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

a reply to: Erno86

What do your leaders command you to do?

a reply to: neoholographic

Have that address from contacting an alien race? I really would like an alien or pen pal. How about a good alien dating site?

a reply to: neoholographic

In fact. Wouldn’t it be easier for the aliens to just have human pen pals? They wouldn’t have to go around abducting like a crazy person. And if aliens supposedly taught us all we know, then why the need to abduct anyway.

a reply to: neutronflux

I guess the theory is that the Sumerians WERE the ancient
pen pals.

If that were the case, if the aliens taught the Sumerians
how to make tally marks in mud, that within a short period
of time became cuniform, well, thanks I guess, but that's
pretty underwhelming.

Where are these 'stars' now, when we teeter on global
collapse,

probably off somewhere else, showing the nativies how to
poke a stick into the mud.

Kev

a reply to: neutronflux

I don't know for sure, but, a bit of research suggests:

Where’d do the poop. What do they do with their poop. What do they do with their individual waste.

There is very little "individual" waste. Minimal bio-waste is recycled after enzyme-decomposition.

How do they shield power systems that provide clean atmosphere and water.

High specific gravity metals (such as tungsten and gold) provide adequate shielding. This is one possible reason for the high inter-galactic value of these minerals.

What did they do with the dirt and rock moved to build a secret base.

Most of it is simply re-arranged on-site to provide mass for radioactive shielding, and camouflage, similar to what humans have done hiding nuclear activity in Iran or concealed hangars at S-4.

Where do they get parts and supplies for their facilities, a galactic Grainger?

That's classified. But we can be assured that many parts and hardware supplies are 'printed' and material recycled.

a reply to: Outrageo

There is very little "individual" waste. Minimal bio-waste is recycled after enzyme-decomposition.

Still takes a waste treatment facility. Power. And water. And you don’t make mater disappear. A ton of poop usually turns into a ton of compost/soil. Not much. What if ET had been there supposedly for a thousand years.


You

High specific gravity metals (such as tungsten and gold) provide adequate shielding. This is one possible reason for the high inter-galactic value of these minerals.

Any evidence of a larger scale operation to install such a large scale project, and a large mining / construction site for such a project. Still have the displaced soil problem. Power usage and outside equipment for facility upkeep. Such as launch bay doors. With launches not being shielded once doors open.

With gold and tungsten would be out of place on a moon geological survey. And peek interest for human mining.

New Radar Images Uncover Remarkable Features below the Surface of the Moon

sservi.nasa.gov...

But we do notice when meteorites hit the moon.

Caught on camera: A small rock hit the moon

www.sciencenewsforstudents.org...

With these data, Zuluaga’s team calculated characteristics of the impact. For instance, it likely released the energy equivalent of about half a ton of TNT. That means the rock that hit the moon was somewhere between the size of a softball and a basketball. It probably had the mass of a few cans of paint — 7 to 40 kilograms (15.5 to 88 pounds). The astronomers also calculate that the object smacked into the moon at 13.8 kilometers per second. That’s almost 31,000 miles per hour.

That's classified. But we can be assured that many parts and hardware supplies are 'printed' and material recycled.

If you “print” a ten ton space craft. You still need ten tons of raw material.

Nice flashing pic that you have to stretch the imagination and “connect the dots” to suggest there is something there.

I have pics too





I never place Mother Nature in a box on what she can and can’t do.

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: Erno86

What do your leaders command you to do?

Spread the word....

a reply to: neoholographic

Some people have a higher standard for evidence than the average person. A famous skeptic was Philip Klass who obviously never saw a clear UFO but he was instrumental in exposing Travis Walton's fake UFO abduction. Another famous UFO skeptic is Robert Sheaffer, a die-hard skeptic who'll lose his skepticism when he's abducted and then he'll claim it wasn't aliens. The staff at Skeptical Inquirer are all brilliant but they have their faults also. It depends on what you present as evidence. A lot of evidence has turned out to be non-evidence particularly in courts. You can call me a skeptic because I'm not gullible and I don't accept claims unless they are supported by irrefutable evidence. This forum lacks true skeptics so one has to consider most of the offerings as just entertainment. It's human nature.

a reply to: idusmartias

Post from a pseudoskeptic exhibit A, you said:

Some people have a higher standard for evidence than the average person.

Off the bat, you're trying to say that your standard of evidence is higher than the average person. So somebody that disagrees with you is just an average person with a lower standard of evidence. Typical pseudoskepticism.

You then mentioned a bunch of blind skeptics and the Skeptical Inquirer. You then said this:

You can call me a skeptic because I'm not gullible and I don't accept claims unless they are supported by irrefutable evidence.

So you're not gullible and therefore those you look at the evidence differently than you are gullible and don't look at "irrefutable evidence." What's irrefutable evidence?

Evidence is always refuted that's how science works. You keep testing predictions and trying to find cracks in theories to make it stronger. They're still testing and challenging Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

There's still a debate that asks is time an illusion.




So there's isn't any irrefutable evidence. Science is all about refuting evidence. So why the illogical standard when it comes to Ufology?

All we can do is look at the accumulation of the evidence plus our personal experience and reach a conclusion as to what we think is the most likely explanation.

People aren't gullible because they reach a different conclusion than you. Why can't pseudoskeptics accept this?

Also, there's well known encounters where people go into hiding for years or they remain anonymous but most professional debunkers make a ton of money by being skeptical. Here's the question:

Why aren't the pseudoskeptics skeptical of the skeptics who make a ton of money by being skeptical of everything? They right books, have magazines, own websites and more.

As soon as someone has a U.F.O. experience and they write a book, the pseudoskeptic is like look they just want to make money. The odd thing is, they never question the professional skeptics and debunkers who they follow religiously when they make a boat load of money from their "skepticism." Why's that?

The mistake many people make in a discussion about flying saucers and related craft, or aliens and abductions, is that they feel some need to "prove" alien contact to people who don't "believe" it, and worse yet, they have the seeming need to debate and convince skeptics and pseudo-skeptics alike. The time wasted arguing with pseudo-skeptics, who admittedly have no knowledge of the alien situation being real, could be spent in more productive ways, like watching the wind and sand erode the Great Pyramids.

As a result, you allow the skeptics to pretend to be a judge at a tribunal that will rule unfavorably on what you bring to the discussion unless you really, really work extra hard to meet his demands and his higher-than-yours evidentiary standards. They have their rigidly-set disbeliefs and trying to dissuade them of that is like arguing Pizzagate with your MAGA uncle or the clone they replaced Jimmy Kimmel with. They're not worth the time and wasted energy, it's a fool's task and all they do is derail the conversation. Enough, you owe them nothing. Say you were to convince one, how could that possibly matter? "Wow, an internet debunker sees the light! Progress at last!" Don't waste your breath. They're not sitting in judgement, though they pretend to be, they're sitting in the dark.

Don't fall for it. After a hundred years of documented encounters with metallic flying saucers, and their occupants, it is a given that alien contact is a fact of the world you were born into. We can move on to the next series of questions about why and what it means. Anybody who isn't caught up to that can stay a grade or two behind if they like, they're not our responsibility and we certainly don't owe them the effort to try and convince them.

I look back at this thread and it's clear to see who the people are that pose as authority figures who demand proof, and you can see those that stoop to appease them. And guess which side always claims victory when you fail to prove it to their satisfaction in an internet chat group. They have no idea aliens have been here for a century? Forget them, you've already won.

a reply to: [post=26373637]neoholographic[/pos

What is your definition of a "pseudo-skeptic"? After reading how you express your views I come to the conclusion that you are pseudo-intelligent.

a reply to: OneWhoKnowsSaidBudd

I am not trying to engage in a flame war with you, I'm just curious as to how you think about these matters and arrive at your conclusions. OneWhoKnowsSaidBudd said: "The time wasted arguing with pseudo-skeptics, who admittedly have no knowledge of the alien situation being real," And you have this knowledge? How did you acquire it, where from and how did you qualify the knowledge as being factua? What are your standards for facts?

OneWhoKnowsSaidBudd said: "After a hundred years of documented encounters with metallic flying saucers, and their occupants, it is a given that alien contact is a fact of the world you were born into." How did you acquire this knowledge, where from and how did you qualify the knowledge as being factua?

OneWhoKnowsSaidBudd said: "figures who demand proof," Well, you are either gullible or you question claims offered without irrefutable evidence.

Don't be so hard on those who require more than a tale. Religionists who accept religious claims make the Vatican the power that it is. Can you imagine how great this world might have been like if religions had been abolished? For there is no historical evidence for gods, jesus christ or satan. Yet the gullible keep them alive.

a reply to: idusmartias

Thanks for your reply, no flame war from me either, thanks.
I will say anyone demanding "irrefutable evidence" of just about anything, especially alien contact, is on their own. Demand whatever you want, good luck with that. Why should anyone care what they consider irrefutable? They don't find the available century of documentation convincing enough? No problem, have a nice day lol. Accept what you want or don't. It would be much more intellectually honest of them to just admit "The past century of evidence isn't enough for me. I don't believe aliens are here." And then we could leave it right there and get on with our day, rather than pretend if we only tell them about this incident or that incident they'll finally be convinced. And then they'll thank you for the irrefutable evidence, right? Don't make me laugh.

Skeptics aren't our problem, leave them to their conclusions. If they really feel the need to be convinced they can hike up their big boy pants and look into it themselves. And if they're still not convinced they should probably stop warring with themselves over their need to believe but finding the evidence lacking.

The reality of alien contact doesn't depend on consensus. It's not an election. The vote in internet forums like this could be 90% no, aliens aren't here. It won't make the past century of alien contact any less real. So why worry about convincing the debunkers, leave them in their bunkers.

The only reason I can think that people engage in debate with them is for entertainment purposes, approaching the topic as speculative debate, where both parties are unsure of the actual situation. Then maybe it's fun to toss around the topic like a football. And if that's the goal, then you already have the football.

originally posted by: neoholographic
...
Is the Pillar of Cloud in the Bible the same as cigar shaped U.F.O.'s today?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The attention seeking is strong in this one.

I think the evidence shows that some people have found a lucrative niche market selling false stories as possibilities (or possible scenarios).

I think it's inappropiate to the describe the evidence as evidence of (or for) alien lifeforms from another planet visiting earth (not saying that that was done in this thread, haven't checked, but just pointing it out anyway, at the least it might have been implied by the manner it was phrased instead, or some people might get that impression from the way it was phrased).

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

“So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

And the example I picked sounds a bit like the way Cartman presents his supposed possible scenarios:

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. 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.

Straw man, and a poorly fashioned one at that.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

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. 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.

Straw man, and a poorly fashioned one at that.

Harte

Hey, Harte, you old dog! Truer words were never spoken. You pinned neoholographic to the mat: neoholographic - having no substance or integrity.