It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


This is for all the `ufo skeptics` must read

page: 22
<< 19  20  21   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 10:55 PM
reply to post by riggs2099

At no point did I say aliens visiting us was official scientific fact. And you do make a logical and sensible argument, I must give you credit for that. We need people like you who question the validity of everything. I highly respect that.

I only differ from you in the conclusion of flying saucers. It is simply my belief that that these craft are extraterrestrial in origin.

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 12:09 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 01:58 AM
reply to post by weneedtoknow

Anybody who thinks aliens or life on other planets doesn't exist... just simply thinks we are the center of the universe. It scares them to think that someone might be more advanced than we are.

Foolish really... like the world is flat, the sun revolves around us. etc. etc.

Not everything you read is true.. but, the truth is out there.

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 02:54 AM
reply to post by checkitb4uwreckit

almost every word and implication in your post about Billy Meier is incorrect -- but I won't bother trying to say why because it is not worth it!

I think it is clear that UFO's likely manned by people from other parts of the universe do exist -- and don't need to be confused always with terrestrial technology -- throughout history there are records of craft carrying people -- in cave paintings and other art, way before we reached our level of technology.

That we forget that fact, is part of the problems -- when arguing points.
It is difficult to keep a neutral balance of thinking when arguing for or against something -- even science fails often in that regard, and scientists change their so-called facts to suit the outcome they reached, but can't quite prove to the satisfaction of their peer reviews.

I would like to see people use logic and reasoning and also show the research they have done to support their comments.

Saying anything is a hoax without examining the evidence thoroughly, is just mouthing someone else's work -- and trusting they knew what they were talking about in the first place.

I am very disappointed in the lack of logic used in argumentation on forums such as this and the paracast forum etc......

Anyone who has witnessed an obvious space-type craft, with other people, knows they exist -- that is not what we need to prove -- but maybe we need, as a planet, to open our minds, expand our limited focus on our selves as the centre of this vast universe, as small as many of those minds are, to the fact that people that look similar to us exist somewhere off planet, and have technology that is far more advanced than ours, and therefore may know a bit more than us; and that we are not the only beings in the universe and that it is possible that we are not being watched from heaven by our self-created Creator God who knows every move we make -- that maybe there is another explanation to be found about why we are all here and how to do it the best way -----

maybe the ET's just couldn't be bothered with us yet, as we are obviously barbaric and primitive compared to them, in not only technology, but also thought and our understanding of the universe and how to manouvre through it.

Maybe when we graduate they will venture a little close, when we become a real threat to their safety -- and when we are more prepared for the reality of their existence.

Sightings for hundreds and hundreds of years, is not too much to consider to do this --- just seeing the variance of understanding and thoughts about the topic on this forum alone says it all.

Even so, discussing it at all, even if without reason and logic, is better than not talking about it at all!

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 03:24 AM
The limit of logic as the sole beneficiary of existence has holes in it. The problem is that logic or more specifically the scientific method is that in itself it is a constrained to the definition of qualitative analysis, so what I am saying is that the instrument itself is limited and casts "subjective" experience otherwise empirical, according to the senses of an individual, into the non legitimate bucket of evidence, and yet if a person bangs their thumb with a hammer the argument as to whether that pain is real or not is nonsensical to the person who "knows" there is pain, that pain being "real".

In regards to the ET issue the same scientific divining methods apply. The problem is that according to the logic of the scientific method consciousness itself cannot be proved, and evidence is only of an "anecdotal" nature. The catch is that science cannot prove that the consciousness known as "you" and "I" even exist let alone the reality of things such as "love", "hate", "jealousy", etc..

If science and the skeptics can prove the "I" in consciousness then I'd say we are using the wrong model for divination, because this is where the ET issue and data takes us.

So, how can the very nature of logic, or more to the point our current definition of logic and the systems that are it's offspring (math, science, etc) possibly account for experiences outside the very scope of its analysis?

I think this is the issue when the skeptics requests "proof" according to a model which in its application guarantees a negative outcome which is itself unscientific. Strange loops in logic.

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 07:25 AM

Originally posted by silver6ix
You have images that could be made in photoshop, reports that could be made to fit what you are wanted to believe and you have someones word to support it...maybe some people take what liars tell them with a large pinch of salt?

You have a fundamental and dangerous misunderstanding of how science works. Science is not based on someone's word alone. It is based on verifiable facts, that have been tested again and again. There is no denying a planet of Uranus' size, shape, and composition orbits the sun in a certain position. This is not because someone just said it, and people accepted (as you ignorantly contend); is it is because the evidence has been tested and verified by a variety of sources, leading to one deniable conclusion.

This is not the case with the UFO phenomenon. Unfortunately, there is not much in the way of evidence is that verifiable, testable, incontrovertible and undeniable. Your contention that they are one-in-the-same demonstrates a profound and willful ignorance on your part.

Once again, you are projecting your own behaviors and beliefs on to me; you want to believe something and rely just on someone's word for it. Because this is how you operate, you believe it is the way entire world operates. Further, while you accuse everyone else of dogmatism and arrogance, you embody these very traits; you dismiss and condescend anyone who may disagree, ignore facts and statements that do not fit the caricature of others you have built in your mind, and tell us that only you are right and everyone else in the world is wrong.

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 08:06 AM
reply to post by SaviorComplex

Tested by you or are you just taking someones word on it?

Doesnt matter how you try twist it, you personally know NOTHING about Uranus. It doesnt get any clearer than that, you know absolutely nothing about any of the planets, all you do is take someone elses word on it, that being said you constant talk of proof is pretty worthless. You only want proof in your own terms, that doesnt make it proof nor does it mean anyone else sees it as proof.

The true ignorance is yours alone here. Not only cant you think for yourself, you cant accept the facts either. The facts are that you dont have any facts, all you have is someones word and thats not going to change anytime soon.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by silver6ix]

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 09:35 AM
Whenever people say "UFO" what they really mean is "alien spaceship". But let's not forget the true meaning of the word: Unidentified Flying Object. This in itself does not even come close to "alien". It's unidentified by whomever sees it. It could very well be Earth-made (test runs of new aircraft, and whatchamacallits). People could mistake tricks of light, falling stars, and a lot more stuff, for "alien ships".

Could alien UFOs have visited us? Possibly. But it's a large step from "visiting" and "at war with us" as has been suggested before. Let's imagine for a moment a war with aliens who have technology sufficiently advanced enough to travel hundreds of millions/thousands/... light years to visit us. You think that our fighter jets and current space vehicles (which blow themselves up every now and then on launch, mind you!) are really any match? If were at war, we'd been totally eradicated by now.

Do people lie? Absolutely. Look at the recent affair of a woman claiming to be beaten by a pro-Obama man. Turned out to be fake in the end (although I'm sure by using the search function I could find a conspiracy about that as well). Attention seeking. People are capable of telling others a LOT for attention, money, fame, and so forth. Remember, there are about 6 billion (6000 million) people on this planet. Let's say that about 1% (which is enormously generous) saw UFOs -- That's still 60 million people. Subtract all the fakes and people who were just genuinely mistaken. That leaves maybe not even half. Is it too much to assume that between half a percent and one percent of the world's population is attention seeking? Looks reasonable to me.

The technology argument doesn't exactly fly either. All of the discoveries that we made over the past century are all very well documented and understood. If we were to steal technology from aliens, it would take MUCH longer to understand it (not to mention the language barrier). Even in todays word, it is extremely hard to reverse engineer existing technology (especially hardware) made by competitors. If its so hard to do it to our own technology, why would it be much easier for alien technology? Did it come in a thousand-page manual written (how convenient) in English? All our current technology was invented by genuinely genius people who had revolutionary ideas.

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 09:53 AM

Originally posted by silver6ix
Doesnt matter how you try twist it, you personally know NOTHING about Uranus. It doesnt get any clearer than that, you know absolutely nothing about any of the planets, all you do is take someone elses word on it, that being said you constant talk of proof is pretty worthless. You only want proof in your own terms, that doesnt make it proof nor does it mean anyone else sees it as proof.

In the world of the UFO believers, when they make claims that someone "only wants proof on their own terms," that is code-language and a projection of their own desires and designs.

Again, I ask you Silver6ix, and please do not ignore the question this time. Why are you so interested in attacking me for wanting proof and ascribing motives to me for wanting it? Why are you less interested in proving the existence of extraterrestrial visitation, and more interested in attacking people who want proof? Why do you want to make this about personalities and not about the evidence? Why are you so worried about what I believe or my motivations? The evidence will stand on it's own, regardless of what any skeptic believes or says about it.

You cannot deny that is what you and NoRichardRun and WeNeedtoKnow have been doing. You have spent more time discussing skeptics, their personalities and motives than you have trying to prove extraterrestrials are visiting the planet. Attacking and trying to silence skeptics is not a substitute for evidence, nor will it get you any closer to proving extraterrestrials are behind the phenomenon.

Originally posted by silver6ix
The true ignorance is yours alone here. Not only cant you think for yourself, you cant accept the facts either.

So, because someone does not agree with you on the interpretation of evidence, because they do not accept your opinion as fact, they cannot think for themselves. Again, while you attack others calling them dogmatic and arrogant, you demonstrate these traits yourself.

Originally posted by silver6ix
all you do is take someone elses word on it...The facts are that you dont have any facts, all you have is someones word and thats not going to change anytime soon.

Could you tell us how you are any different?

Please, do not discuss me or any other skeptic any longer. This is not about us. Discuss the evidence.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by SaviorComplex]

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 09:59 AM

Originally posted by WildSkyView
Anybody who thinks aliens or life on other planets doesn't exist... just simply thinks we are the center of the universe. It scares them to think that someone might be more advanced than we are.

Could you please point to a posting where anyone has said anything of the sort. A skepticism of extraterrestrial visitation IS NOT a disbelief in extraterrestrial life.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Originally posted by WildSkyView
Not everything you read is true...

Before any UFO believer uses this line or anything similiar, I would suggest they take a long, hard look at their own behaviors first.

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 11:00 AM
Let me just ask, why are you "believers" so averse to skeptics? Sure, you believe and that's great and I'm sure there are some skeptics who believe. However, just believing isn't going to do much for anyone other than yourself. A skeptic however is only accepting evidence that the common man will accept. You're never going to get disclosure just by giving eyewitness accounts you need hard evidence. This is what the skeptics try to find. The facts that are incontrovertible. Skeptics and believers want the same goal, however the skeptic thinks in the terms of what the common man will accept whereas the believer tends to think in their own terms.

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:10 PM

Originally posted by riggs2099
reply to post by lifeform

I do think that hardcore skeptics are as worst out there, if not worse than the hardcore believers. When they state that a light in a photograph is the planet Venus and has not even looked into it thoroughly, then yes I will say the same thing.

cool, i'm sorry if i came across tetchy. there is only one thing that gets me defensive where considering the 'alien' possibility is concerned.

its not that people say there is not proof of aliens, i would agree. there is nothing i can provide that says "look, see aliens are responsible, this is absolute proof"
what bugs me a little is when sceptics turn up saying its a leap of faith, as though believing the alien possibility is just something everybody decided to do one morning when they got out of bed. it totally ignores the many hints of evidence that point to the alien possibility, no they are not proof but they are reasons why it should be considered.

alot of people that believe aliens are the culprits do so because they have took into account those many hints, and it is that which makes them believe.

i also disagree when people say there is NO evidence. there IS evidence, but just nothing which proves anything in a way we can all trust is correct.

the problem is knowing wether those hints were planted through out history to get us to falsely believe in aliens or if those many hints are pointing to the truth.

if you wonder what i mean by hints.........

sure nothing there proves there are 'aliens', but there is enough there to consider the possibility seriously, and certainly enough for individuals if they so wish to believe it, without being told of for doing so.

becuase there is no proof of what these u.f.o's are, so no matter where your coming from, if you have an opinion on what u.f.o's are, your simply doing the same thing as somebody who say's they are alien craft, even if you think it is natural sky activity, where is their solid proof for that being the explaination of what people saw?, they don't have it.

its just their opinion. like everybody elses.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by lifeform]

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 09:43 AM
I think The UFO's are here to warn us...and governments wont let them land....because governemtn is hiiding something from us. But aliens have to exist...NO WAY IN H E L L...we have the entire infinite amount of space alll to ourselves...

posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 04:26 AM
Real skepticism is good, but theres too much bad blind ass skepticism on here. Theres no denying the NWO or that 911 was hella fishy, but they still do? O_o? mmkay?

I appreciate real skeptics though.

posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 08:25 AM

Originally posted by lawlb0t
Real skepticism is good, but theres too much bad blind ass skepticism on here. Theres no denying the NWO or that 911 was hella fishy, but they still do? O_o? mmkay?

Stunning, profound insight. Rarely has anything so thought-provoking been uttered in these pages.

posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 08:25 PM
"Funny thing is he use to be a christian and took a science class as an elective and after studying science he decided he liked it he then became an atheist and skeptic. I believe it's Michael Shermer?"

In regard to "zealous" skeptic, Michael Shermer. I too noticed that not only was he a christian, but a "born again" christian at that. I believe he was born again while of college age. OK, I actually liked most of Shermer's stances I've read, but when I found out he was an adult born again - his credibility as a scientific-minded skeptic flew out the window. As a child I was forced through catholic parochial school, and from religious class ONE, I could not buy any of the theological excrement I was being force fed. Utter nonsense, and my stance has only grown stronger. Shermer is in posession of an infatuous and radical mind. Bouncing from one extreme belief system to another does not make you objective. It makes you...let's call it a "free-floating radical". In light of his "born again" history, I now read his work in a totally different light. If a truly scientifically objective and OPEN-MINDED skeptic discovered verifiable, indisputable and scientifically sound evidence of et's, ufo's, whatever here among us, I suspect Shermer would once again do an "about face" in regard to his radical belief system and conjur up some nutty alien religious cult. And guess what? He'd snicker at the rest of us when we disagreed with him. Did you ever try to debate a born again? It is exactly like watching someone debate Shermer - YOU'RE WRONG and HE'S RIGHT. They both grin at you smugly when you disagree with them. Like a Grandfather grinning at his grandchild's story of fairies. Ultimately, I think that it's more important to observe and be critical of your own belief systems, than it is to decide if any phenomena or theory is plausible or not. No easy answers in any direction - observe, digest, reformulate - repeat ad infinitum. By the way, what ever happened to Jerome Clark? His work/research was among the best I've ever studied on these subjects.

posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Barathrum
personally, i don't know if there's anything out there or not

i've seen enough evidence from both sides of the coin to leave me standing on the edge of it.

Speaking of coins, why are there pictures of ufo's on coins from france in the 1650's? something to think about, and in paintings way older than that, even back to the neandertalls, wich was killed by humans new research claims. if anunakis look like us and keep coming here, it would make perfect sence.... thank you !

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:12 AM
reply to post by ChemBreather

I am afraid that logic has no particular place in your hypothesis. That is unfortunate, because the hypothesis is interesting. I just wish you would back it up with the train of your thought, and a detailed account of how you came to this conclusion. No doubt if you explain yourself fully , with some historical refferences to rough date, location of artefact evidence, and link the evidence to the Neanderthal species of man , then members will be able to debate and or add to your theory effectively rather than being fustrated with the interest inherant in your idea, and having no refference for further discussion. Flesh your idea out sir!

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 09:26 PM
reply to post by W3RLIED2

Whos insulting who's intelligence? That aside you have commited a laundry list of logical fallacies in your little "essay" I'll call it. I personnaly find it funny that the pheonix lights were flares. Here you go for that.

listen to both sides. Try it, its very fun!

As for the logical falicies, try the magical journey of them!

just the logical fallicies I spotted from thinking without referencing the preceding sources:

truth by verbosity
argument from authority
ad homenom attacks
straw man arguments
Specail pleating
false dicotomy

Really man, come on.

Also I invoke aucoms razer. This is the princible that in nature, the simpler of many propostitions tends to be accurate. Heres info on that.

go to podcast number 32.

I use the razer in saying that thinking, HOAX!!!, before, ALIENS!!! is perfectly reasonable. Which is more extrordinary. Some guy has too much free time so he fakes a picture, or super intellegent aliens have come down, and allowed themselves to be photographed?

I would like to say that I'm glad to be a part of these boards, because I feel that critical thinking if very important. For further obliteration of ignorance:

thank you all.

top topics

<< 19  20  21   >>

log in