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.

 

What's the evidence against extraterrestrials and or extraterrestrial visitation?

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Of course he can talk about M-Theory in this way. This is what human b beings do.

We weigh the available evidence within reason and come to a conclusion as to what's more likely and what's less likely.


Introduction to M-theory

Unfortunately, until we can find some way to observe higher dimensions (impossible with our current level of technology) M-Theory has a very difficult time making predictions which can be tested in a laboratory. Technologically, it may never be possible for it to be "proven."


So the subject of ETs has an advantage over M-theory, it's provable in the real world with existing technology. Of course some people have theorized that the visitors are NOT ET but interdimensional beings from other dimensions or universes, which with our currently availble technology can't be proven or disproven. In fact that's one argument against any "the existence of extraterrestrials" right there, when we see a craft maneuvering beyond the capabilities of manmade craft how do we know it's ET and not from Earth in another dimension, or Earth travelers from another time (time travelers)? My point is that if it's unknown, that it's UNKNOWN.

Maybe someday our technology will advance so M theory can be assessed, or interdimensional or multiverse travel can be assessed. But until that happens these are just interesting ideas and concepts that have not been connected to the real world we live in other than in abstract ways.


If skeptics and debunkers don't have any evidence against the proposition then what are they debating?


I see lots of UFO cases, some of them I can explain, some of them I can't. I'd like to know what they are, and if any of them are ET. So for me it's a search for knowledge. I think the debate only manifests itself when someone misinterprets the available evidence and then skeptics or debunkers feel compelled to point out the errors and misinterpretations.

reply to post by tristar
 
Yes the 1974 Iran case is one of the best cases in Ufology, and it's definitely disclosure of a UFO, but I'm not sure what the UFO was and apparently it's still unknown.

The video concludes:


This case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of the UFO phenomenon
How can you argue with that conclusion? But it's not a conclusion that it's ET, and again we don't know what it was, could have been time travelers instead of ET for all we know, or something else.


Originally posted by mcrom901
sorry for the long quotes..... wasn't sure people would check the link....


I'm pretty sure quoting that much text from an external source is a violation of the T&C.




posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
So alien adbuctions are evidence for the proposition that we have been visited. The skeptic and debunker should have evidence against the proposition.

If skeptics and debunkers don't have any evidence against the proposition then what are they debating?

What psychologists have to say about the many ways abduction experiences can be explained without any aliens doesn't count ?

Stuart Appelle -- The abduction experience - a critical evaluation of theory and evidence

Banaji & Kihlstrom -- The Ordinary Nature of Alien Abduction Memories



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
You don't have a clue as to what your talking about.


Matrix Rising, I think you need to check yourself before making such statements.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Theories can be included as evidence against a proposition.


Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?

So, I have a theory that you killed someone, and because theories are evidence to you, I have evidence that you killed someone and should get life in prison.
Need more evidence? Ok, I have a theory that you were so mad at debunkers and skeptics that you just killed one of them, and I have evidence of that theory on this topic. I also have a theory that you are a terrorist, so I guess that is evidence that you are.


Completely stupid.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Parallel universes, simulation theory, the universe as a quantum computer are all theories accepted by Professors from M.I.T. to Harvard yet none of these theories don't have any proof.


Those theories were reached via mathematics, scientific experimentation, and observation, meaning they have reasons to believe them but they don't have evidence of their existence yet. Theories are not evidence, they are just theory! If they had evidence they wouldn't be theories, they would be facts. DUH.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
This is because these people use reason to come to the conclusion as to what's most likely and what's less likely. We do it in all walks of life. Courts do it everyday. We always weigh the evidence within reason and then we reach a conclusion as to what's most likely and what's less likely.


No courts only use admissible evidence that is not prejudicial, meaning evidence that isn't subject to preconceived judgment. NOT just any and all evidence that fits your belief (preconceived judgment).


All of your so called evidence for extraterrestrial life and visitation is ALL based on preconceived judgment, which is not admissible evidence.




Originally posted by Matrix Rising
It has absolutely nothing to do with proving a negative. If you have a theory then that could be considered evidence against and for the proposition.


Theories are not evidence. If theories were evidence they wouldn't be called theories, they would be called facts.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Example:

We have found liquid water on Mars. As one Nasa scientist said before we found liquid water, where there's lwater there's life. You do the math (if you can). There's billions of earthlike planets and we have found extremaphiles in places that you wouldn't expect to find life.


Although I agree that life exists in other places than Earth, I still have to point out your obvious lack of admissible evidence. Everything you just said contained preconceived judgment.

Also, NASA scientists said that water is a prerequisite for life. They didn't say "where there is water there is life", they said "where there is water there is a possibility for life to exist", and there is a difference. But, you also have to look at all the other facts surrounding Mars. Water has always been found on Mars, but only in gaseous and ice states because the pressure and temperature on Mars is too high to support liquid water. There is a theory that salt on Mars could help support liquid water, but that doesn't mean it could support life too, salt is poisonous.

It doesn't matter that extremophiles are found all over Earth, what matters is how they got there. They don't just appear there out of thin air, they had to evolve there. In order for extremophiles to survive in extreme conditions they first had to evolve from a life form that couldn't survive there at first. Meaning they would have been killed before they even evolved if it wasn't for Earth's life support. Since Mars doesn't have life support like Earth, extremophiles most probably couldn't evolve from their vulnerable state to their extreme state, meaning they probably don't exist there.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
This can be used as evidence for the proposition.

Alien Abduction cases.

www.ufocasebook.com...


No that is not admissible evidence because all of those so called "abducted" used preconceived judgement that "extraterrestrials" are what abducted them. They don't have evidence that it was "extraterrestrials" that abducted them, they only have preconceived judgement.

A theory (evidence to you) that humans are secretly abducting people for experiments is more plausible than aliens because evidence of humans doing experiments is available.




Originally posted by Matrix Rising
More evidence in support of the proposition.

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...


That is not admissible evidence either, you have the preconceived judgement that those effects were caused by "extraterrestrials". That same "evidence" you claim could also be used as evidence for a theory that humans caused all of that with secret technology. Since humans have already been proven to have secret technology, it is more plausible to think that what happened, and nothing "extraterrestrial".

Do you see now? Do you see how your so called "evidence" is also evidence for other theories and is dismissable?



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Have you ever listened or read some of the great debates like between Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr?


Yes they both use facts to support their theories. They don't use preconceived judgments, they used observable and calculable evidence. Then they use their theories to make predictions. If their theory can predict something to happen before it happen, then their theory has reasonable belief.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The Proposition is that extraterrestrial/extradimensional beings exist and visitation has occured.

What's the evidence for and against the proposition to make this statement true or false?


Well if you want to use your "logic", then the fact that extraterrestrials have not been scientifically observed and confirmed, and that extraterrestrial visitation has not been scientifically observed and confirmed, is evidence that they don't exist.

The pure fact that extraterrestrials and extraterrestrial visitation is not 100% proven to be true is evidence that it does not exist. Because if it did exist, nobody would even question the possibility.

Do you understand how dumb that sounds? I'm sure you do, but according to your logic, that is the evidence. It's a logical fallacy.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
We always come to conclusions as to what's most likely and what's less likely by weighing these things within reason. If we were to go by your silly standard then we would still be stuck in caves tring to "prove a negative" LOL.


Actually you couldn't be more wrong. You are so wrong, that you don't even see your own ignorance. Maybe you should read about the "argument from ignorance".




The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.






[edit on 10-11-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 


i suggest you also check the reports coming from dr. strassman concerning the dmt experiments.......

cherio



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I will now show Matrix rising why his "evidence" is not evidence by using it against his belief.

His proposition (theory) is that extraterrestrial visitation exists, and they are abducting humans. His "evidence" is abduction cases:


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
This can be used as evidence for the proposition.

Alien Abduction cases.

www.ufocasebook.com...



My proposition (theory) is that extraterrestrial visitation does NOT exist, and that secret humans are abducting other humans for scientific experiments, and because the abducted people had preconceived judgments created by television shows about aliens, they only thought they were abducted by aliens. My "evidence" is the same abduction cases:



Alien Abduction cases.

www.ufocasebook.com...


Because the "evidence" is not admissible and full of preconceived judgement, it could be used to support multiple theories.

However, my proposition holds more water because I can also include evidence that humans experiment on other humans. I have evidence that humans subconsciously gain their ideas from television without even realising it. I have evidence that humans have secret technology....etc.

So if you weighed it in a court of law, I would win, and Matrix would loose.

My other proposition is that "alien abductions" are the result of mental illness, hallucinations, drugs, and or television induced psychosis that makes people believe they were abducted. I could also use the abduction "evidence" from casebook to support the fact that people are hallucinating abductions. Then I could use other "evidence" that people do have mental illness, and they do hallucinate, and do drugs, and are also subject to TV induced psychosis. I then can show evidence that psychiatrists have found some "abducted" people to be mentally unstable.

So again, I would WIN over the proposition that "extraterrestrials not only visiting but abducting people" based on having more evidence.

.....but that isn't how it works..... Once again most of that is admissible evidence.



[edit on 10-11-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by mcrom901
 


Good video from Dr. Kaku.

In the video he debates for and against the proposition. It has nothing to do with "proving a negative."

I think skeptics and debunkers are programmed to debate against "proving a negative."

I hear this on every message board or blog that I visit when these things are debated.

You don't need to "prove a negative" when debating for and against a proposition.


Have you ever studied deviance? You see skepticy is an act of behavior against mental deviance. Because you are a deviant, you are therefore regarded as an outsider and a threat to traditional norms. It is all explained through sociology.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

So, I have a theory that you killed someone, and because theories are evidence to you, I have evidence that you killed someone and should get life in prison.
Need more evidence? Ok, I have a theory that you were so mad at debunkers and skeptics that you just killed one of them, and I have evidence of that theory on this topic. I also have a theory that you are a terrorist, so I guess that is evidence that you are.


I am prior military and held a Top Secret SCI clearance, and I also believe Matrix has murdered a skeptic. Now you have a security cleared military witness as evidence.

And I wrote it, so it's in writing.


On a personal note, this is quickly becoming one of my very favorite threads on ATS. Bravo, Matrix. I would flag it so more could see it, but that would give Matrix a very undeserving flag.

Matrix, could you clarify a little better? I'm curious to hear more negative evidence, even hypothetical.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
This is an inductive argument (which the vast majority of subjects debatable in the universe are), therefore all evidence should be weighed by varying degrees of probability. For those who have not experienced anything like this the probability of it occuring around them is very very low, because they have not had those personal experiences. For those who have had these experiences, well they believe it's very very probable it happened to them. BTW, in an inductive argument you can't say never, just highly improbable. It's the inverse of 'you can't prove a negative'.

The critic has only the etic from which to judge against. The experiencer has not only the etic but emic from which to judge against. If the experiencer is a knowledgable, rational, sane person with nothing to gain, I would put more stock into what they have claimed than a cynical skeptical critic, because they have a far more comprehensive view of the whole. Start mulitplying those kinds of people reporting the same things and the probability of it being true increases. Secondary and tertiary evidence can support or negate the claim, as well. And there's where science plays a major role.

Bottom line, I see too many people trying to make deductive arguments out of inductive ones... It's a common fallacy on ATS.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


All is on, you are all over the place.

You don't understand what evidence is.

You are talking about your opinion of the evidence when it comes to alien abductions. I didn't ask for your opinion.

I asked for evidence for and against the proposition. Your opinion is not evidence of anything.

These alien abduction cases are evidence for extraterrestrial/extradimensional visitation.

The people who experience these things tell you exactly what they saw and experienced. If you have evidence that the government is dressing up like extraterrestrials and abducting people then list the evidence. What you are trying to do is present a hypothetical opinion as evidence.

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...

Do you have evidence that all of these cases were governments dressing up as extraterrestrials and abducting these people in space craft?

Again, the pseudoskeptic and debunker live in fantasy land. They think they can make a claim but they don't feel they need to show any evidence to support their claim.

If you make the claim that governments are dressing up as extraterrestrials in all of these abduction cases then present the evidence to support that claim.

I'm not asking for your opinion, I'm talking about evidence.

Alien Adbductions are direct evidence to extraterrestrial visitation.

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...

People in these abduction cases tell you exactly what they saw and experienced. If you want to claim that these people didn't see what they said they saw then you need to present evidence.

The problem is the pseudoskeptic and the debunker think they can throw out their opinion from miles away ans somehow that opinion is evidence against the event.

This is just silly and illogical.

We have direct and circumstanntial evidence to support these things.

You can't look at these things in these other ways because the people who saw and experienced these things tells you exactly what they saw and experienced.

Again, direct evidence is:
Direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.

Your opinion and wild speculation isn't evidence of anything.

As far as theories go, I can tell you have never debated in a college setting.

People come to conclusions all the time as to what's more likely and what's less likely based on the available evidence. In most cases science precedes technology so scientist have to come to conclusions before the theories can be tested.

There's Professors that believe everything from Simulation theory to the universe is a quantum computer. People come to these conclusions because they weigh the available evidence within reason.

I suggest you visit a college campus and sit in on a debate. People always debate for and against the proposition and reach a conclusion by weighing the evidence within reason.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   

My proposition (theory) is that extraterrestrial visitation does NOT exist, and that secret humans are abducting other humans for scientific experiments, and because the abducted people had preconceived judgments created by television shows about aliens, they only thought they were abducted by aliens. My "evidence" is the same abduction cases:


This was written by all is one and this has to be one of the silliest things that I have read on ATS.

This is just an opinion. It has nothing to do with the evidence. These people tell you exactly what they saw and experienced.

If you have evidence that humans are abducting other humans and they are traveling in space craft and they are dressed as extraterrestrials, then present your evidence to support your claim.

This is the problem with pseudoskeptics and debunkers.

They feel that they can throw out any statement about the event and that's evidence of something. It's just your opinion unless you have evidence to support your claim.

My evidence is direct from the eyewitnesses as they report what they saw and experienced. I'm not guessing or making anything up without a shred of evidence like the pseudo skeptic.

I'm just using the available evidence as presented, reported and investigated.

Here's an example:


The strange case of nineteen-year-old Calvin Parker, and forty-two-year-old Charles Hickson actually began a day before their famous encounter. On October 10, 1973, fifteen different people, including two policemen reported seeing a large, silver UFO slowly fly over a housing project in St. Tammany Parish, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Only a scant 24 hours later, Hickson and Parker would have the scare of their lives; a frightening encounter with an eerie UFO.

The two men were both from the town of Gautier, Mississippi, and were doing some fishing in the Pascagoula River on a dark night about 9:00 P.M. They suddenly heard a type of buzzing behind them.

Both men turned around to see the source of the sound, and were amazed to see a glowing, egg-shaped object with bluish lighting on its front side.

The unusual craft was hovering just a few feet above the ground, and about 30 feet from the shore of the river. To their unbelief, a door opened in the object, and three strange beings began to float just above the water straight toward them. Though the beings had legs, they did not use them, they simply floated across the river.

Parker and Hickson would later describe the beings as "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. They had no eyes, grey, wrinkled skin, round feet, and claw-like hands."

Hickson, frozen in fear and unbelief, was grabbed by two of these creatures, and the third one took Parker, who fainted from fright. Hickson would later relate that when the beings put their arms under his body to support him, he felt numb all over. He was then floated into a a brightly-lit room inside of the UFO. Inside this room, he floated, along with an eye-like device which examined him all over.

After his ordeal, Hickson was left floating, while the beings left the room, probably to examine Parker. Approximately 20 minutes after the ordeal had begun, it was over, and Hickson was floated back outside of the strange craft. Parker was crying, and praying on the ground. Only a moment or two later, the craft rose straight up into the air and disappeared.

As the two men began to regain their composure, they were uncertain as to what they should do. Reluctant to report their harrowing experience, they felt obligated to tell someone. Despite fearing ridicule, they telephoned Kessler Air Force Base in Biloxi. Kessler referred their problem to their local sheriff's office.

Afraid of what reaction they might get from law enforcement, they opted instead to drive to their local newspaper. Finding the office closed, they decided to take their bizarre story to the sheriff after all. Naturally the sheriff felt the two men's story was some kind of hoax, and to get to the truth, he put Hickson and Parker into a room which was wired for sound, hoping that they would slip up, and reveal why they were perpetuating such a strange tale.

The two abductees were encouraged to take a lie-detector test, which they both passed. Harder and Hynek, both highly respected in their professions, believed the two men's story.

At a later date, Hynek stated; "There was definitely something here that was not terrestrial".

In what may be a related incident, a couple of weeks after this chilling account, Coast Guardsmen and fishermen had an encounter with an underwater metallic object.

The Pascagoula encounter is one of the most unusual accounts of all UFO reports. Though the sighting and abduction involved only two witnesses, there were several other sightings of unusual flying objects on the same night. The two men have held to their story, though no earthly explanation has been offered for the strange events of the night of October, 11, 1973.


www.ufocasebook.com...

Again, I'm talking about the available evidence, not the wild speculation and theory of the pseudoskeptic.

If you have evidence that other humans did these things then present it.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by chiron613
 


Everybody knows where the evidence is, it's under Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

Thats why "nobody' can come up with hard evidence because it's off limits, thats why.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
1975 The Travis Walton Abduction was no such thing.
And the rest must be similar.
He was brought to the saucer base because he was knocked out
by the landing.
He got too close.
The air is physically moved directly by electricity pulsed by the conical coil.
That is the propulsion of the Tesla craft.
His buddies ran off in fright
So the crew had to take care of the fallen victim and made sure
he was not hurt then place him back in the forest.
He was drugged regularly and briefed latter by the FBI on what to say.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by downunderET
reply to post by chiron613
 


Everybody knows where the evidence is, it's under Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

Thats why "nobody' can come up with hard evidence because it's off limits, thats why.


All of Tesla's labs and work went to Ohio and is now in the basement
of the Oppenheimer Library in Los Alamos according to Tesla researcher
Lyne. Tesla is the only alien that matters.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Let me make sure I got it and re-state it for them, so that they understand what you're trying to say, because I think they are caught up on wording or trying to prove to you that they don't need evidence and/or proof. So what you're(matrix) is saying that someone has on tape a "UFO", presents it here and everyone says it's chinese lanters or CGI or weather balloons, but they don't bring any evidence to support their claim such as: Someone saying they released lanterns out that night or perhaps a video of a lantern doing the same things that the video of the "UFO" is doing, or maybe do a few searches on the town and see if someone let a weather balloon out recently, or even a picture or video of the atmospheric things in the sky that look like ufos, but aren't I mean if they happen so often how come none of those are on tape? So, what I'm saying is I agree with you in a sense(matrix), because; there is in fact ways to find evidence to support the claims of it being a non-UFO, but most of the time people don't bring that to the table is what your saying right? They just bring the drool and not the supporting words of any "possible" evidence, right or wrong?



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
The pseudoskeptic is truly coming from a place of ignorance.

They don't realize that many of these cases have been investigated.

The simple answer would have been, the evidence is not convincing enough to support the proposition.

If you notice the pseudoskeptics could not answer this simple question.

This is because many of them want to act like there is no evidence. This is what you call a blind, illogical pseudoskeptic.

There's tons of 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.

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...

Like I said, many of these things have been looked into and investigated.

The pseudoskeptic wants to say there's no evidence for these things so they make these truly illogical arguments.

A real skeptic can say, there's evidence but it's just not strong enough to convince them that extraterrestrial visitation has occured.

Like I don't believe that bigfoot exists. I will not say there isn't any evidence to support the proposition that bigfoot exists because I know people are coming to the conclusion that they think bigfoot exists based on evidence.

The evidence is just not strong enough to convince me.

This is why pseudoskeptics are so illogical. They can't admit that there's evidence. They have to act like no evidence exists and people are just waking up one morning and blindly believing these things.

This is why the pseudoskeptic is so illogical.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by agentofchaos
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Let me make sure I got it and re-state it for them, so that they understand what you're trying to say, because I think they are caught up on wording or trying to prove to you that they don't need evidence and/or proof. So what you're(matrix) is saying that someone has on tape a "UFO", presents it here and everyone says it's chinese lanters or CGI or weather balloons, but they don't bring any evidence to support their claim such as: Someone saying they released lanterns out that night or perhaps a video of a lantern doing the same things that the video of the "UFO" is doing, or maybe do a few searches on the town and see if someone let a weather balloon out recently, or even a picture or video of the atmospheric things in the sky that look like ufos, but aren't I mean if they happen so often how come none of those are on tape? So, what I'm saying is I agree with you in a sense(matrix), because; there is in fact ways to find evidence to support the claims of it being a non-UFO, but most of the time people don't bring that to the table is what your saying right? They just bring the drool and not the supporting words of any "possible" evidence, right or wrong?


Exactly,

They act like any opinion should be considered evidence.

So a picture or video will be posted in this folder. By the end of the thread the pseudoskeptics know it's balloons or CGI without a shred of evidence.

The picture or video has not been examined and the eyewitness statements are niot even know, yet the pseudoskeptic is psychic and they can tell you what it is without any evidence.

If you say they are chinese lanterns, then we can check the area and see if any were released, we can have an expert tell us what characteristics are consistent with chinese lanterns and which are not.

The pseudoskeptic doesn't realize that when you make a claim, then you need to provide evidence to support the claim. It has nothing to do with "proving a negative."



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


So, just so we're all clear, the only reason you asked for negative evidence was so you could laugh and say it's not evidence at all?

I think you should really understand that it's people like you that make people like me lose all respect for the Ufology field. Maybe that makes me close-minded, but wow, how exactly am I supposed to believe anything coming out of your mouth when you simply reiterate the same thing again in a louder volume each time something you say is questioned? Not to mention the blatant insults and petty belittling.

Obviously the evidence you've provided isn't enough, because we've all seen it, and there are still many many people out there with doubts.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Given the NSA was involved and was mentioned along with documents indicating its involvement shows the severity of such an event. Lets not forget that above the NSA is only a hand full of organizations that not even the President is aware of there existence. On a side note, many agents within those organizations are requited from active family members. So know your beginning to get the picture that its a family within a family of the intelligence community. They literally do not answer to anyone since they do not exist.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising

Exactly,

They act like any opinion should be considered evidence.

So a picture or video will be posted in this folder. By the end of the thread the pseudoskeptics know it's balloons or CGI without a shred of evidence.

The picture or video has not been examined and the eyewitness statements are niot even know, yet the pseudoskeptic is psychic and they can tell you what it is without any evidence.

If you say they are chinese lanterns, then we can check the area and see if any were released, we can have an expert tell us what characteristics are consistent with chinese lanterns and which are not.

The pseudoskeptic doesn't realize that when you make a claim, then you need to provide evidence to support the claim. It has nothing to do with "proving a negative."


You really really really don't get this do you. In the example you just gave, if it turns out to being chinese lanterns, it is evidence that they were chinese lanterns and not UFO's. Not that UFO's don't exist. This is why you cannot prove a negative and why there is no such thing as evidence that something doesn't exist. If a UFO case is shown to be lanterns, that is not evidence that UFO's don't exist. Its evidence that the particular case was lanterns.

There is no such things as evidence something doesn't exist. You can't even come up with an example of evidence of something not existing. We keep asking over and over and over and over. Ask a college philosophy professor if you can have evidence something doesn't exist. I really cannot believe that you aren't getting this. There really is no harm just admitting that you worded the question and thread poorly.

But you are just embarrassing yourself when you say things like 'theories are evidence'. LOL, serious Matrix, are you really that uneducated? A theory by definition is not evidence. It is truly sad reading how unintelligent and stubborn what you are typing is. Please tell me you're some high school kid.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
You don't understand what evidence is.

You are talking about your opinion of the evidence when it comes to alien abductions. I didn't ask for your opinion.


My first post on this topic I provide you with the definition of the word evidence, and prove that YOU don't know what evidence is.

In my last posts, I WAS USING YOUR DEFINITION of evidence to show you how stupid your arguments are.

Let me show you again...


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I asked for evidence for and against the proposition. Your opinion is not evidence of anything.

These alien abduction cases are evidence for extraterrestrial/extradimensional visitation.


You thinking that those alien abductions are evidence of extraterrestrial/extra-dimensional visitation is YOUR OPINION!

You don't even see your own hypocrisy!



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The people who experience these things tell you exactly what they saw and experienced.


What those people saw and experienced WAS THEIR OPINION. Their opinion is not evidence!


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Do you have evidence that all of these cases were governments dressing up as extraterrestrials and abducting these people in space craft?


Do you have evidence that those cases were not governments dressing up?

Eyewitness OPINIONS are not evidence!

To clarify, I don't even think they are government people, I was using that example to show you your own ignorance. YOU are the one using opinion as evidence, and so I showed you an example of that but opposite of your argument.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Again, the pseudoskeptic and debunker live in fantasy land. They think they can make a claim but they don't feel they need to show any evidence to support their claim.


You are the only one living in fantasy land. You can't even see your own ignorance.

I will leave you alone with your argument from ignorance. Go back to school.

[edit on 11-11-2009 by ALLis0NE]




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join