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

The U.S. government has a long ongoing history of lying, deceiving,covering up, and doing despicable things to human beings,so do I believe that they would lie about and cover up extraterrestrial life? ABSOLUTELY!

AS far fetched as intelligent extraterrestrial life seems to be I think it`s a much safer bet than betting that the U.S. government isn`t hiding anything or covering anything up concerning intelligent extraterrestrial life.
if the government was a person they would be disqualified to testify in court as a witness on the grounds of moral turpitude.
It`s completely illogical to assume that a government with such a long proven record of corruption,lies,deciet,etc,etc is telling the truth on the issue of intelligent extraterrestrial life.

lying about UFOs and alien life ranks very low on the immorality scale compared to some of the other things the government has done so I think there is no doubt that they would lie about it.

Could you fit a few more hackneyed buzzwords into that title? Maybe include "disclosure" or "pseudo" or "disinfo".

People wonder why the traffic here is down. I think it might correspond to the recent proliferation of these threads. Personally I tire of hearing the same old ad hominems presented in lieu of actual discussion. If you want to live in your belief bubble, free from challenge, flagging any purely speculative thread and starring posters who star and flag whatever you say, no matter how illogical or poorly supported, then there's probably a forum tailored to your needs.

a reply to: draknoir2


hold on a sec! , theres something missing here .. , this thread feels somehow empty for some reason

funbox

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: learnatic
a reply to: debonkers

Those who accept the notion of alien contact being true, have basically ceded the high ground on this, seldom challenging their opponents on their claims of the skeptical position.

It would be helpfull if someone could suggest how this might be achieved.

The only way it can be done is by finding a case that can be proven actually occurred and where aliens is the only explanation. There is no such case.

Proven to who? You? Proven to a jury of one's peers? Proven to Neil Degrasse Tyson?

Because it's certainly been proven to millions of people who experienced alien contact first hand.

I can prove to you iron exists. Can you prove to me aliens have visited Earth? No? Thought not. Thanks. When you get evidence let me know.

Japan Airlines famous case proves they visited here. A humongous walnut shaped craft that dwarfed the 747 was seen by the crew and passengers.
Callahan was the division chief in the FAA who investigated the case. Radar records he still has primary and secondary confirm the object and matched the traffic movements with the audio recordings of what the pilots were saying.

there's is just so much proof with this single case that to attempt to say it didn't happen, or that it was man made is to say while looking in a mirror that you do not believe in reality.

Or you can say to yourself that Denial is also your first name.
Or that an Ostrich deals with stressful situations THE SAME WAY YOU DO.

You rely more on faith and less upon science by trying to say they are not visiting earth because a preponderance of evidence proves they ARE.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Japan Airlines famous case proves they visited here.

Really? Who are "they"? Giant walnut people from the planet Twilo? I don't remember the pilot mentioning "them".

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Japan Airlines famous case proves they visited here.

Really? Who are "they"? Giant walnut people from the planet Twilo? I don't remember the pilot mentioning "them".

They = entities not from Earth.

If you need any further help understanding the obvious feel free to PM me, I'm always willing to help others.

here's a great primer book that can help you get a head start on the subject:



The price is very low too, I think 2.99 in US dollars but that varies I'm sure. You can google it

Here's another one that you might find helpful.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Japan Airlines famous case proves they visited here.

Really? Who are "they"? Giant walnut people from the planet Twilo? I don't remember the pilot mentioning "them".

They = entities not from Earth.

If you need any further help understanding the obvious feel free to PM me, I'm always willing to help others.

Not so helpful as you seem to believe, but the undeserved tone of superiority did give me a hearty laugh. Thanks for that.

Now how about identifying and producing a single "entity not from earth". Feel free to PM me with the proof. I'm always willing to consider it.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Japan Airlines famous case proves they visited here.

Really? Who are "they"? Giant walnut people from the planet Twilo? I don't remember the pilot mentioning "them".

They = entities not from Earth.

If you need any further help understanding the obvious feel free to PM me, I'm always willing to help others.

Not so helpful as you seem to believe, but the undeserved tone of superiority did give me a hearty laugh. Thanks for that.

Now how about identifying and producing a single "entity not from earth". Feel free to PM me with the proof. I'm always willing to consider it.

I had a good laugh too

And gosh almighty, I already delivered the last guy tons of free and valid proof, do I look like the goodwill bin?

how about the fillings out of my teeth while we are at it?

How can you learn and retain what you learn if you have others do all the work for you?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

And, gosh almighty, still no alien with proof of origin.

I guess it all depends on your definition of "proof".

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

And, gosh almighty, still no alien with proof of origin.

I guess it all depends on your definition of "proof".

I never promised you any proof of anything, and wasn't having a discussion with you anyways, so why am I supposed to show you anything?

I did provide proof to someone else who was lacking on info.

Your post to me was indeed just some kind of mockery based platitude and an obvious trollish baiting so I don't owe you anything. Perhaps if you weren't just trolling me like you have been doing from the start, then maybe we would be having a real discussion.

Nice try at derailing the entire thread though. Pretty piss poor manners.

/ignore draknoir2 ON

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

And, gosh almighty, still no alien with proof of origin.

I guess it all depends on your definition of "proof".

I never promised you any proof of anything, even before your first post to me.

I did provide proof to someone else who was lacking on info.

Your post to me was indeed just some kind of mockery based platitude and an obvious trollish baiting so I don't owe you anything. Perhaps if you weren't just trolling me like you have been doing from the start, then maybe we would be having a real discussion.

Nice try at derailing the entire thread though. Pretty piss poor manners.

I could promise to try and make you smarter, but I don't think anyone could. Not with your tactics.
/ignore draknoir2 ON

If asking you to back up your wild [and incorrect] assertion is an attempt to derail, then I can't help you.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: debonkers

It seems like we have a hole in our knowledge which has left us unable to explain a residue of UFO sightings reports and unusual experiences. Being curious humans, and disliking the holes in knowledge, we try and carpet over the hole with an explanation we find attractive.

You've chosen aliens because it appeals to you; it makes sense in your mind. It doesn't[ make the decision 'skeptical' or the thinking that led you there either. Being sceptical/skeptical means avoiding filling the holes with what suits us best. Sure, maybe some reports were (or are) of aliens? It's possible whilst we don't know enough to say no for sure. The thing is, none of the most puzzling, 'unidentified' reports really tell us that aliens were responsible.

Even if we rule out conventional explanations and discount operations by Intel groups, there still isn't enough information to say with certainty that any specific report has the explanation of 'aliens.'

Thank you for your intelligent post, well-reasoned and well written. What you say makes perfect sense.

However, I must really recuse myself from the debate. I did not choose aliens as an answer to carpet over holes, or because aliens appealed to me, or made sense in my mind.

In fact, I did not choose aliens at all. They chose my family. Spoiler alert.

Now, of course this does not mean I know for a fact that Roswell was aliens, or Phoenix was aliens, I was neither present nor involved in those events. But it is much less of a leap for me to come to that conclusion.

I don't like to talk about my experiences that much, and I'm sure this will open the floodgates of people calling my intelligence and sanity into question. I would have rather left that information off the table, but you made an intelligent point that I feel warranted an honest response.

originally posted by: KnightLight

originally posted by: debonkers

Do you expect the people who know alien contact to be true to act like it isn't? Wouldn't that be lying?

How would you know alien contact was true?

Spoiler alert. Because I have experienced it. I get the feeling I'm going to regret saying that.

originally posted by: Paperjacket
a reply to: debonkers

Well, SKEPTICS, to me, are a bunch of guys who are skeptical and cast doubts to EVERYTHING in a REASONABLE way. If someone is just skepticalof government while not UFOs, he/she is a believer not a skeptic. If someone is just skeptical of UFOs while not government, he/she is a believer not a skeptic. In this way, most who claim SKEPTICS are in fact believers.

I agree with you.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: debonkers


Your rant belongs in the rant forum.


One of the worst generalizing rants I have read in while,

All believe in this and that, bla bla bla.

Sorry I think your cheese slid right of cracker as you seem to have a few members of ATS in mind when posting this and I assume its because the recent Phoenix lights thread, better suited in the rant forum as nothing your saying sounds like thinking but a lot like ranting about your belief what a skeptic is which in turn say is a believer but is the opposite of what you believe or like so many hat say they know from first hand experience.

A person who questions ones claims is a believer of denials by the government?


Really?

Your opinion is very welcome, but I feel my cheese is still on my cracker. Thanks for posting.

edit on 1-2-2015 by debonkers because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: Paperjacket
a reply to: debonkers

Well, SKEPTICS, to me, are a bunch of guys who are skeptical

I agree with you.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: debonkers

i think i can explain it:

some "skeptics" are people who believe "popular" opinion does not necessarily equal reality. there is a difference between popular opinion and reality. popular opinion only requires social engineers to manipulate it, whereas reality requires reality (trademark, copyright). in the mind of some "skeptics" ufology looks like popular opinion, socially engineered. they believe this because diligent debunking of some high profile cases, has rendered some evidence, provided as support for ufology, as pure, unadulterated bunk.

this is further complicated by the rise in technology. as technology increases, the probability that it may be human engineered craft, also increases (regardless of whether that tech may have been the product of some ET help or not). just the fact that technology has skyrocketed, is enough to raise the question, and once the question is raised, the skeptical mind is going to retain it as evidence.

What a great post, and very valid viewpoint, thank you for joining the discussion!

I am curious about something you said, though. What UFO cases do you feel have been rendered into "pure, unadulterated bunk"?

I'd love to hear more, thanks.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No, actually there really are mountains of it, it's called circumstantial evidence.

And as debonkers said, some people do know, and to them it is very obvious just how biased conventional thinking is.

This goes for paranormal subjects too, you skeptics might not want to believe it but to us you are just a bunch of muggles stumbling around in the dark.

And we know that too, we laugh at your misguided skepticism and your belief. It's not a question of belief or skepticism to us, it's just another fact.

Of course you could never be wrong though, your mind is too finely honed isn't it? Too rational. You imagine yourselves to be a bunch of Spocks but in reality you're just a bunch of intellectual conformists lapping up everything the media or the government tells you as long as it has that stamp of officialdom you so slavishly need.

The real skeptic will recognise the mountains of circumstantial evidence, the millions of experiencers, the various anomalies, the lack of believable explanations - the absolutely ridiculous explanations.

The true skeptic will even recognise the way governments, media, intelligence and military have handled this topic through the decades and will find it highly suspect, especially since their so called rational explanations often are ridiculous in the extreme.

In the future this stance will be equated with flat worlders and people will marvel at the willful ignorance in 20/20 hindsight.

You think you know?

History will prove you wrong!

originally posted by: debonkers
The UFO and alien discussion, at least in internet forums such as this one, often mirror partisan political debate in significant ways. One is the use of positioning; of both yourself and the opposition. To use euphemisms and labeling to establish your view in a more favorable light, and to paint the other side as less legitimate.

Quite often in this debate I hear one side identify themselves as skeptics. The people who deny alien contact often call themselves skeptics. There are forums devoted to skeptics, and a quick visit to one of them will confirm that the self-identified "skeptic" most often rejects the idea that alien contact has occurred, and embraces wholeheartedly the official proclamations of denial.

Those who accept the notion of alien contact being true, have basically ceded the high ground on this, seldom challenging their opponents on their claims of the skeptical position.

Why we let this fallacy continue is beyond me, it's time we called them to the carpet on this one.

Here is the definition of Skeptic:

"noun 1. a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions."

So wait a minute...How can the people who believe 70 years of official government denials, denials from mainstream celebrity scientists, mainstream news organizations, intelligence agencies, and academia, how can these people honestly claim to be skeptics?

They can't. Not legitimately, anyway.

They believe every denial from official sources, no matter how far-fetched and unworkable. That isn't a skeptic. Quite the opposite. That's a devotee. Or more accurately, that's a believer.

They believe the official story that the alien bodies at Roswell were crash test dummies, they ate it up with a spoon and asked for more. And they went on believing it long after it was established as fact that Roswell took place six years before the government used test dummies. Some still believe it. Where is the skepticism?

They believe every official government denial no matter how ludicrous, in lock-step with the official story, every step of the way.

The Phoenix craft? Just planes in formation? Okay!

Rendlesham? Just lights from a distant church? Okay!

The flying saucer at O'Hare airport? Just a weather event? Okay!

Stephansville? Top secret high tech? Okay!

When it comes to UFOs and aliens, these people never met an official story they didn't like.

Are these people Skeptics? Not by any standard.

No, the true skeptics are those that doubt the official accepted opinion. Those who hold to the position that alien contact has occurred and is occurring? They are the true skeptics.

Those who believe the eyewitnesses and the abductees, despite their being marginalized and ridiculed by official sources and in the mainstream press? They are the true skeptics.

It's time for supporters of alien contact to reclaim the title "Skeptic", don't you think?

So then what will we call those that actually believe every official denial? Hmm. How about believer.

You have contradicted the accurate definition of skeptic that YOU provided (ie. a person inclined to question or doubt...) by claiming that skeptics reject the idea that aliens have visited earth. No, skeptics DOUBT or QUESTION the claim that aliens have visited earth. You have further mischaracterized skeptics as believing government claims when that which you really mean to say is that skeptics haven't accepted your claims. We don't accept your claims as fact because you have failed to back your claims (ie. extraterrestials have visited earth and abducted people) with testable evidence.

Perhaps you should reread the definition of skeptic that you posted and ponder it.

Perhaps you would care to take this opportunity to cite the testable evidence proving that extraterrestrials have visited earth and abducted people. That would settle the issue.

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What's a believer that has had experiences? neither a denier or a believer but an experiencer?

I guess i can't really speak for the believer and disbeliver crowd. My experiences were a while a go now and i am begining to forget what it feels like to be confused.

I appreciate your position, AnuTyr. Once you know first-hand that alien contact is true, the debate is over. It's easy to lose patience with people who won't accept your experience.

Why should someone accept your experience as fact? Fact is based on testable evidence only not the claims of others.