It's true, Indy. You and some others (ufo'ers, anti-evolutionists, et. al.) accept the consensus of science until that consensus disagrees with what you want to believe. Then you resort to fallacy to try to paper over the difference.
"Do you believe that UFOs disable/interfere with cellphones? ... And how do you know this?" -Navy
If some UFOs actually are highly intelligent beings technologically capable of having traveled here from many light years away, I certainly wouldn't put it past them. Heck, it's not even beyond our technological capabilities if we wanted to do it.
What part of the useful information I related to Latch do you think was "bad-mouthing" anyone? I thought it was a fairly accurate assessment.
"If some UFOs actually are highly intelligent beings technologically capable of having traveled here from many light years away, I certainly wouldn't put it past them. Heck, it's not even beyond our technological capabilities if we wanted to do it."
Nope! Sorry, that's not an answer to the question. The question does not ask what you would put past UFO's, if they were this or if they were that. It just asks what you currently believe about whether or not they disable/interfere with cellphone function.
Here are the questions again. Read carefully:
"Do you believe that UFOs disable/interfere with cellphones? ... And how do you know this?"
Oh, and your jabs? Please. A little transparent don't ya think? How about we act like adults and stick to the topic, hmmmmmm?
So my only choices are yes, I do believe that they do, or no, I don't believe that they do...?
Man. It really kills me to have to disappoint you, but the answer I gave was as accurate an answer as I could give. In other words, I don't know. I have no belief one way or the other. You might say I'm agnostic on the subject. I'm really sorry.
"So my only choices are yes, I do believe that they do, or no, I don't believe that they do...?"
I'm not limiting you to a specific answer. I'm just insisting that you answer the actual question, which simply asked what you think based on what you now know. Your first answer was in regard to what you would think about UFO cellphone interference if you knew that UFO's were highly intelligent, technologically capable beings. There's a difference. You probably don't see it and wouldn't care if you did. Believers tend to shrug off critical differences like that if they're inconvenient. That's why you all have such a hard-on for Dick — he doesn't let you off the hook on things like that and you interpret that as him just being difficult.
"In other words, I don't know."
Well now there ya go. That's a legitimate answer. (Assuming that's your answer to the actual question.) I'd be interested in hearing what you think after talking to PTTP, who claims that cellphones do not work in the vicinity of UFOs.
If you'd like, feel free to keep going:
1. If you don't know if cellphones work around UFOs, then there must be some line of thought that in your mind gives weight to the idea that they don't work around UFOs. (Otherwise, you would, at the very least, assume that it's more likely than not that cellphones do work around UFO's ... yes?) What is that line of thought?
2. And of course, this is all leading up to: Why has no compelling photographic evidence regarding the nature of UFOs arisen since the proliferation of cellphones?
That's the truth, Indy. When defending your anti-science positions you and a few others on the board resort to fallacious arguments such as the one that goes something like "So what? Science doesn't know everything so there's reason to believe that science is wrong about X, too."
Ponderer really wrote: If some UFOs actually are highly intelligent beings technologically capable of having traveled here from many light years away, I certainly wouldn't put it past them. Heck, it's not even beyond our technological capabilities if we wanted to do it.
So rather than to simply make their vehicles undetectable for all intents and purposes to human beings and their machines, an ability which aliens would almost certainly have if they had developed the technology to easily travel trillions and trillions of miles through space, you're saying that they would instead decide to remain visible, for some inexplicable reason, but then incapacitate any device trying to capture an image of their craft? How stupid would that be?
Do they want to be seen or not? If not, wouldn't it probably be a good idea if they turned off all the blinking, flashing outside lights on their crafts first before going all high tech on us? Stupid aliens.
You don't know their motivations, Dick - maybe they couldn't care less about being seen.
Does anyone else find it humorous that Navy is asking everyone else to act like adults while he repeats the same question a million times like a kid in Walmart who wants to go to the toy section?
I don't deny that, Indy. What I do deny is that they (or anyone else, for that matter) can have contradictory motivations at the same time in the same way.
For example: Either they care whether they are detected or they don't.
If they do care, then they are extremely unlikely to be traveling around our atmosphere with the flashing, blinking lights so often attributed to them by you UFO'ers. If they don't care, then it's extremely odd that they are spotted so often by rank amateur skywatchers and almost never by professionals.
The only problem with that scenario is they don't need to have contradictory motivations at the same time. Their motivation could be to never let us see them - but then the day their cloaking device fails they're fvcked right out in the open where everyone can see them.
The rest of your nonsense is merely you imagining things that have never been said nor happened. As usual.
"Well there you go. You've answered your own question."
No, I didn't.
If you "don't know" if UFOs interfere with cellphones, then doesn't that mean that you can't choose between the proposition that "they do interfere" and the proposition that "they don't interfere?" Isn't there evidence for both of those propositions in your mind? Otherwise, in the absence of other information, you would assume that cellphones work as usual, right? I'm asking you what it is that, in your mind, supports the proposition that "they do interfere."
_______________________
Indy,
Does anyone else find it humorous that Navy is asking everyone else to act like adults while he repeats the same question a million times like a kid in Walmart who wants to go to the toy section?
I find it humorous that you're trying to point a finger at me, when what I'm really doing, what I've been doing for years now, is satirizing your smarmy, sh*tty attitude. I find that reeeeal humorous.
As far as repeatedly asking the question ... hey, whatever it takes to get a straight answer out of you shifty, twisting, tap-dancing Believers. There ain't no shame in my game. When I start dodging questions with the excuse that my post got redacted,then you can come talk to me about it, okay chief?
"You don't know their motivations, Dick."
Guffaw! Oh, if only Believers would remind themselves of this once in a while.
A while ago, I made post listing several points of similarity between UFOlogy and religion. Once of them was "Believers pick and choose when ignorance is applicable." And here comes Indy, giving us another textbook example. In his next post he'll remind us, once again, that aliens don't make direct contact because of the prime directive.
The prime directive makes perfect sense and - as Dick knows - logic is the language of the universe*, Navy. And yeah - you're satirizing something. We got that.
*Well okay - technically it's #2 behind the language of love.
"Their motivation could be to never let us see them - but then the day their cloaking device fails they're fvcked right out in the open where everyone can see them."
Oh jeez ... still working on the basics, Indy? Clearly their motivation is not to never be seen. Guess you forgot that they, for instance, shut down our nuke sites. And in doing so, shone controlled beams of light on the ground from clearly visible craft.
Indy wrote: Their motivation could be to never let us see them - but then the day their cloaking device fails they're fvcked right out in the open where everyone can see them.
So you're saying that these technologically advanced geniuses haven't invented a way to turn off the blinking, flashing lights on their crafts if their "cloaking device" (whatever that is) fails?
That's a very unlikely to be true answer.
In actuality, the vast majority if not all of the UFOs which have been spotted by humans casually looking up at the sky behave as if they don't care whether they're spotted. Don't you agree with this?
Dick, first off - any air craft with blinking lights is an airplane. Those are standard air craft lights required by the FAA.
Secondly, the only people who are making this ludicrous argument that they don't want to be seen are you and Navy. And that... ahem... "knowledge" is based on a cartoon that was meant as a joke.
I do not get why people would dismiss all the evidence of ET's. Given that even with conservative figures in the equations there should be ET's visiting. With all the credible witnesses, trace evidence, and detections by machines to corroborate statements. I don't get that. It is not a court of law. There is a preponderance of evidence.
" -Navy
