The Questions U.F.O. skeptics can't answer

reply to post by Horza


Horza you completely missed the point of that article. Its saying if technological civs are common why hasnt any of them colonized the entire galaxy including earth? Theres been enough time for someone to colonize the whole galaxy many times over. But it hasnt happened.

This suggests space faring civs are extremely rare or non-existant, it doesn't support your ET hypothesis at all





[edit on 28-7-2008 by yeti101]

Originally posted by polomontana
You say that you know or think that extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings can't or don't exist, are you saying that the eyewitness to an event can't know these things either?

Are you limiting another person's sphere of knowledge based on your pre-existing belief on these issues?

Once again, you are confusing a disbelief in extraterrestrial visitation with a disbelief in extraterrestrial life. There is an infinite gulf of difference.

Are you suggesting that by expressing our viewpoint, we are in essence forcing others to accept it?

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?

That is a terrible example.

There are "high ranking" officials who say there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, that there are no aliens visiting the Earth. Why believe one over the other, simply because one is saying what you want to hear? If you believe government officials have been lying to you in the past about extraterrestrial visitation, why believe them when they say what you want to hear?

Originally posted by polomontana

You can't be serious?

There's tons of evidence that suggest they exist.

How about proof, not suggestions. How can you critisize someone who is skeptical as limiting any sphere of knowledge, when the knowledge you present as being ignored or limited is based on suggestions, where is knowledge defined as knowing through the suggested.

www.hyper.net...
www.ufologie.net...
bibleufo.com...
video.google.com...

Thanks for the links.

I can go on and on.

OP there are just as many sources of information offering alternative explanations for ET/Extra-dimensional beings and those that experiences some form of phenomena. Why is it that threads like these never use this sphere of knowledge. Why is it that this sphere of knowledge is ignored by those that believe in ET/Extra-dimensional beings. I will apologise in advance for not posting from the University of Youtube or The School of Google Video.
Just an essay
The Gods have Landed, extracts from the book by James R, Lewis
University of London Paper on Alien Abduction
Uni. of NewYork Paper
Article from Skeptics Brief on Susan Clancys research
Harvard Gazette
More
I could go on to, and on and on with studies and science suggesting that ET and extra dimensional alien experiences may be cause by other that what people prescribe these experiences to. You do not need to be a skeptic to read these, nor a bonifide member of Mufon. Curiosity led me to these links as they did with the ones below. Am i Skeptical of the existence of ET/Extra-Dimensional beings. YES. Just as there are those that are Skeptical of anybody who offers an alternative view to those that believe they do exist.

Here are some pro Ufo/ET sites that i have used to increase my sphere of knowledge.

Excellent links to conflicts within science and Ufology from Ufoevidence.org
International centre for Alien-Abduction This site posts this, which is why people remain skeptical, this is not unusual in relation to many sources of information in relation to this topic.

A Personal Note:

I wrote most of the information on this web site based on more than 42 years of UFO research. In addition, since 1986 I have conducted over 1,000 hypnotic regressions with abductees. I have tried to be as objective and as "agenda free" as possible. I have no New Age, spiritual, religious, transformational, or transcendent program to promote. I try to stay as close to the evidence as I can. However, there is no possibility that I have avoided error. The majority of evidence for the alien abduction phenomenon is from human memory derived from hypnosis administered by amateurs. It is difficult to imagine a weaker form of evidence. But it is evidence and we have a great deal of it. Still, readers must be skeptical of what I say and of what all others say in this tangled arena of alien abductions, hypnosis, popular culture, and memory. Abduction researchers are mainly amateurs doing their best to get to the truth knowing that objective reality may elude them.

David M. Jacobs, Ph.D.

This is a perfect example as to why some skeptics blind themselves from the truth in order to protect there belief system.

This is just another example of skewing the argument by labelling people as blind, intellectually rigid, and closed to any argument unsupportive of a held belief. What is also significant about your statement above is that you offer no supporting evidence to prove it. This is a trait that is widely found in people who have ET experiences.

"It probably doesn't matter much to the abductees whether they are right or wrong," she comments. "They simply feel better because of what they believe."

www.hno.harvard.edu...
Please, could you show me the links you have that offer an alternative view to your beliefs, have you explored outside of what you hold to as being the truth, in relation to the OP. As i certainly have, this allows me to way up both sides of the argument. This then has this consequence: that i become skeptical of one side, and accept the other. Given the weight of evidence that is generally observable i am Skeptical that ET/Extra-aliens exist. Does this prove or disprove their existence? No. The questions is, have you weighed up both sides, or are you just blindly following one path, as that would tend to put you in with the Blind skeptics protecting their beliefs system.

In their minds, everyone that accepts things within ufology has to be gullible or living in a fantasy. There are very serious people who study these things and accept these things.

Please, save me the victim speech. You first sentence is a massive generalisation. But if you look at the Massive Industry that has grown from the growing Ufology and ET phenomena, gullibility and fantasy are strong themes when we look at cases of mass fraud and Hoax. Which then fuels skepticism....not dissimilar to how some people view religions, or say.....dodgy door to door sales men.

In the skeptics mind, no reasonable individual can come to the conclusion that these things exist so they have to "make believe" that everyone who accepts ufology is gullible.

This is just wrong. Currently, the vast majority of ET/Alien Contact claims are only presented through personal testimony. What Skeptics like myself are sayings is that the evidence you present is insufficient to justify my belief. It is as simple as that.

Lets face the Facts. There is no overwhelming evidence that there is ET/Extra-Dimensional beings. Otherwise it would be a generally excepted truth. That is the Truth at the moment. Attacking those that do not hold your belief is useless.

It goes back to my original point. Some people who claim to be skeptics want to limit another persons sphere of knowledge when it comes to these things and they always want to paint people who accept evidence within ufology as following these things blindly. This is so they can feel comfortable in their mind that nobody who is serious or rational accepts these things.

Please, knowledge and beliefs are two separate things. Currently you may believe that ET/Extra-dimensional aliens exist, based on what ever knowledge you have that supports that belief. Those that are skeptical of this belief, base their skepticism on the knowledge they have. To imply that purely because someone is skeptical, will result in the limiting of another sphere of knowledge is not what we have witnessed throughout the history of humanities thirst for knowledge.
If you want to shut the skeptics up. Justify a belief. This process has been working for centuries. I don't see why you, or any other person who is interested in this thread and topic should be treated any different.

This is truly logical.





[edit on 28-7-2008 by atlasastro]

Originally posted by Horza
Here is something for sceptics to consider in regards to the problem with Faster Than Light travel (FTL):

Astronomer Norman Murray of the University of Toronto reported at the 2001 AAAS meeting that: "There is evidence that there is terrestrial-type material orbiting most of the stars in the solar neighborhood. So, the implication, if this result holds up, is that there are Earth-like bodies in orbit around most of the stars in our galaxy." Even if this turns out to be overly optimistic and the formation of habitable planets around solar-like stars proves to be less likely than that, one might expect there to be at least a few other civilizations in the Galaxy. If that is the case, one can draw the conclusion statistically that unless civilizations tend to extinguish themselves once they discover sufficient technology to do so, most alien civilizations would be older and more technologically advanced than we are. It can then pretty easily be argued that a few million years would suffice for such an advanced civilization to spread across the Galaxy even at sublight speed by colonizing habitable planets, eventually sending out second waves of colonization from those planets, then third waves, etc. Astronomer Ian Crawford recently wrote about this in Scientific American. His diffusion model leads to "full galactic colonization" in 5 to 50 million years (Sci. Am., Nov. 2000, p. 8), a small fraction of the age of the Galaxy. Naturally this all assumes human-like behaviour and motivation. The bottom line is that if even only a few alien civilizations have arisen in the 10 billion or so year history of our Galaxy, most of the habitable parts of the Galaxy would likely be colonized by now.

You do realize that if aliens do exist, and above is true, it is logical that we are infact here because of that colonization. And, well, that we are looking for our relatives. Oh well.. :-)

I consider myself a skeptic but not a flat out denier or debunker. Given that I suppose I'll answer the questions to the best of my ability and not give looooong, draw-out and tedious answers (too much typing).

Originally posted by polomontana
You say that you know or think that extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings can't or don't exist, are you saying that the eyewitness to an event can't know these things either?

Two questions really.

I do not possess infinite knowledge or wisdom so therefore I cannot say that they are impossible or have zero probability of existing.

An eyewitness certain has a greater likelyhood of the truth of said beings.

Originally posted by polomontana
Are you limiting another person's sphere of knowledge based on your pre-existing belief on these issues?

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?

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?

This sort of sounds like a rephasing of the first two.

No. My pre-existing belief is that I do not know. I won't speak for others but I'll speak about, evaluate and scrutinize what others present as fact from their point of view.

Originally posted by polomontana
If so, how is this logical? Are you saying that nobody can know about these things because you believe these things don't or can't exist?

It's not so in my case so it's logical then. And I suppose the second question has been answered twice already.

Originally posted by Horza
Under the circumstances, and in the face of evidence, to say that ET/UFO's don't exist is an extraordinary claim.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Sceptics ... your evidence please!

LOL. Umm....yep, skeptics have to prove why the otherside has no evidence. LOL. Hang on, break out The Alien Autopsy Doco. Hey, Discovery channel had an ET special on. Wait,Wow, Pheonix Lights

Mysterious Phoenix Lights a UFO Hoax
By Benjamin Radford, LiveScience's Bad Science Columnist

The case took a twist two days later when a local television station aired a startling confession by an anonymous hoaxer: He had created the UFO lights using road flares tied to helium balloons, launching them in one-minute increments. Some people were amused by the hoax, others were angered, and many conspiracy-minded UFO buffs were skeptical of such a mundane explanation.

Yeah, its ok for the UFO community to be skeptical when they get a mundane explanation......but no-one else can! Truth

let us be clear about the true meaning of the words we are using.

Believer - somebody who accepts an unproven assertion as an act of faith.

Skeptic - somebody who requires an assertion to be proved before accepting it.

Naysayer - somebody who rejects an assertion without regard to the evidence.

Debunker - somebody who exposes an assertion as bunk.

The terms "skeptic" and "debunker" are not synonymous, and should not be used interchangeably. To be a skeptic is simply to doubt, to question, to ask for evidence probative of the assertion being made. To debunk is to show that a specific claim is not true, to expose a hoax, for example.

www.geocities.com...





[edit on 28-7-2008 by atlasastro]

reply to post by Corum

alien D.N.A, or a close encounter caught on live tv or some piece of material that could not possibly be from earth,

Unfortunately it does not seem beneficial to the aliens so they don't allow this to happen. It would seem whatever it/they is/are, would be far beyond our scope of reality.

There are "high ranking" officials who say there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, that there are no aliens visiting the Earth. Why believe one over the other, simply because one is saying what you want to hear? If you believe government officials have been lying to you in the past about extraterrestrial visitation, why believe them when they say what you want to hear?

Sorry to butt into this thread so late. But I must comment on this. Firstly you have a great point here, skeptics and believers alike should read the above and examine their own motives carefully.

But it also puts me in mind of the paper that reported on the Roswell "crash" Day 1, it's a crashed saucer. Day 2, it's a weather balloon. This is two pieces of conflicting information, both presented as facts on different days. Which story you choose to believe really just says you are picking whatever truth you like because it's what you want to hear.

As for probability. Probability can only be calculated with data. There is no official proof/data about the existence of flying saucers, or how many of them exist, so the chances of it crashing vs a weather balloon cannot be calculated.

On the flipside, I have never seen a weather balloon, I have no evidence or proof that they exist, or that they ever existed. If someone presented me with declassified information about weather balloons, should I believe it? There is plenty of declassified UFO files around now, should I believe those are fake? In believing any piece of evidence, no matter what it relates to, you are only using it to validate your own opinion.

I've only read the first page... but I must make a couple comments.

1) You talk about the power of belief systems in regards to someone being a skeptic... however it seems you fail to realize that belief systems work both ways. The same mechanism that makes people reject so called evidence, is the same mechanism that makes you accept it more easily.

Also, if you really want to get into belief systems, one can easily create things in your mind to back up his beliefs. If you are expecting to see something, often times you will create it even if it's not there.

2) The reason that noone believes the UFO and conspiracy theory community is because historically it has been PLAGUED by hoaxes and frauds.

And seeing how easily people here buy into videos that are CLEARLY fake... and eventually are proven fake... you can see why the rest of the world would then discount EVERYTHING that comes from the community. I mean... how many times can you cry wolf and still have people take you seriously.

Also, I can't tell you how many time I've seen people work up these huge theories about something that's about to happen, and set a date... and then surprise... nothing happens. That just makes everyone look like a bunch of kooks. Which... is true for a lot of you.

You want to believe SO BADLY that you accept things too easily and flaunt them as true, and then when they are proven fake you look like a fool. (Seen it happen all too many times here)

I hate to say it... but it was the UFO and Conspiracy Theory Community crying wolf over and over that made the world so skeptical.

reply to post by atlasastro


atlasastro,

Again, every sight you posted offers nothing but opinion. You or any of the skeptics have offered zero evidence just opinion.

Do you understand the difference?

It seems you are trying to equate opinion with evidence.

It's not about belief. I know extra-terrestrial/extra/dimensional beings exist beyond any reasonable doubt based on the evidence not opinion. So I don't have to believe anything.

You have to believe because the skeptic has no evidence to support there claims just opinion.

If someone pulls a hoax or a fake pic, that doesn't mean all the evidence that supports things within ufology mean nothing. That's like saying evolution didn't occur because there have been hoaxes.

You examine the evidence and then you draw a conclusion. We do this everyday in life.

In your mind, it has to be about belief because that's the only way you can debate the issue because you have no evidence.

I know your used to using words like fake, hoax and fantasy and maybe some people who accept these things has let you get away with that nonsense but not me. It's very illogical to equate opinion with actual evidence.

Let me give you a couple of examples:

Here's Dr. Roger Lier and implants. This is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that we have been visited by extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings.

youtube.com...

Answer these questions and I want evidence not opinion.

Why do these implant occur after a visitation?

Why are these implants connected to nerve endings?

How did these implants get in the body without an incision?

Why should I listen to the opinion of the skeptic and not the evidence presented by the Dr. and the patients?

This is EVIDENCE. If you are making the claim that this didn't occur this way you have to provide counter evidence for me to examine. It's not about belief. I don't believe they exist, I know they exist beyond any reasonable doubt and I'm waiting for the skeptics to offer some evidence outside of their opinion and I will look at it with an open mind.

62 kids in Zimbabwe had a sighting investigated by Harvard Professor John Mack.

youtube.com...

Give me some counter evidence. I don't want your opinion. I can go on and on.

Again, it's not about belief in these things, it's about the evidence.

The skeptic wants to limit my sphere of knowledge based on their beliefs about these things. They want me to look at the evidence and not draw a conclusion based on the evidence. This is because they don't include extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings as a possible conclusion and therefore they have to come up with all these silly excuses or things are left unexplained.

You want me to leave things unexplained so we can debate about belief. Sorry, that's not going to happen..

Excellent discussion - kudos and accolades to all...

This is what makes ATS the best of all such forums. If (and, unfortunately, it's still just "if"), aliens are observing, we can at least hope they are encouraged by our healthy and productive discourse regarding their whereabouts.

Thanks, fellow posters! You provide much stimulation for further thinking...

p.s. My position? My signature for a long, long, time says it all...

Let me also explain the difference between reasonable doubt and a shadow of a doubt before a skeptic asks the question.

A reasonable doubt means I'm open to other evidence that will counter the underlying claim. A shadow of a doubt means I'm closed minded on the subject just like the pseudoskeptic.

I know these things exist beyond any reasonable doubt. If you have evidence to present and not opinion, I'm ready to listen.

If I wanted opinion, I would post a picture and ask,"Do you think it's a U.F.O.?"

So, if your a skeptic with evidence that rebutts these claims, let's see it.

Originally posted by polomontana
Again, every sight you posted offers nothing but opinion. You or any of the skeptics have offered zero evidence just opinion.

Do you understand the difference?

It seems you are trying to equate opinion with evidence.

It's not about belief. I know extra-terrestrial/extra/dimensional beings exist beyond any reasonable doubt based on the evidence not opinion. So I don't have to believe anything.

And what are you doing?

The exact same thing that you accuse skeptics of. Presented with something unexplained, you mistake the unexplained with "alien" when the two are not synonymous. Unidentified and unexplained mean there is a gap in the data. You fill those gaps of data with your opinion and desire.

Originally posted by polomontana
Give me some counter evidence. I don't want your opinion. I can go on and on.

No, you don't want evidence. Presented with evidence, you say it is opinion; or you do not argue on the merits of the evidence, but attack the person presenting it.

Originally posted by polomontana
The skeptic wants to limit my sphere of knowledge based on their beliefs about these things. They want me to look at the evidence and not draw a conclusion based on the evidence. This is because they don't include extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings as a possible conclusion and therefore they have to come up with all these silly excuses or things are left unexplained.

You attack a caricature of skeptics, while you should be holding a mirror to yourself. You are engaging in the same behavior your accuse skeptics of. You have limited your own knowledge, based on your beliefs: to you, there is no other other explanation than "extraterrestrial visitation," all the while failing to realize skepticism does not end with "it's not alien," or the merits of skepticism. In seeking to explain this phenomena, the skeptic does not disallow any explanation. You are the one who is limiting knowledge and seeking to impose that limitation on everyone else; you are practicing a rigidity that does not allow to you accept any "mundane" or natural explanation. Your behavior in these forums demonstrates how you seek to impose this rigidity: if someone does not agree with you, you attempt to browbeat them, discuss their personality rather than the merits of their argument.

polomontana, I think you're having a problem with your definitions. I'm a sceptic. Being a sceptic doesn't mean we don't believe in aliens. It means that we have not been provided with sufficient proof that aliens exist. I personally DO believe aliens exist, and that they are visiting us, but because I'm a sceptic I have to admit that there’s not sufficient proof to state that it's a fact.

In order to prove it you need to present scientifically rigorous, verifiable and replicable evidence. No one has done that yet, so no one can empirically state their existence or otherwise. It's really that simple. Currently the only logical stance to take on the whole alien / ufo debate is that there is not enough evidence ( or more accurately there is not the right type of evidence ) to support either view point.

Originally posted by polomontana
A reasonable doubt means I'm open to other evidence that will counter the underlying claim. A shadow of a doubt means I'm closed minded on the subject just like the pseudoskeptic.

No, you are not. You have your mind made up, to the point of rigidity and fanaticism. Attacking people, refusing to discuss the merits of their arguments (in fact, you claim them even presenting an argument is an attempt to distract from the topic), is not open-mindedness. You have said in previous posts that on the subject of extraterrestrial-visitation, to you the case is closed. That is not open-mindedness. Your behavior and rhetoric are the very definition of closed-mindedness.

You are every bit as closed-minded as you claim the "pseudoskeptics" are.

reply to post by Lupe_101


So if I go by your standard I can't come to conclusions on black holes, virtual particles, dark matter/dark energy, quantum loop gravity, inflation theory or M-Theory.

I have to stick my head in the sand until I get undeniable evidence.

This is the problem, skeptics want to equate opinion with evidence.

I'm not going to leave these things unexplained because the skeptic wants to limit the sphere of possibilities.

Give me a reasonable explanation as to how implants can be implanted in people who just had a visitation experience. Tell me why this implant is attached to nerve endings and some even give off a frequency when in the body.

I want some counter evidence. Also give me a logical explanation outside of extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings. What can put these things in the body without an incision?

Again, please have some evidence and not just opinion.

This is not in isolation, you have to look at this evidence in context with the eyewitness sightings and the circumstantial evidence and then you draw a conclusion.

I'm not going to keep everything unexplained and in limbo to satisfy the skeptics belief..

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Your just bringing opinion and now you want to attack me.

I'm just stating the evidence. I will listen to counter evidence but I will also point out when skeptics are confusing opinions with evidence.

If you have some evidence, by all means present it.

This is not in isolation, you have to look at this evidence in context with the eyewitness sightings and the circumstantial evidence and then you draw a conclusion.

conclusions based on circumstantial evidence is an educated opinion

you keep saying your conclusions are not based on opinion but unfortunately that's not how it works.

it's ok to have this opinion based on the evidence you feel is credible , but other's may not see it the same way.

i mean what is the point your trying to make with this thread ? are you trying to force your observations upon everyone ?

don't get me wrong here because i have empathy for you because i am on both sides of this fence and if it wasn't for my own personal experience that i had i would be more on the skeptic side of things.

i would do a little more research into Dr. Lier before i would use his evidence in an argument fyi

Originally posted by polomontana
Your just bringing opinion and now you want to attack me.

I'm just stating the evidence. I will listen to counter evidence but I will also point out when skeptics are confusing opinions with evidence.

I am not attacking you; I am holding up a mirror so you see that you are engaging in the same behavior that you accuse skeptics of.

You are confusing opinion with evidence on two counts. First, you claim that any evidence or argument a skeptic presents is just their opinion, and dismiss it as such. Thus, you do not have to examine it or allow it to challenge your pre-concieved notions.

Second, you are confusing evidence with opinion in the same manner you accuse skeptics of. Because you are so rigid, closed-minded and fanatical, you assume that unexplained or unidentified equals "alien." Presented with the unexplained, you fill the gaps of knowledge with what you desire the explanation to be.

[edit on 28-7-2008 by SaviorComplex]

reply to post by polomontana


Smooth Post!.

So what do the skeptics have to say about these videos?

FACT,62 Kids saw a UFO land & Alien exit the craft in Africa.
(I highly doubt 62 kids could lie and get away with something like this don't you?)

Now we have solid eye witness testimony linking Flying Saucers with Aliens don't we?

VIDEO
youtube.com...

FACT: Extraterrestrial Implants Found.
VIDEO
youtube.com...
Could all these people just be delusional or dreaming? I wonder how these mysterious unexplainable implants showed up?

The skeptics keep passing up these videos, whadda ya have to say?

[edit on 28-7-2008 by Malevolent_Aliens]