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: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


If you have a point to make, then make it. Don't dance around it. That's usually a debating tactic used when you have no point.




posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
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.


Why are you repeating this, Matrix Rising? You do not seem to be addressing any member, just repeating a point for no apparent reason. Again, you are not trying to participate in a discussion, rather speechifying.

Since you have made this claim already, repeatedly in this thread and others, perhaps you could provide an example to illustrate your point, instead of relying on a straw man.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
ok matrix.. what are you going on about? seriously you started off with skeptics are evil dick heads, then start on bad examples of physics, then no one needs to think, and now we are all back to skeptics are evil dick heads.. honestly mate. you are pulling a whirl wind attack on anything and everything, and even myself as a reasonable believer, I cannot agree that skeptics hold back progress in UFOlogy. if anything they promote it. I will say it again. if it werent for the skeptics, people like you and I, when we first started out, would still be looking at pictures of birds people claim are UFO's we would still be stuck on roswell. Bloody hell. what do you think drives people like Bob Lazar, Hogland, and Friedman? SKEPTICS! skeptics constantly demand proof... show me show me show me!!! so thats what great scientists do. THEY REPLY TO SKEPTICS



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
If you have a point to make, then make it. Don't dance around it. That's usually a debating tactic used when you have no point.


You say that we cannot dismiss the possibility of extraterrestrials visiting the Earth because of the behaviors of some researchers and believers. This is true, I do agree. However, are you not doing the same thing with skepticism? You are taking extreme examples and using those as straw men to dismiss all skeptical thought.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
and again I have to agree with Mr. Rex here... you simply cannot even call yourself a believer if you dont have the ability to question the fantastic, and look first at the mundane



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


Nope,

This is the case with most UFO skeptics that I have debated. They all say that anything is possible. You rarely if ever see the skeptics weighing the evidence within reason. This is because they don't have any evidence to weigh.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by stanlee
 


Again, your not making any sense.

I accept things within ufology but I'm skeptical when I see a new picture or video. Just because there's hoaxes doesn't mean you can't weigh the evidence within reason. That's just silly.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
This is the case with most UFO skeptics that I have debated. They all say that anything is possible. You rarely if ever see the skeptics weighing the evidence within reason. This is because they don't have any evidence to weigh.


You are generalizing and committing the same sins you accuse skeptics of.

Here's the thing, Matrix Rising. I like you, you have energy and passion. However, you are lazy. You are trying to take the easy way out, trying to prove your point by default instead of via evidence and substance.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
I can say this Mr. Rising.
There have been three instances where I saw something that amazed me. incident 1 made me wet the bed (with my GF in bed with me.) Saw a shadow of what looked like an alien head on my wall through the window. it appeared to move and everything. window was open so naturally... I freaked. ran and turned on the light to see nothing. long story short it was a bloody lamp casting a reflection from the MOONS light on my window and that reflection was dark enough to cast just enough of a shadow through the thin layer curtain I had up on to the wall. the curtain is why it moved. it was a shadeless lamp. not an alien.
2 almost wrecked a boom truck over this one. large object in sky apprpx 3 km west of me. 25 metres long, 10 wide. myself and countless others stopped dead in the road. being an avid hunter, I had binoculars. focused in and laughed. it was a bloody custom blimp. cables and all!
only the third one remains unsolved. it is a UFO only in the respect that I still cannot tell what it was, nor could local police. you have to question your own eyes now and again, which is to say as well YOU HAVE TO QUESTION ALL THAT YOU DID NOT SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES> even the greatest contributors to UFOlogy say one common thing "DONT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF!"



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


Your not making any sense. I mentioned a ton of evidence in my first post.

The point is, most skeptics don't weigh the evidence within reason because they have no evidence to weigh. That's why they say anything is possible or it can be anything. Of course it could be anything but that's besides the point. The evidence doesn't say it could be anything and the evidence needs to be weighed within reason.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
ok. Mr. Rising I can see this is going no where. you have dead locked yourself, not only that, but you have dead locked yourself against one who is inclined to take your side. you are saying the same thing over and over and over again. Honestly you are starting to remind me of a certain group of people I really cannot stand in the new age realm. Clearly you had a point to make and clearly you lost track of where you were going becuase you are on the defensive stance. NO ONE IS ATTACKING YOU. Here you have both a believer,*myself* and a skeptic *atleast I THINK Mr. Rex is a skeptic stanse type* saying the same things to you. THAT alone has to count for something even in your obtuse view mate. relax. find your point again, and return. WOW you really hate being questioned.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
You are right, most skeptics don't use reason, and neither do most believers.

They are arguing if something is black or white so much that they miss all shades of grey.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by IKnowKungFu
You are right, most skeptics don't use reason, and neither do most believers.

They are arguing if something is black or white so much that they miss all shades of grey.


I think most believers use reason. We are not coming to this conclusion in a vacuum. There's available evidence to weigh, like this:


On the night of October 10, 1973, there was a UFO sighting by fifteen different witnesses who saw a strange, unknown object fly over a housing project in St. Tammany Parish, New Orleans, Louisiana. Two of the witnesses were policeman. This sighting would only be the beginning of what was to occur the next night on the nearby Pascagoula River. Two fishermen, nineteen-year-old Calvin Parker, and forty-two-year-old Charles Hickson were about to have an experience that would forever change their lives.

Glowing, Egg-Shaped Object:

Parker and Hickson were good friends, and often fished together. They were both living in the town of Gautier, Mississippi. On one particular night, they were fishing the waters of the Pascagoula River, when they heard a strange sound... a type of buzzing. The two men immediately turned to see what the source of the strange noise was. They were shocked to see an egg-shaped object with bluish front lighting. The object was only a few feet above the water, and about ten yards from the two frightened fishermen.

Three Strange Beings:

While they sat stunned, looking at the weird flying machine, a door opened in the UFO, and to their utter amazement, three beings of unknown origin began to float toward the two. The beings did have legs, but did not use them-they literally floated across the water toward Hickson and Parker. The two fishermen would later attempt to describe what the beings looked like "... about five feet tall, had bullet-shaped heads without necks, slits for mouths, and where their noses or ears would be, they had thin, conical objects sticking out, like carrots from a snowman's head."


ufos.about.com...

The skeptic will say, anything is possible or it can be anything. Of course it could be anything, but that says nothing about the available evidence.

The article went on to say.


After the eye-like device was finished with Hickson, he was left floating in the room alone. The beings had probably left to examine Parker. Approximately 20 minutes after the ordeal had begun, it was over. Hickson was now floated back out of the craft. Back on the river bank, he could see Parker, who was crying and praying on the ground. Shortly, the strange flying object rose straight into the night sky, and flew away.

Not wanting to deal with local law enforcement, they decided instead to go to their local newspaper office. The office was closed, which left the men only one recourse-the sheriff office. As would be expected, the local sheriff thought their story was a hoax or trick. Trying to get to the bottom of their story, the two fishermen were placed in a room wired for sound. It was thought that they would discuss the joke between themselves, and their story would be found out. This was not to be. Soon law enforcement personnel knew that something had certainly frightened Hickson and Parker, and that this was no joke.

Even after thirty-plus years, both Calvin Parker and Charles Hickson still testify to the same story, and have never wavered in their account of what happened that October night on the Pascagoula River.

There have been many articles, magazine reports, and television documentaries done on the case, and the two men have given numerous interviews about their experience. Their account, although bizarre, is one of the best researched and documented alien abduction cases in UFO history.


This case is not in isolation. The evidence doesn't say,"it could be anything." This is what the skeptics will try to debate though.

When you weigh the available evidence, you have to say this is an account of a visitation. There's no other explanation with any evidence to weigh. This is why the skeptic will say,"it can be anything."



[edit on 17-10-2009 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
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.

I have to agree with DoomsdayRex. His post is profoundly eloquent.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
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.

I have to agree with DoomsdayRex. His post is profoundly eloquent.


What exactly do you agree with?

Did you even read my first post where I listed evidence? Did you just read my las post where I listed evidence?

The point is the skeptic doesn't weigh the evidence within reason because they want to say,"it can be anything."

Again, his post makes no sense because I have listed a ton of evidence. Do you want more?



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Here's more evidence:


Gary Heseltine is a police detective with more than 17 years service and has been following the UFO subject for 32 years, since a childhood sighting aged 15. He is the editor of UFO Monthly.com


My top ten, in chronological order:

1. On 11 August 1944, whilst over France, a Lancaster bomber crew of eight saw what they described as a huge disc-shaped object with a row of lights that dwarfed their aircraft many times over. Upon landing, the crew officially reported what they had seen and were told not to talk to anyone about it and not to record the information in their log books. In a time before the era of ‘flying saucers and UFOs’ and at a time of war, this case stands as a landmark sighting.

2. The Great Falls, Montana, cine footage from August 1950. The footage clearly records two anomalous objects flying in formation; it was analysed extensively but to this day has never been explained.

3. The RAF Lakenheath radar-visual sighting of August13–14, 1956. UFOs were sighted visually from the air by the pilots of two fighter aircraft. One of the aircraft confirmed the sighting on its radar. The objects were tracked on three ground radar stations, with two control towers visually confirming the sighting. The objects were described as white and round and able to perform amazing changes of direction and abrupt changes of speed. Speeds were confirmed on radar at many thousands of miles per hour, way beyond the technology of the era.

4. Colonel Gordon Cooper’s account of a UFO landing at Edwards Air Force Base in 1957. He stated that whilst he was flying over the airfield with a film crew, a UFO descended and landed at the base. He later handed over the footage to a high-ranking officer from Washington and it was never seen again. Cooper was a man of the highest integrity who later became an astronaut on the Gemini space program.

5. Tehran, Iran, Jet Chase, early hours of 19 September 1976. The incident took place in the vicinity of the Shahrokhi Air Force Base and involved multiple military and civilian witnesses on the ground and the aircrews of two Iranian Air Force F-4 Phantom aircraft in the air. There were radar confirmations and electromagnetic effects reported. At one point, a smaller object separated from the main UFO and approached one of the chasing aircraft, a manœuvre that caused the plane to take evasive action to avoid a collision. The object then returned to the main UFO and merged into it. The sighting was confirmed on radar.

6. Rendlesham Forest, 26–28 December 1980 at RAF/USAF Woodridge base in Suffolk, England. The case involved a number of credible military witnesses, an encounter with a landed UFO, increased background radiation in the area where the landed object was seen, a confirmation by the Deputy Base Commander, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Halt that he led a team of security airmen into the forest on one of the nights and that he had witnessed multiple UFOs himself, one of which shone a beam down to his feet and later into the Supplementary Storage Area (SSA) – a nuclear bunker complex, no less.

7. Japan Airlines, 17 November 1986. Whilst flying a cargo plane from Iceland to Anchorage, Alaska, the crew observed three walnut-shaped UFOs. One of the objects was enormous, many times the size of their Boeing 747 aircraft. The pilot, Kenju Terauchi, described the UFO as being twice the size of an aircraft carrier. The objects performed extraordinary manœuvres and stayed with the plane for 400 miles (640km). The incident was also confirmed on ground radar.

8. Belgium, night of 30–31 March 1990. Two F16s were ordered to intercept a radar-confirmed (three independent radar stations), triangular UFOs in the skies above Belgium. The case offers high-calibre witnesses – i.e. two F16 pilots – as well as multiple ground radar confirmations, airborne radar confirmations and target aircraft lock-ons. It also comes with an endorsement from Colonel De Brewer, the Deputy Head of the Belgium Air Force no less! But what raises the bar even further is a piece of physical evidence that is hard to ignore. A cockpit recording from one of the F16s captured the UFO performing a dive of 5,000ft (1,500m) in a matter of a couple of seconds, before levelling out and disappearing out of sight – a manœuvre impossible for terrestrial aviation technology.

9. The Tether Incident, STS 75, 1997. This case involves the Space Shuttle and footage recorded by NASA itself. Whilst an experiment was being performed, a 12-mile (19km) length of a satellite tether snapped and drifted into space. As the shuttle cameras zoomed in on the drifting tether, the footage captured numerous objects flying in its vicinity. The objects appear as circular light-emitting objects that at various times pass behind the tether and one has been estimated to be a mile (1.6km ) in diameter.

10. Campeche region of Mexico, March 2004. The crew of a military drug surveillance plane recorded up to 12 UFOs on their FLIR infra-red camera system. One of the objects can be seen to separate into two. The aircraft’s radar also confirmed the sighting. During the incident, which lasted more than 30 minutes, the UFOs gathered around the aircraft, to the consternation of the aircrew. Unusually, the Mexican government released details of the encounter in full. They provided the footage, the crew and the Head of the Mexican Air Force for questioning by the world’s media.


churchofcriticalthinking.org...

The skeptic will say,"it can be anything." That's a meaningless statement because of course it can be anything. The available evidence doesn't say it can be anything. You have to weigh the evidence within reason and this is exactly what skeptics don't want to do.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


What you posted matrix is NOT evidence. They are accounts from folks who BELIEVE have encoutered whatever it is they have encountered.

Your Evidence, as akin to the Bible evidence and can NOT be verified save the ET's coming down.

You can't just say ohh it MUST be this because of all of this and cannot be THAT because of all of this, that simply makes no sense.

Nobody here is saying that ET's do not exist, we as skeptics simply look into the *individual* accounts and attempt to find out what really happened.

We would be MORE than happy to have actual evidence, or proof of ET existance, trust me. We aren't skeptics cause we don't wanna believe, we in fact envy your ability to believe something without actual in your face hard evidence.

So stop using your OP as evidence, it cleary isn't, and don't tell us we do not use logic when what we are trying to do is give you a logical explanation for the hole in your theory.

~Keeper



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I've seen debates like this go nowhere because they discuss generalities and not specifics. At the very least, specific examples should be cited to illustrate the points even if you don't want to focus on any one or a few cases.

As for the use of the term "skeptic", I'm aware that in this community we call people believers who think a fuzzy dot in the sky is an alien, and skeptics those people who assume as you said, it "could be anything" and want more evidence or analysis before concluding what it is. But aren't the believers also "skeptics" in the sense that they are skeptical about accepting a belief that it could be an ordinary object? And the skeptics are skeptical about accepting a belief that it's an extraordinary object. So we are all "Skeptics", the only difference between us, is what we choose to be skeptical about, right?

I don't see the benefit of dividing us into "camps" and then criticizing the other camp. I think most people who visit the aliens and UFO threads would like to see real evidence of alien visitation, so we all share a common goal and are not the enemies you portray us to be, we are all truth seekers. The main differences we have is that each of us has different thresholds for the level of proof we require before accepting an event as being extraordinary.

For example, one person's word of mouth statement is enough for some of us to accept what they say or believe, while for others, it's not. Both points of view may have valid reasons for choosing the way they do including assessing the credibility of the witness, previous personal experiences, etc.

The trace cases have evidence beyond word of mouth but such evidence is subject to analysis and interpretation, and I'm sure we all have valid reasons for interpreting those results the way we do, even if our conclusions aren't all the same. I think to do anything productive with resolving those differences of opinion we would have to discuss the specific facts and analysis in each case and debate the specifics. Then the debate might be productive as we might come to a meeting of the minds on an interpretation of some evidence by discussing it with each other. But just talking in generalities wont get us anywhere.

So my main reason for posting here is to suggest we stop this divisive rhetoric which is unproductive and unhelpful. We should all call ourselves "truth seekers" and while we may not always agree on what that truth is or the standards for accepting it, we all do have a common goal, and that is to learn the truth, whatever that may be. So instead of dividing ourselves by talking about our differences, let us unite in our shared and common interest to learn the truth.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Arbitrager, Keeper... dont bother. Im a believer, always have been and even I cant get through to this bloke how important it is to have skeptics keep us inline. Even those of us that TRULY believe know we cannot look at a picture of a rock and say its an artifact. I guess you have two kinds of "believers" as well as two kinds of skeptics. Rational and irrational.
Honestly I think the network of skeptics and believers is the most important tool to making great discoveries. THanks to YOU guys, I always think before I post a video, and call it alein. So to do the real believers. THanks to you we weigh more thoroughly within REASON our so called evidence, and we dont start our posts with "ACTUAL PROOF UNDENIABLE" Bloody hell that bothers me. I for one say THANK YOU RATIONAL SKEPTICS! YOU MAKE AN IMPROVED BELIEVER OUT OF ME!



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


What you posted matrix is NOT evidence. They are accounts from folks who BELIEVE have encoutered whatever it is they have encountered.

Your Evidence, as akin to the Bible evidence and can NOT be verified save the ET's coming down.

You can't just say ohh it MUST be this because of all of this and cannot be THAT because of all of this, that simply makes no sense.

Nobody here is saying that ET's do not exist, we as skeptics simply look into the *individual* accounts and attempt to find out what really happened.

We would be MORE than happy to have actual evidence, or proof of ET existance, trust me. We aren't skeptics cause we don't wanna believe, we in fact envy your ability to believe something without actual in your face hard evidence.

So stop using your OP as evidence, it cleary isn't, and don't tell us we do not use logic when what we are trying to do is give you a logical explanation for the hole in your theory.

~Keeper


Of course this is direct evidence. It's not absolute evidence and nobody is making that claim.

You have to come with counter evidence that shows these men/women are lying or a reasonable explanation as to what they saw and experienced.

Again, this is direct evidence of people telling you what they saw. You have to have counter evidence that says they didn't see and experience what they said they saw.

Here's the definition of Direct Evidence


DIRECT EVIDENCE - Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact, such as testimony of a witness who says she saw a defendant pointing a gun at a victim during a robbery. Direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.


www.lectlaw.com...

This people are telling you "DIRECTLY" what they saw. If you start with the priori that extraterrestrials are not a reasonable explanation then your a closed minded skeptic. If you start off with the priori that extraterrestrials are a reasonable explanation for these things, then you can weigh the evidence within reason.

Most skeptic just say,"extraterrestrials are possible" because they don't want to look closed minded. Many of them don't think extraterrestrials are a reasonable explanation for these things and this is why they want to remain in the realm of,"it can be anything."



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join