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: 8
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
1) There is overwhelming to evidence to validate the ETH, you yourself admit of certain cases which can only be explained as physical craft with unknown technology.


Yes, I do agree that there are cases for which I can present no mundane explanation.
However, "no mundane explanation" does not equal "ETH."
"Physical craft with unknown technology" is in and of itself a hypothesis, and again, does not equal "ETH."

As I have repeatedly stated, evidence sufficient to validate a hypothesis = physical evidence. A specimen.

To be more clear lest you return to claiming that it is unreasonable that I am requesting an alien body part be delivered to my door, I am asking that someone have physical evidence which can be tested, analyzed, and displayed in photographs or on video or TV along with the results of the tests and analysis. A specimen of either an EBE or a craft which is demonstrably extraterrestrial needs to exist and be public information. That is the evidence which is required to validate the ETH.

Nothing less than physical evidence - i. e. a specimen of some type (scat, blood, hair, skin, carcass, live "animal," etc.) or a piece of a craft - is acceptable for validating a hypothesis that something previously unknown or uncategorized exists in any other scientific discipline such as zoology, biology, cryptozoology. It is not reasonable to lower the standard of evidence just for the ETH to be less than it would be for any other remotely similar hypothesis. This is what I have been saying from the beginning, and why I specifically asked you more than once to provide information about or links to physical evidence which you claimed existed.

No number of youtube videos or ufo case descriptions will change the fact that such physical evidence does not exist at this time.

Therefore, I reiterate:

There is insufficient evidence to validate the ETH.




posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Yes, I do agree that there are cases for which I can present no mundane explanation.
However, "no mundane explanation" does not equal "ETH."
"Physical craft with unknown technology" is in and of itself a hypothesis, and again, does not equal "ETH."


Nope, be honest now. As you've admitted yourself that there are genuine cases for which there is no mundane explanation. The cases I presented to you all were physical crafts. It is not a hypothesis that they are physical craft, they were observable physical craft, detected also on radars and chased by pilots etc and they are displaying unknown techology.

Take the example of the B2 case(I hope you looked at each case) the pilots saw the craft perform at speeds of 9000mph and making abrupt turns about 60 years ago. It is 2009, and there is no known human craft that can do that and there has not been any such known craft in 60 years of human technology.

Therefore to say that it is a top-secret human craft, when nothing like this has been seen for up to 60 years ago is multiplying quantities. There is no evidence to support that such top-secret human craft exist. Your other hypothesis touches the limits of absurdity, that they are from underground and underwater terrestrial civilisations. There is no evidence for that either.

There is evidence however that space is absolutely vast, has trillions up trillions of planets that there is no reason to believe that the univers is not teeming with ET life. So there is evidence for that, but not for your cryzoids unfortunately


We all know what is this really about Heikie, but sorry your pet hypothesis cannot be a part of a logical explanatory framework and will remain on the fringes until there is evidence that underground and underwater civilisations exist.


Nothing less than physical evidence - i. e. a specimen of some type (scat, blood, hair, skin, carcass, live "animal," etc.) or a piece of a craft - is acceptable for validating a hypothesis that something previously unknown or uncategorized exists in any other scientific discipline such as zoology, biology, cryptozoology. It is not reasonable to lower the standard of evidence just for the ETH to be less than it would be for any other remotely similar hypothesis. This is what I have been saying from the beginning, and why I specifically asked you more than once to provide information about or links to physical evidence which you claimed existed.


I actually debunked this in the other thread. If there is scientific evidence of UFO and EBE's the chances are it is not going to be mailed to your door for your personal inspection. If it exists it will be investigated by some scientists, they will then give testimony that they have genuine ET material. This has actually already happened, Marcel Vogel, the award winning IBM scientist, investigated the metal sample given to him by Billy Meier and concluded that the sample was of ET origin. In my previous post I also linked physical evidence cases where ET hair samples have been collected from abduction cases and analysed and shown to be of ET origin.
There are actually many cases with physical evidence.

So therefore ETH is validated for you correct? Wrong, because you will dismiss the evidence, moving the goalpost. Thus contradicting your original condition which demands physical evidence. That's fine by the way. In the end scientific evidence is subject to whether you believe it or not. There have been many scientific experiments on cold fusion, some scientists believe them and some don't.

Therefore no evidence is inherently better than another. Rather, we have a whole selection of evidence: physical, photographic, video, eyewitness testimony, pilot testimony, radar reports, ancedotal etc. The ETH is supported by a tremendous amount of evidence of all kinds. In contrast, your CH is supported by virtually nothing.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Your other hypothesis touches the limits of absurdity, that they are from underground and underwater terrestrial civilisations. There is no evidence for that either.


Yes, actually there IS evidence for that. Have you looked at the USO evidence?
Here's a great thread all about USO Research.


We all know what is this really about Heike,


Nope, you've completely missed the point. The point is that people can refute the ETH as the most likely explanation for UFOs without being a pseudoskeptic, bogus skeptic, or debunker. Since Heike personally does not even refute the ETH but simply likes to leave other options open as well, it's not "all about Heike."


I actually debunked this in the other thread. If there is scientific evidence of UFO and EBE's the chances are it is not going to be mailed to your door for your personal inspection.


Oh, not this again! I specifically said that photographs and/or video and the reports on tests and analysis of the evidence needs to be available to the public, not to me personally. :Sigh:


This has actually already happened, Marcel Vogel, the award winning IBM scientist, investigated the metal sample given to him by Billy Meier and concluded that the sample was of ET origin. In my previous post I also linked physical evidence cases where ET hair samples have been collected from abduction cases and analysed and shown to be of ET origin.


If that were true it would have been the biggest news since humans landing on the Moon, or bigger. Billy Meier is a well-known hoaxer and in all the cases I've read on ATS and elsewhere, I've never seen anything about these hair samples. But, I'll peruse your list again and see if any of them are something different from the first few I looked at, the typical ubiquitous youtube video.


The ETH is supported by a tremendous amount of evidence of all kinds. In contrast, your CH is supported by virtually nothing.


Excuse me, but it's not my CH. And just exactly what is the CH and what do you mean by it? Cryptozoology Hypothesis? I find links and commonalities between different types of cases highly intriguing, but I don't think I've claimed that Sasquatches or Chupacabras are piloting UFOs.


(Edit to correct quote tags)

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Heike]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Yes, actually there IS evidence for that. Have you looked at the USO evidence?
Here's a great thread all about USO Research.


That is not evidence for an underwater civilisation, but a UFO that can go underwater




Nope, you've completely missed the point. The point is that people can refute the ETH as the most likely explanation for UFOs without being a pseudoskeptic, bogus skeptic, or debunker. Since Heike personally does not even refute the ETH but simply likes to leave other options open as well, it's not "all about Heike."


You have no other option open. There are only five possibilities for what physical UFO of unknown technology could be:

1) Top secret human technology
2) Underground or Oceanic secret civilisation
3) Time travellers
4) Extradimensional travellers(which also could be ET)
5) ET

All but 5 are on the fringe and not supported by any real evidence. ET is the only one that is supported by evidence, the most significant of which is the existence of trillions upon trillions of planets and the absolutely staggering odds that the universeis is teeming with ET, and the fact there is no reason to believe ET does not exist, and the fact that ET is taken so seriously we have exopolitics treaties(lol) Then you also have the many established UFO cases where ET has actually been seen as an occupant of the UFO. As well as cases from ancient times which bespeak of ET. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of ET.



Oh, not this again! I specifically said that photographs and/or video and the reports on tests and analysis of the evidence needs to be available to the public, not to me personally. :Sigh:


It ceases to be physical evidence if you cannot inspect it personally and instead have to rely on testimony. And that is exactly the point the demand for physical evidence is an impossible demand, the only evidence you are getting is testimonial, even if it what you want is scientific reports.



If that were true it would have been the biggest news since humans landing on the Moon, or bigger. Billy Meier is a well-known hoaxer and in all the cases I've read on ATS and elsewhere, I've never seen anything about these hair samples. But, I'll peruse your list again and see if any of them are something different from the first few I looked at, the typical ubiquitous youtube video.


Just as I said you would, you shifted the goal post. That is because scientific evidence is not irrefutable, it is subject to whether you believe it or not. So it all boils down to testimony in the end.



Excuse me, but it's not my CH. And just exactly what is the CH and what do you mean by it? Cryptozoology Hypothesis? I find links and commonalities between different types of cases highly intriguing, but I don't think I've claimed that Sasquatches or Chupacabras are piloting UFOs.


In the end somebody is piloting those UFO's. You only have 5 possibilities to choose from and 4 of them have virtually no evidence to support them.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
You only have 5 possibilities to choose from and 4 of them have virtually no evidence to support them.


To quote you:


Stop this "no evidence" BS.


Isn't the whole arena of evidence/proof subjective?

I think it is and that being the case you personally are entitled to accept or deny what you wish - where you will find resistance is when you start stating things as fact as you have done with the above statement.

It is your opinion that there are only 5 possibilities - there may be more than 'you' know - therefore it is not fact.

It is your opinion that there is virtually no evidence to support the 4 non-ETH possibilities - there may be more than you know - therefore it is not fact.

No need to bash people until they conform to your way of thinking - just accept the difference of opinion.

And what has happened since you came out with this:


There is an explanation for why there would be a difference between civilian technology and black technology. Phil Schnieider explains this in his briefings to the public, "The technology that is new for you, is old for the black ops" Apparently, according to Schneider and some other whistle blowers the technology the black ops have is well beyond civilian technology. This includes anti-gravity, development of special space-age metals which are inpenetrable and can withstand heats up to 10 million degrees faranheit, interstellar travel, nanotech, time-distortion technology etc. In the words of the Lockheed Martin guy, "You know Star Trek and Star Wars, well we were doing that 60 years ago!"

Where are these black ops situated? They're underground. There are entire cities underground apparently created by black-ops governments.

The civilian world does not know about this and thus it is following its own technological development, not realising it is obsolete.



In any case I am presenting a plausible explanation for why there would be a dichotomy between civilian and black-ops technology. Besides, isn't it a proven matter now that the government does have black-ops technology and they do have technology that has been suppressed for 60 years, which is finally going to be released into the civilian sector? Does that not support what Schneider and the Lockheed Martin guy is saying?


It sounds like you believe that there is plenty of evidence backed up by professional witness testimony.



[edit on 2/4/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
That is not evidence for an underwater civilisation, but a UFO that can go underwater


Splitting hairs. Why would ETs travel underwater, go in and out of the water, and have an underwater base off of California?


You have no other option open. There are only five possibilities for what physical UFO of unknown technology could be:


Says who? You? Ask your pal Platosallegory aka Polomontana about

limiting others sphere of knowledge based on what you believe about these issues.
(from here)

The possibilities are limitless and endless. They could be something we haven't even been able to conceive of yet.


The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of ET.


So you say. But that is your opinion. My opinion, and others', are equally valid.


It ceases to be physical evidence if you cannot inspect it personally and instead have to rely on testimony. And that is exactly the point the demand for physical evidence is an impossible demand, the only evidence you are getting is testimonial, even if it what you want is scientific reports.


No. I want to see pictures of it. I want to read the reports by multiple scientists of their analyses of it. I want to see video and news reports on TV and the internet. I want to hear the results of the DNA test.

This is NOT impossible. I have all of these things available to me for the giant squid. I have not personally seen or touched a giant squid, but the cumulative evidence is quite acceptable. Therefore it IS possible to have similar evidence for ETs.


Just as I said you would, you shifted the goal post.


Nope. I'll look at the evidence and get back to you. But honestly you don't think that the fact that Billy Meier is an exposed and confirmed hoaxer should taint his "evidence?"


You only have 5 possibilities to choose from and 4 of them have virtually no evidence to support them.


Refuted above. Your evidence for ETH works just as well for some of the other hypotheses, only you refuse to accept it.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


FIXED...


Originally posted by Indigo_Child
In the end somebody is piloting those UFO's. You only have FIVE possibilities to choose from and FIVE of them have virtually no evidence to support them.


Once again, Child is too wedded to her pet theory to see it is just as logical as another...


[edit on 2-4-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


LOL. This from a man who thinks it's "as logical" to conclude that secret people who live behind the walls crept out and robbed a house as it is to conclude that it was most likely an intruder.

I think you are too wedded to your desire to debunk to know what logic actually is anymore.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
That is not evidence for an underwater civilisation, but a UFO that can go underwater


This from the person who claims that " there is life on Earth therefore there is life on other planets" is conclusive evidence that UFOs are pilots by extraterrestrials. This from the person who believes UFOs are piloted by extraterrestrials by virtue of some evidence being unexplained. Your claim is "someone saw a UFO" therefore it must be extraterrestrial; your argument is "there was a radar hit" therefore it must be extraterrestrial; your argument is "someone saw a strange being" therefore it must be extraterrestrial.

For all your rhetoric, none of that is evidence nor is it logical.


Originally posted by Indigo_Child
the most significant of which is the existence of trillions upon trillions of planets and the absolutely staggering odds that the universe is teeming with ET, and the fact there is no reason to believe ET does not exist...


Once again, you are arguing something being logical in principle as being evidence in-and-of-itself. You should have learned earlier that things seeming right in principle are not always right in practice. And you are confusing conjecture, no matter what sort of rhetoric spin you wish to put on it, as evidence.

To be intellectually-honest, you must admit that the inverse of your argument is just as logical. Just as there is no reason to assume there are not extraterrestrials or that they could come here, there is no reason to believe they would.

Your argument holds as much weight as the CTH. We know Earth is teeming with life; that is not a multiple quantity, as you claim. There is no logical objection to humans being the latest of intelligent species to arise on the planet.

Please, state one logical objection you have to the CTH. Just one. All you have done so far is dismiss it.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
LOL. This from a man who thinks it's "as logical" to conclude that secret people who live behind the walls crept out and robbed a house as it is to conclude that it was most likely an intruder.

I think you are too wedded to your desire to debunk to know what logic actually is anymore.


Once again, you lie and distort.

I stated numerous times that analogy was far too simplistic for a subject as complex as this.

Please acknowledge that I stated this.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
So after our long and fierce exchange and you supposedly engaging in logical debate, you have returned to your original position which you announced earlier on in the other thread, “I will believe what I want to believe” In which case you have been fully refuted and debunked now.

You have ceased using logic and are back to appealing to fantasy.

I said to you that there are only 5 possibilities what a physical UFO with unknown technology could be:

1) Secret government technology
2) Underground and Oceanic technology
3) Time travellers
4) Extradimensional travellers(also could be ET)
5) ET

I also said of these 5, all but one is actually based on strong evidence and can be a part of our rational universe.

You respond that there are unlimited possibilities. There cannot be unlimited possibilities because we already have a limitation, “physical craft with unknown technology”

So we are looking for things in our rational universe that can consistently explain, “physical craft with unknown technology and science”

Lets go through each one, one by one:

1) Secret government technology?
it’s been approx 60 years since the B2 crew saw a UFO travelling at 9000mph. It is now 2009 and there is no such craft in existence.

In fact the descriptions of UFO’s go back 200+ years, which means if we still entertain that they’re secret government technology, then it means that at the time Wright Brothers were building the first primitive plane, we had hypersonic, gravity-defying space-going crafts. In that case why 100 years of development in aviation and propulsion technology, spending billions on already obsolete technology?

So this explanation produces more questions than answers and thus it is to be rejected until one can show strong evidence for the existence of top-secret government UFO’s several decades to centuries ago.

2) Underground and Oceanic civilisations?

This means that co-habiting us with is a secret civilisation that lives underground or in the ocean, that are hundreds, if not thousands of years advanced than us, but have not revealed themselves to us. Why not? Why would they hide from primitive humans?

Is there actually any strong evidence to show that they even exist? We cannot validly consider something in a rational explanation when we have no reason to believe they even exist.

3) Time travellers?

At this moment time travel is a fictional concept. So let alone time travellers, we have no reason to even consider time travel as a possibility in a rational explanation.

4) Extradimensioal travellers

At this moment extra dimensions is a theoretical concept, so let alone extra dimensional travellers, we have no reason to consider other dimensions and travel between them as a possibility in a rational explanation.

All of the above require a lot of quantity multiplication, which is unnecessary when simpler explanations exist. I particularly like Malcram's analogy in another thread because it deflty demonstrates the absurdity of non ET explanations put forward by Heikie:

If you come home to find your house burgled, the windows broken, things stolen would you think

1) Secret government services did it
2) People living in the walls did it
3) Your future family members travelled back in tme and did it
4) Extradimensional beings in your home did it
5) Intruders did it

Unless one is completely irrational, they will conclude, "Intruders" did it. Likewise we can conclude that UFO's are intruders to our planet:

5) ET
Can ET be a part of a rational explanation? Yes of course. It is a known fact that this universe is vast, and it is known that it has trillions and trillions of planets, many like earth, and the odds of the universe teeming with ET life are staggeringly in favour. Moreover, there is no reason to believe ET life does not exist. As we are one species of many we have shown that space travel is possible, therefore there is reason to believe that ET cannot visit Earth.

Does it explain UFO’s? Yes, with no quantity multiplication. It follows because the UFO technology is decidedly non-human. That is that does not belong to human science. Then the converse is true: it belongs to non-human science.
Therefore explaining UFO’s. Now that they are explained we can call them ETV’s (extraterrestrial vehicles)

The logic is impeccable and only those do not accept logic will reject this. So therefore you stand completely refuted and debunked. There is nowhere else to go from here.


Splitting hairs. Why would ETs travel underwater, go in and out of the water, and have an underwater base off of California?


Why wouldn’t they?

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex


After having defended it as just as likely and logical that the secret people living in the walls robbed the house as the idea that intruders did, and realizing that this claim was ridiculous, you also tried to claim that the analogy did not apply and wanted to drop it. In fact, it applied very well and highlighted just how silly your argument was, which is why you wanted to dismiss the analogy.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
2) Underground and Oceanic civilisations?
This means that co-habiting us with is a secret civilisation that lives underground or in the ocean, that are hundreds, if not thousands of years advanced than us, but have not revealed themselves to us. Why not? Why would they hide from primitive humans?


Who says they haven't revealed themselves? If you subscribe to the ancient astronaut hypothesis, it is just as rational and logical to substitute CTs for ETs.

And like Malcram, you are ascribing human motivation and psychology to something decidely inhuman.


Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Is there actually any strong evidence to show that they even exist? We cannot validly consider something in a rational explanation when we have no reason to believe they even exist.


Is there is any strong evidence that extraterrestrials exist? No matter how much we want to believe we are not alone in the universe, thus far it is only theory and conjecture. While there is no reason to assume there is not life beyond Earth, that in-and-of-itself is not hard evidence. Anomalies relating to UFO reports are not explained or are hard-evidence by virtue of being unexplained.

And we do know that intelligent creatures, thinking, sentient beings, have existed along side of homo sapiens. That is a fact. This is opposed to extraterrestrials, who we do not know for certain if they exist.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex




And like Malcram, you are ascribing human motivation and psychology to something decidely inhuman

 


Except that I didn't. For someone who habitually accuses others of "lying" and distorting", you do it surprisingly often yourself. In fact, you made the only appeal to motivation in that discussion when you (half)-baked the illogical pretzel that the idea that CT's would care more about nuclear installations somehow proves CT's exist.



[edit on 2-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
After having defended it as just as likely and logical that the secret people living in the walls robbed the house as the idea that intruders did, and realizing that this claim was ridiculous, you also tried to claim that the analogy did not apply and wanted to drop it. In fact, it applied very well and highlighted just how silly your argument was, which is why you wanted to dismiss the analogy.


Actually, I never defended the idea of people secretly living in the walls as likely and logical.

I made two posts in response to this. Here and here. In both, I dismissed the analogy as too simplistic, once implied and once explicit. Only in one did I show it was a possibility, but I never said both of your choices were just as logical or possible. I never agreed with any part of your analogy.

Saying otherwise is a lie and distortion.

Please do not repeat this lie again, Malcram.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
Except that I didn't. for someone who habitually accuses others of "lying" and distorting"


When you say, "why haven't they done this?" Or "why would they do that?" that is making an assumption about psychology and intention.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


LOL. Both your links show that you did not "dismiss the analogy as too simplistic", I encourage any reader to click on them (before they are edited). Only later, as I said, did you try to back away from the analogy because it was too sucessful.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Malcram
Except that I didn't. for someone who habitually accuses others of "lying" and distorting"

When you say, "why haven't they done this?" Or "why would they do that?" that is making an assumption about psychology and intention.


No, I proved whatever I said and demonstrated there was no assumption. We have been over this. And I suggest you drop the lies and distortions when you refer back to posts I made.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
No, I proved whatever I said and demonstrated there was no assumption. We have been over this. And I suggest you drop the lies and distortions when you refer back to posts I made.


You did not prove anything. You just made a claim. A claim is not proof, an issue both you and Child are rather confused on.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
(Cross-posted)

I think we need to put the brakes on this discussion, take a step back and look at what is happening. In at least three threads, we have Child and Malcram browbeating any and every one who does not subscribe to their pet theory. Any who do not, be they skeptic or believer, is worthy of any sort of derision or insult. This is reminiscent of Polomontana and his supporters/sock-puppets, who are less interested in proving their hypothesis and more interested in silencing those who do not agree with them.

I would suggest we do not engage them in this any longer. They will proclaim victory, confusing it with proving their pet beliefs. We however are not hobbled by such confusion. Everyone else has witnessed their childish and borish behavior, which should tell them enough about who is open-minded and interested in genuine, sincere discussion.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by SaviorComplex]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join