The Questions U.F.O. skeptics can't answer, page 7

privacy

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 32 times

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 03:01 AM by Nohup

Originally posted by bringthelight
Credible witness testimony can send a person to jail for life but is ignored when it comes to the most important discovery of our time?

This notion pops up every once in a while here. First, I wouldn't say that UFO witness testimony is ignored. It's listened to as much as possible, and generally accepted as accurate up to the point where the very existence of what they're talking about is in question. See, there's a huge difference between witness testimony in Court (where people are talking about activities that we know exist), and witness statements where the very existence of what they're describing is debatable.

If somebody tells me they've seen a flying saucer zipping around in a way unlike any aircraft they've ever seen, I don't have any reason to doubt that. Maybe they really believe they saw something. Maybe they even did. But how would I know, without being there? Giving them the benefit of the doubt, okay. But if this same person tells me they knew it was from Zeta Recticuli or someplace like that, then they're going to have to start coming up with a little better evidence of that than just their word, because as far as I know, that whole alien question is still up for grabs. They need to show me a local map of Zeta Reticuli printed on a material not made on Earth. Or something like that. I just can't automatically accept their word on that.

And that goes with anything that's existence is questionable. Somebody says they saw a leprechaun. Fine. Maybe they honestly think they saw it. But since the existence of leprechauns is not exactly proven, would you instantly accept that this person actually saw one of the wee people? Would that be accepted in a Court of law? Doubtful. You'd at least want to see a pot of gold, or maybe a little leprechaun body first.

Yeah, people see weird stuff. But why should I just take their interpretation of what it was as a fact? A flying saucer could be aliens. It could also be a time probe from the future. Or a tulpa fashioned from morphic resonance fields. Or something completely else. If you've got good, positive evidence of it being one of these things, great! We'd all like to take a look at it.

Until then, though, it's going to have to be, "You saw a flying saucer? Lucky you. You get a cookie."

[edit on 27-7-2008 by Nohup]

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

people continually make the ` appeal to authority ` that they believe a certain witness because he / she is ` credible ` and or ` high ranking `

and implore us to believe them too

where as , any ` credible ` and or ` high ranking ` personage who attempts to refute / counter claims is dismissed as :

govt shill , disinfo agent etc

why the hell is that ???????????????????????

whant my opinion ?

tey have decided that they ` want to believe ` and skew all evidence presented accordingly

ardly ` open minded ` is it ?

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

reply to post by Malevolent_Aliens

The holy grail answer from the believers...they have been kept from us...YAWN,...that one gets old fast. I do like how speak of this as fact though without solid undeniable proof.

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

Originally posted 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?

Still waiting........................

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

Riggs, I don't even know if you know what your writing. This is what you said if you remember:

"we do not blindly believe or pointing to testimony of supposed credible witnesses. The latter is not enough because people can be mistaken or they can be suffering from delusions."

Riggs, I understand that it's late but you have to try and make some sense.

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 03:05 AM by polomontana

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
people continually make the ` appeal to authority ` that they believe a certain witness because he / she is ` credible ` and or ` high ranking `

and implore us to believe them too

where as , any ` credible ` and or ` high ranking ` personage who attempts to refute / counter claims is dismissed as :

govt shill , disinfo agent etc

why the hell is that ???????????????????????

whant my opinion ?

tey have decided that they ` want to believe ` and skew all evidence presented accordingly

ardly ` open minded ` is it ?

You have to impeach the witness. You are making the claim that there not to be believed.

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 03:10 AM by ignorant_ape

reply to post by polomontana

no i am not - please stop putting words in my mouth - read it again - understand it - and appemt that reply again - actually addressing what i wrote

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 03:12 AM by riggs2099

reply to post by polomontana

Read what I said AGAIN..I said SOME CAN BE MISTAKEN OR DELUSIONAL...which means not all and I was speaking of witnesses to these events. And when I used the presidents as an example I was simply stating that high ranking officials can and do lie, I never said they are delusional. Hope you got it because unless you need to be slapped upside the head for it to sink in...jks.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by riggs2099]

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 03:13 AM by Malevolent_Aliens

reply to post by riggs2099

This guy went from helping abducties to a full out alien encounter

This girl you mean.

If you review the post where I mentioned I dedicated my life to abductees you will see that I already included myself as one. I will never deny what happened to me and on a few particular encounters I can recall and remember most of everything. It doesn’t make me extremely special there are others who have remembered as well. We currently have 3 web-sites dedicated to this and keep daily contact with a world wide abductee community. You would be surprised how many abduction cases take place around the globe. I feel as if you have only watch a few you tube videos on ufo's and then simply decided they do not exist. My guess is you are not very familiar and/or knowledgeable when it comes to sightings, abduction cases and ET evidence.

It's easy for someone to sit back and say it's a myth, it's a myth, prove it, your insane, seek medical help and try debunking every picture, testimony and video ever produced. Anyone can do that, do you believe that the country China exists? Have you ever been there or do you believe the people who have told you it exists or perhaps the television you watch? We have thousands of first hand contact cases reported, is every single person out there delusional and strangely experiencing the same things? Please don't be so blind, do a little more research on it.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by Malevolent_Aliens]

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 03:16 AM by riggs2099

reply to post by ignorant_ape

This guy doesn't seem to be playing with a full deck...lol. The others understood what we are saying, he doesn't understand because we are not saying stuff like aliens exist or all hail the alien overlords..lol

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 03:17 AM by AntisepticSkeptic

.............

[edit on 27-7-2008 by AntisepticSkeptic]

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 03:19 AM by TheBottomLine

Originally posted 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]

Nice follow-up, polomontana......yes, if used wisely and skillfully, direct and circumstantial evidence in COMBINATION can benefit the UFOlogy community greatly. Although I did choose to avoid wikipedia's definition and sought a more thorough explanation of both....what you posted is to the point. Good job.....please avoid wasting time on skeptics that choose to extend their arguments for no obvious reason. This will waste your time and energy. Pick your spots, make your points, and when they counter with the same old lines/arguments, move on. Look for those with an open mind...eventually you'll find that open-minded skeptics can help you and vice-versa. Believers do need open-minded skeptics and vice-versa to be balanced in the approach to furthering the study of ufology. Also, close-minded believers should be avoided as well.....

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 03:22 AM by riggs2099

reply to post by Malevolent_Aliens

Believing China exists and ufo's do are two different things...lol. China exist because I have met chinese and spoke with them. Abductions can be duplicated in a lab...so yeah they have proven that aliens can be conjured up in the brain. Before the grays though....there was venus dudes taking you guys and other aliens having sex with abductees before them and before that witches taking souls but now thier gone and have been replaced with alien abductions. So I consider alien abductions to be a new fad.

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 03:24 AM by riggs2099

reply to post by TheBottomLine

What are you then.. an open minded believer. Without ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE are you willing to say that there is a chance that these things do not exist or you have decided they do and are unwilling to give anything else a chance.
Because that is just as close minded as some skeptics. I am not close minded I am willing to hear the theory that aliens come here...I just don;t believe they are because nothing proves it yet.
[edit on 27-7-2008 by riggs2099]

[edit on 27-7-2008 by riggs2099]

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 03:24 AM by AntisepticSkeptic

Originally posted by Malevolent_Aliens
reply to post by riggs2099

This guy went from helping abducties to a full out alien encounter

........Anyone can do that, do you believe that the country China exists? Have you ever been there or do you believe the people who have told you it exists or perhaps the television you watch? We have thousands of first hand contact cases reported, is every single person out there delusional and strangely experiencing the same things? Please don't be so blind, do a little more research on it.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by Malevolent_Aliens]

That's not a valid comparison. The country China can be seen, heard, and smelled. It exist. We all know that.

In contrary, where can I see an alien? Where can I touch an e.t. spacefcraft?

Nowhere. This whole E.T point is moot. It's like trying to prove the existence of God.

E.Ts don't exist. E.Ts don't exist. E.Ts don't exist.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by AntisepticSkeptic]

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

Originally posted by TheBottomLine

Originally posted 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]

Nice follow-up, polomontana......yes, if used wisely and skillfully, direct and circumstantial evidence in COMBINATION can benefit the UFOlogy community greatly. Although I did choose to avoid wikipedia's definition and sought a more thorough explanation of both....what you posted is to the point. Good job.....please avoid wasting time on skeptics that choose to extend their arguments for no obvious reason. This will waste your time and energy. Pick your spots, make your points, and when they counter with the same old lines/arguments, move on. Look for those with an open mind...eventually you'll find that open-minded skeptics can help you and vice-versa. Believers do need open-minded skeptics and vice-versa to be balanced in the approach to furthering the study of ufology. Also, close-minded believers should be avoided as well.....

Good Points.

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 03:28 AM by Malevolent_Aliens

reply to post by riggs2099

I do like how speak of this as fact though without solid undeniable proof.

You appear to do the same with your side of the argument however the difference for me is I've seen with my own eyes so can talk about them, but you have never seen so can sit back and say just about anything you want but can and will never disprove their existence.

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 03:32 AM by riggs2099

reply to post by Malevolent_Aliens

Have you ever seen a psychiatrist. Not calling you crazy but it could be another option..maybe you are suffering from delusions or maybe not. If you aren't then why you....what is it you can have that lets say someone who can actually be beneficial to them...like say politician, military person of high rank. Thats why abductions make no sense...if you want to contact us than get someone who people will believe and leave them some evidence or if you want to inter-breed with us than why not choose the best we have to offer instead of just anybody. Why risk polluting your species with just anyone. Oh yeah because I don;t think like them...lol.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by riggs2099]

[edit on 27-7-2008 by riggs2099]

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 03:37 AM by polomontana

Originally posted by riggs2099
reply to post by Malevolent_Aliens

Have you ever seen a psychiatrist. Not calling you crazy but it could be another option..maybe you are suffering from delusions or maybe not. If you aren't then why you....what is it you can have that lets say someone who can actually be beneficial to them...like say politician, military person of high rank. Thats why abductions make no sense...if you want to contact us than get someone who people will believe and leave them some evidence or if you want to inter-breed with us than why not choose the best we have to offer instead of just anybody. Why risk polluting your species with just anyone. Oh yeah because I don;t think like them...lol.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by riggs2099]

[edit on 27-7-2008 by riggs2099]

Riggs,

In one breathe you try to apply human logic to extraterrestrial thought and then deny they exist in the next breathe.

Keep talking, your really proving my earlier points about pseudoskeptics.

reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 03:39 AM by Malevolent_Aliens

reply to post by riggs2099

China exist because I have met chinese and spoke with them.

How do you know these people are really Chinese and really from China?

It's what you have been taught right and yet you believe am I correct?

Can you prove to me China exists? I'll bet I could probably debunk most of the pictures you have as they could have been taken anywhere in the world. Until you have actually physically set foot in China you can never know for yourself and even then there could still be an argument. History, the media, books and people have been known to lie.