The Questions U.F.O. skeptics can't answer, page
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 32 times


reply posted on 26-7-2008 @ 02:39 PM by TheInfamousOne
People can not be convinced of something they don't understand unless they experience it themselves. In this case, ET contact of UFO experiences for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, of 5th kind.

Skeptics are skeptic because of their lack of experience in matters such as these. They have no first hand experience so they try to rationalize from their own experiences to explain to someone what they're saying/seeing is false or that the abductee or UFO witness have mis-interpreted or mis-understood what they saw by sharing their logical explanation.

How many UFO people who you see come forward on video all say the same thing at the beginning of their sentence.

Their sentence will begin by saying "I use to be a SKEPTIC and never believed it before until I saw and experienced it with my own eyes".

Now, that does not detract from the fact that you have people with attention issues, dis-informationist, hoaxers, skeptics and monetary interest that will use the topic for their own reason. The INDIVIDUAL will have to be the ones who will have to investigate and figure out the real experiences from fake ones.

It's the INDIVIDUAL who will have to find the truth from themselves, and if they choose to not believe and accept the norm, then it's just a LIMITED educational background and LIMITED life experience in these matters that make them SKEPTICS.

What makes them skeptics is when they investigate claims from people with mental issues, dis-informationist, hoaxers that make them skeptics. Probably because they looked into these claims and found nothing but being duped. They might not find interest to investigate anyone else's claims of UFOs or Abductions because of the people who "Cry Wolf".

So you can't really hate the skeptics, just educate the public and the pendulum will swing the other way. Some phenomenons can't be rationalized ro calculated. Just experienced as an individual.

So do I believe that UFO's exist? Yes, Real ones and MAN MADE ones.

Do I believe that there are other types of ET's out there? Yes.

Do I believe aliens are HOSTILE? No, if they wanted to take over this planet, they would have a long time ago. The only threat to humans is humans, just look at history.

We are stuck in the cosmic play pen, and if can't behave here on this planet, what makes you think we will be able to peacefully explore space?

Think about it, when you have a baby, do you let it crawl and let it roam the living room or kitchen? Or course not. Why, because it could hurt him or herself.

Same rule applies here,

That's my two cents.


reply posted on 26-7-2008 @ 03:25 PM by polomontana
Originally posted by Corum
I'm sceptical about aliens having visited this planet but there has to be life elswhere in the universe. Testimony of alien contact means nothing to me, neither do blurry photos and video. I would like to be wrong about alien visitation though, and that's why I come to this site, because one day there might be something here that allows me to believe that we have without a doubt been visited.

After the thousands of sightings and experiences in the world it just seems to unreal that there wouldn't be a single scrap of solid proof. People ask what proof would be good enough, well, alien D.N.A, or a close encounter caught on live tv or some piece of material that could not possibly be from earth, I'm sure there's a few other things that would suffice.

I want to 'know' we've been visited, I don't want to just 'believe' we have based on faith. 99 percent of people who believe aliens have been here believe just because of what they've been told by other people. Not good enough for me I'm afraid and not good enough for most sceptics, yet we are frowned upon by 'believers' for not being open minded. I'd say believing aliens have been here based on faith is being TOO open minded.


I think your post illustrates my point beautifully.

In other words, no amount of evidence will covince you.

There are videos of extra-terrestrial beings and good video of spacecraft, you will not accept these things though.

You will say things like it looks to good to be true or it's fake. If you don't know how a real extra-terrestrial being looks, how can you say these are all fakes? That's like looking for counterfeit money and you don't know what real money looks like.

The fact is, you have drawn a conclusion about these things before you see a video or picture, so no matter how good it looks you will not accept it as evidence.

Do you feel the same about black holes, virtual particles, dark matter/dark energy? Have you seen any of these things? Do you have physical evidence to support these things?

With just about everything, you have to trust eyewitness testimony.

If your not a biologist, you have to trust alot of the things they say about biology.

If your not a physicist, you have to trust alot of the things they say about physics.

It's only when it comes to things like ufology or the paranormal is this logic turned on it's head.

A high ranking government official or a military pilot can say something about these things and it doesn't matter. It means nothing.

This is because the so called skeptic is limiting the sphere of knowledge that anyone can have based on their personal belief system.

Again, can I know if extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings exist? Or are you saying I can't know?

Are you limiting my knowledge based on your pre-existing beliefs?

[edit on 26-7-2008 by polomontana]


reply posted on 26-7-2008 @ 03:43 PM by ArMaP
Originally posted by polomontana
Example: If a high ranking government official comes out and says he has first hand knowledge that these things exist, do you limit what he/she can know based on your pre-existing belief on these issues?
No, but I do not just believe it because it was said by a high ranking official.

Everybody can make bad judgements and classify something as alien when in fact it's not, so I need more than just someone saying that this things exist, they have to say something more to show that what they are saying is based on something verifiable.

If a person you know to be credible comes to you and says they were visited by these beings and this person has never been known to make up stories, do you say these things could not have happened based on your personal belief about these issues? Are you saying that your friend couldn't know and experience these things based on what you believe?
No, the same thing I said above applies, only I could be a little more open to accept less verifiable things based on my knowledge of that person.

But I like to know if that person's (either someone I know or not) sphere of knowledge really does include those things he/she is talking about.

Someone that knows nothing about aeroplanes may misidentify an unusual aeroplane or an aeroplane in an unusual situation, so I need to know if that person is a credible witness in that area.

PS: I do believe in UFOs, although I have never seen one I believe that there are things flying around for which I do not have any explanation, but I think it is a little far-fetched to use aliens from an hypothetical planet at a unknown distance as the most logical explanation.


reply posted on 26-7-2008 @ 03:52 PM by flice
reply to post by polomontana


When talking about high ranking officials they always seem to be "former". Unfortunately one cannot put credibility into words just because someone used to hold a position of importance. For one we can't tell how much of the info that the person gives is either
A. Simply hear say within the ranks themselves, and over time spun into "truth"
B. If that person is bored/want fame/delusional and from that wants to spread "info" about something that fits the universe in which the person previously moved around in and now know that a lot of us interest ourselves in.

Believing someone purely on a statement and taking it at face value is dangerous, not only for ones own humility but also the community as a whole. Everytime a believer comes off as believing strongly in an incident and that incident turns out to be a hoax not only he but the cause loses credibility.

As for friends, I have a recent experience. Some mates of mine know I'm into this thing, I've been very open about it. So one day my best friend for the fun of it ( I learned later) asked if anyone saw that "thing" moving across the sky there. I was preoccupied and didn't look up, but later asked him to tell me more about it. He put up a long story which seemed sincere and I believed him and started talking about similar incidents. The funny thing was I almost turned him that night xD
Anyways, that night ended without any "disclosure" from his side, and it wasn't till two weeks later that we talked again and he said it was a joke...
I was mad at him, best friend and all, but it opend my eyes to the posibility that some people, even friends will put up such things because they themselves don't believe or don't worry about it and they see it as a bit of fun.

Think about all the kids that have pirated versions of Adobe AE, who are playing around. The ufo hoax is probably one of the easiest things to fake in AE. A few masks and motion track the footage and you got yourself a nice looking ufo.
The only way to get a pad on the shoulder for that first attempt to use the program and probably the best is to get us gullible suckers to fall for their work.

I'm not saying that nothing is going on, nor that all disclosers are liars. I'm saying that we have to remain vigilant in our quest for not only knowledge but also complete and total disclosure.
We are not only fighting foolish hoaxers but I bet there might be a few official types throwing a simple hoax in once in a while to ridicule the cause.

That's why we can't afford to take face value on things like this. If we can be spun so severely in everyday events like Iraq/Iran/Oil then we can certainly be spun even more in such an intangible world as UFOs where our best arguments are blurry videos, kooks, cgi and what not.

Okhams razor not only applies to physics but also our world. Let's sift through all the rubbish, get it out of the way and start chaining events together in a way that leaves little or no doubt that something is off, and needs to be explained with other words than "we have no comment on that".

I want to believe, just not at the cost of my humility or sanity


reply posted on 26-7-2008 @ 04:18 PM by polomontana
Originally posted by ArMaP
Originally posted by polomontana
Example: If a high ranking government official comes out and says he has first hand knowledge that these things exist, do you limit what he/she can know based on your pre-existing belief on these issues?
No, but I do not just believe it because it was said by a high ranking official.

Everybody can make bad judgements and classify something as alien when in fact it's not, so I need more than just someone saying that this things exist, they have to say something more to show that what they are saying is based on something verifiable.

If a person you know to be credible comes to you and says they were visited by these beings and this person has never been known to make up stories, do you say these things could not have happened based on your personal belief about these issues? Are you saying that your friend couldn't know and experience these things based on what you believe?
No, the same thing I said above applies, only I could be a little more open to accept less verifiable things based on my knowledge of that person.

But I like to know if that person's (either someone I know or not) sphere of knowledge really does include those things he/she is talking about.

Someone that knows nothing about aeroplanes may misidentify an unusual aeroplane or an aeroplane in an unusual situation, so I need to know if that person is a credible witness in that area.

PS: I do believe in UFOs, although I have never seen one I believe that there are things flying around for which I do not have any explanation, but I think it is a little far-fetched to use aliens from an hypothetical planet at a unknown distance as the most logical explanation.


Armap,

Again, can this high ranking government official "know" that these things exist or are you limiting his/her sphere of knowledge?

You didn't answer the question.

You told us your "belief" that aliens from another planet is far fetched. If your coming from a belief, then I have no problem with it.

It's when skeptics act as if they are coming from some "rational place" that doesn't make sense.

Why are these things far-fetched?

In a universe where only 4% is known and 96% is unknown, how can it be far fetched?

In a universe that many think is a multiverse with infinite possibilities, how is it far fetched?

When you have Presidents, pilots, high ranking government officials, police, trace evidence, abduction cases, cave painting, ancient manuscripts, painting, pictures and video pointing in the direction of these things, how is it far fetched?

I think it far fetched to act as if you are absolutely certain about an unknown or uncertain situation.

So, if a skeptic says they are coming from a place of belief, then that's fine. That's just not skepticism, that's pseudoskepticism.

A real skeptic doesn't know and this is why they are skeptical in the first place. If they had ABSOLUTE knowledge about these things, then there no longer skeptics.


reply posted on 26-7-2008 @ 05:21 PM by Badge01
One way to look at it is this.

If a friend comes running in and tells you something exciting, like "I just got a new car!" you believe him because you see cars all the time. Eventually you'll want to see it, you may not need to jump up and go see it out of a sense of disbelief.

But if he says 'I just got a horse!', you'll probably want to go see it. It doesn't mean you don't believe in horses. But there's an element of the extraordinary, the unexpected. As curious and cautious beings, now we're piqued.

We want to be shown, to touch, to see and smell. The confluence of our senses is what tells us something is real.

Now say you see what looks like a hamburger. It's sitting on a plate in a lab. But you're puzzled. You can't smell it. You see it, but now you want more. You reach for it, and your hand goes through it. It's a hologram. 'OH, you exclaim, now I get it'. Doesn't mean at any time you disbelieved in the existence of hamburgers at any point. But because your senses were not confirming what you saw, you'd try to touch it.

Now, imagine your friend says he's got a UFO in his back yard. Even though you trust this friend, you still want to grab your camera and go see it. Part of it is the novelty. Part of it is the 'show' me. Part of it is you want more than just sight, you want touch and sound and more, just as in the examples above. Then you want the 'why'. It's only natural.

Even believers want additional proof, even if for no other reason than they don't want to be played or fooled by people preying on their 'belief'.

Now, can someone tell me what these 'Questions' are, alluded to in the title? I'm still not clear on what those questions are.

As one poster said, we're all a little skeptical, a little gullible and with a little something tangible, we are not that hard to convince.

But should someone believe 'stories'? Tales and legends and stories are compelling, but it's only natural to want a little more. As far as 'experts' I'd probably believe a friend, whom I know and trust than an 'expert', because it's not always clear to me what their motives are.

Does this make sense? We're all the same. Some just would like a little more before jumping on the bandwagon, perhaps.

2 cents.





[edit on 26-7-2008 by Badge01]


reply posted on 26-7-2008 @ 05:25 PM by polomontana
Originally posted by Corum
In other words, no amount of evidence will covince you.

There are videos of extra-terrestrial beings and good video of spacecraft, you will not accept these things though. ]



Polomontana, did you only read part of my post? Did you not see the kinds of things I would accept as evidence? So again, no, I would not accept the kind of video evidence I've seen on this site and others, those blurry blobs we see on film could be anything, all they are are U.F.O's, flying or floating inconclusive nothingness.

Black holes and dark matter may not exist for the record, although it's quite likely going by the ''scientific data collected'' that they do.

By the way, if I believe there are aliens in other parts of the universe, do you still class me as a sceptic just because I don't believe they've visited earth? Am I a semi-sceptic? How would you 'label' me? I also admit that it's 'possible' that aliens have visited, possible but unlikely, again I hope I'm wrong.

Do you believe in werewolves? Ghosts? Reptillians? Bloody Mary? Were the stones at Stonehenge levitated into place like some say they were? If you don't believe in all those things then you are a sceptic too. We are all sceptics of some sort, so why point the finger?


First,

Why do you lump all these things together? Each of these things has seperate evidence that has to be weighed.

So U.F.O.'s and Ghosts are not the same thing.

I'm skeptical of werewolves because I have not looked into the subject like I have U.F.O.'s.

I have looked into eyewitness accounts from pilot's police officers and more. Trace evidence, pictures, video's and more and I have ssen 3 with my own eyes.

I can't say the same about werewolves so I have to weigh it differently. At the end of the day, I don't know when it comes to werewolves, but I don't speak with absolute certainty about these things.

So I would never go on a message board about werewolves and say you just saw a dog. That is just as illogical as skeptics coming on U.F.O. boards and saying your just seeing things or everythng is fake or a lantern.

Second,

You don't believe they have visited earth and that's fine.

The question is can I know if they visited earth? Or do you limit what I can know based on your personal belief system?

So if a close cousin comes to you and says he has been visited, do you weigh his credibility before you draw a conclusion? Is this person known to make up lies? Or do you dismiss it out of hand therefore limiting his sphere of knowledge based on your personal belief?

I'm trying to figure out how some people dismiss these credible witnesses out of hand.

We accept eyewitness testimony when it comes to alot of things except when it comes up against are pre-existing beliefs.

How do you know that people are on the space station in space? Have you been up there?

How do you know that were on Mars? How do you know it's just not a sound studio in the basement at NASA?

Of course these are questions that are reductio ad absurdum, or absurd questions to prove the logical fallacy of the underlying subject.

The point is, you have to rely on the testimony of others about Mars or the space station in order to accept that we are actually there.

You have to take into account eyewitness testimony about these things especially when it's coming from credible witnesses wether professionals or everyday citizens who are not known to make up these things.



[edit on 26-7-2008 by polomontana]


reply posted on 26-7-2008 @ 05:32 PM by ArMaP
Originally posted by polomontana
Again, can this high ranking government official "know" that these things exist or are you limiting his/her sphere of knowledge?
He/she can know it, obviously, but for me to accept it he/she must provide anything more than just saying it, there must be something that shows that he/she really knows it, and that is the difficult part, we cannot see inside people's knowledge, so we have to use some ways of measuring those people's knowledge.

You told us your "belief" that aliens from another planet is far fetched. If your coming from a belief, then I have no problem with it.
If I said that it was not my intention, what I wanted to say was that I believe in UFOs but I do not think that they are space ships piloted by aliens.

Why are these things far-fetched?
Because we are using an unproved thing to explain another thing that we do not really know.

In a universe where only 4% is known and 96% is unknown, how can it be far fetched?
It can be far fetched but not impossible.

If you get home and see a piece of paper lying on the floor what do you think, that it was someone from the house that let the paper fall or that was some person from the other side of town that entered your house to leave the paper on the floor?

Both are possible but one is far fetched while the other is more probable, but there is no way of knowing what really happened with just the information that a paper is on the floor.

And where did you got that 4% value?

When you have Presidents, pilots, high ranking government officials, police, trace evidence, abduction cases, cave painting, ancient manuscripts, painting, pictures and video pointing in the direction of these things, how is it far fetched?
My question is "Do we really have all those things?"

The paintings are a good example of how people that do not know what they are talking about interpret the painting in the way that fits their ideas, without knowing that the paintings follow some standards to represent things (this happens with those paintings that some people think depict something that they do not, not the paintings that were made to show what happened at some time and place).

I think it far fetched to act as if you are absolutely certain about an unknown or uncertain situation.

So, if a skeptic says they are coming from a place of belief, then that's fine. That's just not skepticism, that's pseudoskepticism.
Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying with these two sentences.

A real skeptic doesn't know and this is why they are skeptical in the first place. If they had ABSOLUTE knowledge about these things, then there no longer skeptics.
But who said anything about absolute knowledge? Where, from what I have posted, did you got that idea?

PS: please, do not quote complete posts, quote only the part that you are answering. If you are answering the whole post just use the "Reply" button.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Aliens Among Us ...Video
  Posted 9 days ago with 65 member flags
Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.
  Posted 17 days ago with 60 member flags
UFOs \'Escort\' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed.
  Posted 12 days ago with 31 member flags
The Dyatlov Pass Incident--Russia\'s Mountain of Death
  Posted 19 days ago with 28 member flags
The Aurora, Texas UFO Incident (1897)
  Posted 3 days ago with 27 member flags
Jacques Vallee: Implications of UFO Phenomena - Thinking Allowed.
  Posted 1 days ago with 21 member flags