Debunking the notion that those who believe official government denials are "skeptics"

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: debonkers

A true skeptic is doubtful of BOTH the government's story and the ufologist's story. But a true skeptic can also favor one opinion over the other (the one with the most objective evidence in its favor). Ufologist has ZERO objective evidence in its favor. Therefore we either believe the government's story or say "I don't know what that is." UFO used to be such a great acronym for those objects, then it got hijacked by the aliens crowd and has become synonymous with aliens.

You don't know what a skeptic is.

Subjective vs. Objective Evidence

Evidence can be of two types: Subjective and Objective. Subjective evidence is the testimony of what happened based on the statements of a witness, or Subject. The quality of the subjective evidence depends upon the honesty of the witness, and their ability to perceive reality. Unfortunately, subjective views are often inconsistent and biased. People may see what they want to see, or what they expect to see. Often, witnesses of the same traffic accident will report contradictory stories. People also may lie.

Subjective evidence should only be used to elaborate upon Objective evidence. "Subjective evidence" is not evidence at all, and can never stand alone, without Objective evidence. "Subjective evidence" is a contradiction of terms, which has somehow become part of our vocabulary. It is only the report of what some person or Subject has allegedly seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. It is relying on someone else's senses, and truthfulness in reporting what was sensed.. The judge and jury is totally dependent upon the reliability of the Subject, in the absence of any Object of perception in the Court room.

Objective evidence is truly deserving of the word "evidence." Objective evidence does not lie. The interpretation of Objective evidence may vary, and that is the purpose of a court room discussion - What can we infer from the objects. Objects are the objects of perception, things that can be seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. They include videos, pictures, fingerprints, DNA, foot prints, tire tracks, tape recordings, phone calls, physical objects, liquids, and gases. Recently, objective evidence can include electronic information, such as emails or files on a computer.

Objective evidence does not change, as long as it is not tampered with. It is what it is. It is unbiased. It has no motives. It has no feelings. It does not care what the outcome of the court trial is. It simply speaks the truth.

Objective evidence is what ufo believers are missing and until you can produce it, you are being intellectually dishonest about aliens visiting this planet.

Well said. Sadly, no matter how many times skeptics provide the definition for skeptic, the Church of ET parishoners won't accept it. They literally can not distinguish between belief and fact.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

They = entities not from Earth.

Why not from this earth?

Because they are seen in flying saucers?


I guess humans flying planes are not from this planet either.

That is one question that bugs me about believers in so called aliens visiting, what has made you believe they are from outside of earths realm?


They might be alien but not alien to this planet just peoples perception, so what has made so many believe they come from Mars or Uranus or some other place?

I can easily answer this about what not only makes me believe they come from elsewhere besides this planet, but also factually proves they don't come from anywhere in our solar system originally.

I worked in materials research for 15 years at a well known lab starting back in 1985, and we had samples from "undisclosed sources" with isotopic ratios and molecular alignments that showed they were definitely manufactured and were not from our solar system. If you have any knowledge at all about how these things can be known, then you will understand that our sun SOL and all our planets have the elements indigenous to the sun and each planet is limited to the elements our star the sun contains. All of these elements have a fingerprint of sorts in their identifiable isotopic ratios that show what planet they are from within the solar system. When they don't match our sun's elements in atomic properties, then they can't be from here.
This can be verified by just learning about the elements that exist naturally in our own solar system. It doesn't matter what I say, anyone can know this, and it is widely known by science right now.

Some of the "things" that are flying around our planet, have released materials with elements that don't come from this solar system, and this is how we know that "they" AREN"T FROM HERE.

I hope this helps, but I have a feeling you aren't going to care for the facts as they relate here, because those in this thread who resist the facts and the learnable truth about the origin of these things just can't get past the idea that aliens are here and they do not originate from this solar system.

Many of us here already know this and it isn't even a problem, but for others, they just don't get it.

I know what I know and I do not have the personality trait that allows some people to just ignore the truth only because it is not popular, and it can be career ending.

This is why I state that they aren't from Earth.

More and more people are learning how isotopic ratios in materials science disclose their origin, and some show that they aren't from anywhere nearby. Even if you might think that Aliens might be just hiding out here, which I also know that they are, doesn't mean they came from here, and the materials they have built their craft with show that they aren't from here.
It's really that simple.
I don't have to prove it and neither does the OP, because we already know these things, and many more folks on this site also know it.
If you don't want to believe it, that is fine with me.
It will come out eventually anyways.

a reply to: AboveBoard

I don't disagree entirely. I think what is required though is the redefining of reality. I think the objection is that one or more persons subjective experiences don't dictate reality for everyone else. Back in the day, anyone and everyone had strange subjective experiences. They were the prophets and the ones possessed by demons. There was no scientific method. What I see (not you) is folks wanting to go back to that time before science defined what is real. Redefining reality is no trivial task and would require a tremendous amount of work and that's the complaint I see from the other side who would rather just assert aliens exist. Nobody wants to do the work. That's what this thread represents. Its an assertion and a complaint. It is so much easier to assert and complain but it goes absolutely nowhere.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thank you for your reply.

So then, if I understand you correctly, an object on radar, with the documentation of it available for scrutiny, would be an example of 'testable evidence' that you would find potentially compelling?

I think the semantics on that (objective/testable) is going to drive me crazy. I will try to remember this broader definition of "testable." lol!

Regarding the UFO I saw, (daytime, under grey heavy cloud cover, red/amber perfect circle with no glare, silent, suddenly speeding up to a total blur and then "not there" as in it disappeared utterly, not "into the distance") because it had an element of high strangeness that left me a bit in shock, I do empathize with others who have their own individual tales to tell.

I know that stories are not going to tip the scale into "proof" for anyone other than the individual observer who is willing to do some homework and attempt to debunk their own sighting. Since I have seen something "beyond belief," I tend to allow that others may have experienced the "impossible yet real."

I will say that I appreciate the OP's frustration, as they are claiming a similar personal experience that colors what they see in the realm of "evidence." It is frustrating to not be able to convince others of what one has directly experienced, but I've come to the understanding that my word, while gold to some, means nothing in the context of an investigation. I suppose I could provide character witnesses, but really, other than that, I got nothing.


peace,
AB

originally posted by: AboveBoard
I understand completely the definition-flip the OP intended, I mean, I totally get it.

I will say that to look at something or someone with a "skeptical eye" does not mean that one wishes to pick them apart and maliciously trash them. I think it means a desire to not be naive and accept as Gospel Truth whatever is presented, be it a photograph, video, or story. Some people do tend to want what I consider to be an inapplicable form of "proof."

(For example: "testable evidence" - do I need to provide "testable evidence" that I am married to my husband, or merely documentation, photographic and video evidence, and witness accounts? How would we take the event of my marriage into the lab??? Now if my husband wants to know if our kids are really our kids - which they 100% are and it is obvious - but say he had amnesia or something...then he could have a Lab test our DNA to find the inevitable match, were he to be that outrageously skeptical of our relationship. See? Different things can be proven in different ways - not always by a Lab!)

And others seem open-minded and will consider all evidence pretty justly, and even-so reasonable minds may come out with their own, opposite, conclusions. In other words, believing or not believing something to be "real" evidence does not make someone automatically a fool, and sometimes we can agree to disagree.

I think people, like myself, who have had genuinely unexplained phenomena in their experience will tend to be more willing to entertain the idea of it happening to others.

peace,
AB

I absolutely believe that anomalous experiences occur. But I remain skeptical of specific claims. I find ET/abduction claims especially dubious, pending testable evidence, simply because 70 years have been invested in investigating them and not a shred of testable evidence has emerged for that which is claimed to be physical entities in physical craft physically present and doing physical things to actual humans.

I don't even doubt that some people have undergone that which they interpret to be alien abductions. However, that doesn't make them actual alien abductions. I also believe that some people are highly suggestible fantasists, some are mentally ill, and some are just plain liars.

I know people who have been talked into believing that they've been abducted by aliens when they previously had no such notion. They then went on to become proselytizers not only telling others they they, themselves, had been abducted but insisting that the other people to whom they were talking had been abducted, too, and just didn't know it. I've had them say it to me. This "movement" has taken on the attributes of religion and that is frightening. And, like religion, the believers insist that beliefs are facts and become extremely hostile to those who challenge that.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: AboveBoard
I understand completely the definition-flip the OP intended, I mean, I totally get it.

I will say that to look at something or someone with a "skeptical eye" does not mean that one wishes to pick them apart and maliciously trash them. I think it means a desire to not be naive and accept as Gospel Truth whatever is presented, be it a photograph, video, or story. Some people do tend to want what I consider to be an inapplicable form of "proof."

Most skeptics do that.

(For example: "testable evidence" - do I need to provide "testable evidence" that I am married to my husband, or merely documentation, photographic and video evidence, and witness accounts? How would we take the event of my marriage into the lab??? Now if my husband wants to know if our kids are really our kids - which they 100% are and it is obvious - but say he had amnesia or something...then he could have a Lab test our DNA to find the inevitable match, were he to be that outrageously skeptical of our relationship. See? Different things can be proven in different ways - not always by a Lab!)

Well a marriage license signed by you and your spouse WOULD be testable evidence of your marriage. Testable evidence doesn't mean that it is discovered or seen in a lab. All testable evidence is, is objective evidence. Objective evidence is ALWAYS the go to evidence for scientific inquiry. All alien/ufo evidence is subjective evidence. That is why there is no consensus that we've been visited.

And others seem open-minded and will consider all evidence pretty justly, and even-so reasonable minds may come out with their own, opposite, conclusions. In other words, believing or not believing something to be "real" evidence does not make someone automatically a fool, and sometimes we can agree to disagree.

Again, there are two types of evidence, subjective and objective evidence. The key is to know which type of evidence you are dealing with when looking at someone's presented evidence.

I think people, like myself, who have had genuinely unexplained phenomena in their experience will tend to be more willing to entertain the idea of it happening to others.

peace,
AB

I bolded a key word in that last sentence. Unexplained DOES NOT mean that you can substitute your own answers for it. It means there ISN'T an answer for it. So if you have an unexplained event then immediately start saying that it was alien visitation or ghosts or bigfoot or esp or anything like that, YOU are substituting an answer for an unexplained event that you don't have the evidence to properly explain.

I agree with everything you've said. I suspect that some people find it very difficult to accept ambiguity and will readily accept even a horrifying answer (ie. alien abduction) to avoid ambiguity.

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: debonkers

This is a terrific post, LaughingGod, I thank you for your input. I think willful ignorance is an apt description for the mindset of those who reject the past 70 years of alien contact.

Past 70 years or 7000 if not more years?


Are you talking about witnessing Flying saucers as per Kenneth Arnolds descriptions or Alien visitation that is said to be happening for way more than 70 years?

For the sake of this particular discussion I referred only to the modern era of UFO sightings, although I hate to use the term"UFO", which is another heavily biased euphemism. Alien contact has most likely gone on for far longer, but my immediate experiences go back only to the late 1950s, so I'm unable to discuss earlier alien contact with certainty. I prefer to discuss only what I know to be factual.

How is UNIDENTIFIED flying objects a biased euphemism. That's what they are.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thank you for your reply.

So then, if I understand you correctly, an object on radar, with the documentation of it available for scrutiny, would be an example of 'testable evidence' that you would find potentially compelling?

Correct, but only in so much that I know something that reflects radar waves is there. A radar signature doesn't tell me much else.

I think the semantics on that (objective/testable) is going to drive me crazy. I will try to remember this broader definition of "testable." lol!

This may help:
Science works with testable ideas

Only testable ideas are within the purview of science. For an idea to be testable, it must logically generate specific expectations — in other words, a set of observations that we could expect to make if the idea were true and a set of observations that would be inconsistent with the idea and lead you to believe that it is not true. For example, consider the idea that a sparrow's song is genetically encoded and is unaffected by the environment in which it is raised, in comparison to the idea that a sparrow learns the song it hears as a baby. Logical reasoning about this example leads to a specific set of expectations. If the sparrow's song were indeed genetically encoded, we would expect that a sparrow raised in the nest of a different species would grow up to sing a sparrow song like any other member of its own species. But if, instead, the sparrow's song were learned as a chick, raising a sparrow in the nest of another species should produce a sparrow that sings a non-sparrow song. Because they generate different expected observations, these ideas are testable. A scientific idea may require a lot of reasoning to work out an appropriate test, may be difficult to test, may require the development of new technological tools to test, or may require one to make independently testable assumptions to test — but to be scientific, an idea must be testable, somehow, someway.

If an explanation is equally compatible with all possible observations, then it is not testable and hence, not within the reach of science. This is frequently the case with ideas about supernatural entities. For example, consider the idea that an all-powerful supernatural being controls our actions. Is there anything we could do to test that idea? No. Because this supernatural being is all-powerful, anything we observe could be chalked up to the whim of that being. Or not. The point is that we can't use the tools of science to gather any information about whether or not this being exists — so such an idea is outside the realm of science.

Regarding the UFO I saw, (daytime, under grey heavy cloud cover, red/amber perfect circle with no glare, silent, suddenly speeding up to a total blur and then "not there" as in it disappeared utterly, not "into the distance") because it had an element of high strangeness that left me a bit in shock, I do empathize with others who have their own individual tales to tell.

Now in this case, the testable evidence is what you saw. But the only test you could perform is that you saw "something". Since you didn't immediately recognize what it is and have no way to conduct any further tests, all you can say is that you saw something that you didn't know what it was. I believe you've already done this, just fleshing out the idea a bit.

I know that stories are not going to tip the scale into "proof" for anyone other than the individual observer who is willing to do some homework and attempt to debunk their own sighting. Since I have seen something "beyond belief," I tend to allow that others may have experienced the "impossible yet real."

Impossibility only extends to the limits of our current knowledge of science. There is much in the universe that we have yet to explain. The odds of you witnessing something unexplainable are quite high. I am not discounting that you or even other people claiming they've seen aliens' stories. I am just saying that these stories attempt to give too many details than can adequately be provided by the sighting.

I will say that I appreciate the OP's frustration, as they are claiming a similar personal experience that colors what they see in the realm of "evidence." It is frustrating to not be able to convince others of what one has directly experienced, but I've come to the understanding that my word, while gold to some, means nothing in the context of an investigation. I suppose I could provide character witnesses, but really, other than that, I got nothing.

peace,
AB

I'm not sure if I showed you this link, but Your brain lies to you. Very good article that explains why subjective evidence (personal anecdotes), even from yourself, aren't to be trusted.

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: debonkers

My experiences are a fact. Nothing can change that. My experiences are true, they really happened. My experiences are information presented as having objective reality.

Therefore, my experiences are a fact, by definition.

Not when you throw perception into the the mix.

Your perception of your experience is a fact only to you and those that believe you at your word.

That does not make a fact in your perception equal a fact in reality.

Sorry, my experiences fall well within the definition of fact.

You have convinced yourself of that just like most religious believers convince themselves that their beliefs are facts. Beliefs never make something a fact. Never.

a reply to: Tangerine

Yea, I think the scariest phrase in the human psyche is "I don't know." Look how hard science denialists try to push the idea that because science has holes in it, it is therefore invalid. The human ego just has too much trouble grasping the idea that it doesn't know something and the answer probably won't be forthcoming in its lifetime, and even if it is does get answered it shouldn't be expected.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: AboveBoard

For example: "testable evidence" - do I need to provide "testable evidence" that I am married to my husband, or merely documentation, photographic and video evidence, and witness accounts?

Marriage is really a legal issue. You could provide all the evidence you want but it really depends on the local laws if the marriage is recognized. I had to prove that I wasn't married before I could get married again.

But I think I understand what you are trying to say. There are some things that don't need evidence because they are accepted as true by default.

I think people, like myself, who have had genuinely unexplained phenomena in their experience will tend to be more willing to entertain the idea of it happening to others.

Yes, absolutely. But really, everyone has their own experiences of the world. Some people may have had similar experiences as your own but interpret them differently. The issue is when one side wants to dictate their version over the other. One person may believe they were abducted but in a similar experience, the other person attributes their abduction experience to sleep paralysis. The experiences may be identical on paper but who is to say what the other experienced?

How do you prove that you aren't married? You can't prove a negative.

a reply to: AboveBoard

The UFO phenomenon and abduction phenomenon could be BOTH a physical "real" (i.e. in the four dimensions of space time) thing, and in the realm of consciousness and paranormal weirdness and individual perception.

I share your sense of incredulity, puzzlement and intrigue when it comes to some of the 'abduction' reports. The Kentucky case of 1976 in particular is one that seems to have no obvious explanation. Of course, there are many who know about the case and will have the confidence to assign a solution.

The women reportedly saw a large light in the sky that they thought was an airplane crashing. This much they were able to describe before the hypnotic regression*. They apparently lost time after the sighting by arriving at their destination ~90 minutes later than expected.

They claimed to have been photo-sensitive in the aftermath with reddened eyes and a burning sensation. This much is anecdotal as we have no medical documentation that they sustained some form of injury. However, in the Dechmont case, Bob Taylor had a peculiar experience that generated burning eyes and something like conjunctivitis that was documented by the police and local doctor. Likewise, Carl Higdon had a strange experience that led to sore eyes that were documented by medical staff and so did Sheriff Val Johnson. We could toss in the Cash-Landrum incident although I'm almost certain that was a military accident and more 'easily' explained...

Before anyone pops in to point out that these examples are unrelated, I realise that and I agree. The point I'm making is that, for me, it isn't straightforward to dismiss the claim when other claims in similarly unusual circumstances were supported by objective third parties.

The aftermath of the Kentucky women's alleged experience included a series of reported incidents that are hard to believe and invite psychological explanations. Perception alone can create PTSD symptoms.

What I'm left with here, is that it's a fact that people see UFOs and that people report unusual experiences - accurately or otherwise. It's a fact that some minuscule minority have experienced documented physical injuries to eyes that coincide with their accounts of close encounters with UFOs.

If I can't explain the reported sightings and injuries of these people, I can't completely dismiss their subsequent accounts that relate to what are known as 'abduction phenomena.'

* No details in this opinion involve hypnotic regression accounts

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I agree with you on this:

I think the objection is that one or more persons subjective experiences don't dictate reality for everyone else. Back in the day, anyone and everyone had strange subjective experiences.

I would love to know more about your ideas/perceptions of this:

I think what is required though is the redefining of reality.

One thing I always try to remember when dealing with "high strangeness" or "outlier" experiences that don't fit neatly into our scientific explanations, is that science is continually evolving.

Science is a human endeavor, just like religion or politics, and while its methods for research have proven sound, it is still bound to what has already been proven, and the human element (i.e scientific dogma - the battle of theories, and social "norms" being dangerous to overstep), and political element (what research is funded).

Still, it is a great tool and should not be discounted!

There are many ways of human "knowing" and "understanding," most of which apply to the individual's experience of their own reality, and which cannot be translated externally other than to "resonate" and be "believed" by others. This does not mean these ways are invalid, but they do not constitute the sought after degree of "proof."

Anyway, I think the OP is expressing frustration, which I do understand. It is frustrating to have one's own knowledge, one's own knowing, bump up against the sometimes standards of "proof," and be left with...well...frustration. Can you imagine? I think of someone like Clifford Stone and all he says he's experienced and how frustrating it would be, assuming it is all true and real, to try and make other people understand!

peace,
AB

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

They = entities not from Earth.

Why not from this earth?

Because they are seen in flying saucers?


I guess humans flying planes are not from this planet either.

That is one question that bugs me about believers in so called aliens visiting, what has made you believe they are from outside of earths realm?


They might be alien but not alien to this planet just peoples perception, so what has made so many believe they come from Mars or Uranus or some other place?

I can easily answer this about what not only makes me believe they come from elsewhere besides this planet, but also factually proves they don't come from anywhere in our solar system originally.

I worked in materials research for 15 years at a well known lab starting back in 1985, and we had samples from "undisclosed sources" with isotopic ratios and molecular alignments that showed they were definitely manufactured and were not from our solar system. If you have any knowledge at all about how these things can be known, then you will understand that our sun SOL and all our planets have the elements indigenous to the sun and each planet is limited to the elements our star the sun contains. All of these elements have a fingerprint of sorts in their identifiable isotopic ratios that show what planet they are from within the solar system. When they don't match our sun's elements in atomic properties, then they can't be from here.
This can be verified by just learning about the elements that exist naturally in our own solar system. It doesn't matter what I say, anyone can know this, and it is widely known by science right now.

Some of the "things" that are flying around our planet, have released materials with elements that don't come from this solar system, and this is how we know that "they" AREN"T FROM HERE.

I hope this helps, but I have a feeling you aren't going to care for the facts as they relate here, because those in this thread who resist the facts and the learnable truth about the origin of these things just can't get past the idea that aliens are here and they do not originate from this solar system.

Many of us here already know this and it isn't even a problem, but for others, they just don't get it.

I know what I know and I do not have the personality trait that allows some people to just ignore the truth only because it is not popular, and it can be career ending.

This is why I state that they aren't from Earth.

More and more people are learning how isotopic ratios in materials science disclose their origin, and some show that they aren't from anywhere nearby. Even if you might think that Aliens might be just hiding out here, which I also know that they are, doesn't mean they came from here, and the materials they have built their craft with show that they aren't from here.
It's really that simple.
I don't have to prove it and neither does the OP, because we already know these things, and many more folks on this site also know it.
If you don't want to believe it, that is fine with me.
It will come out eventually anyways.

The key words are "undisclosed sources". Meterorites are found on earth. They are not testable evidence that extraterrestrials exist, visit earth and abduct people. Unidentified, undisclosed, unknown: all word that do not translate to extraterrestrials flying spacecraft to earth and abducting people. You could as easily say that the isotopes you examined prove that troglodytes live in the center of the earth where materials exist with which those of us living on the crust of the earth are unfamiliar.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thank you for your reply.

So then, if I understand you correctly, an object on radar, with the documentation of it available for scrutiny, would be an example of 'testable evidence' that you would find potentially compelling?

I think the semantics on that (objective/testable) is going to drive me crazy. I will try to remember this broader definition of "testable." lol!

Regarding the UFO I saw, (daytime, under grey heavy cloud cover, red/amber perfect circle with no glare, silent, suddenly speeding up to a total blur and then "not there" as in it disappeared utterly, not "into the distance") because it had an element of high strangeness that left me a bit in shock, I do empathize with others who have their own individual tales to tell.

I know that stories are not going to tip the scale into "proof" for anyone other than the individual observer who is willing to do some homework and attempt to debunk their own sighting. Since I have seen something "beyond belief," I tend to allow that others may have experienced the "impossible yet real."

I will say that I appreciate the OP's frustration, as they are claiming a similar personal experience that colors what they see in the realm of "evidence." It is frustrating to not be able to convince others of what one has directly experienced, but I've come to the understanding that my word, while gold to some, means nothing in the context of an investigation. I suppose I could provide character witnesses, but really, other than that, I got nothing.

peace,
AB

Radar only proves that "something" happened not what.

I've had anomalous experiences myself. I suspect that most skeptics posting on these threads have, hence their interest in the subject. I believe you had that sighting, but where does that get us? It's still not testable evidence that extraterrestrials exist, visit earth and abduct people (if that's your belief).

a reply to: Tangerine

How do you prove that you aren't married? You can't prove a negative.

Um...., ah. I might have to move to Utah and become a Mormon.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Exactly!!

I believe in mapping out both an individual report and looking at how it fits within the larger picture of UFO or abduction (or whatever) phenomenon to see if there are patterns that might illuminate what could be happening.

If I am left with the experience itself, and its evidence (subjective or otherwise), and especially if there is some, as we've been discussing here, "testable/objective" evidence (i.e. the eye issue), and they cannot be otherwise explained, then I have to put it in the "I Don't Know" weirdness category.

Again, this isn't "smoking gun" TRUTH, but a collecting of patterns and reports over time that seem to point to a real, yet mysterious, phenomenon. I cannot simply say "sorry, it didn't happen because you didn't prove it to me with objective evidence," and neither can I say "OMG!! You were abducted by freaking aliens!!!" It goes in my "unresolved" file, which is a big deal when I look at how much of that kind of experience there seems to be, including my own small contribution.

I think the frustration comes in when someone else dismisses what one feels is important, and that is the cause of much bitter discussion...on whatever side of the "evidence" one may be.

peace,
AB

(I do not like hypnotic regression "evidence" as it is too easily manipulated by the one doing the hypnotizing, and false memories are too easily created.)

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Tangerine

How do you prove that you aren't married? You can't prove a negative.

Um...., ah. I might have to move to Utah and become a Mormon.

No, seriously. How do you prove you're not married? You can certainly prove that you're divorced, but I don't know how someone would go about proving they're not married.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Kandinsky

Exactly!!

I believe in mapping out both an individual report and looking at how it fits within the larger picture of UFO or abduction (or whatever) phenomenon to see if there are patterns that might illuminate what could be happening.

If I am left with the experience itself, and its evidence (subjective or otherwise), and especially if there is some, as we've been discussing here, "testable/objective" evidence (i.e. the eye issue), and they cannot be otherwise explained, then I have to put it in the "I Don't Know" weirdness category.

Again, this isn't "smoking gun" TRUTH, but a collecting of patterns and reports over time that seem to point to a real, yet mysterious, phenomenon. I cannot simply say "sorry, it didn't happen because you didn't prove it to me with objective evidence," and neither can I say "OMG!! You were abducted by freaking aliens!!!" It goes in my "unresolved" file, which is a big deal when I look at how much of that kind of experience there seems to be, including my own small contribution.

I think the frustration comes in when someone else dismisses what one feels is important, and that is the cause of much bitter discussion...on whatever side of the "evidence" one may be.

peace,
AB

(I do not like hypnotic regression "evidence" as it is too easily manipulated by the one doing the hypnotizing, and false memories are too easily created.)

I don't think you'll find many people in these UFO threads flat-out saying "something" didn't happen. However, the Church of ET parishoners are not satisfied with agnosticism. I think part of it is ego (how dare you question ME!) and part of it is desperation to have an explanation for the unknown. They do not deal well with ambiguity.

I believe you had that sighting, but where does that get us? It's still not testable evidence that extraterrestrials exist, visit earth and abduct people (if that's your belief).

a reply to: Tangerine

But proof that something objective happened that corroborates a story gives greater weight and credibility to that story, no? It may not equal "aliens" but it DOES equate to having objective evidence that BACKS UP the story of "something" mysterious or anomalous happening.

For me, "aliens visiting earth" is a theory, not something I can say I "believe" in so much as one of a group of possibilities. It could be something else entirely and I try to hold my options open.

I think people who investigate get frustrated, and even jaded, with the fact that whatever it is that is happening, whatever it is that people are experiencing, the phenomenon itself seems to want to remain "occult" - as in hidden - mysterious and complex, and horribly challenging to "prove" to any degree of scientific satisfaction. All paranormal phenomena seem to fall into that "real" but not "provable" category. One can experience it, but not explain it to external satisfaction or scientific rigor.

peace,
AB