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.

 

Skeptics need to smell the coffee about ufology

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Whoever said eyewitness accounts don't hold alot of weight doesn't know how are court system works.

Eyewitness accounts is direct evidence. Any lawyer worth his/her salt will tell you eyewitness accounts is the most important testimony.

If someone is shot and you have 3 witnesses identify the murderer vs. no eyewitnesses, you can ask any lawyer which one they will prefer and of course they want the witnesses.

With ufology, radical skeptics turn logic on it's head.

We send people to prison based on the reason of 12 individuals. So Direct and Circumstantial evidence is a powerful tool that helps guide us to the truth.

With ufology you have some credible eyewitnesses which is direct evidence.

The radical skeptic just has opinion. Their opinion in their mind is a subsitute for evidence.

So when Presidents, pilots, police officers and the military report these things, the skeptic says it can't be or they must have saw something else. This is opinion.

Say the 3 witnesses who saw the person shot were in court and someone who lived miles away came in court and said I don't think it happened. They would be laughed out of court.

The radical skeptic is a true believer in their skepticism.

With ufology you have direct and circumstantial evidence.

DIRECT EVIDENCE - Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact, such as testimony of a witness who says she saw a defendant pointing a gun at a victim during a robbery. Direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.

www.lectlaw.com...

With ufology you have both.

Direct evidence - Eyewitness accounts from Presidents, pilots, police officers and more.

Circumstantial evidence - cave paintings, paintings, ancient manuscripts, pictures and video.

The radical skeptic has zero evidence just opinion and their pre-existing belief.

The radical skeptic should not even be debated because they have no evidence to bring to the table. The only reason why they are given any weight is because the embedded skepticism about ufology within the fabric of society.

The radical skeptic is saying don't apply reason to the mountains of evidence that supports ufology. They want you to suspend reason until a U.F.O. lands on the front yard.

There's no REASONABLE doubt that U.F.O.'s exist. The radical skeptic throws reason out of the window and they substitute their opinion.



[edit on 22-1-2008 by polomontana]




posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
There's a world of difference between a murder and a UFO. People are going to require a lot more evidence for UFOs than they will for a murder. Whereas a murder may affect a few people, the existence of an alien presence on Earth would completely change everything for everyone. And while I do believe in their existence I also realize that not everything that is presented as evidence is legitimate and everything that is presented must be thoroughly investigated from a skeptical view point, as that will be the only way to get strong enough evidence to begin changing people's minds. Besides, a jury would never convict on testimony alone, they will need irrefutable physical evidence to back up that testimony.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
polomontana:

"Direct evidence - Eyewitness accounts from Presidents, pilots, police officers and more."

There are eyewitness accounts from very credible folks. Eyewitness acounts of Something. Why do they have to be visiting spaceships?
Something could be anything even a light in the sky. Actualy, a host of any possibilities.
I will remain a skeptic and I love the coffee. The age of photo/video evidence cannot be relied on anymore. Just too easy to manipulate.

Another problem to consider is this. Back in 2004 or so, here in Florida down in the Keys, a busload of about 50 witnesses and the driver, saw the "Skunk Ape" - Florida's Bigfoot. A Trailer park owner there named David Shealy is a proven hoaxer. Now, did the eyewitnesses see bigfoot or David Shealy? How would that work for ya' in a court room? Lol.

Good luck buddy.

Vance



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Eye-witness testimony alone is not enough to prove the existence of alien life visiting the Earth. Without something empirical, we do not know what the witnesses are seeing. Even the witnesses themselves do not know -- thus the label of "unidentified."


Quite so. I don't find it so hard to understand why witnesses to a murder are more credible than witnesses to alien UFOs. We acknowledge that murders exist and are actually relatively common. If somebody described a dog running down the street, I think we could agree that there are dogs and they do run down the street sometimes, and a person might see one. UFOs, on the other hand, particularly alien UFOs, are something so extremely uncommon that we have no basis to think that the people actually saw what they said they saw.

The only thing that saves UFO witnesses from all being ignored is Occam's Razor. At a certain point, it becomes too unreasonable to simply say that all the witnesses are wrong about what they see. At that point, we have to acknowledge that something is going on. HOWEVER, it doesn't necessarily bring us any closer to find out exactly what is going on, either generally, or in any specific case. That depends on the evidence provided in each individual case.

And as of today, there has been no individual case or collection of cases, that contains enough strong evidence to prove a hypothesis, whether it has to do with aliens or time travelers or tulpas, or what have you. None. So we keep looking, remaining skeptical, to weed out the crap cases, which there are way too many.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Totally agree Nohup...

And I do want to believe, I really do lol. My problem is I am plagued by common sense and the like. I have to have proof. Sometimes I find myself in envy of the gullible. Atleast they have interesting lives to lead I geuss lol.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by polomontana
DIRECT EVIDENCE - Evidence that stands on its own...

The radical skeptic should not even be debated because they have no evidence to bring to the table. The only reason why they are given any weight is because the embedded skepticism about ufology within the fabric of society.

There's no REASONABLE doubt that U.F.O.'s exist. The radical skeptic throws reason out of the window and they substitute their opinion.


Is it just me, or does it look like polomontana just repeated his opening post?

You are confusing the issues. Robbery/murder and UFOs are two seperate deals.

Eyewitness testimony is valuable in cases such as robbery and murder, however it is used to support what is already known. You know a victim was robbed at gunpoint, or shot so an eyewitness can collaborate this. You have a body, you have stolen goods, etc. But, try going to the police without producing supporting evidence, or a victim, and it will not lead to a conviction.

With UFOs, however, there are not those "known facts." You don't have the "body," or the smoking gun. All you have is a story.

UFOs eyewitness testimony is akin to an eyewitness fingering someone for a murder there is no evidence for. Say you walk up to a police-officer and tell them Joe Blow just plugged somebody. However, you can't produce a body. There is no blood at the scene of the supposed crime. And there is no powder residue on Joe's hand. You are not going to get a conviction. In fact, you may be arrested for filing a false report.

Someone used the dog analogy earlier, I want to take it a step further to illustrate how eyewitness testimony is not proof positive, irrefutable evidence of alien visiting the earth. Dogs are part of our every day life, so we have little reason to doubt when someone says they say a dog walking down the street. However, if that same person says they saw that same dog turn into an 8 foot tall tentacled monstrosity, we are going to need proof, because that is not something that dogs are known to do. We are going to be skeptical.

Or would you take their word for it, believe it is proof-positive, irrefutable evidence that dogs are actually Lovecraftian horrors? This is exactly what you are saying about UFOs, that the story of an eyewitness is all you need for proof. Sorry, but this isn't the case. It doesn't work in the courts, and it doesn't work in science.

You are right, there is no reasonable doubt that UFOs exist. That is, people do look up in the sky and misindentify things, or see things they cannot explain. However, you do not know the operative word in the anagram; it's UNIDENTIFIED, meaning there is not enough evidence to identify it. Unidentified is not, nor ever has been, a synonym for alien.

At no point, in the 60 years of Ufology, has anyone been able to produce evidence of any sort that is irrefutable. That is what is needed to convince the world-at-large, and especially science. But it has not been forthcoming.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 07:08 AM
link   
I think skepticism in itself also holds many layers - shades of grey if you will. Moderates and "hawks". There are those that will purely focus on physical evidence while keeping an open mind for other options and there are those that simply refuse to believe anything for whatever purpose they have formulated in their minds or it is driven by the fear of the unknown.

I see that the topic also brushed on the eyewitness accounts, and ufology is plentiful with that. In fact so many that if only one observation turned out to be genuine, the entire phenomenon would be genuine. That ofcourse can't happen for the more 'hawkish' skeptics and as we can see above eyewitnesses to UFOs are boxed into another category, a less reliable one. Smart move.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 07:51 AM
link   
I'm not so sure that it falls squally on the shoulders of the "skeptics" (who most of the time are those that display a modicum of common sense, reason and logic). The role of those that are a little too eager to believe is what constantly hurts ufology and keeps it in the loony bin file for the average Joe.

The only hope we have for complete disclosure (whatever that may contain) is to have the mainstream media take this subject to the masses (like the msm or not, you know that's the only way). But as long as the average Joe can come to a "serious" place like this and see the kind of shenanigan-like posts that are replied to by the hundreds this whole subject will remain in the loony bin for the majority (and it's the majority that needs show interest before anything resembling disclosure is even thought of). The only thing this type of foolish stuff does is serve the purpose of those that post it (whether that be attention seeking or outright delusion) and to further the cause that this whole subject is not to be taken seriously.

If there were more rational minded skeptics around, I believe this whole subject would be leaps and bounds further towards absolution (again, whatever that is).



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
i don't know if this is the proper thread but has anyone taken a look at www.abovetopsecret.com...

i find this site a bit long but so very interesting about a flying saucer base in us.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
I think it Odd that the standpoint the skeptics have is Bring ME proof (otherwise I'm not believing). Well ... don't believe if it makes you happy. Believing or not believing has never and will never change what is. If you want to believe but require proof ... then go get it yourself. I find it absurd that the burden of proof is slouched off to those that believe. Personally I couldn't care less if all the world were skeptics and I was the only one who believed. Bring yourselves Proof it's nobody else's job to do so. If you don't want the job then be happy in your non belief. Be responsible for your own beliefs. They are all yours.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
So the topic creator is saying we should just accept any testimony as true without investigation?

Boy, I didn't know UFOlogy was turning into a religion! Let's just throw research out the window and base it on faith!



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helios813
I find it absurd that the burden of proof is slouched off to those that believe. Personally I couldn't care less if all the world were skeptics and I was the only one who believed.


Well then what's the problem? You believe what you want to believe and let it go at that. And if some skeptic asks you to provide proof, just say, "I don't have any. There is enough evidence there for me, personally, to make that last leap and say that it's true." That pretty much puts an end to the discussion.

There's an old saying in the UFO field that the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. Over the years, I've come to think that the burden of proof is actually on the person who cares. If you don't care if I believe what you believe, you have no obligation or burden to provide any proof. Who cares?

It's a little bit more difficult for a skeptic disprove a claim, since no one can prove a negative. The best that can be done is to provide a reasonable alternative explanation, however, there is always the outside possibility that, for instance, a small flying saucer will hide amongst a flock of gliding seagulls that look practically identical. Without the ability to go back in time and gather samples, there will always be the wild, outside chance of something really strange happening. Strange things do happen.

So, if you make a claim about alien UFOs, and you actually care if anybody believes you, it's still going to be up to you to provide positive proof. If you don't care, then we all go on our merry ways. Nobody can debunk a belief.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helios813
If you want to believe but require proof ... then go get it yourself. I find it absurd that the burden of proof is slouched off to those that believe.


Thank God the law doesn't work like that...


Originally posted by Helios813
Bring yourselves Proof it's nobody else's job to do so.

I don't think so. Those people making fantastical claims (and remember they activley choose to come here to do so) are the ones who need to back up their claims. In the scientific method, it is not up to everyone else to work on somebodys pet theory...


Originally posted by Helios813
Be responsible for your own beliefs. They are all yours.

Quite, especially when they're challenged by fanciful claims!



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join