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

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: mirageman

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Rosinitiate

We are always wrong, until we are right, right?
That is my whole point, the idea that we are not aware of, or allowed to know what the truth about this situation really is.

Yes that sums it all up neatly.

I think whilst "Ufology" has been looking for something "alien" (as in extra-terrestrial) then perhaps it has discounted the possibility that the answer is "TOTALLY ALIEN TO US".

I truly do not see the difference friend.

It's easy to visualize an alien flying a spaceship to Mother Earth to take part in our glorious natural resources and bewilderment of our "civilized" behavior. Now try to imagine talking to an invisible elephant in the sky who tells you your entire civilization exists on a flower petal.

Do many humans not do that when they pray?
Is that not the very definition in other words, of god?

originally posted by: Jonjonj
I never said extraterrestrial, you did.

If not extraterrestrial, then what is the argument here? That UFOs are real? Of course they are, by their very definition - they are unidentified, they are flying, and they are apparently some sort of object. Or is it that these observers are observing something they can't explain? Again, of course they are - that's why they get reported. So you have interesting stories, but zero concrete evidence of anything other than that. Take the Zimbabwe UFO incident - what else do you have other than 62 kids telling a story with some drawings? Are they convincing? Hell yes. Does it mean they saw aliens? Absolutely not. If there were even photos of the incident, that would certainly make it more compelling. As a "hardened skeptic" (what does that even mean?), I am certainly open to the possibility that these things are real - I wouldn't be interested in the subject if I weren't - but point me to one reported incident that has something more than an interesting story, or video of distant flashing lights as evidence? Just one. Please.

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Jonjonj
I never said extraterrestrial, you did.

If not extraterrestrial, then what is the argument here? That UFOs are real? Of course they, by their very definition - they are unidentified, they are flying, and they are apparently some sort of object. Or is it that these observers are observing something they can't explain? Again, of course they are - that's why they get reported. So you have interesting stories, but zero concrete evidence of anything other than that. Take the Zimbabwe UFO incident - what else do you have other than 62 kids telling a story with some drawings? Are they convincing? Hell yes. Does it mean they saw aliens? Absolutely not. If there were even photos of the incident, that would certainly make it more compelling. As a "hardened skeptic" (what does that even mean?), I am certainly open to the possibility that these things are real - I wouldn't be interested in the subject if I weren't - but point me to one reported incident that has something more than an interesting story, or video of distant flashing lights as evidence? Just one. Please.

No evidence, even photographic, would constitute proof.
I am not arguing for the belief of alien life here, if you read the thread you would clearly see that.
I am simply saying that the phenomena, whaever it may prove to be, be investigated.
Now here is the thing that really REALLY gets my goat right? Why the HELL do the debunkers/deniers NOT ASK for the same thing?

No, they are happy with the status quo, they are happy with the ridicule related to the subject, they do NOT WANT any research!

Dammit!!!

Is the subject SO unimportant that it needs no investigation? We are searching for theoretical particles that are not even believed to be possible, right now, at CERN, millions upon millions of dollars spent.................

a reply to: Jonjonj

I'm sure you know I can't answer your perfectly valid questions because I don't know what's going on either

But at present there is no level playing field in anything we look at. Although a lot of fingers have been pointed at the "letter agencies" of the Western World.

For instance say 3 decades ago you uncovered the CIA had obtained the movie rights to a Sci-Fi film called "Argo". How the hell would you ever have made any connection to it being part of the Iranian Hostage Crisis back in the late 1970s. We are observers and aren't even pawns in the game. It is all well and truly above our heads.

a reply to: mirageman

And thus, my rage, as the rage of many others before me, is simply dust in the wind. How sad, how sad indeed!

originally posted by: Jonjonj
No evidence, even photographic, would constitute proof.

Well, that's not true - an alien corpse would be nice. Or a craft?

I am not arguing for the belief of alien life here, if you read the thread you would clearly see that.
I am simply saying that the phenomena, whaever it may prove to be, be investigated.
Now here is the thing that really REALLY gets my goat right? Why the HELL do the debunkers/deniers NOT ASK for the same thing?

No, they are happy with the status quo, they are happy with the ridicule related to the subject, they do NOT WANT any research!

Dammit!!!

Well there we certainly agree - I do not throw myself into the denier group, but rather a conscientious skeptic, if you will - but a skeptic nonetheless. The reports absolutely intrigue me and I'm willing to apply some rational thought to any report - of course, the conclusion is almost always the same. But I cannot say, with the thousands and thousands of reports, that the topic should not be investigated.

But still, to the OP's point, thousands and thousands of pieces of anecdotal evidence certainly maks the subject intriguing, but until there is that alien corpse or downed craft (I know, I know, the government would never let us know about that!), I'll stay on my side of the fence, thank you.

And we come full circle to the OP.


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

a reply to: -Blackout-

90% of the skeptics on this subject do not "want to believe" nor do they want to get to the truth

I'm a skeptic, I want to believe.....go ahead and convince me....show me the money!

If people understood the coverup aspect of why there isn't the satisfactory evidence desired, then you wouldn't even be asking for that type of conclusive evidence. Instead, you would take everything that has been brought to the table (eyewitness accounts, whistleblowers, gov. insiders who wish to come clean, everything anecdotal, etc.) to form a general synopsis about there being ET visitation. Once that is done, one can lean more heavily towards this phenomenon actually being true. This is one of those things where you have to look past the nuts and bolts of the dilemma because the nuts and bolts of it has a covert nature to it and it is being severely suppressed.

That's why I don't get so caught up in whether every single case is legitimate or not. If one is willing to attribute as little as 2%, even 1% of cases to be extraterrestrial in origin (out of the thousands of cases and sightings how can at least one not be), then why go through the time and effort of dissecting every single case? Some cases may be hoaxes, some not, but considering the above, it would be a given that ET has been here (even if only once) and that's the bottom line of all this case inspection isn't it?

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: JackHill

CIte your sources and then we can dissect the evidence.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

You need to understand spanish, of course.

Now, this happened in 1978. If anybody want to do the homework (again), you can track back the witnesses on:

- the departure point
- the arrival point
- the rally road checkpoints
- others competitors who got scared for the presence of 'unknown' lights on the road
- the only remaining survivor of the incident

Remember, this happened to competitors on an international rally championship, so check points were present for obvious reasons. The road between Viedma and Pedro Luro is almost a straight line, no shorcuts. They 'missed' 3 checkpoints, passed over the fourth and last, and arrived at destination in an impossible time.

Remember, independant witnesses, other competitors of the rally, after they arrived at destination, claimed to see on the sky 'anomalous' yellow-like lights, before knowing the original story of the victims.

I suspect many of them are still alive. It wasn't 1947, or alike...

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Jonjonj

Yes there is something not quite right about it all.

Let's say an international committee, under the jurisdiction of the UN, was given the funding and resources to investigate whatever the "UFO" phenomenon actually represents.

My guess is that many people simply want a conclusion that it was extra-terrestrial and would never be happy until that conclusion is reached. That is why for perhaps 60 years+ there have been accusations of government cover-ups. Even though such a cover-up would involve massive duplicity by many, many people in power for that time across almost every sovereign nation in the world.

Yet, balancing that view as well, there seems to be another phenomenon at work. Something to consciously or unconsciously de-bunk, and even mock anyone who reports UFOs.

And perhaps that is the "real" reason Ufology never gets anywhere?

A massive cover-up, specially in the US, is the most likely scenario, since the very moment you have reports of people being abducted against their will by unknown aerial vehicles. They obviously must be perfectly aware of these events, despite they publicly try to deny it. It just makes no sense they weren't.

If you have massive reports of regular folks being abducted between your limits, parts of the goverment should be on it since the very beginning, without any doubt. Why the cover up? Well, if we read what the 'abductees' claim about their captors, you will automatically set a silence network over the subject, to quietly study it while you mantain the population calmed, try to decypher their intentions, try to determine if they represent a threat to the system, and try, if possible, to get whatever technological advantage from it.

This is a simple, rational reasoning.

a reply to: JackHill

Thank you for those videos.

Dbl post

originally posted by: JackHill
This is a simple, rational reasoning.

Okay, but now in addition to the irrefutable proof of aliens, you need to provide irrefutable proof of the ongoing, effective cover-up. The cover-up implies aliens? Stanton Friedman likes to wave around government UFO reports with blanked out pages, and then infer that the missing material is somehow the "truth" being covered up. Not just blanked out stuff. You could try that.

a reply to: neoholographic
The skeptic claims there is no evidence because it is quite simply easier that way. By ignoring all evidence the skeptic does not have to confront the obvious, the fact that he is not alone. He does not have to confront his own fear, and ignorance.

Thought the skeptic will claim that he truly believes in life beyond earth, in every single instance, regardless of the evidence, he will deny it.

By "regardless of the evidence" it should be understood that this means ALL evidence without regard of its source. Even if that evidence is collected and analyzed by Earth's greatest acknowledged minds; the skeptic will continue to deny...that is what they do.

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: neoholographic
The skeptic claims there is no evidence because it is quite simply easier that way. By ignoring all evidence the skeptic does not have to confront the obvious, the fact that he is not alone. He does not have to confront his own fear, and ignorance.

Thought the skeptic will claim that he truly believes in life beyond earth, in every single instance, regardless of the evidence, he will deny it.

By "regardless of the evidence" it should be understood that this means ALL evidence without regard of its source. Even if that evidence is collected and analyzed by Earth's greatest acknowledged minds; the skeptic will continue to deny...that is what they do.

Excellent points.

All evidence is equally no evidence and that just shows that many of them are guided by belief not common sense. Like you said, in the end this is what they do. Bury their heads in the sand and deny and give all evidence equal weight as no evidence and unreliable.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: neoholographic
The skeptic claims there is no evidence because it is quite simply easier that way. By ignoring all evidence the skeptic does not have to confront the obvious, the fact that he is not alone. He does not have to confront his own fear, and ignorance.

Thought the skeptic will claim that he truly believes in life beyond earth, in every single instance, regardless of the evidence, he will deny it.

By "regardless of the evidence" it should be understood that this means ALL evidence without regard of its source. Even if that evidence is collected and analyzed by Earth's greatest acknowledged minds; the skeptic will continue to deny...that is what they do.

Excellent points.

All evidence is equally no evidence and that just shows that many of them are guided by belief not common sense. Like you said, in the end this is what they do. Bury their heads in the sand and deny and give all evidence equal weight as no evidence and unreliable.

I try to keep in mind that science is based on empirical observation, and repeatable results. While it is true that many times the events and results can not be repeated, at some point we have to set that aspect aside in order to continue learning. And, IF One actually begins to "pay attention" it can be observed that many of those thing that ne believes are not repeated, actually are.

a reply to: tanka418

Let predisposition be the science of history, and an open mind be that of the present. I agree fully.

Personally I have come to the conclusion that very little supports the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Sufficed to say, the "aliens" are simply falling behind on technology, with only their aerial craft acting as their only trump card. Otherwise, they seem to rely on 1950s and 60s sci-fi B-movies as their existing model of behavior. They frankly haven't got a clue.

That is not to say there isn't another intelligence interacting with us, but I don't think it's extraterrestrial. Frankly I suspect our mysterious friends are a bit more local than they want to let on and are putting on a grand show. Today's alien encounters strangely mirror the faerie encounters of bygone ages, often using many of the same tropes such as kidnappings, strange lights, hybrid babies, and strange circular patterns in fields of grain. It's almost like the actor involved has updated his pop culture references.

Whatever the case may be, I strongly suspect it's far more interesting and perhaps more stranger than the extraterrestrial hypothesis. But it's clear something unusual is happening and the scores of reports indicate that it isn't going away anytime soon. Only a fool would ignore it all.

a reply to: Jonjonj

No evidence, even photographic, would constitute proof.
I am not arguing for the belief of alien life here, if you read the thread you would clearly see that.
I am simply saying that the phenomena, whaever it may prove to be, be investigated.

I cant relate, as the current catalog is more than enough evidence for me, its to the point of willful ignorance.

The govts(at least some) already know the truth, why do they want to create panic by telling the general populace that our sovereign airspace really isnt under our control(panic over abduction scenarios)? I just dont see it happening, from a govt point of view, the status quo is already known and preferred over the unknown scary release of the truth.

Now here is the thing that really REALLY gets my goat right? Why the HELL do the debunkers/deniers NOT ASK for the same thing?

There are some genuinely inquisitive skeptics, while others genuinely think blowing money on ufo research would be a colossal waste of time(i was in this category for a long time, ufo shows eventually got to me)

But beyond curiosity, what do think would really be gained by researching it?