It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What's a believer that has had experiences? neither a denier or a believer but an experiencer?

I guess i can't really speak for the believer and disbeliver crowd. My experiences were a while a go now and i am begining to forget what it feels like to be confused.


I appreciate your position, AnuTyr. Once you know first-hand that alien contact is true, the debate is over. It's easy to lose patience with people who won't accept your experience.


Why should someone accept your experience as fact? Fact is based on testable evidence only not the claims of others.


Where in my post am I asking you to accept my experience as fact?

And you lack an understanding of the word fact. Your claim that a fact must be based on testable evidence only is simply false.

Here's a few definitions of the word fact:

MacMillan dictionary- 1. a piece of true information
2. things that are true or that really happened, rather than things that are imaginary or not true

Merriam-Webster- 1. a piece of information presented as having objective reality
2. something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

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.




posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: debonkers
The UFO and alien discussion, at least in internet forums such as this one, often mirror partisan political debate in significant ways. One is the use of positioning; of both yourself and the opposition. To use euphemisms and labeling to establish your view in a more favorable light, and to paint the other side as less legitimate.

Quite often in this debate I hear one side identify themselves as skeptics. The people who deny alien contact often call themselves skeptics. There are forums devoted to skeptics, and a quick visit to one of them will confirm that the self-identified "skeptic" most often rejects the idea that alien contact has occurred, and embraces wholeheartedly the official proclamations of denial.

Those who accept the notion of alien contact being true, have basically ceded the high ground on this, seldom challenging their opponents on their claims of the skeptical position.

Why we let this fallacy continue is beyond me, it's time we called them to the carpet on this one.

Here is the definition of Skeptic:

"noun 1. a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions."

So wait a minute...How can the people who believe 70 years of official government denials, denials from mainstream celebrity scientists, mainstream news organizations, intelligence agencies, and academia, how can these people honestly claim to be skeptics?

They can't. Not legitimately, anyway.

They believe every denial from official sources, no matter how far-fetched and unworkable. That isn't a skeptic. Quite the opposite. That's a devotee. Or more accurately, that's a believer.

They believe the official story that the alien bodies at Roswell were crash test dummies, they ate it up with a spoon and asked for more. And they went on believing it long after it was established as fact that Roswell took place six years before the government used test dummies. Some still believe it. Where is the skepticism?

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

The Phoenix craft? Just planes in formation? Okay!

Rendlesham? Just lights from a distant church? Okay!

The flying saucer at O'Hare airport? Just a weather event? Okay!

Stephansville? Top secret high tech? Okay!

When it comes to UFOs and aliens, these people never met an official story they didn't like.

Are these people Skeptics? Not by any standard.

No, the true skeptics are those that doubt the official accepted opinion. Those who hold to the position that alien contact has occurred and is occurring? They are the true skeptics.

Those who believe the eyewitnesses and the abductees, despite their being marginalized and ridiculed by official sources and in the mainstream press? They are the true skeptics.

It's time for supporters of alien contact to reclaim the title "Skeptic", don't you think?

So then what will we call those that actually believe every official denial? Hmm. How about believer.



You have contradicted the accurate definition of skeptic that YOU provided (ie. a person inclined to question or doubt...) by claiming that skeptics reject the idea that aliens have visited earth. No, skeptics DOUBT or QUESTION the claim that aliens have visited earth. You have further mischaracterized skeptics as believing government claims when that which you really mean to say is that skeptics haven't accepted your claims. We don't accept your claims as fact because you have failed to back your claims (ie. extraterrestials have visited earth and abducted people) with testable evidence.

Perhaps you should reread the definition of skeptic that you posted and ponder it.

Perhaps you would care to take this opportunity to cite the testable evidence proving that extraterrestrials have visited earth and abducted people. That would settle the issue.


No, I stand by my original post, and you've said nothing that makes my point any less valid.

As long as you embrace the official governmental, academic, and mainstream media viewpoint, you have no justification for calling yourself a skeptic.

Conformist? Yes.

Skeptic? No.

Ponder it yourself. Thanks for your post.


I'm not at all surprised that you would stand by your original post. However, that in no way makes it valid. My official position is that YOU have not presented an iota of testable evidence proving that extraterrestrials exist and have visited earth and abducted people. I am skeptical that you ever will.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Are you invited? I don't see your name on the list...



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What's a believer that has had experiences? neither a denier or a believer but an experiencer?

I guess i can't really speak for the believer and disbeliver crowd. My experiences were a while a go now and i am begining to forget what it feels like to be confused.


I appreciate your position, AnuTyr. Once you know first-hand that alien contact is true, the debate is over. It's easy to lose patience with people who won't accept your experience.


Why should someone accept your experience as fact? Fact is based on testable evidence only not the claims of others.


Where in my post am I asking you to accept my experience as fact?

And you lack an understanding of the word fact. Your claim that a fact must be based on testable evidence only is simply false.

Here's a few definitions of the word fact:

MacMillan dictionary- 1. a piece of true information
2. things that are true or that really happened, rather than things that are imaginary or not true

Merriam-Webster- 1. a piece of information presented as having objective reality
2. something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

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.



I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the scientific method. You are confusing science with religion.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: debonkers
Therefore, my experiences are a fact, by definition.


Actually not all experiences are fact. I work with patients that have hallucinations. To them, they are experiencing things that are not real, therefore there experiences are not fact, to the extent they actually happened, though they are very real to the patient.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: debonkers

Willful ignorance is what makes someone think people should except something as fact with no evidence.


It's "accept". Not "except".



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: debonkers

Correct. Not that anyone cares and not that it strengthens your argument. In fact the only reason to point it out would be to use a logical fallacy since actual logic does not help you.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: debonkers
The UFO and alien discussion, at least in internet forums such as this one, often mirror partisan political debate in significant ways. One is the use of positioning; of both yourself and the opposition. To use euphemisms and labeling to establish your view in a more favorable light, and to paint the other side as less legitimate.

Quite often in this debate I hear one side identify themselves as skeptics. The people who deny alien contact often call themselves skeptics. There are forums devoted to skeptics, and a quick visit to one of them will confirm that the self-identified "skeptic" most often rejects the idea that alien contact has occurred, and embraces wholeheartedly the official proclamations of denial.

Those who accept the notion of alien contact being true, have basically ceded the high ground on this, seldom challenging their opponents on their claims of the skeptical position.

Why we let this fallacy continue is beyond me, it's time we called them to the carpet on this one.

Here is the definition of Skeptic:

"noun 1. a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions."

So wait a minute...How can the people who believe 70 years of official government denials, denials from mainstream celebrity scientists, mainstream news organizations, intelligence agencies, and academia, how can these people honestly claim to be skeptics?

They can't. Not legitimately, anyway.

They believe every denial from official sources, no matter how far-fetched and unworkable. That isn't a skeptic. Quite the opposite. That's a devotee. Or more accurately, that's a believer.

They believe the official story that the alien bodies at Roswell were crash test dummies, they ate it up with a spoon and asked for more. And they went on believing it long after it was established as fact that Roswell took place six years before the government used test dummies. Some still believe it. Where is the skepticism?

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

The Phoenix craft? Just planes in formation? Okay!

Rendlesham? Just lights from a distant church? Okay!

The flying saucer at O'Hare airport? Just a weather event? Okay!

Stephansville? Top secret high tech? Okay!

When it comes to UFOs and aliens, these people never met an official story they didn't like.

Are these people Skeptics? Not by any standard.

No, the true skeptics are those that doubt the official accepted opinion. Those who hold to the position that alien contact has occurred and is occurring? They are the true skeptics.

Those who believe the eyewitnesses and the abductees, despite their being marginalized and ridiculed by official sources and in the mainstream press? They are the true skeptics.

It's time for supporters of alien contact to reclaim the title "Skeptic", don't you think?

So then what will we call those that actually believe every official denial? Hmm. How about believer.



You have contradicted the accurate definition of skeptic that YOU provided (ie. a person inclined to question or doubt...) by claiming that skeptics reject the idea that aliens have visited earth. No, skeptics DOUBT or QUESTION the claim that aliens have visited earth. You have further mischaracterized skeptics as believing government claims when that which you really mean to say is that skeptics haven't accepted your claims. We don't accept your claims as fact because you have failed to back your claims (ie. extraterrestials have visited earth and abducted people) with testable evidence.

Perhaps you should reread the definition of skeptic that you posted and ponder it.

Perhaps you would care to take this opportunity to cite the testable evidence proving that extraterrestrials have visited earth and abducted people. That would settle the issue.


No, I stand by my original post, and you've said nothing that makes my point any less valid.

As long as you embrace the official governmental, academic, and mainstream media viewpoint, you have no justification for calling yourself a skeptic.

Conformist? Yes.

Skeptic? No.

Ponder it yourself. Thanks for your post.


My official position is that YOU have not presented an iota of testable evidence proving that extraterrestrials exist and have visited earth and abducted people. I am skeptical that you ever will.


Whatever evidenciary standard you set for yourself as a threshold of belief is both your choice and your responsibility. I shouldn't have to point this out to you. Please don't involve me in your personal quest. I don't have the ability to change your mind, that's up to you. And I haven't the obligation or desire to to prove myself to your satisfaction.

If YOU (capitals yours) require what you describe as "testable evidence" to accept alien contact as fact, or my experiences as fact, you do have options:

1. Define your evidenciary requirements in very specific terms, and determine a method to acquire and test the evidence you require.

-Or-

2. Remain unconvinced that alien contact is a fact.

Hope that helped.


edit on 2-2-2015 by debonkers because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-2-2015 by debonkers because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

Japan Airlines famous case proves they visited here. A humongous walnut shaped craft that dwarfed the 747 was seen by the crew and passengers.
Callahan was the division chief in the FAA who investigated the case. Radar records he still has primary and secondary confirm the object and matched the traffic movements with the audio recordings of what the pilots were saying.

there's is just so much proof with this single case that to attempt to say it didn't happen, or that it was man made is to say while looking in a mirror that you do not believe in reality.


How does JAL 1628 prove that alien beings have visited Earth? You have a pilot with a history of seeing alien "motherships." You have two other crew members that didn't see this supposed gigantic walnut shaped craft. To see how ridiculous that is, here's the pilots drawing in comparison to the size of a jumbo jet:


His crew members didn't see it, Fairbanks radar in direct line with JAL didn't pick it up, two other flights directed to intercept 1628 for the purpose of identifying the pilots claim didn't see it, this radar data was spotty and not a consistent signal, and on. There's a thread that gives a realistic Earthly possibility to what it was. There's also a 377 page PDF report with transcripts of the FAA interviews, the exchanges between JAL 1628 and air traffic controllers, and even the short story "Meeting The Future" that Terauchi (pilot) wrote after the incident.

There's plenty of information out there to find if you search. Therein lies a big part of the problem with believers- They don't search for anything outside of what they read online or see on TV.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: debonkers
Therefore, my experiences are a fact, by definition.


Actually not all experiences are fact. I work with patients that have hallucinations. To them, they are experiencing things that are not real, therefore there experiences are not fact, to the extent they actually happened, though they are very real to the patient.


Even if "real" they wouldn't be fact until testable evidence made them fact.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: debonkers
The UFO and alien discussion, at least in internet forums such as this one, often mirror partisan political debate in significant ways. One is the use of positioning; of both yourself and the opposition. To use euphemisms and labeling to establish your view in a more favorable light, and to paint the other side as less legitimate.

Quite often in this debate I hear one side identify themselves as skeptics. The people who deny alien contact often call themselves skeptics. There are forums devoted to skeptics, and a quick visit to one of them will confirm that the self-identified "skeptic" most often rejects the idea that alien contact has occurred, and embraces wholeheartedly the official proclamations of denial.

Those who accept the notion of alien contact being true, have basically ceded the high ground on this, seldom challenging their opponents on their claims of the skeptical position.

Why we let this fallacy continue is beyond me, it's time we called them to the carpet on this one.

Here is the definition of Skeptic:

"noun 1. a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions."

So wait a minute...How can the people who believe 70 years of official government denials, denials from mainstream celebrity scientists, mainstream news organizations, intelligence agencies, and academia, how can these people honestly claim to be skeptics?

They can't. Not legitimately, anyway.

They believe every denial from official sources, no matter how far-fetched and unworkable. That isn't a skeptic. Quite the opposite. That's a devotee. Or more accurately, that's a believer.

They believe the official story that the alien bodies at Roswell were crash test dummies, they ate it up with a spoon and asked for more. And they went on believing it long after it was established as fact that Roswell took place six years before the government used test dummies. Some still believe it. Where is the skepticism?

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

The Phoenix craft? Just planes in formation? Okay!

Rendlesham? Just lights from a distant church? Okay!

The flying saucer at O'Hare airport? Just a weather event? Okay!

Stephansville? Top secret high tech? Okay!

When it comes to UFOs and aliens, these people never met an official story they didn't like.

Are these people Skeptics? Not by any standard.

No, the true skeptics are those that doubt the official accepted opinion. Those who hold to the position that alien contact has occurred and is occurring? They are the true skeptics.

Those who believe the eyewitnesses and the abductees, despite their being marginalized and ridiculed by official sources and in the mainstream press? They are the true skeptics.

It's time for supporters of alien contact to reclaim the title "Skeptic", don't you think?

So then what will we call those that actually believe every official denial? Hmm. How about believer.



You have contradicted the accurate definition of skeptic that YOU provided (ie. a person inclined to question or doubt...) by claiming that skeptics reject the idea that aliens have visited earth. No, skeptics DOUBT or QUESTION the claim that aliens have visited earth. You have further mischaracterized skeptics as believing government claims when that which you really mean to say is that skeptics haven't accepted your claims. We don't accept your claims as fact because you have failed to back your claims (ie. extraterrestials have visited earth and abducted people) with testable evidence.

Perhaps you should reread the definition of skeptic that you posted and ponder it.

Perhaps you would care to take this opportunity to cite the testable evidence proving that extraterrestrials have visited earth and abducted people. That would settle the issue.


No, I stand by my original post, and you've said nothing that makes my point any less valid.

As long as you embrace the official governmental, academic, and mainstream media viewpoint, you have no justification for calling yourself a skeptic.

Conformist? Yes.

Skeptic? No.

Ponder it yourself. Thanks for your post.


I'm not at all surprised that you would stand by your original post. However, that in no way makes it valid. My official position is that YOU have not presented an iota of testable evidence proving that extraterrestrials exist and have visited earth and abducted people. I am skeptical that you ever will.


If YOU (capitals yours) require what you describe as "testable evidence" to accept alien contact as fact, or my experiences as fact, you do have options:

1. Define your evidenciary requirements in very specific terms, and determine a method to acquire and test the evidence you require.

-Or-

2. Remain unconvinced that alien contact is a fact.

Hope that helped.



The evidentiary requirements are those established by science (ie. the scientific method).

edit on 2-2-2015 by Tangerine because: typo correction



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: debonkers
If YOU (capitals yours) require what you describe as "testable evidence" to accept alien contact as fact, or my experiences as fact, you do have options:

1. Define your evidenciary requirements in very specific terms, and determine a method to acquire and test the evidence you require.

-Or-

2. Remain unconvinced that alien contact is a fact.

Hope that helped.


Actually no, it's you who must do that. When you make a claim it is not others who must back it up, it's you. You decide what would constitute evidence to an unbiased person, get the evidence, and present it. That evidence will be weighed and found sufficient or lacking. If found lacking you then do it again.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: game over man

The OP is saying you should be skeptical of the official story...

No. He said unless you believe aliens have and still visit Earth you can not be a skeptic. I just quoted him.

Those who hold to the position that alien contact has occurred and is occurring? They are the true skeptics.

You can twist and turn all day, it will not change his position.


Really?! Stop arguing with someone who is agreeing with you! I quoted the OP in my post that you replied to and ignored that. For crying out loud. The OP said A LOT. You really should have replied yes the OP did say that because you proved the OP did by quoting it, but the OP later said this, and I am quoting that.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

Japan Airlines famous case proves they visited here. A humongous walnut shaped craft that dwarfed the 747 was seen by the crew and passengers.
Callahan was the division chief in the FAA who investigated the case. Radar records he still has primary and secondary confirm the object and matched the traffic movements with the audio recordings of what the pilots were saying.

there's is just so much proof with this single case that to attempt to say it didn't happen, or that it was man made is to say while looking in a mirror that you do not believe in reality.


How does JAL 1628 prove that alien beings have visited Earth? You have a pilot with a history of seeing alien "motherships." You have two other crew members that didn't see this supposed gigantic walnut shaped craft. To see how ridiculous that is, here's the pilots drawing in comparison to the size of a jumbo jet:


His crew members didn't see it, Fairbanks radar in direct line with JAL didn't pick it up, two other flights directed to intercept 1628 for the purpose of identifying the pilots claim didn't see it, this radar data was spotty and not a consistent signal, and on. There's a thread that gives a realistic Earthly possibility to what it was. There's also a 377 page PDF report with transcripts of the FAA interviews, the exchanges between JAL 1628 and air traffic controllers, and even the short story "Meeting The Future" that Terauchi (pilot) wrote after the incident.

There's plenty of information out there to find if you search. Therein lies a big part of the problem with believers- They don't search for anything outside of what they read online or see on TV.


Even if the others had seen it, it still wouldn't be testable evidence that extraterrestrials exist, visit earth and abduct people. If they do exist, I think it's more likely they're dropping off people.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

The pilot never before saw anything before that flight.

Happy misrepresenting and shilling to you today.

Just making up things all for the benefit of debunking history. James Callahan has a million times more credibility than you do. I will take his word over anyone else any day. Especially over a wannabe shill
That's a fact everyone can take to the bank.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 01:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: debonkers


I think willful ignorance

Yes, that is a large part of the problem. Just go believe in aliens. nobody is stopping you. why the constant whining and complaining? I don't believe in your aliens. so what? go have a mountain of evidence party. have fun.



Will do, thanks.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

The pilot never before saw anything before that flight.

Happy misrepresenting and shilling to you today.

Are you sure about that? You are wrong.

The FAA data package reveals Terauchi to be a "UFO repeater," with two other UFO sightings prior to November 17, and two more this past January

In his report to the FAA, he expressed the hope that "we humans will meet them in the new future"

here are so many sources for 'lights in the sky' (including 'lights on the ground,' which Terauchi agreed with the FAA was an explanation for his January 11 UFO sighting)


So basically we have a guy who has multiple reports of seeing UFO's when none are present, and his crew only saw lights (which can be explained) and he was the only one who saw a giant mothership.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 01:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed James Callahan has a million times more credibility than you do. I will take his word over anyone else any day.

Except Callahan and Kean lied. Two people who were at the FAA meeting that Callahan claims was "covered up" heard that he was misrepresenting the meeting and tried to talk to them. They went to Leslie Kean who refused to give them Callahan's contact information, and did not believe the two men were at the meeting. After proving they were there and were first hand witnesses that Callahan's error she stopped responding. She later published a book ignoring the witnesses and perpetuating Callahan's lie.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 01:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What's a believer that has had experiences? neither a denier or a believer but an experiencer?

I guess i can't really speak for the believer and disbeliver crowd. My experiences were a while a go now and i am begining to forget what it feels like to be confused.


I appreciate your position, AnuTyr. Once you know first-hand that alien contact is true, the debate is over. It's easy to lose patience with people who won't accept your experience.


Why should someone accept your experience as fact? Fact is based on testable evidence only not the claims of others.


Where in my post am I asking you to accept my experience as fact?

And you lack an understanding of the word fact. Your claim that a fact must be based on testable evidence only is simply false.

Here's a few definitions of the word fact:

MacMillan dictionary- 1. a piece of true information
2. things that are true or that really happened, rather than things that are imaginary or not true

Merriam-Webster- 1. a piece of information presented as having objective reality
2. something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

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.



I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the scientific method. You are confusing science with religion.


It is you who seems to be confused, for nowhere in my post do I mention science or religion. Please do not fabricate statements and attribute them to me.

My experiences fall well within the definition of fact, as established above. The scientific method has no bearing in any way on either alien contact or my experiences being matters of fact.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: debonkers

He/she has been on that "testable evidence" binge for a couple weeks straight, but never observes any in his/her own arguments.

Until the ostrich feels the bite of the panther's jaws upon him, the panther has no teeth.








 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join