Skeptics who are skeptical just to maintain skepticism

Originally posted by Sam60

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
I'm beginning to suspect many of the anti-skepticism threads are made by the same person, under different accounts. Look at some of these threads, and you will notice the OPs use the same argument each time. That is we should take the testimony of certain individuals at face-value because of who those individuals are; and eye-witness testimony is enough to send someone to prison therefore it should be enough for science. They are not making similar arguments, but the same argument. Looking through these threads, you will notice other similarities.

I think you've nailed it.

Perhaps the op has done all this before.....

Yes!!! You've exposed my conspiracy again!!! I'll have to call the "men in black" and inform them that I've been smoked out of my cave. All assaults are off. I will have to devise a new plan.

Isn't this what the "believers" claim of the skeptics when things aren't going their way??? DISINFORMATION!!!

Sounds a bit paranoid doesn't it???

Laughing out LOUD!!!

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
I find it curious that most of these skeptic bashing threads come from new members with no established network of friends on the board...

Just further evidence these threads are credited by a, for lack of a better term, drive-by member, creating account after account to spread their gospel with every bit of the zeal of a religious fundamentalist.

And really, I do not know why we indulge this, over and over again.

You're actually tickling the crap out of me. And here you are, to expose my evil deeds. So now I'm a guy who posts the same topic repeatedly and have been exposed as a "drive by member."

Zoloft...you need zoloft or some form of prozac. Maybe even Thorazine. And to think, skeptics call "believers" paranoid. EEEEESH.

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

You started this thread attacking ppl you neither converse with or know? You attacked people. It was you. The reason you are able to turn on a dime on any issue is because you have no heart or sense of self. You tend to take the stronger side. I used to feel sorry for you spineless guys in school when I watched you say one thing then kiss ass to another, You're probably a self procalaimed Indigo. I know what you are. You're a guy who thinks he's got so much more to offer than anyone else that he trolls random internet sites trying to astound people with his open mind. Stop there and become part of the ATS community before you start lumping people together as stupid debunkers. If you had any real sense of yourself you would understand that the debunkers only get under your skin because yours is thin.

Oh my...now I have no heart and I assume my soul is in permanent turmoil. This is stuff that I couldn't write even if I wanted to. I think a movie could be made on some of the bleeding hearted posts that I have seen. This one definitely takes the whole cake. Spineless??? You've had too much of your roid cocktail today and you might want to tone down on the testosterone buzz that you're on. And...it appears that I actually got under your skin, not vice versa.

I wish I could put this in a book. It would probably sell millions of copies.

Keep the faith!!! Although, I'm sure after many of your fellow skeptics read this post of yours, they might want to distance themselves from someone so volatile.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


Evolvedministry? Isn't it your job to make the debunkers see the light? Why do you ask others to present an argument or evidence to convinece the skeptics? Isn't this your thread? Are you not the dude (sorry, my balls went back up) who swears that the ignorant, box secluded, obstinate skeptics need to see the light? Where's the light?
This thread can go on forever. I feel your anger and I agree with a lot of what you feel. But the fact is.......... this is a forum not for pointless discussion, but for truth. If you don't have any input other than anger for your side of belief then get some. Get a video and post it. Get something. For cryin out loud if you have to call Dan Tanna for an idea. Do it, but don't tell us that skeptics ( I really mean debunkers though) are giant stupid dummies in a false reality.
Oh yeah I forgot. You're an Indigo right? Plz tell us you are so we can all move on.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by spinalremain]

If you approach any issue as either a Believer or as a Debunker, you are already biased. If you approach it with an attitude other than, "I don't know" you're prejudiced. The only rational way to approach a topic is as a skeptic - but that depends on how you define skeptic.

There are two definitions for skeptic. One definition is "one who refuses to believe" - a doubter, debunker, an "Infidel", someone whose mind is not open to the possibility of there being something strange and unknown out there.

The other definition - the skeptic I am - is one who requires evidence to make a decision, who refuses to believe without that evidence. It is this sort of skepticism that I try to bring to any issue.

Calling skeptics fools and idiots does nothing to support any claims you make. Being skeptical is necessary; and, having seen the evidence, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that this phenomenon (whichever one we're discussing) isn't what is claimed.

Take UFO's. First, the mere *existence* of UFO's isn't in doubt, because all the term means is an unidentified flying object. It refers to anything we can't readily identify as a plane, planet, weather phenomenon, etc. There is no question that we see these things all the time.

The real question is whether these UFO's - any of them - are alien spacecraft. Some people see photos or videos, read reports, etc., and are convinced these are aliens. Others are not convinced. There is no solid evidence one way or the other.

When evidence is lacking, it is common to claim "conspiracy". And then, in a convoluted way, some claim that the lack of evidence is proof of a coverup, that if the Government or the Military (or the Reptilians) hadn't covered it all up, there *would* be evidence.

Unfortunately, the lack of evidence means only one thing: we don't have enough evidence to make a rational decision. It means nothing more than that.

And we do lack credible evidence. We have photographs and videos. Unfortunately, people have been faking photos and videos since they were invented. Check out the story of the Cottingley Fairies for example. While it doesn't show UFO's, it makes my point.

The fairy photos had been examined by "experts", who claimed they were authentic. Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes author) was fooled by the pictures and wrote a couple of pamphlets about fairies. There were many believers. And of course, there were many skeptics, as well.

So, given the photographic and video evidence we have now, how are we to determine which, if any, are authentic? You find some "expert" who says they're fake, and I can find an "expert" who insists they're real. Or vice versa - find me an expert who says they're real, and I'll find one who says they're fake.

I couldn't accept any photographic evidence, because it's so easy to fake it. Even I have a picture of my cat in Andromeda, where ('m sure she's never been.. well, pretty sure. Actually, come to think of it, she's got to be an alien. But I digress...

What that leaves me is either my own personal experience, or the experience of someone I know well, and whose honesty is beyond question. Maybe, if it happened nearby and I was told by many different people they'd seen an alien. But even then I'd wonder whether it was some sort of advertising stunt or something.

So yes, I'm a skeptic. By that I mean, "I don't know". There hasn't been enough credible evidence for me to make a decision one way or another. That doesn't make me an idiot or a fool.

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

LMAO at you! you joined 2 weeks ago. You're judging the validity of ATS now? Go away.

Oh...such a high and aspiring member that you are. You have seniority because you're a veteran to such a reputable forum. Please, with all of your experience and knowledge of the ATS community, enlighten me on what I have overlooked. Your view of things MUST be far more in tune than mine. So, how many years have you been a member? 20? 30? Please, show me the ins and outs of this place because I'm sure there is sooooooooo much that I've missed.

Originally posted by Sam60
Watch the op blow up....

Clock's ticking.....

Still holding my breath!!! I should blow at any time!!!

Originally posted by spinalremain
"skeptics fight to keep their illusions alive"



Where do I start?
I'm going to start by asking you what illusions skeptics live with? Skeptics believe what they can see and know, but they have illusions?
Are you even aware that you're sounding like a dime-store new age novel? You made this thread and still haven't given us any evidence of anything.
OK, you hate skeptics and debunkers. You have nothing positive to add to the believer side of the discussion other than your anger. End of thread.

Evidence??? LAUGHING OUT LOUD!!! Spoken like a true skeptic. That's hilarious. I wasn't aware that I needed evidence to call a debunker out for what they are. If you need any evidence, you might want to read through these posts. LOL. I think the evidence speaks for itself.

Here's some evidence of one of the skeptics illusions. And that is...that you actually need evidence to have an opinion. LOL. Do you need anymore evidence that you may be delusional???

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

LMAO at you! you joined 2 weeks ago. You're judging the validity of ATS now? Go away.

Oh...such a high and aspiring member that you are. You have seniority because you're a veteran to such a reputable forum. Please, with all of your experience and knowledge of the ATS community, enlighten me on what I have overlooked. Your view of things MUST be far more in tune than mine. So, how many years have you been a member? 20? 30? Please, show me the ins and outs of this place because I'm sure there is sooooooooo much that I've missed.

I dont have any authority over you or anybody. The difference is that I don't join forums and de-evolve it by 5 years by stating that Im more aware than others. I respect others and you don't. I don't make snide remarks about ones intelligence (certainly not in a new thread)
You really are the UFO hero aren't you? You need to read all the boards and realize that lots of members have mixed views. Mixed views. They have mixed views because they use their brains. They're not angry or biased. They look at the given evidence of a given case and debate the validity. That's the way it works.
I myself have made threads with no evidence; questioning the evidence of the self proclaimed aliens here, but I didn't insult or attack anybody. That's why you're coming off as a J#$K O$F. If you just shared your thoughts without patronizing skeptics or implying that you're more enlightened, then we could have started this discussion without ugliness.
The fact that I bring up you being new is because there have been 4 threads like this in the last 2 weeks. I'm not sayin I have seniority or anything. I'm a nobody here. Just a regular reader/poster. I did not accept your bashing lightly though. You are new, you should introduce yourself, be polite and not label people. After being here a whole 2 weeks, how much could you possibly know about the skeptics here? Can you name any of them?
It seems like you're bringing your anger from another forum here and I didn't like it. Im not the police, but I speak up.

Interesting topic, and a pretty lively bunch of posts, LOL.

The main reason I joined this site was because I was looking for a site that discusses UFOs and other non-mainstream stuff. I absolutely believe that we aren't alone here but I can see how the topic of UFOs is like religion - if you can't see it or prove it, it's not real. I've watched a lot of UFO films and the evidence is astounding, from a lot of very credible people who have witnessed them. Also what I've personally experienced and the various "clues" from ancient civilizations which don't add up without other beings as part of the equation. But that's just my take on this topic and I respect others' opinions.

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

Evolvedministry? Isn't it your job to make the debunkers see the light? Why do you ask others to present an argument or evidence to convinece the skeptics? Isn't this your thread? Are you not the dude (sorry, my balls went back up) who swears that the ignorant, box secluded, obstinate skeptics need to see the light? Where's the light?
This thread can go on forever. I feel your anger and I agree with a lot of what you feel. But the fact is.......... this is a forum not for pointless discussion, but for truth. If you don't have any input other than anger for your side of belief then get some. Get a video and post it. Get something. For cryin out loud if you have to call Dan Tanna for an idea. Do it, but don't tell us that skeptics ( I really mean debunkers though) are giant stupid dummies in a false reality.
Oh yeah I forgot. You're an Indigo right? Plz tell us you are so we can all move on.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by spinalremain]

The light is at the end of the tunnel. LOL. Unfortunately you have to die to see it. I would hope that you aren't suicidal, but, if you are, there are many therapists that could help you overcome your apparent adversities.

As far as the topic, I can tell you haven't quite grasped the point. You see, I've made no personal attacks (other than the strong language in the original post) and have posted MY opinion on the validity of skepticism/debunking and the volatile nature of its constituents. YOU came here because you wanted to counter it and make personal what you cannot intellectually convey.

And now you're here, on my "pointless" thread, attempting to regain some ground that you feel that you've lost. If the thread was so "pointless," you wouldn't have wasted 2-5 minutes of your life defending your position or trying to find ways of insulting me into relenting mine. Regardless of your stance, you were compelled to offer YOUR opinion and contribute to this thread because the topic was burned into consciousness from the jump. There was a trigger, and then there was your response. In the end, that's the beauty of America.

I personally thank you for commenting on my thread.

Mission accomplished.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

Yes, even eyewitness testimony falls under the category of forensics.

In what sense?

It’s beside the point anyway; the standards of science and of law are separate regardless of whether the latter uses the former in certain circumstances. Accepting that someone saw who stole a woman’s hand bag is a huge leap from accepting that they saw an alien space ship. Similarly, you would have no trouble believing one friend saw another at lunch but you would probably want more than just their word if they told you they bumped into Barack Obama and stopped off for a cup of tea with him.

And yes...I still claim no absolutes.

Then answer my question, what did you mean when you said;

when idiots like these troll the boards and put into question the experience, research, and hard work of people who have developed a lifetime of credibility (Buzz Aldrin, Edgar Mitchell, former Presidents, politicians, countless numbers of pilots, police officers, military personnel) then I have to question the credibility of the FOOLS
…
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?


What does that mean if not “I believe what these people claim”? If you don’t believe then you’re calling yourself a fool. You made that claim, I didn’t make it up for you but I do expect you stand by it or otherwise openly retract it.

Please just answer that and stop hiding behind this false veil of impartiality.


For clarification, my main issue with your position is the characterisation of anyone who doesn’t believe the “credible people” as defined in your first post as unreasonable sceptics. I agree that people who deny something for denying sake are useful to no one but your first post makes it clear that you target people of a far wider range.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


I'm not a skeptic though. I require to be convinced with evidence. Does that make me a skeptic? No. It makes me a rational human.
I have seen things I can't explain. I believe in life we aren't familiar with.
I think you're becoming confused with those who require proof or evidence with those who have made theit mind up not believing prior to viewing the evidence.
You're laughing like evidence is a bad thing. That's kinda......um..... ignorant.
You write like an intelligent person and you even wrote yourself that you're a skeptic who requires proof or good evidence to sort through the BS. You know what I'm sayin. Don't label me a skeptic. Well if you want you can, but in the true sense of the word I'm not. I always look toward each case with the same view. The view of "let's rule out all the possibilities". Does that make me live in a box?

Originally posted by spinalremain

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

LMAO at you! you joined 2 weeks ago. You're judging the validity of ATS now? Go away.

Oh...such a high and aspiring member that you are. You have seniority because you're a veteran to such a reputable forum. Please, with all of your experience and knowledge of the ATS community, enlighten me on what I have overlooked. Your view of things MUST be far more in tune than mine. So, how many years have you been a member? 20? 30? Please, show me the ins and outs of this place because I'm sure there is sooooooooo much that I've missed.

I dont have any authority over you or anybody. The difference is that I don't join forums and de-evolve it by 5 years by stating that Im more aware than others. I respect others and you don't. I don't make snide remarks about ones intelligence (certainly not in a new thread)
You really are the UFO hero aren't you? You need to read all the boards and realize that lots of members have mixed views. Mixed views. They have mixed views because they use their brains. They're not angry or biased. They look at the given evidence of a given case and debate the validity. That's the way it works.
I myself have made threads with no evidence; questioning the evidence of the self proclaimed aliens here, but I didn't insult or attack anybody. That's why you're coming off as a J#$K O$F. If you just shared your thoughts without patronizing skeptics or implying that you're more enlightened, then we could have started this discussion without ugliness.
The fact that I bring up you being new is because there have been 4 threads like this in the last 2 weeks. I'm not sayin I have seniority or anything. I'm a nobody here. Just a regular reader/poster. I did not accept your bashing lightly though. You are new, you should introduce yourself, be polite and not label people. After being here a whole 2 weeks, how much could you possibly know about the skeptics here? Can you name any of them?
It seems like you're bringing your anger from another forum here and I didn't like it. Im not the police, but I speak up.

Ahhhh yes. Appeal to my sense of morality and justice. That's actually a new one so far. Hmmm...I don't think that I said that I was more aware than anyone else. I think that may be an inference that you made because you interpreted my post subjectively. That is to say...you saw what you wanted to see.

UFO hero??? Thank you. I can't take credit for that, but, I appreciate your vote of confidence. That's twice within this thread that I've been referred to as a hero. You skeptics are a flattering sort. I THINK I'LL KEEP YOU AROUND.

Introductions??? I think this is working as such. No need to fix something that isn't broken.

And as far as calling skeptics by their name...it appears that I have a whole post full skeptics and their names. For instance, your name is spinalremain. Any more questions???

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

I'm not a skeptic though. I require to be convinced with evidence. Does that make me a skeptic? No. It makes me a rational human.
I have seen things I can't explain. I believe in life we aren't familiar with.
I think you're becoming confused with those who require proof or evidence with those who have made theit mind up not believing prior to viewing the evidence.
You're laughing like evidence is a bad thing. That's kinda......um..... ignorant.
You write like an intelligent person and you even wrote yourself that you're a skeptic who requires proof or good evidence to sort through the BS. You know what I'm sayin. Don't label me a skeptic. Well if you want you can, but in the true sense of the word I'm not. I always look toward each case with the same view. The view of "let's rule out all the possibilities". Does that make me live in a box?

So far, that's the best reply that you've had. So, I'll respond accordingly. If you would go back a couple of pages, we've established that I'm talking about debunkers and not skeptics. There is a difference, and you might want to check about how I agreed with many of the skeptics positions who merely require proof and scientific information. The reason why I used the word skeptic on my title is because the debunkers come running to defend their ego's. Snag them, and reel them in. Its quite easy to expose them for who they are by their actions and their language. I myself have a skeptical mind, but, leave it open in case there are essential changes that need to be made according to new tangible proof or information. That is how the human mind learns and assimilates new thoughts and realities.

Also, you might want to look at the flow chart posted a couple of pages back.

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

Yes, even eyewitness testimony falls under the category of forensics.

In what sense?

It’s beside the point anyway; the standards of science and of law are separate regardless of whether the latter uses the former in certain circumstances. Accepting that someone saw who stole a woman’s hand bag is a huge leap from accepting that they saw an alien space ship. Similarly, you would have no trouble believing one friend saw another at lunch but you would probably want more than just their word if they told you they bumped into Barack Obama and stopped off for a cup of tea with him.

And yes...I still claim no absolutes.

Then answer my question, what did you mean when you said;

when idiots like these troll the boards and put into question the experience, research, and hard work of people who have developed a lifetime of credibility (Buzz Aldrin, Edgar Mitchell, former Presidents, politicians, countless numbers of pilots, police officers, military personnel) then I have to question the credibility of the FOOLS
…
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?


What does that mean if not “I believe what these people claim”? If you don’t believe then you’re calling yourself a fool. You made that claim, I didn’t make it up for you but I do expect you stand by it or otherwise openly retract it.

Please just answer that and stop hiding behind this false veil of impartiality.


For clarification, my main issue with your position is the characterisation of anyone who doesn’t believe the “credible people” as defined in your first post as unreasonable sceptics. I agree that people who deny something for denying sake are useful to no one but your first post makes it clear that you target people of a far wider range.

There's not too many senses that I could be talking about other than appealing to your "COMMON SENSE." Forensic Science is a very real thing practiced by law enforcement and military officials everywhere. I'm sure you've seen the show C.S.I. I know its the dummied down version, but, its available to the public and thus far, is not classified. Now...this fictional television show is based on the collection of evidence, statements, and other facts needed to convict criminals of mischief and wrong doing. Here's the kicker. This show is based on what "REAL" law enforcement do when they have to pursue and lock up the "dreggs of society" when they get out of line. Sounds outlandish...but, I promise you...it exists.

Hmmm...I didn't call myself a fool, that must be one of those silly little misinterpretations that happens in the mind of the delusional.

A false veil of impartiality...lol. Someone is working on becoming a writer. Um, again...I never claimed to be impartial. I claimed to be open to new ideas and interpretations. You might want to work on your own interpretation skills.

Keep 'em coming...its entertainment at its best.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


Why don't you stand by your opening statements and post some videos of the great Edwin Aldrin saying that there are aliens? If you can do that I will buy into what you're saying. It's because you opened up by spewing the same "I hate skeptic" crap that inclined me to lean on you.
Show us a video of evidence which has convinced you and we can debate it. The fact is; there's nothing you can post which hasn't been posted here before. You're one of many. No one needs you to speak for them. If you dislike debunkers then so be it. I don't personally care for their way of thinking either. I do think that you have declared an open attack on skeptics though. That's fine as long as you don't result to name calling and labeling in your first (or any) post.

What does anyones ego have to do with the fact there is not sufficient enough evidence? You do know that if a UFO landed on Mr. debunkers lawn that they would be a believer right? Ego has nothing to do with the lack of sufficient evidence. Some guys require concrete evidence. I do not. I can connect the dots and decide what I find to be the most reasonable, but ego has nothing to do with it. That's what Im talking about with you attacking people. You're trying to play psychologist because people don't have the same outlook as you. I hear what you're sayin, but seeing as you're the one with the extraordinary beliefs, don't you think the burden of proof lies with you? Show the debunkers why they're wrong. Don't imply that their ego will gat shattered or that they're afraid. That's pointless after all. It's your view against theirs and you have no evidence beyond saying that Buzz Aldrin believes in aliens and he an astronaut.
Man to man........ Which cases have led you to believe. I know it's not because Buzz Aldrin said so. Let us discuss those.



[edit on 25-7-2009 by spinalremain]

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

Ok Im a skeptic with a closed mind, only I can guarantee I have read more books on the subject of UFOs and paranormal phenomenon than years you have been alive.
Anyway, why don't you stand by your opening statements and post some videos of the great Edwin Aldrin saying that there are aliens? If you can do that I will buy into what you're saying. It's because you opened up by spewing the same "I hate skeptic" crap that inclined me to lean on you.
Show us a video of evidence which has convinced you and we can debate it. The fact is; there's nothing you can post which hasn't been posted here before. You're one of many. No one needs you to speak for them. If you dislike debunkers then so be it. I don't personally care for their way of thinking either. I do think that you have declared an open attack on skeptics though. That's fine as long as you don't result to name calling and labeling in your first (or any) post.

That's actually Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, but, I get your point. Its funny that you assume my age and experience in the UFO field. Do you have proof of this claim??? I could hardly say that you have said proof since you don't know my name, my age, nor my education background or experience. YOU SEE...THERE'S MY SKEPTICAL MIND AT WORK. Once you prove this evidence of a definitive age difference and my experience level in UFO's versus yours, I will gladly supply you with the footage you ask. Which, according to my knowledge, will be never.

Ahhh...again, you are making conclusions based on nothing. Who said I was speaking for anyone? Perception certainly can be misleading can't it?

There's a whole different point to this thread than what YOU can see, touch, or sense. The reason why I KNOW that you DON'T know the point to this thread is by the way that you consistently respond. You might want to consider that.

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

Why don't you stand by your opening statements and post some videos of the great Edwin Aldrin saying that there are aliens? If you can do that I will buy into what you're saying. It's because you opened up by spewing the same "I hate skeptic" crap that inclined me to lean on you.
Show us a video of evidence which has convinced you and we can debate it. The fact is; there's nothing you can post which hasn't been posted here before. You're one of many. No one needs you to speak for them. If you dislike debunkers then so be it. I don't personally care for their way of thinking either. I do think that you have declared an open attack on skeptics though. That's fine as long as you don't result to name calling and labeling in your first (or any) post.

What does anyones ego have to do with the fact there is not sufficient enough evidence? You do know that if a UFO landed on Mr. debunkers lawn that they would be a believer right? Ego has nothing to do with the lack of sufficient evidence. Some guys require concrete evidence. I do not. I can connect the dots and decide what I find to be the most reasonable, but ego has nothing to do with it. That's what Im talking about with you attacking people. You're trying to play psychologist because people don't have the same outlook as you. I hear what you're sayin, but seeing as you're the one with the extraordinary beliefs, don't you think the burden of proof lies with you? Show the debunkers why they're wrong. Don't imply that their ego will gat shattered or that they're afraid. That's pointless after all. It's your view against theirs and you have no evidence beyond saying that Buzz Aldrin believes in aliens and he an astronaut.
Man to man........ Which cases have led you to believe. I know it's not because Buzz Aldrin said so. Let us discuss those.



[edit on 25-7-2009 by spinalremain]

You're precious.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


You haven’t answered either of my questions. Why not?

I really would like an answer to the second because your whole position hinges on it.

I’ll let the nonsense about witness testimony being an area of forensics go (CSI? Really?) but I really would like you to answer that question.

What did you mean when you said;

when idiots like these troll the boards and put into question the experience, research, and hard work of people who have developed a lifetime of credibility (Buzz Aldrin, Edgar Mitchell, former Presidents, politicians, countless numbers of pilots, police officers, military personnel) then I have to question the credibility of the FOOLS
…
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?


What does that mean if not “I believe what these people claim”?

Do you believe aliens are visiting the Earth or not? It’s a very simple question.