[edit on 25-8-2008 by NoRunRichard]

Originally posted by thrashee
I have? I did not realize that logical discourse was equivalent to the environment of a court of law. That being said, that speaks NOTHING about the evidence and what science needs for proper evidence. That's what we've been arguing the entire time. Don't confuse banter in a forum to be equivalent to the actual arena in which the existence of aliens will be proven--you didn't really believe said existence was going to be proven on ATS, did you?

Yes, I believe this can be proven here. You can also do a research in the web and pick out the most credible ones. Yes it can be proven. But I'm sure you'll reject even these.

Not true. We've rejected the links that Montana has repeatedly provided. Once again, your logic is quite faulty: the rejected examples within this forum do not constitute the entirety of evidence....do they?

Yes I believe Polomontana wouldn't lie. I believe his links are credible.

I've said this before to Montana, and I'll say it again now to you: if such evidence is so obvious, then why isn't the existence of alien life accepted as a truth by the scientific community? Please, try to forego any ridiculous conspiracy theories when answering that.

Because they are part of a coverup. They want us to believe that human existence and ingenuity are the only things existing in the Universe. But, in my opinion, they are pretending to look for alien life. If they are really looking they should have found this a long time ago. Maybe they have but they're not disclosing them.

And what are those standards again? I'm sorry, but "believers" weren't really a category back in 1947; Roswell largely prompted the entire UFO craze--much later.

That is the beginning of the category of believers. They seem to come out later because of threats from the authorities.

Sense of character? So you resort to yet another ad hominem attack when faced with someone who doesn't believe as you do. Again, your reactions are quite telling. And I'm sorry, I didn't twist anything around.

There's nothing to believe regarding me--I'm not the one clinging to a belief here.

Yes you twisted things around. You called us biased and close-minded, qualities that are appropriate to skeptics. If there's nothing to believe why do you still hang around and drone in here? Why don't you go somewhere else like your own skeptic forum? And would you care to read the information below, this applies to you.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
Yes, I believe this can be proven here. You can also do a research in the web and pick out the most credible ones. Yes it can be proven.

It's great that you believe it can be proven; unfortunately, though, you're merely stacking one belief on top of the other. I'm sorry, but merely "picking the most credible ones" is not going to cut it for proving anything. You know this, and I do, too.

Yes I believe Polomontana wouldn't lie. I believe his links are credible.

More beliefs. When are we going to start looking at facts?

Because they are part of a coverup. They want us to believe that human existence and ingenuity are the only things existing in the Universe. But, in my opinion, they are pretending to look for alien life. If they are really looking they should have found this a long time ago. Maybe they have but they're not disclosing them.

After I just asked you not to invoke a conspiracy theory as a response, that's exactly what you did.

Are you really that surprised that skeptics still don't believe when your every response evokes belief and emotion and opinion rather than any cold, hard facts?

That is the beginning of the category of believers. They seem to come out later because of threats from the authorities.

Historically, this is flat out incorrect. The UFO phenomena really didn't get started until then. You're falling back on your good old conspiracy theories now to rewrite history.

Yes you twisted things around. You called us biased and close-minded, qualities that are appropriate to skeptics.

I see....so you can call us these things from the start, and that's ok. And when we do everything in our power to explain to you why we reason the way we do, and you continue to ignore, and we finally point out the hypocrisy on display, this is your response?

If there's nothing to believe why do you still hang around and drone in here? Why don't you go somewhere else like your own skeptic forum?

Perhaps you need to reread the OP. This was directly addressed to skeptics. Thus, you have skeptics in the thread.

And would you care to read the information below, this applies to you.

Is this the best you can do? Resort to petty insults when the moderators have asked over and over again to refrain from making personal attacks?

I'm sorry--tell me again how you're so unbiased and open-minded?

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
You can do a research anywhere including the web and use common sense to pick out the sensible ones. The same applies to Polomontana's links. Maybe you don't have common sense and as a skeptic or a pseudoskeptic, you just merely railroad everything.

I'm not talking about the ability to discern which ones are more credible than others--I'm talking about proof, that curious term you're avoiding.

Face it: nothing that's out there right now definitively proves that aliens exist, period. You can resort to attacking me and guessing at my motives, but you cannot escape this fact.

The UFO phenomenon started in prehistoric times but because nobody then had a terrestrial explanation to them nobody figured them out until probably 1947 when we had the means and intelligence to identify them.

It did? And how, exactly, do you know that? Were you around back then? Are you now going to evoke caveman drawings as further proof for you now? So 1947 was just a magical time when our intelligence suddenly blossomed to the extent where we could now define these things?

Your logic is as faulty as Montana's, but it does explain why the two of you are the ONLY believers who are still desperately trying to hold onto this notion you have that skeptics are so horribly biased.

Talking to you is like talking to a Devil, you'll let me in if I agree with you and you're using double standards in your arguments. You're just pulling my leg. I'm wasting my time on insolence.

Invariably, you've shown that this is how you'll act when you can't actually use logic and reason to maintain a discourse. I absolutely love your appeal to a religious analogy--it sums up from what "sphere of knowledge" you approach this debate beautifully. Please keep going--you and Montana are doing more to discredit your belief than skeptics could ever do.

Because I'm exhausted with these red herrings that have been going on for so long, let's just review the actual OP:

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?

No. Skeptics have never said these things, so we're immediately starting off on an assumption. Skeptics don't say ETs can't or don't exist--they say there is not any proof that they do. This effectively renders the second question above POINTLESS.

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

No, because we have no pre-existing belief. Notice how Montana flat out assumes we have one here. Again, flawed from the start.

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?

Again, Montana is assuming a belief that does not exist. Flawed and POINTLESS.

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?

More assumptions. Flawed.

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

We're not, so we're not limiting anything. And even if we were, we still wouldn't be limiting anything. This is akin to asking if you are a Christian, are you "limiting" the Buddhist's knowledge of reality.

It's a ridiculously stupid question.

Debate solved. All that has been demonstrated here is Montana's own pre-existing notions of what skeptics are and how they think.

Originally posted by thrashee
I'm not talking about the ability to discern which ones are more credible than others--I'm talking about proof, that curious term you're avoiding.

Face it: nothing that's out there right now definitively proves that aliens exist, period. You can resort to attacking me and guessing at my motives, but you cannot escape this fact.

Credible photos and videos, they are proof. Abductees who were cross-examined, they are proof. The bottom line is you refuse to acknowledge them. Like I said, since the actual thing is missing you'll have to make do with whatever is available.

It did? And how, exactly, do you know that? Were you around back then? Are you now going to evoke caveman drawings as further proof for you now? So 1947 was just a magical time when our intelligence suddenly blossomed to the extent where we could now define these things?

See, there you go again, denying evidence. Yes, that is what happened. I could explain this but it will make this thread long.

Your logic is as faulty as Montana's, but it does explain why the two of you are the ONLY believers who are still desperately trying to hold onto this notion you have that skeptics are so horribly biased.

Yes you are horribly biased, you're just not sane enough to recognize this.

Invariably, you've shown that this is how you'll act when you can't actually use logic and reason to maintain a discourse. I absolutely love your appeal to a religious analogy--it sums up from what "sphere of knowledge" you approach this debate beautifully. Please keep going--you and Montana are doing more to discredit your belief than skeptics could ever do.

I'm not religious, for your information, that was an analogy. You're the one who's doing the damage, not us believers.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
Credible photos and videos, they are proof. Abductees who were cross-examined, they are proof. The bottom line is you refuse to acknowledge them. Like I said, since the actual thing is missing you'll have to make do with whatever is available.

What do you mean, "the actual thing is missing"? We're not refusing to acknowledge anything; we're merely raining on your parade by stating that photos and videos, no matter how credible, don't prove alien life. For instance (does this really need explaining?) you could have a credible video of an unknown craft. Guess what you've just "proved": that an unknown craft was filmed. The leap from that to alien life is a grand one, however probable. This is basic logic.

See, there you go again, denying evidence. Yes, that is what happened. I could explain this but it will make this thread long.

Where did I deny a single thing? Can you show me? Or are you making leaps between A and Z again? And guess what--caveman drawings don't prove anything, do they?

Yes you are horribly biased, you're just not sane enough to recognize this.

If by horribly biased, you mean that anecdotal evidence is not enough for me, fine. You might as well state that you think science is a big meanie and robs you of your belief.

I'm not religious, for your information, that was an analogy. You're the one who's doing the damage, not us believers.

Hey, it was your analogy. Perhaps if you took a bit more time in constructing your arguments, you wouldn't be facing the obvious retorts.

Maybe you're not religious. Maybe you just thought calling me "a devil" made you seem more credible

Originally posted by thrashee
What do you mean, "the actual thing is missing"? We're not refusing to acknowledge anything; we're merely raining on your parade by stating that photos and videos, no matter how credible, don't prove alien life. For instance (does this really need explaining?) you could have a credible video of an unknown craft. Guess what you've just "proved": that an unknown craft was filmed. The leap from that to alien life is a grand one, however probable. This is basic logic.

This basic logic is flawed. We are not heathens who couldn't identify anything extraterrestrial when we sense one. The conclusion from an unknown craft to extraterrestrial beings is not a "grand one." You're nothing but a big farce thrashee.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

[edit on 25-8-2008 by NoRunRichard]

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
This basic logic is flawed. We are not heathens who couldn't identify anything extraterrestrial when we sense one. The conclusion from an unknown craft to extraterrestrial beings is not a "grand one." You're nothing but a big farce thrashee.

I see, you sensed it. How is that holding up to scientific scrutiny for you?

You can continue to attack me as much as you wish, but it only weakens your own stand. Making personal attacks is a sign of weakness, ignorance, and desperation.

Originally posted by NoRunRichard

Skeptics occupy a different sphere of knowledge or belief than the believers. Skeptics deny the existence of alien intelligence and visitation of Earth, they don't believe in these things. The believer is the opposite.

Sceptics and believers occupy differents spheres of belief, based on the same knowledge. That is it, Period. Sceptics are sceptical of the knowledge presented as being proof of ET, believers are accepting of this knowledge. Same sphere of knowledge, different inclinations of doubt or belief. I am currently inclined to believe that your posts are getting funnier.
Cheers.
p.s. perhaps it is that we occupy different spheres of reality, one inclined to fantasy, the other inclined to logic and rational thought( or perhaps a rougue rationality:lol

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
[ "Extraordinary evidence" is nowhere to be found therefore we have to make do with whatever evidence is at hand and this is what we believers base our beliefs on. Credible photographs are a good example to believe in and in fact photos are admissible in courts, why are they not acceptable out here?

Clear, identifiable photos that identify a human being as having been in a certain place at a certain time, or a video that shows an identifiable human being doing something. Forensic photos of evidence, with chain of custody and people to sit on the stand and say "yes, I took this picture" and explain what it shows. Yes, such are admissible in court, although they still bring the actual evidence (the murder weapon, the lab reports, etc.) into court to back up the pictures. In no way are these types of evidential pictures and videos analogous to youtube videos and camera phone pictures of lights in the sky.

Show me ANY other venue or arena in which eyewitness accounts and a few unsubstantiated photographs and videos are proof of anything?

There is a very credible video of Nessie (the Dinsdale video) which has been analyzed and is considered to be real, as well as sonar tracking of a large creature in the loch. There are credible eyewitness reports of Bigfoot, pictures, and even abductee stories. The ivory-billed woodpecker, which I have already mentioned, and the thylacine, have eyewitness reports, photos, audio evidence, etc. And yet their existence is not "accepted."

The reality of the giant squid was not acknowledged until we had a BODY that could be analyzed. Throughout human history, the existence of something is acknowledged (scientifically, legally, etc.) when we have a BODY, or a live specimen. Why must we lower our standards to accept the reality of aliens visiting Earth? Why should the extraordinary claim that aliens are visiting need LESS proof than anything else?
It does not make any logical sense.

The so-called skeptics are only adhering to time-honored standards. It is the believers who DEMAND that we suspend all rules of logic, evidence, and proof in the matter of ET because they are convinced that ET is here.

If a good picture is proof, then tell me you also believe in Nessie, Champ, ghosts, goblins, chupacabra, Thunderbirds, etc. You don't, do you? And yet we have clear pictures of all of the above which have not been debunked, with eyewitnesses to back them up.

The believers in this thread are asking the skeptics to suspend all normal and customary standards of proof and acknowledge that ET is visiting Earth based on evidence that would not be, and is not, sufficient to prove the existence of so much as a species of woodpecker, and attacking the skeptics because they don't. Who is being unreasonable here?

If a skeptic does not believe in alien visitation NOTHING can convince him the aliens are actually here.

Oh, that is SO not true. Show us a BODY. Show us a live alien. Show us a physical craft, or even pieces of one, that can be analyzed and proven to be extraterrestrial. Show us a communication from ET. Show us anything that would be considered PROOF if we were talking about anything else.

I have pointed out before that there are other cryptids and paranormal entities that you don't believe in which have as much evidence for them as ET does - which would make YOU the disbelieving skeptic - and my statement has been repeatedly ignored.

When you start addressing ALL of the reasonable points and questions which are brought up in this thread, instead of picking and choosing what to respond to and ignoring anything that you can't easily refute, then we can have a reasonable discussion without the level of frustration that has repeatedly surfaced in this thread.

Since my answer to these questions have been lost in the shuffle of 1300 posts, I'll give a shot at answering them again*.

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?

Your questions are based on a false assumption. We do not say these things cannot or do not exist. We challenge claims of extraterrestrial visitation, but this is far different than saying extraterrestrials cannot or do not exist. We do not know if we are alone, there is equal chance of both possibilities, either we are or we are not. But the information we have is lacking, no one knows if we are or not. People can say they believe they have an answer, but this is different than knowing the answer.

Yes, I am saying eyewitnesses cannot know these things. No one can. Not because of any pre-existing belief, but because of a lack of information, we run into a wall of ignorance. We simply do not know what lies behind the phenomena. We are lacking that bit of vital information that will allow us to see beyond that wall. And until we have it, we can only speculate what lies on the other side. Your guess is every bit as good as mine or anyone else's.

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

We are not limiting any one's "sphere of knowledge." The knowledge is already limited, and not because of any pre-existing belief of any skeptic. It is limited due to the nature of the phenomenon and the available data.

(*My answers may have changed slightly from the last time I answered them.)

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
If a skeptic does not believe in alien visitation NOTHING can convince him the aliens are actually here.

This speaks more to your own pre-existing beliefs than it does to any skeptic.

Sure, we do not agree with your conclusions based on what is sometimes highly interpretative evidence and leaps of both logic and belief. But that is different than saying nothing could convince us of extraterrestrial visitation. How do you know nothing could convince us?

There is no way you can know that. Government cover-up theories aside, there has never been an alien body or crashed saucer presented to the public. So you do not know how any skeptic would react presented with such information. You are just ascribing behavior to skeptics based on your own beliefs about skeptics.

Can you see the similarities between your beliefs between skeptics and your beliefs about UFOs?

1300 posts about whether skeptics continue to believe in whatever they want to believe in, no matter what the evidence presented. That's nice. Lets factor it in for some another sport.

Say that I start running from scratch. I will do that three times a week, totalling 1300 times. It means that I can run for 433.3 weeks, three times a week, totalling 8.33 years. After that time, I would be able to run a 42km marathon with some respectful amateur time. I would propably do well in city marathons in where participation by professionals is not allowed.

But, it is apparently impossible to change a belief of a believer about skeptics being hardcore believers. How much do people have to *want* it to be true to find a flaw in a person who is quite capable of defending her/his stance in a debate? There are flaws in all the people, of course. So what?

This conversation seems to continuously go into ad hominem attacks. There is no discussion about any questions a skeptic cannot answer, there are only attacks on world views of people participating in this conversation. I would like to say that there is an innocent side for this, but there is no such thing. However, believers are clearly doing it more than skeptics, not that it matters. I'm not criticizing any person, I find this an easy observation to anyone reading these.

Bottom line nevertheless is that we can answer all questions rather easily. Maybe not always alone but with help from others we will. Same applies to believers, it is a group that sticks together, usually. We certainly don't, we attack each other at the moment we find a flaw, but so what? I don't care, no, I really don't. What I care about as a skeptic is that I can *know* for certain something exists or not.

Hmm..

Have we ever attacked people who just theorize about something without claiming to be correct, having absolute proof or something similar? Have we? I'm sure some have done it. I haven't, nor have most skeptics who have participated in this thread either. But.. I don't care if some have done it or not, I know it is wrong but do I have to suffer from it? No, because I didn't do it.

I could take time and time again all those same rationalizations that have been said here before, but it is of no use. It is certainly next to impossible trying to convert a believer. Why do you think I used that word, convert, here? I used it because these claims are directly pointed at me and all other fellows who like more to know than to believe. It is a misunderstanding that stems from some deep psychological crap which apparently dominates minds of people who refuse to acknowledge that with good evidence a skeptic will believe. Some of us have also already said that they believe. Not all do, and I'm fine with that.

I do believe however, so has it occured to any of you people who believe that in a case like that, there *must* be some evidence that convinces me and all those other skeptics who have said that they believe? How hard is that to see?

Just so that you people are not going to jump on a throat of every skeptic here, I have stated these things only by myself and there are skeptics who do not believe at all. That's fine. I'm also perfectly willing to realize that we are the only sentien species in the universe. I would not like that result, but it may very well be so.

But how do I define belief in this case? Well, I play poker. It has therefore occured to me, a long time ago, that statistics usually tell you all truth you want to know if you use those logically enough. All of those can be biased, but with enough certainty you are willing to bet on something. In this case, I'm merely betting on existence of aliens and am willing to take a risk with it. You may call that belief if you wish, I do, but it is also quite logical if you somehow come up with a chance that is large enough for you.

Originally posted by atlasastro

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
Skeptics occupy a different sphere of knowledge or belief than the believers. Skeptics deny the existence of alien intelligence and visitation of Earth, they don't believe in these things. The believer is the opposite.

Sceptics and believers occupy differents spheres of belief, based on the same knowledge. That is it, Period. Sceptics are sceptical of the knowledge presented as being proof of ET, believers are accepting of this knowledge. Same sphere of knowledge, different inclinations of doubt or belief. I am currently inclined to believe that your posts are getting funnier.
Cheers.
p.s. perhaps it is that we occupy different spheres of reality, one inclined to fantasy, the other inclined to logic and rational thought( or perhaps a rougue rationality:lol

Wrong. Skeptics repress in their minds the fact that extraterrestrials exist and are visiting Earth. Therefore their knowledge about extraterrestrials are not as up-to-date as that of believers, a lot of things are missing in their knowledge of extraterrestrials, they consider these things frivolous. The same goes with their beliefs, they have no belief in extraterrestrial existence and visitation. If they say they do that's hypocrisy because they will argue for more proof. You're inclined to believe my posts are getting funnier? Oh yes, that's right, you guys stand on your heads down under. Sorry I don't agree to any rationalizations contrary to what I am saying in this post.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein