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

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   
If you go to someone and say I have proof of a UFO, then the burden of proof is on you. That person shouldn't have to prove why you don't have a UFO. Most, not all, but most ufoers dont really offer any solid evidence...however I have seen some fascinating videos.




posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by red_dot
 


Exactly! Your buddy says he has a pic of a UFO. Isn't it then your job to try and explain what the object is? He is saying it's unidentified. I would try to identify it or have someone more knowledgeable do so. A UFO is only a UFO provided no one can figure out what it is. It doesn't mean Grey alien spaceship

If the buddy is saying that not only is it a UFO, but an alien craft then he has to prove that it is an alien craft. And how do we do that? By trying to rule out all of the Known explanations so that we have a better understanding of what the hell we're looking at.

If the guy says he knows it's an alien ship then isn't he identifying it? Wouldn't it cease to be a UFO according to him?



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


you are right but I think we are talking about two different things here. I wasn't referring to them not being UFOs anymore after you identify them, but good point.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by red_dot
 


I apologize. I just threw that in toward the end to laugh at.

I totally get what you're saying. When someone makes an outrageous claim, the burden of proof is on them. I completely agree. We cannot take a tiny pixel pic or whatever evidence he has and assume "oh cool! Aliens!" He has to deiver why it is alien with a solid foundation and explanation that goes beyond what we currently have.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 01:45 AM
link   
It doesnt matter how many things are proven to be natural or hoaxes, etc...what matters in the end is that there are countless cases and literally piles of physical and documented evidence supporting the case for UFO/EBEs being real. Trace evidence, expert witness testimony, unexplained physical phenomena in people, so on.
The problem with a lot of "skeptics" is they see a few cases that are easily debunked and throw a blanket over the entire subject claiming it to be "debunked." Too many of the ones I have seen are ignorant and have not done much if any research into the best cases with the most evidence. The bottom line is no skeptic has been able to debunk the best evidence (UFO trace evidence cases, IMO, and some abduction cases, ex. Travis Walton).

[edit on 2-2-2010 by Unplugged]



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by cripmeister
 


Many of the labels we are using, pseudo-believer, debunker, pseudo-skeptic, true believer (which I will readily admit to using myself) make no sense. But that is the purpose of labels, short-hands to dismiss others without thought.



You are being quite selective in which labels you complain about here Rex.

You use the label 'skeptic' constantly, as well as 'believer' and 'true believer' (which you "readily admit" - but then, you could hardly do otherwise). You, more than most, feed this consciousness of labels by using them so prominently. Yet, suddenly, when pseudo-skepticism is in the spotlight, you declare that labels are wrong and should be avoided? I find your complaint about the evils of 'labels' here rather contrived and contradictory.

The purpose of labels is not "to dismiss others without thought" as you claim. Rather, labels are used to clearly identify and define things, so that they can be recognized and understood by all. That's why we have language.

Yet when it comes to understanding and defining 'pseudo-skepticism' (that which calls itself 'skepticism' but does not abide by skepticism's defining principles) you are very anxious that this difference not be defined and understood. You oppose all discussion of it. You'd prefer it remained obscure and that people remained confused about it's difference to skepticism, despite the fact that this would exonerate legitimate skepticism in the minds of many who were formerly confused about it. After all, something cannot be discussed and certainly can't be identified, if it isn't even allowed a name. How convenient.

So, I ask you, as a habitual user of labels, why are you so consistently and vehemently opposed to the clarification provided by this particular label: 'pseudo-skepticism'?


[edit on 2-2-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 05:29 AM
link   
I am about at the point that I believe there are a few true skeptics/debunkers who are open to the possibility of Alien life but want to be sure of the evidence.

The rest are simply people who are on a mission at the behest of someone or something to slam anything and everything that might reveal things which would be inconvenient to explain. There are more than a few of those on here.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   

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.

lol. It's exactly the other way around. The believers would have their little worlds shattered to pieces if they ever realized that what they believe in is all bogus. As they spend more and more time in the paranormal, they are less likely to change their mind. There is not as single believer out there who would ever admit that he wasted his time on bull#. They will believe forever, no matter how much is debunked. That's why all the superstitions from ancient times live on as well. The believers have closed minds.
Skeptics, however, are fairly easy to convince. Show them an alien, and voila, you made them believe. They are open minded because they haven't invested their entire life in this field. Just don't expect them to believe that blurry pictures and anecdotes prove anything. You have to realize that it's not the quantity but the quality of evidence that counts.

[edit on 2-2-2010 by Verklagekasper]



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by expat2368
I am about at the point that I believe there are a few true skeptics/debunkers who are open to the possibility of Alien life but want to be sure of the evidence.

The rest are simply people who are on a mission at the behest of someone or something to slam anything and everything that might reveal things which would be inconvenient to explain. There are more than a few of those on here.


Could you please provide evidence that skeptics are not open to the possibility of alien life?



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Verklagekasper
lol. It's exactly the other way around. The believers would have their little worlds shattered to pieces if they ever realized that what they believe in is all bogus. As they spend more and more time in the paranormal, they are less likely to change their mind...


We should not be so quick to speak in absolutes. The behavior of one person or even a number of people is not indicative of everyone, be they skeptic or believer. Declaring that "all" or "most" skeptics or believers are guilty of certain behaviors and attitudes makes any meaningful discussion impossible. The same is true when we attach labels on people such as "pseudo-skeptic", "pseudo-believer", "true believer" or "debunker." We cease to see the merits of their argument and reduce that person to our own prejudices, embodying the closed-mindedness we accuse the others of.

The skeptic vs. believer conflict is a false one. It is based on the ridiculous conceit that somehow skeptics or believers stand in the way of the truth. This conflict and the promotion of it does not serve the truth, it serves only to distract. Be wary of those who provoke it and those so ready to attach labels to people.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

We should not be so quick to speak in absolutes. The behavior of one person or even a number of people is not indicative of everyone, be they skeptic or believer. Declaring that "all" or "most" skeptics or believers are guilty of certain behaviors and attitudes makes any meaningful discussion impossible. The same is true when we attach labels on people such as "pseudo-skeptic", "pseudo-believer", "true believer" or "debunker." We cease to see the merits of their argument and reduce that person to our own prejudices, embodying the closed-mindedness we accuse the others of...

Be wary of those who provoke it and those so ready to attach labels to people.


Rex, I'm not sure how you summon up the gall to hypocritically pontificate like this, when, out of the 'other side of your mouth' you make comments such as:




Originally posted by DoomsdayRex


Originally posted by Dagar
Perhaps this thread should be renamed '2009, the year of the smug, rude, biased, and intolerant' ?


I thought this thread was about skeptics, not believers...


www.abovetopsecret.com...


This is both what I love and loathe about the most zealous UFO believers... if they cannot find a connection, they will make one up.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your thread:



V and the Complicity of Believers


www.abovetopsecret.com...



"...the psychology of the Disclosurists and True Believers, those who treat this as more religion than science....inherent contradiction among the Disclosurists and True Believers.."




...it should be critical thinking vs. the gullible, the true believers, the disclosurists.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



And here we are; the nonsense response from UFO believers who hate SETI.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Why is it so many UFO believers turn to an appeal-to-motive when they cannot convince someone of their beliefs?


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Your aversion to 'labels' is inconsistent and convenient and only ever arises in defense of pseudo-skepticism by shutting down any identification and discussion of it, as here. You have no credibility to preach on this matter, as you have no problem with labels, when it suits your agenda.

As you smugly said earlier in this thread about the OP: "It warms my heart to see everyone, skeptic and believer, can see right through Matrix Rising."

Well, in similar fashion, I hope everyone can see right through your self-serving and hypocritical moralizing Rex.


[edit on 2-2-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unplugged
It doesnt matter how many things are proven to be natural or hoaxes, etc...what matters in the end is that there are countless cases and literally piles of physical and documented evidence supporting the case for UFO/EBEs being real. Trace evidence, expert witness testimony, unexplained physical phenomena in people, so on.

the issue here is, a lot of what you consider evidence is poor evidence or so vague or confused that it isn't really useful.
there is too many hoaxes and misidentification or outright fraud for the stuff you listed to be accepted by most people who don't already accept it.
the fact is eye-witness testimony is considered worthless, people are unreliable. one question is, what makes someone an expert? how can one be an expert when there isn't a truthfully good way to really separate out the fraud from the truth when it comes to ET?
i would really love to see all this physical evidence, but there seems to be a case of people being unable to find it or are unwilling to even try to produce it, rather they seem to want skeptics to take their word there is evidence

The problem with a lot of "skeptics" is they see a few cases that are easily debunked and throw a blanket over the entire subject claiming it to be "debunked."

who does that? it sounds like you are projecting, i want some evidence all skeptics do that, i don't. i believe each case should be analyzed on its own, the issue though is simple, until skeptics are given evidence each case is an alien vessel, we go with what is the most common outcome, something natural.
my reasoning is this, until someone produces evidence that eliminates natural phenomena from being the answer, my answer will be natural phenomena. why is that unreasonable?

Too many of the ones I have seen are ignorant and have not done much if any research into the best cases with the most evidence. The bottom line is no skeptic has been able to debunk the best evidence (UFO trace evidence cases, IMO, and some abduction cases, ex. Travis Walton).

[edit on 2-2-2010 by Unplugged]

this is the problem, most skeptics find much of the "evidence" questionable at best, outright absurd at the least.
when all you have is some stories and hear say from people saying "the evidence found on the ground baffles the forensics experts", but no one names them, or you find they are not experts. it is hard not to view the next story with a "this one can't be real either, i've been tricked too much already"

too many hoaxes makes people just not even care enough to delve deep, so they don't bother.
just my thoughts.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by expat2368
I am about at the point that I believe there are a few true skeptics/debunkers who are open to the possibility of Alien life but want to be sure of the evidence.

i want to be sure of the evidence, show me an alien i'd believe it
the only people that don't believe alien life exists are people who are overly religious, like creationists.
skeptics just don't believe aliens abduct people or animals


The rest are simply people who are on a mission at the behest of someone or something to slam anything and everything that might reveal things which would be inconvenient to explain. There are more than a few of those on here.

i suppose asking you to prove that would be a waste of time, this is after all a conspiracy site, the idea that people are out to "slam" everything to suppress the truth is par the course



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


Pseudo-believer is something I made up. Melcram likes to use Marcello Truzzi's term pseudo-skeptic for people who already have made their mind up without examining something. I think that's ok, pseudo-skeptic is imo a legit term to use. The pseudo-believer would be the pseudo-skeptic's counterpart. The terms believer and true believer aren't very precise. Maybe all believer is a better term, not sure.

I like labels, they make life easy


[edit on 2-2-2010 by cripmeister]



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I treat alien abduction and ufo evidence as i treat evidence for ghosts and bigfoot. Every time you get a claim of someone abducted by aliens, you can simply call that sleep paralysis and when you get claims of strange objects in the sky that you'd expect to be out of this world, it's a government project.

So if you already have a bias opinion to alien evidence you're not close minded, you're just sane and logical.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I stopped calling myself a skeptic a while back and switched to “truth seeker” because of the people who give the true skeptic a bad name. To me truth seeker and true skeptic are one in the same terms.

I have no problem believing in alien life outside this planet, I have not, so far seen compelling evidence that we are being visited. There are some interesting photos, but nothing convincing enough for me to say, “Yes, they are alien machines in the photos”.

With so many other solar systems and galaxies out there it would not be smart for me to not consider that there is a possibility of life out there aside from our own, and maybe even intelligent life. However on the other hand, the possibility of that intelligent life finding us is very remote. Our sun is very small on the grand scale of things and would not even appear as a star in the sky of many other planets, so how would they know to look in our direction for our sun let alone our tiny planet. It is possible but the odds would be very slim, IMHO.

Even though these are my feelings on the subject I still look at photos, videos, and stories that are provided, in hopes I am incorrect and we are being visited, but so far I have not seen anything that has done that yet, but I remain hopeful.


< - - - Edit For Some Spelling - - - >

[edit on 2/2/2010 by AlienCarnage]



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
You are being quite selective in which labels you complain about here Rex.


How am I being "selective"? I listed two labels attached to believers and two to skeptics. It is not an exhaustive list but neither is it biased.


Originally posted by Malcram
The purpose of labels is not "to dismiss others without thought" as you claim. Rather, labels are used to clearly identify and define things, so that they can be recognized and understood by all. That's why we have language.


There is a difference in labels to show demarcations in belief, attitude and so forth. There is nothing wrong with that. The danger comes in using such labels to dismiss people. It should be evident I am talking about the latter.

And I will admit when I have used labels to dismiss people, I was wrong.


Originally posted by Malcram
Yet when it comes to understanding and defining 'pseudo-skepticism' (that which calls itself 'skepticism' but does not abide by skepticism's defining principles) you are very anxious that this difference not be defined and understood...despite the fact that this would exonerate legitimate skepticism in the minds of many who were formerly confused about it.


The topic of pseudoskeptics has been argued to death in other threads; no need to rehash them at length. I'd invite everyone to look up those threads. But in short, whatever high-minded intentions you may claim, that is not how the label is employed. The label is used to dismiss people; it shifts the debate from evidence and points to make it about the person himself. It is the exact danger I am talking about. The

Question is, why are you so desperate to label people as pseudo-skeptics instead of listening to their points and arguing those?

[edit on 2-2-2010 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
The skeptics on this thread are proving my point.

They are not open to the evidence.

Look at the way they describe the evidence on this thread and others. They say it's just blurry pictures and vague stories.

Anyone who has studied these things, knows that they are flat out lying.

The evidence and cases I have listed throughout this thread are more than just stories. They have been investigated by people like Harvard Professor John Mack and Dr. J. Allen Hynek.

The evidence is solid and there's a lot of evidence. If you notice the skeptics have avoided the evidence that I have presented on this thread in favor of making general, meaningless statements.

We use things like eyewitness testimony everyday in all walks of life, yet the skeptic tries to belittle eyewitness testimony as meaningless. Eyewitness testimony is direct evidence.


DIRECT EVIDENCE

Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact, such as testimony of a witness who says she saw a defendant pointing a gun at a victim during a robbery. Direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.


www.lectlaw.com...

Why do you think they have line ups at Police Stations? The eyewitness points out the person they "saw" commit the crime. If a person witnesses a murder, and they are a credible witness this is great for the Prosecution.

They even use witnesses that are not credible like cellmates that the criminal might have confessed something to.

With Ufology you have credible witnesses. You have pilots, police officers, astronauts, high ranking government officials and more. You have witnesses that have been investigated throughout the years and have passed several tests are are credible witnesses.

This is solid evidence that supports extraterrestrial and or extradimensional visitation.

The skeptics talk about Hypnosis. I have a degree in hypnosis and it works. A good hypnotist can retrieve information from the subconcious mind.

Police use Forensic Hypnosis which has an 80% success rate.


On July 25, 1976 three persons kidnapped 26 summer school children and their bus driver. You may have heard of the Chowchilla California kidnapping case. The children and driver were forced into a buried cargo container while the kidnappers demanded ransom. Fortunately the children and driver escaped from this would be grave and were reunited with their loved ones. Frank Edward Ray, the 55-year-old bus driver, underwent hypnosis to refresh his memory of the kidnapping itself. While under hypnosis he was able to provide 5 of the 6 numbers on the license plate of the van used by the kidnappers. All three were caught and sentenced to long term jail sentences for their crime. This sensational case documents the possibilities in using hypnosis for memory recall. Other cases in which hypnosis was used to provide details include the Boston Strangler, Ted Bundy, Sam Sheppard (the Fugitive) and thousands of “lesser” crimes.

Hypnotically refreshed memory comes from accessing long-term memories. Since we take time to process short term memory into long term memory it is best to wait until several days after the incident. There does not appear to be a limit to the length of time a stored memory can be recalled. People in hypnosis have successfully recalled specific and minute details of events that happened more than twenty or thirty years ago. The perpetrator of a crime may lose conscious memory over time to the specific details leading police and others to doubt their claims of guilt. Hypnotically refreshed recall could be used to discover discover if in fact the person knows those details that prove they were involved.


www.ontrachypnosis.com...

I just saw a case where a couple saw a guy go into a house for sale and the guy killed the real estate agent. The eyewitnesses couldn't remember the guy with a lot of detail so they used forensic hypnosis and had a sketch drawn of the criminal during the session. They put the sketch on TV and it led to the criminal.

See, we use tools like hypnosis and eyewitness testimony to investigate crimes but we can't use these same tools to investigate things like ufology and the paranormal. It makes no sense.

Police use psychics and polygraph tests. If a husband's wife goes missing, the police will ask him to take a polygraph if he doesn't have an alibi.

All of these tools are used to search for the truth but when it comes to ufology, we can't use them? Give me a break.

If we can't use eyewitness accounts from pilots, police officers and more, trace evidence, abduction cases, pictures, videos, radar reports and more as EVIDENCE, then what can we use?

The skeptic tries to belittle the evidence and they are flat out LYING about the evidence.

I have listed evidence on this thread and there are threads on this board and others with very solid, well researched and investigated evidence. Again, anyone who tries to belittle the evidence and belittle the the tools we use in everyday life to investigate when we use them in ufology or the paranormal, is not a freethinker searching for truth but a closed minded skeptic.

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



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


nice post matrix (star for that one), and so very true!..

im not a skeptic, or a complete believer, i believe in ufo's obviously, but wether their extraterestial or not is up for debate.

on the topic that most skeptics are closed to evidence, theirs also a HELL of a lot of non skeptics who will not accept ANYTHING a skeptic will say (as we also see alot of on this forum), in the same way that a skeptic on ufo's does not accept anything that the believers say.

its good to be a bit skeptical...question everything, its very dangerous to 100% believe or 100% deny anything... the 100% deniers just write things off with excuses, some plausable and some not where as the 100% believers will go on a tangent as to how the ufo has come from piledia and is bringing mother light from above.!

ill stop now before i start ranting hehehe


[edit on 2-2-2010 by boaby_phet]



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising


Why do you think they have line ups at Police Stations? The eyewitness points out the person they "saw" commit the crime.


Yep, only the people that claim they saw a ufo (unidentified flying object) don't actually know what they really saw.


The difference is the line up is of someone that they know they saw, it's certain. They can't see the alien, they can see what they might think is an alien ship but most likely is a military craft that's public knowledge or secret government project in it's testing stages.





new topics
 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join