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

page: 3
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
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.....




posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
The OP has stated that there is solid undeniable proof of aliens and that we as skeptics are just unwilling to believe what we see. I want to see the video and photographic evidence of these so-called aliens, prove to us that they are undeniable. From what I have seen, all photographs or videos of aliens have been debunked. So if there are some out there that have not been I would like to see. Also I believe I have given a way to prove something does not exist, so now it is the believers turn to prove to us that ufo's are piloted by alien species. Oh yeah the proof I said was to go outside and take a picture/video of the sky...if nothing there than you have proven something does not exist.Stupid yes, but not as stupid as for the believers to ask us to prove something doesn't exist. WHERE ARE THE PICS AND VIDEO OF ALIEN SPACECRAFT? I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT UFO'S BECAUSE YES THEY EXIST BUT NOTHING CONCRETE TO PROVE THEY COME FROM ANOTHER CIVILIZATION. SO PROVE TO US THAT IS WHERE THEY COME FROM. Eye-witness testimony is not good enough....people have been mistaken in the past and that CAN BE PROVEN.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by riggs2099]

[edit on 26-7-2008 by riggs2099]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 09:07 PM
link   

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?


"Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence."

That's one of the stupidest most dumbest most asinine nonsense that I have seen believers of faith spout about when they are forced into a corner.

That's not how it works.

The burden of proof is not in the hands of the non-believers. That would be stupid and laughable.

"So wait...you want me to prove that something I can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste is not real?"

Doesn't that sound a bit preposterous to you? Doesn't that sound ludicrous to you?

To use the example found in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, a celestial teapot is in orbit around Mars. However, it is SO small that even the most powerful telescopes are unable to see it. If you asked me to prove that it existed and I replied with "No, you prove to me that the celestial teapot DOESN'T exist," wouldn't that be slightly laughable?

The same thing can be said about your request.

The burden of proof is not in the hands of the non-believers.

The burden of proof is not in the hands of the non-believers.

The burden of proof is not in the hands of the non-believers.

Drum that into your head. Drum that into your head. Drum that into your head.











[edit on 26-7-2008 by AntisepticSkeptic]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Aw man... that's what you gotta love about ATS, and what "they" love about ATS.... if it doesn't fit the view of, or doesn't pass scrutiny then we just ignore it and make up our own truth that gets close enough to our "reality".
Well done.......... well done. The fight is lost already, because "I choose to believe blindly..........."

Sorry, but you are the scum of the cause.... fighting against us from the inside. You will never be in front or behind. Just a random act of inconsiderable nature of sheep.

[edit on 26/7/08 by flice]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
We could have the power of forcing individuals to disclose the very information, maybe even more if we stop pretending to be casulties of mindwar and instead instigate the will of the free people.
I must admit I have no idea what will come of this, but it should strike every single nation as odd that the very country we've been brought up in is allowed BY OUR ACCORD to conceal information, simply because they made up the reason "it's better for us"

We know what is better for us.... it is not being controlled, or being told what to think. It is not knowing that because some leaders friends own some business dependend on economy we should herald everything he says.
Truth and freedom comes in small amounts and if they can't even produce a simple thing like that, why believet hem the next time.

TRUST YOU INSTINCT! The media won't give you any answers.... only more questions that they will happily answer for you. Including Obama and McCain.

Once again... ask yourself why no president has had the guts to disclosure the business of UFOs or the intention since JFK.
We are not alone, the sharade is over. Just believe yourself... but prove yourself! We will win this fight!

[edit on 26/7/08 by flice]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
SHEEP...who really is the sheep? Those that choose to question or those that believe blindly? I will not believe..YET..because there is no proof. Wanting to believe and follow those that do..sound more like the sheep.


[edit on 26-7-2008 by riggs2099]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   

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......



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   
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!



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   
You know what's obvious here is that anybody in this debate, in this field is responsible for their own position.

They should be observing, analyzing, sorting and collating what they believe is evidence.

They should take a class on how to argue both sides of an issue and participate in debates if that is important to them

What someone else thinks, what someone else believes, what someone else experiences is really of little value.

Think for yourself, learn to think critically, then based on that make up your mind.

All of these arguments which are emotion-based, one side 'calling out' the other for failing to do their cognitive work for them, and sniping with emotional statements get us nowhere.

'It's arrogant' one side shouts.

'Nothing will convince you' they say.

These kind of comments are specious and worthless, and do nothing to either further the debate or elucidate the question.

They are argument by intimidation, pure and simple. Do not go there.

Convince yourself - go out and observe and research and learn about human perception. Don't sit behind a PC and fail to read the data with a critical eye and shreik and stomp and fling yourself about.

You're not solving the conundrum of the ET Hypothesis - you're just doing the Hokey Pokey!



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   

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!


Ahhhhh flice,

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?



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Hey guys.
joshedis here, new to the ATB but anyways.

Im a believer in aliens, and only because of the facts behind them.
If you do not believe my claims that UFO's are real watch this Youtube video (taken from a dvd and placed on the tube).

So even if your a skeptic please watch at least the first segment of this,
even if your just going to laugh. I want to get this video out, it has changed the way I think about these things.

The stories, videos, and audio clips are (for the most part) real.
So please watch this, thank you

www.youtube.com...

p.s. sorry for taking up a hugs chunk of the thread just to say this lol!



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBottomLine

Ahhhhh flice,

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?


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 saying I'm 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 ranking 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.

For instance I think someone listed some cases and said 'that's evidence of something'.

A better way to do it would be to take each case on its own and show how this proves your thesis.

I've tried to do this with the Betty and Barney Hill case. I've gone back to the original report as much as possible and taken a fresh look.

Why not do this with the other important cases? Anyone want to pick one and do that?


Tossing barbed comments back and forth isn't getting us anywhere, imo.

Just a thought.






[edit on 26-7-2008 by Badge01]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by AntisepticSkeptic
 


concrete proof is US gov documents that tell of ET existence. they are out there for you to read. it's not a story telling class for 6 graders, they are documents that a ton of (legitimate) people worked on and are a real quantifiable material objects that you can put your hands on. what more do you need?

does anyone think these documents were built for the pure entertainment for mankind? they've just been released to the public from projects that required real man-hours and accountability.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Holy crap...another ramble. You ramblers always talk like these things you speak of are fact. How do you know for a fact that there are government documents stating alien contact?



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   
First Antiseptic,

Your way off base.

Prove black Holes
Prove Virtual Particles
Prove the Origin of Life
Prove you love your family

You can't prove any of these things you can just give me evidence that these things exist.

I can give you evidence that extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional exist.

Eyewitness accounts from Pilots, police officers, high ranking government officials and more. Trace Evidence, abduction cases, pictures and video.

I can give you evidence that supports things within ufology.

If you say this evidence is not true, the burden of proof is on you to show evidence beyond your opinion that these things are not true.

It's like in court, the Prosecutor says a person commited the crime, the defense attorney who says he didn't commit the crime has to show evidence as to why this didn't occur.

You have people who write papers that suggest black holes don't exist and there isn't any physical evidence for black holes.

If the skeptic thinks for a living, he/she should be able to refute things within ufology without resorting to Absolutes.

Riggs,

You ask for evidence then you say I will not listen to eyewitness testimony. Right there, that lets me know that you are looking to support what you may already believe about these things.

Here's a case for you. 62 kids in Zimbabwe had a sighting and this case was investigated by Harvard Professor John Mack.

youtube.com...

I want you to give me evidence to counter what these kids saw. I'm not asking you to prove they didn't see what they said they saw just give me evidence that suggest something else occured.

Here's a couple more:

[recent] St. Clair County, Illinois 5-Jan-2000 4:00AM police officers in five adjoining towns all independently report witnessing a large flying craft with multiple bright lights moving silently across the sky at a very low altitude, with the unfolding of the incident recorded on radio transcripts.

[classic] Minot Air Force Base, N.D., Oct-1968 (BlueBook case #12548) when 16 airmen on the ground witness UFOs hovering and zipping around ("darting very quickly one way or the other") near the Minuteman missile silos of the 91st Strategic Missile Wing of the base. Moments later, the crew of an airborne B-52 which was called-in to investigate, saw visually and also tracked on radar a huge (est. 200ft diameter and 100s of feet long) UFO pacing their plane.

www.hyper.net...
This one page should keep you tied up for years.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by riggs2099
 


not sure if your talking about ramble on my post, but take the time out and educate yourself on many of the first hand reports from individuals that have had encounters, among the countless de-classified docs from our government and other national governments that are telling the truth on this subject. don't be afraid.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by polomontana
 


What I really said was that the believers will believe others testimony without proof. SHEEP. As for the stories you have given me to read I will read them. Children can always be led to believe whatever you want them to believe. Santa Claus is an example...without reading the story YET I will say just as hypothesis..that some government test flew something and children in an undeveloped country saw this and then the pilots came out wearing something they could not recognize....ie...a type of protection suit, so they best described what people in a area of the world not used to technology. Not saying that's what happened but are you willing to give that option a thought.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by riggs2099]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Well actually (this is from the video in my previous post) Russia has been open about its Alien encounters, and doesn't keep anything from its civilians( mostly)
However when Russia is open about this. Why isn't the U.S government.
I think( might sound stupid) the U.S must have more to hide. Area 51 has star trek technology (according to an area 51 official) and years past anything we can imagine.

Sincerely, joshedis

p.s yes I am a sheep, however only due to facts, originally I was a skeptic.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by joshedis]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   

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]


Badge01,

You're right on one point.....I shouldn't be snide and I have no excuse for it. I agree with that and apologize to you, flice, for it.
Now, let's focus on your statements....first, I'm not going the get into whether or not "aliens" are here or even exist for that matter. The focus for me is whether or not "non-earthly and intelligently-controlled" UFOs are "out there".....being seen by the public (or captured on NASA video). Didn't know what I stated in my earlier post would confuse you. How confusing to you is my earlier quote: "My statement is centered on which side uses the evidence (direct or circumstantial) the best.". I simply stated that the "skeptic" or "believer" that best uses them in combination will have the best chance to prove or disprove a "UFO" case. That's all, my friend.
I'm not into proving "alien" existence and such.....look for someone else to debate that topic. Not me....



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
if we're not arguing that something unidentified is flying in our skies, i'd like to pose a question.

what is more improbable:
A: some human agency on earth has technology capable of going from 0(or similarly slow speed say 30mph) to 1900 mph in a couple of seconds, somehow able to negate inertia. however they don't use this technology for anything other than flying over populated, and unpopulated areas to scare people for no reason.

B: some intelligence not of this planet found us and is investigating us in some way(perhaps they found us by accident).

C: some intelligence of this planet is flying around in vehicles we currently cannot duplicate(according to known physics) for some reason we are not aware.


as for A, i'd like to point out that i got the speeds from the recent radar findings of the stephensville event that were backed up by several (i believe 5) radar towers.

personally i'm not 100% sure what's being seen, but i'm 90% sure it's not technology we made with what we currently understand of physics and what tech is available. i find it difficult to believe that we (whether our government, someone elses, or humanity in general) have this technology and only use it to cruise around when we could end the wars we're in right now in about twenty minutes with it and conquer the world in a few hours.





new topics
top topics
 
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join