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

reply to post by polomontana


Here's a question that ET believers can't answer.

Where's the proof?

Give us concrete proof, THEN we take this matter seriously.

Remember the burden of proof is on you. Not us. You are the ones who are supposed to answer questions, since you people force these beliefs down our throats.

"ETs exist!" "It's a coverup!" "The gubbermint knows!" "Everyone's in on it!"

Yadda yadda yadda. All talk but no proof.


[edit on 26-7-2008 by AntisepticSkeptic]

Originally posted by Corum
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.

How's this for "some piece of material that could not possibly be from earth"?

youtube.com...

Originally posted by paradigm619

Originally posted by Corum
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.

How's this for "some piece of material that could not possibly be from earth"?

youtube.com...

That's your proof?

That's not an indication of alien existence. Where's the connection that shows E.T.s did it?

Where? I don't see any alien connection there. It's been discussed in ATS many times before. And the conclusion of the discussion is: no conclusive evdence of the connection to E.Ts.

That is not proof.

reply to post by AntisepticSkeptic


Ok, so a manufactured object comprised of metal alloys not native to this planet is found implanted in a human being that connects to nerve endings and doesn't cause an inflamatory response is just a random, freak occurence?

You're right, it doesn't conclusively show that aliens put it there. But can you offer another explanation of how this thing got there? I'd love to hear another theory.

Originally posted by polomontana
Why is extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings far fetched or less probable?

Because being extra-terrestrial they are not supposed to be here, so is less probable that they are responsible for something that happens here, just that.

If you testified against John Gotti that would be meaningless but when Sammy the Bull testifies against Gotti it's given alot of weight.

But they had direct knowledge of those two, when we do not have any knowledge about the people involved how can we know that we can trust in what people say?

Why can't skeptics weigh the credibility of the witnesses when it comes to things like ufology or the paranormal?

I can not judge the credibility of people I do not know, that is why I need more than those people's word to have an idea of their credibility.

When I say 4%, it means 4% is visible matter, 22% is dark matter and 76% is dark energy. We don't know the properties of dark matter/dark energy.

OK.

So what are you debating?

Because I thought your question was too broad, while I aggree with part of what you say I am still a sceptic, not all sceptics act the same way.

Originally posted by AntisepticSkeptic
reply to post by polomontana

 

Here's a question that ET believers can't answer.

Where's the proof?

Give us concrete proof, THEN we take this matter seriously.

Remember the burden of proof is on you. Not us. You are the ones who are supposed to answer questions, since you people force these beliefs down our throats.

"ETs exist!" "It's a coverup!" "The gubbermint knows!" "Everyone's in on it!"

Yadda yadda yadda. All talk but no proof.


[edit on 26-7-2008 by AntisepticSkeptic]

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.

Where is your sound proof that they do not exist?

Can you answer this one?

Why can't we have both 'skeptics' and 'believers' among the fans of the paranormal?

Both serve some function.

Just as in the "X-Files", Scully was the scientist and doctor, and Fox was the intuitive and was able to see things non-obvious to others.

To me, the problems may lie here:
1. Extremes - aren't we turned off by both extreme skeptics and extreme believers?
2. Gullibility - Being too quick to accept something is as problematic as being too quick to deny. Just because I might believe in Ghosts, doesn't mean they are responsible every time my car keys go missing.
3. Dogmatism - Inability to change. There's a lot of advantage in being willing to change your status quo. If something strange is going on, look for prosaic and paranormal reasons. However if a common explanation is sufficient, no need to always go to the paranormal.

To me, I see no reason to posit exotic reasons for crop circles. They've been around for a long time, and nothing's ever come of them. We know bored college students and pranksters make some of them Are there any they -can't- make?

The Op is asking for us that aren't willing to believe without proof because he says we are close minded and that we are unable to give some other POV a chance. What about you guys who scream that its true, its fact, and all the other things...why are you not willing to accept that these things may not be happening. I am willing to accept something if there is viable proof to back it up and not believe just because I want to. You,who blindly believe without anything to back it up, are the sheep.

Originally posted by TheInfamousOne

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.

Where is your sound proof that they do not exist?

Can you answer this one?

One of the most stupidest things to say. Prove that something does not exist. That would be simple..go outside take a picture or video of the sky if nothing in it then we have proven it...and we can duplicate it day in and day out. What does that prove that there is nothing out there..we have proven it. I want to believe but there is nothing out there that constitutes absolute proof and that is why I will not stand here and blindly believe.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by riggs2099]

i will answer your question straight away with these people you talk of are mind controlled or are for the new world order,even if they have seen aliens they are humans that have had dna played with for many generations they have been building toward this since world war 2 everything done is to work against man and his freedom these people in control know that to many people will fight the new world order if it is just a man but if it is alien what choice do we have,this is why tech has been held from us to make this easier to believe mean while many people are gazing into the heavens the new world order moves behind the seen laughing about how well there plan is working,there will be many more sightings and leaked docs to come.A question for you,if a little green man flys out of the sky and tells you what to do will you do it or ask yourself who telling the little green man what to say,when aliens want you to know about them you will know until then you are all learning fabrication, the new world order can be proven a long with there lies.aliens will not do deals with man just like man will not do deals with monkeys it is the same even if you think its not

reply to post by jtown


Ramblings do not help anyones causes. Just thought I would point that out.

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.

Skeptical about if aliens visited ?

GO to a remote place with alot of suvival gear and stuff you'll need for a while stay there for awhile and see what happens and tell me if you still don't believe ?

[edit on 26-7-2008 by Ggurl777]

you cannot provide proof for a skeptic.

Show a blurry photo and its obviously a balloon.
a fuzzy video is just a fire on a mountain ect...

show a clear picture or video and it's CGI or photo shop.

Eye witness testimony means nothing because the person is a stranger to them.
Physical evidence is just man made evidence so they will not believe in exotic materials.

If a skeptic was to be shot by a laser beam in the backside they would still find what they believe to be a rational explenation for it.

skeptics cannot step outside the box, they are the people who need to not only see but feel and smell as well, to believe in UFOs is being able to have a little faith and believe in things that you cant always touch yourself.

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.

Many many years ago, people believed that we ARE the only life in the universe. Today, you may agree that that consensus is laughable. Today, the consensus is we ARE NOT the only life in the universe, but we are reserved to holding it at just that. The idea that aliens have come here is now laughable. But why is that not a possibility if not already a truth (imho)?

Why should those who have come to terms and NOT laugh at the idea we are not alone, scoff at the possibility that they are already here? It's an oxymoron. Because of no tangible evidence? I'll get to that in a moment.

Bill Nye for example, admits he believes in other life in our universe. However, he, like others, refuses to acknowledge countless photos (not all blurry btw), high ranking official's testimonies etc, etc.. One of the wonderful gifts of the mind is the ability to question, evaluate, reason, and select.

Too question, then evaluate and finally believe (life in the universe) then suddenly STOP, is an injustice to what we are all about. We need to explore further. If there is a cookie jar, then where are the cookies. Right?

This brings me to the evidence. This is an easy one. Any real solid tangible irrefutable evidence is NEVER going to be public. Your not going to find it on youtube. Your not going to find it on Google, your not going to find it period! At least not you and me.

People who have this stuff are very protective. It is closely guarded. The only ones who have it are the Gov. and Mufon. So think about it terms of law. People have been convicted on less than the best circumstantial evidence. But even without a body, we know he is guilty. You have to just take a step back and say "yes, I don't need to see to know it is true"

The Question belivers can't answer.
Where's my Space ship? (not i didn't say ufo)

Ufo makes it sound a little less crazy dosn't it

I'd love contact and learn about another species and there culture. BUT! i seriously worry it would become a new witch hunt.

OMG my nighebours a Reptilian! dont belive me? are you gonna limit my sphere of knowledge on your personal bias belife system? because you didnt look into it more??
And sometimes there is evidence or mass sightings that cant be explained but it ussualy ends up going no where....

Next question please.. And whats with all these credible witness's writing books :s sounds like a scam.

First off, some on this board are trying to say people accept these things without proof or they are gullible.

You can't be serious.

There's people who have studied these things for years.

This is a myth that skeptics use. People are not accepting these things without proof there's both direct and circumstantial evidence that supports these things.

Pseudoskeptics are truly troubling.

I was talking to a skeptic the other day who was upset about a mother who lost her child going to a psychic. Why should you care if a mother goes to a psychic and gets comfort in a time of grief?

Secondly, the burden of proof is on the skeptic making the claim that an eyewitness didn't see what they said they saw.

You can't make these statements in the abstract. If your going to make the claim that a pilot didn't see what he said he saw, then the burden of proof is on you to show evidence that the pilot didn't see what he claimed.

Third,

Badge 01, you seem to think that all crop circles are man made.

Where's the human error? Where's all the mistakes?

Where's the kids getting caught making these circles? How do they go undetected?

Do you know there's a peer-reviewed paper that says crop circles are made by balls of light?

DR ELTJO HASELHOFF is one of the few people on planet Earth to have had a paper published on crop circles in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (‘Physiologa Plantarum’). His paper asserts that the long-recognised connection of crop circles to balls of light may be even stronger than many think. Here, in layman’s terms, Dr Haselhoff outlines the important findings of his paper…

www.swirlednews.com...

www.youtube.com...

Maybe this is a the way another earth bound civilization can communicate and we should be trying to back engineer the technology. This could help us in other ways as well.

The pseudoskeptic will not even consider this because in their minds, these have to be made by college kids and pranksters.

Mod edit large quote. Please review this link.



[edit on 7/27/2008 by yeahright]

Originally posted by riggs2099
The Op is asking for us that aren't willing to believe without proof because he says we are close minded and that we are unable to give some other POV a chance. What about you guys who scream that its true, its fact, and all the other things...why are you not willing to accept that these things may not be happening. I am willing to accept something if there is viable proof to back it up and not believe just because I want to. You,who blindly believe without anything to back it up, are the sheep.

A healthy dose of skepticism is good. Blindly believing anything is sheepish. With that said, "blindly" is without education, first-hand knowledge, second-hand knowledge, and a little bit of effort with research. You can't condemn all ufo believers to being blind sheep. First of all, c'mon these things have been spotted for years! This phenomenon didn't just happen. In fact, Alexander the Great made reference to ufos freaking out his troops during their expedition.

IMHO there is more evidence pointing to alien visitation than there is a shred pointing to the existence of God (other than the bible but that's another thread)

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?

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?

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?

If you are, then you are limiting others sphere of knowledge based on what you believe about these issues.

You are making some relatively inaccurate assumptions regarding skeptics. Myself... I am a skeptic and have been one for better than forty years. It isn't so much that I, as a skeptic, feel that UFOs and aliens do not exist. I am more along the line, as a skeptic, that if you present evidence, and it is not irrefutable, then you have no evidence.

Belief is neither here, nor there. You believe what you want, while I believe what I want, and the truth, which may be totally seperate, and different from whatever you, and I believe, is the truth.

You have to understand that not all skeptics are just bashers. Some maybe, but others, like myself, are more interested in calling a duck by it's correct name, and just because someone saw something that s/he calls a duck, doesn't necessarily make it a true duck.

I look for the incontrovertible duck proof.

reply to post by AccessDenied



so does this mean that if your wife is pregnant by you...you just ignore her nine months? lol.

on topic i think it al comes down to this a childs game ...
i see what i see and it is.....