It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TheInfamousOne
Originally posted by AntisepticSkeptic
reply to post by polomontana
[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?
Originally posted by polomontana
Originally posted by Corum
In other words, no amount of evidence will covince you.
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]
Those are some great points. I would like to add to the above the following since talk of a "lack of evidence" seems to be a consistent theme by some skeptics......there are two types of evidence that can be used to help the argument of both the "skeptic" and "believer" (remember, in most cases, the only "facts" given is that of the witness who states they "saw a UFO" or various NASA video, which I deem high-quality w/ high-credibility):
1. Direct evidence
2. Circumstantial evidence.
Both direct and circumstantial evidence, if used wisely/skillfully, can be used to further enhance ones position when presenting their case.
Direct evidence can include:
* The physical evidence
* Documentary evidence (recorded evidence on a video, audio, or another reliable source)
* Witness testimony that includes first hand knowledge of the event in question (i.e. "I saw a UFO or "It was a military craft, not UFO").
Circumstantial evidence is any indirect evidence of a fact that helps viability of ones argument through reasoning.
Circumstantial evidence is the result of combining seemingly unrelated facts (weather, day/night, position of stars, nearby military bases, etc.) that, when considered together, infer a conclusion that supports one’s version of the facts. The inference provoked from circumstantial evidence must flow logically, reasonably, and naturally from the facts presented.
In some cases, circumstantial evidence is used by some skeptics to support their case....but the same evidence can be used by "believers" or the "witness" to support their case.
It really boils down to who can present the direct and circumstantial evidence in a way that those reviewing the case would believe without a reasonable doubt that what was witnessed was an intelligently-controlled craft from this planet or not.
Also, believers should avoid, if necessary, using the term "alien" and focus on "intelligently-controlled", "UAP", or "UFO". Some skeptics enjoy tossing in the term "alien" when suggesting that "UFOs" cannot be proved. Proving that aliens exist is much harder than proving that someone saw a UFO......
Originally posted by flice
Circumstantial evidence would get tossed in any "rational" court.
We need more... more martyrs, more direct proof, more sincere elaboration from people who have nothing to gain, yes, nothing to gain.
Find the hoaxes, report them to software producers because most likely they are made from pirated software. Crash down on losers who think making hoaxes are fun and challenging. We have enough to look at to begin with, we don't need some kid testing his latest advances in AE.
First deal with hoaxers and foolish attention seekers then we can deal with your petty squabbles surrounding skeptics like me!
Originally posted by TheBottomLine
Another poor argument from a skeptic.....more direct proof required. No need for me to prove anything to you and I do not "have a squabble" with you. My statement is centered on which side uses the evidence the best. If you want more, then go and find it. Pretty simple....
I do agree that hoaxers should be sought after, but do not be consumed by the chase itself. There should be a team created and dedicated to this.....
P.S. Circumstantial evidence presented unlawfully or illogically can be tossed....therefore circumstantial evidence presented lawfully and logically can be used to enhance ones case. Has nothing to do with rationality...hope you understand that...I really do. Anything else I can answer for you, flice?
Originally posted by Badge01
Who, whatting how with, huh?
Is this whole post meant to be just one snide remark?
Evidence, proof, belief, denial, lawful, unlawful.
What would you have people do? Can you speak plainly and state your position?
I'm not complaining so much as unable to get anything out of what you just said, my friend.
The most important part of the ETH problem is:
1. stating the problem;
2. looking at what data exists;
3. making a logical choice;
4. ruling out the possible from the improbable from the impossible (if any) and maybe rank the results.
The major position I'm hearing from many is '(sic) your arrogant you don't believe there's life in the Universe, therefore (sic)there coming here and abducting people'.
This does not make any logical sense! Help us out here, please.
We need to work together to connect 'non-human, non-terrestrial beings with unknown lighted craft in the sky (or not), and then explain how they could be here right under our noses and not be evident.
Though a bizarre explanation could be possible, can we find a regular explanation?
Is it not true that if aliens from another planet were here we'd know it?
That's my position. We'd likely have already come down with an alien virus. Who here hasn't read H.G.Wells?
If you have to add layers and layers of additional weirdness to explain why not, that is not, to me a proper application of Occam.
[edit on 26-7-2008 by Badge01]