Most U.F.O. skeptics are not open to the evidence

When the skeptic asks for evidence it's a joke. They already believe that extraterrestrials and or extradimensional beings don't exist. Many of them will not come out and say this because they know how closed minded it will look.

So the skeptic will say, I'm open to the evidence. If anyone believes this, I also own a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

Most skeptics are not open to the evidence. They are hostile to any evidence. This is because they start with the priori that extraterrestrial and or extradimensional beings don't exist.

For instance, when Edgar Mitchell talked about extraterrestrials, the skeptics didn't say let's examine what he's saying. The skeptics didn't weigh the evidence. The skeptics called him a senile old man and accused him of lying. They were not interested or open to any evidence. They were only interested in trying to muddy the waters and they tried to discredit Edgar Mitchell.

When evidence is presented, it's a kite, weather balloon, the person was mistaken or they are lying. The skeptic has already made up their mind that there has to be a "natural" explanation for these things.

This is because they presuppose that extraterrestrial and or extradimensional beings are not "natural" explanations.

The skeptic is not open to the evidence, they are looking to knock down the evidence.

It's easy to knock down evidence when you just throw out any possibility and consider it as counter evidence.

The skeptic will say:

It's a bird
It's a weather balloon
It's a kite
The person is lying
The person is mistaken
There has to be a "natural" explanation

Think about how illogical this is. There will never be any evidence for most skeptics. No matter how compelling the evidence is, they can always say,"there has to be a natural explanation."

This is because the debate needs to be focused on probability not any possibility. What's the probable explanation based on the available evidence. It makes no sense to debate against any possibility. This is because any possibility can be thrown out and the skeptic will give more weight to wild speculation over the evidence.

For instance, I'm skeptical about U.F.O. abduction cases until I examine the evidence and then my skepticism gives way to logic and reason. I then weigh the evidence within reason as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

Some cases I see as hoaxes and others are solid evidence that supports alien abductions.

Most skeptics will never weigh the evidence. They will remain in possibility land because if all else fails they will say,"there has to be a natural explanation."

reply to post by Matrix Rising


I think this where the waters get muddied - for example, Edgar Mitchell. You say the sceptics ignored the evidence, But to be fair Mr Mitchell didn't offer any evidence, and never claimed that he did. He offered his opinion based on his experiences, which he is entitled too, and is as valid an opinion as anybody elses. There was no evidence to look at, just his opinion.

I understand the frustrations with some sceptics, and the way some just ignore anything offered to them, but again that is down to the believer to offer a higher standard of proof that can't be ignored. If the evidence is personnel, or more subjective, therefore can't be pulled apart and tested for evidence, then that should be admitted, rather then claiming it's actual evidence to convince a sceptic. I think both sides would get a lot further if this happened.


[edit on 31-1-2010 by Subz949]

There's the skeptic and there's the anti-believer. They just hate believers, believers drive them nuts. And what they hate the most is, when one of the believer's theory is actually close to the truth. That's when you can actually see them frantically trying to pass their speculations as the truth.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising

Some cases I see as hoaxes and others are solid evidence that supports alien abductions.

It's all a matter of personal opinion though, isn't it? "Solid evidence that supports alien abductions" still isn't proof.

Evidence can support or refute a possible conclusion, and doesn't always necessarily "prove" anything one way or the other. Evidence abounds for all sorts of things. It still has to be vetted for plausibility, and a subjective call gets made about conclusions.

It's been my experience that some of the most hardcore "debunkers" are that way because they do believe (and may be first hand experiencers), and grow increasingly impatient and disgusted at some of the more ridiculous stories and "evidence" that people try to pass as real. A lot of that crap is what causes the stigma with the topic and the reason it isn't taken as seriously as it should be.

Ha ha
The sceptic might well say the same of believers. Some are so desperate to believe, they seem to lose all judgement.
Well I prefer to use the term 'engaging the brain' rather than sceptism.
Take for example, the rash of UFO sightings around midnight on New Years Eve. It seems the aliens had come to wish us seasons greetings in craft disguised as Chinese lanterns!
As for alien sightings and abductions, why is it so sacrilegious to consider whether the person may be delusional or mistaken? Or maybe just after notoriety or a quick buck?
It's kinda cool to think that aliens might be out there and visiting us and I would quite like to believe. But I would need convincing that someone was not barking mad, mistaken or that they didn't have another agenda. With 60 billion people on this planet you would think there would be a lot more 'proof' out there if it was so.
I'm still waiting.

It will always be this way. People always have their mind made up before the conversation even starts. Myself included.





One says, I can show u a stack of evidence this high, the other well I can show you a stack this high that proves you wrong.

Sorry graphics won't work.



[edit on 31-1-2010 by timewalker]

im a skeptiic, and I'm open to evidence. The main reason I'm a sceptic is because most the evidence isn't worth its weight in dirt.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The skeptic will say:

It's a bird
It's a weather balloon
It's a kite
The person is lying
The person is mistaken

Think about how illogical this is.

It's illogical to try and explain blurry photographs that have 6 or 7 dark pixels with something that actually exists? I always thought it was illogical to jump to the conclusion that they are UFO's manned by aliens from outer space. But I guess you are right, assuming that these 6 or 7 dark pixels is a space alien from outer Mars is the only logical choice.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by beaverg]

I have to completely 100% disagree with you.

Ive been here over 2 years and I have NEVER read here on ATS anyone who does not believe that there is life outside of Earth.

In fact, it seems it is the hard core Alien/UFO believers who refuse to listen to logic and evidence presented that something is not of alien origin. So many people just refuse to believe that there are birds, balloons, trash, planes and other Earthly things flying around in the skies or even stars/planets and satellites above Earth. Absolutely refuse to believe it. Some actually believe that every single light in the sky is an alien UFO. Other believe that every single blur or dust particle caught in a photo is some alien or supernatural entity.

Sometimes, the truth is boring and explainable. And people just dont like this.

I see thread after thread of people posting absolute crap or posting very questionable things. As soon as an explanation is given or someone does some research and presents why questionable object is of human origin, the die hard believers start calling names and trashing the evidence presented.

I am here every day and I really see a completely different picture than you.

Majority of people here believe life exists outside of our little planet. But IMO, most people choose to use logic and analyze first - before claiming "alien origin" first.

[edit on January 31st 2010 by greeneyedleo]

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
I have to completely 100% disagree with you.

Ive been here over 2 years and I have NEVER read here on ATS anyone who does not believe that there is life outside of Earth.

In fact, it seems it is the hard core Alien/UFO believers who refuse to listen to logic and evidence presented that something is not of alien origin. So many people just refuse to believe that there are birds, balloons, trash, planes and other Earthly things flying around in the skies or even stars/planets and satellites above Earth. Absolutely refuse to believe it. Some actually believe that every single light in the sky is an alien UFO. Other believe that every single blur or dust particle caught in a photo is some alien or supernatural entity.

Sometimes, the truth is boring and explainable. And people just dont like this.

I see thread after thread of people posting absolute crap or posting very questionable things. As soon as an explanation is given or someone does some research and presents why questionable object is of human origin, the die hard believers start calling names and trashing the evidence presented.

I am here every day and I really see a completely different picture than you.

Majority of people here believe life exists outside of our little planet. But IMO, most people choose to use logic and analyze first - before claiming "alien origin" first.

[edit on January 31st 2010 by greeneyedleo]

Nail on hammer. Some of the ridiculous things posted on this site keeps me laughing for days. My favorite are the kids who post world weekly news articles hoping there is some truth to them. One person posted a tape of a plane taking off at night asking if it was an authentic ufo.

NUKE PANDORA!!!!!

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
Majority of people here believe life exists outside of our little planet. But IMO, most people choose to use logic and analyze first - before claiming "alien origin" first.

It's not about the majority, it's about the small portion that is quite radical from either side. Regarding the silly thread that is just too hardcore, doesn't the grey area exist precisely for that purpose? I just don't see any problem there.

Originally posted by Jazzyguy

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
Majority of people here believe life exists outside of our little planet. But IMO, most people choose to use logic and analyze first - before claiming "alien origin" first.

It's not about the majority, it's about the small portion that is quite radical from either side. Regarding the silly thread that is just too hardcore, doesn't the grey area exist precisely for that purpose? I just don't see any problem there.

No, the Gray Area exists for:

The Gray Area is a discussion forum that provides a dedicated area for members to post their confessions, disclosures, and related extraordinary personal experiences. Like the highly speculative Skunk Works forum, The Gray Area will tolerate topics that may be unusually hypothetical or unproven for the purpose of vetting the stories of thread-starters by the ATS membership at large.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Matrix Rising, I have a hypothetical for you.

Being mischievous, I get a bright Idea to light a road flare and tie it to a balloon and let it go out into the sky.

My neighbor comes over and tells me he has proof of alien space craft floating in the air above the neighborhood. He tells me he saw lights, he saw the object rotating and he even had seen what he thought were two almond shaped eyes in the middle of the bright object in the sky.

I then proceed to inform him that this was just a flare I sent up into the sky on a balloon and what the neighbor had seen was false. I even showed him the video I took of the flare being lit and tying it on the balloon and letting it float up into the air.

The neighbor got angry all of a sudden and called me a skeptic, "one of those dang debunkers" and stated I would not listen to his evidence and that I refused to accept his evidence as proof.

Now I then felt bad for the guy because it actually was my flare on a balloon and my neighbor really felt that it was an alien spacecraft. I was vilified for explaining to him that this was not in fact what he had perceived.

Now what is the right thing to do here. If my neighbor comes to me with the story of the alien spaceship flying above the neighborhood , should I be the skeptic and debunker and let him in on the fact and spoil his theroy? Or should I let him be, and respect his right to be ignorant about the situation and allow him to forever believe he did see the alien craft.

I think it all boils down to if one cares enough, they will help you explain it.

If one does not care at all, they will not help you and allow you to go down your path of believing what you perceive.

And again this is just hypothetical.

if we could leave the anti and pro ufo/alien/artifical structures etc. discussion behind us and just open our minds for possibilities ,life becomes a truly mindblowing adventure.after a couple of years of searching on the internet for evidence and also reading all sorts of literature on the topic my intuition tells me we are not alone but live amongst countless other civilizations(whatever they may look like).Of course my scientific mind is questioning this all the time which gives me the necessary balance to be just OPEN.
I know(intuition now)that it will happen in my lifetime and I also know that the ones who were so strongly against this will be the first to lift their hands to shout out"I"ve always told you so!"
Far more interesting will be how we live after having evidence.

Matrix, I am skeptical of some claims you made...

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
This is because they start with the priori that extraterrestrial and or extradimensional beings don't exist.

Could you please provide evidence of this being the case? Provide quotes from scientists and skeptics proclaiming that aliens do not exist.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
For instance, when Edgar Mitchell talked about extraterrestrials, the skeptics didn't say let's examine what he's saying. The skeptics didn't weigh the evidence. The skeptics called him a senile old man and accused him of lying.

Again, could you provide evidence of this? Provide quotes from skeptics that called Dr. Mitchell senile or a liar.

Here's the thing. Matrix won't provide the evidence for his claims. He will repeat the points of his opening-post, often word for word, and repeat the claims he made, but he will never give us the evidence for such claims. Because he doesn't believe it necessary, as seen below...

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
When the skeptic asks for evidence it's a joke. They already believe that extraterrestrials and or extradimensional beings don't exist.

Frustrated he cannot prove the existence of extraterrestrials via the evidence, he instead turns on skeptics. He seeks to proves aliens are visiting the Earth by proxy, not by letting the evidence speak for himself and defending it, but by proving the skeptics wrong. He has confused the two as being synonymous.

To be certain, it is not simply skeptics he is after, but anyone who exercises critical thinking. To Matrix there is no need to provide evidence, the claim enough. As shown in the above quote, anyone who asks for evidence can be dismissed as closed-minded. A close-reading shows that Matrix Rising is exercising the exact same bias and prejudice he accuses skeptics of.

I'd recommend that no one engage Matrix Rising. He is not an honest debater. To see what kind of debater he really is, please review this thread.

GREENEYEDLEO: Matrix makes one of these invectives against skeptics at least once a month. This latest contains no new information nor opinions. Surely there is not a need for another. Can it be merged with one of his earlier threads on the subject?

[edit on 31-1-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

reply to post by silversurfer6161


I agree that skeptic vs. believer is a false dichotomy. However, people like Matrix need that false dichotomy. It is born of an insecurity.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Of course you disagree with me because you didn't read my post or you misunderstood it.

Of course skeptics are open to the possibility but that's a meaningless statement to make them look open minded. They know if they were to say they are not open to the possibility they will look closed minded.

Being open to the possibility is meaningless. This is because debating possibilities is meaningless in the context of the evidence that's presented.

It's about weighing the available evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely not any and every possibility.

Saying there has to be a natural explanation or it could be anything is meaningless in the context of the evidence.

We always come to a conclusion based on the available evidence. This is why a Jury doesn't prove guilt or innocence. A Jury finds the defendant guilty or not guilty based on the available evidence. This is why you have appeals in case new evidence comes to light that can change the verdict.

This happens in all walks of life. Evidence will be presented on this board and the skeptic will debate possibility not the evidence.

Here's some evidence:

Glowing, Egg-Shaped Object:
Parker and Hickson were good friends, and often fished together. They were both living in the town of Gautier, Mississippi. On one particular night, they were fishing the waters of the Pascagoula River, when they heard a strange sound... a type of buzzing. The two men immediately turned to see what the source of the strange noise was. They were shocked to see an egg-shaped object with bluish front lighting. The object was only a few feet above the water, and about ten yards from the two frightened fishermen.

Three Strange Beings:
While they sat stunned, looking at the weird flying machine, a door opened in the UFO, and to their utter amazement, three beings of unknown origin began to float toward the two. The beings did have legs, but did not use them-they literally floated across the water toward Hickson and Parker. The two fishermen would later attempt to describe what the beings looked like "... 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."

Harder and Hynek did a lot of the investigative work together. The two well-known researchers first interviewed the two fishermen together. Harder tried to do regressive hypnosis on Hickson, but the abductee was so frightened, that the hypnosis was stopped. To get things off on solid ground, both of the witnesses took polygraph tests, and both passed without a problem. Harder and Hynek both believed that the two tormented men were telling the truth.
Esteemed UFO researcher J. Allen Hynek would proclaim that "... there was definitely something here that was not terrestrial."

ufos.about.com...

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...

Physical trace reports were labeled Close Encounters of the Second Kind (CE-II) by J.Allen Hynek and involve instances where there was a physical interaction between the UFO and its environment. Usually these involve a landing trace, such as depressed grass or soil, but also burned or broken vegetation, residues, and more exotic traces. There are at least somewhere between 3,500 and 5,000 UFO physical trace cases.

www.ufoevidence.org...

There's much more. I'm talking about evidence not debating possibilities.

It makes no sense to debate,"There has to be a natural explanation" or "It could be anything."

Again, there will not be any evidence that's good enough under these conditions. This is because no matter how compelling the evidence is, the skeptic can always label say it could be anything.

That's like a police officer saying,"I'm not going to come to a conclusion because there's other possibilities." If this were the case then there wouldn't be any crimes solved. The Detective looks at the available evidence and then uses reason as to what's most likely and what's less likely. If a Husband's Wife goes missing and the Husband is acting strange, he gets a lawyer and family members are saying alarming things about him, the Officer is not going to look at the neighbor. This doesn't show the Husband is guilty but the Detective is going to weigh the availble evidence instead of debating any and every possibility.

This can also occur with Ufology because there's tons of evidence to weigh as to what's most likely and what's less likely based on the available evidence.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Well give us 2 or 3 of your best bits of evidence and lets see what us skeptics said about them so we can discuss the pros and cons of each

Hi, UFO watchers.

If any one is not oppen to this:
www.disclosureproject.org...

then forget the "one", you will lose your time on him. . .

Blue skies.

reply to post by Matrix Rising




Here's one from the liivingmoon they claim its a spaceship

www.thelivingmoon.com...

What do you say