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: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Have you ever heard of a man named Gary Leon Ridgway? He was also known as the Green River Killer, and pleaded guilty to 48 murders. He passed a lie detector test. Polygraph tests are significantly flawed, and aren't allowed as evidence in court without special considerations.

Discounting all that, even if polygraphs were 100% accurate, I don't doubt that many of those people would have passed them, because to them, they were abducted by aliens. Maybe they were. Or maybe they were abducted by government agents, or maybe they were dreaming, or maybe they were put under the whims of suggestive hypnosis during one of their "regression" sessions.

The point is that people do not always see what they think they see. Do I believe that the people in those cases you mentioned believe absolutely that they were abducted or saw alien beings? At least most of them do, yes. Does that mean they actually were abducted or actually saw real alien beings? I wasn't there, and neither were you. There is no possible way to tell that what the person saw was exactly what they described without being there when the event occurred.

Basing a scientific theory (I.E. The reality of intelligent alien beings visiting and being observed by humans on Earth) is the real ignorance here.

That said, I'm no pseudo-skeptic. I'm ready and willing to believe aliens are here. I've just not seen anything conclusive.




posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
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.


Wrong. Its because science depends on demonstrable, reproducible, results. Anyone can claim they were abducted by aliens ("That's why I didn't get my homework in on time Mrs. Paine"). They can even give that testamony in a court of law, under oath and fear of perjury. They can even be absolutely convinced in the core of their being, that they were abducted by aliens.

But unless they can demonstrate it in a reproducible manner it will necessarily carry less weight than other explanations that can be demonstrated and reproduced.

That's all. That is not calling anyone a liar. It is just saying that there are better, simpler explanations.

I cannot prove that no one has ever been or will never be abducted by aliens. All I can say is that until you can present evidence that can be unambiguously attributed to extraterrestrial aliens then you are at a disadvantage to those who can provide more straightforward, simpler, explanations.

Get ET to address the UN, or show up at the local cop shop and apologize for all the abductions and you might have something.



Welcome to the illogical world of pseudoskeptics and debunkers.


I think you have lost track of which side you are on



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by EsSeeEye
 


Polygraphs are still good indicators of the truth because everyone is not the Green River Killer. If a wife is found dead the first thing they will do is ask the Husband to take a polygraph if they can't establish his whereabouts during the time the murder was commited.

Again, it doesn't have to be 100% accurate. Police use Forensic Hypnosis which has an 80% success rate. Just because it's not absolute doesn't mean it isn't useful.

This has to do with something called reason. The reason why pseudoskeptics and debunkers speak in absolutes is because they want to give all possibilities the same probability of being true.

I was on a Jury and we had a circumstantial case. We had no witnesses to the crime yet we came back with a guilty verdict. Human beings always weigh the evidence within reason.

Pseudoskeptics and debunkers don't want to do this because they want to give all possibilities the same probability of being true and this is illogical.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Again your way off.

What other explanations have been demonstrated or reproduced? We wouldn't be here debating if all of these things could simply be reproduced.

Many of them can't be reproduced and that's why there labled unidentified.

This is what I'm talking about. Pseudoskeptics and debunkers just say anything because they think their opinion should be given the same weight as the eywitness testimony.

Have you secretly reproduced all of these abduction cases and your not telling anybody LOL.

Welcome to the illogical world of the pseudoskeptic and debunker.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


You don't seem to understand that you're speaking in the same absolutes. You're saying that the probability of alien life visiting earth is the same as not, which is profoundly wrong. Is it possible? Yes, but it's also possible that strangelets exist and will soon create a whole, adult monkey within the confines of my rectum.

But, then again, I guess it doesn't really change my life if you continue on your path of destroying the credibility of Ufology. I don't believe it anyway. Carry on!



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by EsSeeEye
 


Please, let everyone here know espeacially me when you find something conclusive, that way me and everyone else can stop looking.Ok first, I want to say I understand what you're saying, but when someone posts a vid or a pic of a ufo and someone claims its not a ufo it's a bird. Then the person saying no thats not a ufo that's a bird has to provide a pic of a bird producing a similar effect as there would probably be tons of pics of a bird where this effect takes place as birds ar emore commonly photographed then ufos; yet no one brings up a pic of a bird producing the effect, so those making that claim ONLY are stating an opinion. sorry folks thats how it rolls...they only think it's a bird they didn't show even "possible" evidence of it being a bird(aka a similar pic of a bird), am i wrong here?



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by agentofchaos
 


So, in other words, until it can be proven conclusively (I.E. to your or the poster's or anyone that thinks it's an alien's opinion) that it's a bird, it's proven to be an alien? We have to prove to everyone who thinks it's an alien personally that it's not? One person looking at a pic of a bird, then the UFO will see that yes, it's a bird, but another person will not see the resemblance in the pic and will go on believing it's an alien until it's proven to them that it's a bird. It happens every single day on these boards alone.

Sorry. I can't really roll that way. Until you prove that it's an alien, it's not. There are multitudes of explanations that are simpler, and terrestrial, that identifying these things immediately as alien without any shred of evidence is extremely foolish. I don't expect that you're that foolish, but I know there are others who are, because I've seen it.

So, yes, until it's shown to be an alien, I will believe it's anything but. There has yet to be any reason for me to believe otherwise. Testimonies don't do it for me, dots in the sky don't do it for me, even the great cases haven't done it for me. I think there are things going on that I can't explain, but that's not reason enough for me to jump to the belief that it's aliens.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by EsSeeEye
 


Most pseudoskeptics are closed minded but of course they want to act as if they are open minded so they lie to themselves.

You said, there's simpler, terrestrial explanations, where? Where are these simple explanations at? Do you realize there would not be any debate if all of these things had simple, terrestrial explanations? Do you realize that many of these cases have been investigated?

People are not making any leap. Their just drawing conclusions based on the available evidence.

Saying we will find a simple, terrestrial explanation is not evidence of anything. Pseudoskeptics have been saying this for years. We have cases that go back to the 60's and pseudoskeptics said we would find a simple, terrestrial explanation and we still don't have one.

What agentofchaos is saying is true. The pseudoskeptic doesn't realize when they make these clames, they have to provide evidence to support the claim.

When you say there's a simpler, terrestrial explanation I can list hundred of cases that have been investigated and there's no simple, terrestrial explanation. So when the pseudoskeptic says these illogical things, they have to show evidence to support it.

If you have a simple, terrestrial explanation for these things, then let's hear it. Let's call up the media and we can go over each case and give them these simple, terrestrial explanations and then we can scrap the field of ufology.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
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.
I'm sorry but this is silly. Do you think pieces of evidence come labeled? Do you think a fossil comes up to you and says "Hi, I'm a fossil and I'm evidence for the theory of evolution"?

Of course not! So what crap is this "It's only evidence that people think (read: have opinions) that they're alien".

Well duh, science journals are filled with opinions of people who believe that the evidence they found makes their conclusions more probable. Evidence itself can be in doubt and needs to be interpreted, weighed, discussed, etc.

You are pretending you've found some abnormality where there freakin' is none!



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
reply to You're saying that the probability of alien life visiting earth is the same as not, which is profoundly wrong. Is it possible? Yes, but it's also possible that strangelets exist and will soon create a whole, adult monkey within the confines of my rectum.
And yet another inane comment. This is just a silly pretend license, by comparing the issue to a monkey flying out of yer butt (I'm sure you think you're all smart and that, though I would have to disagree), to wallow in ignorance. Because what it does, it merely justifies, condones, encourages, celebrates, and rewards ignorance, simply by declaring the subject at hand is not worthy of study or consideration. After all, you wouldn't be taking a monkey flying out of your rear end seriously either, now would you?

The problem is, science itself takes this quite seriously with lots of peer reviewed scietific papers on the topic of extraterrestrial visitation, or colonization (embargo hypotheses have even been proposed). ET visitation has its own paradox attached called the Fermi paradox which says: where are the aliens, we should be seeing them!

So are you going to take an interest in the topic by actually studying it, or are you going to wallow in ignorance by continuing to compare the probability of ET visitation to a monkey flying out of your butt? Quite frankly, the latter would tell us a lot about you (made up your mind, don't bother with the facts).

[edit on 12-11-2009 by jclmavg]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
reply to post by agentofchaos
 


So, in other words, until it can be proven conclusively (I.E. to your or the poster's or anyone that thinks it's an alien's opinion) that it's a bird, it's proven to be an alien? We have to prove to everyone who thinks it's an alien personally that it's not?
No, he is not saying that. You're not the brightest light here I can tell, sigh.

He is saying that if someone comes up with an explanation, argues it is a bird, then that person has the burden of proof for that explanation.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   


Originally posted by rnaa
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.
But who said anything about proof? You were talking about evidence, now you're blathering about proof. I don't even think Matrix has argued that such proof exists. You do know the difference between evidence and proof, right?

And you still have not answered my question. I asked about the supposed volume of Bigfoot evidence since you insisted there is more explicit Bigfoot evidence than there is evidence for a possible ET origin of UFOs. Since you must have a way to measure this of some sort, I asked you to back this claim up. So where's the beef?


[edit on 12-11-2009 by jclmavg]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by EsSeeEye
 


If you read closely, I threw in quotations that possible evidence be presented(i.e. a pic of a bird recreating the same effect). Yet if it is a bird and so easily explained away by the bird why can't a pic of a bird ever be presented? No one is ever like sorry folks, but i have a bird doing the same thing in this pic; thus deminishing the value of the photo beause someone already has that effect being present and it is a bird...that is how it is done. If you can't even do that then everything else you say is just what you think it can be. Besides, conclusive was the word you used, and I quote, "I beleive in aliens, I just haven't found anything conclusive" end quote. You even start stating your beleifs, which has got nothing to do with the argument. It's about having something to support your opinion instead of it being just an opinion...

[edit on 12-11-2009 by agentofchaos]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Most of the evidence points towards it... Whether you look in space, here on earth, in religions, or anywhere else, there's no denying that we're not alone.. You just need to know how to put the pieces together..



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


There is no need even posting to you any longer. You never ever address what I say or my questions to you and just keep posting the same thing over and over and over again.

You keep calling me a skeptic and debunker even though I keep telling you that I think aliens probably do exist and are visiting. I AM NOT A SKEPTIC OR DEBUNKER.

I am just trying to make a point that there is never evidence that something doesn't exist. You can have evidence that a UFO sighting was something other than an alien craft, but that is not evidence of aliens not existing. Thats just evidence that the incident in question was something else. You aren't getting this point.

A court case is about a single incident, and not the overall existence of something. The equivalent with aliens would be a court case concerning ONE SIGHTING or ABDUCTION. Not all of them together. And the evidence shown would be evidence that it WAS aliens, and then evidence it WAS something else. The evidence is always about what it was, not what doesn't exist since that evidence is impossible.

You just are refusing to even see this. I am not giving an opinion of how evidence works or debate works. These are the legal standards and debate standards. Hence why you should not be using the word evidence when talking about the overall premise of aliens or alien abductions not existing.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
Most of the evidence points towards it... Whether you look in space, here on earth, in religions, or anywhere else, there's no denying that we're not alone.. You just need to know how to put the pieces together..








posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
"Debating" a subject that requires "evidence" that something does not exist is impossible..... But then again that was stated right off the bat in this thread and was ignored. Since then its been an argument over arguing and not a debate.

This thread should be locked ASAP.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Teabags
"Debating" a subject that requires "evidence" that something does not exist is impossible..... But then again that was stated right off the bat in this thread and was ignored. Since then its been an argument over arguing and not a debate.

This thread should be locked ASAP.


You could not be more right. This is just another one of Matrix Rising's monthly Argument from Ignorance rants, wherein he tries to prove aliens are visiting the planet by proxy. Not by providing evidence these beings are coming here but by attacking skeptics. These threads should be locked the moment he makes them, combined with the numerous other threads where he has stated the same thing ad nauseum.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Of course these pseudoskeptics and debunkers want thread like these locked because it makes them look foolish and illogical.

Nobody has said anything about proving a negative and yes there's evidence for and against things. We debate evidence for and against the proposition all the time.

When your in a debate class, they will tell one group to debate for the proposition and the other group to debate against the proposition.

The problem is, there's no evidence against the proposition extraterrestrials/extradimensional beings exist and against visitation.

The pseudoskeptic and debunker has to keep these things out of the area of reason because they want all these possibilities to share the same probability of being true.

They want to be able to say it can be this or it can be that without any evidence. They have set up such an illogical strawman that they don't even realize how silly it sounds.

If you can debate against the proposition that extraterrestrial/extradimensional beings exist or against visitation then your in trouble.

I and others have listed evidence. Case after case after case that has been studied and investigated throughout the years.

The pseudoskeptics and debunkers are wanting the mods to shut down the thread.

It just takes a little logic to surmise that the pseudoskeptics and debunkers have nothing when you start to weigh the available evidence within reason.

This stops them from tossing out all kinds of illogical nonsense. The last thing the pseudoskeptics and debunkers want is to weigh the evidence within reason.

If you have to work with probabilities instead of any piossibility then the pseudoskeptic and debunker is lost and they want the mods to shut down the thread.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 

The video that sold me that it is real was the one run by NBC.

Confirmation - The hard evidence, are we alone ?


Google Video Link


Several cops chasing it at varying speed and direction tell me
that it is real, and the fact that it had no RADAR signature also
makes me think something is up.

I do not believe everything I hear from the UFO community,
but what was filmed from the shuttle, and the part with the
cops chasing it makes me think it is real.




top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join