What are best ways to educate a skeptic?

Originally posted by Falgore

Originally posted by Nikola014
We can't do anything about it. The only one who can change skeptic mind is himself. We can show them a dozens of proofs, but it still wouldn't matter because once you've decide not to believe in something, there is nothing that can change your mind. Skeptic will always be skeptic till he/she sees a UFO or alien...

There is proof and I can't agree more with you. To persuade skeptics it seems as if the only evidence they would accept is if they saw an alien being or UFO directly in front of them.

No, that's not enough, because it's well known that people can have internal mental hallucinations. Even if I saw one right in front of me, that isn't enough personally because I have to wonder if I had a hallucination.

reply to post by captaintyinknots
I would agree with you; why the need to educate the non-believers. Many of our beliefs are based on early-religious training and very ingrained. Others say that they can't believe what cannot be proven yet they readily believe in a God, Allah or Buddha. I believe in God, but I cannot prove to another that He exists and I prefer to call Him the Universal Intelligence.

As for visitors from another planet, I cannot for the life of me believe that this entire universe or multi universes were created for the sole purpose of creating a space for those of us who live on Planet Earth. A touch of arrogance there, but then we are the most ego-ridden creatures whose sense of entitlement knows no bounds. I have always been afraid of the dark and have always had dreams of flying through space. It was terrifying. My father cited two instances of seeing glowing men in our back yard and he even went out to chase them off with a rifle. This was way before the subject of UFOs and ETs came on the scene. I've never seen a grey or any other kind of ET, at least not to my knowledge, but now suspect that perhaps I have been abducted by alients back in my younger years. The reason I believe this is because in my 30s I began having out of body experiences which went on for about 10 years. Many people "in the know" relate OBEs to alien abduction which I find interesting. I have many stories about my experiences.

Oh, and I failed to add that a close friend of mine had a spontaneous automatic-writing experience in 2007 through an entity which we call The Spirit. The Spirit answered a lot of our questions about:The Afternlife, Crop Circles, Black Holes, Pyramids and portals, Egyptians, the Mayans, Enlightenment and Emotion, Tales of Near Death, Karma, Atlantis and the Polar Shift, Relationships and Marriage, the Myth of Monogamy, A Pure Path, Restoring the Balance, Technology and also explained the "visitors" to our Earth planet--how they get here and how difficult it is for them to linger because of different vibrations, etc. This 35-page manuscript can be read on: messages2012.blogspot.com - It is free; no one drives any benefit at all from the link except for the pleasure of spreading "the knowledge" from the other side. The Spirit doesn't come around anymore; will he return? Who knows. You may ask "Why disclose these messages now?" - Well, we didn't know what we were supposed to do with it. Geez, we're just ordinary folks. Messages2012.blogspot.com

Originally posted by MrXYZ

I used "lights in the sky" as an example for all witness reports, which are ALL scientifically useless because they don't represent reliable objective evidence.

Neil Degrasse Tyson does an excellent job at pointing out why that subjective data is USELESS:

LINK

You seem to be confusing and mis-using terms like 'objective', 'subjective' and 'reliable'.

What do you think Tyson would say about the hundreds of strong radar-visual cases on record? Cases when electronic sensors, in addition to often multiple sets of human eyes, confirm the presence of a solid object? The cases that are the topics in threads here that skeptics never seem to touch?

The fact that you think multiple sensor data is "useless" (your word) tells me you are anything but a true skeptic. That so many people wishing to claim the benefits of the skeptic label believe 'science' would toss out such multi-sensor data (simply because it is less than that ideal and most-desired "piece of a saucer") is probably pretty embarrassing to the true skeptics out there. (The true skeptics are the ones who readily admit that the ETH cannot be easily dismissed, and admit that there are perhaps several dozen genuinely bewildering UFO cases which, though falling short of providing the 'proof' we all want, are at least highly suggestive of having an extra-planetary component.)

I like Tyson, and agree with 98% of what he says in these kinds of public engagements. However, he has clearly not himself looked very far into the UFO issue. He falls into many traps of the topic which have been adequately highlighted and addressed since at least 45 years ago. (House Symposium on UFO's.) Any person with Tyson's level of intelligence and education who would basically advocate the *ridicule* of this topic is either shockingly uninformed, or.. what, just a bad person, or a liar? And I don't think he's a bad person! Nor do I think he's lying! I DO think he simply doesn't know of such evidence, how anomalous propagation and weather phenomena can often be ruled out, etc....

So I hope Dr. Tyson informs himself soon. Because my fear is that he will ultimately be burned or embarrassed by this issue, in public, as Shermer has been. It would only take one intelligent and articulate person asking Tyson the right kind of question (perhaps referring to some portions of the Condon Report prepared by the actual investigating scientists, soon after one of Tyson's condescending and dismissive remarks?) to really ruin his day and affect his credibility. Because it just doesn't look good when people who hold themselves out to be the guardians of truth are caught with their pants down on a subject for which they keep offering professional and very public opinions.

Originally posted by Jaellma
Usually when discussing the topic of UFOs and aliens, most people are open to the idea of life outside of our planet earth and the possibility of us being visited by beings from other places, whether extraterrestrial or inter/extra dimensional. In other cases, some people find it hard to believe any of these things.

This has probably been discussed here before but I would like to know the best way to deal with a person who is a skeptic but appears to have some level of interest in knowing what's out there. What some or evidence or articles are available for the hard core skeptic to help sway their thinking? There are many points of reference out there but unfortunately many are not credible enough or are tainted.

Thoughts please?

That works both ways I am a sceptic!!! I joined here because I was told by a person on another site I would see things I would not believe UNFORTUNATELY it's some of the threads and claims rather than what I was hoping for!

I do believe out there there is other intelligent life is it close by dont think so, does it visit here again I dont think so.

We have members on here claiming x amount of races in nearby systems even giving them names which usually relate to the star system. Due to some internet idiot claiming he talks to them

Now as for the education part, a thread on here was started re a picture of ufo's the person posted a copy of the picture of them giving details of the camera and lens used etc.

Now we had members claiming its showed ufo's , worm holes opening etc etc.

One member provided a link showing that it was an internal reflection inside the lens a WELL KNOWN problem with that particular lens and provide other links about it and a similar shot with the same effect claimed to be the ufo's etc.

Now even with that evidence posts after his were still claiming it was a ufo.So I would say it works both ways.

I would also say it more likely a sceptic would find evidence to prove a ufo on video or a picture because they will rule out other explinations rather than excepting that every picture/video shown on here of a strange object or light is Mog from Zog out for a day trip with the lads.

reply to post by Jaellma


You can't argue with the ignorant!!!

Scepticism is GOOD, a lot of people on these boards need more of it!! Want to convince a sceptic? Provide him with real OBJECTIVE evidence!

Until people provide objective evidence to support their claims, they can hardly blame the sceptic for being rational and not believing in the claim from the start

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

You seem to be confusing and mis-using terms like 'objective', 'subjective' and 'reliable'.

What do you think Tyson would say about the hundreds of strong radar-visual cases on record? Cases when electronic sensors, in addition to often multiple sets of human eyes, confirm the presence of a solid object? The cases that are the topics in threads here that skeptics never seem to touch?

The fact that you think multiple sensor data is "useless" (your word) tells me you are anything but a true skeptic. That so many people wishing to claim the benefits of the skeptic label believe 'science' would toss out such multi-sensor data (simply because it is less than that ideal and most-desired "piece of a saucer") is probably pretty embarrassing to the true skeptics out there. (The true skeptics are the ones who readily admit that the ETH cannot be easily dismissed, and admit that there are perhaps several dozen genuinely bewildering UFO cases which, though falling short of providing the 'proof' we all want, are at least highly suggestive of having an extra-planetary component.)

I like Tyson, and agree with 98% of what he says in these kinds of public engagements. However, he has clearly not himself looked very far into the UFO issue. He falls into many traps of the topic which have been adequately highlighted and addressed since at least 45 years ago. (House Symposium on UFO's.) Any person with Tyson's level of intelligence and education who would basically advocate the *ridicule* of this topic is either shockingly uninformed, or.. what, just a bad person, or a liar? And I don't think he's a bad person! Nor do I think he's lying! I DO think he simply doesn't know of such evidence, how anomalous propagation and weather phenomena can often be ruled out, etc....

So I hope Dr. Tyson informs himself soon. Because my fear is that he will ultimately be burned or embarrassed by this issue, in public, as Shermer has been. It would only take one intelligent and articulate person asking Tyson the right kind of question (perhaps referring to some portions of the Condon Report prepared by the actual investigating scientists, soon after one of Tyson's condescending and dismissive remarks?) to really ruin his day and affect his credibility. Because it just doesn't look good when people who hold themselves out to be the guardians of truth are caught with their pants down on a subject for which they keep offering professional and very public opinions.

TeaAndStrumpets, that's one of the best posts I've read in a long, long time.

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


Pointing out that there is no objective evidence isn't condescending

.

On the UFO subject just go to a remote mountainous area ..

spend a few days sky watching ... That's all you need to do .

My favorite place for spotting is Mt Washington N.H. you can see forever ..

I've watched Hundreds of craft from that look out of all sorts .

On the subject of aliens just go to a remote mountainous area alone ...

it may take longer but you will get noticed sooner or later .

Not that you should want to ... and give yourself some time to deal with

the missing time and screen memories .

Word

.

reply to post by R0CR13

I've watched Hundreds of craft from that look out of all sorts .

They're called meteors.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Pointing out that there is no objective evidence isn't condescending

Pointing anything out while being sure to snicker and ridicule is most definitely condescending.

Add to that the fact that what you say (and what you say Tyson says) is simply incorrect, and that should be enough to trigger a little internal dissonance in any true skeptic. Because there actually is objective evidence. I think you still mis-understand what 'objective' means. Either that, or you simply choose to ignore certain facts... objective facts. (The "it can't be true; they must all be lying or mistaken" fallacy?)

Objective does not mean "whatever would be strong enough to convince MrXYZ"; it simply means free of human bias. ("Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts" and "Not dependent on the mind for existence", from Google Dictionary.) Anyone who does not consider multiple correlated radars, for example, to be 'objective' is clearly not himself being objective. Sure, yes, a Level 10 debunker could and probably would argue that radars are designed, built and analyzed by humans, so are not objective, but I think a skeptic would be much less comfortable with that line of logic and its implications.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by R0CR13

 

I've watched Hundreds of craft from that look out of all sorts .

They're called meteors.

This is common .. deal with fear by ridicule ... what next ? call me a Rascist

Meteors dont hover and change direction or fly in zigzag patterns .

Try looking up .

.

It's the skeptics job to educate you, not the other way around.

Currently there is no solid proof for ETV.
He has the same evidence as you do, only he doesn't believe. This is because he needs it to be proven.

How is this a bad thing. Belief is just that. Belief. How can you edicate someone on a belief?

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Pointing out that there is no objective evidence isn't condescending

Pointing anything out while being sure to snicker and ridicule is most definitely condescending.

Add to that the fact that what you say (and what you say Tyson says) is simply incorrect, and that should be enough to trigger a little internal dissonance in any true skeptic. Because there actually is objective evidence. I think you still mis-understand what 'objective' means. Either that, or you simply choose to ignore certain facts... objective facts. (The "it can't be true; they must all be lying or mistaken" fallacy?)

Objective does not mean "whatever would be strong enough to convince MrXYZ"; it simply means free of human bias. ("Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts" and "Not dependent on the mind for existence", from Google Dictionary.) Anyone who does not consider multiple correlated radars, for example, to be 'objective' is clearly not himself being objective. Sure, yes, a Level 10 debunker could and probably would argue that radars are designed, built and analyzed by humans, so are not objective, but I think a skeptic would be much less comfortable with that line of logic and its implications.

Look, present us OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that aliens exist. I have never seen any, but if I am as you say "incorrect", it should be easy for you to present objective evidence

reply to post by Jaellma


Educate or change their mind? The reality is the only evidence you can present are a couple of instancez of bacteria and the mathmagical probability that life exists elsewhere.

The skeptics have more evidence in their favor than the brlievers. But for hundreds of years people thought the bible waz a definitive history book. But limited evidence doesnt outway the statistical probability that life exists elsewhere.

Believers cannot educate people they can only indoctrinate or inculcate.

You will find for the most part that believers become sceptics - rarely the reverse happens. It is like a process of metamorphosis similar to the caterpillar/butterfly scenario.

I'm pretty sure most of us who visit this forum were believers or even Believers at one stage. As you mature and study the subject, lose you naivety and learn more, you naturally evolve into a sceptic.

It's something most believers (and some Believers) can look forward to.

And to clarify, by sceptic I mean someone who is sceptical of any of the currently available data (anecdotes photos and videos etc) being valid evidence of extraterrestrial visitation. Believing in the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe is a different matter.

reply to post by Jaellma


Impossible for you to change a skeptic's mindset. Only a chance encounter with aliens could do it. I read about alien abductions, ufo crashes and disclosures from people working within the "inner circle" of the shadow govt. and I believe in ufos and alien beings. I have not had even one ufo sighting in my entire life leave alone seeing an alien being but I believe they exist and have visited a select few through the years as reported by these people.

Originally posted by Falgore

Originally posted by Nikola014
We can't do anything about it. The only one who can change skeptic mind is himself. We can show them a dozens of proofs, but it still wouldn't matter because once you've decide not to believe in something, there is nothing that can change your mind. Skeptic will always be skeptic till he/she sees a UFO or alien...

There is proof and I can't agree more with you. To persuade skeptics it seems as if the only evidence they would accept is if they saw an alien being or UFO directly in front of them. You can't change their minds some are just plain ignorant to not accept the fact that we have been visited and the phenomenon is very real while others just need more evidence to persuade them.

Calling people ignorant is the most effective method of propaganda and indoctrination. I wish that you could see that it demonstrates how easily somebody else managed to convince you that we have been "visited" by aliens. Human nature is what it is - most will happily swim downstream with the rest of the herd, because humans like to be accepted by others, to be approved by others.. Peer pressure is effective, but a very dangerous tool in the wrong hands. People who stock up on food are now being labeled as possible 'terrorists', those who call abortion for what it is - murder- are labeled as bigots. What you just wrote is no different - a weak minded individual is susceptible to such herding - and will accept something as fact when it is not proven. Labelling a 'skeptic' as ignorant is a tool of control. Evil loves company and uses such techniques to capitalise on the inherent weakness of the mind. It capitalises on the effectiveness of peer pressure. It's in every article on the web, on every television show, and is a method of slavery. If you derive your image from what others think of you, it works like a charm.

reply to post by Jaellma


In my opinion Linda Moulton Howe does a terrific job in finding (they come to her) them. She tapes military whistleblowers then goes on to Coast to Coast radio show.

She really does a great job with the incredible stories, she tapes their testimonies. Case's of guards that see ufo craft send down their pencil like beams to disable atomic weapons. Or a guard's testimony seeing and hearing a craft in the process of cloaking itself, I think she does a wonderful job, you can find some of her Coast to Coast interviews on youtube. But to me, if you join Coast to Coast $30.00 bucks every six month you can easily obtain them. I've really enjoyed the iphone app. Not the new one but the older app. Then show them the great interviews such as George Knapp's interview with "Aliens In the Forrest" authors etc.

I think actually what really sparks my interest is the Gary Wilcox interview (available on youtube) on how he communicated with two martians. I find that utterly fascinating (April 12 1964) then that same day Lonnie Zamora spots what appears to tbe the same craft. Sees two white suited beings (short in stature). Same type oval craft.

I also find the leaked mars photos of Nasa, JPL seem to be a tie in to those white suited beings that Gary Wilcox talked with. Also the Aliens in the Forrest (Donald Shrum) were white suited beings. Lonnie Zamora = white suited, Also Ernest Norman's telepathic account. (but that might be over the top for a possible skeptic).

All in 1964, probably when mars was closest earth. All three of those cases are incredibly fascinating and a great lead for a sceptic to sink his teeth into.

But again listening to LInda Moulton Howe on UFO's. She has wonderful stories that appear to be true and with documented military personal.