Debunking the notion that those who believe official government denials are "skeptics"

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thanks again. I appreciate the links.

Yes, our brains do "lie" to us, which is why we look for external evidence for our internal memories, interpretations, and experiences, when its possible to get them. Because we are susceptible to these "lies" we can make mistakes, and we can be manipulated.

So, cheers to the mystery. May we all one day find out what lies behind the UFO and Paranormal doors, and hopefully, it does not bite...

(lol! *shudder*)

- AB

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: debonkers

Except personal experience is subjective evidence. That isn't testable, therefore I have to take your word that you are telling the truth. Unfortunately for you, as a skeptic, I know that liars abound. Since I cannot know for certain if you are telling the truth, then I cannot accept your evidence. Of course, since your brain lies to you, you may not even know what you experienced.

Heck even if you ARE telling the truth 100%, you still cannot be intellectually honest by saying that you know for certain that they are aliens. All you know is that you had an experience that you cannot explain. So explain to me why "aliens" is an adequate explanation? Sounds like a god of the gaps argument to me.

One more thing, skeptics generally follow Occam's Razor, the idea with the least amount of assumptions is likely the correct one. But hey, it's easy to pretend you aren't making assumptions when you are blinded by confirmation bias.

Thank you for a fine, well-reasoned post, allow me to address it.

First, I completely understand your decision to not accept my evidence. If our roles were reversed, perhaps I may well have made the same decision. I can't say either way as I simply do not have the luxury of being in a position of uncertainty regarding alien contact. I certainly do not fault you in the least for the conclusion you've drawn.

But, if you've read my posts, you see that I have never asked anyone to accept my experiences as true. I have simply stated that they are true. I have stated my experiences are a fact, and they are.

Now, people are free to say they do not believe my experiences to be true or factual, the opinions of others are beyond my control. I have neither the responsibility nor ability to change another person's mind or worldview, that is strictly up to the individual.

But while it is legitimate to say they do not believe my experiences are a fact, to say my experiences are not a fact makes them incorrect. They can say it, of course, but it has no bearing on my experiences being fact. Their acceptance is not required for my experiences of alien contact to be factual.

I do not need a majority of ATS members to agree with me for my experiences to be a matter of fact, nor do I need a scientific consensus of astronomers or astrophysicists for my experiences to be fact. My experiences are true, that makes them fact.

Secondly. Is it intellectually dishonest of me to refer to these beings as aliens? No, not in the least.

Here are the Merriam-Webster dictionary definitions of ALIEN:

1 a : belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing : strange
b : relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government : foreign
c : exotic
2 : differing in nature or character typically to the point of incompatibility
: not familiar or like other things you have known : different from what you are used to

As well as:

: a person of another family, race, or nation
: a creature that comes from somewhere other than the planet Earth
: extraterrestrial

That explains why "aliens" is a legitimate and accurate term to use while discussing these beings. They fall well within the purview of most if not all of these definitions of the word "alien".

I'm not in a position to say if these beings are interstellar, or interdimensional, if they travel through time, or even if they come from deep underground the surface of the Earth, or all of the above. "Alien" is accurate for any and all of those possibilities.

And Occam's razor? Don't get me started. According to Occam's razor we live in geocentric universe. But setting that aside for a moment, I think aliens is the conclusion one would reach using Occam's razor. Think about it.

Thanks again for your post, you may disagree with me still, but I hope you appreciate my efforts to address your concerns.

originally posted by: AboveBoard

I believe you had that sighting, but where does that get us? It's still not testable evidence that extraterrestrials exist, visit earth and abduct people (if that's your belief).

a reply to: Tangerine

But proof that something objective happened that corroborates a story gives greater weight and credibility to that story, no? It may not equal "aliens" but it DOES equate to having objective evidence that BACKS UP the story of "something" mysterious or anomalous happening.

For me, "aliens visiting earth" is a theory, not something I can say I "believe" in so much as one of a group of possibilities. It could be something else entirely and I try to hold my options open.

I think people who investigate get frustrated, and even jaded, with the fact that whatever it is that is happening, whatever it is that people are experiencing, the phenomenon itself seems to want to remain "occult" - as in hidden - mysterious and complex, and horribly challenging to "prove" to any degree of scientific satisfaction. All paranormal phenomena seem to fall into that "real" but not "provable" category. One can experience it, but not explain it to external satisfaction or scientific rigor.

peace,
AB

Yes, something like radar readings does add credibility to a sighting but, as you pointed out, doesn't prove what was sighted.

You're right, anomalous experiences do have an aura of the occult and it may be that that's because it's an experience with an unknown realm.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I think this would fall under "testable evidence!" The only problem is that the information is unique to you and those in that setting that looked at these things. If you had official documents (that could also be examined for legitimacy) stating all of this, and perhaps evidence of the materials themselves, that others could get their hands on and test, then that would constitute strong, objective evidence. The other issue is "what" are the things you have seen? I'm assuming they were manufactured objects and not rock/meteor type things?

Some people might still "believe" it cannot be true, even after multiple verifications. We see this all the time, really in the climate science arguments, or whatever. Others would no doubt be convinced and would hold this to be true.

I appreciate your experience and knowledge and why you know what you know. I hope someday we can tie all these experiences together logically, with evidence like you've seen to back it up.

Personally, I think the majority of folks in the UFO forum would LOVE to have solid evidence like you have seen, though how much we could extrapolate from it, I don't know...

peace,
AB

a reply to: AboveBoard

I would love to know more about your ideas/perceptions of this:

"I think what is required though is the redefining of reality."

That is a tough one. What I am trying to get at is that, in order for aliens to be reality, there needs to be something well defined that reestablishes our collective notion of reality. Aliens seem to be neither here nor there and there isn't really anything that defines that. So we have one camp that aliens are physically here in their physical machines physically abducting people. In this case, our current understanding of reality works and so you have to show physical evidence for this to be true. But the objection is that they could be interdimensional beings and have all this tech that does all these super things that we cant understand and it might as well be magic. In this case there is no definition of "alien" and how they fit in with our understanding of reality. So that needs to be defined.

One thing that does fit with the lack of evidence and the aliens being neither here nor there is that its all in peoples heads. Unfortunately that's what is dictated by our current knowledge and understanding of reality. What is now known is that people that may have these unreal experiences, AKA: hallucinations, without there being any reason for them like mental illness. That being said, there is still no way to determine the unreality of anything experienced. So the notion of what is real needs to be challenged and redefined in order for aliens to be considered real. Or someone can just bag one.

Does that help?

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Krazysh0t


I am not taking sides, and I appreciate skeptical approaches to research in order to weed out the grain from the chaff, so to speak. I do not take every story at face value, and while I have an open mind to subjective and objective evidence, I don't simply leap from "story" to "TRUTH." Does that make sense? I have a level of skepticism in my own approach, in an effort to tease out and discern the truth, as best as I am able. I am all for objective evidence!

Again, there are two types of evidence, subjective and objective evidence. The key is to know which type of evidence you are dealing with when looking at someone's presented evidence.

Please, then, let's define the sought-after evidence as "objective" evidence and not "testable" because those are two different things. Testable is done with scientific method in a lab or other appropriate setting for an experiment - the word "test" implies "experiment." If you want to talk "objective" v "subjective" then I agree that is a great place to start, and to determine where objective and subjective intersect in a report of UFO activity or, really anything (a crime scene, etc.). Testable evidence is simply a category of objective evidence.

bolded a key word in that last sentence. Unexplained DOES NOT mean that you can substitute your own answers for it. It means there ISN'T an answer for it. So if you have an unexplained event then immediately start saying that it was alien visitation or ghosts or bigfoot or esp or anything like that, YOU are substituting an answer for an unexplained event that you don't have the evidence to properly explain.

As to your "bolding" of the word "unexplained" let it be known that I personally have not had an experience that would lead me to conclude I know WHAT I saw, nor do I leap to "aliens," nor do I leap to "black budget project" or whatever. Unexplained is unexplained, so I'm not sure why you are choosing to chastise me on that point.

I saw an Unidentified Flying Object that did something impossible by the standards of knowledge that I am aware that we possess. I don't expect my experience to in anyway be taken as proof of anything to anyone else, but it does inform my own interpretation of what is possible when I look at both subjective and objective evidence.

As to my sighting, I don't know what it was, only that the best "fit" for it was somewhere in the category of UFO or UAP. Saying UFO doesn't mean I have identified is as an alien craft, even were it to be one, without further evidence I can't draw that conclusion from my own experience.

I feel like you are talking to me as if I were simply a "wide eyed believer" and not as someone who is attempting to rationally and logically look at presented evidence, whether it be subjective or objective. I may come to different conclusions for myself after looking at the same pieces of information as others do, and other people may think that I am flat out wrong.

I'm not here to please other people. I'm am here to use both the evidence presented and my own background, research and experience to come to my own conclusions. If someone else happens to find my arguments compelling, then that's great! If not, they may have something to teach me, or they may just be seeing things differently.

peace,
AB

Great post. I'd like to hear about your sighting, did you report it anywhere?

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: debonkers

A true skeptic is doubtful of BOTH the government's story and the ufologist's story. But a true skeptic can also favor one opinion over the other (the one with the most objective evidence in its favor). Ufologist has ZERO objective evidence in its favor. Therefore we either believe the government's story or say "I don't know what that is." UFO used to be such a great acronym for those objects, then it got hijacked by the aliens crowd and has become synonymous with aliens.

You don't know what a skeptic is.

Subjective vs. Objective Evidence

Evidence can be of two types: Subjective and Objective. Subjective evidence is the testimony of what happened based on the statements of a witness, or Subject. The quality of the subjective evidence depends upon the honesty of the witness, and their ability to perceive reality. Unfortunately, subjective views are often inconsistent and biased. People may see what they want to see, or what they expect to see. Often, witnesses of the same traffic accident will report contradictory stories. People also may lie.

Subjective evidence should only be used to elaborate upon Objective evidence. "Subjective evidence" is not evidence at all, and can never stand alone, without Objective evidence. "Subjective evidence" is a contradiction of terms, which has somehow become part of our vocabulary. It is only the report of what some person or Subject has allegedly seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. It is relying on someone else's senses, and truthfulness in reporting what was sensed.. The judge and jury is totally dependent upon the reliability of the Subject, in the absence of any Object of perception in the Court room.

Objective evidence is truly deserving of the word "evidence." Objective evidence does not lie. The interpretation of Objective evidence may vary, and that is the purpose of a court room discussion - What can we infer from the objects. Objects are the objects of perception, things that can be seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. They include videos, pictures, fingerprints, DNA, foot prints, tire tracks, tape recordings, phone calls, physical objects, liquids, and gases. Recently, objective evidence can include electronic information, such as emails or files on a computer.

Objective evidence does not change, as long as it is not tampered with. It is what it is. It is unbiased. It has no motives. It has no feelings. It does not care what the outcome of the court trial is. It simply speaks the truth.

Objective evidence is what ufo believers are missing and until you can produce it, you are being intellectually dishonest about aliens visiting this planet.

Well said. Sadly, no matter how many times skeptics provide the definition for skeptic, the Church of ET parishoners won't accept it. They literally can not distinguish between belief and fact.

Says the Bishop of the Church of Denial, right?

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

They = entities not from Earth.

Why not from this earth?

Because they are seen in flying saucers?


I guess humans flying planes are not from this planet either.

That is one question that bugs me about believers in so called aliens visiting, what has made you believe they are from outside of earths realm?


They might be alien but not alien to this planet just peoples perception, so what has made so many believe they come from Mars or Uranus or some other place?

I can easily answer this about what not only makes me believe they come from elsewhere besides this planet, but also factually proves they don't come from anywhere in our solar system originally.

I worked in materials research for 15 years at a well known lab starting back in 1985, and we had samples from "undisclosed sources" with isotopic ratios and molecular alignments that showed they were definitely manufactured and were not from our solar system. If you have any knowledge at all about how these things can be known, then you will understand that our sun SOL and all our planets have the elements indigenous to the sun and each planet is limited to the elements our star the sun contains. All of these elements have a fingerprint of sorts in their identifiable isotopic ratios that show what planet they are from within the solar system. When they don't match our sun's elements in atomic properties, then they can't be from here.
This can be verified by just learning about the elements that exist naturally in our own solar system. It doesn't matter what I say, anyone can know this, and it is widely known by science right now.

Some of the "things" that are flying around our planet, have released materials with elements that don't come from this solar system, and this is how we know that "they" AREN"T FROM HERE.

I hope this helps, but I have a feeling you aren't going to care for the facts as they relate here, because those in this thread who resist the facts and the learnable truth about the origin of these things just can't get past the idea that aliens are here and they do not originate from this solar system.

Many of us here already know this and it isn't even a problem, but for others, they just don't get it.

I know what I know and I do not have the personality trait that allows some people to just ignore the truth only because it is not popular, and it can be career ending.

This is why I state that they aren't from Earth.

More and more people are learning how isotopic ratios in materials science disclose their origin, and some show that they aren't from anywhere nearby. Even if you might think that Aliens might be just hiding out here, which I also know that they are, doesn't mean they came from here, and the materials they have built their craft with show that they aren't from here.
It's really that simple.
I don't have to prove it and neither does the OP, because we already know these things, and many more folks on this site also know it.
If you don't want to believe it, that is fine with me.
It will come out eventually anyways.

Now this is a truly significant post, I'm honored that you posted it in my thread. It's great that you added a little "signal" to all this "noise".

I would love to hear more about your scientific research and your findings.

I know very little about this research. From what little I understand, there was a piece of the hull of a flying saucer which was tested and yielded some amazing results. I seem to recall they determined it was made out of molecular-thin layers of aluminum and magnesium, but that the aluminum was of a different molecular alignment, and that the magnesium was of an isotope far removed from anything in this solar system. I would be very interested in any information you'd care to share.

This conversation can benefit greatly from your input.

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: debonkers

A true skeptic is doubtful of BOTH the government's story and the ufologist's story. But a true skeptic can also favor one opinion over the other (the one with the most objective evidence in its favor). Ufologist has ZERO objective evidence in its favor. Therefore we either believe the government's story or say "I don't know what that is." UFO used to be such a great acronym for those objects, then it got hijacked by the aliens crowd and has become synonymous with aliens.

You don't know what a skeptic is.

Subjective vs. Objective Evidence

Evidence can be of two types: Subjective and Objective. Subjective evidence is the testimony of what happened based on the statements of a witness, or Subject. The quality of the subjective evidence depends upon the honesty of the witness, and their ability to perceive reality. Unfortunately, subjective views are often inconsistent and biased. People may see what they want to see, or what they expect to see. Often, witnesses of the same traffic accident will report contradictory stories. People also may lie.

Subjective evidence should only be used to elaborate upon Objective evidence. "Subjective evidence" is not evidence at all, and can never stand alone, without Objective evidence. "Subjective evidence" is a contradiction of terms, which has somehow become part of our vocabulary. It is only the report of what some person or Subject has allegedly seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. It is relying on someone else's senses, and truthfulness in reporting what was sensed.. The judge and jury is totally dependent upon the reliability of the Subject, in the absence of any Object of perception in the Court room.

Objective evidence is truly deserving of the word "evidence." Objective evidence does not lie. The interpretation of Objective evidence may vary, and that is the purpose of a court room discussion - What can we infer from the objects. Objects are the objects of perception, things that can be seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. They include videos, pictures, fingerprints, DNA, foot prints, tire tracks, tape recordings, phone calls, physical objects, liquids, and gases. Recently, objective evidence can include electronic information, such as emails or files on a computer.

Objective evidence does not change, as long as it is not tampered with. It is what it is. It is unbiased. It has no motives. It has no feelings. It does not care what the outcome of the court trial is. It simply speaks the truth.

Objective evidence is what ufo believers are missing and until you can produce it, you are being intellectually dishonest about aliens visiting this planet.

Well said. Sadly, no matter how many times skeptics provide the definition for skeptic, the Church of ET parishoners won't accept it. They literally can not distinguish between belief and fact.

Says the Bishop of the Church of Denial, right?

It's not my fault you don't have an iota of testable evidence proving your extraterrestrial claim. You must realize that because you've backed off and are now claiming that by aliens you don't necessarily mean extraterrestrials. Eleven pages of people talking about extraterrestrials and you claim that now?

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Yes, that does help me understand where you are coming from. Thank you!

Personally, I think there could be all three in the mix for different cases: purely physical, or "something other" from "somewhere else" that arrives via portals or some such thing (that then become physical objects/beings???), and there may be some people who experience something hallucinatory without realizing why, and not having mental illness/drugs or whatever involved. (*shrugs shoulders*) I'm keeping my options open!


peace,
AB

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: AboveBoard
I understand completely the definition-flip the OP intended, I mean, I totally get it.

I will say that to look at something or someone with a "skeptical eye" does not mean that one wishes to pick them apart and maliciously trash them. I think it means a desire to not be naive and accept as Gospel Truth whatever is presented, be it a photograph, video, or story. Some people do tend to want what I consider to be an inapplicable form of "proof."

(For example: "testable evidence" - do I need to provide "testable evidence" that I am married to my husband, or merely documentation, photographic and video evidence, and witness accounts? How would we take the event of my marriage into the lab??? Now if my husband wants to know if our kids are really our kids - which they 100% are and it is obvious - but say he had amnesia or something...then he could have a Lab test our DNA to find the inevitable match, were he to be that outrageously skeptical of our relationship. See? Different things can be proven in different ways - not always by a Lab!)

And others seem open-minded and will consider all evidence pretty justly, and even-so reasonable minds may come out with their own, opposite, conclusions. In other words, believing or not believing something to be "real" evidence does not make someone automatically a fool, and sometimes we can agree to disagree.

I think people, like myself, who have had genuinely unexplained phenomena in their experience will tend to be more willing to entertain the idea of it happening to others.

peace,
AB

I absolutely believe that anomalous experiences occur. But I remain skeptical of specific claims. I find ET/abduction claims especially dubious, pending testable evidence, simply because 70 years have been invested in investigating them and not a shred of testable evidence has emerged for that which is claimed to be physical entities in physical craft physically present and doing physical things to actual humans.

I don't even doubt that some people have undergone that which they interpret to be alien abductions. However, that doesn't make them actual alien abductions. I also believe that some people are highly suggestible fantasists, some are mentally ill, and some are just plain liars.

I know people who have been talked into believing that they've been abducted by aliens when they previously had no such notion. They then went on to become proselytizers not only telling others they they, themselves, had been abducted but insisting that the other people to whom they were talking had been abducted, too, and just didn't know it. I've had them say it to me. This "movement" has taken on the attributes of religion and that is frightening. And, like religion, the believers insist that beliefs are facts and become extremely hostile to those who challenge that.

The High Priest of the Church of Outrageous Denial hath spoken. Amen!

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: AboveBoard
I understand completely the definition-flip the OP intended, I mean, I totally get it.

I will say that to look at something or someone with a "skeptical eye" does not mean that one wishes to pick them apart and maliciously trash them. I think it means a desire to not be naive and accept as Gospel Truth whatever is presented, be it a photograph, video, or story. Some people do tend to want what I consider to be an inapplicable form of "proof."

(For example: "testable evidence" - do I need to provide "testable evidence" that I am married to my husband, or merely documentation, photographic and video evidence, and witness accounts? How would we take the event of my marriage into the lab??? Now if my husband wants to know if our kids are really our kids - which they 100% are and it is obvious - but say he had amnesia or something...then he could have a Lab test our DNA to find the inevitable match, were he to be that outrageously skeptical of our relationship. See? Different things can be proven in different ways - not always by a Lab!)

And others seem open-minded and will consider all evidence pretty justly, and even-so reasonable minds may come out with their own, opposite, conclusions. In other words, believing or not believing something to be "real" evidence does not make someone automatically a fool, and sometimes we can agree to disagree.

I think people, like myself, who have had genuinely unexplained phenomena in their experience will tend to be more willing to entertain the idea of it happening to others.

peace,
AB

I absolutely believe that anomalous experiences occur. But I remain skeptical of specific claims. I find ET/abduction claims especially dubious, pending testable evidence, simply because 70 years have been invested in investigating them and not a shred of testable evidence has emerged for that which is claimed to be physical entities in physical craft physically present and doing physical things to actual humans.

I don't even doubt that some people have undergone that which they interpret to be alien abductions. However, that doesn't make them actual alien abductions. I also believe that some people are highly suggestible fantasists, some are mentally ill, and some are just plain liars.

I know people who have been talked into believing that they've been abducted by aliens when they previously had no such notion. They then went on to become proselytizers not only telling others they they, themselves, had been abducted but insisting that the other people to whom they were talking had been abducted, too, and just didn't know it. I've had them say it to me. This "movement" has taken on the attributes of religion and that is frightening. And, like religion, the believers insist that beliefs are facts and become extremely hostile to those who challenge that.

The High Priest of the Church of Outrageous Denial hath spoken. Amen!

I haven't seen any testable evidence coming from you to deny. I suppose if none is forthcoming after a certain point, I'll have to reluctantly conclude that you don't have any and it's not just that you're holding out to include it in your alien abduction book.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: debonkers

This is a terrific post, LaughingGod, I thank you for your input. I think willful ignorance is an apt description for the mindset of those who reject the past 70 years of alien contact.

Past 70 years or 7000 if not more years?


Are you talking about witnessing Flying saucers as per Kenneth Arnolds descriptions or Alien visitation that is said to be happening for way more than 70 years?

For the sake of this particular discussion I referred only to the modern era of UFO sightings, although I hate to use the term"UFO", which is another heavily biased euphemism. Alien contact has most likely gone on for far longer, but my immediate experiences go back only to the late 1950s, so I'm unable to discuss earlier alien contact with certainty. I prefer to discuss only what I know to be factual.

How is UNIDENTIFIED flying objects a biased euphemism. That's what they are.

It's a biased euphemism that traces it's origins back to government.

Its bias is that it lumps trivial sightings in with very specific, detailed reports that defy conventional explanation, and uses the least descriptive terminology possible.

For example, if someone sees a small dot of light in the distance, well, they call it a ufo. But if people see a metallic flying saucer hovering and spinning silently less than twenty feet away in broad daylight, lit up with panels of lights, rectangular windows with inhuman beings visible and making eye contact, and then that ship accelerates instantly to a speed of thousands of miles an hour? Well, they call that a ufo too. Lump it in with the guy who saw Venus.

That's the way the government wants it. They don't want a discussion of enormous metallic piloted vehicles that defy our understanding of propulsion and aeronautics. Just having that conversation would make things so much harder to deny.They want the descriptors limited to "unidentified", "flying", and "object".

And the word "unidentified" is simply not true if the witness sees a metallic craft; a flying saucer, a triangle, boomerang, or cylinder. They identify it as such.

For example, if a person is hit by a car, they describe a silver, four-door sedan but not the make and model, the police report does not say "unidentified object". The witness description raises the information past that level. As does the witness description in so many, many cases too often called "UFOs".

By by insisting on the use of that term, when a witness, or a thousand witnesses come forward with detailed descriptions of these specific types of craft, the authorities always have the easy out of calling it a "UFO".

That's why the term is inadequate, and inherently biased.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: debonkers

My experiences are a fact. Nothing can change that. My experiences are true, they really happened. My experiences are information presented as having objective reality.

Therefore, my experiences are a fact, by definition.

Not when you throw perception into the the mix.

Your perception of your experience is a fact only to you and those that believe you at your word.

That does not make a fact in your perception equal a fact in reality.

Sorry, my experiences fall well within the definition of fact.

You have convinced yourself of that just like most religious believers convince themselves that their beliefs are facts. Beliefs never make something a fact. Never.

You're right, beliefs never make something a fact. Being the truth does.

I'm glad we found common ground on that, at least.

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: debonkers

This is a terrific post, LaughingGod, I thank you for your input. I think willful ignorance is an apt description for the mindset of those who reject the past 70 years of alien contact.

Past 70 years or 7000 if not more years?


Are you talking about witnessing Flying saucers as per Kenneth Arnolds descriptions or Alien visitation that is said to be happening for way more than 70 years?

For the sake of this particular discussion I referred only to the modern era of UFO sightings, although I hate to use the term"UFO", which is another heavily biased euphemism. Alien contact has most likely gone on for far longer, but my immediate experiences go back only to the late 1950s, so I'm unable to discuss earlier alien contact with certainty. I prefer to discuss only what I know to be factual.

How is UNIDENTIFIED flying objects a biased euphemism. That's what they are.

It's a biased euphemism that traces it's origins back to government.

Its bias is that it lumps trivial sightings in with very specific, detailed reports that defy conventional explanation, and uses the least descriptive terminology possible.

For example, if someone sees a small dot of light in the distance, well, they call it a ufo. But if people see a metallic flying saucer hovering and spinning silently less than twenty feet away in broad daylight, lit up with panels of lights, rectangular windows with inhuman beings visible and making eye contact, and then that ship accelerates instantly to a speed of thousands of miles an hour? Well, they call that a ufo too. Lump it in with the guy who saw Venus.

That's the way the government wants it. They don't want a discussion of enormous metallic piloted vehicles that defy our understanding of propulsion and aeronautics. Just having that conversation would make things so much harder to deny.They want the descriptors limited to "unidentified", "flying", and "object".

And the word "unidentified" is simply not true if the witness sees a metallic craft; a flying saucer, a triangle, boomerang, or cylinder. They identify it as such.

For example, if a person is hit by a car, they describe a silver, four-door sedan but not the make and model, the police report does not say "unidentified object". The witness description raises the information past that level. As does the witness description in so many, many cases too often called "UFOs".

By by insisting on the use of that term, when a witness, or a thousand witnesses come forward with detailed descriptions of these specific types of craft, the authorities always have the easy out of calling it a "UFO".

That's why the term is inadequate, and inherently biased.

Researchers have come up with many categories and claimants have come up with many descriptions but they still all fall under the overall category of unidentified origin. We have 70 years worth of detailed reports. How has that established the origin of these objects in the sky? It hasn't. The origin is still unidentified. I agree with you that the term is inadequate but what term would you prefer for a general category that encompasses all sightings?

Your notion that the government doesn't want people to believe in extraterrestrial visitations doesn't hold water. I think the opposite is true. They want us to believe in extraterrestrials and they want to manipulate that belief to serve some unknown agenda. There is no better way to convince someone there's something inside a box that isn't really in there than to point at the box and say, "There's nothing in that box. Don't look in there because it's empty. I'm not going to let you look inside because it's empty." That is essentially what the government has done when it comes to extraterrestrials--after planting stories about extraterrestrials, mind you.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: debonkers

A true skeptic is doubtful of BOTH the government's story and the ufologist's story. But a true skeptic can also favor one opinion over the other (the one with the most objective evidence in its favor). Ufologist has ZERO objective evidence in its favor. Therefore we either believe the government's story or say "I don't know what that is." UFO used to be such a great acronym for those objects, then it got hijacked by the aliens crowd and has become synonymous with aliens.

You don't know what a skeptic is.

Subjective vs. Objective Evidence

Evidence can be of two types: Subjective and Objective. Subjective evidence is the testimony of what happened based on the statements of a witness, or Subject. The quality of the subjective evidence depends upon the honesty of the witness, and their ability to perceive reality. Unfortunately, subjective views are often inconsistent and biased. People may see what they want to see, or what they expect to see. Often, witnesses of the same traffic accident will report contradictory stories. People also may lie.

Subjective evidence should only be used to elaborate upon Objective evidence. "Subjective evidence" is not evidence at all, and can never stand alone, without Objective evidence. "Subjective evidence" is a contradiction of terms, which has somehow become part of our vocabulary. It is only the report of what some person or Subject has allegedly seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. It is relying on someone else's senses, and truthfulness in reporting what was sensed.. The judge and jury is totally dependent upon the reliability of the Subject, in the absence of any Object of perception in the Court room.

Objective evidence is truly deserving of the word "evidence." Objective evidence does not lie. The interpretation of Objective evidence may vary, and that is the purpose of a court room discussion - What can we infer from the objects. Objects are the objects of perception, things that can be seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. They include videos, pictures, fingerprints, DNA, foot prints, tire tracks, tape recordings, phone calls, physical objects, liquids, and gases. Recently, objective evidence can include electronic information, such as emails or files on a computer.

Objective evidence does not change, as long as it is not tampered with. It is what it is. It is unbiased. It has no motives. It has no feelings. It does not care what the outcome of the court trial is. It simply speaks the truth.

Objective evidence is what ufo believers are missing and until you can produce it, you are being intellectually dishonest about aliens visiting this planet.

Well said. Sadly, no matter how many times skeptics provide the definition for skeptic, the Church of ET parishoners won't accept it. They literally can not distinguish between belief and fact.

Says the Bishop of the Church of Denial, right?

It's not my fault you don't have an iota of testable evidence proving your extraterrestrial claim. You must realize that because you've backed off and are now claiming that by aliens you don't necessarily mean extraterrestrials. Eleven pages of people talking about extraterrestrials and you claim that now?

Stop right there.

And AGAIN stop putting words in my mouth and intentionally misrepresenting my position.

I used the word "ALIEN" throughout this entire discussion. I haven't "backed off" on anything.

I'm not sure what you think you stand to gain by pretending I have done otherwise, but I'm getting ready to ignore you if you continue to attempt to misrepresent me.

The term "UFO" (or "UFOB") was officially created in 1953 by the United States Air Force (USAF) to serve as a catch-all for all such reports.

a reply to: Tangerine

Researchers have come up with many categories and claimants have come up with many descriptions but they still all fall under the overall category of unidentified origin. We have 70 years worth of detailed reports. How has that established the origin of these objects in the sky? It hasn't. The origin is still unidentified.

So what? The object has been identified, as a metallic flying saucer, for example. Call it that. To reduce the description to "unidentified flying object" is a biased attempt to diminish the sighting.

You don't need to know the ORIGIN of the car that hit you to describe it as a car. You don't have to reduce the description to "unidentified driving object", do you? Of course not.

The origin is still unidentified. I agree with you that the term is inadequate but what term would you prefer for a general category that encompasses all sightings?

I do not think there is a general category that encompasses all sightings. Nor do I think we need one.

originally posted by: debonkers
a reply to: Tangerine

Researchers have come up with many categories and claimants have come up with many descriptions but they still all fall under the overall category of unidentified origin. We have 70 years worth of detailed reports. How has that established the origin of these objects in the sky? It hasn't. The origin is still unidentified.

So what? The object has been identified, as a metallic flying saucer, for example. Call it that. To reduce the description to "unidentified flying object" is a biased attempt to diminish the sighting.

You don't need to know the ORIGIN of the car that hit you to describe it as a car. You don't have to reduce the description to "unidentified driving object", do you? Of course not.

The origin is still unidentified. I agree with you that the term is inadequate but what term would you prefer for a general category that encompasses all sightings?

I do not think there is a general category that encompasses all sightings. Nor do I think we need one.

OK. Start a Metallic Flying Saucer thread and see where it leads. I suppose it would do no good to point out to you that you couldn't possibly know for certain that it was metallic. Someone can start a Cigar-shaped Flying Saucer Thread.

originally posted by: debonkers
They believe every official government denial no matter how ludicrous, in lock-step with the official story, every step of the way.

This portion of your argument doesn't hold water at all.

For myself (and others, I'm sure) skepticism about the ETH has nothing to do with anything the government says. I'm very skeptical about the government. But the problem is that there simply isn't enough evidence to support the ETH or any other comprehensive explanation for legitimately unexplained events. That's after decades of research by many people who had nothing whatsoever to with the government.