Rampage explains how outer space is a hoax

[Blayt7hh]

"Educated" people told you to wear a mask outdoors and while in your car. It means nothing.

How did the Vikings navigate if the they didn't know the earth was a ball?

Why did you avoid discussing the UN map of the world which depicts a flat earth?

Because that is not a map you moron

Not to mention that it is of a round earth on a 2D plane

 

[Copper Burner]

Because that is not a map you moron

Not to mention that it is of a round earth on a 2D plane

It's a flat earth map.

You just cannot be fooled though amirite know it all?

 

[Prutfis]

It's a flat earth map.

You just cannot be fooled though amirite know it all?

You cant actually be this stupid. Dial it back a bit, its getting to obvious

 

[helltoupee]

Both of you are assuming that because a lot of people saw something that it must have happened. That’s just not true. For one in relation to the population of those areas it’s practically no one. For another a trend among almost all of these sightings is that they are short in duration and under poor visibility, so yes misidentification is definitely a legitimate explanation.

I can certainly agree with you that some, or even the large majority of so-called sightings, can be characterized as unreliable eyewitness testimony, from passing glimpses or 'short duration' experiences.

Where you lose me is insisting in an absolute that every single sighting experience without question is people being unreliable witnesses, or of short duration, etc. If eyewitnesses are 100%, without question, unreliable, why do eyewitnesses play such a large part in judicial proceedings? Why do cops and detectives interview people or bystanders from a crime scene? It would be totally useless if what you are saying is true - that eyewitnesses are absolutely 100% unreliable 100% of the time.

I will grant you that humans are an imperfect species and eyewitnesses should be considered unreliable a large majority of the time. But to suggest otherwise and insist that they are always wrong without a doubt seems to be really stretching things into an illogical absolute. Maybe it's just me, but I have a very hard time believing in any absolutes.

Anyways, thanks for keeping things civil, I'm sure you've had enough of these conversations at the moment.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

it's always retarded threads like these that get to tens of pages long
some retard come in with some bullshit, 100 "smart people" gather to call him an idiot.
you're making society worse by continually replying to cretins.
fucking ego-posting dumb-asses.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Both of you are assuming that because a lot of people saw something that it must have happened. That’s just not true. For one in relation to the population of those areas it’s practically no one. For another a trend among almost all of these sightings is that they are short in duration and under poor visibility, so yes misidentification is definitely a legitimate explanation.

So here’s my stance on it. Let’s use Bigfoot for an example. If it was 1700 and someone in town came running in and said they saw a giant ape man, I would give it credence. We were in a new land vastly untouched.

Today though there are almost 400 million people across the country. We’ve had cheap and affordable photographic cameras for 50ish years. Cell phones that take videos in our pockets for 15. And now, cheap affordable drones combing the skies. And you’re asking me to believe that this massive animal is avoiding detection? And all of their population at that? That they’re sweeping up their poop and incinerating their dead so we don’t find even traces of them?

I’m not seeing why you guys think that someone asking us to ignore that many problems with the idea should be taken seriously. It’s also illustrative of why just because theirs been a number of sightings over time doesn’t mean that there is a legitimate claim behind them, as the idea itself is fairly ludicrous now.

Another thing that makes Bigfoot a good example in this topic is the frequency of his sightings. Before the 60s, the myth barely existed. After the famous video of him that we all now know was faked by a man in a suit and that’s an actual fact, sightings of Bigfoot skyrocketed. That right there illustrates why just because a lot of people think they saw something isn’t enough to give something with virtually no other proof of its existence much credence.

What are you basing Bigfoot sightings not existing before the 1960s? Because native American tribes all have names for Bigfoot and they all have lore for Bigfoot and it was just an accepted part of reality for them. So I'm interested in why you think the 1960s saw some massive change?

Also, I still disagree with your reasoning about the possibility that every single sighting is a misidentification or hallucination. There are lots and lots of mass sightings where lots of people see the same thing and there are lots of sightings that go way beyond just seeing the UFO and go into contact with the beings themselves..... So it seems you're not including all of the data in your reasoning here, which doesn't make any sense because you're including some of it, but just not all of it....

Also the Bigfoot example is quite problematic because we keep coming up with really really really highly credible prints that pass inspection by experts in their field for analyzing trackways...

And also on my end you have not obviously read the posts that I've written to you because you've got my perspective on what Bigfoot is completely wrong.... So your comments about believing this Bigfoot creature has escaped notice don't even apply to my perspective.

You also did not address the probability theorists notion that it is just far more likely that something is actually happening than nothing when we have thousands and thousands and thousands of sightings across generations, age groups, education levels, etc...


You also said that I expect you to believe, but that means you didn't read my post again where i explicitly said I am not arguing for you to believe I'm arguing that is reasonable to believe.

Please man if you're going to respond actually read my position and respond to it. Intelligently.

 

[helltoupee]

it's always retarded threads like these that get to tens of pages long
some retard come in with some bullshit, 100 "smart people" gather to call him an idiot.
you're making society worse by continually replying to cretins.
fucking ego-posting dumb-asses.

Some of us are having a theoretical conversation.

What do you think?

Are all eyewitnesses, 100% of the time "unreliable"? Including people who testify in court, bystanders who are interviewed at crime scenes, or people who may experience something paranormal?

I think it's reasonable to say that most of them should be considered unreliable, but all? If that were truly the case, cops would never bother with interviewing eyewitnesses and they wouldn't be placed under oath in a judicial proceeding. So at least sometimes, maybe the minority, eyewitnesses can be reliable. Is that really that controversial of a statement?

 

[Blayt7hh]

What are you basing Bigfoot sightings not existing before the 1960s? Because native American tribes all have names for Bigfoot and they all have lore for Bigfoot and it was just an accepted part of reality for them. So I'm interested in why you think the 1960s saw some massive change?

Also, I still disagree with your reasoning about the possibility that every single sighting is a misidentification or hallucination. There are lots and lots of mass sightings where lots of people see the same thing and there are lots of sightings that go way beyond just seeing the UFO and go into contact with the beings themselves..... So it seems you're not including all of the data in your reasoning here, which doesn't make any sense because you're including some of it, but just not all of it....

Also the Bigfoot example is quite problematic because we keep coming up with really really really highly credible prints that pass inspection by experts in their field for analyzing trackways...

And also on my end you have not obviously read the posts that I've written to you because you've got my perspective on what Bigfoot is completely wrong.... So your comments about believing this Bigfoot creature has escaped notice don't even apply to my perspective.

You also did not aggress the probability. Theorists notion that it is just far more likely that something is actually happening that nothing when we have thousands and thousands and thousands of sightings across generations, age groups, education levels, etc...


You also said that I expect you to believe, but that means you didn't read my post again where explicitly said I am not arguing for you to believe I'm arguing that is reasonable to believe.

Please man if you're going to respond actually read my position and respond to it. Intelligently.

Lol I don't think you read my post very carefully. I never said or implied you believe in bigfoot. I'm using it as an example because it's very clearly fake. I aslo did say there was no sighting before the 60s, I said they were rare and then there was suddenly an explosion of them in comparison following the famous video.

My whole point was at what point do you stop taking these things seriously? At what point does it get so ridiculous that you become dismissive of it like I clearly am of the claim? Because bigfoot is not something to be taken seriously imo.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Some of us are having a theoretical conversation.

What do you think?

Are all eyewitnesses, 100% of the time "unreliable"? Including people who testify in court, bystanders who are interviewed at crime scenes, or people who may experience something paranormal?

I think it's reasonable to say that most of them should be considered unreliable, but all? If that were truly the case, cops would never bother with interviewing eyewitnesses and they wouldn't be placed under oath in a judicial proceeding. So at least sometimes, maybe the minority, eyewitnesses can be reliable. Is that really that controversial of a statement?

bro isnt' this about outer space not existing?
i don't know how it came to what you're saying

 

[Blayt7hh]

I can certainly agree with you that some, or even the large majority of so-called sightings, can be characterized as unreliable eyewitness testimony, from passing glimpses or 'short duration' experiences.

Where you lose me is insisting in an absolute that every single sighting experience without question is people being unreliable witnesses, or of short duration, etc. If eyewitnesses are 100%, without question, unreliable, why do eyewitnesses play such a large part in judicial proceedings? Why do cops and detectives interview people or bystanders from a crime scene? It would be totally useless if what you are saying is true - that eyewitnesses are absolutely 100% unreliable 100% of the time.

I will grant you that humans are an imperfect species and eyewitnesses should be considered unreliable a large majority of the time. But to suggest otherwise and insist that they are always wrong without a doubt seems to be really stretching things into an illogical absolute. Maybe it's just me, but I have a very hard time believing in any absolutes.

Anyways, thanks for keeping things civil, I'm sure you've had enough of these conversations at the moment.

If a million people go into the woods and 10 of them come out and say they saw bigfoot, why do you think that at least one of them is correct and actually saw bigfoot?

 

[helltoupee]

bro isnt' this about outer space not existing?
i don't know how it came to what you're saying

No, nothing to do with outer space.

I've had 2 people try to convince me that eyewitnesses are absolutely unreliable 100% of the time.

I've never heard of that before and was asking to try and see if I missed the memo or something - as stated law enforcement and our courts rely on eyewitness testimony all the time. Why does the military force field commanders to fill out reports if their own "eyewitness testimony" is always wrong?

It makes no sense to me.

 

[helltoupee]

If a million people go into the woods and 10 of them come out and say they saw bigfoot, why do you think that at least one of them is correct and actually saw bigfoot?

I can play socrates too.

And since you didn't address any of my questions:

Why are eyewitnesses such an integral part of our judicial system? Why do police interview bystanders at a crime scene? If they are absolutely wrong 100% of the time, it would be completely useless.

So you tell me. Are eyewitnesses wrong 100% of the time? I'm not arguing for the existence of bigfoot, I'm arguing that using criteria based in a declarative that eyewitnesses are always wrong absolutely, to me, doesn't make much sense.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Blayt7hh]

I can play socrates too.

And since you didn't address any of my questions:

Why are eyewitnesses such an integral part of our judicial system? Why do police interview bystanders at a crime scene? If they are absolutely wrong 100% of the time, it would be completely useless.

So you tell me. Are eyewitnesses wrong 100% of the time? I'm not arguing for the existence of bigfoot, I'm arguing that using criteria based in a declarative that eyewitnesses are always wrong absolutely to me doesn't make much sense.

Agree to disagree.

eye witness account alone usually aren't enough to convict someone. In fact I'm not sure they're ever considered enough to convict someone without other corroborating evidence.

In my question I asked you, no eye witnesses are not 100% wrong all the time. 1000 people saw something run through the woods. Some were unsure what they saw. Most think they saw and elk or a bear. 5 people think they saw bigfoot.

Those 5 were all wrong.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

No, nothing to do with outer space.

I've had 2 people try to convince me that eyewitnesses are absolutely unreliable 100% of the time.

I've never heard of that before and was asking to try and see if I missed the memo or something - as stated law enforcement and our courts rely on eyewitness testimony all the time. Why does the military force field commanders to fill out reports if their own "eyewitness testimony" is always wrong?

It makes no sense to me.

i mean, there's never 100% certainty about anything if we go down to the fuzzy aspects of existence, like the quantum levels. but we're not living at quantum levels, and at our human levels we can make reasonable assumptions about facts, and the witnesses being unreliable 100% of the time does not pass the reasonable expectations test. if the argument is something like "a witness can never see and recall 100% of what happened therefore they are 100% unreliable", that's a rhetoric trick - if i saw person x shooting somebody, the fact that i don't recall 100% of the details of what he was wearing does not disqualify the testimony.

i didn't follow the argument but i suspect it's stuck in rhetoric traps that are just an exercise in meaninglessness.

 

[helltoupee]

eye witness account alone usually aren't enough to convict someone. In fact I'm not sure they're ever considered enough to convict someone without other corroborating evidence.

But if it can be counted on that eyewitnesses are wrong 100% of the time, why even bother with any of that since it's not going to be accurate at all? Remember? Human memory, hindsight, and all that. Why go through all the trouble to establish something (eyewitness testimony) if we can absolutely predict that all eyewitness testimony is wrong and can't be trusted?

Don't you think you are being a little unreasonable here? Again, I'm not saying this proves bigfoot. I just think it's strange reasoning to base your opinion that the paranormal is a silly topic on.

 

[Blayt7hh]

But if it can be counted on that eyewitnesses are wrong 100% of the time, why even bother with any of that since it's not going to be accurate at all? Remember? Human memory, hindsight, and all that. Why go through all the trouble to establish something (eyewitness testimony) if we can absolutely predict that all eyewitness testimony is wrong and can't be trusted?

Don't you think you are being a little unreasonable here? Again, I'm not saying this proves bigfoot. I just think it's strange reasoning to base your opinion that the paranormal is a silly topic on.

I ninja edited on you but I added this:

In my question I asked you, no eye witnesses are not 100% wrong all the time. 1000 people saw something run through the woods. Some were unsure what they saw. Most think they saw and elk or a bear. 5 people think they saw bigfoot.

Those 5 were all wrong.

 

[curryjunkie]

You cant actually be this stupid.

 

[Natural Order]

That the ball spins 1000 mph, flies through the galaxy at 640,000 mph. And then supposedly the only thing that holds oceans, people, and most everything else to the ball is a force that no scientist can explain, or even determine what causes it.

You have alot more to back up than I do. Fake pictures of the earth doesn't cut it.

Oh, you’re not trolling. You guys really do exist…

 

[Deleted member 585708]

Oh, you’re not trolling. You guys really do exist…

I dunno, he's definitely trolling in that other thread where he's talking about Jesus sending him to post inane messages on Sherdog.

I'm calling it this guy a troll, albeit one who at least looks into the subject he's pretending he believes in.

There's no way a person like this exists.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Lol I don't think you read my post very carefully. I never said or implied you believe in bigfoot. I'm using it as an example because it's very clearly fake. I aslo did say there was no sighting before the 60s, I said they were rare and then there was suddenly an explosion of them in comparison following the famous video.

My whole point was at what point do you stop taking these things seriously? At what point does it get so ridiculous that you become dismissive of it like I clearly am of the claim? Because bigfoot is not something to be taken seriously imo.

here is a direct quote from your post man...

"And you’re asking me to believe that this massive animal is avoiding detection? And all of their population at that? That they’re sweeping up their poop and incinerating their dead so we don’t find even traces of them?"

"I’m not seeing why you guys think that someone asking us to ignore that many problems with the idea should be taken seriously."

so yeah... your post not only did not address ANY arguments but it also represents my positions wrongly. this is all too common when discussing fringe topics. its like people leave reason at the door for some reason. like that jeff meldrum debunking article that lied, slandered and omitted evidence about his book but also refused to critique his published scientific papers. and these guys who wrote it are SUPPOSEDLY serious scientists!!!!

i could defend the position you wrote above from the perspective that they are physical beings too though and it would not be that difficult even. jeff meldrum has offered answers to all of that. i dont think your reasoning on that is very good frankly unless once again you take NONE of the accounts into consideration. but its not my position to defend so i wont bother.

ill wait for a thorough response from you to my previous post and my actual positions if you choose to give one. otherwise have a great day man. the main takeaway though? it is perfectly reasonable and reasoned to believe the phenomenon is actually happening and any mocking only denigrates the person doing it and the spirit of science itself and serves to further divide the country.