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.

 

Skeptics who are skeptical just to maintain skepticism

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 



Who is going to have enough credibility for you people to finally accept that there are things going on that you are not aware of?


That makes no sense if you’re going to draw the conclusion “IT’S ALIENS!”

By definition if you are unaware of something you can’t know what that something is.

I’m confident that every government in the world has some secrets and I can deduce what some of them are likely to be. However it takes a lot of blind assumption to come to believe there is a conspiracy to keep the existence of aliens secret.

As for the credible individuals you mention; there are a number of points to mentions,

First, those who say “I worked on crashed alien craft” have been unable to come forward with evidence of their claims. That doesn’t have to be physical it could be in the form of knowledge gained that could come from no other source. So why believe them?

Second, those that profess the belief that we are being visited are of no greater significance that the rest of the population. Edgar Mitchell would come under this category; he doesn’t say he saw aliens or anything like that, just that he believes the whole UFO’s are aliens thing. To put that opinion up as evidence is a logical fallacy, appeal to authority.

Third, those who report unusual sighting are doing just that, reporting something unusual. Just because a pilot sees something for which we have no explanation doesn’t mean you can fill the void with aliens.

Fourth, personal testimonial is just not good evidence from a scientific standpoint. I’m sure someone will say “well you can be convicted of murder on the basis of personal testimonial” but that is law not science (is it even true anyway?!). Memory is just too susceptible to suggestion, bias etc to be reliable for this purpose.


THESE SELF MADE GENIUSES BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN POSTULATE AND DETERMINE WHAT DOES, OR DOES NOT EXIST IN THE INFINITY OF THE UNIVERSE


I apologise if you’re picking out very specific arguments but in general the “sceptic stance” is that there is no conclusive evidence that aliens are visiting the Earth. That says nothing of whether they exist elsewhere in the universe and I think most sceptics would tend to take the view that extraterrestrial life is quite probably. It’s just not here.


In the end...you have nothing to gain by destroying the ideas, beliefs, and dreams of others.


It’s not a matter of ideas, beliefs or dreams. No one care if it’s your childhood dream to study “ufology” because aliens visiting Earth is either a fact or it isn’t.




posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
This is at least the third thread this week about the evils of skepticism. And that is not counting the threads that, while not necessarily about skepticism, take a swipe at it in the opening posts. How many do we really need? How does attacking skeptics with ad hominems advance our understanding of the UFO phenomenon?

It seems when redundant threads are created, the mods either close or merge them? Perhaps the same should be done here.


Oh...sorry if you've been insulted. But hey, its America isn't it??? The right to free speech is protected by the constitution.

I've made my statements and my point seems to be spreading. If you no likey the topic, you know trolly the post.

I'm sorry, I'm just skeptical about the skeptics. They seem far to skeptical to comprehend some of the very real realities that we all inhabit. But hey, feel free to debunk me...that's what I'm here for.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 



Who is going to have enough credibility for you people to finally accept that there are things going on that you are not aware of?


That makes no sense if you’re going to draw the conclusion “IT’S ALIENS!”

By definition if you are unaware of something you can’t know what that something is.

I’m confident that every government in the world has some secrets and I can deduce what some of them are likely to be. However it takes a lot of blind assumption to come to believe there is a conspiracy to keep the existence of aliens secret.

As for the credible individuals you mention; there are a number of points to mentions,

First, those who say “I worked on crashed alien craft” have been unable to come forward with evidence of their claims. That doesn’t have to be physical it could be in the form of knowledge gained that could come from no other source. So why believe them?

Second, those that profess the belief that we are being visited are of no greater significance that the rest of the population. Edgar Mitchell would come under this category; he doesn’t say he saw aliens or anything like that, just that he believes the whole UFO’s are aliens thing. To put that opinion up as evidence is a logical fallacy, appeal to authority.

Third, those who report unusual sighting are doing just that, reporting something unusual. Just because a pilot sees something for which we have no explanation doesn’t mean you can fill the void with aliens.

Fourth, personal testimonial is just not good evidence from a scientific standpoint. I’m sure someone will say “well you can be convicted of murder on the basis of personal testimonial” but that is law not science (is it even true anyway?!). Memory is just too susceptible to suggestion, bias etc to be reliable for this purpose.


THESE SELF MADE GENIUSES BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN POSTULATE AND DETERMINE WHAT DOES, OR DOES NOT EXIST IN THE INFINITY OF THE UNIVERSE


I apologise if you’re picking out very specific arguments but in general the “sceptic stance” is that there is no conclusive evidence that aliens are visiting the Earth. That says nothing of whether they exist elsewhere in the universe and I think most sceptics would tend to take the view that extraterrestrial life is quite probably. It’s just not here.


In the end...you have nothing to gain by destroying the ideas, beliefs, and dreams of others.


It’s not a matter of ideas, beliefs or dreams. No one care if it’s your childhood dream to study “ufology” because aliens visiting Earth is either a fact or it isn’t.




I've drawn no conclusions. I cannot pretend to know what I don't understand. I think that is a lesson that the skeptics need to learn from. But, like I said, I appreciate your efforts to intellectualize my opinion. I'm just skeptical, that's all.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 


Erm so you’re agreeing with the people you’re criticizing?

If you’ve looked at all the alien stuff and drawn no conclusion then you must be taking the same position as the sceptics otherwise you’re denying something which you see no reason not to believe.

If you haven’t look at the information presented then how can you say anything about the sceptical position?

Or is this just an attempt at trolling?



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Skeptics only ask that those who present their claims back them up with proof. Are you angry that people require proof? Would you really rather everyone accept everything that they're told? You started this thread not as a debate of any kind, but as a direct hatred toward skeptics. You called them names and had the "holier than thou" mentality by saying they live in boxes. That's not cool. Skeptics ask for proof. That's a good thing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That proof is what seperates fact from faith. Chill out and find some proof. That's why we're all here. Have a sense of humor and realize that skeptics are not your enemy.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Gah... how is ANYONE qualified to say with a degree of certainty that some conspiracy, picture, video etc is real or not? Its just an opinion.
And to be honest when there's been so many apparantly 'credible' people telling their stories, you start to notice that these various stories dont actually correlate with eachother. So thats just common sense to question what these people are saying.

Personally I dont believe 99% of the crap written on here, but apart from the whole imminent 2012 death star extravaganza, I keep an open mind. Only about half a percent of open mind, but still


[edit on 23-7-2009 by Bluebelle]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Whilst i might not agree with the tone of the OP. There are, undoubtedly, a solid clique of nay sayers who seem to spend a hell or a lot of time attempting to derail certain threads and , who are, notable by their total absence on other threads...

Try it for yourself... start a thread on Roswell and watch it expand over the next few days like a plains fire in summer... Start one on Operation mainbrace or Shag Harbour and it will wither on the vine, usually, within 24 hours...

One can only draw their own conclusions as to why certain skeptics seem determined to talk up some cases and stay totally away from others..

In the end many skeptics, are exactly the same are the most rabid believers. They seek self publicity and as such, tend to only be interested in dealing with cases where they actually can, seemingly, have an input. I say seemingly, as,more often than not, all they ever do is regurgitate wholesale, without any cortical analysis, conclusions made by others.

I've said it before, but there are times when i begin to suspect that a small cadre of believers and skeptics have got the whole UFO thing sewn up for their own personal little money making project. They argue amongst themselves, for themselves and often it is virtually impossible to get either side to review any new data that might have come to light.

I suspect the truth is that. Both skeptics and believers only feel comfortable working within what they think they know. Anything outside of that is just seen as blasphemy. They don't even want to discuss it, so they ignore it and move back to posting ream after ream on sightings they think they might have some kind of handle on.

That's fair enough, but it does stick in my craw when i see the self righteous attitude some skeptics adopt when, truth is, they are as blinkered and as prejudiced as the most avid believer.

I can give you one classic example of how selective skeptics are. There have been 2 full length documentaires made about Shag Harbour and they couldn't find a single skeptic willing to be interviewed about the incident on camera... That, to me, in its' self speaks volumes about just how credible, some very vocal skeptics, truly are, when push comes to shove.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 


Erm so you’re agreeing with the people you’re criticizing?

If you’ve looked at all the alien stuff and drawn no conclusion then you must be taking the same position as the sceptics otherwise you’re denying something which you see no reason not to believe.

If you haven’t look at the information presented then how can you say anything about the sceptical position?

Or is this just an attempt at trolling?



I tend to agree with logical arguments. I do believe in aliens, but, I also believe that there are many people out there who make up silly stories. I tend to believe the people who have established enough credibility to support the idea of extra-terrestrials. My point of logic is to say, if you can't believe and astronaut, who then will have enough credibility to sway your opinion. Things aren't merely black and white. Just because I agree that there may be an alien presence does not mean that I am going to believe every single person who claims abduction. That's my bottom line. There are those who seek to attack every single claim before they know the true story, and this is what this post is addressing.

Thank you for your insight.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
Whilst i might not agree with the tone of the OP. There are, undoubtedly, a solid clique of nay sayers who seem to spend a hell or a lot of time attempting to derail certain threads and , who are, notable by their total absence on other threads...

Try it for yourself... start a thread on Roswell and watch it expand over the next few days like a plains fire in summer... Start one on Operation mainbrace or Shag Harbour and it will wither on the vine, usually, within 24 hours...

One can only draw their own conclusions as to why certain skeptics seem determined to talk up some cases and stay totally away from others..

In the end many skeptics, are exactly the same are the most rabid believers. They seek self publicity and as such, tend to only be interested in dealing with cases where they actually can, seemingly, have an input. I say seemingly, as,more often than not, all they ever do is regurgitate wholesale, without any cortical analysis, conclusions made by others.

I've said it before, but there are times when i begin to suspect that a small cadre of believers and skeptics have got the whole UFO thing sewn up for their own personal little money making project. They argue amongst themselves, for themselves and often it is virtually impossible to get either side to review any new data that might have come to light.

I suspect the truth is that. Both skeptics and believers only feel comfortable working within what they think they know. Anything outside of that is just seen as blasphemy. They don't even want to discuss it, so they ignore it and move back to posting ream after ream on sightings they think they might have some kind of handle on.

That's fair enough, but it does stick in my craw when i see the self righteous attitude some skeptics adopt when, truth is, they are as blinkered and as prejudiced as the most avid believer.

I can give you one classic example of how selective skeptics are. There have been 2 full length documentaires made about Shag Harbour and they couldn't find a single skeptic willing to be interviewed about the incident on camera... That, to me, in its' self speaks volumes about just how credible, some very vocal skeptics, truly are, when push comes to shove.


I agree wholeheartedly with your statement which is the reason why I started this thread.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
Skeptics only ask that those who present their claims back them up with proof. Are you angry that people require proof? Would you really rather everyone accept everything that they're told? You started this thread not as a debate of any kind, but as a direct hatred toward skeptics. You called them names and had the "holier than thou" mentality by saying they live in boxes. That's not cool. Skeptics ask for proof. That's a good thing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That proof is what seperates fact from faith. Chill out and find some proof. That's why we're all here. Have a sense of humor and realize that skeptics are not your enemy.


No, you're one of the few skeptics that require proof. Therefore I have nothing to say against you. However, there are people who intentionally try to disrupt or tear down the opinions of others merely to create adversity. Proof is a very fine line as well. For many DEBUNKERS (not skeptics) there is no amount of proof that will be sufficient enough to change their existing opinions. Those are the people that I am addressing.

Good day to you.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 




I do believe in aliens

I tend to believe the people who have established enough credibility to support the idea of extra-terrestrials


So you have drawn a conclusion. Why did you saying you haven’t?


My point of logic is to say, if you can't believe and astronaut, who then will have enough credibility to sway your opinion.


That is exactly what my post addressed.

To reiterate;

As for the credible individuals you mention; there are a number of points to mentions,

First, those who say “I worked on crashed alien craft” have been unable to come forward with evidence of their claims. That doesn’t have to be physical it could be in the form of knowledge gained that could come from no other source. So why believe them?

Second, those that profess the belief that we are being visited are of no greater significance that the rest of the population. Edgar Mitchell would come under this category; he doesn’t say he saw aliens or anything like that, just that he believes the whole UFO’s are aliens thing. To put that opinion up as evidence is a logical fallacy, appeal to authority.

Third, those who report unusual sighting are doing just that, reporting something unusual. Just because a pilot sees something for which we have no explanation doesn’t mean you can fill the void with aliens.

Fourth, personal testimonial is just not good evidence from a scientific standpoint. I’m sure someone will say “well you can be convicted of murder on the basis of personal testimonial” but that is law not science (is it even true anyway?!). Memory is just too susceptible to suggestion, bias etc to be reliable for this purpose.


reply to post by FireMoon
 



There have been 2 full length documentaires made about Shag Harbour and they couldn't find a single skeptic willing to be interviewed about the incident on camera... That, to me, in its' self speaks volumes about just how credible, some very vocal skeptics, truly are


It demonstrates the exact opposite imho.

It’s a perfectly valid position to say “I don’t know”. No one’s going to bother going on a documentary just to say that. If these people were out to deny anything just for the sake of it then they would have been on that documentary and made up any old rubbish. But they didn’t.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I agree with you OP to a degree. You cant expect people that don't do thier own research to agree with you, It takes a special person to be a beliver and a skeptic. The problem is that both will get fixated on one idea instead of keeping an open mind and both do defend their ideals passionately. Me I'm a beliver, I bet most skeptics thought 9/11 was all "terrorists". The only terrorists are the goverments of the world.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 







There have been 2 full length documentaires made about Shag Harbour and they couldn't find a single skeptic willing to be interviewed about the incident on camera... That, to me, in its' self speaks volumes about just how credible, some very vocal skeptics, truly are


It demonstrates the exact opposite imho.

It’s a perfectly valid position to say “I don’t know”. No one’s going to bother going on a documentary just to say that. If these people were out to deny anything just for the sake of it then they would have been on that documentary and made up any old rubbish. But they didn’t.



Just the opposite, in actual fact, they have nothing to say that would be actually worth bothering to tape. That is, they have no evidence at all to back any sort of claim that something strange didn't happened and is, therefore, not worthy of investigation.. In fact the only skeptic to have a go at the Shag Harbour incicent was reduced to making childish remarks about the mental health of one of the original investigators, by trying to make out that. As the person later suffered from a mental degenerative disease, related to the aging process, that somehow that negated the mans opinion when he was in perfect health..

What is more, the Professor who did the original *debunking* in the Canadian press was discovered, upon his death, to have a whole rake load of papers from the government actively encouraging him, if not outright instructing him, to belittle the incident as swiftly as possible, via his press column..

Don't take my word for it start a thread on Shag Harbour see how many of the usual clique of nay sayers ever bother to post on it...

I've said it before, i will repeat it now. The vast majority of *unknowns* that have been solved , or shown to be hoaxes, were so, by people, who, on the whole, tend to believe that UFOs are, both real and belong to a technology that is not made by humans. It is ironic that so many skeptics 1 try to make out it was their research that unearthed the evidence and 2 are happy to quote such research as if it was done by people who are in total agreement with their own particular prejudices.


The intellectual dishonesty of some skeptics is, at times, breathtaking in it's audacity ...

The Shag Harbour documentaries are , pretty much, free of the usual talking heads you find in such programmes which, pretty much, negates the point you were trying to make..



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 




I do believe in aliens

I tend to believe the people who have established enough credibility to support the idea of extra-terrestrials


So you have drawn a conclusion. Why did you saying you haven’t?


My point of logic is to say, if you can't believe and astronaut, who then will have enough credibility to sway your opinion.


That is exactly what my post addressed.

To reiterate;

As for the credible individuals you mention; there are a number of points to mentions,

First, those who say “I worked on crashed alien craft” have been unable to come forward with evidence of their claims. That doesn’t have to be physical it could be in the form of knowledge gained that could come from no other source. So why believe them?

Second, those that profess the belief that we are being visited are of no greater significance that the rest of the population. Edgar Mitchell would come under this category; he doesn’t say he saw aliens or anything like that, just that he believes the whole UFO’s are aliens thing. To put that opinion up as evidence is a logical fallacy, appeal to authority.

Third, those who report unusual sighting are doing just that, reporting something unusual. Just because a pilot sees something for which we have no explanation doesn’t mean you can fill the void with aliens.

Fourth, personal testimonial is just not good evidence from a scientific standpoint. I’m sure someone will say “well you can be convicted of murder on the basis of personal testimonial” but that is law not science (is it even true anyway?!). Memory is just too susceptible to suggestion, bias etc to be reliable for this purpose.


reply to post by FireMoon
 



There have been 2 full length documentaires made about Shag Harbour and they couldn't find a single skeptic willing to be interviewed about the incident on camera... That, to me, in its' self speaks volumes about just how credible, some very vocal skeptics, truly are


It demonstrates the exact opposite imho.

It’s a perfectly valid position to say “I don’t know”. No one’s going to bother going on a documentary just to say that. If these people were out to deny anything just for the sake of it then they would have been on that documentary and made up any old rubbish. But they didn’t.



Hmmm...I wish the world was as black and white as it seems to you. Just because I believe in extra-terrestrials does not mean that I've drawn a conclusion on every hair-brained theory that gets laid before me. That would not be practical nor would it show a sense of balance. As I said before in my original post, a healthy sense of skepticism is needed in order to weed out fact from fiction. However, the problem is this...If we cannot believe people who have established true credibility, then who do we believe?

Thank you for your post. I appreciate all responses.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dillmiester
I agree with you OP to a degree. You cant expect people that don't do thier own research to agree with you, It takes a special person to be a beliver and a skeptic. The problem is that both will get fixated on one idea instead of keeping an open mind and both do defend their ideals passionately. Me I'm a beliver, I bet most skeptics thought 9/11 was all "terrorists". The only terrorists are the goverments of the world.


Agreed. I think its essential to remain balanced and not to dismiss information because of personal disagreements with content. Most people do this according to their opinions rather than weighing essential evidence that may prove otherwise.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 



That is, they have no evidence at all to back any sort of claim that something strange didn't happened and is


That isn’t how it works; it is very difficult to prove something didn’t happen. The sceptical mind looks for evidence of something or the lack thereof and if evidence is found looks to see if it is flawed or not. If it is then the sceptic will point it out.

If there is nothing that points to a conclusion then there is nothing to say; and the fact that every “professional sceptic” wasn’t jumping onto the bandwagon in this particular case shows that they are not out to disagree for disagreements sake.


The vast majority of *unknowns* that have been solved , or shown to be hoaxes, were so, by people, who, on the whole, tend to believe that UFOs are, both real and belong to a technology that is not made by humans.


I’d very much like to see the statistical analyses that lead you to that conclusion.


their own particular prejudices.


This is the problem; scepticism has nothing to do with prejudice. It’s not even a belief in itself; it is more akin to atheism vs. religion. To be sceptical is simply to use a logical filtering mechanism before believing something to be true. Everyone is a sceptic on some subject.

These people aren’t out to spoil your fun or destroy your belief system; they just want to sort out what is true, what is nonsense and what is just unknown.

I’m sure there are a few people out there that just like to argue but these aren’t sceptics by definition. So to lump people into a group, call them sceptics and then pin these attributes onto them is wholly incorrect.


The Shag Harbour documentaries are , pretty much, free of the usual talking heads you find in such programmes which, pretty much, negates the point you were trying to make..


No it proves what I am saying. If these people were out to debunk anything and everything then they would make up whatever rubbish they need to do so but they don’t, they are content to take the logical position and say “I don’t know”. If they don’t know one way or the other then what are they going to comment on? It doesn’t mean they think aliens crashed there and are sat at home saying “damn, I look foolish now it’s so obvious aliens are flying around and crashing into our harbours! Damn those believers, they were right all along!”

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 



Just because I believe in extra-terrestrials does not mean that I've drawn a conclusion on every hair-brained theory that gets laid before me.


I didn’t say you did but your posts clearly indicate that you’ve come to the conclusion that aliens are visiting Earth and various governments are covering it up. If not then your posts make absolutely no sense. With that in mind, to draw any conclusion that because “things going on that you are not aware of?” aliens are therefore visiting us, as you seemed to do, is totally illogical.


If we cannot believe people who have established true credibility, then who do we believe?


Have you read my posts? I’ve pointed out twice now why the word of even credible people is of little worth. And that is the crux; you are placing too high a value on personal testimony which cannot by itself prove the existence of anything.

This is the whole problem with the belief that aliens are visiting Earth; it is based almost entirely on evidence of something other than extraterrestrials. The bulk of the evidence comes from sightings of strange objects in the sky and the produce (photos, videos) thereof; even without dismissing the majority as hoaxes or misidentification the only conclusion you can come to is that something unexplained has been sighted. There’s no more reason to bring aliens into it than fairies or angels.

What constitutes the evidence that directly points to aliens? Abductees and people claiming to have worked on some top secret project; anything else? And these are both of course very poor as evidence goes.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


I'm sorry, but it appears to me that you're talking in circles. There's not much you can say on this issue that will change my moderate views on the existence of extraterrestrials. Its simply my opinion versus yours. You seem to think that if I adopt the idea that extraterrestrials exist that somehow I must also believe that there is a collective worldwide and governmental motive to suppress the info. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Just because its standard for people to assimilate certain ideas with various modes of thinking, doesn't mean that everyone fits into that box. I don't believe that reptilians are taking over the world, I think David Icke may be somewhat imbalanced. I don't believe in every crop circle that is posted on the internet, and I have no idea whether there is an "alien agenda" or not. Nobody provided me that handy ALIENS FOR DUMMIES MANUAL that has been passed all over ATS. So, regardless of whether aliens exists or not, everything after that remains speculation of which their is no exact proof. So, although I believe, I don't fit inside of the normal mainframe that you choose to associate with "believers."

Regardless, if there is no such thing as a credible witness to someone like yourself, then guess what...THERE MAY NEVER BE PROOF. Radar blips seem to mean nothing to the public. Video evidence seem to mean nothing as well. Credible witnesses as you say, don't even exist. Public statements made by politicians and governments aren't worthy. Statements made by former presidents and astronauts don't hold any weight. Hell, even when physical traces of radiation and strange anomalies occur around a sighting, it still seems to mean nothing to the avid debunker.

I guess since our Nation has lived on a banquet of lies for so long, it almost makes sense that everyone, regardless of their honesty or integrity, loses credibility in the eyes of others (and let me be clear on this, I'm not merely referring to the idea of some UFO cover-up conspiracy). Lets just hope that if YOU ever have an experience, you'll be able to provide ALL OF THE VALUABLE evidence and tangible proof of it because...PEOPLE WILL TEAR YOU DOWN ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE TELLING THE TRUTH. And our society is so cynical that...even if you provide the proof, it still will PROVE nothing.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
No I’m not talking in circles you keep changing your position. First off you’re criticizing people for not accepting the “evidence” of testimonial that aliens are visiting Earth; logically you must believe this is the case as well otherwise you share the same view as the people you’re having a go at. Now you’re saying that isn’t the case! Which is it? Either it’s right to question these people and you can take any position you like or you place your faith in their credibility, as your initial post seems to suggest we must do, and accept that what they say is true. This has nothing to do with alien agendas, reptilians, or anything other than the claims made by the credible people you mentioned.

I’m not saying you believe everything put in front of you, but your first post made it clear that you believe aliens are visiting the Earth. Is that true or not?

There are two things that I’m talking about in my post that you seem to be mixing up. The first is the illogical nature of claiming something is unknown and then giving it an explanation (even if you didn’t mean it to that is what the sentence I quoted from your first post does).

The second is the unreliable nature of any personal testimonial when it comes to scientific matters of fact, which this is; it’s not just one opinion vs. another, either you can demonstrate aliens are visiting us or you can’t.


Regardless, if there is no such thing as a credible witness to someone like yourself, then guess what...THERE MAY NEVER BE PROOF. Radar blips seem to mean nothing to the public. Video evidence seem to mean nothing as well. Credible witnesses as you say, don't even exist.


My emphasis.

This is a major mistake you are making. Construing credible witness as proof, they are not synonymous.

Credible people exist and I will listen to them but they don’t themselves prove anything. At best they can give reason for further investigation.

The thing is the credible people with regard to this aren’t saying what you seem to think they’re saying. Edgar Mitchell isn’t saying he knows that aliens are visiting us, he is saying he believes that they are; his basis for believing this is no better than any other believer. If he had said he spent time on an alien ship and backed that up with detail then it would be worth listening to. The pilot that saw a light moving at eight times the speed of sound isn’t saying he saw an alien ship, he just saw a light and we can’t give that any arbitrary explanation.

There are a few people making direct claims relating to aliens but these still need backing up. If a prominent engineer says he’s spent the last decade taking apart an alien ship then I’ll hear him out. However if he can’t demonstrate anything beyond that base claim, i.e. he can’t explain what he learned or produce any corroborating information then I’m not going to believe him.


Hell, even when physical traces of radiation and strange anomalies occur around a sighting, it still seems to mean nothing to the avid debunker.


You’re missing the point, why connect these things to aliens? Why not human craft? Why not as yet unknown forms of natural phenomenon? If you’re going to go off on a flight of fancy then why not angels or pixies? If it’s unknown and you have no further information then you can’t just make up any old explanation.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   
These threads are tiring.

They seem to be written everyday and they are basically blanketted ad hominem attacks.

These threads are tiring.

Thank you,
Bloodline
Department of Redundancy Department




posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 

You know exactly what you are doing. You are trying to start another long running "skeptics vs believers" argument. You believe it will get you a few flags & some attention.

We don't need another one of these threads.

The more of these threads that are started, potentially the more the wedge is driven between these parties.

Each needs the other.

Grow up & get to grips with that.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join