My Personal UFO Encounter v. I saw a flying saucer, aliens optional!

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

Ok so if your best friend is about to kill his/her self because he/she saw Jesus earlier that day and Jesus told him/her to commit suicide, you would not stop them because "it is what they saw" and you don't have to try to convince them that they may be wrong...?

The point here is that when you are not able to admit that you may be wrong about something you saw or something you perceived in another way, especially about sensitive subjects like UFOs or Jesus, there is something not right.

Apples/oranges.  A flying saucer is not a certain life or death situation.

The secondary point here is that when you are so tied up in trying to convince somebody that they might be wrong about something that you weren't around to see and weren't even alive at the time of, that it becomes your sole objective in the thread, then there's something equally wrong.  I'm really not trying to be argumentative, but I really don't get why it is such a big deal to everyone to try to convince tick that he could be wrong when NOBODY else was there and NOBODY else can offer any sort of actual undeniable proof to the contrary.  It is not outside the realm of possibility that flying saucers exist, whether alien in origin or man-made.  While it is not outside the realm of possibility that they DON'T exist either, again, nobody else saw what he saw, yet everybody else is more than willing to try to convince him that he didn't see what he saw.  Why?  Why is it so important that people are going to argue to these lengths?  What will ANYBODY gain from tick saying "You know what, maybe you're right, I could've been mistaken" other than the satisfaction of having won your point over on him?  Nothing.  I really don't get it.

[kári]

I know his may be somewhat of a stretch but confronting someone with their own stubbornness, their own narrow-mindedness or whatever might just change their lives in a positive way. Tick comes off as living in a bubble completely oblivious to anything but what he told himself once.
Anyway, this thread is probably over.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

And because people seem to have that mindset about him, it appears they're a lot more apt to argue with him, seemingly just because it's him.  I see what you're saying, though I can't surmise how it applies in this particular instance.

Either way, you're right.  May as well let this thread die.  This will continue to go in circles until one side says "I'm really tired of this, it isn't worth the effort" or until a mod locks it.

[BlobVanDam]

And because people seem to have that mindset about him, it appears they're a lot more apt to argue with him, seemingly just because it's him.  I see what you're saying, though I can't surmise how it applies in this particular instance.

Either way, you're right.  May as well let this thread die.  This will continue to go in circles until one side says "I'm really tired of this, it isn't worth the effort" or until a mod locks it.

It's nothing to do with tick. Had anyone else argued this thread the same way he has, I promise the results would be identical. It's about trusting a memory from decades ago, seen in the dark, from hundreds of yards away, and refusing to accept the possibility that it even might possibly be the 99.99% most likely answer over the 0.01% possibility.

And before the lock, let's sum up the thread-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6lHgbbM9pu4#t=31s

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

See that's the thing.  I do not think that the %0.01 possibility of it being a saucer is accurate.  I know it's an arbitrary number used to make a point, but this is all like the Jesus thing.  There are those who believe and those who don't.  Everybody knows what happens when you try to tell a Christian that their cosmic killjoy doesn't really exist, because "Oh, science!".  Okay, well, "Oh, science!", but you don't have any way to prove that He doesn't exist either.  Burden of proof is on the prosecutor, not the defense.

[Tick]

And because people seem to have that mindset about him, it appears they're a lot more apt to argue with him, seemingly just because it's him.  I see what you're saying, though I can't surmise how it applies in this particular instance.

Either way, you're right.  May as well let this thread die.  This will continue to go in circles until one side says "I'm really tired of this, it isn't worth the effort" or until a mod locks it.

It's nothing to do with tick. Had anyone else argued this thread the same way he has, I promise the results would be identical. It's about trusting a memory from decades ago, seen in the dark, from hundreds of yards away, and refusing to accept the possibility that it even might possibly be the 99.99% most likely answer over the 0.01% possibility.

And before the lock, let's sum up the thread-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6lHgbbM9pu4#t=31s

That video is hilarious pertaining to this thread!!!!
Anyhow, nothing will change here so as Tunderlips said to Rocky in Rocky 3...

lights out meatball!

[BlobVanDam]

See that's the thing.  I do not think that the %0.01 possibility of it being a saucer is accurate.  I know it's an arbitrary number used to make a point, but this is all like the Jesus thing.  There are those who believe and those who don't.  Everybody knows what happens when you try to tell a Christian that their cosmic killjoy doesn't really exist, because "Oh, science!".  Okay, well, "Oh, science!", but you don't have any way to prove that He doesn't exist either.  Burden of proof is on the prosecutor, not the defense.

Burden of proof is entirely on tick, because he's the one trying to suggest he saw something that isn't proven. We have offered plenty of reasonable evidence to the contrary that it was a flying saucer, things which time and time again have been the real reasons behind sightings.
We're not asking tick to say it wasn't a flying saucer. We just want tick to accept the remotest possibility that it wasn't, even if he still believes to the contrary, instead of being stubborn and prideful about a sketchy ancient memory. I tell you, I wouldn't allow something I saw in a brief flash in the dark as a naive young kid to be considered proof contrary to the intelligence and rationality of my present day self. But hey, that's just me.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

Then I have to respectfully agree to disagree.  He said what he remembered seeing and a flood of "yeah, it was probably something else" washed in, with nothing concrete to back it up.  Only suppositions.  If I saw something like that at 13 years old, I can guarantee you it would leave a lasting impression on me and I would remember it.  I have remembrance of vivid images from when I was 13.  Granted, a number of those mental images are of pages from Penthouse that I had hidden in a folder in my locker, but still. 

[BlobVanDam]

Then I have to respectfully agree to disagree.  He said what he remembered seeing and a flood of "yeah, it was probably something else" washed in, with nothing concrete to back it up.  Only suppositions.  If I saw something like that at 13 years old, I can guarantee you it would leave a lasting impression on me and I would remember it.  I have remembrance of vivid images from when I was 13.  Granted, a number of those mental images are of pages from Penthouse that I had hidden in a folder in my locker, but still. 

Why does there need to be anything concrete when we're disproving something that isn't proven in the first place? People were offering logical solutions. There is NOTHING at all wrong with that.
If I told you I saw a T-Rex in my front yard (the dinosaur, not the band), would you not question it, or offer plausible answers, or would you just say "well I wasn't there, so I guess he must be right until someone can prove there are no T-Rexes, because he saw it with his own eyes"?
Nobody is making suppositions here but tick.

[Nick]

Then I have to respectfully agree to disagree.  He said what he remembered seeing and a flood of "yeah, it was probably something else" washed in, with nothing concrete to back it up.  Only suppositions.  If I saw something like that at 13 years old, I can guarantee you it would leave a lasting impression on me and I would remember it.  I have remembrance of vivid images from when I was 13.  Granted, a number of those mental images are of pages from Penthouse that I had hidden in a folder in my locker, but still. 

Why does there need to be anything concrete when we're disproving something that isn't proven in the first place? People were offering logical solutions. There is NOTHING at all wrong with that.
If I told you I saw a T-Rex in my front yard (the dinosaur, not the band), would you not question it, or offer plausible answers, or would you just say "well I wasn't there, so I guess he must be right until someone can prove there are no T-Rexes, because he saw it with his own eyes"?
Nobody is making suppositions here but tick.

I already tried to make that point.

I have a few quick questions for Tick before the thread sees its well earned death.

If you aren't going to entertain and openly discuss the obvious wave of doubt and explanations that are going to result from a thread like this, what's the point in having the thread in the first place? Or I guess the better question would be, what did you expect people's reactions would be as I'm guessing this isn't what you envisioned?

And also, in your original post you say, "I just know that on that night in 78, I became a believer in UFO's". Taking in your explanation that you mean this in a way that is completely unrelated to aliens, is there really a point to the statement? If all you're saying is that you started to believe that there can be something in the sky not quickly and readily explained, that's like saying you believe in flowers, cars, or dogs. The concept of a UFO (if we somehow detach the strings attached to the term) isn't something you should have to start to believe in. And when you bring a phrase like "I became a believer" that into it, it seems to add to this mystical unexplainable aura that it seems like it would not just be hard to break, but that you actively are trying not to have broken.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

Then I have to respectfully agree to disagree.  He said what he remembered seeing and a flood of "yeah, it was probably something else" washed in, with nothing concrete to back it up.  Only suppositions.  If I saw something like that at 13 years old, I can guarantee you it would leave a lasting impression on me and I would remember it.  I have remembrance of vivid images from when I was 13.  Granted, a number of those mental images are of pages from Penthouse that I had hidden in a folder in my locker, but still. 

Why does there need to be anything concrete when we're disproving something that isn't proven in the first place? People were offering logical solutions. There is NOTHING at all wrong with that.
If I told you I saw a T-Rex in my front yard (the dinosaur, not the band), would you not question it, or offer plausible answers, or would you just say "well I wasn't there, so I guess he must be right until someone can prove there are no T-Rexes, because he saw it with his own eyes"?
Nobody is making suppositions here but tick.

But don't we have evidence that dinosaurs (T-Rex included) are extinct?

Also, if the band T-Rex was in your front yard, I'm not sure if that wouldn't be even cooler than the dinosaur.

[BlobVanDam]

Also, if the band T-Rex was in your front yard, I'm not sure if that wouldn't be even cooler than the dinosaur.

Trick statement. They're both dinosaurs.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

"Lemmy IS God"

[Tick]

Then I have to respectfully agree to disagree.  He said what he remembered seeing and a flood of "yeah, it was probably something else" washed in, with nothing concrete to back it up.  Only suppositions.  If I saw something like that at 13 years old, I can guarantee you it would leave a lasting impression on me and I would remember it.  I have remembrance of vivid images from when I was 13.  Granted, a number of those mental images are of pages from Penthouse that I had hidden in a folder in my locker, but still. 

Why does there need to be anything concrete when we're disproving something that isn't proven in the first place? People were offering logical solutions. There is NOTHING at all wrong with that.
If I told you I saw a T-Rex in my front yard (the dinosaur, not the band), would you not question it, or offer plausible answers, or would you just say "well I wasn't there, so I guess he must be right until someone can prove there are no T-Rexes, because he saw it with his own eyes"?
Nobody is making suppositions here but tick.

I already tried to make that point.

I have a few quick questions for Tick before the thread sees its well earned death.

If you aren't going to entertain and openly discuss the obvious wave of doubt and explanations that are going to result from a thread like this, what's the point in having the thread in the first place? Or I guess the better question would be, what did you expect people's reactions would be as I'm guessing this isn't what you envisioned?

And also, in your original post you say, "I just know that on that night in 78, I became a believer in UFO's". Taking in your explanation that you mean this in a way that is completely unrelated to aliens, is there really a point to the statement? If all you're saying is that you started to believe that there can be something in the sky not quickly and readily explained, that's like saying you believe in flowers, cars, or dogs. The concept of a UFO (if we somehow detach the strings attached to the term) isn't something you should have to start to believe in. And when you bring a phrase like "I became a believer" that into it, it seems to add to this mystical unexplainable aura that it seems like it would not just be hard to break, but that you actively are trying not to have broken.

First off, I didn't have an expectation when I started the thread. I guess I am getting the reaction I would have expected if I had thought about it beforehand. I told my story only because of the other UFO thread. and I never said they were aliens, but I wouldn't discount the possibility they could be.

[Nick]

Okay, I'll leave you with the final word. Any further discussion can be had at the general thread.