Convincing Someone

Originally posted by PugMan
I am still a skeptic even though I really want to believe. But where I get stuck is in the logic? How can someone be awakened in the middle of the night by a bright light, yet no one else ever sees it?

There are plenty of cases where other people see it also. Ive read a few abduction accounts where several people in the same house see the light, a UFO, or even aliens. There are also cases where neighbours see the light, and even see 'people' walking around the neighbours house at night.

Why do aliens hide in secrecy? Are they afraid of us? World wide panic when supposedly 90% believe in other intelligent life (I read percent that in another thread somewhere, I can't remember.)

Nevertheless, the people who actually do make contact are sometimes so traumatised they end up with post traumatic stress syndrome. If u think u wont panic, just go to bed tonight and in the middle of the night imagine that an alien is standing in ur room. Most people get terrified when a burglar enters their house, let alone an alien that can do all kinds of things.

[edit on 13-9-2005 by plop]

Convincing others is actually a misnomer in my view. We all choose what we accept, and if we don't wish to accept something, nothing will be good enough to change our minds. I haven't seen aliens, ufo's, bodies, etc., but I tend to trust people. Hoaxers and frauds are clearly numerous, but that is not proof that 100% of accounts are fake. Just like the Real Thing, there is only one Coca Cola, lots of copies, imitators, etc., but that does not mean Coke is not real. I saw the autopsy video, read a high level military man's account of Roswell, read Billy Meiers accounts, and read about Elijah, and Ezekial in the Bible having their close encounters. That is just a teeny sample of my reading, and there is enough of it that is unlikely to be a hoax to convince me that they're real. Don't need to see a body in person, or be abducted, just like I don't need to see the Pope to know he's real.
The lack of trust is what leads to so much skepticism. We are not all liars.

Edit: Ooops, let me rephrase that. We are ALL liars. Of course. But we all have some things we just won't lie about.

[edit on 03 22 2005 by BlackGuardXIII]

Originally posted by plop

Nevertheless, the people who actually do make contact are sometimes so traumatised they end up with post traumatic stress syndrome. If u think u wont panic, just go to bed tonight and in the middle of the night imagine that an alien is standing in ur room. Most people get terrified when a burglar enters their house, let alone an alien that can do all kinds of things.

[edit on 13-9-2005 by plop]

I would agree on an individual basis. But on a national or global basis it they were to reveal themselves I doubt most people would barricade themselves in their homes. They'd probably look at each other and said "I told you so."

Plus, it doesn't have to be an alien standing next to my bed as I wake up to terrify me. If Angolina Jolie was standing next to my bed as I woke up I'd probably crap myself.

Plus, it doesn't have to be an alien standing next to my bed as I wake up to terrify me. If Angolina Jolie was standing next to my bed as I woke up I'd probably crap myself. pugman

Wow, that would be a big mistake. That is the last thing I'd do. I'd more likely roll back the covers and pat the sheets, and offer Ms. Jolie the chance to rest a bit.

One other piece of evidence Dulcimer would be all research done by Raymond Fowler. He's got the scientific background and the UFO/EBE/Abduction research background to convince to some degree the more serious skeptics.

Dallas

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I don't need to see the Pope to know he's real.
The lack of trust is what leads to so much skepticism. We are not all liars.

Edit: Ooops, let me rephrase that. We are ALL liars. Of course. But we all have some things we just won't lie about.

[edit on 03 22 2005 by BlackGuardXIII]

I do believe that some of the stories are probably true. But I can't tell which are true and which are not true because once one of them is debunked, then it is hard to believe the rest of them are true. I'm not one to believe that they are all true until they are debunked.

While I do believe the pope is real even though I have never met them, there have never been questions as to his existence either. If many people declared that the pope didn't exist and there was only one or two shakey, blurry videos to try and prove he did exist, with a bunch of fake videos and such, then I might question his existence. I don't find that to be a fair analogy. The fair analogy would be weather or not elvis exists. There are people who believe he is still alive. Have pictures of him and say they have seen him. Therefore, with the logic I have seen in this thread, we should believe he is still alive. The same arguement can be made for Santa Clause, Bigfoot, MJ12, most any "Secret Society", and Jesus, etc. As all of these have some sort of proof of existence. But nothing solid that would conclude beyond a doubt.

In law terms, You might be able to win a civil case with the perponderance of the evidence, but would lose the criminal case with evidence beyond any doubt. As something as significant as this most people would look at this as needing evidence beyond a doubt.

Like I said before, I believe much of this does occur, but who do you believe when people are out there to intentionally deceive you. I know Santa isn't real. But I or nobody else could prove it. I may be wrong, but I don't think you can prove something that doesn't exist. is there?

In law terms, You might be able to win a civil case with the perponderance of the evidence, but would lose the criminal case with evidence beyond any doubt. As something as significant as this most people would look at this as needing evidence beyond a doubt.

Actually I disagree with you on that second part. I think I could win a criminal case if it was based on the simple question of 'Have we been visited'. With the use of the best cases, as discussed in this Thread, expert psychological witnesses to deal with the psych reasons people use to hide from the truth, and topping it off with some of the unquestioned documents that prove the US government's constant interest in the matter. I feel quite confident I could win the case.

And no, I am not a Lawyer.

It is indeed difficult to sort out the good cases from the bad, to do so you need not only technical knowledge but a deep understanding of human nature. In fact I am of the opinion that a knowledge of psychology is the number one tool any UFO investigator needs to be successful.


A.T
(-)

Originally posted by Alexander Tau
It is indeed difficult to sort out the good cases from the bad, to do so you need not only technical knowledge but a deep understanding of human nature. In fact I am of the opinion that a knowledge of psychology is the number one tool any UFO investigator needs to be successful.

So basically, in order to convince skeptics, the best way may be to give them a psychology lesson first, then introduce the facts? Now that might work a little more than saying aliens are here because I saw them or because I believe this guy who wrote a book. I would think most skeptics are probably more skeptical of the person than of the actual information. That's what happens to me a lot. I would love to believe a few of the big names in UFO research but so many of them have been discredited (rightly or wrongly). I just wish for definitive proof that can't be questioned.

Can aliens bring pictures back from their home? I would love to see that.

I have found a direct correlation between how distrustful someone is of people in general and their willingness to accept UFO evidence. So I agree 100% with your last post Pug.

What you can do though to help balance things out is to examine the person doing the debunking themselves. If you can see flaws in their approach, not technical ones but personal ones, then it becomes harder to accept their version of the truth. My number one question: Are they fair and comprehensive in their presentation. Even the worst of cases has something positive about it, do they acknowledge that or ignore it?

Case in point, Kevin Randle. He has done research, he has done debunking. He cheats, he manipulates the reader to achieve the desired results. I have a book called 'The Abduction Enigma' which is the worst case of intellectual bait and switch I have ever seen. First part of the book, Abductions are real and possibly have an ET basis. Then he one by one smears every researcher he has just spent chapters qouting as if he believed them. It is ugly, and unfair.

One thing that really jumped out at me was in his discussion of the Hill case he totally ignored the most powerful evidence, the Star map. He put that at the very end of the book in it's own little appendix. His arguement was that other people have different interpretations of what it means.

And the very worst part, the part that even having to say what I am about to say makes me want to choke on my on words: His conclusions are mostly correct! At least I think so. (Alien Abductions have happened, but the majority of reported cases are something else).

If something is a hoax then a fair presentation of the facts should be enough to make the case.


A.T
(-)