Debunking the Debunkers??? Help here

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

lol, no, there is a difference, I am affirming they are not from our civilisation for the most part. That is it. So an other universe, an other dimension, holography made by far away people, other planet, our oceans, it is all for grabs. And that is not what he said.

Just because something could happen doesn't mean it did happen.

I suppose that's a "skeptical" attitude, but I think it illustrates the notion that given an unusual circumstance -- a sighting or encounter -- positive proof is always going to be more valuable than circumstantial evidence to someone who wasn't there and didn't experience it first hand.

Of course, if the person experiencing the unusual thing doesn't care what other people think; if the experience answered their questions on a personal level and gave them peace of mind, then there's no need to even bother presenting that experience to the rest of the world. Went into an alien flying saucer that taught you the secrets of the universe? Hey, good for you. But the minute you want me to believe you (for whatever reason), then you're going to have to do better than interesting anecdotes.

People are often skeptical because they want the thing to be true for themselves. And the more skeptical a person is, the truer the thing will be when it's proven up.

a reply to: Blue Shift

I completely agree on you. But as we are talking about UFO experiences, there are some factors for any investigation, on any subject been successful in its deep sense.
When we are dealing with such subject we are not dealing with natural phenomena, we are supposedly dealing with an other cognitive intelligence, that is supposedly way superior in technology and therefore has an understanding of physics way superior than ours, and a way to deal with exopolitics way, but way different than ours, that is problematic per se, and very naive to expect a pedestrian answer, instead of invalidate the phenomena, it actually really validates it.

a reply to: Blue Shift

To elaborate it further, I was really taken back by some cases that Vallee advocated, such as Smithonson (the ets looking like italians offering a pie), and Gary Wilcox talking about fertiliser with "Martians". Thing is, there are tones of reports like that by very reputable people, so Why they would lie? Or why the "aliens" would not take the piss at us? Why would they not be familiar with our culture? Why are you so sure they are far away and cannot put up with all this theatre?
Can't you see that the problem lays more in the non capacity to admit they do not give a damn to our paradigm, and they constantly change patterns of behaviour and formats they present themselves?
That is really fascinating stuff, if you care to analyse all the data, all this sort of events and how they change over the years, why they keep everything ambiguous? Why is always the near, it was almost revealed, it is the next thing. Can't you see this is a sort of theatre?

originally posted by: flamengo

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: flamengo

Yes the images from the Moon & Mars are real it's the claims people make that are FALSE.

As for being telepathic also just more claims with NOTHING that would be considered as real proof.

As for your claims that also means nothing it's what you claim that doesn't make it true.

You are not understanding, I am not trying to prove to you anything, you are the one who is demanding proof, I am ok with what I have.

You may not be here to prove anything, but you seem to be here to give broad generalizations of skeptics in order to marginalize skepticism of alien visitation.

Case in point, when I said that I believe that life elsewhere almost certainly exists, BUT am not yet convinced that aliens are visiting Earth, you dismissed me (without even knowing anything about me) as being too lazy to study the evidence.

Perhaps I did study the evidence for alien visitation, but still find it lacking enough hard proof for me to yet believe that aliens are visiting Earth. I mean, isn't it possible for two people to look at the evidence and come to two different -- but both honest -- conclusions?

Or is it simply if someone does not agree with your take on the subject, then they are either lazy or shills or stubborn skeptics who believe humans are the only intelligent life in the universe?

I have no problem with people believing that the evidence shows that alien visitation of earth is a real thing; that's fine by me. However, it seems you have an issue with people (such as myself) who think there has not been enough hard evidence yet to be convinced that alien visitation is real.

originally posted by: flamengo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

lol, no, there is a difference, I am affirming they are not from our civilisation for the most part. That is it. So an other universe, an other dimension, holography made by far away people, other planet, our oceans, it is all for grabs. And that is not what he said.

oh, ok, as long as YOU affirm it I guess no evidence needed.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Do you want me to feel sorry for you?
There are two skeptics that I read a lot of their work, Vallee and Jenny Randles, they had all the data, they collected the data, they filled me with info, it completely proved to me that it is not US who are producing this, it is not natural, but they themselves are still lacking the final movement. That is just too bad. Vallee for instance, he completely gave most of the answers on the phenomena, then he started to debunk it lol.

Regarding to the "answer" you are looking for, to me it is like this, or your mind lock up with them, and that depends on them as well, or you never "get it". IMO.

Having said that, most of Skeptics are primitive thinkers who are not capable of understanding that there are other parameters, other paradigms then their own. Regarding to UFO data, it abounds of strange stuff, as it is supposed to be. Surely there are some hoxers, and some crazy people, still it is there, and has always been, before they were the watchers, the shining ones, the serpent of the shaman and so and such. They don't always use devices, they may use the crystals of your brain, the pineal gland.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I am saying that that is my POV, you may disregard, that is your problem, not mine, as I said, I did not come here to prove UFO reality to you, that is your business, I came to ask if anyone knew a book for this specific end, some people came with suggestions, and some people came in defence of the skeptic position. Which I normally consider lazy and conformist.

originally posted by: flamengo
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Do you want me to feel sorry for you?

What makes you think that?

Having said that, most of Skeptics are primitive thinkers who are not capable of understanding that there are other parameters, other paradigms then their own. Regarding to UFO data, it abounds of strange stuff, as it is supposed to be. Surely there are some hoxers, and some crazy people, still it is there, and has always been, before they were the watchers, the shining ones, the serpent of the shaman and so and such. They don't always use devices, they may use the crystals of your brain, the pineal gland.

There you go generalizing again. Perhaps there are skeptics who ARE capable of thinking outside the box when it comes to "things within the realm of possibility, but don't consider that something simply being "within the realm of possibility" is enough to think that those "possible" things are actually happening.

You mentioned Carl Sagan in your OP. Dr. Sagan was very imaginative and incredibly open-minded, and was in fact a believer that life elsewhere almost surely exists. However, being a scientist, he required a certain level of proof before declaring something as being fact -- and it seemed that the evidence supporting alien visitation of Earth did not rise to that level of proof.

originally posted by: flamengo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I am saying that that is my POV, you may disregard, that is your problem, not mine, as I said, I did not come here to prove UFO reality to you, that is your business, I came to ask if anyone knew a book for this specific end, some people came with suggestions, and some people came in defence of the skeptic position. Which I normally consider lazy and conformist.

It seems to me that most scientists and UFO researchers do their due diligence in investigating the evidence. Just because they don't come to the same conclusion as you do, that does not necessarily make them lazy.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Man, the proof you require does not depend on you, but on them, you are cherry picking my text. Read all said.

Regarding to my opinion on Sagan, I think he was a paid shill, not because of money, there are more things at stake. Probably people explained to him the damage of disclosure. That is why this thing works like that, people who is supposed to know know, people who won't, will not. Read what I read before.
Giving an example, it is very much like Trump now, he said he would do this and that, I believe he wanted, but people already told him on the big scheme of things, and he backed out. It is tough bro.

Regarding to you, the truth is in the beholder, it depends on your level of threshold, and how you understand those things. I mentioned before the relationship that this thing has with initiation, it is basically the same thing.


Also consider what I said before, they use PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY, if they wanted full disclosure they would already reveal themselves, they are not nice or cute, and it is not because there are plenty of weak cases out there, that there are not very strong cases.

Skeptics are wrong all the time.
Bill Nye on Larry King arguing with
Roswell researchers about" time compression "
is so bad it can be used in the pro UFO crowd now.

Off topic but Michael Schermer on CSPAN
arguing with 9/11 researchers can now be used
as a feather in the Truth movements' cap.
A worthless debunking job.

originally posted by: flamengo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I am saying that that is my POV, you may disregard, that is your problem, not mine, as I said, I did not come here to prove UFO reality to you, that is your business, I came to ask if anyone knew a book for this specific end, some people came with suggestions, and some people came in defence of the skeptic position. Which I normally consider lazy and conformist.

So believing with no evidence is not lazy .. and expecting actual evidence is?

Interesting.

a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

Bill Nye is not a scientist. He's a hack.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Excuse me sir, the UFO LORE is huge, get reading, get busy watching videos, I don't have kids, I will not treat you as baby. Do you copy sir?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

Bill Nye is not a scientist. He's a hack.

Like most UFO debunkers, normally shameful people, fallacies, wilful ignorance, contradictions, disgusting.

originally posted by: flamengo
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Man, the proof you require does not depend on you, but on them, you are cherry picking my text. Read all said.

Regarding to my opinion on Sagan, I think he was a paid shill, not because of money, there are more things at stake. Probably people explained to him the damage of disclosure.

I never said that you said he was a paid shill who lied for money. I followed Dr Sagan very closely, and I didn't see any evidence that he knew that alien visitation was happening but was afraid to disclose it.

I think in Sagan's case what we saw is what we got: The man who had a firm personal belief of life elsewhere, but also the scientist who -- no matter his personal opinion as a man -- understood the requirements that science puts on something before it is called "true".

Regarding to you, the truth is in the beholder, it depends on your level of threshold, and how you understand those things. I mentioned before the relationship that this thing has with initiation, it is basically the same thing.

OK -- you say "truth is in the beholder", but when that beholder says that they don't think the evidence supporting alien visitation rises to the level of yet being able to call it "proof", you dismiss that person as being too lazy or lacking the intelligence to understand the evidence.

As I said, I have no problem with people believing in alien visitation, and believing that the evidence absolutely supports it. However, YOU seem to have a problem with people who take a good hard look at the evidence and feel that the evidence is lacking.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
I absolutely agree

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Sagan knew about Mars, I think M. Bara talks about that, also friedman talks badly about Sagan, I support both criticisms.

The "alien" thing, to me it is like this, either your mind "intersects" with their mind, and gets it and you get humble, or you don't. You keep wanting RATIONAL proof, on the strict term, but your newtonian universe does not exist, it is much more complex. To some people, even seen a UFO close range is not enough, well, What can I say?

originally posted by: flamengo
When we are dealing with such subject we are not dealing with natural phenomena, we are supposedly dealing with an other cognitive intelligence, that is supposedly way superior in technology and therefore has an understanding of physics way superior than ours, and a way to deal with exopolitics way, but way different than ours, that is problematic per se, and very naive to expect a pedestrian answer, instead of invalidate the phenomena, it actually really validates it.

I just don't think that's proper logic. What you're basically saying is, "This is such a complex phenomenon that it cannot be explained, and that complexity and lack of explanation proves it up." That's just not right.

a reply to: Blue Shift

lol, no man, that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that their logic is beyond ours, you don't really need extra powers to sense there is some strange # going on, see Donald keyhoe or Donald Ruppelt, no no sense guys and they got some strange stuff going on just analysing what they got.
If you do want to understand how they act, them it does require going to the next level.
What I am saying as well, is that because some cases are strange, people dismiss the whole thing altogether, what is utterly stupid, and happened to Vallee and Jenny Randles. And I am also saying, this thing is not ordinary at all, it is really really odd, and don't count they will be giving easy data to you, they are deceivers.