There's no evidence that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred

reply to post by neoholographic

When a Police Officer comes onto the scene of an accident, he talks to EYEWITNESSES.

of course but what happens when someone says a ufo caused the accident? Or how about if 5 eyewitnesses said they saw something that caused the accident but it couldn't be identified as anything known? What if a couple of them believed it was aliens because they watch a lot of shows in the history channel? What if the thing they were describing vanished and left no evidence that it was actually there? What if 500 people saw it? At what point do you consider it evidence of aliens? Does the police report say aliens caused the accident?

Witnesses are a great resource when they witness something familiar or known. My son can name the make and model of just about every car he sees. He would make a great witness for identifying cars involved in a car accident. He can tell you the year of any mustang by looking at its tail lights. I can't. Good witnesses are valued directly with how well they know what they are witnessing.

witnesses may witness something that is not known to them and they may believe it to be something that is also not known to actually exist. In this case, aliens are not known to actually exist. People seeing something unknown and then believing its aliens is seeing something unknown and then believing its aliens. It is not "evidence" of aliens and it won't be until we find an alien.

it isn't belittling witnesses or discounting them or saying they are silly or delusional. If people do say that, then I agree that it is not helpful. But why should anyone be discouraged from trying to understand witness testimony in psychological terms or any way they wish to explore an UNKNOWN phenomenon? Because it insults witnesses? Because of negative connotations? Well, you and the witnesses will have to get over it.

reply to post by neoholographic

So all eyewitness accounts in these areas can't just be the case of delusions and people who are mistaken.

Why not? You keep saying this is based on logic. How?

Here is what is being said that you are ignoring or misinterpreting.

Someone sees a UFO.
Do people see things that they mistake for UFOs? Yes
Do we know of ANY cases where the UFO turns out to be aliens? NO!
Using logic, how do you determine that ANY UFO is due to aliens and not misidentification?
You can't.
This does not mean that every person must be mistaken! What it means is that misidentification has not been ruled out.

The ONLY way to rule out all cases are misidentifications is by finding an alien.

Now it may seem like one or two cases would have to be true because you really believe it and you have a gut feeling and it just seems impossible for it not to be the case. That is your belief which is perfectly reasonable to believe!

It is also perfectly reasonable to BELIEVE all cases are misidentifications since there no logical reason not to!

personally, I believe it is entirely possible that something alien turns up. There is just no way to quantify aliens with the information we have.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Everything you said makes ZERO sense and it proves my point. You said:

Witnesses are a great resource when they witness something familiar or known. My son can name the make and model of just about every car he sees. He would make a great witness for identifying cars involved in a car accident. He can tell you the year of any mustang by looking at its tail lights. I can't. Good witnesses are valued directly with how well they know what they are witnessing.

This is just garbage for lack of a better term.

The reason you make this claim because you want to put Eyewitnesses when it comes to U.F.O.'s in a monolithic box. This shows how desperate skeptics are. They don't want you to use simple logic and common sense when it comes to ufology. Because if you use simple logic and common sense then you have to give weight to eyewitness accounts. So skeptics make up these silly things to avoid simple logic and reason. So because people are seeing and experiencing an U.F.O., Eyewitness are now all put into a monolithic box that they're unreliable or mistaken. All of a sudden, eyewitnesses when it comes to these areas become stupid and they can't give us a reliable description of what they saw and experienced.

Like I said, the reason skeptics go to these absurd lengths is because they don't want to use simple reason and logic. Because if you use simple reason and logic then some of the witnesses in abduction cases are describing exactly what they saw and experienced. Instead of accepting this and then you begin to look into these things further with an open mind, the skeptic wants to throw all eyewitnesses in these areas into a monolithic box that's labeled unreliable.

So at the end of the day, we don't need to throw Eyewitnesses in areas of ufology into a box based on a belief system. That's just a pseudoskeptic fallacy used to avoid simple reason and logic.

Eyewitnesses can be very strong and some can be weak. This is why Police like to gather evidence from multiple witnesses and then look at similarities between their statements. It's no different when it comes to Alien abductions and close encounters. Anyone who has studied these things knows there's some witnesses that are shaky and there's some witnesses who are strong and very detailed.

This is exactly what we should find because this is just simple logic and common sense when it comes to eyewitnesses.

reply to post by neoholographic

Everything you said makes ZERO sense and it proves my point.

I hate when that happens.

No. What I said makes perfect sense and proves that you really don't have a point. You just are completely missing my point and seem to be just plain confused about what actual logic is. You essentially have a straw man argument that you think you can bully anyone with who disagrees with you.

Witnesses can only identify what they know. I have never seen anyone positively identify something not known to exist.

Lets take another example. Someone sees rabbit tracks in the snow. The only way to know they are rabbit tracks is to know what rabbit tracks are. They can safely say that a rabbit was there.

Now if someone sees the same tracks but doesn't know what they are, they can not ID what made them.

this is not a "claim".

Now how do you ID something that nobody recognizes as tracks. They could be tracks or they could be marks in the snow made any number of ways. According to you, that is evidence of aliens.

draknoir2

EnPassant

draknoir2

EnPassant


Arguments that persistently hinge on accusations of delusion are suspect.

That is a popular straw man argument employed by those inclined to believe in ET visitation.

Either one accepts eyewitness testimony without question or they are accusing the witnesses of being liars or delusional.


The fact of the matter, whether or not you wish to accept it, is that eyewitness testimony should ALWAYS be questioned for various reasons not limited to the two just mentioned.

edit on 6-3-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

I don't advocate accepting anything without question. But the questions have, to my mind, been adequately answered - for example, obscure descriptions that predate the Hill case - cases they could not have known about.

From Jenny Randles' book Abduction-

July 1965, Valensole, France
...some 'little boys' got out. They were four feet tall with 'pumpkin' heads, thin mouths, big eyes, and white skin.

This was before the publication of the Hill case.

You need to expand your research beyond Jenny Randles' book.

This was NOT before the Hill case was made public.

The Hills met with a NICAP investigator for an interview in October of 1961, after having reported the events to the USAF, three and a half years before the Valensole case. The Hills discussed the case with friends and UFO researchers alike, even lecturing on it in 1963. It was well known in UFO circles by 1965.

It was before the publication of the Hill case. But now you argue that Maurice Masse of the Valensole case, in France heard about the Hill case through the grapevine - before most Americans did - and copied it. This is unlikely.

neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

Everything you said makes ZERO sense and it proves my point. You said:

Witnesses are a great resource when they witness something familiar or known. My son can name the make and model of just about every car he sees. He would make a great witness for identifying cars involved in a car accident. He can tell you the year of any mustang by looking at its tail lights. I can't. Good witnesses are valued directly with how well they know what they are witnessing.

This is just garbage for lack of a better term.

The reason you make this claim because you want to put Eyewitnesses when it comes to U.F.O.'s in a monolithic box. This shows how desperate skeptics are. They don't want you to use simple logic and common sense when it comes to ufology. Because if you use simple logic and common sense then you have to give weight to eyewitness accounts. So skeptics make up these silly things to avoid simple logic and reason. So because people are seeing and experiencing an U.F.O., Eyewitness are now all put into a monolithic box that they're unreliable or mistaken. All of a sudden, eyewitnesses when it comes to these areas become stupid and they can't give us a reliable description of what they saw and experienced.

Like I said, the reason skeptics go to these absurd lengths is because they don't want to use simple reason and logic. Because if you use simple reason and logic then some of the witnesses in abduction cases are describing exactly what they saw and experienced. Instead of accepting this and then you begin to look into these things further with an open mind, the skeptic wants to throw all eyewitnesses in these areas into a monolithic box that's labeled unreliable.

So at the end of the day, we don't need to throw Eyewitnesses in areas of ufology into a box based on a belief system. That's just a pseudoskeptic fallacy used to avoid simple reason and logic.

Eyewitnesses can be very strong and some can be weak. This is why Police like to gather evidence from multiple witnesses and then look at similarities between their statements. It's no different when it comes to Alien abductions and close encounters. Anyone who has studied these things knows there's some witnesses that are shaky and there's some witnesses who are strong and very detailed.

This is exactly what we should find because this is just simple logic and common sense when it comes to eyewitnesses.

Simple reason and logic would indicate that you have a problem with skepticism.

ZetaRediculian
It is also perfectly reasonable to BELIEVE all cases are misidentifications since there no logical reason not to!

It is not as simple as that. One report could be a misidentification. Two reports are less likely to be misidentification. But when hundreds of reports by balanced individuals with no agenda build, incrementally, a consistent picture and when themes - such as the much reported 'humming' sound of ufos - emerge, common sense demands that we take notice and give the witnesses the credibility they deserve. A credibility that is continually being reinforced. They only other try is "Deluded!".

For what it is worth, I personally know people of great integrity, who had clear sightings of flying saucers.

EnPassant

draknoir2

EnPassant

draknoir2

EnPassant


Arguments that persistently hinge on accusations of delusion are suspect.

That is a popular straw man argument employed by those inclined to believe in ET visitation.

Either one accepts eyewitness testimony without question or they are accusing the witnesses of being liars or delusional.


The fact of the matter, whether or not you wish to accept it, is that eyewitness testimony should ALWAYS be questioned for various reasons not limited to the two just mentioned.

edit on 6-3-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

I don't advocate accepting anything without question. But the questions have, to my mind, been adequately answered - for example, obscure descriptions that predate the Hill case - cases they could not have known about.

From Jenny Randles' book Abduction-

July 1965, Valensole, France
...some 'little boys' got out. They were four feet tall with 'pumpkin' heads, thin mouths, big eyes, and white skin.

This was before the publication of the Hill case.

You need to expand your research beyond Jenny Randles' book.

This was NOT before the Hill case was made public.

The Hills met with a NICAP investigator for an interview in October of 1961, after having reported the events to the USAF, three and a half years before the Valensole case. The Hills discussed the case with friends and UFO researchers alike, even lecturing on it in 1963. It was well known in UFO circles by 1965.

It was before the publication of the Hill case. But now you argue that Maurice Masse of the Valensole case, in France heard about the Hill case through the grapevine - before most Americans did - and copied it. This is unlikely.

edit on 6-3-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

Grapevine? It was in the public domain by 1963. Front page of the Boston Traveler by 1965. You argue that the rest of the world had no access to what the rest of the country did... I'd say that was unlikely. But I did note that you were careful to use the word "publication" in reference to the Hills' book release date so that it would appear that the Valensdale case could not possibly have been contaminated. A bit disingenuous, wouldn't you say? Of course you wouldn't.

draknoir2
Simple reason and logic would indicate that you have a problem with skepticism.

edit on 6-3-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

Constructive scepticism is welcome and necessary but scepticism about ufos has now become desperately dependent on undermining the witnesses integrity or their ability to see what they are looking at. This won't work anymore because there are far too many well documented sightings.

It has got to the point now that sceptics absolutely need to undermine the witnesses' credibility or it is game over.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


You said:

Witnesses can only identify what they know. I have never seen anyone positively identify something not known to exist.

This is just sad.

It shows that what I'm saying is correct. Skeptics want to avoid all reason and logic when it comes to these areas.

So because eyewitnesses who are experiencing and seeing these things can't describe what they see and experience because you haven't seen it? It's unknown to you not to the person seeing and experiencing it.

Nothing you have said has anything to do with the reliability of eyewitnesses. Some eyewitnesses are strong and they describe what they're seeing in great detail. Some eyewitnesses are shaky and weak.

You keep saying that Witnesses can only identify what they know. Where does this nonsense come from? Do eyewitnesses all of a sudden lose common sense and lose their eyesight when they see a U.F.O. or have a close encounter LOL?????

The desperation of skeptics to avoid logic and reason is just amazing.

There's zero evidence that says eyewitnesses can only describe what they know. If anything, some eyewitnesses become more alert and detailed when faced with an unknown situation.

When a lady bumped into a guy she thought was strange and that scared her a little, she described this guy that was unknown to her so well to a sketch artist that it lead to his arrest.

The lady in the bank robbery described a tattoo that was unknown to her and when she should have been scared she was concerned with detail and it was so detailed it led to the arrest of the bank robber.

At the end of the day, your claim is meaningless and it's just an attempt to throw out reason and logic when it comes to eyewitnesses in ufology. This is because it's easier to label all of these accounts unreliable and stick your head in the sand.

draknoir2
Grapevine? It was in the public domain by 1963. Front page of the Boston Traveler by 1965. You argue that the rest of the world had no access to what the rest of the country did... I'd say that was unlikely. But I did note that you were careful to use the word "publication" in reference to the Hills' book release date so that it would appear that the Valensdale case could not possibly have been contaminated. A bit disingenuous, wouldn't you say? Of course you wouldn't.

What do you mean by public domain? A few private conversations? That is hardly the public domain. It wasn't known by a large number of people until late 1965. The Valensole case is July 1965. So, unless you are willing to argue that Masse was listening into these private conversations and word of mouth rumours - from France, his experience predates the Hill case.

draknoir2

neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

Everything you said makes ZERO sense and it proves my point. You said:

Witnesses are a great resource when they witness something familiar or known. My son can name the make and model of just about every car he sees. He would make a great witness for identifying cars involved in a car accident. He can tell you the year of any mustang by looking at its tail lights. I can't. Good witnesses are valued directly with how well they know what they are witnessing.

This is just garbage for lack of a better term.

The reason you make this claim because you want to put Eyewitnesses when it comes to U.F.O.'s in a monolithic box. This shows how desperate skeptics are. They don't want you to use simple logic and common sense when it comes to ufology. Because if you use simple logic and common sense then you have to give weight to eyewitness accounts. So skeptics make up these silly things to avoid simple logic and reason. So because people are seeing and experiencing an U.F.O., Eyewitness are now all put into a monolithic box that they're unreliable or mistaken. All of a sudden, eyewitnesses when it comes to these areas become stupid and they can't give us a reliable description of what they saw and experienced.

Like I said, the reason skeptics go to these absurd lengths is because they don't want to use simple reason and logic. Because if you use simple reason and logic then some of the witnesses in abduction cases are describing exactly what they saw and experienced. Instead of accepting this and then you begin to look into these things further with an open mind, the skeptic wants to throw all eyewitnesses in these areas into a monolithic box that's labeled unreliable.

So at the end of the day, we don't need to throw Eyewitnesses in areas of ufology into a box based on a belief system. That's just a pseudoskeptic fallacy used to avoid simple reason and logic.

Eyewitnesses can be very strong and some can be weak. This is why Police like to gather evidence from multiple witnesses and then look at similarities between their statements. It's no different when it comes to Alien abductions and close encounters. Anyone who has studied these things knows there's some witnesses that are shaky and there's some witnesses who are strong and very detailed.

This is exactly what we should find because this is just simple logic and common sense when it comes to eyewitnesses.

Simple reason and logic would indicate that you have a problem with skepticism.

edit on 6-3-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

Nope, I'm a skeptic when it comes to Bigfoot but there's things I would never do. I would never try to belittle eyewitness accounts as all unreliable because that's just silly. That would be more about me lying to myself and throwing out reason and logic to support my skepticism.

I would never say people believe that Bigfoot exist based on no evidence. Of course they have evidence that helped them reach their conclusion. I just looked at the same evidence and came to a different conclusion.

Sadly, many U.F.O. skeptics are pseudoskeptics who want to belittle anyone that reaches a different conclusion than they have as being a "wishful thinker" or "believing without evidence." The so called skeptics in these cases can't accept that others looked over the available evidence and came to an intelligently derived conclusion that extraterrestrials exist and visitation has occurred.

Look at Zeta trying to throw all eyewitnesses in these areas into a box. That's not just being a skeptic, it's silly.

EnPassant

draknoir2
Simple reason and logic would indicate that you have a problem with skepticism.

edit on 6-3-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

Constructive scepticism is welcome and necessary but scepticism about ufos has now become desperately dependent on undermining the witnesses integrity or their ability to see what they are looking at. This won't work anymore because there are far too many well documented sightings.

It has got to the point now that sceptics absolutely need to undermine the witnesses' credibility or it is game over.

Actually a skeptic needn't undermine the witnesses' credibility at all, as witness testimony only proves that the witness said something... well-documented or not.

When your entire case is based on eyewitness testimony you can expect to have it indicted.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


I like this example, let's carry on.
I see said tracks. And have not seen them before so I can't ID them. I see two options, carry on regardless OR look around! What do you see ? What have you heard? Oh looking there, a little bunny rabbit far off in the distance. Or perhaps you have heard tales of these pesky creatures called rabbits that are sometimes seen out there.Now I can take reason and logic and make an educated guess at it being rabbit tracks. I don't have proof or evidence and lets not forget that there could by multiple tracks that look just like said rabbit tracks.
So Nope I don't know for sure what they are..... but I AM right, yes??

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


You said:

Witnesses can only identify what they know. I have never seen anyone positively identify something not known to exist.

LOL!!

This is just too funny. How far will skeptics go to avoid simple reason and logic??

People didn't know what a comet was when they first saw it yet they positively identified a comet. According to you, they could never identify the comet until they first identified the comet LOL. As long as the comet was unknown, no eyewitness could describe the comet based on your logic or lack thereof.

These things become identified over time as the evidence grows. Based on the accumulation of evidence some have reached the conclusion that they exist like Stephen Hawking, Dr. Michio Kaku and Edgar Mitchell.

According to you though, we can never describe things that are unknown to us until we know what it is. If this was the case, how would we ever discover anything???????

reply to post by neoholographic


now you said a lot of stuff about skeptics and logic and all kinds of things but did not actually say what didn't make sense to you. You directly quoted me but didn't actually address anything I said.

Witnesses are a great resource when they witness something familiar or known. My son can name the make and model of just about every car he sees. He would make a great witness for identifying cars involved in a car accident. He can tell you the year of any mustang by looking at its tail lights. I can't. Good witnesses are valued directly with how well they know what they are witnessing.

So I will assume you disagree with the basic point I made above.

So you are saying that it doesn't matter how well a witnesses knows what they are witnessing and that their testimony should be treated the same. You are saying in your example that someone who does not know about cars and can not ID the make and model of any car would make just as good of a witness as someone who is very familiar with cars.

you are also saying that people can positively ID unknown things as being something that is not known to exist. And you are saying that this can be done using logic and that anyone that disagrees is an idiot.

you fascinate me.

reply to post by neoholographic


If in fact governments of this planet have got hold of crashed ufo's or downed a few and taken them to secret storage to back engineer them and all that such a long time ago. then by now they must have sorted out the power system of these vehicles, and reproduced them.. in this case they are also flying these vehicles around and people are spotting them and reporting ufo ufo ufo..... which suits the government totally.... its a big vicious circle for us wanna be believers for us who seek evidence of other life forms from some other part of this seemingly endless collection of galaxies.... however it all pans out, we are definitely up against it with our peers denying any knowledge of anything out of the ordinary, apart from a few abnormalities.. they can lie to us and we cant tell if its a lie or the truth... we are all aware by now the earth is not the centre of the universe. in fact it's nothing more than a little ball amongst trillions of little balls... we are the current life form on it... we will exist as long as everything around our universe stays put and nothing different happens to cause a chain reaction on the planets and worlds that now sit in a place that allows the existence of the creatures on earth us included of course.... we are in a much more fragile existence than we may care to admit..... just one small reaction and zap we are no more... our current problem if the government are not lying and we have no vehicles to back engineer and hence we cant travel at unprecedented speeds to anyplace then we are such a long way away from doing any sort of meaningful exploration of space... we must be able to travel to someplace like the moon within minutes or quicker... we are still on our doorstep atm... we haven't explored anything in the context of real space exploration.... so unless some life form that is a few million years ahead of us come here, we will never visit them at the rate we are going, at least not for many a long year.... I do believe we are being visited and observed just as we would observe life on the moon if it existed and of course we would take a few examples to dna them etc..... so yes those explorers from other parts of some galaxy will of course nab a few of us to experiment on and check out in a lab just like we would.......so we have abductees, at least the ones they leave back report of their encounter there are many i imagine which never get left back.... its a strange place we exist in.. and we are only now communicating widely with each other thanks to the internet..... but we are at least becoming more self aware... and bordering on advancing into a new level of our existence.... at least i believe this..... all of this like all of that which is posted is speculation and none of us have any conclusive proof of beings/creatures from other parts visiting us.... that of course does not mean they aren't..... electricity isn't visible but it sure as hell exists... software is not visible but it too exists....I hope in my lifetime we will have proof there are other life forms apart from bacteria etc on other worlds nice post thanks for sharing

EnPassant

draknoir2
Grapevine? It was in the public domain by 1963. Front page of the Boston Traveler by 1965. You argue that the rest of the world had no access to what the rest of the country did... I'd say that was unlikely. But I did note that you were careful to use the word "publication" in reference to the Hills' book release date so that it would appear that the Valensdale case could not possibly have been contaminated. A bit disingenuous, wouldn't you say? Of course you wouldn't.

What do you mean by public domain? A few private conversations? That is hardly the public domain. It wasn't known by a large number of people until late 1965. The Valensole case is July 1965. So, unless you are willing to argue that Masse was listening into these private conversations and word of mouth rumours - from France, his experience predates the Hill case.

On 7 September 1963 the Hills gave a lecture before an amateur UFO study group in Quincy Center. This is after they made their report to NICAP and the USAF, which forwarded it to Project Blue Book. From that point up to the publishing of their book they were granting interviews with UFO investigators.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


You said:

So you are saying that it doesn't matter how well a witnesses knows what they are witnessing and that their testimony should be treated the same. You are saying in your example that someone who does not know about cars and can not ID the make and model of any car would make just as good of a witness as someone who is very familiar with cars.

No it doesn't matter. It depends on the eyewitness. Some people make better eyewitnesses than others. In a situation where one is scared the person who knows all about cars might make a poor eyewitness. They could be so scared for their life that they don't pay attention to detail.

My point is, it's about various eyewitness accounts so you have to look at the accumulation of evidence. You can't just throw all of these eyewitness accounts into a box and label them unreliable as you stick your head in the sand.

Also, we have seen and described things unknown to us since the dawn of civilization. According to you, we can't describe anything unknown to us and that's just silly. How would we discover anything??? According to you we can't describe it until it's known LOL.

neoholographic


Nope, I'm a skeptic when it comes to Bigfoot but there's things I would never do. I would never try to belittle eyewitness accounts as all unreliable because that's just silly. That would be more about me lying to myself and throwing out reason and logic to support my skepticism.

I would never say people believe that Bigfoot exist based on no evidence. Of course they have evidence that helped them reach their conclusion. I just looked at the same evidence and came to a different conclusion.

Sadly, many U.F.O. skeptics are pseudoskeptics who want to belittle anyone that reaches a different conclusion than they have as being a "wishful thinker" or "believing without evidence." The so called skeptics in these cases can't accept that others looked over the available evidence and came to an intelligently derived conclusion that extraterrestrials exist and visitation has occurred.

Look at Zeta trying to throw all eyewitnesses in these areas into a box. That's not just being a skeptic, it's silly.

Bigfoot is real.