The Questions U.F.O. skeptics can't answer, page 6

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 32 times

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 02:12 AM by riggs2099

About the leg bone pic..read this.
www.kent-hovind.com...
just a repilca.

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 02:15 AM by TheBottomLine

Originally posted by riggs2099
reply to post by TheBottomLine

If you believe than aren't you saying it's fact. Or what does believe to you mean.
Believe - accept as true; take to be true
True - consistent with fact or reality; not false; "the story is true"; "it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for

[edit on 27-7-2008 by riggs2099]

Please take the time to answer my questions in my earlier reply to you.......also, nice how you only gave one definition of believe with the hopes of validating/further shaping your argument.....you forgot to include the following:

2. To think, assume, or suppose
3. To accept the statement or opinion of (a person) as true
4. To have confidence in the truth or value of something
5. To credit with veracity

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 02:15 AM by Malevolent_Aliens

reply to post by riggs2099

A lot of these pics have been proven to be fake. Nice one..
If those are then so is this one...

Easy to write in words, please show us the evidence?

Sure there are many fakes out there but not all, alot of what I use is for illustration but please back up what you write.

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 02:16 AM by riggs2099

reply to post by Malevolent_Aliens

If your helping so-called abducties..then god help them

. I would not trust someone in my head who believes those pics to be real when some not all are fake as hell only some one as ***** and not helping thier cause would put those pics up as facts.

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 02:17 AM by riggs2099

Originally posted by Malevolent_Aliens
reply to post by riggs2099

A lot of these pics have been proven to be fake. Nice one..
If those are then so is this one...

Easy to write in words, please show us the evidence?

Sure there are many fakes out there but not all, alot of what I use is for illustration but please back up what you write.

I meant to write then so is this one and if you clicked the link it would have brought you to a pic of zeus carved into rock.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by riggs2099]

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 02:21 AM by riggs2099

reply to post by TheBottomLine

What dictionary are you reading from? And what defintions are you using those for.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by riggs2099]

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 02:30 AM by Malevolent_Aliens

reply to post by riggs2099

You can play arrogant, ignorant and even rude if you want that is ok.

What I posted was for illustration I'm not claiming everything to be real.

There is a debate on some of those pictures though and a few have never been disproven, a few web-sites have only done their best to debunk them. I don't want to get into that though, not worth the time.

The topic is do aliens exist or not?

Whether you believe me or not if I told you I have physically had contact with grey aliens and been aboard a spacecraft wide awake not asleep it makes no difference to me. I am sure you can laugh all you want about it but someday you will learn the truth. I can assure you!

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 02:30 AM by TheBottomLine

Originally posted by riggs2099
reply to post by TheBottomLine

What dictionary are you reading from? And what defintions are you using those for.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by riggs2099]

freedictionary.com.....better question for you....which dictionary would you like for me to read from? Also, you still have not answered any of the questions or respond to my comments from my earlier post. That's interesting and in a few I will post a reply as to why I think you are not going to do it.....afterwards, I'll be getting some sleep and will not longer respond to any of your comments. I'm looking for dialogue w/ skeptics and believers. Folks with an open mind, not those that just provide blanket statements and seek to argue simply for the purpose of arguing....as if intentionally distracting those in search of more info on the UFO subject......

[edit on 27-7-2008 by TheBottomLine]

[edit on 27-7-2008 by TheBottomLine]

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 02:35 AM by riggs2099

reply to post by Malevolent_Aliens

Intelligent life exist on other planets. This is one great possibilty that I am willing to believe after all be kind of arrogant to think otherwise...just no proof that tyhey have come here.

People can also be correct and non-delusional. True..but so it can go both ways...will you give that theory a shot or does it not fall into what you believe?

"If these creatures exist why have they just recently shown up in the past few decades?"
Avoid imposing your rationale in this instance as most people tend to think "inside the box". Ummm not really an answer just a way of avoiding the question

Direct is what I need...circumstantial is basically saying they could be here which turns into theory and not fact.
circumstantial - strongly suggesting something but not proving it + Of no primary significance; incidental. + Of, relating to, or dependent on circumstances. JUST THE DEFINITIONS THAT ARE RELEVANT.

"Find out how many believers have said it was a fact. Also find out how many have not said it was a fact and present the percentages with supporting data to us"
I would do this but too much time and effort...Let's say you fall into that category

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 02:35 AM by Nohup

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?

I'm saying that I don't know if these things can't or don't exist, only that I and a lot of other people have not been presented with enough positive, testable evidence to prove it.

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

No, I'm limiting my acceptance of something as fact (or not) to the evidence I've been shown.

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?

Nope. I'll limit my belief in what that person is able to offer in the way of solid proof that can be independently verified. I would tend to give a little more weight to a statement made by the President, but I would still need him to produce the goods.

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?

I would want to hear everything this person has to say, but I would also need them to show me some tangible evidence leading to proof of their claims. People, even honest people, have been known to be mistaken, or have brain tumors. I would feel bad if they couldn't produce the evidence, but I wouldn't automatically assume what they told me was entirely true.

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?

I think I've answered that question above. Whether these things exist or not has nothing to do with anyone's belief -- theirs or mine. It has to do with good, testable, verifiable evidence that proves the contention.

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

Well, good. Fortunately for me, I'm not doing that. And I think I've managed to answer those questions well enough, although I may not be the kind of "skeptic" you're looking for. I'm actually a tougher nut to crack than those guys. I'm somebody with an open mind who is just waiting for somebody to show me some decent, unimpeachable proof of something... anything! But it's gotta be pretty damned good proof.

At this point, we have a surprising amount of evidence, but of what? Aliens? Time travelers? Something else completely? It's quite the puzzle.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by Nohup]

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 02:38 AM by riggs2099

reply to post by Malevolent_Aliens

Well I guess you got me...lol. Always the same someday you will believe...YAWN. So your a rare one....according to most they are taken while they are asleep or without consent...but I guess your special

Now that was a quick...This guy went from helping abducties to a full out alien encounter in like thirty minutes. Wonder what he would have said if I said Jesus doesn't exist...HMMMM>> believe what you want but I had tea with him...sooner or later you will believe...lol

[edit on 27-7-2008 by riggs2099]

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 02:41 AM by nahsik

Originally posted by riggs2099
reply to post by optimus primal

Finally someone who knows where I am coming from. I want to believe but to me there is nothing to it. As for other intelligent life elsewhere...that one should be true, it would be arrogant to believe otherwise. I just don't feel there is other tangible evidence to support that they are for sure. There are some good cases that make me think..but not enough to say yes and believe from there.

I think I do understand where your coming from here. In other words you do want to believe it is true but the underlying evidence shown at the moment will not make you a believer. Then what will? A total disclosure is not going to happen anytime soon. There are much harder skeptics out there who will hoist it out to be just a fake. Do you want a UFO to fly across your house or be abducted? You do realise that there are close to 7 billion people on this earth now and for an alien abduction to happen it is hardly ever likely.

I believe in the theory but not the outcomes of the theory. I believe there are aliens in this universe who can be smarter than humans. I believe that they have visited us. I don't believe in every visitation. I believe there are too many crackpots, disinfo agents and just people who just want to have fun and fake visitations and abductions out there. I believe that too many people do tooo quickly believe that a bird in a video to be a ufo.

Just a question:
Do some of you skeptics believe in the 911 conspiracy?

I have nothing against skeptics and what they want to believe in. But I would love some tolerance from both sides. You can't make everyone believe in Aliens. I think it is sort of like religion. Everyone has their own perspective on what it could be or couldn't be.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by nahsik]

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 02:46 AM by riggs2099

Speaking of high ranking officials testimony being used as the holy grail of testimony...Lest we forget those that have not been so truthful. The is Clinton..I never had sexual relations wit that girl...George Bush...we know there are weapons of mass destruction.....And plenty more. These are some of the highest officials out there.... so if they can B.S. us than so can others. No ones testimony should ever be considered the best out there as high ranking officials lie like everyone else. BUT NOT THE ONES YOU TALK ABOUT BECAUSE THEY GO ALONG WITH EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE....RIGHT

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 02:49 AM by riggs2099

reply to post by nahsik

I am willing to give aliens a chance as theory not fact. As for 9/11 which theory are you talking about...doesn't matter...only facts are these....terrorists crashed planes...sounds highly unlikely that this could happen...but until something less far fetched and can be proven as in thrown in front of public eyes and media..its the only one we got.

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 02:53 AM by polomontana

Originally posted by riggs2099
Speaking of high ranking officials testimony being used as the holy grail of testimony...Lest we forget those that have not been so truthful. The is Clinton..I never had sexual relations wit that girl...George Bush...we know there are weapons of mass destruction.....And plenty more. These are some of the highest officials out there.... so if they can B.S. us than so can others. No ones testimony should ever be considered the best out there as high ranking officials lie like everyone else. BUT NOT THE ONES YOU TALK ABOUT BECAUSE THEY GO ALONG WITH EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE....RIGHT

Riggs,

Your not making sense.

Can I have some evidence that these credible witnesses as you call them are delusional? Now your saying their Bill Clinton.

Riggs, do you know how evidence works? You have to weigh the credibility of the witness and in some cases try to impeach the witnesses.

That's why if you were to testify against John Gotti it wouldnt have mattered. When Sammy the Bull did it it was given weight.

Do you understand this concept? You are just throwing things out there without a shred of evidence.

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 02:54 AM by TheBottomLine

Originally posted by riggs2099
reply to post by Malevolent_Aliens

Intelligent life exist on other planets.

This is one great possibilty that I am willing to believe after all be kind of arrogant to think otherwise...just no proof that tyhey have come here.

Ok......fair enough.

People can also be correct and non-delusional.

True..but so it can go both ways...will you give that theory a shot or does it not fall into what you believe?

Yes, it can go both ways. Your original statement lends credence to your mindset of choosing not to believe due to someone possibly being delusional or mistaken. My point is there could be some who are correct and non-delusional. Would you believe if they made the claims? To answer, you question, yes, I would give your theory a shot, since you are giving my theory a shot.

If these creatures exist why have they just recently shown up in the past few decades?"

Avoid imposing your rationale in this instance as most people tend to think "inside the box".

Ummm not really an answer just a way of avoiding the question

Not avoiding the question....who's to say aliens have shown up? Or do you mean UFOs have appeared more often? Again, I will not enter into any debate as to whether or not aliens exist. UFOs, yes....aliens, no.

Direct is what I need...circumstantial is basically saying they could be here which turns into theory and not fact.
circumstantial - strongly suggesting something but not proving it + Of no primary significance; incidental. + Of, relating to, or dependent on circumstances. JUST THE DEFINITIONS THAT ARE RELEVANT.

Are you sure direct evidence is what you need? Did you know direct evidence includes the following?

*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").

"Find out how many believers have said it was a fact. Also find out how many have not said it was a fact and present the percentages with supporting data to us"
I would do this but too much time and effort...Let's say you fall into that category

I'll take that as a joke.....funny, I guess. At least we do agree on some things. Good night and nice chatting with you......

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 02:58 AM by polomontana

There's both direct and circumstantial evidence to support things within ufology.

Direct evidence is testimony or other proof which expressly or straight-forwardly proves the existence of a fact. It is different from circumstantial evidence, which is evidence that, without going directly to prove the existence of a fact, gives rise to a logical inference that such fact does exist.

Direct evidence is evidence which, if believed, proves the existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption. It is evidence which comes from one who speaks directly of his or her own knowledge on the main or ultimate fact to be proved, or who saw or heard the factual matters which are the subject of the testimony. It is not necessary that this direct knowledge be gained through the senses of sight and hearing alone, but it may be obtained from any of the senses through which outside knowledge is acquired, including the senses of touch or pain.

State v Famber, 358 Mo 288, 214 SW2d 40.

en.wikipedia.org...

Eyewitness testimony from Presidents, police, pilots, high ranking government officials, abduction cases and more.

Circumstantial evidence is a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. Corroboration is normally supplied by one or more expert witnesses who provide forensic evidence.

Cave Paintings, paintings, ancient manuscripts, pictures, video, trace evidence and more.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by polomontana]

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 02:58 AM by Malevolent_Aliens

reply to post by riggs2099

"If these creatures exist why have they just recently shown up in the past few decades?"

You keep bringing this up but it's not an accurate statement, extraterrestrials have been around for thousands of years and spoken of by many ancient civilizations perhaps spoken of by some more than we do in our time. This was intentionally kept hidden from the majority of mankind, ET's have kept their presence a well kept secret. As for Zeus and the other Gods I would never discredit the possibility of them being real figures, I would be open minded enough to consider that Zeus could have existed and was of extraterrestrial origin. Have you ever considered the possibility that we could have relatives that look almost identical to us in the stars? I believe we do.

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 02:59 AM by menguard

What is time?

When does a wave of gravity stop in motion?

At what point did time and space begin?

Why are we here?

Who created you?

How can time not exist?

Why are we alien to ourselves?

Why does the ufology field stop at flying crafts?

Why is everything in the field of obscurity based on falsified truths?

Why do agencies make false claims and cover them up with top secret files?

Why does the government exist as parlimentiary cabinet?

Who authorises information leaks through media conception?

Why does the real source of man's potential stop at a routine based conclusion?

What is outside of time?

Why are their growth hormones put into beef?

Why is our water sources polluted?

why does the dark government create viruses and who benefits from the weeding out process?

Why are they trying to get rid of undesirables that are only human not really superhuman?

Cleaning the streets up through bio synthetic viruses which have been spread on our fruits and vegtables, trying to create an aids epidemic?

How many bases are known to man on Earth that are extraterrestrial?

When did the Air Force take Nasa as an undercover space program?

Why hasn't the public been told about our (top scientist's) going to moon and mars and cross analysing information to sustain an enviroment and biosphere and biological engineering?

Why did the -Zeta program- get out of hand, the C.I.A couldn't stop the proliferation of the ZETA PROGRAM and neutralize the congress and senate?

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 03:00 AM by riggs2099

reply to post by polomontana

What are you..special...lol. I never said Clinton and Bush were delusional, I said to use high ranking officials as evidence to help your cause is not good enough because they can lie just like anyone.