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.

 

Why "sceptic" claims there is no evidence don't hold water

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
The mainstream scientific community's stance has always been to ridicule UFO investigation, saying it's too silly to consider studying and there is no evidence.

The thing is - there is evidence.

What do you consider proof? Eyewitness accounts definitely aren't proof of anything, as not only can people lie, but more often, they report things honestly but falsely because memory is not reliable.

However, eyewitness accounts are not the only evidence we've been visited.

Doctors have removed mysterious implants from people before. Evidence.

There are thousands and thousands of pictures of UFOs. While today's digital technology makes none of these photos reliable proof, as they can easily be hoaxed, it's very possible that some of the good, NON-BLURRY pictures are totally real. Science just assumes they're fake because of Occam's Razor; that is, the very un-scientific assumption that they must be fake, because people easily could fake them.

Many people dismiss the idea of a UFO coverup because they say, such a huge coverup would cause someone eventually to spill the beans, which they haven't.

Wait a second. Many former military personnel have spilled the beans, it's just people don't believe them. It would take little short of the President of the United States admitting they were here to convince the public.




posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   
I think it is a good thing to be skeptical about this topic.
Yes most of us know they are out there and exist but out of all the stories that have been told how many do you know were true for an absolute fact.
Thats why its good to use your filter in my opinion.
Not all of what we hear is true and not all of what we hear is false.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

The thing is - there is evidence.



Then present the evidence, please.


[edit on 27-3-2009 by sebarud]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
The mainstream scientific community's stance has always been...there is no evidence. The thing is - there is evidence.


Yes, you are right, there is evidence. However, where you are wrong is the characterization of the skeptics' take. Granted, this may be due to a lack of clarity of statement on the skeptics' part. Where a skeptic may say there is no evidence, it would be better to say "there is no evidence that can only be explained by extraterrestrials."


Originally posted by Donnie Darko
Doctors have removed mysterious implants from people before. Evidence.


Not necessarily. As far as I am aware, there have been no studies examining a sample of the general population (ie; not abductees) to see if similar objects appear within the body. Thus far (again as far as I am aware) those extracting implants have only studied those claiming to be abductees. Nor has there been a study comparing the percentage of abductees found to have foreign objects to the percentage of the general population with foreign objects. We do not know yet if there is a connection between foriegn-objects in the body and abduction or if it is just coincidence.


Originally posted by Donnie Darko
Wait a second. Many former military personnel have spilled the beans, it's just people don't believe them.


Yes, but this is very similiar to the problems with eye-witness testimony you mentioned earlier. And there are plenty of officials who say there is no cover-up, the government does not study or investigate UFOs, and so forth. So where does that leave us?



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Another "skeptics" thread.


This will be the first one I see today. I estimate at least 2 more before the night is over.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Yes its a popular misconception that 'there is no evidence for UFOs/OVNIs/USOs' - some people may be getting this confused with the statement 'there is no unequivocable proof'.

There exists credible government documentary evidence; radar/sonar evidence; circumstantial evidence; ground trace evidence and video photographic evidence.

This is a good link which evaluates evidence credibility:
www.zuko.com...
Cheers.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
Yes its a popular misconception that 'there is no evidence for UFOs/OVNIs/USOs' - some people may be getting this confused with the statement 'there is no unequivocable proof'.


I think this is a failing on both the skeptics and believers' part. Both confuse "lack of evidence" with "lack of unequivocable evidence." The former is too often used as a synonym for the latter, in particular by skeptics. This is then seized upon by the believers who then build an fallacious argument upon this.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Beleivers,denialists,fencesitters,cynics,mugwumps,pseudosceptics... whatever you want to call them does not change the fact that there
exists credible government documentary evidence; radar/sonar evidence; circumstantial evidence; ground trace evidence and video photographic evidence for the UFO/OVNI/USO subject.

Perhaps thats why true open minded scepticism is so important.

I think arguing about lables seems a little redundant when you realise there are
many radar/sonar corellated UFO/USO incidents that remain inexplicable.
Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by karl 12
Yes its a popular misconception that 'there is no evidence for UFOs/OVNIs/USOs' - some people may be getting this confused with the statement 'there is no unequivocable proof'.


I think this is a failing on both the skeptics and believers' part. Both confuse "lack of evidence" with "lack of unequivocable evidence." The former is too often used as a synonym for the latter, in particular by skeptics. This is then seized upon by the believers who then build an fallacious argument upon this.
Exactly, and its the same when the majority of people mix up the word "UFO" as being controlled by ET, when in fact, it could be a number of other possibilities. Sure, ET could be behind the wheel, so to say, but that doesn't mean other factors could be at hand as well.



And then we have feuds over what a "skeptic" is, and then it just gets lost, and the material gets cloudy. Instead of playing the name-game and picking sides, we should just look at whats in front of us, and try to come to an understanding. Of course, that is easier said then done 99% of the time.


But to be a little on topic: If the evidence did hold water, then we would have a complete understand of the subject(Aliens/UFOs), but alas, we don't.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by TravisT
Exactly, and its the same when the majority of people mix up the word "UFO" as being controlled by ET, when in fact, it could be a number of other possibilities.


Just for the record -heres the definition



UFO Definition.

"The reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible."
The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry by J. Allen Hynek, Henry Regnery, Chicago, 1972, p. 10.


And other popular misconceptions and assumptions:


Myth: Very few people have really seen a UFO...
Fact: According to a Roper poll conducted in 2002 for the SciFi channel, one in seven Americans say they or someone they know has had an experience involving a UFO...


Myth: Airline pilots never see UFOs, so they must not be real...
Fact: There have been many cases of pilot sightings ever since the 1940s...


Myth: UFOs are only reported by uneducated farmers in places you've never heard of...
Fact: A study by the U.S. Air Force showed that the most puzzling UFO reports came from people who had the best technical backgrounds. They are reported from everyplace where there are people, though fewer are seen from big cities because less of the sky is visible.


Myth:The U. S. Air Force investigated UFOs and concluded there was nothing to them...
Fact: The Air Force had an official UFO investigation from 1948 to 1969 (Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book), and collected more than 12,500 reports. It claims to have explained all but about 701 of them, but the facts of most of those reports strongly suggest that something important was seen.


Myth:UFOs are only seen by Americans...
Fact: UFOs have been seen wherever there are people. Every continent has had its share, as has almost every country, though local interest plays a role in the apparent level of activity. Wherever there is someone interested in searching out UFO reports, they will be found, but that doesn't mean the investigator lives in a center of activity.


Myth:UFOs have only been seen since 1947...
Fact: There are UFO reports in newspapers and literature dating back to 1865 and even earlier...

www.mufon.com...
Cheers.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
And other popular misconceptions and assumptions:


I do not think any of those "popular" misconceptions or assumptions exist outside of the minds of believers, in the characature they have of skeptics. I think 1 and 5 are particularly egregious.

When you are talking about a population of 300 million, "very few" is a subjective. Even if 1/7 of the population has seen a UFO, that is around 40 million people since the beginning of the modern UFO phenomenon. Those numbers are even lower when you factor in the fact the poll did not exclusively ask if someone has seen a UFO, but if they knew someone who has.

And they have twisted the conclusions of the various government studies on UFOs, and imply an explanation by virtue of some reports being unexplained.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
It is impossible to provide undeniable evidence of extraterrestrial activity.

Anything and everything can be classified inconclusive.

Witness testimonies, those-in-the-know releases (i.e. astronauts and military personnel), photos, videos and sound recordings can ALL be regarded as inconclusive as they are all susceptible to fraud.

If a UFO landed on the Whitehouse lawn there would still be those who would say it was a government activity - Project Blue Beam et al.

It all comes down to who or what you want to believe.

If there are any skeptics about then maybe they could state what evidence would be sufficient for them to actually believe, if believing is what they are seeking.

And whatever they say would be sufficient for themselves may not be sufficient for someone else.

Which is all cool.

All it means is that we could actually have total UFO disclosure with alien vessels filling the skies and ETs, of all curious shapes and sizes, walking among us and you will always have at least one skeptic not believing it for whatever reason. Maybe the vessels are secret military technology. Maybe the ETs are the result of some government lab experiments.

It still is not definite proof of intelligent life beyond Earth.

Who knows.

We just need to stop bashing each other just because we may have a difference of opinions/beliefs.

[edit on 27/3/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   


The thing is - there is evidence.


Yes there is a plethora of evidence for the existence of UFOs, or structured craft of unknown origin. But there's absolutely no concrete proof that they are piloted by ETs. That's the problem Isn't it? When the general public and that includes the scientific community, hear newspapers, television and radio talking about UFOs they instantly think we're talking about alien piloted spaceships and we're not. A circular craft that flies over a city, is photographed by dozens of witnesses and films of it make the news, will always be presented as he aliens are here and therefore will never be taken seriously.
You alien enthusiasts should really back up the UFO investigators who don't believe an alien hand is reaching out to us and believe this is down to the testing of advanced prototype aircraft. After all, once you can discount them as being behind UFO sightings there is only one explanation left- ET is here!
But since every UFO is presented as being alien in origin, and then usually debunked, a real true unknown could happen along and we would never, ever know about it. UFO researchers have cried wolf far too often. . .



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by TravisT
 





If the evidence did hold water, then we would have a complete understand of the subject(Aliens/UFOs), but alas, we don't.


I don't think that follows. It's possible to have enough evidence for something to constitute proof of it's existence, or establish the strong likelihood of it's existence as the 'most likely' explanation for certain phenomena, and yet there still be many unknown factors. It's certainly possible for things to be proven to exist and yet have a far from "a complete understanding of the subject", whatever it may be. In fact, I'd say this was the norm with new discoveries.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TravisT
If the evidence did hold water, then we would have a complete understand of the subject(Aliens/UFOs), but alas, we don't.


That is not necessarily true, though. There are plenty of observable and measurable phenomenon we do not have a complete understanding of yet.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by TravisT
If the evidence did hold water, then we would have a complete understand of the subject(Aliens/UFOs), but alas, we don't.


That is not necessarily true, though. There are plenty of observable and measurable phenomenon we do not have a complete understanding of yet.
hehe, yes, this is true, and I'm not talking about every natural phenomenon, I'm talking about the UFO phenomenon. My point is, yes, there is something going on, but not enough evidence to give any solid conclusion as to the cause. Whether it be from humans, aliens, or something occurring naturally, is what is to be determined. And since there isn't enough evidence or data to conclude the origin, then we don't have a complete understanding of what is going on. That is what I meant, and I'm only talking about the UFO phenomenon.

Maybe I should have said "better understanding"? I don't know, I'm just getting tired of having to repeat myself with long drawn out paragraphs, when I thought it was obvious as to what I was saying in the first place.


I'm taking a long break from these forums.........

[edit on 27-3-2009 by TravisT]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by TravisT
 





If the evidence did hold water, then we would have a complete understand of the subject(Aliens/UFOs), but alas, we don't.


I don't think that follows. It's possible to have enough evidence for something to constitute proof of it's existence, or establish the strong likelihood of it's existence as the 'most likely' explanation for certain phenomena, and yet there still be many unknown factors. It's certainly possible for things to be proven to exist and yet have a far from "a complete understanding of the subject", whatever it may be. In fact, I'd say this was the norm with new discoveries.


Yes, with new discovery, I would agree. Although, I can't see why aliens are the likelihood, when no proof has been given. The Alien conclusion just happens to be the popular theory, although, it could be far from the truth. If we went by popular theories, then we would still be crying "witch" and burning random women with no justification.

Is it theoretical? Yes, but lets not cry "witch" so early, shall we?



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Regarding eye witness testimony, user Kinda Kurious posted a link on one of my threads to a segment of '60 minutes' which deals with how witness testimony in court cases can be extremely unreliable.

www.cbsnews.com...

It deals with a case where an innocent man was jailed for a rape because he was incorrectly identified by the victim in a police line up.

It provides a salutory warning to all of us 'believers' especially when considering cases where the only evidence is the eye witness testimony.

However, in defence of witness testimony I would say the following:

1) In the video the man who was incorrectly jailed bore an unmistakeable likeness to the actual attacker.

2) The police experts didn't simply dismiss witness testimony as evidence, they looked for ways to make it more reliable. It was the method (line up) that increased the unreliability of the identification. By showing photos in isolation they were able to increase the reliabilty.

3) The victim clearly remembered the crime even if she misidentified the attacker.

What lessons can we draw from this for ufology?

Well I would say that witness testimony should not simply be dismissed out of hand.

It may be that the reliability of the testimony can be improved. We should be able to grade the reliability based on closeness in time to the event in question and also by the expertise of the initial interviewer.

Maybe we can accept that details may be misremembered but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use testimony as corroborative evidence. For example, if two people describe a flying saucer and one says it had three circular portholes and the other four square portholes this shouldn't negate the fact that they saw a flying saucer. In fact because we know that memory is unreliable we should expect such discrepancies. Maybe we should be more suspicious of cases where people's testimony matches exactly.

For cases where fraud is suspected we should work to expose the fraud but that doesn't mean there should be an assumption of fraud for all witness testimony simply because someone reports something out of the ordinary.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I think the eyewitness cases where there are many reliable witnesses is very valid.

If 30 people watch a guy walk over and shoot someone, would that be enough evidence to put them away? Almost certainly.

There are many eyewitness accounts by professionals and experts, and I think these are given not nearly enough credit. Then we have cases with eyewitnesses and radar returns, and these are STILL ignored and blown off.

I'm very middle-of-the-road in regards to UFOs. I start completely unbiased in regards to every case. I think way too many people start with a mindset of "of course it was alien!" and also "Of course it's explainable!" Way too many people automatically accept ridiculous claims. But there are also too many who seem quite intelligent, but unfortunately, I think they approach any new case with the theory that it's completely explainable, it's not alien. They go into it in their own minds, KNOWING it's explainable. And they will find a way to explain it at all costs, even if their own explanation is just as ridiculous.

While I think most crop circles are bunk, 90% of abductions do not really happen, and every story about lizards and underground bases, and visiting aliens chatting with humans telepathically are ridiculous, I feel there is something that is NOT from around these parts. I can't even say it's a sentient race from another world. It could be something else entirely, from alternate dimensions (we are really breaking new ground in this area, along with quantum physics, that makes you go hmmm..), time travel, or yes, other species of creatures visiting our planet for one reason or another.

I do NOT think they are all military. Nor all natural phenomena. There is just a huge mountain of evidence that has piled up over the years, including eyewitness testimony. But that's how it is... you won't make people not believe the ridiculous stuff, nor can you make someone who is insistent that it's not possible for it to be alien life, to change their own views. It's like trying to convince someone your political party is a better choice. Good luck with that!



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
In reality there is no denying UFOs exist thats not the problem. The problem in contention is what are they? Ive seen a UFO myself but im not willing to say what it was because i dont know. I suspect most are secret government aircraft there is clues that lead me to believe the government has some pretty cool aircraft. I consider myself a skeptic in that i see a picture or something saying its alien but when i look at it there is other possibilities. As an example shuttle video i see ice particles someone else sees intelligently controlled crafts.

In all i think most skeptics want to believe but there standards of proof are higher and dont want to rely on faith. And speaking for me personally i all ways look at what something could be then except what people think it is.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join