Why does the U.F.O. skeptic treat all all evidence as equally not evidence?

a reply to: Rosinitiate

Looks interesting

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Rosinitiate

I can help with any questions related to Spanish interpretation if you so need it.

I'm hispanic.

Then you have no need of my help, it is there though, if you wish.

un abrazo

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Jonjonj
Anyway, I have a question for you, are you here simply to say it is pointless to investigate the phenomena? Why are you really here, what is your objective regarding this subject?

Of course not. Investigating such things is the only way we can ever come to a definitive conclusion. What is pointless, is immediately jumping to the conclusion that UFOs are extraterrestrial in nature, when there is no evidence to support that assertation. We have a word for that sort of blind, unyielding belief: Religion.

I never said extraterrestrial, you did. I never said belief, you did. Stop just hacking onto my statements and step back ok?

That seems to be the MO of hardened skeptics. Because you are willing to entertain the idea and share so publicly, it's apparently a queue for some to lump you in with everyone and put words into your mouth. Like rabid dogs I tell ya.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

It is infuriating but it is also par for the course, I do however prefer to call them not sceptics, but deniers. Not that they are denying the premise, they deny ANYTHING that they are not allowed to accept.

Notice the word allowed.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
I never said extraterrestrial, you did. I never said belief, you did. Stop just hacking onto my statements and step back ok?

You may not have said it, but you certainly implied it:

...this is a paradigm shift in the whole cosmos of possible realities.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Jonjonj
I never said extraterrestrial, you did. I never said belief, you did. Stop just hacking onto my statements and step back ok?

You may not have said it, but you certainly implied it:

...this is a paradigm shift in the whole cosmos of possible realities.

So you take something that's implied, you know...anecdotal ....and make an accusation as if fact. Yet when offered overwhelming anecdotal evidence of something unexplained you think anyone who believes it should be locked up.

"Hi Pot, it's me Kettle. You're black."

90% of the skeptics on this subject do not "want to believe" nor do they want to get to the truth - They just like to argue for the sake of arguing using every default stance possible. The debate is a lot easier from the skeptics side of things on the UFO topic. "Show me proof it happened" etc. A lot of people like the path of least resistance and the easier stances on controversial topics because its a lot easier to debate from that side of the fence. They don't want to be on the "burden of proof" side of the fence. In other words, they take the stance that requires less work.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Jonjonj
I never said extraterrestrial, you did. I never said belief, you did. Stop just hacking onto my statements and step back ok?

You may not have said it, but you certainly implied it:

...this is a paradigm shift in the whole cosmos of possible realities.

I make use of the one liner as a joke, quite often in fact. It can be humorous and sometimes even be relevant.
You however, you abuse this use, it seems that you never write more than a line, why is that?
I am sorry but seriously, either make your position clear with some actual information, or ...well the rest is pretty clear.
You certainly are no Phage.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Jonjonj
I never said extraterrestrial, you did. I never said belief, you did. Stop just hacking onto my statements and step back ok?

You may not have said it, but you certainly implied it:

...this is a paradigm shift in the whole cosmos of possible realities.

So you take something that's implied, you know...anecdotal ....and make an accusation as if fact. Yet when offered overwhelming anecdotal evidence of something unexplained you think anyone who believes it should be locked up.

"Hi Pot, it's me Kettle. You're black."

Oh and this was what I wished I had said.

Once again, the thread has been derailed. I am now stepping out of here, it is clear what is happening.
My apologies once again OP.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Yes there is something not quite right about it all.

Let's say an international committee, under the jurisdiction of the UN, was given the funding and resources to investigate whatever the "UFO" phenomenon actually represents.

My guess is that many people simply want a conclusion that it was extra-terrestrial and would never be happy until that conclusion is reached. That is why for perhaps 60 years+ there have been accusations of government cover-ups. Even though such a cover-up would involve massive duplicity by many, many people in power for that time across almost every sovereign nation in the world.

Yet, balancing that view as well, there seems to be another phenomenon at work. Something to consciously or unconsciously de-bunk, and even mock anyone who reports UFOs.

And perhaps that is the "real" reason Ufology never gets anywhere?

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Jonjonj
I never said extraterrestrial, you did. I never said belief, you did. Stop just hacking onto my statements and step back ok?

You may not have said it, but you certainly implied it:

...this is a paradigm shift in the whole cosmos of possible realities.

So you take something that's implied, you know...anecdotal ....and make an accusation as if fact. Yet when offered overwhelming anecdotal evidence of something unexplained you think anyone who believes it should be locked up.

"Hi Pot, it's me Kettle. You're black."

Oh and this was what I wished I had said.

It's always the same with these guys, they're a dime a dozen. Lacks a certain creativity, which incidentally is hilarious given the avatar. Funnier still is watching it happen in slow motion in a thread exactly making the point of the OP.

Great job OP.

And yet, I'm still an extraterrestrial denier. Honestly, I feel there is a more terrestrial answer somewhere between really secret government programs and a more innerdiminsional (time seemingly irrelevant for them) or spirtual happenings. My two cents but will of course entertain the idea of aliens really seeing anything of relevancy with this little blue planet. I've been wrong before.

a reply to: mirageman

Dammit, just when I am out, they drag me back in!!!
Lol

Ok but here is the thing, AT LEAST there would be conclusive evidence of a real investigation. I do NOT care what the result is, as long as it is honest, in fact it would be rather a godsend, not being under the absolutely ridiculous situation of NOT KNOWING.
That is the problem I see, there truly has NOT been an honest investigation of what is, quite possibly, the biggest story ever.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

We are always wrong, until we are right, right?
That is my whole point, the idea that we are not aware of, or allowed to know what the truth about this situation really is.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Jonjonj

My guess is that many people simply want a conclusion that it was extra-terrestrial and would never be happy until that conclusion is reached. That is why for perhaps 60 years+ there have been accusations of government cover-ups. Even though such a cover-up would involve massive duplicity by many, many people in power for that time across almost every sovereign nation in the world.

You make an awesome point here. No 2 governments can stay in harmony over anything let alone all nations, however, there does appear to be a certain understanding among "elites". Or cops code with one another. It reminds me of secret societies really, where all SS love their propaganda to spread. It creates mystique and creates empowerment. It's like free propaganda for governments.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Rosinitiate

We are always wrong, until we are right, right?
That is my whole point, the idea that we are not aware of, or allowed to know what the truth about this situation really is.

Yes that sums it all up neatly.

I think whilst "Ufology" has been looking for something "alien" (as in extra-terrestrial) then perhaps it has discounted the possibility that the answer is "TOTALLY ALIEN TO US".

originally posted by: mirageman

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Rosinitiate

We are always wrong, until we are right, right?
That is my whole point, the idea that we are not aware of, or allowed to know what the truth about this situation really is.

Yes that sums it all up neatly.

I think whilst "Ufology" has been looking for something "alien" (as in extra-terrestrial) then perhaps it has discounted the possibility that the answer is "TOTALLY ALIEN TO US".

I truly do not see the difference friend.

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: mirageman

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Rosinitiate

We are always wrong, until we are right, right?
That is my whole point, the idea that we are not aware of, or allowed to know what the truth about this situation really is.

Yes that sums it all up neatly.

I think whilst "Ufology" has been looking for something "alien" (as in extra-terrestrial) then perhaps it has discounted the possibility that the answer is "TOTALLY ALIEN TO US".

I truly do not see the difference friend.

It's easy to visualize an alien flying a spaceship to Mother Earth to take part in our glorious natural resources and bewilderment of our "civilized" behavior. Now try to imagine talking to an invisible elephant in the sky who tells you your entire civilization exists on a flower petal.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Fair point. I wasn't exactly specific. So to clarify :

Perhaps the assumption that UFO and other anomalous experiences are created by visitors from other worlds in the known universe is incorrect.

Maybe such experiences are simply beyond what we currently understand?

So they are actually "alien" as in something we as humans consider totally unfamiliar, unknown or unheard of?

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Jonjonj

Fair point. I wasn't exactly specific. So to clarify :

Perhaps the assumption that UFO and other anomalous experiences are created by visitors from other worlds in the known universe is incorrect.

Maybe such experiences are simply beyond what we currently understand?

So they are actually "alien" as in something we as humans consider totally unfamiliar, unknown or unheard of?

And, if we want to base ideas off supposition, why not take this one.

The major governments of the world know that we are being visited by races from other worlds.

They know neither the agenda, nor the method.

You see I accept your supposition as a possibility.

Why is the other one subjected to the most harsh rationalisations, why is it so unbelievable. Why is it impossible, less likely even? Why?

I just want there to be as they say a "level playing field".

Right now, there is not.