UFO skeptics don't use reason

reply to post by Witness2008


Well there are many reasons why people would lie about an experience.

p.s i have also seen a ufo or uap as i prefer. But i dont jump to the conclusion it was aliens in a spaceship.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by yeti101]

well duh! its obviously certain that we are the only life in the universe and other beings visiting us is pure retardation! I mean come on! Earth is the only life in the WHOLE UNIVERSE! It doesn't take a scientist to figure that out!

Skeptics to UFO's are equal to skeptics of the heliocentric debate in the enlightenment. The only true way to prove it to them was to go outside of the atmosphere and observe what happens... well how many 100's of years later they got their 100% evidence. ET's is the same way, just let them be, 100's of years from now they'll be sorry.

oops

[edit on 19-10-2009 by afterschoolfun]

reply to post by afterschoolfun


Life existing somehwere else in the universe and intelligent life visiting earth in spaceships are 2 entirely diffirent things.

afterall we exist here but are not visiting any other star systems. Are you saying we dont exist here at all?



[edit on 19-10-2009 by yeti101]

[edit on 19-10-2009 by afterschoolfun]

reply to post by yeti101


Are you saying then that people who have seen a UFO or some kind of contact experience are all liars?

reply to post by yeti101


The existence of life somewhere else out there certainly speaks to the possibilities of that other life form paying us a visit. Wouldn't you agree?

Mods,

Would it be possible to establish a rule disallowing the repeated posting of the same links and information within the same thread? We have had one member do this ad nauseum and it adds nothing to the discussion, little more than an exaggerated one-line post.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by DoomsdayRex]

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Matrix Rising

 

ive looked into practically every major ufo case. Every single case i find informatiion the ufologists dont tell you. That evidence usually points to a prosaic explanation. Why are ufologists so dishonest? why dont they just present all the evidence instead of just the one that fits their pet theory?

The reason is becuase they have to be dishonest to keep their fantasy stories intact.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by yeti101]

I predict the above pseudo-skeptic has read nothing but debunking literature and is predisposed to believing there can be nothing to the phenomenon and being dismissive of the ET hypothesis. Hence the statements re ET life not being able to get here, etc.

Would you mind backing up your proclamations? Wich Ufologists? Which cases?

reply to post by Witness2008


anythings possible. Mermaids are possible, pink unicorns are possible. But you wouild have to show me the evidence before i concluded they were true. So far i see no evidence of ET visitation.

About people who have incredible stories. Telling incredible stories is as old as mankind itself. I wouldnt believe anyone who has an incredible story with no evidence.



[edit on 19-10-2009 by yeti101]

reply to post by yeti101


Perhaps you could give me your criteria for evidence.

reply to post by jclmavg


when did i say ET would be unable to get here?

heres one for you. Why hasnt the earth been colonized by ET in the last 500 million years?

[edit on 19-10-2009 by yeti101]

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by jclmavg

 

when did i say ET would be unable to get here?

So you think they can? Great. Now back up your claims how UFOlogists are misleading people and not telling everything, and how this demonstrates all cases are bunk.

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by yeti101

 

Perhaps you could give me your criteria for evidence.

His first criteria is probably that it has to be published in the Skeptical Inquirer.

reply to post by jclmavg


Now that the heated debate over the semantics of Skeptic v Believer has calmed down this is what we are left with to discuss. EEEERRRRR

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Matrix Rising

 

ive looked into practically every major ufo case. Every single case i find informatiion the ufologists dont tell you. That evidence usually points to a prosaic explanation. Why are ufologists so dishonest? why dont they just present all the evidence instead of just the one that fits their pet theory?

The reason is becuase they have to be dishonest to keep their fantasy stories intact.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by yeti101]

I predict the above pseudo-skeptic has read nothing but debunking literature and is predisposed to believing there can be nothing to the phenomenon and being dismissive of the ET hypothesis. Hence the statements re ET life not being able to get here, etc.

Would you mind backing up your proclamations? Wich Ufologists? Which cases?

Good points,

The skeptic has to talk in absolute and in black and white terms because there position is so illogical.

Of course every case is not ufologists trying to trick people but the UFO skeptic has an illogical, black and white position.

It has to be all one thing or the other.

So "all" UFO cases are ufologist trying to trick someone.

So "all" the evidence is tainted and there's no quality research.

This is because the skeptics want to remain in a perpetual state of possibility.

They don't look at the evidence or examine the evidence or they wouldn't make these general, illogical statements.

Most skeptics talk in absolutes because their position is so illogical.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by Matrix Rising]

reply to post by Witness2008


well ideally we would have something physical we can test. A body or spaceship would be nice. If thats asking a bit much a good clear video with sufficient providence of a craft doing incredible manouvers which defy modern human technology would be nice, not perfect but would certainly make me entertain the possibility it was ET.

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Witness2008
anythings possible. Mermaids are possible, pink unicorns are possible. But you wouild have to show me the evidence before i concluded they were true. So far i see no evidence of ET visitation.

So let me get this straight. You take fantasy/folklore concepts (unicorns, mermaids, etc.) as being indicative of the scientific plausibility of ET life and visitation? You might as well have tossed some leprechauns in there!

Please do clarify. Does ET visition to you stand on the same footing as leprechauns, mermaids, etc? Please explain why. Explain why you are equivocating.

About people who have incredible stories. Telling incredible stories is as old as mankind itself. I wouldnt believe anyone who has an incredible story with no evidence.

You've jut redefined the definition of evidence and moved the goal posts accordingly.

reply to post by jclmavg


im saying its possible but theres no evidence they are travelling here if they exist.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by yeti101]

reply to post by jclmavg


theres lots of witness testimony for mermaids. Do you believe in those too?