Why does the U.F.O. skeptic treat all all evidence as equally not evidence?

originally posted by: Astyanax
Of course you aren't. We will just continue to dismiss your claims as crackpot gibberish.

Yep just about what I expected; you have utterly failed. You can not disprove anything I've said, so the only solution is try to shift everything back on me. That is your bad and failure.

Hiding your head in the sand won't change the reality you are afraid to face.

a reply to: Diablos

Oh an EE are we?

Sorry man, but, I do not subscribe to Karl's notions...I think they are seriously in error. But then I am more of a classical science type...it's what I learned.

You also need to understand that they are not at the heart of modern science...AND, One doesn't need the idea of falsifiability in order to make predictions, and test them.

originally posted by: largo
a reply to: redtic

The problem for YOU in particular, is that YOU have not seen evidence.

Yes, that is precisely the problem. Had I seen something I thoroughly cannot explain, I'm sure my stance on the matter would change. Problem is I haven't and I suspect I won't..

Therefore YOU feel that YOUR judgements in this matter are .........what?

If by judgements you mean opinions, then, yes, they are just that - opinions. I cannot say that someone else's observations are incorrect, only that that they alone don't constitute a burden of proof for ME.

YOU do not know anything through personal experience. YOU do not accept anyone elses' experiences. YOU have made a determination through what logical process?

I accept that others have had experiences - problem is they have no proof of those experiences. Logic IS the process.

None.
But you have an opinion which YOU value and need to express.

Well, yes - don't you? I'd like to think we all do.

We who have had direct knowledge of this form of weirdness, find YOU and the folks who feel that absolute skepticism running through their brains about this subject, find Y'ALL to be laughable.
It's not a kind laugh.

Laugh all you want... wait, did you say direct knowledge? Can you share this direct knowledge?

I do NOT know that aliens are the cause for UFOs. I DO know that UFOs exist. Aliens are as good a cause as a secret society, renegade government agencies, Atlanteans or other undiscovered beings.

I admit to ignorance but I do not use MY ignorance to guide me except as to where to look next.
Try that and honestly wait to be able to contribute something before you burden us with 'factoids, opinions, beliefs and feelings' generated from the ether.

I honestly don't know what that last part means. It's MY skepticism and apparently YOUR ignorance, so what does MY skepticism have to do with YOU? In the end, it's opinion. For all I know, half the people walking around this earth are alien lifeforms. In an objective world, MY skepticism is just as valid as YOUR belief. I choose not to believe something just because a bunch of people tell me it happened - you choose to believe. Ce la vie.

skeptics THINK that they got all the answers to every question in the Universe. In other words, they are close minded and refute all evidence that opposes their beliefs. Simple as that.

originally posted by: Zeus050
skeptics THINK that they got all the answers to every question in the Universe. In other words, they are close minded and refute all evidence that opposes their beliefs. Simple as that.

Well...as has been shown here; the "skeptics" don't have ANY answers, and in fact, they don't even know the questions...all they seem to have is a loud opinion.

Unfortunately, their opinion has no foundation. It would appear that the easiest way to "trip up" a pseudo skeptic is to use REAL Science, and of course, a little real logic. These skeptics, in reality have no case, and all One really needs do is prosecute the realities of the case...skeptics can not prevail against the truth.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Zeus050
skeptics THINK that they got all the answers to every question in the Universe. In other words, they are close minded and refute all evidence that opposes their beliefs. Simple as that.

Well...as has been shown here; the "skeptics" don't have ANY answers, and in fact, they don't even know the questions...all they seem to have is a loud opinion.

Unfortunately, their opinion has no foundation. It would appear that the easiest way to "trip up" a pseudo skeptic is to use REAAL Science, and of course, a little real logic. These skeptics, in reality have no case, and all One really needs do is prosecute the realities of the case...skeptics can not prevail against the truth.

Still waiting for you to show your math.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Zeus050
skeptics THINK that they got all the answers to every question in the Universe. In other words, they are close minded and refute all evidence that opposes their beliefs. Simple as that.

Well...as has been shown here; the "skeptics" don't have ANY answers, and in fact, they don't even know the questions...all they seem to have is a loud opinion.

Unfortunately, their opinion has no foundation. It would appear that the easiest way to "trip up" a pseudo skeptic is to use REAAL Science, and of course, a little real logic. These skeptics, in reality have no case, and all One really needs do is prosecute the realities of the case...skeptics can not prevail against the truth.

Still waiting for you to show your math.

And just what "math" would that be? I've shown you everything required...yet you persist in "not seeing" it...doesn't speak well for you...

But, IF can actually get specific...So...what "math" would you like to see?

By the way; ALL of the "math" I've used has been the usual stuff taught in first year calculus.

a reply to: draknoir2

If you consider "fraud" the failure to follow through with one's "scientific" claims, then you need to review your post history.

Ahh yes posting history,

I believe you are arguing with a person that has claimed to be able summon ufos a while back on ATS, I might have the poster confused with another but am 80% certain it was Tanka that made such claims and when asking for video or photographic evidence danced around the question with the aliens having the ability to not be photographed or there something along those lines.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

One of many such wild claims.

Wouldn't call it arguing... just continuing a years long tradition of trying to get him to substantiate anything he asserts. Apparently it's still the skeptics' fault that he cannot - we just aren't trying hard enough to prove his claims for him.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: draknoir2

If you consider "fraud" the failure to follow through with one's "scientific" claims, then you need to review your post history.

Ahh yes posting history,

I believe you are arguing with a person that has claimed to be able summon ufos a while back on ATS, I might have the poster confused with another but am 80% certain it was Tanka that made such claims and when asking for video or photographic evidence danced around the question with the aliens having the ability to not be photographed or there something along those lines.

Wow...how events can be totally is-understood!

Yes, I made that prediction, but you have everything else wrong...
At the end, by way of evidence; I submitted a report from NUFORC (National UFO Reporting Center).

Link

Don't know "where" you got your info, but it wasn't a very good source, or, you don't understand well...either way you are quite wrong.

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: InhaleExhale

One of many such wild claims.

Wouldn't call it arguing... just continuing a years long tradition of trying to get him to substantiate anything he asserts. Apparently it's still the skeptics' fault that he cannot - we just aren't trying hard enough to prove his claims for him.

And again we see that these "skeptics" will say just about anything to attempt t gain some small amount of credibility.

draknoir2...very specifically state what you feel I've left out, and I'll provide it. Though, be mindful, that it must be something that I've "left out"...when asked in the past, all you have been able to come up with is your own fantasy...so I wan a real instance of my omission.

I do believe however, that this is only your failure, based on your unwillingness to accept reality. (Years long tradition)

So...again I ask; WTF are you talking about?!!

a reply to: tanka418

Don't know "where" you got your info

from what you posted on ATS previously,

I guess my memory is quite fine and it was you, no you didn't predict anything to my recollection but claimed to be able summon ufos with your own will.

but it wasn't a very good source,

Yes, I suspected where the info came from was a bad source as soon as the source of that info started doing the dance they seem to have made into a work of art these days,

well done, agents of disinfo would be proud if you were one of their disciples and not just another 'disprove me or you are fraud' internet poster that suffers from any number of issues concerning perception of a shared reality.

Please don't reply, as I wont be directing anymore posts to you if I do post in this thread

I have had enough discussions with random internet posters that have addictions they can not realize and will do anything to deny as long as they are anonymous and have others of their like supporting their delusions and internet conspiracy addictions.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

Ya know what I like about the ole "disprove me or your a fraud" thing?

It works...you see...I've used a very great deal of real science in my work...and, in as much as I have provided access to that science, and, you have stated that I'm wrong. Then the burden of proof rests solidly on your shoulders.

You are unable to provide such "proof", you can't even provide weak evidence. So...You are wrong...you have not proven anything...but, I have.

So all of y'all would do well to simply STFU until you actually have something.

ETA:
So...is that post the new tactic? Since you have nothing; use what's available, and misrepresent all of it? Isn't that the same as lying? Oh, almost forgot the "making stuff up" part...

Ya know, I would prefer to attribute this to our intentional/willful ignorance.

"This is true."

"Why is this true?"

"Science."

"What science?"

"That's up to you."

Harte

a reply to: Harte
Just wondering; is it possible for you to express anything other than your prejudices and unwillingness to understand?

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: Harte
Just wondering; is it possible for you to express anything other than your prejudices and unwillingness to understand?

I just state the facts.

It's up to you to disprove them.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

I see what you are trying to do here, but even you know that you are misrepresenting the reality.
I have at every turn presented data, source, and logic; it is YOU who are refusing to recognize the simple reality of the data I've presented.

IF Willful ignorance is all you have, go away. IF on the other hand you actually have something, speak up.

There is no real evidence that Earth has been visited by beings from another planet. Nothing that you can hold in your hand and show as proof.

originally posted by: Cyberspy
There is no real evidence that Earth has been visited by beings from another planet. Nothing that you can hold in your hand and show as proof.

Here something you can "hold"...in your hand, or wherever...


This is a modern representation of the Betty Hill map, and the probability of this existing randomly is 2.0910440582983083453568366685486e-161 this is the first 14 terms of 300 billion factorial.

What this means is that Betty did not "make this up randomly", and it represents a relatively accurate memory, and a relatively accurate map of near-by stars that make a trade/exploration route. The stars represented on the map are a good selection of what even Terrestrial science would consider "interesting" (and, in fact, at least One is on a list known as "Habcat").

ETA: It should be understood that the application of computer vision template matching methods will verify the stars in the "view". That however is something that you must do independently.

@harte; did I show enough for you?

All of y'all should understand that I'm not here to teach you mathematics, that is your responsibility. So, IF you don't understand...try your local community college!

Hi Tank,

As someone who used to believe as a kid in the 70s. I'm very familiar with the Betty and Barney Hill story. What she said was all while under hypnosis. A very suggestive state. I can randomly through paint on the wall and come up with just as good as star chart.