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

reply to post by cripmeister


I did answer you.

Time would be perceived as distance between A and B. What didn't I answer?

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by Matrix Rising

 

How would time be perceived in a 2 dimensional reality? Also, how would time be perceived in a 4 dimensional reality? As I understand it the 4th dimension is hypothetical spatial dimension.

What we are forgetting is that not everything can be explained with the knowledge we posess, therefore, anything that we as a human collective come up with is is an interpretation of the understanding that maybe.

Once we learn that we are not the only species to evolve in the universe, and once people start to learn more about space and the vastness of it all, maybe, just maybe that will make us all a little bit more humble and not so boystrous and egotistical.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by cripmeister

 

I did answer you.

Time would be perceived as distance between A and B. What didn't I answer?

So time is perceived the same way in a 2D, 3D and 4D universe? Time in a 2D universe is really a 2D manifestation of the 3rd dimension up/down? What is time in a 4D universe a manifestation of then? Is a Tesseract a 3D representation of what we perceive as time?

[edit on 28-4-2010 by cripmeister]

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.

Originally posted by Viper2
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.

You hit the nail right on the head with a left-handed hammer...
Alien UFO believers already have their minds made up before they join any UFO/ET discussion. They simply join the discussion to argue that ETs do exist, or are ruling the world, based on 'evidence' that has snowball's chance in hell of convincing a judge. Their main motivation for joining the discussion is probably one or both of these reasons:

1. To show their lack of understanding of the scientific method, and their intense desire for a 'really cool' explanation of ufo's.

2. To try to make skeptics into believers.

Most believers are so 'open-minded' their brains have fallen out, stubborn, set in their ways, and are not going to be swayed by any actual reasoning, or discussions about quality of evidence.

Even though their 'evidence' is flimsy at best, ridiculous at worst, they cannot accept they may be wrong.

Please note that the above was a PARODY, intended to point out how meaningless these sort of 'assertions' and opinions are. I have much time for many 'true believers', if they are prepared to simply look logically at all the facts. I don't think you'll find many of those folk whining on this thread, wishing that ufo postings got no skeptical response at all...

If you 'believers' are so upset by the skeptical approach, why don't you just... DEFEAT IT. Post some really good evidence.

Me, I'd love for there to be alien contact. But it won't be crappy videos, flying hubcaps, CGI or collections of vague, unverifiable reports about alien abductions. Imnsho, if and when it happens, it will be more like that depicted in the film "Contact". Or it will be a massive event, most likely witnessed by thousands, then millions as it gets taken up by the media, and it will involve unequivocal proof of alien contact.


Klaatu barada nikto, I say...

Here's my favorite line.. "Of course the believers and conspiracy theorists believe this stuff, it fills in the blanks. That's what a conspiracy theory does"...

Uh.. YEAH ... In any other aspect, that is called evidence and deserves to be investigated. They've made such a mockery of the fields and attached the word "conspiracy theory" to everything that a skeptic can easily swoop in and say absolutely anything and people believe it. 9 times out of 10, the skeptics answer is more ridiculous than ANY claim made by said "conspiracy theorist".

If I were investigating a murder scene, I would ask for any and all ideas regardless of how ridiculous they are until I get to the bottom of the case.. end of story... Without making fun of or resorting to name calling to belittle those with ideas.

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by Viper2
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.

You hit the nail right on the head with a left-handed hammer...
Alien UFO believers already have their minds made up before they join any UFO/ET discussion. They simply join the discussion to argue that ETs do exist, or are ruling the world, based on 'evidence' that has snowball's chance in hell of convincing a judge. Their main motivation for joining the discussion is probably one or both of these reasons:

1. To show their lack of understanding of the scientific method, and their intense desire for a 'really cool' explanation of ufo's.

2. To try to make skeptics into believers.

Most believers are so 'open-minded' their brains have fallen out, stubborn, set in their ways, and are not going to be swayed by any actual reasoning, or discussions about quality of evidence.

Even though their 'evidence' is flimsy at best, ridiculous at worst, they cannot accept they may be wrong.

Please note that the above was a PARODY, intended to point out how meaningless these sort of 'assertions' and opinions are. I have much time for many 'true believers', if they are prepared to simply look logically at all the facts. I don't think you'll find many of those folk whining on this thread, wishing that ufo postings got no skeptical response at all...

If you 'believers' are so upset by the skeptical approach, why don't you just... DEFEAT IT. Post some really good evidence.

Me, I'd love for there to be alien contact. But it won't be crappy videos, flying hubcaps, CGI or collections of vague, unverifiable reports about alien abductions. Imnsho, if and when it happens, it will be more like that depicted in the film "Contact". Or it will be a massive event, most likely witnessed by thousands, then millions as it gets taken up by the media, and it will involve unequivocal proof of alien contact.


Klaatu barada nikto, I say...

You can try to spin the issue as much as you like. Fact is, skeptics won't believe ETs exist until one a live one is shown on CNN. Skeptics won't believe any evidence other than that, and this is mostly due to their preconceived flawed logic that either there is no intelligent life in the universe, or interstellar space trail is not possible, or both.

Originally posted by Viper2
Skeptics already have their minds made up before they join any UFO/ET discussion...

And you are different, how?

Originally posted by Viper2
snip
You can try to spin the issue as much as you like. Fact is, skeptics won't believe ETs exist until one a live one is shown on CNN. Skeptics won't believe any evidence other than that, and this is mostly due to their preconceived flawed logic that either there is no intelligent life in the universe, or interstellar space trail is not possible, or both.

Issue doesn't need spinning. Issue needs clear thinkers to understand it. You, by your lack of logic, common sense, and reason think that you are in a superior position to criticize how skeptics think. A skeptic simply asks for irrefutable evidence, not an appearance on CNN or anywhere except possibly the United Nations. You have preconceived flawed "logic" for you want to believe despite the non-evidence. Mentally-conditioned believers are blind to themselves and, therefore, the need for irrefutable evidence is not necessary. You think that having a belief in something makes the belief real. Not so, it's strictly in your undeveloped mind.

Originally posted by Viper2

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.

Just what else is there to discuss with a stagnation of evidence? We seem to just keep going in circles, round and round with the same type of evidence that we have seen for the last 4000 years. Nothing new, so what do you all want to talk about? We can “what if” scenarios all day, and I don’t have a problem with that but progression has been at a standstill for a very long time.

Originally posted by Viper2
You can try to spin the issue as much as you like. Fact is, skeptics won't believe ETs exist until one a live one is shown on CNN.

Well that would be the Holy Grail I agree, but how about anything physical that can be tested to not be either of this earth or beyond our capabilities. Let’s see what we have so far…

4000 BC: some drawings that can be just about anything, and some stories
1800s: some witnesses and some fuzzy photos
1900 to 1940s: not much of anything, some witnesses, stories
1940s to present: Witnesses, photos, video, radar blips, but no earth breaking news…

So in the end can we get just something else to push this all forward?

Originally posted by Viper2
You can try to spin the issue as much as you like.

And so can you. Your point being...?

Fact is, skeptics won't believe ETs exist until one a live one is shown on CNN.

In a way, that's true. Most stuff that *actually happens* eventually finds it's way to the media. But currently, the news presenter will prefix the 'amusing' UFO stories with that giveaway smile on his/her face that shows the s/he, and therefore the audience, should regard the story with scorn. For amusement purposes only...

And why are they regarded with scorn, may I ask? Look at the rubbish on Youtube (and to some extent, here..) Maybe there is the odd decent report in there, but the overwhelming majority?

And the reason that all that NOISE overwhelms the very few worthy cases, is that there are so many gullible, uninformed people out there who desperately want to believe, so even the stupidest reports get lots of publicity..

Do you dispute that?

Skeptics won't believe any evidence other than that, and this is mostly due to their preconceived flawed logic that either there is no intelligent life in the universe

Can you point to this mythical person who doesn't believe in extra-terrestrial life? Why is this red herring always put into the argument? Can you show me when this was last seriously raised here as a countering argument to an alien ufo claim?

or interstellar space trail [sic] is not possible, or both.

And frankly, this is a similar red herring. Show me a debunker who says this, as their main argument.

I'd be MOST interested to hear other opinions, but my objection to the vast majority of the claims is the NATURE of the claims themselves. The fact is that the bulk of the 'evidence' is either so ridiculously flimsy that it doesn't deserve the time to debunk it, or is a hoax, or it shows a perfectly explainable *earthly* event.

Me, I'm interested in the ones where the ordinary cannot explain the evidence - there aren't many of those, and they'd be a lot easier to find without all the noise...


(Edited to fix backwards grammar in last paragraph)

[edit on 1-5-2010 by CHRLZ]

With all due respect, skeptics could say the same about you regarding their stubborness. I recently saw a show where they used scientific demonstrations to prove conspiracy theorists wrong about the events of 9/11. The conspiracy theorists, despite being shown the results of the tests, refused to open their mind to the possibility that the events of 9/11 played out exactly as we all witnessed, without any sort of government cover-up. Sorry, I don't meant to change the topic to 9/11 conspiracies, but it's the best example I could bring to mind.

Also, has it ever occurred to anyone that maybe UFO sightings and unexplained technological mysteries (such as puma punku) are not the work of aliens, but instead future humans experimenting with time travel? I'm new here so I'm not sure if that's been posted yet, just wanted to throw it out there.

Don't always think that everyone (government in particular) is out to get you and lie to you.

Originally posted by Viper2
You can try to spin the issue as much as you like. Fact is, skeptics won't believe ETs exist until one a live one is shown on CNN.

You could spin this the other way too. Let's use Roswell. A "believer" won't accept that the Roswell incident didn't involve aliens unless an alien landed here and said "we had nothing to do with Roswell."

You're always going to have a percentage of people who aren't convinced of something despite whatever evidence there may be. There are members of this very site who are completely convinced Armstrong and Aldrin didn't walk on the moon in '69. And they are just as steadfast in their belief that anyone disagreeing with them is in denial about the "evidence" as the people who think they're all barking mad for considering it.

Evidence does not equal proof. You need some threshold, some standard, before you can call something "proven". The fact is, that standard is a moving target and doesn't remain consistent across topics, and certainly not among individuals.

What's proof to someone else isn't going to be proof to me. Concrete personal experience is the best proof. Your experience is my second hand (at best) anecdote. There's no way for me or anyone else to know if someone else is delusional, flat wrong and misinterpreting, or making something up for attention or some other self-centered reason.

I'm open to evidence. What I have yet to see is enough irrefutable, undisputed evidence to rise to the level of PROOF that Earth has been visited by extraterrestrial beings.

Some of us have looked at this phenomenon for decades. I apologize if that makes us extremely suspect to the point of obnoxiousness about the "evidence" that sometimes comes forth. In most cases, it isn't because we think the topic is absurd. It's because to us, the topic is serious enough for us to take umbrage at some of the nonsense that passes for "evidence", only to further draw the topic into the fringe column and subject to even more ridicule.

The skeptic is your friend. The nonsense peddlers and their willing minions are the enemy of the topic. The trick is to vet the topics to weed out the nonsense. There again, what's nonsense to me, may be plausible to you. Bear in mind, some of the nonsense peddlers are extremely convinced what they have is the real deal. This makes it much more difficult, and virtually guarantees an impasse on agreement resulting in personal animosities.