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: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



You can't be serious.

Everytime you try to look at evidence and weigh it within reason on this folder, there's skeptics who will come in and say the same things that have nothing to do with the evidence. They will say,"it doesn't prove anything" or "it could be anything."


So instead of trying to further the field you love so much, prove some cases, and try to unify the field you decide to make this thread and propagate the negative culture that is destroying our field? I think you are going about this the wrong way.

It almost seems like you think there is "absolute proof" and some people are just in denial about it. I think you should focus on helping us get that proof, rather than jumping on people who do not believe what you do and causing further dismay in our already faltering field. What does it matter what anyone else believes?

What is it doing to harm ufology? What YOU are doing IS harming our field, whether you know it or not. If you are serious about ufology then you wouldn't continue to be a belligerent and further this attacking thread, which was a mistake to make in the first place. I mean seriously, think about what possible proactive outcome this thread could possibly have. What do you hope to achieve? How will this thread prove anything? Will this thread help towards a disclosure or unveiling of the truth? It will not and you know that.

This is nothing but an argument over beliefs, an argument over cases that, while many are great, still present no proof. Stop trying to convince the very people that are looking for the same thing you are. Start trying to help us find some proof so we can show the world what we take seriously is not some lunatic fringe science.




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I find that even the UFO researchers and those that profess a belief are a mixed bag. The one very disturbing aspect of the UFO research community is the dollars and power they seem to be after.

Let's face it....this is a field that is wide open to anyone for derailment. For me it simply comes down to an experience based belief, and from there I find others. Some of us have taken it out of the hands of the so called experts and skeptics and we forge new paths of research.

The fact that this subject is bludgeoned as hard as it is speaks volumes.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


I read Matrix Rising arguments to mean that the evidence is in fact not looked at...that the testimony of rational everyday people is belittled and shoved into the delusional corners of the world. He/she has made a couple of striking points that personally ring true for this reader.

I see evidence out there that is shrugged off. Dorothy Izatt is a perfect example.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I very much appreciate your arguments here. As an experiencer I have decided to keep my evidence to myself as have many others. I don't need a die hard skeptic telling me what I saw or experienced was real or not.

It is a true shame that so many bright folks do not consider the weight of evidence and testimony....I liken it to a plane crash....there may not be a photo or video of it but the effects are evident.

S&F...a good debate


Just imagine how many cases dont even see the light of day due to fear of ridicule etc.

Ridicule - 2 dictionary results

1. mockery, raillery, sarcasm, satire, irony. 2. banter, chaff, rally, twit, burlesque, satirize, lampoon. Ridicule, deride, mock, taunt imply making game of a person, usually in an unkind, jeering way. To ridicule is to make fun of, either sportively and good-humoredly, or unkindly with the intention of humiliating: to ridicule a pretentious person. To deride is to assail one with scornful laughter: to deride a statement of belief. To mock is sometimes playfully, sometimes insultingly, to imitate and caricature the appearance or actions of another: She mocked the seriousness of his expression. To taunt is to call attention to something annoying or humiliating, usually maliciously and exultingly and often in the presence of others:

Untill we can move forward and deal with this issue properly and without the "Ridicule" I dont see the skeptics going anywhere soon.

Anyway , good theard Matrix Rising. If we back down from the data , eyewitness reports and the abundant amount of other info, we become mear followers of tptb who seem to want nothing more then to keep us in the dark on this issue.




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


Your posts makes no sense.

I started this thread because skeptics don't use reason when weighing the evidence. I have laid out my argument and I have laid out the evidence.

I never said I was going to prove anything to you. You are debating something that I never claimed.

I said the evidence needs to be weighed within reason. This does show the extraterrestrials exists and the we have been visited by extraterrestrials.

It's not absolut proof. I never claimed to have absolute proof. These are conclusions reached based on the available evidence and I have listed some of the evidence.

I come to conclusions about many things without absolute evidence. Human beings always reach conclusions without absolute evidence because in most cases absolute evidence is not available.

So I will say this yet again:

Based on the available evidence, I can say that extraterrestrials exist and they have been visiting us.

Will there be evidence in the future that contradicts this conclusion? That's possible. But based on the evidence we have now there's no other explanation for the evidence I have listed. This is why the skeptics have not debated the actual evidence that I have presented. They have no explanations for these things.

So yes, in the future we may find evidence that explains these things according to the pre-existing beliefs of the skeptic. As for now, I can only weigh the available evidence and the evidence points to extraterrestrial/extra-dimensional visitation. There's no other explanations at this time.

Understand what I'm saying:

THERE'S OTHER POSSIBILITIES BUT THERE ARE NOT ANY OTHER EXPLANATIONS.

Possibilities have to have evidence. So if you say it's just a weather balloon, you have to have evidence that a weather balloon can move and do the things in the video or can move in the same way the witness described.

Skeptics don't want to deal with evidence because they want to be able to say, it's a weather balloon, it's a chinese lantern, people didn't see what they said they saw in a vacuum.

The skeptic wants to equate any and everything to the actual evidence. This is why you hear things like fairies, elves and Santa. They are stuck in a perpetual state of constipated possibility.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


But it is a fallacy to say "Based on evidence there can be no other explanation". It just isn't scientific. We have to consider ALL possibilities and we have to use the 4 steps of the scientific method without fail, to wherever it may lead us.

Who's to say they're from another planet? What if they're time travelers, or super advanced humans living in secret among us, or a whole host of possibilities equally supported by what we DO know. What if they're just our vehicles?



[edit on 18-10-2009 by projectvxn]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


No it's not a fallacy to say this.

We make decisions and come to conclusions based on the available evidence all the time.

We do it everyday in courts. This is why some people get out of jail on appeal. This is because new evidence comes along that changes things. But they jurors reached a conclusion based on the available evidence and that's what I'm doing.

Of course other possibilities exist and maybe in the future these possibilities will be supported by some evidence. That doesn't stop me from weighing the available evidence within reason.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Six pages and you've not listened to one single person in your thread.

Good show.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Six pages and you've not listened to one single person in your thread.

Good show.


I have listened and responded to their threads.

I haven't accepted their positions and this is what you want. This is because they are debating general assumptions based on their pre-existing belief. I'm talking about reason and the available evidence.

I have listed a lot of evidence and the skeptics have avoided the evidence like it was the plague. This is because skeptics don't want to weigh the actual evidence.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


For starters Matrix Rising went about this the wrong way IMHO. Instead of trying to help solve some of these cases that you, him, and others say are overlooked he created a thread that does nothing but start a circular argument which will do absolutely nothing to further the field at best, and at worst hurt it more than it already is. The OP also erroneously grouped "skeptics' into the wrong class, again there is no "skeptic" or "believer" and if anyone thinks that then they do not understand how a proper scientific research project should be carried out.

What Matrix Rising should have been referring to (or maybe was and just didn't clarify it properly) is the pseudoskeptics/believers are the ones who will not listen to evidence or logic and use distracting circular arguments to push their own beliefs. Those types of "members" of ufology are not needed and hurting our field, I and everyone will agree with that. But just because most people will not state that "without a doubt aliens exist" doesn't make us not have reason. There is no absolute proof of anything in this field. There are MANY great cases, like Izzat and others, but still no absolute proof. And to blame the lack of research in that case and many others on "skeptics" is erroneous and ridiculous.

The lack of research (if there is any, as a lot of times only so much can be done with cases without anymore evidence) is NOT at the fault of skeptics or believers, it is at fault of either lack of evidence or lack of interest (and thus FUNDING) to do so. This is a DIRECT result of all the groups in ufology or associated with it that constantly make public statements about highly speculative topics, perpetuate hoaxes, and go about ufology in a manner as if it is a religion as they try to "force" everyone to admit there are aliens visiting Earth. That is the reason we are not taken seriously, because any of the REAL research, which is scientific in nature, is over shadowed by things such as GFL, shapeshifting reptoids, beamships, CARET drones, etc and being associated with those types of things ufology, REAL ufology will never be taken serious, so thus it lacks proper funding to take it any further.

No one is pushing anyone "into a corner", we are all trying to find the same thing. But unfortunately we still can't get passed the irrelevant arguments on who's beliefs are right and who's are wrong. Some people just appear to think that if everyone just says "okay, there is no doubt about it, aliens are real" then for some miraculous reason everyone will take UFOs serious and we will find the truth. That is not going to happen, as I have said MANY times over the last 12 hours, ufology is all about scientific research and conclusions, and there is simply not enough evidence to say anything is proof. Yes, it appears (IMHO) that based on the available evidence it is highly likely we are being visited, but there is no proof.

That is all anyone should be trying to find, is the proof. Without that ufology is nothing more than another religion based on faith. I know that there is a lot of cases that deserve more research (again if possible), so shouldn't we be trying to do that then start an argument with our fellow researchers?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 




THERE'S OTHER POSSIBILITIES BUT THERE ARE NOT ANY OTHER EXPLANATIONS.


This is what is known as a superlative. An absolute position that is not supported by the evidence you speak of. And hence not scientific. A Court case is not scientific because circumstantial evidence can convict, whereas in science circumstantial evidence can only point in a certain direction and it is a step above speculation.

This is what creates fallacy in your logic.


[edit on 18-10-2009 by projectvxn]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


It's obvious that you have not read a word that I have posted.

When did I say without a doubt these things exist?

I said based on the available evidence,. I never said anything about absole proof.

It seems you are debating yourself and not the actual words that I have said nor the evidence that I have presented.

So of course these threads are fine and when people complain about threads like these it's just silly.

There's threads talking about all kinds of topics but the skeptics faulty logic needs to be addressed.

It's an old debating tactic. You don't want to debate what I said nor the evidence that I have presented so you debate a strwman. You say,"why do we need these kinds of threads." If you don't like these kinds of threads don't post in them.

You are making these silly arguments because you can't debate what I actually said nor the evidence that I've presented so you build a strwman and complain about these types of threads in general.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 




THERE'S OTHER POSSIBILITIES BUT THERE ARE NOT ANY OTHER EXPLANATIONS.


This is what is known as a superlative. An absolute position that is not supported by the evidence you speak of. And hence not scientific. A Court case is not scientific because circumstantial evidence can convict, whereas in science circumstantial evidence can only point in a certain direction and it is a step above speculation.

This is what creates fallacy in your logic.


[edit on 18-10-2009 by projectvxn]


Again, you are debating a claim that I never made.

I never said I was presenting a scientific case to you.

I said this is based on reason and the available evidence.

We come to know the truth about a lot of things before we have scientific confirmation through reason and the available evidence.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
doomsdayrex your always here to discredit people and call names. why dont you stop trolling man?
common sense and logic are great!

for practice lets try this:
a white saucer like object in the night.
any common sense man will say "hmm white saucer object moving,it is PROBABLY an alian ship OR our own hi-tech plan,it cant be swamp gas or chinese lights,couse THATS STUPID"
now thats logic! and instead of using it,every your post is just attacking and talking about other members in 3rd person,critisizing and insulting them
stop living in communism times man,we dont drive ladas anymore,embrace the future:
chips, laser eye surgery,magnetic shields,emp,ships



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I'm quoting you directly. That is YOUR WRITING. Your claim.

I'm done with this thread.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


the evidence is poor. If you count people telling stories as evidence i presume you believe in all manner of things. The lochness monster, mermaids, big foot etc?

[edit on 18-10-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
the evidence may be poor in most of the cases but common sense and logic do have a word to say,atleast you get a footprint and a decision in your mind what is most likely to be,its sounds most reasanable. then "o its a space ship but im not so sure so ITS NOT a spaceship" thats not logic.
well when you see countryes releasing videos of ufos chasing planes what do you think? but hmm if you ask me they can as well be just coverups for to blind us of some important events happening at the time,after all some ufo videos wont do anything as always,we will just fight between us and forget everything the other day



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Stillalive
 


i dont think ive seen countries release footage of spaceships chasing planes. Unless your talking about the mexican military plane that filmed oil rigs with its IR camera?



[edit on 18-10-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
gee i dont even remember bothering to seen it,as far as i know,england and mexico "released old ufo files" isnt there some credible evidence that soem object looks like a ship and not chinese lanterns? I:



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Of course there's specific evidence that skeptics have claimed that it could be anything. Just read the threads on this board.


Then it should not be hard for you to name examples of where skeptics have done this, instead of speaking in generalities. Yet you continue to and outright refuse to post examples. Now, either you have examples to back up your claims or you don't, Matrix Rising. Which is it?


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I have listed a ton of evidence and I'm sure the skeptics didn't bother to read it or visit the links.


At no point have you listed any evidence. You listed a group of cases and based on the very brief overview of said cases, proclaimed them as evidence then demanded others do your research for you.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join