. I was merely trying to point out an error, nothing more.
| quote: |
Originally posted by cynik
prove your narow mindedness ... do I sense a bit of faschism there? ... out of your destructiveness ... once again prove your destructiveness... another trollign post ... if a BBC journalist tells you so, maybe you would believe so? |
I do wish you'd stop repeating this line. I've already told you several times that I don't actually read or watch that much mainstream media. And whatever I do read, I always do so in a critical way - even from BBC journalists! That's what I do with UFO stories as well. I would never believe something purely on the basis of someone else's say-so.
Btw, I wish you'd react differently too. Every time I question you or point out an error, you call me a troll or some other name. Now you're calling me 'destructive', 'narrow-minded', fascist even. I seriously wonder whether you're capable of having an intelligent and civil conversation without resorting to erroneous name-calling.
__
MySpace | Soundcloud | Drumnbass.be | Facebook
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Carl Sagan
|
|
|
01-06-2009 19:29 |
|
|
Phalanx
Chronologic
Registration Date: 13-09-2007
Posts: 333
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
| Originally posted by TomosI don't actually read or watch that much mainstream media. And whatever I do read, I always do so in a critical way - even from BBC journalists! That's what I do with UFO stories as well. I would never believe something purely on the basis of someone else's say-so. |
If you weren't so busy critically reading, you may have discovered some articles that really get down to the core of the issue:
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/...g_well_reasoned
__
http://soundcloud.com/chronologic
|
|
|
01-06-2009 21:09 |
|
|
Greyone
Master Producer
Registration Date: 01-04-2005
Posts: 6,285
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Phalanx
| quote: |
| Originally posted by TomosI don't actually read or watch that much mainstream media. And whatever I do read, I always do so in a critical way - even from BBC journalists! That's what I do with UFO stories as well. I would never believe something purely on the basis of someone else's say-so. |
If you weren't so busy critically reading, you may have discovered some articles that really get down to the core of the issue:
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/...g_well_reasoned |
|
|
|
01-06-2009 22:58 |
|
|
Tomos
Infidel
Registration Date: 15-04-2007
Posts: 2,276
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Phalanx
| quote: |
| Originally posted by TomosI don't actually read or watch that much mainstream media. And whatever I do read, I always do so in a critical way - even from BBC journalists! That's what I do with UFO stories as well. I would never believe something purely on the basis of someone else's say-so. |
If you weren't so busy critically reading, you may have discovered some articles that really get down to the core of the issue:
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/...g_well_reasoned |
Classic.
__
MySpace | Soundcloud | Drumnbass.be | Facebook
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Carl Sagan
|
|
|
01-06-2009 23:22 |
|
|
cynik
Cp6uja
Registration Date: 15-03-2005
Posts: 5,646
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Tomos
Cynik. You're overreacting again and assuming things on my behalf which just aren't true. The only thing I was trying to point out was the fact that the article in TIME magazine didn't support the UFO hypothesis, as you claimed. I wasn't attacking you personally and I wasn't rubbishing the story. Like I said twice, I don't even know anything about the story, so I don't have an opinion on it. I was merely trying to point out an error, nothing more.
| quote: |
Originally posted by cynik
prove your narow mindedness ... do I sense a bit of faschism there? ... out of your destructiveness ... once again prove your destructiveness... another trollign post ... if a BBC journalist tells you so, maybe you would believe so?
|
I do wish you'd stop repeating this line. I've already told you several times that I don't actually read or watch that much mainstream media. And whatever I do read, I always do so in a critical way - even from BBC journalists! That's what I do with UFO stories as well. I would never believe something purely on the basis of someone else's say-so. Btw, I wish you'd react differently too. Every time I question you or point out an error, you call me a troll or some other name. Now you're calling me 'destructive', 'narrow-minded', fascist even. I seriously wonder whether you're capable of having an intelligent and civil conversation without resorting to erroneous name-calling. |
hehe. you know its tiring but here goes
what happens here is I clearly make my points across from post one all through to this one while all that you do is undermine the whole thing, by doing the only thing youre not supposed to: debate. thats the only thing I asked you not to. see that is how you attack the issue. note how all the time I mention the issue.
1. noone claims any of this about aliens is true.
yet you so vigorously cling onto this, like Im forcing you to believe, but Im not. I must have made that clear at least 3 times. just as I never claim this 1908 story to be true. but there must have happened something innit? why this is only one of the possibilities... as with the ufo right off.
| quote: |
Originally posted by thechronic
I think if there was some serious evidence it would be front page news all over the world.
BTW I quote from that article "According to preliminary data, these items can be described as fragments of an aircraft". That's exactly what UFO means: Unidentified Flying Object. This can be interpreted as: they don't know yet from which airplane the parts originate. |
you see? there are ways of interpreting everything, especially something not a lot of common people know about, especcialy when some of the major asian and russian news agencies report about it. but who is to judge if theyre true or untrue? noone! but they are covering it, and there must be a reason. I find that interesting, and there are many others that take interest too. that is all really, but as I said a lot of times and now everyone else is saying too, this is not about arguments and claims and facts. but you wouldnt listen, so Im jsut here to see how far will you go
| quote: |
| "Oberg predicted that the Tunguska spacecraft story, in various forms, would endure and that gullible members of the press would continue to be hoodwinked by Russian UFOlogists. More than two decades later, his prediction stands unchallenged." |
you have to learn to read, seriously. this is a journalist writing here, hes not there by accident, everything he writes has been surely thought over lots of times
what does that actually tell us? that the mentioned Oberg actually knew anything? no, merely about his "prediction" that stays "unchallenged"? like that is important.
I knew the harsher words would be the only thing you will find to reply on. because you know Im right about the rest.
| quote: |
by merriam-websters
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
|
I call you a troll and accuse of being destructive (while clearly making my points across ages ago) but you strike back with patronising and some ugly quoting. please avoid that 
__
https://soundcloud.com/tsai-vidro-voves
|
|
|
02-06-2009 00:55 |
|
|
Tomos
Infidel
Registration Date: 15-04-2007
Posts: 2,276
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
Yep, this is getting tiring. That's one statement of yours which I can fully agree with.
I think it's obvious that there's a fundamental disagreement going on here with regards to the importance and necessity for evidence, facts, critical thought and debate. I would regard them as fundamentally important, and so would any objective, scientifically-minded person. I really don't know how one could arrive at the truth without these things. That's why I ask you questions. I'm not attacking the stories and I'm not attacking you. I do wish you'd stop repeating that. Check the first two sections of this article to see where I'm coming from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
| quote: |
Originally posted by cynik
all that you do is undermine the whole thing, by doing the only thing youre not supposed to: debate. thats the only thing I asked you not to. see that is how you attack the issue. |
This is exactly what I mean. I really don't understand why you say I'm 'attacking the issue' merely by asking questions. And with all due respect mate, this is not your place to say what another member should and shouldn't say. They can say anything they like as long as it's within the rules. You're free to ignore or reply to those comments but don't assume you can dictate where threads go and what members can say in them. (That's not an attack - just pointing out a simple fact. It's equally true for me also).
| quote: |
Originally posted by cynik
but as I said a lot of times and now everyone else is saying too, this is not about arguments and claims and facts. but you wouldnt listen |
Again, here's a fundamental difference between us. To say this is not about arguments, claims and facts is rather strange. If someone claims or reports on a story - particularly if it's a 'far out' story - surely at some point we need to debate the merits of the evidence and whether those reports or claims are actually what they appear to be? This shouldn't be equated with 'attacking the issue'. It merely means that we are bringing some critical thought into the issue.
| quote: |
Originally posted by cynik
you have to learn to read, seriously... I knew the harsher words would be the only thing you will find to reply on. because you know Im right about the rest. |
I've said many times now that I don't actually know much about these stories. So how would I know if 'you're right about the rest' exactly? I seriously doubt you are, but again, I just don't know. That's why I ask questions. I think you're giving yourself too much credit if you think that I think you're right about the rest.
| quote: |
Originally posted by cynik
I call you a troll and accuse of being destructive (while clearly making my points across ages ago) but you strike back with patronising and some ugly quoting. please avoid that
|
Again, it's not 'destructive' to highlight some quotes that prove your point wrong. You said the writer of that article was open to the possibility that aliens saved earth in the Tunguska event in 1908. He wasn't.
__
MySpace | Soundcloud | Drumnbass.be | Facebook
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Carl Sagan
|
|
|
02-06-2009 09:20 |
|
|
Soi
Super Moderator
Registration Date: 29-01-2003
Posts: 1,417
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
if only those aliens could close and ditch this topic...
__
a myspace
my tunes
"I'm not under the alkafluence of inkahol that some thinkle peep I am.
It's just the drunker I sit here the longer I get."
|
|
|
02-06-2009 20:27 |
|
|
cynik
Cp6uja
Registration Date: 15-03-2005
Posts: 5,646
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Soi
if only those aliens could close and ditch this topic...
|
yo please close and ditch it! Ive already sent a pm to Tomos
but leave the info posts please
__
https://soundcloud.com/tsai-vidro-voves
|
|
|
02-06-2009 21:01 |
|
|
|
on a lighter note) and i couldnt understand any of it as the grammar was beyond concieveable. i say we should all do some diggin even if only for ten mins and everyone should post one link each to a page that they feel is the most evident and unbiased they can find, about whether the ufos exist and then debate rationally without all the defensiveness and arguments 
