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

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


You said:

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.

Where did I ever claim that I was going to prove the existence of extraterrestrials?

You do this time and time again. I never said I was going to prove anything to you or anyone else. I'm talking about weighing the available evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely, I never said anything about proving extraterrestrials exist.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


I read your OP and was going to give you a long reply, but you obviously know what I was going to say and what I think so why bother?

I've been around this site for quite a long time and I have yet to come across any skeptical person who outright dismisses the idea of alien life. Your OP seems very indicative that you are frustrated by the requests for irrefutable evidence. That evidence doesn't exist and it seems that you're redirecting your frustration toward the skeptics. Skeptics aren't what you're making them out to be.

What I do see around this site, and have for years is the group of ppl who post everything from birds to planes and call them aliens.

The other group is the rational and thorough group who tries to rule out any other explanation first. This is the group that will ultimately help the believers if the best evidence ever surfaces.

The skeptic bashing has gotten a little out of control. When ppl ask for proof they get attacked sometimes and labeled non believer.
We have to seperate fact from belief to begin with. That's the problem with the entire field.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


"They already believe that extraterrestrials and or extradimensional beings don't exist."

No many of us understand very clearly that the probability of extraterrestrial is very high. (99.4% IMO)

This does not mean we are going to believe complete garbage images/YouTube videos is proof of a visiting ET.

Most of the "evidence" you speak of is really bad, anyone that takes 2 minutes to think about what they are looking at will see this.

I am guessing 99% of the videos/images fit into this category. The problem is people want to believe it is real so they do not think rationally. Not that skeptics are to fast to judge.

Most U.F.O sceptics are not open to the evidence because the evidence is usually always crap. Take me for instance, I love sci-fi, I love technology and I do believe there is life elsewhere in the universe based on statistics and probability e.c.t. You'd think that that'd make me a prime candidate to believe that aliens have visited earth wouldn't you? But no, even though I'd love it to be true I just can't believe they've been here, there's just no proof, nothing at all substancial, most believers base their belief on faith. I do agree there are unexplainable sightings in the world but that doesn't make those sights alien, just unexplainable, they could be optical illusions or hallucinations or rare natural events or secret government craft. Saying that, I do look at the sky a lot, just to see if I might see something that would change my belief and also because it's mesmerising and tranquil.

reply to post by Matrix Rising
My gods.. how did I know it was MR again with this unmittigated attack on skeptics.. why is it the believers are usually the ones questioning this guy???? dude , you dont provide evidence you proved cases that were inconclusive.. just because the investigators didnt find the CIA behind all these cases does not mean the military was not involved any more than it means it was definitely aliens.

reply to post by nophun


no I would say you're being generous... I believe probably 2 out of 100 are real.. the rest are bullox!

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
When the skeptic asks for evidence it's a joke.

That first line pretty well sums up your attitude.

Look around, MR. What do you see?

Perhaps a computer monitor, your mobile phone? A TV? Some walls, the ceiling, other furniture? A window, through which you can see the sky, trees, other houses, people, animals, cars, an aircraft flying overhead?

Tangible. Provable. Verifiable. Duplicatable. The science behind them is all there, easily researched. Every single one of those things are in all four categories. Tell us how many things you see that aren't tangible, provable, verifiable or duplicatable?

Are you spotting the tiny-weeny difference between reality and an alien spacecraft claim?

Now, it's possible that fairies built your computer. But there are better explanations, yes? Indeed, by doing a bit of healthy research, you can almost eliminate the fairy possibility...

When you point at a video of lights in the sky, its possible that it's an alien spacecraft.

Or fairies! Do you deny that fairies could be responsible? On what basis???

I know, as someone who is adept at photo- and video-graphy, what happens when you try to capture lights at night. Many others do too. So when we look at most of the evidence, we chuckle, point out the flaming obvious, and move on. Or try to. In the hope that somewhere, sometime, maybe we will finally be visited by the almost inevitable alien life.

But in the meantime, I'm absolutely sick to death of seeing the same old garbage posted by naive amateurs who wouldn't know a camera lens from their... Then there's the new wave of CGI, now that such software is relatively affordable..

You, it appears, would prefer we just accepted it. Yep, that one's an alien. That one too, and yeah, that one over there. Whoopee. Don't worry that it looks exactly like lens bokeh, or digital zoom, or an aircraft on approach.

It's an alien. They always look like that...

And where exactly does that put you, when the author admits they don't have a clue what they shot, or that it was a hoax, or if someone then shows a close duplicate of the image/s, but is able to easily demonstrate earthly origins?

Why is it that almost every one of these videos and images is not duplicated by anyone else, and is not shot in a crowded situation with lots of witnesses. You know, credible ones?

Anyway, why not make this useful. MR, post your VERY BEST incontrovertible evidence of alien visitation. And then I'll happily explain why I think it does not fall into the Tangible - Provable - Verifiable -Duplicatable categories. Probably ALL of them...

And if you can debate otherwise, you win!

Now, I'm betting you won't like that competition, so why not be precise and set your own rules and see who will play?

Tell us, in detail, what standards of proof you use. Not just for this, but for anything. I have a bridge to sell you - I can show you a video to prove it is real...

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Where did I ever claim that I was going to prove the existence of extraterrestrials?

You do this time and time again. I never said I was going to prove anything to you or anyone else. I'm talking about weighing the available evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely, I never said anything about proving extraterrestrials exist.

Notice Matrix's obtuse response. Of course I was not addressing what he said, but rather his actions and intentions. Now, Matrix Rising will respond that I am misrepresenting his intentions and that I have no way of knowing them beyond what he says. However, he is not self-aware enough to realize he is making this exact claim about skeptics. In a response to Greeneyedleo, he says...

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
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.

He is not addressing what skeptics say, but the intentions of skeptics. Also, it demonstrates my earlier point about Matrix Rising's closed-mindedness. It does not matter what skeptics say or do, Matrix Rising already has his mind made up about them. As he says about skeptics, he is starting from a priori.

Notice too that he does not respond to any questions, nor does he respond in a way that promotes a thoughtful discussion. Instead, he lectures and addresses other members in the most obtuse terms. He is not self-aware enough to realize in doing this he is proving our points.

For example, when I asked him for evidence to back up his claims that skeptics don't believe extraterrestrials don't exist and that skeptics called Dr. Mitchell senile or a liar, he ignored it just as I predicted.

As another example, when Greeneyedleo cautioned that many times hardcore believers refuse to acknowledge there is often mundane explanations for UFO sightings, Matrix Rising not only refused to acknowledge this, he outright vehemently attacked the idea there are terrestrial explanations.

Matrix's response to Greeneyedleo also illustrates my earlier point about Matrix believing he does not have to rely on evidence. When gives Greeneyedleo his "evidence" that UFOs are extraterrestrial, he does not give evidence but a list of cases, all but three are just names and dates. This demonstrates Matrix does not believe any evidence is required, he thinks the claim is evidence enough and should be taken at face value without question.

To be sure, Matrix Rising does not want debate, he does not want discussion. He wants agreement. These constant threads of his assailing skeptics are not meant to provoke thought but rather make someone who is insecure in his beliefs feel better about himself.

It warms my heart to see everyone, skeptic and believer, can see right through Matrix Rising.

No problem with skeptics. I am a skeptic of visitations myself, though, I have been researching for 16 years now. The problem we have are disinformation and all around hoaxers. I believe we have been visited but I can't say for definite. Skeptics just want hard evidence. A big problem of this is most don't know of the star child which I believe is as much evidence as anyone needs. But you really can't blame em.

Originally posted by Subz949
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.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by Subz949]

Mirchell did offer evidence, he offered his testimony about his buddies in the know. He told about being briefed on the situation by people with clearance to know.
This is in fact "evidence" of course this is if you trust Mitchell being an honest person.
I trust him implicitly because he is one of the few real Americans with integrity. He is a good man worthy of trust plain and simple.

The smart and wise people know this already. The people with the negative agenda don't like it...

reply to post by antideceit


Great point.

Edgar Mitchell is not Jack Smith that lives next door so what he says has to be given more weight. Mitchell can call up the Joint Chiefs of Staff and get them on the phone. He can call the President and get a call back. So you have to give more weight to what he's saying over Jack Smith who lives next door.

The skeptics did everything they could to try to discredit Mitchell and they actually say what Mitchell said didn't mean anything. That doesn't make any sense.

In a court room, you give more weight to the Forensic expert because of his background and experiience. Now if Jack Smith from next door were to take the stand and talk about Forensics nobody would give his testimony any weight because he's the Manager at an Insurance company not a Forensic specialist. This is just common sense.

So when Mitchel said this:

Edgar Dean Mitchell, who flew on the 1971 Apollo 14 mission to the moon, says there is extraterrestrial life, and that it´s being concealed by the United States government, among others.

During Mitchell´s presentation he explained that, having grown up in Roswell, New Mexico, the site of disputed UFO crash in 1947. Mitchell says he and other members of his community were told by military authorities not to talk about it. But witnesses "didn´t want to go to the grave with their story. They wanted to tell somebody reliable. And being a local boy and having been to the moon, they considered me reliable enough to whisper in my ear their particular story." Mitchell claims, they eventually want the story out, and he is viewed as a credible messenger because of his resume.

Mitchell claimed he used his highly-regarded status to speak confidentially with a Pentagon admiral, who confirmed the UFO crash at Roswell. He claims he has since spoken to government officials from three different countries who say they have had contact with aliens. He is now calling for NASA and the government to stop hiding evidence of alien contact and start being honest with the American public.

Mitchell as a Navy officer achieved a Doctor of Science degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a Bachelor of Science degree in aeronautical engineering from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. He also holds honorary doctorates from the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, New Mexico State University, the University of Akron, and Carnegie Mellon University.

www.americanchronicle.com...

Is this proof that extraterrestrials exist? No. Is this evidence that supports extraterrestrial visitation? Absolutely!

You can't "prove" that matter exists because nobody has ever touched matter. You can't "prove" that you have an objective existence. You can be in a Holographic or Virtual universe. There's only evidence to support different theories that you can weigh within reason as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

The skeptics don't weigh the evidence. They are not open to the evidence.

If you believe the skeptics are open to the evidence, then I own a Great Wall to sell you in China.

This is what James Randi said about Mitchell.

Go on any “skeptic” forum and you’ll soon be accused of using ad homs but ah, the skepti-bunkie sees nothing wrong in using insults and sneering slams. Here’s the title of Randi’s bit on Edgar Mitchell:

Lunar Astronaut Still Deluded and Spaced-Out,

in which Randi calls Mitchell’s recent comments about UFOs and aliens “the latest nonsense.”

Randi’s aversion to Mitchell makes sense, given Randi’s pathological obsession with Uri Geller, as we find in reading this piece. According to Randi, it’s all because of Edgar Mitchell that Uri Geller is so famous and such a thorn in the side of skepticism. (the Phil he refers to is uber skeptic Phil Plait):

Agreed, Mitchell is an all-time American hero, but as I reminded Phil, he’s also been one of the major purveyors and supporters of top-level woo-woo. It was Mitchell who “discovered” spoon-bender Uri Geller when Geller was only a cabaret performer doing his run-of-the-mill “psychic” tricks for teeny-boppers in Israel, assisted by Hannah Shtrang – who later became his wife – and Shipi Shtrang, her brother, who still works as his assistant. Mitchell actually travelled to Israel and arranged for Geller to come to the USA and be studied at the Stanford Research Institute – later to be re-named SRI International. Two physicists there, apparently awed by meeting a genuine Lunar Astronaut, chose to believe that such a hero couldn’t be wrong, that Geller was therefore the real thing, and Geller’s career took off. It’s safe to say that without Edgar Mitchell’s naivety, we’d have been spared the advent of the Geller Delusion.

www.authorsden.com...

Again, the skeptic doesn't weigh the evidence, they try to ridicule or knocked down the evidence.

Mitchell hasn't said this in isolation. There's other astronauts, pilots, high rankinging government officials, police officers and more who say the same thing.

If you notice the skeptics on this thread have not debated the issue or the evidence, they just make these general, meaningless statements.

Here's some more evidence.

Bill Chalker is one of Australia’s leading UFO researchers and the author of The OZ Files: The Australian UFO Story and Hair of the Alien: DNA and Other Forensic Evidence of Alien Abduction.

Bill's personal 'top ten' regional Australasian case list...

1. 31 August 1954 Sea Fury case, near Goulbourn, NSW, Australia (experienced naval pilot, radar visual confirmation, independent ground witnesses, apparent intelligent responses to witnesses’ thoughts about possible collision)

2. 23 July 1992 Peter Khoury “Hair of Alien” DNA case, Sydney, Australia (abduction-type encounter with female Nordic blonde yields anomalous hair sample that suggests “hybrid origin” and unusual genetic profiles)

3. 27 June 1959 Father Gill UFO entity sighting, Boianai, Papua New Guinea (credible multiple-witness sighting of animate entities on UFO with intelligent interactions)

4. 30 September 1980 George Blackwell’s UFO landing and physical trace case, Rosedale, Victoria, Australia (compelling array of physical evidence – ground trace, missing water, effects on witness, other witness)

5. 8 August 1993 Kelly Cahill’s abduction experience, Narre Warren North, Victoria, Australia (possible independent multiple-witness UFO encounter with abduction aspects and physical evidence)

6. 19 January 1966 George Pedley’s UFO nest encounter, Tully, Queensland, Australia (daylight close encounter with UFO take-off leaving physical evidence – “UFO nest”)

7. 14 April 1966 Ron Sullivan’s “bent headlight beam” experience, Burkes Flat, Victoria, Australia (striking UFO encounter, physical traces, bent light beams, possible related fatalities)

8. 6 April 1966 Westall school daylight UFO landing encounter, Westall, Victoria, Australia (multiple-witness daylight landing, physical traces, “cover-up” dimensions)

9. 1977–78 Gisborne UFO abduction milieu, Gisborne, New Zealand (complex and high strangeness UFO and abduction milieu – entities, multiple witnesses, multiple abductions)

10. May – August 1973 Tyringham Dundurrabin intense UFO flap area, New South Wales, Australia (long-term intense UFO flap, multiple witnesses, physical effects, paranormal aspects)

churchofcriticalthinking.org...

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Matrix Rising]

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. 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.

Wow, that's horrible.

Give me an example of a skeptic who accused Mitchell of lying.

Oh, yeah, give me proof that it happened -- like, a link to a web story quoting that nasty-minded skeptic.

One example with documentation, please?

Originally posted by JimOberg
Wow, that's horrible.

Give me an example of a skeptic who accused Mitchell of lying.

Oh, yeah, give me proof that it happened -- like, a link to a web story quoting that nasty-minded skeptic.

One example with documentation, please?

He's already been asked before to provide evidence to support his claim and he has refused. He does not believe he needs to provide evidence; you should take him at his word. Matrix probably saw comments disagreeing with Mitchell and read into them his own prejudices, equating disagreement with ad hominems.

Even if Matrix were able to provide this evidence, it will only demonstrate his closed-mindedness. There may have been a skeptic or skeptics that called Dr. Mitchell such things, however that is not indicative of what all skeptics think.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

There is a very important question we have neglected to ask Matrix Rising, though I doubt he will answer it, seeing as how he ignores questions.

What does it matter?

So what if skeptics don't accept your beliefs? If you already consider them closed-minded and unwilling to consider the evidence, how does that affect you?

reply to post by Matrix Rising


UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object. A UFO is anything that flies which we can't indentify. It remains so until we indentify it as something. That's a UFO and there's lots of photographic evidence of them. There is however no photographic evidence of crafts piloted by extraterrestrial beings period.

Evidence?

Isn't it possible that there is evidence that lies beyond the scope of general human recognition?

We talk about extra terrestrial intelligence like there is some kind of galactic standard. What the I in SETI stands for might turn out be many orders of magnitude more complex than we are capable of assimilating.

We have all heard the primitive food chain analogy where it is argued that humans believe they are at the top of the food chain because they cannot assimilate any entity above them.

Intelligence is not necessarily created in ones own image. As a simple example there could be telepathic connections within a group of humans that creates a huge distributed processing Beowolf cluster.

Originally posted by cripmeister
UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object. A UFO is anything that flies which we can't indentify. It remains so until we indentify it as something. That's a UFO and there's lots of photographic evidence of them. There is however no photographic evidence of crafts piloted by extraterrestrial beings period.

Watch...Matrix Rising is going to respond by first calling you a pseudoskeptic and closed-minded, saying you want to debate possibilities instead of probabilities and evidence. Then he will post a list of sightings, the ones he's already posted twice in this thread. They will be little more than dates and locations and claim that is evidence aliens are visiting the Earth.

From the thread I posted a link to in my first response...

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The main trait of a pseudoskeptic and a debunker is they have to debate against absolutes.

Notice how in this thread he is doing the same thing he accuses skeptics of. He is reducing skeptics to an absolute. It is not "some skeptics do this" he is attacking skeptics as a whole, as an absolute. He's not self-aware to notice his hypocrisy.