The skeptics catch 22 when it comes to U.F.O.'s

There's an illogical catch 22 from pseudoskeptics when it comes to U.F.O. pictures and video and this extends to anything labeled paranormal. The catch 22 is this:

Every U.F.O. video will either be too blurry so it's a bird, weather balloon or swamp gas. If the pictures and video are clear and can't be refuted, you then run up against logic and reason. They can't yell bird or weather balloon so everything is C.G.I. and fake now.

So, before they have even seen a picture or video posted, they have a built in answer as to what it is. It's either a bird or weather balloon if it's blurry and if it looks "too good to be true" they will yell C.G.I. and fake before the first page of the thread gets to 20 posts.

I don't know how you can live in such ignorance and say you have an open mind.

How can you limit your understanding of the nature of reality to your limited knowledge and understanding? We're a type 0 civilization and it's been like 54 years since we've been to the moon. We haven't even fully explored our own back yard, yet the pseudoskeptic knows all that can or can't be.

Ask yourself, how many times have you made a thread and posted pictures and video, and before the thread can make it past the first page, you have pseudoskeptics saying:

"That's not a U.F.O."

"That looks like a drone"

"Why are all U.F.O. pictures and videos blurry?"

"That's obviously fake"

"That's C.G.I."

"Those are a bunch of weather balloons"

"The Pilot, Police Officer, High ranking government official, credible witness or witnesses are either idiots or liars"

The way you can tell the difference between a skeptic and a pseudoskeptic is the skeptic will admit that the evidence is good and I have even heard compelling in a debate. They just think there will be a natural explanation to explain it. The pseudoskeptic can't live with "I can't explain it" so everything has to be explained. So they set up this catch 22 where no matter what pic or video you post it will either be too blurry so a bird, weather ballon and now a drone is popular with them. If they know that they can't logically explain it away, then it's C.G.I. and fake or the eyewitnesses are idiots and liars.

This catch 22 isn't only with U.F.O's, it's with anything labeled paranormal. Also, these things are labeled paranormal but they have more evidence to support them than many theories and hypotheses but someone calls them paranormal because it's not normal to their personal beliefs. It has nothing to do with the evidence.

There's overwhelming evidence to reach the conclusion that extraterrrestrial/extradimensional visitation has occurred. You may not have reached that conclusion but you can't say there isn't enough evidence for someone else to reach that conclusion.

This is another distinction between the skeptic and pseudoskeptic. I have debated skeptics that are okay with the fact that I have used the evidence to reach the conclusion that extreaterrestrial/extradimensional visitation has occurred. They just believe their isn't enough evidence for them to reach that conclusion and I respect that.

I can't respect the illogical position of the pseudoskeptic who acts like there isn't any evidence. It's like people are just reaching the conclusion that extraterrestrial/extradimensional visitation has occurred based on wishful thinking.

Since I have been on ATS and also on other forums, I have seen some great threads that are very thorough in their research. So there's plenty of EVIDENCE that has accumulated over the years. Is it enough evidence for you to reach the same conclusions? Logical people can disagree on this point. The illogical catch 22 of the pseudoskeptic has to act like there's no evidence at all and everything's explained as a bird, weather balloon or fake C.G.I.

a reply to: neoholographic

What I have found is that many of these so called UFO experts don't even engage with you as a paying member to his site even when you present credible evidence in front of their nose. I joined a couple of them and quit as the owner to me is either an extension of USA black hats or is an ET himself.

I NEVER saw a UFO in my life until moving to South Carolina in 2017. We have seen many and also believe that some are USA owned. In my opinion 40% are USA owned. Now the other 60%. Hmmm. Especially the flashing pulsating orange - to white to red ones that mess with the camera. Happens all the time.

I agree with you.

a reply to: neoholographic

So, before they have even seen a picture or video posted, they have a built in answer as to what it is. It's either a bird or weather balloon if it's blurry and if it looks "too good to be true" they will yell C.G.I. and fake before the first page of the thread gets to 20 posts.

That comment right there covers a lot of subject, not just UFOs. Looking at you Political forum.

a reply to: neoholographic

I think you are missing the most important criticism here: even if the videos are clear, pristine, perfect; even if the witness is me myself, even if there were no balloons on this planet, and even if there were no birds, and no swamps, you still cannot prove what you see is terrestrial or not.

That's the point.

Even if you capture an alien, you still need to prove it was not created in labo. The debate is always whether your UFOs are terrestrial or not.

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: neoholographic

What I have found is that many of these so called UFO experts don't even engage with you as a paying member to his site even when you present credible evidence in front of their nose. I joined a couple of them and quit as the owner to me is either an extension of USA black hats or is an ET himself.

I NEVER saw a UFO in my life until moving to South Carolina in 2017. We have seen many and also believe that some are USA owned. In my opinion 40% are USA owned. Now the other 60%. Hmmm. Especially the flashing pulsating orange - to white to red ones that mess with the camera. Happens all the time.

I agree with you.

I agree with your points!

originally posted by: oddscreenname
a reply to: neoholographic

So, before they have even seen a picture or video posted, they have a built in answer as to what it is. It's either a bird or weather balloon if it's blurry and if it looks "too good to be true" they will yell C.G.I. and fake before the first page of the thread gets to 20 posts.

That comment right there covers a lot of subject, not just UFOs. Looking at you Political forum.

Exactly!

There's this built in blind and illogical catch 22 in many forums. How can anyone say their open minded when before they even click on a thread, they have already put the subject matter in a box? So no matter what you see or read everything will be either a bird or weather balloon if it's blurry and if it's "too good to be true" it has to be fake C.G.I.

If people were really serious they would us the term UFO for what it actually is, an Unidentified Flying Object. I firmly believe that people see UFO's, now as to what they are, that is the issue. I've spent the majority of my adult life around aviation. I've seen multiple types of aircraft in various conditions. What is a UFO to you may not be one to me.

Several years ago I saw a large object in the sky at night. For a while I was mystified as to what it was until it came out of the light cloud cover and showed itself to be the MetLife blimp.

I'm not saying that there is or isn't extraterrestrial objects in the skies. I do find it funny that in a time where you can't swing a dead cat without smacking someone with a camera or phone shooting video, that nobody has produced a clear picture of an alien craft.

Please stop saying "Proof" when you don't have any. If there ever is "proof" it will be the biggest story in history and we won't have to ask for it to be presented.

a reply to: neoholographic

Thanks

My experience even goes deeper than what I have shared. Way deeper. So deep I didn't even share it with the Priest at the Diocese of Charleston who was here at my home last year as I am under their spiritual protection so long as I say my prayers, use a rosary, read The Manual for Spiritual Warfare by Reverend Matthew Kauth and attend church. There is something going on that only Dr. Stephen Greer and Jacques Vallée are now expanding upon.

All I can say is believe as we were created in his image. Those others?

a reply to: JIMC5499

Here's another catch 22 of the pseudoskeptic. You said:

Please stop saying "Proof" when you don't have any. If there ever is "proof" it will be the biggest story in history and we won't have to ask for it to be presented.

I never said "Proof." Show me in my thread where I used the word "proof."

Proof and reaching a conclusion based on the accumulation of EVIDENCE are 2 different things.

proof

noun
1.
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

As opposed to:

ev·i·dence

noun
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

This is why in science you have mathematical Theorems which are called proofs and Theories and Hypotheses which are build on evidence to support a belief or proposition.

Two different things but a pseudoskeptic will always want to debate against "Proof" because proof is more of an absolute than reaching a conclusion based on the available evidence. This is why I said:

There's overwhelming evidence to reach the conclusion that extraterrrestrial/extradimensional visitation has occurred. You may not have reached that conclusion but you can't say there isn't enough evidence for someone else to reach that conclusion.

and

This is another distinction between the skeptic and pseudoskeptic. I have debated skeptics that are okay with the fact that I have used the evidence to reach the conclusion that extreaterrestrial/extradimensional visitation has occurred. They just believe their isn't enough evidence for them to reach that conclusion and I respect that.

You put "Proof" in quotes as if it was something I actually said. Show me where I said "Proof" as opposed to the "reaching a conclusion based on the accumulation of evidence."

One of my big peeves is (with psuedoskeptics) the false logic that "this is woo paranormal therefore it cannot exist"
But what if it isn't?
Even if you don't believe in that type of occurrence doesn't mean something of some nature, not yet understood by humankind, isn't happening.
I think what I'm saying can be summed up as, just because you don't understand it or don't believe in it doesn't mean it's not happening. It may just not be what you (or even the witness) thinks. It may not even be "paranormal"; there may be something going on that scientists haven't figured out yet. So if you don't believe in that area, still maintain an open mind that at least something is happening worthy of investigation and study. Keep an open mind. There may be something interesting to learn.

ETA there is also a lot of half-reading I see on here sometimes... where someone reads a post and responds but misses out on key elements of the post and only responding to the part that elicited their reaction, so they go on claiming to have debunked the whole smash when they missed a key part.

originally posted by: neoholographic
There's an illogical catch 22 from pseudoskeptics when it comes to U.F.O. pictures and video and this extends to anything labeled paranormal. The catch 22 is this:

Every U.F.O. video will either be too blurry so it's a bird, weather balloon or swamp gas...

You more or less begin your post with a strawman including swamp gas, which nobody ever really claims. Hynek is dead and even he said he regretted his swamp gas statement, effectively retracting it.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
If people were really serious they would us the term UFO for what it actually is, an Unidentified Flying Object. I firmly believe that people see UFO's, now as to what they are, that is the issue.

Yes, we can't assume all UFOs are alien. The pentagon says the three navy videos it released are UFOs, and the skeptics don't argue that they can identify the objects, rather they argue that there's really nothing extraordinary about the objects in the videos except maybe some interesting illusions are produced that managed to confuse some pilots, like parallax for example.

I'm not saying that there is or isn't extraterrestrial objects in the skies. I do find it funny that in a time where you can't swing a dead cat without smacking someone with a camera or phone shooting video, that nobody has produced a clear picture of an alien craft.

Please stop saying "Proof" when you don't have any. If there ever is "proof" it will be the biggest story in history and we won't have to ask for it to be presented.

I would settle for less than proof. OP talks about all the so-called "evidence", but it's just not convincing of anything alien. Again the three pentagon videos are a sort of "proof" of UFOs, but they aren't proof of aliens.

originally posted by: servovenford
One of my big peeves is (with psuedoskeptics) the false logic that "this is woo paranormal therefore it cannot exist"
But what if it isn't?
Even if you don't believe in that type of occurrence doesn't mean something of some nature, not yet understood by humankind, isn't happening.
I think what I'm saying can be summed up as, just because you don't understand it or don't believe in it doesn't mean it's not happening. It may just not be what you (or even the witness) thinks. It may not even be "paranormal"; there may be something going on that scientists haven't figured out yet. So if you don't believe in that area, still maintain an open mind that at least something is happening worthy of investigation and study. Keep an open mind. There may be something interesting to learn.

ETA there is also a lot of half-reading I see on here sometimes... where someone reads a post and responds but misses out on key elements of the post and only responding to the part that elicited their reaction, so they go on claiming to have debunked the whole smash when they missed a key part.

Exactly!

They also claim to have an open mind but how can you have an open mind if all pilots that give eyewitness accounts are confused idiots or liars before you read or see anything they have said.

Why should I believe the pseudoskeptics opinion over the eyewitness testimony of pilots or other credible witnesses? Why should I reach my conclusions based on the pseudoskeptics opinion?

a reply to: neoholographic

If that's all you have.

Something can be insufficient to prove something whether it's clear or blurry.

Kev

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm not a "skeptic" in the way you use the word. There's something there. I won't argue that. Now what it is, that's the question. I've never seen something in the air that I couldn't identify. I HAVE tracked something in the water that couldn't be identified. Our sonar gear was checked and was NOT in error. It was pretty good sized, down deep and moving fast.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: neoholographic

If that's all you have.

Do I need more?

You lied and said I said Proofs. You even put "Proofs" in quotes as if it was something I said.

This thread is about the catch 22 of the pseudoskeptic which is illogical. I can list 50 pages of the accumulation of evidence and you would still say, is that it. That's what a pseudoskeptic does.

You can't accept the fact that I can use the accumulation of evidence to reach the conclusion that extraterrestrial/extradimensional visitation has occurred. You may reach a different conclusion and that's fine but the pseudoskeptic has to take it further and say there isn't any evidence.

If there isn't any evidence then what am I and others on ATS basing our conclusions on?

a reply to: neoholographic

There's catch 22

The only way to win the game Is to not play ...

The advancement of technology have turned me from a believer to a skeptic/believer, and I think it is hard to blame the skeptics now a days, the easy access to 3d rendering programs and photo manipulating software makes the web beam with fake videos presented as real. And it is getting harder and harder to spot the fake ones. So I believe it is up to them to make themselves known if they want, and they clearly have no intension of that.

a reply to: neoholographic

What evidence?

originally posted by: oddscreenname
a reply to: neoholographic

So, before they have even seen a picture or video posted, they have a built in answer as to what it is. It's either a bird or weather balloon if it's blurry and if it looks "too good to be true" they will yell C.G.I. and fake before the first page of the thread gets to 20 posts.

That comment right there covers a lot of subject, not just UFOs. Looking at you Political forum.

Yep, it happens all of the time in other forums like the New World Order forum.