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.

 

UFO skeptics don't use reason

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
The whole premise of UFO skepticism is to abandon reason. This is because they want to get the evidence in the arena of,"it could be anything."

See with,"it could be anything" you throw reason out the window. Reason says, what's most likely and what's less likely. Reason doesn't ask for 100% certainty but UFO skeptics do.

Let's look at some evidence.

Bill Chalker is one of Australia’s leading UFO researchers and the author of The OZ Files: The Australian UFO Story and Hair of the Alien: DNA and Other Forensic Evidence of Alien Abduction.

Bill's personal 'top ten' regional Australasian case list...

1. 31 August 1954 Sea Fury case, near Goulbourn, NSW, Australia (experienced naval pilot, radar visual confirmation, independent ground witnesses, apparent intelligent responses to witnesses’ thoughts about possible collision)

2. 23 July 1992 Peter Khoury “Hair of Alien” DNA case, Sydney, Australia (abduction-type encounter with female Nordic blonde yields anomalous hair sample that suggests “hybrid origin” and unusual genetic profiles)

3. 27 June 1959 Father Gill UFO entity sighting, Boianai, Papua New Guinea (credible multiple-witness sighting of animate entities on UFO with intelligent interactions)

4. 30 September 1980 George Blackwell’s UFO landing and physical trace case, Rosedale, Victoria, Australia (compelling array of physical evidence – ground trace, missing water, effects on witness, other witness)

5. 8 August 1993 Kelly Cahill’s abduction experience, Narre Warren North, Victoria, Australia (possible independent multiple-witness UFO encounter with abduction aspects and physical evidence)

6. 19 January 1966 George Pedley’s UFO nest encounter, Tully, Queensland, Australia (daylight close encounter with UFO take-off leaving physical evidence – “UFO nest”)

7. 14 April 1966 Ron Sullivan’s “bent headlight beam” experience, Burkes Flat, Victoria, Australia (striking UFO encounter, physical traces, bent light beams, possible related fatalities)

8. 6 April 1966 Westall school daylight UFO landing encounter, Westall, Victoria, Australia (multiple-witness daylight landing, physical traces, “cover-up” dimensions)

9. 1977–78 Gisborne UFO abduction milieu, Gisborne, New Zealand (complex and high strangeness UFO and abduction milieu – entities, multiple witnesses, multiple abductions)

10. May – August 1973 Tyringham Dundurrabin intense UFO flap area, New South Wales, Australia (long-term intense UFO flap, multiple witnesses, physical effects, paranormal aspects)

churchofcriticalthinking.org...

Trace evidence

The following presents a statistical analysis of data found in 3,189 reports involving observations of anomalous phenomena or objects on or near the ground resulting in physical effects generated by the unknown objects observed. These events took place in 91 countries between 1490 and 2006. There are hundreds of additional reports of possible trace sites which do not involve the observation of a UFO. All but the most significant of these events have been removed from the primary files and located in a secondary catalog.The analysis permits certain regularities of these phenomena to be brought out. The data indicates there is a certain type of phenomenon which shows stable statistical properties.

www.ufophysical.com...

Alien Abductions

1961 Betty and Barney Hill Abduction
1967 The Betty Andreasson Abduction
1967 Abduction of Herbert Schirmer
1968 The Buff Ledge Camp Abduction
1969 The Antonio da Silva Abduction
1973 The Doraty Abduction, Houston, Texas
1973 Pascagoula, Mississippi Abduction (Parker, Hickson)
1974 Hunter Abducted in Wyoming
1975 The Abduction of Sergeant Charles L. Moody
1975 The Travis Walton Abduction
1976 The Stanford, Kentucky Abductions
1976 The Allagash Abductions
1978 The Cullen Abduction
1978 The Dechmont Woods Abduction
1978 The Abduction of Jan Wolski
1980's Lost Time/Abduction in New York
1980 The Alan Godfrey Abduction
1983 The Copely Woods Encounter
1983 The Abduction of Alfred Burtoo
1985 Abduction of Wladyslaw S.
1985 Abduction of Whitley Strieber
1987 Abduction on North Canol Road, Canada
1987 Hudson Valley Abduction
1987 The Christa Tilton Story
1987 The Ilkley Moor Alien
1987 The Jason Andews Abduction
1988 Abduction of Bonnie Jean Hamilton
1988 DNA Sample From Khoury Abduction
1989 Linda Cortile-Napolitano Abduction
1990 Westchester, N. Y. Abduction
1992 The A-70 Abduction
1994 Abduction in Killeen, Texas
1997 Abduction in Wales
1997 Abduction in Australia, (Rylance-Heller)
1999 Carlyle Lake Abduction
2001 Abduction in Michigan
2003-Abduction in Florida
2004 Francis Family Abduction
2005 Man Abducted in Florida
2005 Clayton & Donna Lee Abduction

www.ufocasebook.com...

I can go on and on.

Reason says you should weigh the evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely. This is what happens everyday in court. The jurors are not eye witnesses but they make a decision based on the evidence and this is why the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.

UFO skeptics don't use reason. This is why you will not hear many of them saying these things don't exist. They know the evidence is one sided and they have no evidence so the objective is to move the debate away from reason and put it in the sphere of,"it could be anything."

Of course it could be anything but what's most likely and what's less likely based on the evidence?

Again, there's zero evidence on the skeptics side. See the skeptic would have to show why it's less likely when it comes to every video, picture, radar report, eyewitness account, mass sighting, trace evidence, abduction case and more.

The skeptic doesn't have any evidence to reach a less likely conclusion based on reason so the debate has to be moved to,"it could be anything."



+9 more 
posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
The biggest problem with the UFO Believers crowd is they make all who are interested in this subject look like complete fools and nutters, ensuring that this subject will never be taken seriously by anyone other than, well you know where I am going from here.

Some of the UFO believers are so deluded and their judgment so clouded, they actually think that skeptics are a significant problem that plaques this subject. Can you imagine the loon house this place would be without skeptics?

Come one man, skeptics have not been speaking for this subject for years and years. The reason newscasters laugh or make snide remarks every-time there sneaks a news story into the mainstream has nothing to do with how the "skeptics" have represented us, does it?

So you take your time and energy hunting those evil skeptics, while the believers continue to to irreversable damage. Think about it.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
The sceptic just wants some physical evidence of ET or the craft before accepting something new has been discovered. It doesn't necessarily mean they don't think aliens exist, or that its impossible for them to visit.

In science any unproven proposition deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions, including alien contact.

Personal experiences alone do not constitute as proof, so even as having that myself I have to accept the sceptics point of view as being accurate from a logical perspective, unless somebody has the physical evidence to constitute as proof. It's possible some people have this proof that's withheld, but again someone has to show real evidence to prove that assertion as well!

It's a very complicated issue, and shouting about anecdotal evidence won't ever get you anywhere with real sceptics, and those who prefer a scientific approach. So I disagree that the proof of alien visitation is publicly available and it possibly doesn't exist as of yet even stored away secretly. Although I'm fairly certain that it will soon be available in some form.

It's the Ufo-believers for the most part who have trouble using reason, and understanding that their own experiences that provide anecdotal evidence are simply not enough. If I can understand that, then other witnesses can certainly comprehend that as well.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by john124]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
The government shills never use sense or reason. They attempt to discredit you by calling you names, twisting your words, or making preposterous statements that they call facts.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The whole premise of UFO skepticism is to abandon reason.


The whole premise of UFO pseudoskepticism is to abandon reason.

I think this fits better.



Reason says you should weigh the evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely.


Reason and probability are also based on human knowledge.

I think UFOs are worthy of investigation, but I also recognize that the probability of some of them being of extra-terrestrial or even more esoteric nature is, from the start, an unlikely one.

But that, obviously, isn't reason to dismiss the possibility.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
This is a typical thread for Matrix Rising. His threads are based in an Argument From Ignorance fallacy. Instead of making an argument to support extraterrestrial life visiting the Earth, he attacks skeptics and mistakenly believes by proving skeptics wrong he will prove himself right by default. To this end he makes the usual list of straw man arguments and tries to substitute the standards of evidence for science with that of law knowing that the latter's standards are weaker.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I don't know why those within ufology have let the skeptic define the debate in such illogical and absolute terms.

We always weigh the available evidence because in most cases there's not absolute evidence. With Ufology and the Paranormal the skeptics want an illogical all or nothing debate.

Either we are 100% certain or 100% uncertain and all things are possible. Of course there are other possibilities but they are not all weighed equally. We weigh these things within reason as to what's most likely and what's less likely based on the available evidence.

The skeptic does not want to weigh the evidence within reason. This is because they have no evidence to weigh. So they want an all or nothing debate.

Say you have a mass sighting, with polygraphs and solid eyewitnesses. This is evidence to weigh to come to the conclusion that the evidence supports extraterrestrial visitation.

Of course anything is possible but you weigh the available evidence within reason. The skeptic doesn't have any evidence to weigh because there isn't a reasonable explanation outside of extraterrestrial visitation. This is why skeptics don't use reason. They want the debate to be,"it could be anything."



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I am sorry, but people in general do not use common sense or logic or reason for that matter.

It's not about how much "probable" evidence there is, it's about what actual evidence there is.

Will we ever find any? Probably not, safe an alien actually coming down and saying hello.

There is nothing which can prove or disprove the existange of ET until ET presents itself.

We as humans are just far too skeptical and curious by nature to allow any other reality.

~Keeper



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Say you have a mass sighting, with polygraphs and solid eyewitnesses. This is evidence to weigh to come to the conclusion that the evidence supports extraterrestrial visitation.


I'll go along with your hypothetical situation and point out that nothing in even your own fantasy scenario would be proof of extraterrestrial visitation.

A mass sighting of a craft is a mass sighting of a craft. You still need evidence that the craft itself is alien. I think this is one of the reasons the really die-hard believers seem to get so frustrated, they skip all of the steps required in proving a theory, then when they get called on it they realize they'd have to go back and actually do the work required. That would frustrate me too.

Another point I feel should be made as an aside: Polygraphs are worthless as evidence of anything. There's a reason polygraph results are not admissible as evidence in court, and it's because they're frequently wrong.

www.youtube.com... (Penn and Teller BS, just because I like them)


reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


If this is true, then aliens are a zero factor anyway, and there's no reason for us to even consider their possibility until they decide to tell us.

If that's the case, why spend so much time on it? If there's no way we can "discover" them until they show themselves to us, there's no reason to continue researching what would essentially be a losing theory.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by EsSeeEye]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


well matrix. I for one do not care greatly for DDRex.. but I have to admit, he's right. as are the rest of them. without the skeptical influence every nut job with a computer would start throwing in their videos of jesus, and elvis in a ufo, posting straight nonesense. without the skeptical influence, the rest of us would believe anything before questioning it.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by EsSeeEye
 


I would agree, only that the curiosity and skepticism of humanity prevents us from just turning a blind eye.

We WANT to know things, that's what makes us human.

~Keeper



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Here's a perfect example.

The Scott Peterson case was a circumstanial case. There were two theories. The jurors had to weigh both possibilities within reason.

The Defense said that devil worshippers could have done it and they were driving around in a van. A van was spotted in the area.

The Prosecution said that Scott did it and they had his affair and GPS putting him in the same area where they found his wife.

This was circumstantial and there was no direct evidence against Scott but a lot of Circumstantial evidence. The jurors weighed both possibilities within reason and came to the conclusion that Scott did it.

UFO skeptics don't want to weigh the possibilities within reason. They want to remain in a perpetual state of constipated possibilities. This way they can say anything is possible.

Of course anything is possible but all possibilities are not weighed equally within reason.

The skeptic wants to center the debate around,"It could be anything." This is because if you weigh the available evidence within reason there's only one conclusion that can be reached. We are being visited by extraterrestrials.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
And here we see him engaging in another tactic. Notice he has not responded to one member, agree or disagree with him. He is giving a speech not having a discussion.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by stanlee
 


Again, that doesn't make any sense. Just because there's people within ufology that go overboard, we can't weigh the available evidence within reason?

There's people in all walks of life that go overboard. So what if there's some people within ufology that go overboard, that happens with everything.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


Not to mention, he's weighing the probability of extraterrestrial visitation at the same level as seeing a bird out the window.


[edit on 17-10-2009 by EsSeeEye]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
There's people in all walks of life that go overboard. So what if there's some people within ufology that go overboard, that happens with everything.


Think about this, Matrix Rising.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


There's nothing to think about.

Just because of Enron, should I pull all of money out of the stock market?

Just because there's people within ufology that may go overboard and exxagerate, does that mean I can't weigh the available evidence within reason?

That's just silly. In all walks of life and in every field of study there are people who go too far. I have read physics papers that's way out there, should I scrap the entire field of physics because of this. That's silly.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
There's nothing to think about.


I am glad to see you are finally participating in a discussion, Matrix Rising.

But you miss the point. Think about your statement in the context of your attack on skepticism.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Again, anything is possible but all possibilities are not weighed equally within reason.

The skeptic wants to remain in a perpetual state of constipated possibilities.

They don't want to weigh the available evidence within reason because they don't have a reasonable explanation for videos, pictures, radar reports, trace evidence, alien abductions, mass sightings and more. Since they don't have a reasonable explanation to weigh within reason, they want all possibilities to be weighed equally. That's illogical.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
The government shills never use sense or reason. They attempt to discredit you by calling you names


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Oh the Irony.

 

What "skeptics" do is weigh the evidence. It is actually the die hard blind believers that never ever look at evidence and believe....well, just because they believe.

Anyone who frequents this forum will see that many many of the "skeptics" or the "believing skeptics" or the "cautious" spend their time analyzing photos, videos, using logic and reason presenting why this or that is not of alien origin and so on, whilst many many of the believer respond with "awesome - best evidence ever!"

I hardly ever see a die hard "believer" open up photoshop or some other software and look at EXIF data or research images of birds of planes or balloons, etc that could possibly explain what is being seen. It is always the very ones you complain about who weigh the evidence, do the research and present why they believe what they believe.

And any frequent vistor of the A&U forum will know that there is hardly anyone - IF anyone at all - who makes the claim: there are no UFOs or life outside of Earth.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


[edit on October 17th 2009 by greeneyedleo]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join