It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

The Skeptics Dilemma

page: 24
16
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Your whole post falls flat right here:


Believer: What!?!?!? It simply CANNOT be anything but an alien space craft! You just don't want to believe it is because you are *various ad homs now follow*.


Who in the world has made this illogical claim?

Who said "it simply CANNOT be anything but an alien space craft?

I just can't believe that these absolute statements that were never made keep getting debated.

I'm not surprised though and this keeps proving the point of this post beautifully.

They have to pretty much try to debate against claims that were never made.

Anyone can debate against these absolute terms that were never made, the problem is nobody made them.

[edit on 20-3-2009 by platosallegory]




posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


Not exactly. Your entire contention has been that it's most likely what you think it is so why can't they just put the same priority you do to your answer *which really leads one to wonder why you care so much what they think, shouldn't need their approval you ask me*. It's been what you have been repeating endlessly now. I simplified and cut out alot of the posturing, admittingly.

[edit on 20-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


I said I think that it's the mostly explanation and I have explained why I reached this conclusion time and time again.

I never claimed what you said.

I never said their CANNOT be another explanation.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


Like I said, I simplified and cut out the posturing. I personally believe we are currently being visited, do I confuse my beliefs with the most likely canidate? No, sure don't, I don't take myself that overly serious. As I said before, believe what you wish and allow them to do the same. Only time will resolve this issue and no amount of bickering and word games will change that. The world could unite in belief of what you do and it wouldn't change the fact that it just might not be true. So live and let live. This silliness is just masterbation.

[edit on 20-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory

This goes without saying.

That doesn't stop you from weighing the evidence within reason and coming to the conclusion that the ET hypothesis is the most likely explanation for these things.


Sure under the conditions "most likely", you know I have no problems with that!


Nobody who supports this hypothesis on this thread has claimed to have some Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious type of evidence and that's the point that we are making about bogus or pseudo skeptics.


yep, I'm following that.


They want to debate extraordinary evidence (whatever that means) instead of the ET hypothesis. Nobody has claimed exclusive, 100% or absolute evidence, so why should we debate that?


Right, gotcha. Maybe they aren't phrasing themselves correctly. It would seem to me that real evidence would mimic any other real evidence. So yeah! Just what IS this extra thing we're looking for? Beats me!


Of course there can be other explanations but I think that the ET hypothesis is the most likely explanation for these things.


Yes, I have that. You've chosen a position that is fairly decent and you are trying defend that against all comers. This is a good thing.

It is a decent position, and yes I would use "rational position", because the words you use: most likely... are proper.

You haven't said : It IS.

I think that also, simply because of the subject matter, that although we can make statements to the effect that "the Boogieman" and "the Tooth Fairy" or "Swamp Gas" are logical insertions implying that something else "may be the cause", that they are disingenuous in that we do in fact "know" at least what the subject matter is that we are talking about, intuitively if not directly.

Here's my "bogus theory of the day" brother:

If someone's trying to kick me in the rear, then somehow I must still be out in front!

[edit on 20-3-2009 by akalepos]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by akalepos
 


Must be great to believe your own self congratulatory fluff.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


My dear Polo .. err, Plato I mean:

I have just carefully and thoroughly re-read each and every one of your 60 posts in this thread. Only twice have you mentioned or discussed any evidence. Instead, you simply keep repeating variations on the same generalized and meaningless sentence:


That's abduction cases, pictures, video, trace evidence, radar, eyewitness accounts, mass sightings and more.


Since I have a job and a life apart from ATS, I have not had time to review every single UFO case. The cases I have looked into have not convinced me that ETH is the most likely explanation.

Apparently the cases and evidence you have seen did. I was, therefore, requesting that you share which cases you were basing your evaluation on so that I could look at the same cases and be operating on common ground.

Since you won't give any specific evidence or sources, I can only go by the evidence I have looked at.

 


Secondly, I object to you accusing me of "intellectual dishonesty." After reviewing your posts, I am of the opinion that your entire purpose in creating this thread is to "bash" the skeptics. If that's not intellectual dishonesty, I don't know what is.

ATS is for discussing concepts, ideas, theories, evidence, cases, etc. - not people. There are plenty of other places you can get into flaming arguments and call people names or accuse them of being closed-minded and so forth. You don't need to do it here.

 


Thirdly, I'd bet money I'm twice your age or more, and I'm educated (college degree), well-traveled, and intelligent. I don't appreciate being patronized or condescended to. I expect to receive the same respect I give, and I have not been disrespectful to you. I have disagreed with you and questioned your assumptions, assertions, and logic, but I have not been disrespectful. I expect you to respond in kind. No more all caps and no more "how hard is that to understand?" I understand just fine; I simply don't agree.

 


When scientists are postulating the existence of something, they generally have a consistent body of evidence to work from that points to one most probable explanation. This is not true of UFOlogy. UFOs are cigar-shaped, or saucer-shaped, or dome-shaped, or ball-shaped, or triangle-shaped, or they change shape. They are every size from "basketball" sized to mile-wide. They have no lights, white lights, red lights, blue lights, green lights, rotating lights, blinking lights, or steady lights. They make no noise at all, a humming noise, a throbbing noise, a buzzing noise, or a loud roaring noise. Aliens are gray, white, green, blue, brown, sliver, or reddish brown, anywhere from 3 feet to 10 feet tall, and have solid black, glowing red, reptilian, yellow, green, or "human" eyes. Where is the consistency? Who can conclude what the evidence points to out of all that mishmash? There is no one common, consistent picture provided by the body of evidence to say what either UFOs or their occupants might be.

If UFOs are solid craft piloted by physical beings like ourselves, how can they appear, disappear, change shape, and perform maneuvers that would kill any human pilot? If they are biological entities, how can they appear metallic, have lights, show up on radar, and ricochet bullets? No one theory explains all, or even most, of the evidence.
There is simply no way I can see that a sensible, coherent hypothesis of what UFOs or the occupants are can be derived from the "evidence."

 


Now, if you truly have some purpose other than bashing skeptics and want to debate what is the most likely explanation for some of the evidence or cases, or a certain "type" of evidence or case, we can.

I will require, however, that you agree to a few simple rules:

1. If one of us asks a direct question, the other answers it directly and honestly.
2. No disrespect, insults, ad hominem attacks, or sniping.
4. No patronizing or condescending.
5. Each will objectively consider evidence and theories presented by the other and address them respectfully.

If you agree, post and say so, and we can debate. Otherwise, you don't need to say anything at all and this will be my last post in this thread. It's up to you if you really want to discuss the evidence and the ETH, or just continue with your skeptic-bashing.




posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


When scientists are postulating the existence of something, they generally have a consistent body of evidence to work from that points to one most probable explanation. This is not true of UFOlogy. UFOs are cigar-shaped, or saucer-shaped, or dome-shaped, or ball-shaped, or triangle-shaped, or they change shape. They are every size from "basketball" sized to mile-wide. They have no lights, white lights, red lights, blue lights, green lights, rotating lights, blinking lights, or steady lights. They make no noise at all, a humming noise, a throbbing noise, a buzzing noise, or a loud roaring noise. Aliens are gray, white, green, blue, brown, sliver, or reddish brown, anywhere from 3 feet to 10 feet tall, and have solid black, glowing red, reptilian, yellow, green, or "human" eyes. Where is the consistency? Who can conclude what the evidence points to out of all that mishmash? There is no one common, consistent picture provided by the body of evidence to say what either UFOs or their occupants might be.

If UFOs are solid craft piloted by physical beings like ourselves, how can they appear, disappear, change shape, and perform maneuvers that would kill any human pilot? If they are biological entities, how can they appear metallic, have lights, show up on radar, and ricochet bullets? No one theory explains all, or even most, of the evidence.
There is simply no way I can see that a sensible, coherent hypothesis of what UFOs or the occupants are can be derived from the "evidence."


Multiple factors? It is after a multifaceted and complex problem.
Including but not limited to multiple races with different kinds of ships working off differing principles, even differing purposes and configurations for said ships, a fair number of cases of misidentification of anomolous natural phenoms, two words cloaking technology and most likely a few more I am missing.
Just a thought.


[edit on 20-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


Heike, what's so hard to understand?

I understand why you want me to debate these things from your point of view but that's not happening.

I have heard these same arguments framed in different ways before but there still the same arguments.

I have explained why I think the ET hypothesis is the most likely explanation for these things several times.

You know what the ET hypothesis is.

There wasn't one piece of "exclusive" or "specific" evidence that lead me to this conclusion as I explained several times on this thread.

What you want to do is reduce the debate over this piece of evidence or that piece of evidence so that you can say this picture could have been this or that video could have been that.

Again, I have already stipulated that there can be other explanations outside of the ET hypothesis.

Of course evidence has been listed by me and others.

If you want to list another explanation for these things and you have reached another conclusion that's fine. List them and lets weigh it within reason.

Why should I debate you over each piece of evidence when I already stipulated that other explanations can exist for these things?

You want me to post a video, then you will say, "that could be something else" and I will say that I have already stipulated that it could be something else and I explained my reasoning as to why I reached the conclusion that the ET hypothesis is the most likely explanation for these things.

Now in one paragraph, I saved us a lot of back and forth posts.

Can we get back to debating what the thread is about?

I never claimed exclusive, extraordinary, absolute or 100% proof.

I explained my reasoning behind my conclusion several times.

I know know why you and others try to frame the debate in your terms because you want to debate something that I never claimed.

It's easy to debate absolute claims that were never made, can't you see how easy it is to debate the illogical and absolute claims of the bogus or pseudo skeptic?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
There is a lot of confusion and much conflict created here because arguments about established Scientific Theory, hypotheses, speculations are interchangeably being set as counters to Unidentified Flying Objects, abduction claims, Close Encounter testimony, etc.

It is largely being reduced by many who believe there are alien visitations to an argument that scientific investigations and scientists are refusing to accept evidence and what they consider proof of aliens.

Maybe we can all back up a bit on this.

Everyone want further knowledge of non-terrestrial intelligent life in the universe. I think the more skeptical types (I know it's a bad word around here) are asking for something more substantiated and better presented than the being told "there is tons of evidence"

A big problem, as pre-emiminet UFO investigator Jacques Vallee noted when he signed off from his decades of research. The field was on a scientifically based track when he started in the 60s, but by the 80s had essentially been taken over by an army of hobbyists and salesmen.

Hating science and the scientific method is a somewhat juvenile response seen in the usual dismissal and stereotyping of politicians, lawyers, bankers, even doctors. The notion that one has the real truth and the establishment and their media arm is repressing it gets a lot of mileage.

The current UFO conmen experts exploit this emotion mercilessly. So we get a phenomenon like the almost forgotten Roswell incident in 1947 becoming a new source of supposed validation of UFOs and aliens starting with a book in 1978. The story grows, gets embellished, witness testimonies start conforming to investigator suggestions, the town becomes a museum, government forwarded documentation on the matter is dismissed as being a coverup, and the whole thing becomes a matter of virtual dogma.

The UFO vs science debate increasing resembles the Creationism vs Evolution argument. Sides are take and opinions become polarized.


Mike F



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


No, I am not asking you to debate specific cases or specific evidence so that I can deny it. I am asking you to focus on evidence and theories rather than people or their mindsets.

For example, a great many UFOs have been seen going into or coming out of the oceans, and objects similar to flying saucers have been seen underwater and even tracked by military ships and submarines. This type of evidence leads ME to think that either they are from the oceans, or they have bases there. Apparently you don't agree. Why not? That's the sort of discussion/debate I was proposing.

But, since you didn't agree to the rules, I have nothing further to say here. Good bye for now. If you ever get over wanting to discuss how ignorant and closed minded certain people are and actually talk about UFOs or ETs, you know where to find me.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Some good points but there's a few things wrong.

First, I have not heard people here who support the ET hypothesis say they hate or their hating on science and the scientific method.

When I lists the reason that I think that the ET hypothesis is the most likely explanation for these things, science weighed in that reasoning.

Can science be closed minded? Yes, Einstein even complained about this but that doesn't mean you hate or you are hating the scientific method.

I know some would like to reduce this to a UFO vs science debate but that's not the case in this thread.

This is about the closed minded and illogical arguments made by the bogus or pseudo skeptic.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
reply to post by platosallegory
 


No, I am not asking you to debate specific cases or specific evidence so that I can deny it. I am asking you to focus on evidence and theories rather than people or their mindsets.

For example, a great many UFOs have been seen going into or coming out of the oceans, and objects similar to flying saucers have been seen underwater and even tracked by military ships and submarines. This type of evidence leads ME to think that either they are from the oceans, or they have bases there. Apparently you don't agree. Why not? That's the sort of discussion/debate I was proposing.

But, since you didn't agree to the rules, I have nothing further to say here. Good bye for now. If you ever get over wanting to discuss how ignorant and closed minded certain people are and actually talk about UFOs or ETs, you know where to find me.



Of course I didn't agree to the rules. Why would I?

As for the UFO's coming out of the water, I never said I don't agree with that and maybe that's part of the story.

As I explained in my reasoning as to why I think the ET hypothesis is the most likely explanation for these things, that I don't put life or the universe into a box that has to begin and end with earth.

So, if you explain why you think all of these things have to had originated from earth and you have any further evidence then by all means list it.

I can accept that some come from other parts of space, other dimensions and even from the bottom of the ocean.

Like I said if you have evidence list it and lets weigh it within reason.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
Of course I didn't agree to the rules. Why would I?


Because refusing to agree to those simple rules means you wish to continue to insult, accuse, condescend, patronize, and ignore my questions although expecting me to answer yours, and I don't wish to participate in any more of that, so there won't be any more discussion unless you can agree to discuss/debate fairly and respectfully.


I don't put life or the universe into a box that has to begin and end with earth.


Neither do I, but I happen to think that entities who share this planet with us displaying the type of covertly curious, hanging around and watching us but not announcing themselves or making real contact behavior makes a lot more sense than entities from other planets coming long distances to visit this planet and acting like that once they get here. If they're on or in this planet somewhere, they have good reason to be afraid of us and not want us to know where they are while at the same time keeping eyes on us. If they're from some other planet, they know we don't have the technology to reach their planet or find them, so why would they act like that?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


Considering the fact that if they were here, and if they were here to study broadcasting the fact that they are here would pollute the results of the study.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Ok. But, if that's the case then why do they allow themselves to be seen by us at all, ever? If they are studying us and trying to stay undetected so that their presence won't affect our behavior and alter the outcome of the study, then why don't they stay 100% hidden?

And if you say they can't stay hidden from us, and we see them every time they're around, then there is not enough "coverage" for them to be doing any kind of a comprehensive study of us.

The only logical conclusion from my POV is that they can hide when they choose to, but sometimes allow themselves to be seen. Now, why would they do that if they're trying for an unpolluted study?

If on the other hand, they're from inside or somewhere on Earth or under the oceans, they may just pop around every so often to make sure we haven't come up with anything that might endanger them or potentially lead us to their location, and not have the tech to remain hidden from us.
Makes more sense to me.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


Actually, it could a be study with eventually revelation intended. That would explain the occasional sighting. We as a speices don't respond well to change, we have to be eased into it otherwise we freak out and lash out that which scared us.

But honestly, in the end, are we in any position to say the capabilities, aims and methods that such beings would take? It's fun to speculate but we really must take ourselves with a grain of salt. And no I am not saying you aren't.


[edit on 20-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Excellent point, I would expect it to be acknowledged by the polarized sides though.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by rocksarerocks
Post your best possible proof. I mean the BEST you have, and I'm not talking about blurry dots on youtube.


I already posted my best possible evidence.

Unfortunately for whatever reason it has simply been ignored.

This will be my last post on this particular thread. If people want to carry on believing that ufology equates to youtube then let them. I think there is an interesting phenomenon out there and the best way to analyse it by reading the case reports as at the moment, like it or not, this is the best evidence.

The fact that people on this thread are not even willing to discuss the actual evidence speaks volumes.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Is that the best you can do?
Insult people in an unqualified sense?

If you're going to make accusations you could at least clarify what they are.

You need to know that other people do not think like you do.
So what you interpret as being self congradulatory is probably what you do.
Your mistake is in interpreting what you would do as what someone else is doing.

I do not possess your exaggerated ego.

Simply because you might be a narcissist, doesn't mean everyone else is.



[edit on 21-3-2009 by akalepos]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join