10 top 'believers'

Originally posted by curious7
There we go, I think I finally made a post that makes sense

Ha ha! Your posts have made sense.

A lot of this has to do with the fallacy of "Appeal to Authority":
1. Person "A" is an authority on a particular subject.
2. Person "A" makes claim about that particular subject.
3. Therefore, the claim must be true.

The fallacy here is when the person making the claim does not have any additional information than the rest already have. Because he has no additional information, his authority on the issue does not necessarily make his informed personal opinion more valid; it's still simply an informed personal opinion based on the facts that are available to all of us.

It is so interesting that a thread like this brings out the venom of the non-believers.

Jimmy Carter may be a political idiot...but I believe he interpreted what he saw correctly..he is a trained observer.

In particular, I find the people who diss Edgar Mitchell, an astronaut and one of only a handful of people to ever walk on the Moon, to be total blithering idiots. Mitchell in my opinion is likely the most qualified person to speak on the subject and he made it perfectly clear in a recent interview that we are in contact with several races of aliens.

Far as I am concerned disclosure sufficient to satisfy me has occurred.

Fact is for most of the skeptics, even when an alien craft lands and its occupants are interviewed on television for millions to see, they will simply say it is a hoax. Their poor pitiful "flat earth" minds are incapable of accepting the truth that we are not only not alone in the universe, we are being visited on a regular basis and have been for thousands of years.

Originally posted by expat2368
In particular, I find the people who diss Edgar Mitchell, an astronaut and one of only a handful of people to ever walk on the Moon, to be total blithering idiots.

Why? Cause he was an astronaut? So automaticly he has to be telling the truth?
Odd how when Buzz Aldrin had denied aliens, and was called a liar.

Which is it with you people?

Just cause someone is loveable, popular, or famous, doesnt make them immune to lying, or deception, or being evil. Just look back in time. Do you think in the late 80's anyone would think OJ Simpson would kill 2 people? Your status means nothing. People will be people no matter who they are. If youre a liar, youre a liar. If youre a story teller looking for attention cause your 15 minutes has been up for a long time, then thats who you are, DESPITE who you WERE, what you did in the PAST.

Originally posted by BrnBdry
...Just cause someone is loveable, popular, or famous, doesnt make them immune to lying, or deception, or being evil...

I'm not sure it is about being evil or being a liar. These people could honestly believe what they believe, but just be plain old 'wrong'.

Edgar Mitchell, in particular, has never said he was told or learned any first-hand secrets about aliens due to his occupation as an astronaut. He has said that the information that he possesses on which he bases his beliefs is the same information that is available to everyone. He, like everyone else, is free to interpret that information as he pleases.

So if I don't share his beliefs, that doesn't make Edgar Mitchell a liar in my eyes -- that just makes him someone who has a different opinion than I do....
...However, that opinion is NOT necessarily any more informed than mine, just because he was an astronaut.

Yes, it doesn’ t make a dignity for Dr Edgar Mitchell to pronounce
the truth half-explained sounding as the other lies. There are principles
of a dignity in our old Europe and maybe he has not learned them in the
New World.

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
reply to post by IsaacKoi

1. Professor Stephen Hawking
Hawking's has clearly stated numerous times he doesn't believe there is an alien presence on/around Earth. All he believes is that intelligent life does exist out there (based on the math), and that when/if they stumble across our nice little planet, they will basically kill us all and steal our resources, or maybe turn us into slaves or something.

steal what from earth? anything we have manufactured, they probably made as kindergarten kids. gold?
they'll probably shake their heads how pathetic mankind is for killing each other over a shinny rock.
water? h2o, 2 hydrogen atoms with 1 oxygen atom. they could probably synthesize more water than they know what to do with.

unless they like the taste of human meat. then were all screwed. but then again they could clone all the meat they want.

enslave us? for what, an advanced race would have to be a race of self motivated and do it yourself type.
slaves are for the lazy and greedy. everything would probably be automated for them.

probably the only thing an advanced being would want with earth is out of scientific curiosity. if that's the case they could take that pea brained professor hawkings and his fear mongering.
]

Originally posted by randomname
probably the only thing an advanced being would want with earth is out of scientific curiosity. if that's the case they could take that pea brained professor hawkings and his fear mongering.

So how has it gone in the past on Earth when a civilization with superior technology meets up with a less-advanced one?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

So how has it gone in the past on Earth when a civilization with superior technology meets up with a less-advanced one?

A reasonable question.

Does it extrapolate to predicting how a civilisation, far removed from its infancy, would act? The examples we have have been the actions of relatively modern nations and states. Civilisation only dates back less than 10000 years.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

A lot of this has to do with the fallacy of "Appeal to Authority":
1. Person "A" is an authority on a particular subject.
2. Person "A" makes claim about that particular subject.
3. Therefore, the claim must be true.

Would you say that Person "A", having spent more time and effort to the particular subject, has higher probability of making true claims than the rest?

Originally posted by TinkererJim
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

A lot of this has to do with the fallacy of "Appeal to Authority":
1. Person "A" is an authority on a particular subject.
2. Person "A" makes claim about that particular subject.
3. Therefore, the claim must be true.

Would you say that Person "A", having spent more time and effort to the particular subject, has higher probability of making true claims than the rest?

It depends on the information that was used to come to that opinion.

If Astronaut Gordon Cooper says that NASA told him secret information that aliens exist, then that is relevant. If Astronaut Gordon Cooper positively met aliens, or positively saw what could only be an alien ship, then that is also relevant.

If Astronaut Gordon Cooper said he believed in aliens, and even if he said he saw some strange (yet unidentifiable) things, but does not have any first-hand positive knowledge of alien visitation, then he is just another guy who saw a UFO and believes it could have been alien-controlled.

This is OK for him to have believed this. I don't think Gordon Cooper or Edgar Mitchel were/are crackpots. There are very many people I respect (and even some I know and respect) who believe in ET visitation, or have seen things that they think could have been "ET-controlled". But just because I respect them, or because they are people of respectable status, that doesn't make their sighting any more valid.

Unless an astronaut was told by TPTB of alien existence, or if they had a positive 100% first hand experience with aliens, then the fact that they are astronauts is not meaningful. I would treat UFO sightings the same for everyone who seems credible -- and what they do for a living does not necessarily add to, nor diminish from, that credibility.

Like I said, no matter the background or training of the people who say that ET has been and is here, there are the skeptics who refuse to believe.

I wonder just who exactly they would believe... I suspect nobody.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

...but does not have any first-hand positive knowledge of alien visitation...

If such thing exists and is publicly accessible, we wouldn't be having this conversation now, would we? But for the sake of discussion, what would be acceptable as "first-hand positive knowledge"? It sounds like something that might come in handy when trading stocks...

Originally posted by TinkererJim
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

...but does not have any first-hand positive knowledge of alien visitation...

If such thing exists and is publicly accessible, we wouldn't be having this conversation now, would we? But for the sake of discussion, what would be acceptable as "first-hand positive knowledge"? It sounds like something that might come in handy when trading stocks...

Such a thing may exist, but NOT be public knowledge.

On the other hand, such a thing might NOT exist, and "TPTB" don't have definite knowledge that ET's are definitely visiting the Earth.

Originally posted by expat2368
Like I said, no matter the background or training of the people who say that ET has been and is here, there are the skeptics who refuse to believe.

I wonder just who exactly they would believe... I suspect nobody.

But again, Cooper and Mitchell are not telling us they "know" things. They are only telling us that they "believe" things. They both have said they were NOT given secret information about the existence of aliens due to their status as astronauts.

Therefore I believe that Cooper and Mitchell believe in alien visitation -- and that's fine. I can still respect them and their opinions, but that doesn't mean I need to believe their opinions, because, in the end, all they have is an opinion. By their own admission their opinion is not necessarily more informed than anyone else's opinion.

As I said before, I wouldn't be surprised if Cooper's and Mitchell's belief in alien visitation predates them becoming astronauts -- in fact it may be the reason they were so interested in space and aviation in the first place.

So just because they were astronauts does not make them suddenly all-knowing about alien visitation. If that were true, then how would you explain the astronauts who DON'T think there is enough evidence to believe that aliens are visiting the Earth?

reply to post by IsaacKoi


jimmy carter ftw

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

Therefore I believe that Cooper and Mitchell believe in alien visitation -- and that's fine. I can still respect them and their opinions, but that doesn't mean I need to believe their opinions, because, in the end, all they have is an opinion. By their own admission their opinion is not necessarily more informed than anyone else's opinion. As I said before, I wouldn't be surprised if Cooper's and Mitchell's belief in alien visitation predates them becoming astronauts -- in fact it may be the reason they were so interested in space and aviation in the first place.

So are you hinting they are mental or liars? just check on one of these please:
( ) YES
( ) NO

Originally posted by TinkererJim
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Therefore I believe that Cooper and Mitchell believe in alien visitation -- and that's fine. I can still respect them and their opinions, but that doesn't mean I need to believe their opinions, because, in the end, all they have is an opinion. By their own admission their opinion is not necessarily more informed than anyone else's opinion. As I said before, I wouldn't be surprised if Cooper's and Mitchell's belief in alien visitation predates them becoming astronauts -- in fact it may be the reason they were so interested in space and aviation in the first place.

So are you hinting they are mental or liars? just check on one of these please:
( ) YES
( ) NO

So, you chose to ignore the part of my post (even though you quoted it) where I stated that I still respect them and can respect the fact that they are of the opinion that alien visitation is occurring?

I don't think they are mental, nor do I think they are liars. They are just of a different opinion on the matter than I am. The other possibility besides them being loony or liars is that their opinion may just be wrong. I can't prove they are wrong -- hence one of the reasons that I can still respect their opinion, even though mine is different.

As I also said in my post, I have friends whom I respect who believe more in alien visitation than I do. I have a brother who believes in alien visitation more than I do. I don't think these people that I know are mental or liars. I am more tolerant of other people's opinions than that. I think they honestly believe in alien visitation, and that they are of sound mind, but they may simply be wrong.

I can disagree with an opinion but still respect the person who has that opinion. What would the world be if people who disagreed with another person's opinions automatically thought that person was loony or a liar?

By the way, my opinion on alien visitation is NOT that I don't think it could possibly be happening. In fact I think it may be possible for an alien race to figure out how to efficiently get to our planet. I just don't think there is enough evidence to believe it is actually happening now or has happened in the past.

That's my opinion -- but I fear telling you because it seems from your post that when you disagree with person's opinion, you may think that person is mental or a liar.

reply to post by curious7


Nice one, I thought at first this was a reply from Liam Gallagher, now I'm near sure. Why pick on Williams as opposed to Ozzy as a less reliable source of UFO sighting that's just crazy! For believers as to this thread, how do you equate those who have seen, what to them is a UFO, with someone who believes in "must be" extraterrestrial life garnered from their knowledge? simple, someone may have seen what another believes is possible, and in all respects.

They are just of a different opinion on the matter than I am.

Different, but equally valid opinion? or is your opinion more logical and sound from your perspective?

I just find it hypocritical that one would not accept the possibility of alien visitation without "Positive First-Hand Knowledge", but is perfectly willing to smear other people's credibility with the lack of the same.."Maybe they believed in UFO before they became astronauts...maybe the belief inspired them to be such...maybe that's why they can't interpret things they see clearly (my translation of your elegantly written text, I apologize if this is not your intended transmission). That's a lot of "Maybe's" for one who wishes to portray the superior analytical voice on ATS.

Originally posted by TinkererJim

They are just of a different opinion on the matter than I am.

Different, but equally valid opinion? or is your opinion more logical and sound from your perspective?

I just find it hypocritical that one would not accept the possibility of alien visitation without "Positive First-Hand Knowledge", but is perfectly willing to smear other people's credibility with the lack of the same.."Maybe they believed in UFO before they became astronauts...maybe the belief inspired them to be such...maybe that's why they can't interpret things they see clearly (my translation of your elegantly written text, I apologize if this is not your intended transmission). That's a lot of "Maybe's" for one who wishes to portray the superior analytical voice on ATS.

edit on 21-2-2011 by TinkererJim because: (no reason given)

I accept the possibility of alien visitation, and I already said so. But accepting it as a "possibility" and accepting it as a "fact" are two totally different things.

Plus, I never smeared anyone's credibility. I just said I think they are wrong to believe that aliens are in fact visiting the earth. Disagreeing with someones opinion is not "smearing their credibility. If that were true, then you have been smearing my credibility by disagreeing with my opinion (by the way, I have NOT yet thought you were smearing my credibility.)

People can politely and honestly agree to disagree and still respect each other's position. There are not many topics in the world in which there is only one honest opinion. Alien visitation is one of them. If I ever met Dr.. Mitchell or had the honor of meeting Gordo Cooper before he died, I'm sure I would like those guys -- but I would still probably disagree that alien visitation is a fact (Although I do agree it remains a possibility).

...and if English isn't your first language, then maybe you are missing the nuances of what I'm trying to say.