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: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
...Can I debate against the existence of Santa Claus? Of course I can.

I can point to St. Nicholas also known as Nicholas of Myra as a model for Santa Claus.

Perhaps St. Nicholas of Myra patterned his life after Santa.


When I was 14, I used to help my father take toys downstairs and put them under the tree for my brother.

You and your brother were naughty, so Santa skipped your house. Your father felt bad for you and your brother, so he bought you presents.


I have never seen pictures and video of flying reindeer.

Being magical creatures, they don't show up on film.


I haven't seen accounts from astronauts, pilots, police and the military of flying reindeer.

www.noradsanta.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

NORAD says Santa exists. That's good enough for me.

********

Evidence that ET visitation/abduction is not occurring:

- People who said they were abducted are perhaps delusional or lying.

- Lights in the sky are satellites, human aircraft, and/or natural phenomena

- CGI, Hoaxes, etc...







[edit on 11/13/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]




posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Well if someone asked me what would be the strongest evidence to proove extraterrestrials exsist,i would say alien abductions.Some people would say alien abductions are not reguarded as proof of extraterrestrial exsistance.What about the description of the aliens themselfs.Many hundreads of different people from different countries from different back grounds have seen the same type of alien each time during alien abductions.The small body,the large head and big black eyes.That many people could not imagine thoses images .The odds that they are right as to what they have seen is the proof you need.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I never said, what's the evidence that extraterrestrials/extradimensional beings DON'T exist.


Not only is it the title of the thread but Matrix states it again in the opening post.


Originally posted by Matrix RisingWhat's the evidence and argument that supports reducing life in the galaxy to earth?


In other words, what is the evidence and argument that extraterrestrials don't exist?

Now, what Matrix will counter with will be a semantic argument. Then he will call me a pseudoskeptic/debunker for pointing this out. But it should be clear to everyone that either Matrix Rising is delusional or he is a liar. I'll let the reader decide.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Being magical creatures, they don't show up on film.


Don't be so sure!




Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
NORAD says Santa exists. That's good enough for me.


Now you really are like the worst sort of believer, twisting evidence to fit your needs!

Besides, there is still plenty more evidence for Santa. Millions of children believe in him, send him letters that are sometimes even answers. Many have claimed to have seen him and have been witness to the proverbial Christmas miracle. All of those people cannot be lying or insane or imagine it, can they? I am sure a pseudoskeptic/debunker like Matrix Rising will just say it's swamp gas or something.

This is fun. But what Matrix Rising doesn't realize is that he is not arguing against the existence of Santa but rather for Santa being a myth.







[edit on 11/13/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
You People (Disinfo Agents / Sceptics ) Demand evidnece ? How Hypocritical of you , after decades of the Swamp Gas lies , "Sleep Paralyis " (Which does not even exist)

You want Evidence ? Look around you



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


You have to be joking.

If you can't understand the difference between evidence against extraterrestrials and ectraterrestrial visitation and evidence that extraterrestrials don't exist, then your just playing dumb because the pseudoskeptic an debunker has an illogical position that can't be defended or you really don't know the difference and that's sad.

When I talked about reducing life in the galaxy to earth, it's because I'm debating for the proposition if you haven't figured that out yet.

Most pseudoskeptics and debunkers say there's a terrestrial explanation for all these things. I reject that because I don't see any reason to reduce life in the universe to earth.

It has nothing to do with proving a negative or providing evidence that extraterrestrials don't exist.

I understand why you want to debate against something I never said or claimed because pseudoskeptics and debunkers start with a silly premise so they want to debate against a silly premise.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


You are proving my point for me.

You don't even understand the point that I'm making because pseudoskeptics and debunkers are blinded by their illogical arguments.

It's called a reductio ad absurdum (look it up).

Only the pseudoskeptic and debunker would try to provide evidence that Santa exists LOL. This is too funny.

What I said had nothing to do with the existence of Santa but the illogical arguments of the pseudoskeptic.

That's why I started with, here's a hypothetical.

I had a feeling that pseudoskeptics would do this because their position is so illogical. They have to equate evidence about Santa with evidence for extraterrestrials because in the illogical world of the pseudoskeptic all possibilities have to have an equal probability of being true.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by fishspeaker
You People (Disinfo Agents / Sceptics ) Demand evidnece ? How Hypocritical of you , after decades of the Swamp Gas lies , "Sleep Paralyis " (Which does not even exist)


You're right. "Sleep Paralyis" doesn't exist. But Sleep Paralysis does. It is a very real medical condition that I am very familiar with, having suffered it my entire life.

Sleep Paralysis Information Service

Sleep Paralysis

It is one thing to disagree with explanations of sleep paralysis being responsible for alien abduction experiences. I will agree with you there. They are not at all similar except at the most rudimentary level. But it is another to deny an accepted medical phenomenon all together. That is not denying ignorance, it is embracing it.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


You have to be joking.

If you can't understand the difference between evidence against extraterrestrials and ectraterrestrial visitation and evidence that extraterrestrials don't exist...


Sorry, Matrix Rising. You asked both questions. We are not as dumb as you think we are. Have respect for your fellow members; don't lie to us when we can go back and catch you in that lie.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Most pseudoskeptics and debunkers say there's a terrestrial explanation for all these things. I reject that because I don't see any reason to reduce life in the universe to earth.


First, finding an terrestrial explanation for the UFO phenomenon does not reject the possibility of life in the universe. You are conflating the two positions. They are not one in the same.

Second, you have repeated ad nauseum that skeptics want to accept all possibilities equally. This is not true. Again, you are lying. A skeptic would not look at a UFO sighting an give equal weight to the possibility it is Peter Pan and the Lost Boys. This is ridiculous. Stop misrepresenting the skeptical position.

Third, you're position is based on a logical fallacy, the Argument from Personal Incredulity. You are rejecting possibilities simply because you cannot accept they may be possibilities.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
It has nothing to do with proving a negative or providing evidence that extraterrestrials don't exist.

I understand why you want to debate against something I never said or claimed...


You asked for evidence extraterrestrials don't exist. Don't try to lie to us.


Originally posted by Matrix RisingWhat's the evidence and argument that supports reducing life in the galaxy to earth?


I think, once again, we have shown Matrix Rising to be nothing but someone who has to lie to try to win arguments. Pathetic.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
You are proving my point for me.

You don't even understand the point that I'm making because pseudoskeptics and debunkers are blinded by their illogical arguments.

You don't seem to understand the point I'm making, which is that you can't prove a negative. It's impossible to provide evidence against the existence of Santa Claus just like it's impossible to provide evidence against all extraterrestrials and/or extraterrestrial visitation in general.

I have never said that extraterrestrial visitation is NOT happening (this would be trying to prove a negative). I have only said that there is no incontrovertible evidence that it IS happening. And, for the record, I personally believe that ETs do exist elsewhere in the universe (although I can't prove it, so I'm not going to "take a stand" that they do exist). However, I don't have enough clear evidence to make me believe they are visiting Earth.


Only the pseudoskeptic and debunker would try to provide evidence that Santa exists LOL. This is too funny.

This doesn't even make any sense...you said "only a pseudoskeptic and debunker would try to provide evidence that Santa exists"? Wouldn't the debunker be the one trying to prove Santa does NOT exist?


What I said had nothing to do with the existence of Santa but the illogical arguments of the pseudoskeptic.

Yeah -- I got that
...And my response had nothing to do with the existence of Santa but rather the illogical arguments of the person who wants me to prove a negative.


I had a feeling that pseudoskeptics would do this because their position is so illogical. They have to equate evidence about Santa with evidence for extraterrestrials because in the illogical world of the pseudoskeptic all possibilities have to have an equal probability of being true.

Ummm...did I miss something? Weren't you the one who brought this "Santa thought exercise" into the conversation (It was a thought exercise, wasn't it?)? I was simply rebutting and responding to your post about Santa in which YOU equated belief/non-belief in Santa to this argument about ET visitation.



[edit on 11/13/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg


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]


The only one 'blathering' about proof in this post is you.

I answered your question exactly, precisely, and accurately. There is no mincing words, no dancing around with concepts. If you can't find the answer, then you are either being disingenuous or are in majorly need of a reading comprehension course.

There are many purported photos of Big Foot. They are all direct evidence of his existence. None are proof unless they are proven to be not faked in any sense of the word.

There are many purported photos of UFOs. They are all direct evidence of the existence of UFOs. If one or more of these photos is proven to be not faked in any sense of the word, then it proves the existence of the object in the photo.

But none of the UFO photos, repeat none, zero, nada, are direct evidence of Extraterrestrial Origin of that object. Period.

If there is even 1 photo of Big Foot then there is more direct evidence of for BF than there is for a UFO's ET origin, because there is zero direct evidence for that.

Get it?

[edit on 14/11/2009 by rnaa]

[edit on 14/11/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by johnny2127
There is no such thing as evidence of something not existing. It is not even possible for that to exist.
Could you point me to the quotation where he asked someone to prove aliens do not exist? I might have overlooked, but it seems to me he merely wants to debate the merits of a particular point of view; e.g. why are some of the opinion that visitation is unlikely.


Read the thread title.

And the post you are responding to.

And your response.

Which one has the word proof in it?



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa

Read the thread title.

And the post you are responding to.

And your response.

Which one has the word proof in it?


OK then, I won't use the word "proof" or "prove":
"It is impossible to provide evidence for a negative.

How do you provide evidence that something/anything (in this case ET visitation) is NOT happening. You can't do that. Any and all evidence provided would be meaningless, so why provide it at all?

I will again cite the example of Carl Sagan's essay The Dragon in My Garage. In the case of this example, there is no evidence that can be introduced saying the Dragon does NOT exist that can't instantly be rebutted with "what ifs" and unconfirmable facts. This would be the same for trying to provide evidence against ET visitation, or providing evidence "against" the occurrence of any event (i.e., evidence for the negative).

The home owner in Sagan's essay says the dragon exists. Trying to provide evidence that it does NOT exist is pointless.

By the wat...most skeptics don't say ET visitation is 100% surely not happening. All they call into question is the evidence FOR specific alien visitation events. There is a difference.


[edit on 11/14/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Methinks you are misunderstanding the post you quoted.

We appear to be on the same side in this discussion.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
We have found liquid water on Mars, there's billions of earth like planets, we look at things like extremaphiles,extra dimensions, the multiverse and more.

Interesting.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Many hundreads of different people from different countries from different back grounds have seen the same type of alien each time during alien abductions.The small body,the large head and big black eyes.

hmm.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
If you notice the pseudoskeptics and debunkers keep trying to debate against something I never said.

You can look through all of my post and all of the threads I have started and you will not find anything about proving a negative or asking for evidence that extraterrestrials don't exist.

If you notice, the pseudoskeptics and debunkers are debating against these points that I never made because they can't debate the issue.

It's because they start with an illogical position so they want to debate against an illogical position.

Anyone with a shred of common sense knows debating against the proposition is not asking for evidence that something doesn't exist.

Either the pseudoskeptics and debunkers are playing dumb to protect their illogical position or they really don't know the difference and that's even worse.

You can watch a Larry King show and see people debating for and against the proposition that extraterrestrials exist and that we have been visited.

In these debates, nobody is "proving a negative" nobody is asking for evidence that they don't exist.

I saw a debate yesterday on 2012 as the end of the world. They had people debating for the proposition and against the proposition and nobody was trying to "prove a negative."

I recently saw a debate on life after death. There were people debating for the proposition that we survive death and there were people debating against the proposition.

I saw a debate between a person who accepts Copenhagen Interpretation vs someone who accepts many worlds and they debated for and against the proposition that parallel universes exist and nobody had to "prove a negative" and nobody asked for evidence that parallel universe don't exist. They debated the evidence for and against parallel universes. Nobody has evidence that parallel universe don't exist but you can debate against the existence of parallel universes to explain an observed phenomena. You can say we can explain these things through Copenhagen and we don't have to appeal to parallel universes. This is debating against parallel universes without providing evidence or proving that parallel universes don't exist.

I think the pseudoskeptic and debunker understands this on some level but they are so used to using this illogical standard when it comes to things like ufology and the paranormal.

We could never get anywhere if we couldn't follow the evidence and debate for and against the proposition.

Have you ever read the debates between Einstein and Neils Bohr? These debates helped shap quantum mechanics as Bohr debated for the proposition and Einstein debated against the proposition.

This led to things like the EPR Paradox and we wouldn't have a lot of the technology we have today if we didn't have these debates for and against the proposition.

They have debates for and against time travel and faster than light communication.

It's only when it comes to things like ufology or the paranormal, people want to set up and debate against an illogical standard.

This is because so much evidence has accumulated over the years.

Mass sightings and eyewitness accounts from pilots, police and more, radar reports, trace evidence, abduction cases, pictures, video and more.

Thousands and thousands of pages of evidence has accumulated over the years and the pseudoskeptic and debunker has to have this illogical standard. They can't weigh the evidence within reason as to what's more likely and what's less likely. They have to be able to say "it could be anything" this is because they have to give all possibilities the equal probability of being true.

This is why they want to debate against "proving a negative" or "evidence that extraterrestrials don't exist."

They want to debate these things because they can't debate against the proposition.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Methinks you are misunderstanding the post you quoted.

We appear to be on the same side in this discussion.


My point is that because there can ALWAYS be a rebuttal to evidence against the general existence of something (whether it be ET visitation, Bigfoot, or Carl Sagan's "Dragon in his Garage"). Therefore it is pointless to offer up such evidence. Without talking specifics, ALL evidence I can offer "against" a general phenomena can be rebutted.

However, I'm NOT saying that just because it is pointless to offer up evidence against ET visitation in general, that means that the ET visitation believers win the argument. I'm just saying that the argument "against" the existence of a general phenomena cannot be properly be conducted.

Hence, as I have been saying all along, it is pointless to try to provide evidence for a negative.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
...nobody is asking for evidence that they don't exist...

Can you reconcile that with the thread title:
"What's the evidence against extraterrestrials and or extraterrestrial visitation?"

You want me to provide evidence against ET visitation without providing evidence that ET visitation does not exist? How am I going to do that?


I saw a debate yesterday on 2012 as the end of the world. They had people debating for the proposition and against the proposition and nobody was trying to "prove a negative."

There is no possible way to to show that the world will not end in 2012. I don't believe it will, but I can't give you evidence that it won't. Therefore, the argument would be pointless.


I recently saw a debate on life after death. There were people debating for the proposition that we survive death and there were people debating against the proposition.
The people saying the life after death does NOT exist cannot possibly provide evidence for that claim that can't be rebutted -- so it is pointless for them to have the debate.


There is rarely the skeptic who says the general blanket statement "there are NO extraterrestrial visitations happening." The great majority of skeptics only look for the faults and flaws in specific cases.

You're looking for the rare pig-headed skeptic who says "it is impossible to travel faster than light" or "if they were here, it would be public knowledge". Both of those arguments can easily be rebutted (because they are trying to give evidence for a negative), but those rebuttals are not evidence FOR ET visitation, either.



[edit on 11/14/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


This is because you don't understand how debates work or you are just playing dumb to protect the illogical standards of the pseudoskeptic.

People debate for and against the existence of parallel universes without proving a negative.

People debate for and against the existence of extra dimensions without proving a negative.

People debate for and against the existence of psychic ability without proving a negative.

People debate for and against the existence of mediums without proving a negative.

People debate for and against the existence of time travel without proving a negative.

People debate for and against the existence of faster than light communication without proving a negative.

People debate for and against the existence of the chupacabra without proving a negative.

The pseudoskeptic and debunker has to debate against proving a negative or proving that extraterrestrials don't exist because they start with an illogical argument so they want to debate against an illogical argument that was never made.

This is because they want to avoid weighing the evidence within reason as to what's most likely and what's less likely.




top topics



 
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join