I'm pretty tired of skeptics who are unable to think outside the box.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Total Package

 

I think different skeptics will have different thresholds of evidence needed to convince them.

But videos of fuzzy dots in the sky just don't quite cut it as proof of aliens for some (they may prove there are fuzzy dots in the sky, well we ALL know that by now). And witness testimony can be very unreliable even when people are telling the truth. And we'd have to be really stupid to assume that EVERYBODY is telling the truth, at least some people aren't. Then there are those that are telling the truth that don't understand what they've seen, but they've seen something. Personally I find that fascinating, but is it proof? And what does it prove? Well it may prove they saw something they don't understand, but it may not rise to the level of proof of aliens.

It depends on what you are trying to get out of it all. Do you want proof a specific event eg: Roswell happened.... are you trying to prove that ET's exist?

You can say yeah fuzzy dots in the sky don't cut it.... but when it's 100,000 fuzzy dots in the sky.... all around the world... then that starts to cut it. Unfortunately the most closed minded of the skeptics... tend to isolate evidence as a way of discrediting it. I have come across this many many times when I see guys like Michael Shermer trying to push their skeptic agenda about something... in particular psychics.

For example.... a psychic says someone coming through died from Luekemia... and then seconds later will say "Who is Michael." and it will be confirmed that the man with Luekemia's name was Michael. Now the skeptic in Shermer will discredit the fact that 2 bits of evidence were correct and were linked. Instead he will focus on the fact the psychic did not say "The man with Leukemia's name is Michael". This is skepticism at it's finest... and I have seen it happen here in UFOlogy as well. People are too busy focussing on what they can explain away "rationally"... yet while they are rationally explaining away 100 feint lights in the distance they are not looking at the Phoenix Lights and saying there is somethin in it.

My belief that ETs are real and are visiting us.... is not on 1 specific event.... it's on what I consider overwhelming evidence... whether it be photos, videos or anecdotes.

To say ET's are not real and not visiting us... you must be able to explain every single UFO sighting, every Abduction, every Crop Circle, every Philip Corso that has come forward.... every Bob Lazar.... every remote viewer, every psychic that has contacted aliens, every remote viewer.... every abductee that has had a foreign object removed from their body.... every ancient indigenous culture..... and come to the conclusion that every single one of them are either wrong or liars. That is a hell of alot of people making # up.

You're looking potentially 100,000s to maybe even millions of individual pieces of evidence..... and find that every single one of them is wrong or explainable. Sheer weight of numbers tells you that its virtually impossible for it not to be proven.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Total Package]

reply to post by Total Package


So to paraphrase your post, one fuzzy dot in the sky doesn't prove aliens, but 100,000 fuzzy dots in the sky does?

Originally posted by Total Package
To say ET's are not real and not visiting us... you must be able to explain every single UFO sighting, ad naseum

The burden of proof is one those making the claim these are the result of alien craft. They need to prove that a single one is the result of aliens; proof is not in their simple proclaimation nor is it the responsibility of everyone else to invalidate their claim.

Originally posted by Total Package
and come to the conclusion that every single one of them are either wrong or liars. That is a hell of alot of people making # up.

Are they wrong and liars or is someone, the UFO community that is, interpreting the data wrong?

What you do not realize is that you are making the exact same claim you accuse skeptics of. For every ancient story claimed by a UFO researcher to be evidence, there is are hundreds anthopologist who can explain it in prosaic terms. For every UFO researcher who claims the abduction phenomenon to be evidence, there are hundreds of psychologists and psychologists who can explain it in other terms. And so forth.

So, are you saying all those people are wrong, lying or engaging in disinformation?

Originally posted by Total Package
Sheer weight of numbers tells you that its virtually impossible for it not to be proven.

You are making a sort of appeal to probability fallacy. Just because something can happen (for example, someone seeing a UFO that is an alien craft) doesn't mean it will happen.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by DoomsdayRex]

reply to post by Total Package

but when it's 100,000 fuzzy dots in the sky.... all around the world... then that starts to cut it.

No. When they land and say we're "fuzzy dots" from Alpha Centauri. Then, and only then, does it start to cut it. Fuzzy dots moving in random fashion are until proven otherwise, fuzzy dots. No matter how many.

The problems skeptics face is they apply a silly and absurd standard of proof when it comes to ufology. They want things like undeniable evidence.

This is the equivalent of having to prove your innocence.

In courts they say guilty or not guilty because it's hard to prove innocence unless you reduce all probabilities to zero.

For instance a man can be found not guilty based on DNA but there's a chance that he ordered the hit on his wife. Since the jury can't reduce all probabilities to zero they weigh the evidence within reason and come to a conclusion based on reasonable doubt.

What skeptics want from those who accept ufology is undeniable evidence. In other words they want all probability reduced to zero before they will accept any evidence.

This is why they can say with a straight face that there's no evidence for these things. This is silly but many have fooled themselves that this is a logical argument.

It's very illogical. We don't gather evidence, weigh evidence and draw conclusions based on absolute evidence. We weigh these things within reason.

For instance, extraterrestrials can land on the White House lawn and some will say that it's secret government holographic technolgy used by the government to scare people.

Unless you reduce the probability to zero, you have to weigh the evidence and come to a conclusion as to what's more likely or less likely.

There's tons of evidence within ufology. People just weigh the evidence differently.

When skeptics come with these absurd, absolute standards they show the weakness of their argument.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

I think my doubt is reasonable.

- Lights in the sky? -- could be a lot of things.
- Events such as Roswell, Kecksburg, and the Battle of LA? -- Ambiguous.
- Accounts of abductions and Alien videos (autopsies, interrogations, etc)? -- unverified.

If I were a juror, I would not choose to convict on evidence such as this.

By the way, I suppose you are talking about the U.S. judicial system (or similar), because some judicial systems have a very low burden of proof, while others have a very high burden of proof.


...again, that's not to say I can never believe in alien visitation, it's just that I can't yet believe.


[edit on 9/17/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The problems skeptics face is they apply a silly and absurd standard of proof when it comes to ufology. They want things like undeniable evidence.

This is the equivalent of having to prove your innocence.

In courts they say guilty or not guilty because it's hard to prove innocence unless you reduce all probabilities to zero.

Courts must prove guilt, not innocence, and the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, not 100% probablilty.

Beyond a reasonable doubt would suffice in UFOlogy. It's not anywhere near that point yet, though.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The problems skeptics face is they apply a silly and absurd standard of proof when it comes to ufology. They want things like undeniable evidence.

The problem with UFOlogy is that they want to be taken seriously as a science but do not want to be held to the same standards as the sciences.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Total Package

 

So to paraphrase your post, one fuzzy dot in the sky doesn't prove aliens, but 100,000 fuzzy dots in the sky does?

100,000 fuzzy dots together is evidence not proof. What it isn't is irrelevant.

Some advice to you guys who say finding 'facts' and 'undeniable evidence' is foolish, do not think about going to college at all. You will only fail. Since most of the courses in college teach you to rationally look for evidence and facts, to support or disprove a claim, you will never-ever make it through college. Physical evidence is important to sciences, psychology, sociology, etc...

College also teaches people to determine between subjective interpretation and facts. If you guys are accepting subjective evidence as fact, forget about ever attending a college in the future. You do not have what it takes.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Pathos]

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Total Package
To say ET's are not real and not visiting us... you must be able to explain every single UFO sighting, ad naseum

The burden of proof is one those making the claim these are the result of alien craft. They need to prove that a single one is the result of aliens; proof is not in their simple proclaimation nor is it the responsibility of everyone else to invalidate their claim.

hahah the old "burden of proof". Whenever I hear that quoted by a skeptic the alarm bells go off in my head. Standard operating procedure for debunkers to help them get out of investigating anything themselves whilst sitting there telling everyone how wrong they are.

What next.... will they pull out other great line the debunkers use... "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"... Whats the other Get out of jail free card skeptics use.... good old Occam's Razor... "The simplest answer is usually the correct answer".

All scientific skeptical clap trap used by skeptical debunkers to discredit what they don't believe in due to their personal religion called science.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The problems skeptics face is they apply a silly and absurd standard of proof when it comes to ufology. They want things like undeniable evidence.

The problem with UFOlogy is that they want to be taken seriously as a science but do not want to be held to the same standards as the sciences.

Science is completely and utterly irrelevant to this field. I don't want scientists getting within 100 miles of the field.

You're asking a bunch of brainwashed members of the scientific community that have been taught since they were in highschool the "laws of science"..... yet we are expecting these people to say "Well it ignores the basic law of physics.... so first off can we apologise because us as scienctists got that all wrong.... now onto the UFO" There are no way these idiots are going to put their careers and reputation (and pay packet) on the line to investigate UFOs... and it has nothing to do with the credibility of the field.... it's the stigma in their community for anything outside of the square. They are so gutless they won't even investigate PSI even though there is evidence for that.... because they are afraid of ridicule within their own community. These tossers are too busy getting their government grants to invent the next seedless watermelon.

The majority of the scientific community are spineless, gutless and egotestical. Stanton Friedman is one of the few who uses Science WITH an open mind and doesnt give a # what people think about him.

Imagine Science trying to prove UFO's are real.... "Show me that again... yup thats a UFO alright.. with an alien.... but can you replicate it 1000 times using double blind!! Nope not real then". Waste of space.


[edit on 17-9-2009 by Total Package]

Originally posted by Total Package
hahah the old "burden of proof". Whenever I hear that quoted by a skeptic the alarm bells go off in my head...

In other words, you do not have to prove your claims. Proof by proclaimation suffices.

Originally posted by Total Package
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"...

Yes. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence and the burden of proof is on those making the claims. It is the very foundation of science, of everything we know and have learned about how the universe around us works.

You dismiss these methods, not because of a failing of these method, but because you have not been provided the answers you want. Whereas employing instead of employing these methods and accepting whatever the outcome may be, you instead ridicule them for not giving you the outcome you want. You are not so much interested in the truth but having your beliefs validated.

Originally posted by Total Package
Science is completely and utterly irrelevant to this field. I don't want scientists getting within 100 miles of the field.

Hmmm.... So, Ufology is a religion? Science is relevant to all fields of study. Are you trying to prove the metaphysical, or are you trying to prove something substantial?

Originally posted by Total Package

The majority of the scientific community are spineless, gutless and egotestical. Stanton Friedman is one of the few who uses Science WITH an open mind and doesnt give a # what people think about him.

Imagine Science trying to prove UFO's are real.... "Show me that again... yup thats a UFO alright.. with an alien.... but can you replicate it 1000 times using double blind!! Nope not real then". Waste of space.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Total Package]

So. Why are scientists interested in studying Mars?

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Pathos]

Originally posted by Total Package
Science is completely and utterly irrelevant to this field. I don't want scientists getting within 100 miles of the field.

This line speaks for itself. There is no need for further comment.

Wow. Scientific method and logic are simply tools concocted by skeptics to discredit one particular group... UFOlogists. Here I thought they've been around for thousands of years. Learn something new every day.

Science doesn't apply. huh? How do you intend to prove anything?

reply to post by Pathos


Prove to me that the F-117 exists.

Originally posted by Total Package
To say ET's are not real and not visiting us... you must be able to explain every single UFO sighting, every Abduction, every Crop Circle, every Philip Corso that has come forward.... every Bob Lazar.... every remote viewer, every psychic that has contacted aliens, every remote viewer.... every abductee that has had a foreign object removed from their body.... every ancient indigenous culture..... and come to the conclusion that every single one of them are either wrong or liars. That is a hell of alot of people making # up.

I think that for every 1000 UFO reports, at least 950 of those people are not making anything up, they really saw something. Maybe 20-30 are outright hoaxes out of 1000 reports.

Also out of that 1000, probably 20 of them are truly not explainable (not the same 20 that are hoaxed). So that's interesting to me. I don't know what those 20 sightings are, and as far as I know nobody does. It's a mystery, and everyone loves a good mystery.

If you choose to conclude that because we don't know what they are then it must be aliens, then you can make that choice, but hopefully you can understand why some other people prefer to just say they are unexplained until they are explained. Maybe some or all of them ARE alien, all i'm saying is we don't know for sure whether they are or not so it's not an automatic conclusion.

So I think the number of liars and hoaxers reporting UFOs is very low, 2% or less. But when it comes to some people's personal accounts, it's a different story. I'm not a professional psychologist, so I don't know why some people make stuff up, nor am I sure that professional psychologists fully understand all the reasons. I suspect reasons may vary, from getting attention or recognition, to selling books, to possibly delusional fantasies where they actually believe what they are saying is true even if it never happened. And of course some people are not making things up, so how do we separate those that are from those that aren't?

We have to create our own personal "filter" to take all the input we get, and separate fact from fiction. We can have honest disagreements and discussion about how to best construct our own personal filters, and no 2 people have the same filter because of our different backgrounds. Clearly a filter that only operates at either extreme is probably wrong, that is, a person wo believes everything everyone tells them has a defective filter, as does someone who refuses to believe everything that everyone tells them. But there's a lot of ground in between those 2 extremes.

One method that is used as a filter in science, is to never take anyone's word for anything as truth but as the basis for an observational experiment. So if I claim a feather and a rock fall at the same speed because the same force of gravity is acting on both, you can conduct your own experiment to prove my statement either true or false.

Some UFO sightings don't lend themselves well to such repeatable observation, and the field of UFOlogy is so filled with charlatans that it seems like serious researchers have avoided the field to a large extent. But in some cases there are things researchers can do to investigate claims people make. For example take the case of Gordon Cooper, who said he was with a film crew and saw a UFO land. He says someone picked up the film so he doesn't have that. But we can ask the film crew, and when we do, they say they didn't see what he saw. Some people have carefully constructed stories where it's not possible to verify any part of the story. You have to use some judgment in deciding whether or not to accept those stories as true. I think at best we have to say that if there's no independent verification, we don't know if the stories are true, or not. I would think that's a position skeptics and believers could agree on, that maybe they are making stuff up, or maybe they aren't, but we really don't know for sure.

And as for the other claims, as DoomsdayRex said, the burden of proof when making a claim is on the person making the claim. We don't have to disprove all those guys, just examine the evidence they provide (if any) to see if they are proving their claims or not.

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by Pathos

 

Prove to me that the F-117 exists.

You are pretty funny. Hahaha...

If we were in a court of law, the prosecutor would have to provide the proof. You guys are the prosecutors.

As I said in my previous statement, you need substantial evidence to prove the existence of something. Here is your evidence: images.google.com...

F-117 can be touched by individuals. It has substance. UFO made alien space crafts have no substantial evidence to test. You cannot physically touch them.

Show me yours.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Pathos]

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Total Package
hahah the old "burden of proof". Whenever I hear that quoted by a skeptic the alarm bells go off in my head...

In other words, you do not have to prove your claims. Proof by proclaimation suffices.

Did I say that? I'm saying why don't the skeptics go out there and find out for themselves rather than sitting back waiting to debunk the latest find.

Bill Nye is a perfect example of that.... he doesn't investigate the phenoma... he sits back and waits for others to do it... then brings in his science clap trap to tell people "It's quite a step to believe that". Yet if Stanton asks Bill Nye about a particular event the clown does not have a clue in the slightest about it.

I'm saying EDUCATE yourself... don't tell people it's up to them to prove it.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Total Package
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"...

Yes. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence and the burden of proof is on those making the claims. It is the very foundation of science, of everything we know and have learned about how the universe around us works.

You dismiss these methods, not because of a failing of these method, but because you have not been provided the answers you want. Whereas employing instead of employing these methods and accepting whatever the outcome may be, you instead ridicule them for not giving you the outcome you want. You are not so much interested in the truth but having your beliefs validated.

And what a surprise you would say that. Science is and always will be irrelevant.... and continually proven wrong. They sit there in their egotistical shells telling everyone how the burden is on them and how it's 'extraordinary' to believe it.

I guess science would tell me years ago that microorganisms don't exist because they didn't have a microscope. I guess science tells me psychics aren't real because they have no way of measuring it with known scientific means. Yet in both of these cases science is WRONG..... but they use their own limits of Science as a crutch to lean on to tell everyone how wrong they are because their science can't measure it.