Separating belief in ET life from belief in UFOs

Hrm, that last line seems like a bit of a stretch... I don't think we have enough data to be confident in the teemingness of life in the Universe. But yeah, I think life's out there too. They do? Really!? Who? Where?Seems like quite the non-sequitor. I've never witnessed this anomaly. I don't think we should limits that alien's technology with our own technological understandings. I can see that, but there was a UFO really close to my house. I live a short distance east of St. Louis, MO.Back in 2000, a good friend of mine saw a UFO. He told it about us, like, the next day or so. He said there was a huge black triangle floating in the sky.Later, the news reports came out and there's websites about it:When Planets Attack.... (Illinois UFO sighting) - UFO Evidence
Illinois Triangle UFO Sighting (by multiple police officers) - Illinois, United States - January 5, 2000 - UFO Evidence
Highland UFO 2006They had multiple police departments reporting this thing too. I saw something about it on TV and recognized the dispatcher they interviewed as someone I've met. I don't doubt that there really was a black triangle floating in the sky that night.Now, I don't think this is proof of alien visitation, but it does seem like a plausible explanation.What do you think?

I get it. I guess I just haven't encountered the blurred distinction yet.They seem seperate enough to me. No, I'm sincerely interested. I doubt it could have been a hoax. Multiple police departments were investigating it simultaneously as it crossed through jurisdictions.And it moved too slow to be a jet... It had some kind of hovering ability.Try again?What the hell could it have been? Best forum online, imho.Your feet are wet enough, just dive right in!

Budge you from not accepting alien visitation or budge you from not accepting that something was actually there being witnessed?I agree that it doesn't directly support the visitation but why deny that there was indeed a big black floating triangle in the sky above Highland, IL in 2000?And what could it possibly have been? It had to be some kind of vessel or something...

I disagree.That there were multiple poice departments reporting and investigating it suggests that there was actually something there. I've heard the calls to the dispatcher, from independent officers, that they were seeing something actual.The clincher for me, is that a personal friend of mine described it before it broke the news in the same way that the officers on the scene were reported as describing it. That's an impossible coincidence. It might not be determinable, but to say that its unlikely that they were seeing an actual big black floating triangle in the sky is unreasonable. I think you have too much doubt in people.Its almost as if you want to disbelieve that it could be there so you fall back on the default reason of "they must have been mistaken".I think multiple independent and credible witnesses support the actual existence of the claimed object.For you to claim that the object wasn't there, without any actual evidence other than doubt and the standard "they must be mistaken", is unreasonable in my opinion.Not to bring up old shit but, isn't this a prime example of psuedoskepticism?

Sure. But cops out on patrol investigating the phenomenon are gonna be pretty damn objective about the case. And that we had independent departments from different cities investigating it as an actual big black floating triangle in the sky. This was not as an alien investigation, but an I don't know what this is but I'm gonna follow it in my squad car and keep reporting what I'm seeing investigation.There had to be an actual big black floating triangle up there. Well B2 can't fly that slow, but yeah, it could have been a man made aircraft.My point was:

quote:

---

I agree that it doesn't directly support the (alien) visitation but why deny that there was indeed a big black floating triangle in the sky above Highland, IL in 2000?

---

Yeah, but people are taking "skepticism" too far when they think that its more likely that multiple independ witness were mistakenly describing the exact same vessel rather than there being an actual vessel there in the first place. I don't even think its rightly called "skepticism" at that point, more like unreasonable doubt, or "psuedoskepticism", but lets not get into that here.