Most U.F.O. skeptics are not open to the evidence, page 29

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. 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."

You hit the nail right on the head with this post. Skeptics already have their minds made up before they join any UFO/ET discussion. They simply join the discussion to argue that ETs either don't exist or have never visited earth. Their main motivation for joining the discussion is probably one or both of these reasons:

1. To antagonize believers for fun.

2. To try to make believers into skeptics.

Most skeptics are close-minded, stubborn, set in their ways, and are not going to change their mind until an live ET is shown on CNN. Even then, some may deny the ET is real.