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: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 05:05 AM
link   
I highly suggest people ignore Matrix...

This guy is listing UFO sightings and calling them all evidence of "extraterrestrials".
He doesn't realise that he is making a huge jump to conclusions and basing his argument on his opinion.


I show him a polar opposite of his argument using his own logic, and he can clearly see the errors, but he doesn't realise his own argument has the same exact errors.

For example, a UFO sighting can be few different things:

1: Secret Government Technology.

2: Extraterrestrial visitation.

3: Other things...

However, Matrix loves to jump to conclusions and thinks that it is evidence for #2 only based on his opinion, and the opinion of the observer. When someone shows him that it could also be evidence for #1, he complains that it is only my opinion, and opinion can't be used as evidence, completely ignoring that his conclusion is his opinion too.


It's that same for abductions. Some reason he thinks the abducted persons opinion of events is evidence that they were extraterrestrial. Some reason he doesn't see the many different theories that the eyewitness opinions could support, and he only chooses one theory.

It's absurd. He is the definition of argument from ignorance.




posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 


It's obvious that you don't know what your talking about.

Many scientist take theories into account when weighing the evidence within reason.

Why do you think there's physicist who accept Parallel universes and a parallel universe has never been observed or measured?

Why do you think there physicist who accept M-Theory and extra dimensions when a brane or a extra dimension has never been observed or measured?

They do this based on the theories and the weigh these things against other theories and then they reach a conclusion.

We do this in all walks of life because in most cases there isn't absolute proof so we have to weigh the evidence within reason.

It's only the pseudoskeptics and debunkers who speak about thinks like absolute proof or proving a negative.

This is because they are ignorant and illogical.

We always weigh the available evidence within reason as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

I think you need to read a book or visit a college campus and you will see how people debate and argue for things that haven't been observed or measured.

With ufology you have both direct and circumstantial evidence.

[edit on 11-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


You really are the definition of a pseudoskeptic.

Do you understand that many if not all of the cases I have mentioned have been investigated throughout the years?

Your opinion is meaningless. These people tell you exactly what they saw and experienced. Unless you have evidence to contradict what they saw or evidence that shows that they are lying, then your opinion about what they saw means nothing.

I'm just weighing the available evidence. We don't have evidence that some secret humans with advanced technology did all of these things in these abduction cases.

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

I'm not asking for your silly opinion or wild speculation.

I have listed case after case and you pseudoskeptics and debunkers have offered nothing but faulty logic and your personal opinion.

This is because the pseudoskeptic and the debunker has this ignorant and illogical position that there is no evidence.

There's cases that have been investigated for years and years and I'm weighing the evidence as reported and investigated.

These abduction cases are direct evidence not opinion.

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...

The eyewitnesses are telling you what they saw and experienced. Many of these cases have been investigated.

Your opinion is meaningless unless you have evidence. So if you have evidence that other humans have secretly carried out these abductions and they have the technology to carry out these abductions then lets hear the evidence.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by johnny2127
 


It's obvious that you don't know what your talking about.

Many scientist take theories into account when weighing the evidence within reason.

Why do you think there's physicist who accept Parallel universes and a parallel universe has never been observed or measured?

Why do you think there physicist who accept M-Theory and extra dimensions when a brane or a extra dimension has never been observed or measured?

They do this based on the theories and the weigh these things against other theories and then they reach a conclusion.

We do this in all walks of life because in most cases there isn't absolute proof so we have to weigh the evidence within reason.

It's only the pseudoskeptics and debunkers who speak about thinks like absolute proof or proving a negative.

This is because they are ignorant and illogical.

We always weigh the available evidence within reason as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

I think you need to read a book or visit a college campus and you will see how people debate and argue for things that haven't been observed or measured.

With ufology you have both direct and circumstantial evidence.

[edit on 11-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]


Matrix, I am not trying to argue with you. Physicists call parallel universes a theory and it is not accepted as a fact or law. So while likely according to many, it is not accepted as evidence of anything.

I swear you are trying to argue just to argue. You tell me to visit a college campus, when you do not understand I have a very high level of education Matrix, and was a college debate champion, so I know the rules and standards of debate or even philosophical dialog. Additionally I am constantly on campuses giving talks to students about economics and careers. So I would virtually guarantee I understand college debate better than you.

What you are not understanding is that I am not saying people should not debate or discuss alien visitation or existence. What I am saying is that there cannot be evidence of something not existing, so the debate or conversation should not be about evidence against. Its should be about logical thinking, and rational conclusions.

After reading dozens of your postings, I think the disconnect is what you call evidence and what you accept as evidence. What you call evidence is far below what 99% of people call evidence. To you theories and 3rd and testimony counts as evidence, which is fine. But not from a scientific or debate perspective. Additionally, you do not understand the difference in the types of debates. Example: Criminal, scientific, spiritual, mystical, economic, political. To you they are all the same, which they are not.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 


Again, you are applying a silly standard to ufology.

This is my biggest problem with pseudoskeptics and debunkers. They throw out all logic and reason and they think if they use the terms "proving a negative" "absolute proof" or some other nonsense it means something.

It doesn't mean anything. People do accept and believe things like Parallel universes and M-Theory based on theories.

People accept things like M-Theory and the multiverse because it helps them explain the weakness of gravity. If gravity is spread out throughout the multiverse then that would explain the weakness of gravity.

People always come to conclusions about things based on the available evidence.

A police officer will come to the scene of an accident and he will come to a conclusion as to what happened based on the available evidence.

In a court room, you will have a case based on circumstantial evidence. The Jury will come to a conclusion based on the available evidence.

This happens in all walks of life, but when it comes to ufology and the paranormal the pseudoskeptics and debunkers talk about proving a negative or absolute proof and this is absolutely illogical.

We always weigh the available evidence within reason as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

I don't believe the Loch Ness monster exist or bigfoot. It has nothing to do with "proving a negative." This is just preprogrammed nonsense from the pseudoskeptic and debunker. We can always weigh the evidence for and against and come to a conclusion as to what's most likely or what's less likely.

We always follow the evidence and draw conclusions because in most cases science precedes technology. Evidence precedes absolute proof.

Pseudoskeptics and debunkers have set up this illogical standard that's never used. Have you listened to lectures from futurist Ray Kurzweil and the singularity? He may be wrong but he's coming to his conclusions based on the available evidence.

With ufology and the paranormal we have to remain in a state of constipated possibility because the debunker and pseudoskeptic has set up this illogical standard that we need proof before we can weigh the available evidence.

We are looking for things like the Higgs Boson or Hawking Radiation because people have come to the conclusion that these things exist based on the available evidence.

We do this in all walks of life. Sometimes proof is not available because we don't have the technology to test things. If we could never use our brain to weigh the evidence until we had absolute proof then we would still be stuck in caves.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Ok Matrix, listen...

Give me ONE good piece of "evidence" for "extraterrestrial visitation". Give me your BEST piece of "evidence" that you have. Make it short and quick and to the point.

Give me ONE abduction case that you think is best. Or give me ONE UFO sighting that you think is best. Or ONE FACT that made you believe it was extraterrestrial visitation. JUST ONE.

I will show you your errors.

Give me your best shot.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 





Again, you are applying a silly standard to ufology.


No, you have asked a silly question in the first place.



This is my biggest problem with pseudoskeptics and debunkers. They throw out all logic and reason and they think if they use the terms "proving a negative" "absolute proof" or some other nonsense it means something.


Lets get this absolutely straight so there is no question of beating around the bush on either side.

Your question was

What's the evidence against extraterrestrials and or extraterrestrial visitation?
That is the title of the thread. So that is your question, right?

Here is the unambigous, undeniable answer:

I don't have any, and neither does anybody else.

Is that what you want to hear? Well that is what every single one of the people who have been polite enough to answer you are saying. But really it is not an answer to anything at all. An admission that we don't have evidence against something says nothing about whether that evidence exists or not. All it says is that we don't know about it .

As for using terms like "proving a negative" or "absolute proof", I think that using english to communicate on an english language discussion forum where (most) readers know how to communicate in english would seem to be the most prudent way to go about things, don't you?



It doesn't mean anything. People do accept and believe things like Parallel universes and M-Theory based on theories.

People accept things like M-Theory and the multiverse because it helps them explain the weakness of gravity. If gravity is spread out throughout the multiverse then that would explain the weakness of gravity.


Not quite right at all. Scientists imagine things like Parallel universes and M-Theory because it helps them visualize the mathematics that they are working with. If the visualization model is useful to them in explaining a problem they are having (like the weakness in gravity or what ever), then they can use that model to help visualize it to others.Laymen believe things like Parallel universes and M-Theory because they heard a Scientist describing his works using those word pictures and it fires their own imagination.

The visualization model of an atom has morphed through various incarnations, from a primitive particle, to solar system analogue, to a probability cloud with dozens of elementary particles, wavicles, and imaginary thinamagummies. That hasn't changed the existence of non-existence of the atom, just the way it is visualized. The solar system model is still the one in the public mind and is popular with the pop science press because it is easy to understand and allows most of the atomic theory to be explained in a user friendly manner. But that doesn't mean it is the best model, nor the most accurate, nor the final word, nor anything to do with reality subjectively or objectively. It only means it is a useful tool to explain the concepts it is used to explain. Period.



People always come to conclusions about things based on the available evidence.

A police officer will come to the scene of an accident and he will come to a conclusion as to what happened based on the available evidence.

In a court room, you will have a case based on circumstantial evidence. The Jury will come to a conclusion based on the available evidence.

This happens in all walks of life, but when it comes to ufology and the paranormal the pseudoskeptics and debunkers talk about proving a negative or absolute proof and this is absolutely illogical.


No, YOU are the one talking about proving a negative. YOU asked

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



We always weigh the available evidence within reason as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

I don't believe the Loch Ness monster exist or bigfoot. It has nothing to do with "proving a negative." This is just preprogrammed nonsense from the pseudoskeptic and debunker. We can always weigh the evidence for and against and come to a conclusion as to what's most likely or what's less likely.


Why not? There is more explicit photographic evidence that Bigfoot exists than there is for the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs. There is even evidence of the Lock Ness monster on Google Earth. What is special about the extraterrestrial origin of UFO's?



We always follow the evidence and draw conclusions because in most cases science precedes technology. Evidence precedes absolute proof.

Pseudoskeptics and debunkers have set up this illogical standard that's never used. Have you listened to lectures from futurist Ray Kurzweil and the singularity? He may be wrong but he's coming to his conclusions based on the available evidence.


Once again, it is YOU that asked

What's the evidence against extraterrestrials and or extraterrestrial visitation?
. You are the one applying the illogical standard that is never used.

continued in next post...



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


...continued from previous post



With ufology and the paranormal we have to remain in a state of constipated possibility because the debunker and pseudoskeptic has set up this illogical standard that we need proof before we can weigh the available evidence.


I am having trouble formulating a response to this sentence because it is so breathtakingly silly. But I do like the imagery.

Look, no one in this thread is asking you to provide absolute proof of extraterrestrial origin of UFOs, before imagining other consequences, if you are in a state of "constipated possibility", it is of your own doing. Perhaps you should eat more fibre.

But anyway, abduction cases are not evidence for or against extraterrestrial origin of UFO's, they are just data points, phenomena that beg for an explanation. Extraterrestrial interference is a perfectly reasonable working hypothesis, go for your life. But there are many perfectly reasonable working hypotheses. We need to find evidence that allows us to identify the most reasonable set of circumstances if we are going to get to the bottom of the problem.

Those folks you call "psuedoskeptics and debunkers" aren't denying the possiblility of extraterrestrial interference (OK, some probably are) when they counter your 'evidence'. It is just that If there are multiple 'reasonable' (or equally unreasonable) explanations, then you haven't 'proven' anything, yet.

The problem is, when you are presenting your evidence, it often sounds like this:






We are looking for things like the Higgs Boson or Hawking Radiation because people have come to the conclusion that these things exist based on the available evidence.


No. We are looking for things like the Higgs Boson or Hawking Radiation because people have come to the conclusion that these things would help explain observed phenomena.

We are explicitly looking for the evidence that they do in fact exist, we don't yet have any such evidence. We have predicted their existence based on hypothesis. If we find it, then we have confirmed that hypothisis and can be confident in using it in other hypothetical proposals as a given. If we don't find it then it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, only that our hypothesis is wrong, or imcomplete, or we missed something important, or our experiment was wrongly set up, or any number of things, and we cannot yet be confident in conclusions drawn from the hypothesis. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



We do this in all walks of life. Sometimes proof is not available because we don't have the technology to test things. If we could never use our brain to weigh the evidence until we had absolute proof then we would still be stuck in caves.


This is true, but that isn't the kind of evidence you are asking for. YOU asked

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

No one here can doubt the possiblity of the extraterrestrial origin of UFO's. We can debate the liklihood of it till the cows come home, but there remains a possibility, because short of visiting every planet orbiting every star in the universe (or multiverse) we can just never know.

Again, no one in this thread is asking you to provide absolute proof of extraterrestrial origin of UFOs, before imagining other consequences, that would be "off topic" so complaining about it is off topic too, I would think.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaaWhy not? There is more explicit photographic evidence that Bigfoot exists than there is for the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs.
How did you evaluate this supposedly positive quantity of Bigfoot evidence compared to UFOs, and by which method did you decide that a piece of evidence would or would not support an extraterrestrial origin? In short, where are the numbers?


We are looking ...
We are explicitly looking ...
Er... when did you become a mouthpiece for all skeptics and debunkers?

Alas, I consider myself quite a skeptic. You certainly do not represent me.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
If.......they know more than they tell us they know, then why is NASA still doing
space travel the hard way?

I can totally understand why certain entities would want to control any advanced technology discovered, but at the same time it all seems contradictory that the military would still be using
antiquated fossil fuel propulsion systems if they had something else available.

Either they know much more than they are telling us, but they just haven't figured out how to use what they've learned?



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 


I think the point he was trying to make is the same one ALLisONE is trying to make, that there has been zero real evidence that the UFO phenomenon is extraterrestrially driven.

Meaning, that with the abundance of UFO-related "evidence" there are none, save anecdotal opinions, that link UFOs with aliens. On that point I agree emphatically with him.

Seeing a UFO is the same as seeing a weird kind of fungus that you've never seen. It's just unidentified (to you). UFOs on the other hand have an emotional, cultural link with aliens. Unfortunately there is nothing out there that could substantiate that claim, other than second-hand stories from people that have experienced something they attribute to aliens (which is, in itself, a cultural and/or emotional response to whatever trauma they suffered).



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Of course you don't have any but your post lets me know that you don't have a clue as to what your talking about.

Physicist don't use Parallel universes for visualization. They have come to the conclusion that parallel universes exists based on the available evidence. Have you ever read David Deutsch The Fabric of Reality or Professor Seth Lloyd Programming the Universe?

These people have come to the conclusion that Parallel universes exist or the universe is a quantum computer based on the available evidence.

Here's an interview by M.I.T. Professor Seth Lloyd in Wired Magazine.


Seth Lloyd is the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with. Between gulps, the MIT prof will impart the details of how the universe really works. And if you order another, he'll give you a summary of one of the most mind-boggling ideas emerging in science today. His new book, Programming the Universe, is a plainspoken tale of how the universe is - tell me if you've heard this before - one very large quantum computer. - Kevin Kelly

WIRED: I hear you're a quantum computer repair guy.

LLOYD: Yes, I am a quantum mechanic! Those darn quantum computers break all the time.

You've jumped from working on quantum computers to saying, oh, by the way, the universe is a gigantic quantum computer.

When you zap things with light to build quantum computers, you're hacking existing systems. You're hijacking the computation that's already happening in the universe, just like a hacker takes over someone else's computer.

What is the universe computing when we are not hijacking it for our own purposes?

It computes itself. It computes the flow of orange juice as you drink it, or the position of each atom in your cells.

Um, how many times have you seen The Matrix?

Sadly, only once. In The Matrix, what you see is fake - a simulation of bits - which is only a facade of what is real beneath it. But our universe is a simulation so exact that it is indistinguishable from the real thing. Our universe is one big honking quantum �mech�anical computer.

You seem to be saying that the concept of the universe as one huge quantum computer is not just a metaphor - it's real.

Absolutely. Atoms and electrons are bits. Atomic collisions are "ops." Machine language is the laws of physics. The universe is a quantum computer.


www.wired.com...

My point is that people reach conclusions all the time based on the available evidence.

It's just pseudoskeptics and debunkers are ignorant and illogical when it comes to things like ufology and the paranormal.

Of course pseudoskeptics want absolute proof, this is why they say "you can't prove a negative." Nothing I asked had anything to do with proving a negative.

What does proving a negative have to do with weighing the evidence within reason?

It's just another silly and illogical tactic from pseudoskeptics and debunkers.

IN ALL WALKS OF LIFE WE WEIGH THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE AND REACH CONCLUSIONS.

Pseudoskeptics never want you to weigh the evidence because they don't want to admit evidence exists in most cases and they want to be able to say "it could be this" or "it could be that" without any evidence.

Many of these abduction cases have been investigated and the pseudoskeptic will have to bring more than his/her opinion to the table. I could care less about your opinion.

If you have evidence that other human beings are turning themselves into aliens and flying around in spaceships then present. All of your wild speculation and opinion means nothing.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
The pseudoskeptic and debunker has turned logic on it's head.

We never weigh all prossibilities equally but this is exactly what they want to do. They want to be able to say well it could be anything. Well it can't. This is why human beings have this little thing called reason.

We can weigh the evidence within reason as to what's most likely and what's less likely. We do it all the time in all walks of life.

In ufology, the illogical pseudoskeptic and debunker doesn't want to use reason. They don't want to weigh the evidence. This is because they want all possibilities to have an equal probability of being true.

This way they can say, "it could be anything."

Welcome to the illogical world of the pseudoskeptic and debunker.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
reply to post by jclmavg
 


I think the point he was trying to make is the same one ALLisONE is trying to make, that there has been zero real evidence that the UFO phenomenon is extraterrestrially driven.
The point would IMO be seriously flawed.

Do you know the difference between evidence and proof?


anecdotal opinions, that link UFOs with aliens.
What the heck are these "anecdotal opinions"?!?
Are you saying there can be no inferences made from the data? Are you saying testimony is not evidence? Those would be seriously flawed arguments.


Seeing a UFO is the same as seeing a weird kind of fungus that you've never seen. It's just unidentified (to you).
This approach is akin to seeing a Mercedes Benz 102 drive by and being told you have only seen "something". "But I saw this expensive, nice-looking car! It looked like such and such, I think it may have been a Mercedes." "No no, you saw something undentified", retorts the pseudo-skeptic. Specifics are deemed irrelevant.

Origins may not have been proven, but such does not mean that inferences cannot be drawn from the data or that the evidence does not allow for such inferences.

[edit on 11-11-2009 by jclmavg]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Of course you don't have any but your post lets me know that you don't have a clue as to what your talking about.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising

You really are the definition of a pseudoskeptic.

Your opinion is meaningless

I'm not asking for your silly opinion or wild speculation.

I have listed case after case and you pseudoskeptics and debunkers have offered nothing but faulty logic and your personal opinion.

Your opinion is meaningless unless you have evidence.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
It's obvious that you don't know what your talking about.

This is because they are ignorant and illogical.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The pseudoskeptic is truly coming from a place of ignorance.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
This thread shows how blind skeptics and debunkers are.

Again, skeptics and debunkers are like broken records that can't think for themselves.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising

You don't have a clue as to what your talking about.

This shows you have no clue how to debate a proposition.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising

This is illogical and just plain stupid.



My favorite is the last one.

Matrix, you'll get a lot further if you actually take a moment to read what people are actually saying before applying that hefty helping of emotional slant to it. You're not paying attention to anything, and instead are just pulling key phrases that you can use to shotgun your "evidence" at people. I've seen the exact same tactic used in religious debates, and it didn't work there either.

Take a deep breath, and understand that nothing you've shown is evidence of anything alien. It's only evidence that people think (read: have opinions) that they're alien.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by EsSeeEye
 


If you have evidence that they didn't see what they said they saw then present it.

I don't want your opinion, I'm just asking for evidence. Many of these cases have been investigated over the years. If you have evidence for each of these cases that shows the people didn't see or experience what they said they saw then present the evidence.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 


You're right, technically. Unfortunately, the anecdotal evidence isn't enough to prove anything, otherwise it already would have.

The fact that we're all still having this argument about whether or not aliens exist is enough "proof" to me that there still isn't any evidence good enough to link UFOs with Aliens.


reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Prove to me that what they said is true. People lie, people misidentify, people hallucinate, people lose control of what they see and hear. It happens all the time. Used to be when that happened people attributed it to gods, fairys, monsters, demons, or angels. Now it's aliens.

I can say anything, anyone can. Prove to me that all of the words those people spoke in all of those testimonies were 100% true, and accurate as described, because that's what you're saying is occurring, isn't it?

[edit on 11-11-2009 by EsSeeEye]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 




Originally posted by rnaaWhy not? There is more explicit photographic evidence that Bigfoot exists than there is for the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs.
How did you evaluate this supposedly positive quantity of Bigfoot evidence compared to UFOs, and by which method did you decide that a piece of evidence would or would not support an extraterrestrial origin? In short, where are the numbers?


Simple. The supposed photos of Big Foot are direct evidence. If the photo is not faked, then Big Foot is exists.

A photo of an unexplained light or of a UFO is direct evidence only of an unexplained light or a UFO, not of its origin. If the photo is not faked, it proves existence of the UFO, it doesn't prove extraterrestrial origin.

Even the very name of the phenomena is explicit: Unidentified Flying Object.



We are looking ...
We are explicitly looking ...
Er... when did you become a mouthpiece for all skeptics and debunkers?

Alas, I consider myself quite a skeptic. You certainly do not represent me.



Are you directing that question to me? I ask because it was Matrix Rising that initiated that turn of phrase. My use was a mirror response to MR's post. MR said "We are looking", using the "Royal We" to indicate he meant 'all of mankind', but probably meaning specifically 'those physicists and engineers actively engaged in that research'. I merely replied in kind using his word construct to ensure there was no mistaking the context in which I was arguing.

Sorry if you were offended, it was intended neither to offend nor to put words in anyones mouth (or rather fingertips) than my own.

Edit: cleaned up the quotation tags (geebus - I just can't type today)



[edit on 11/11/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 


Great post.

No matter what the eyewitness said they saw and no matter how much detail they give, the pseudoskeptic will still say it's unidentified. It's very illogical because they want to give all possibilities the equal probability of being true.

This is because they think their illogical opinion should be weighed equally with the eyewitness testimony.

Welcome to the illogical world of pseudoskeptics and debunkers.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by EsSeeEye
 


Again, what you are saying is just silly.

You said prove to you that they are telling the truth.

You have to weigh these things because humans have something called reason.

So if a case has been investigated, the people have taken polygraphs, they have been questioned by police, investigators and more, then I weigh the probabilities.

It's probable that he's lying but the case has been investigated and there's no evidence that he's lying then I give more weight to the probability that he's telling the truth.

Like I said, the illogical pseudoskeptic and debunker wants to weigh all possibilities as having an equal probability of being true.

Welcome to the illogical world of the pseudoskeptic and debunker.

[edit on 11-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join