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

reply to post by Matrix Rising


When I first read your post, I was like...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/054f547eb3c9.jpg[/atsimg]

But then I was totally like...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d8854c4476fe.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


Humor will not help you escape how silly you look.

Again, your making it up as you go.

I'm just telling you that words have meaning. If you don't understand what I'm saying, I suggest you look up the words.



[edit on 15-2-2010 by Matrix Rising]

Originally posted by nonconformist
reply to post by Jazzyguy

 

i agree its like the moment belivers come forth with proof or evidence we are quickly dismissed as crazies, and it drives them nuts because they are scared that the belivers are right but ,they dont want to admitt it out of their fear of being wrong, they are nieve to think we are the only ones in the universe and i think that ,that is what scares them so because deep down inside they really do belive that there is something out there greater or smarter than man

Good points.

Many skeptics have convinced themselves that those who accepth these things do so absent any evidence.

They think people just wake up one day and accept these things out of the blue.

People examine and weigh the evidence and then draw a conclusion.

As more evidence accumulates, the skeptics position looks weak.

Everytime you look around, you are getting more signs of liquid water, conditions for life and signs of life.

As well as abduction cases, pictures, trace evidence, mass sightings, video, radar reports and more.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


TOTALLY OFF TOPIC

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by Matrix Rising

 

When I first read your post, I was like...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/054f547eb3c9.jpg[/atsimg]

But then I was totally like...

TOTALLY OFF TOPIC

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d8854c4476fe.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Humor will not help you escape how silly you look.

Funny thing is, I'm not the one who thought "terrestrial" meant "on the ground" in the context of this discussion. I'm not the one who saw the word "terrestrial" and went off on a rant about that the "F and O" means "flying object" and therefore they can't be a terrestrial explanation.

So why is it you felt you needed to define what the F and O means in UFO? When was there even confusion?

Notice I keep asking you that question and you keep refusing to answer it, just telling us that words have meaning. No kidding. But you still won't tell us why you went off on that tangent.

And we all know the reason. Unless you have a rote answer, unless you can rationalize a response as somehow supporting your point, you ignore the question or point. You're caught, and look like a complete idiot. You actually thought by "terrestrial" was meant as "on the ground." And you're trying to lie your way out of it and it's the funniest thing to happen in these forums in a long time. Do you realize how absolutely stupid you're making yourself look?

So come on, if that's not the reason, then tell us why you went off on that "F and O" tangent. And don't tell us "words have meaning". Try genuine thought instead of rote answers. Prove you are capable of actual thought.

It's fun helping you destroy yourself, Matrix. Thanks for the comedy gold.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

[edit on 15-2-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

Doomsday Rex, I assume you didn't catch it, yet, but your response to my statements provided a good example of what I was saying. Thank you. CosmicChat0001

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by DoomsdayRex

 

Humor will not help you escape how silly you look.

Again, your making it up as you go.

I'm just telling you that words have meaning. If you don't understand what I'm saying, I suggest you look up the words.

Whistleblower Protection Act and UFO disclosure I HAVE THE LINK POSTED
NOW IF THIS DOES NOT SAY SOMETHING TO SKEPTICS REGARDING HIDDEN INFORMATION WHAT WILL ??????



[edit on 15-2-2010 by Matrix Rising]

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


Like I said, I don't think you read the thread before you post.

Travis asked me how could a U.F.O. be identified.

I was simply explaining to him that we know what a flying object is and I explained the definitions to him.

What's Unidentified is the origin of the object.

We know what a flying object is, we see them all the time. We just can't identify the origin of the object and this is where the scientific method and reason can do a great job in building theories to explain the origin of these unidentified flying objects.

I suggest you actually read the thread before you post.

Originally posted by CosmicChat0001
Doomsday Rex, I assume you didn't catch it, yet, but your response to my statements provided a good example of what I was saying. Thank you. CosmicChat0001

In case you didn't catch it, here is my earlier response to your point...

What other unintelligent, cliched and boring rationalization do you have? Do you use that excuse anytime someone doesn't agree with you or do you ever manage to exercise genuine thought?

Here's the thing, if your first response to an opinion contrary to your own is to accuse others of being scared of the truth, then you have nothing of substance to say. If you cannot articulate a cogent argument about why you don't agree, then you are operating at only the most shallow levels of thought.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by DoomsdayRex

 

Like I said, I don't think you read the thread before you post.

Travis asked me how could a U.F.O. be identified.

I was simply explaining to him that we know what a flying object is and I explained the definitions to him.

What's Unidentified is the origin of the object.
MATRIX RISING HEY
MAYBE YOU SHOULD WRITE A LETTER TO THE CIA OR NIC OR THE
CHECK OUT THE DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS ON THE CIA WEBSITE....

We know what a flying object is, we see them all the time. We just can't identify the origin of the object and this is where the scientific method and reason can do a great job in building theories to explain the origin of these unidentified flying objects.

I suggest you actually read the thread before you post.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising

Like I said, I don't think you read the thread before you post.

Travis asked me how could a U.F.O. be identified.

I was simply explaining to him that we know what a flying object is and I explained the definitions to him.

So much for your supposed reading comprehension. TravisT never said that UFOs were not flying objects, but you went off on a rant for several posts about how the "F" and "O" mean "flying object." You're too obtuse to realize he was making fun of you; he wasn't talking about the F and O, he was talking about the U.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex



Sadly for you, words have meaning and of course he didn't want to talk about the meaning of ufology or the F and the O in U.F.O.

That was my whole point.

You may not want to talk about the meaning of these things but I think words are important. We call it a U.F.O. for a reason.

I know closed minded skeptics could care less about the meaning of words and evidence but I think there important.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Matrix Rising

Like I said, I don't think you read the thread before you post.

Travis asked me how could a U.F.O. be identified.

I was simply explaining to him that we know what a flying object is and I explained the definitions to him.

So much for your supposed reading comprehension. TravisT never said that UFOs were not flying objects, but you went off on a rant for several posts about how the "F" and "O" mean "flying object." You're too obtuse to realize he was making fun of you; he wasn't talking about the F and O, he was talking about the U.

Haha, he actually thought I didn't know that the 'F' and 'O' stood for "flying object". Did he really think he was explaining that to me?

Matrix, my point to that was, it CAN'T be identified if it is still UNIDENTIFIED. If it is still UNIDENTIFIED, then you don't know if it is terrestrial or extraterrestrial! But, since you have such a strong belief, you automatically assume ET-origin. I know your thought process, because I basically went over it, and then you said "BINGO", when that was never my thought process, that was just me making fun of yours. My point was, your "logic and reason" doesn't make sense, because in order for that to happen, the objects that are unidentified(UFOs), would clearly have to be identified, for you to make such a clear assumption of a ET-spacecraft. Hell, even Ufologist haven't even predicted if any of the videos, pics, or case evidence is extraterrestrial in origin. And for a second there, you were advocating ufology, but even that goes against your blind assumption of the origin of these unknown objects.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by TravisT]

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Also, I thought you would LOVE this article:

It is important to recognize that UFOlogy is not considered a valid science by the majority of the scientific community, there are a number of scientists with impeccable credentials in various fields of science that do engage in the investigation of UFOs.

www.wisegeek.com...

I have a lot more links that clearly states that Ufology is not considered a real science. Just for the heads up for future 'debates'.

reply to post by TravisT


YOU ARE WRONG WRONG WRONG..... AND THERE ARE MORE DOCUMENTS LIKE THIS ONE.....
I BEG TO DIFFER WITH YOU ON THAT AND HERE IS A UNCLASSIFIED DOCUMENT FROM THE CIA

CHINA UFO SOCIETY MEET; TO CONTINUE SCIENTIFIC STUDY
www.foia.cia.gov...

reply to post by TravisT


What???

You are not making any sense.

Unidentified doesn't mean NEVER IDENTIFIED

Nobody just jumps to the conclusion that the explanation is extraterrestrial.

You and Doomsday don't read the thread before you post.

If you read the thread, you will see it took me almost a year to come to the conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occured after weighing the evidence.

I know closed minded skeptics are under the delusion that people just reach these conclusions out of the blue but that's not the case.

Since U.F.O.'s are Unidentified, you then build theories to try and identify their origins.

This is science.

Again, it doesn't mean never identified so we try to identify them through the scientific method and reason.

Ufology is science. Of course there's bias against ufology because of theories that suggest an extraterrestrial origin for U.F.O.'s

Ufology is the study of an observed phenomena called U.F.O.'s.

Give me the reason why Ufology is not science.

What do these scientist you are quoting say? Why isn't ufology science?

Let's hear your evidence.

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
reply to post by TravisT

 

YOU ARE WRONG WRONG WRONG..... AND THERE ARE MORE DOCUMENTS LIKE THIS ONE.....
I BEG TO DIFFER WITH YOU ON THAT AND HERE IS A UNCLASSIFIED DOCUMENT FROM THE CIA

CHINA UFO SOCIETY MEET; TO CONTINUE SCIENTIFIC STUDY
www.foia.cia.gov...

Link doesn't work, and I really have no idea what you're talking about. And please, don't use all caps, I can see if you're addressing me, you don't have to shout.

But if you're talking about UFO society trying to use scientific methods of study towards UFO's, doesn't mean it's a science, it just means they are trying to use those method. And once again, it isn't a science, and never will be, until we have an actual spacecraft or an alien.

UFOlogists may consistently practice according to the scientific method. . . and share a similar premise with SETI researchers’ because ‘UFOlogy is not part of the community of astronomy, astrobiology, or any other discipline, and its methodology, no matter how scientifically rigorous, will lead to no useful scientific results except in the singular case of the discovery of an alien spacecraft.

www.arn.org...

[edit on 15-2-2010 by TravisT]

Originally posted by Matrix Rising

Since U.F.O.'s are Unidentified, you then build theories to try and identify their origins.

This doesn't matter, and really doesn't make sense. If it's unidentified(UFO), then you can't tell what it is, let alone if it's a spacecraft. It would be like seeing a car in the far distance. I can identify it as being a car, but I don't know who owns it(origin), or what make or model car it is(origin), but I can identify it as a car. See, with UFO's, yes, they are flying, but they are NEVER identified, because if they were, we would know if they were a spacecraft of some sort. It wouldn't matter the origin, or where they came from, it just matters that we know what they are, and since it's still labeled UNIDENTIFIED, then we don't know if it's a spaceship, a bird, a balloon, a plane, etc.

Your reasoning doesn't make sense, and you just keep proving that you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, Ufologist are trying to figure out what the objects are, but since they are UNIDENTIFIED, we can't deduce any claims of extraterrestrial origin, only strong believers like yourself will say that.

Give me the reason why Ufology is not science.

What do these scientist you are quoting say? Why isn't ufology science?

Let's hear your evidence.

Sadly, much ufology is not scientific, either because investigators (skeptics and believers alike) are conclusion-led, or because they lack the appropriate expertise and resources, or both.

www.nickpope.net...

The search for UFO’s, on the other hand, ‘is derided as pseudoscience, even though UFOlogists may consistently practice according to the scientific method. . . and share a similar premise with SETI researchers’ because ‘UFOlogy is not part of the community of astronomy, astrobiology, or any other discipline, and its methodology, no matter how scientifically rigorous, will lead to no useful scientific results except in the singular case of the discovery of an alien spacecraft.

www.arn.org...

It is important to recognize that UFOlogy is not considered a valid science by the majority of the scientific community

www.wisegeek.com...

I can give a TON more, but sadly, I don't think it matters. You wont realize that Ufology isn't a science, when the vast majority will disagree with you. And please, you made me give you evidence to support my claims, so I would love for you to show me where it says that Ufology is a science, because let me tell you, I cant find anything that says it is. And I don't want any of your made up explanations, but actual evidence where it says that ufology is an actual science. Good luck, cause you're gonna need it.



[edit on 15-2-2010 by TravisT]

reply to post by TravisT


What????

Are you even reading what your saying?

You said:

This doesn't matter, and really doesn't make sense. If it's unidentified(UFO), then you can't tell what it is, let alone if it's a spacecraft. It would be like seeing a car in the far distance. I can identify it as being a car, but I don't know who owns it(origin), or what make or model car it is(origin), but I can identify it as a car. See, with UFO's, yes, they are flying, but they are NEVER identified, because if they were, we would know if they were a spacecraft of some sort. It wouldn't matter the origin, or where they came from, it just matters that we know what they are, and since it's still labeled UNIDENTIFIED, then we don't know if it's a spaceship, a bird, a balloon, a plane, etc.

Your reasoning doesn't make sense, and you just keep proving that you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, Ufologist are trying to figure out what the objects are, but since they are UNIDENTIFIED, we can't deduce any claims of extraterrestrial origin, only strong believers like yourself will say that.

Do you have any idea what evidence is?

You can build a hypothesis based on the evidence.

So if you talk to a pilot who says the U.F.O. he chased was guided by intelligence because the way it moved when he tried to approch it and it didn't move like anything he has seen or flown.

Or you have an eyewitness that says the U.F.O. was falling to earth slowly and then it shot up real fast out of sight.

Or you have the abduction case where the credible witness says they boarded a U.F.O. and he describes what he saw and heard.

You just don't understand that people come to these conclusions based on evidence. This is why I listed case after case that you avoided like the plague.

People are not saying since it's unidentified so it must be an extraterrestrial spacecraft out of the blue. People are building theories and drawing conclusions based on the evidence.

You truly prove my point that many skeptics live in a fantasy world where they think people just wake up one day and say U.F.O.'s must be extraterrestrial spacecraft.

This truly shows how blind and closed minded some skeptics can be. They can't even admit that other well educated men and women study the evidence and then come to the conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occured.

There's things I don't agree with but I understand that people draw their conclusions based on evidence. I don't have to live under the delusion that people just come to their conclusions in a vacuum.

Like I said, I was agnostic on the issue of U.F.O.'s until I had my sightings.

I then looked into the subject and I could find little to no evidence against it and everyday I was reading new evidence for it.

This is why I listed the evidence because I knew you and others would avoid the evidence like it was the plague.

Also, nothing you mentioned says why Ufology is not science.

Just because people say it's not science doesn't mean it's not science. They need to present a reason why it's not science.

Ufology is just the study of Unidentified Flying Objects that even you, the closed minded skeptic says exists.

So I gave you my reasoning as to why I say Ufology is science backed by your acknowledgment that U.F.O.'s exist.

You are just quoting people that say Ufology is not science by why? What's the reasoning behind this claim?