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

a reply to: neoholographic

Back on this kick I see, stirring the pot.

Besides the obvious, low-leveled evidence, I can see you have a lack of thought with alien visitation. You believe they must be here because they're so many planets in the Universe. So you take it for granted they are. Have you thought any deeper than that to the fundementals?

Beginning with the existence of intelligent life. High intelligence on Earth is extremely rare. Extremely rare circumstance came together to form a species with the ability to use growth within our brains. Nature obviously favors simplicity and life only needs basic understandings to survive and be successful. That was the end result of every single species, its survival. That shown throughout Earths history.  We should have human levels of intelligence spread across other species if it was in evolutions path. It was not.

Next you need the ability for that high intelligence to survive long enough on a planet to reach superior intelligence. Earth has gone through 5 major mass extinction events. Events that killed off entire species. Humans wouldn't be alive today if it weren't for one of these times. It seems logical that life on another planet will have to survive similar catastrophic periods. Geological changes, cosmic events such as asteroid strikes, massive solar flares, gamma ray bursts, etc. If high intelligence happens to evolve on a planet, it will also need to survive its own possible fate. The development of nuclear weapons for example, destruction of the planets resources, disease, etc.

You have to factor in the distances required to visit Earth are immense. Alpha Centauri is our closest star system having 3 stars with Proxima Centauri being the closest at 4.24 light years away. That's 270,000 times the distance between Earth and the sun or nearly 25 trillion miles in typical Earth figures. According to Einsteins theory, we can't travel at the speed of light making that distance impossible to travel on a realistic scale. Something suriving years of travel has to be thought of. I can't speak with any authority on the theory of wormholes for example. But what would physically happen to a body surving through a wormhole. What, if any, physical effect on the local fabric of space/time would it have? It's completely possible too that intelligence survived but never could accomplish deep space travel across the Universe or the Milky Way.

The tiny time frame of the rise of human intelligence, say the last 10,000 years, has to be at same time of another species lives. Carl Sagan had a great analogy, he said if we condensed the age of the Universe down to a calendar with January 1st being the big bang, the last seconds of the last minute on December 31st would represent intelligent human existence. Miniscule time frame.

I have a lot of other question and thoughts that I won't post here, but I don't go around just "debunking" for the sake of doing it. I think there's a huge jump in logic for them to even be here. I have reasons behind my questioning of everything and will continue to do so.

The most common fallacy I deal with on the UFO topics is this:

A UFO doesn't mean aliens or space ships.

There are UFO's. Documented UFOs. As in we don't know what they are. We have to make a guess based from logic and whatever evidence is available.

I don't personally believe any of the UFO's we've seen are from a planet billions of light years away piloted by sentient beings from that planet. That's just beyond ridiculous to me. They would come and lead us or enslave us.

UFOs are just craft that we don't know/can't identify... but still from Earth.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: neoholographic

What evidence?

I'm not going to rehash all of the evidence again. This thread is called,"The skeptics catch 22 when it comes to U.F.O.'s."

So again I ask:

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

You may not reach the same conclusions based on the evidence but you can't say there isn't any evidence that would allow me to reach the conclusion that extraterrestrial/extradimensional visitation has occurred.

I can accept that you have reached a different conclusion based on the evidence, why can't you accept that I have reached a different conclusion based on the evidence?

If there's no evidence what are all these people debating on this forum?

If you want to rehash the evidence that you and others claim isn't evidence yet you debate the....evidence, here's some of my threads.

National intelligence director does not rule out 'extraterrestrial' origins for UFOs
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Government report finds evidence of advanced technology
www.abovetopsecret.com...

SpaceX craft had close call with UFO after launching into orbit
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Senator Marco Rubio Let's I.D. The UFO's Flying Over Military Bases
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Rapture will be mistaken as an Alien Invasion
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Tic Tac U.F.O. also jammed the radar
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Curious UFO Case of Carlos Antonio de los Santos
www.abovetopsecret.com...

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

A new analysis of the Pascagoula abduction
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I can go on an on with threads I have started and excellent, well researched threads from other ATS members.

This thread isn't about rehashing the evidence, it's about the illogical catch 22 of the pseudoskeptic. You asked:

What evidence?

Again, I ask:

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

You may not agree with the conclusions I have reached based on the accumulation of the evidence but you can't say there's no evidence. You're reaching an opposite conclusion BASED ON THE ACCUMULATION OF EVIDENCE!

The pseudoskeptic can't accept this simple truth.

originally posted by: Direne
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.

July, no humidity, no smoking, no breathing vapors. No clouds, no rain, no moon, clear skies.
Thought I saw a Nun out of the corner of my eye, so I took a picture.


Sadly nobody believes me.

I briefly perused a study somewhere years ago that stated that even if there was solid proof of ET's visiting Earth, and this information was made public, most of the global population would refuse to believe it.

A huge swathe of people would call it a hoax perpetuated by the powers that be, another massive demographic would not accept proof of ET visitation because of their religious beliefs, and a lot of people just wouldn't care or be interested.

As for the "it's all a big hoax" group, I would say that demographic would be significantly larger now than when the study I'm referring to was conducted, the pandemic has massively eroded public trust in the media apparatus that would be tasked with delivering such important information. But the authors also did state that in some countries, ME nations for example, where there is a bitter distrust of anything to do with The United States, almost all of the population would consider disclosure of ET visitation from US sources as some form of subterfuge.

Unfortunately I cannot provide a source for this study, it was over a decade ago when I read it. But I do not doubt that the assertions it made, as I have repeated here would be very obviously true.

originally posted by: Bigburgh

originally posted by: Direne
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.

July, no humidity, no smoking, no breathing vapors. No clouds, no rain, no moon, clear skies.

Thought I saw a Nun out of the corner of my eye, so I took a picture.


Sadly nobody believes me.

Your post is a good example of what I'm talking about.

What's the logical thing to do with the EVIDENCE you presented?

First, you should have the picture looked at by experts.

If the experts say the photo was not doctored, you will then need to weigh your credibility. Maybe a lie detector test, or have you ever lied about any of this before.

After this, logical people can reach a conclusion BASED ON THE EVIDENCE.

You can say this is evidence that supports the existence of ghosts alongside all of the other evidence. You have to weigh the fact that you said you saw a Nun. Why should i believe or not believe you? If there's no reason not to believe you then I can't just discount what you're saying.

Now, someone else could look at the same EVIDENCE and reach the conclusion that you thought you saw something and that's a bug you captured.

The point is, it's evidence that can be used with the accumulation of evidence to reach a conclusion as to what's most likely when it comes to the existence of ghosts.

The pseudoskeptic wants to act like there's no evidence but they're using the same EVIDENCE to reach a different conclusion!!

a reply to: neoholographic

The closest thing that I saw to evidence was the Gulf Breeze sightings in the late 80's. A guy named Ed Walters claimed to have seen something both in the air and on the ground. He had some amazing pictures. It came out later that when he sold his house a Styrofoam model of what he saw was found. Walters claimed that the model was planted in the house. A reporter, Craig Meyers claimed that he was able to recreate Walter's pictures using the model, but, I've never seen those pictures.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: neoholographic

The closest thing that I saw to evidence was the Gulf Breeze sightings in the late 80's. A guy named Ed Walters claimed to have seen something both in the air and on the ground. He had some amazing pictures. It came out later that when he sold his house a Styrofoam model of what he saw was found. Walters claimed that the model was planted in the house. A reporter, Craig Meyers claimed that he was able to recreate Walter's pictures using the model, but, I've never seen those pictures.

The closest thing that I saw to evidence was a UFO itself, I poop you not.

There is no substitute for 1st hand experience, however obviously I cannot prove that what I witnessed was from another planet, but no rational 'one of ours' explanation works.

a reply to: seabhac-rua

I'm not saying that people are not seeing things, because I know that they are. It's WHAT they are seeing that is open for debate in my opinion.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Ditto.

I'm quite convinced that sometimes people legitimately see
"something" that isn't just misperception/misidentification
or 'one of ours'.

But typically, if you can take a picutre of it, blurry or not
blurry, it's probably just prosaic.

Photographic data is quite literally the least useful
data one could have, right next to eyewitness accounts,
as people are terrible observers.

Whatever 'it' is, it doesn't want to be photographed
or poked and prodded like some animal in one of
our lab rat experiments.

Imagine that.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: seabhac-rua

I'm not saying that people are not seeing things, because I know that they are. It's WHAT they are seeing that is open for debate in my opinion.

Naturally.

And this is why there will never be a consensus on this topic(bar full governmental disclosure), we can debate this or that sighting, but there will always be the argument that what was seen did not originate from anywhere other than here. Maybe 50 years ago it was impossible to claim that an object which behaved like Fravor's Tic-Tac was man-made, but nowadays this seems to be the most commonly fielded dismissal of Framer's account, it cannot easily be put down as a hoax(although I've heard that argument), so it must be some black project.

Where does this leave us?
IMO personal accounts of sightings, photos, video etc, no matter how good, are useless as evidence that will change any skeptics mind in our modern world of drones and secret military projects. Proof pointing to possible ET visitation is more elusive than it ever has been.

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
Photographic data is quite literally the least useful
data one could have, right next to eyewitness accounts,
as people are terrible observers.

Funny you said that. In the 80's and 90's I was working towards being an air crash investigator. One of the seminars that I attended was about interviewing witnesses. The instructor said "You have two people who witnessed the crash. One is an airline pilot and the other is a waitress. Who is the best witness? We all thought that the pilot would be. We were wrong. The pilot's statement would be clouded by his knowledge. It would be a pilot's interpretation of what he believed happened versus what he actually saw. The waitress would just tell you what she saw.

Sometimes I thing that's true with UFO's. Some people want them to be extraterrestrial so bad that it interferes with what is actually going on. The opposite can also be true. Some people let their beliefs get in the way of their judgement even if subconsciously.

a reply to: seabhac-rua

I have to ask. What if there's nothing for the Government to disclose?

a reply to: neoholographic
S&F from me. I think you make some valid points in your OP.

I have no problem believing people have seen things they can't identify (because I have), including some black budget craft in rare cases, but I'm a bit of a skeptic when it comes to alien spacecraft, though I admit there is some historical and contemporary evidence that I find somewhat curious and even compelling. My biggest question on evidence is often the source more so than the evidence itself.

honestly though, I don't find the idea of alien visitation out of the realm of possibility.

a reply to: JIMC5499

In science, the null hypothesis is quite as valid as any.

Also since the government is on record that they faked UFOs
for decades, for operational purposes (you can find the article
right on the CIA.gov website),

the USG is the last authority I'd believe with anyting this
controversial.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: seabhac-rua

I have to ask. What if there's nothing for the Government to disclose?

Well if there is nothing to disclose then there is nothing to disclose.

I don't believe that is the case though, do you?

Numerous FOI documents prove that there IS something to the UFO phenomenon and that the US government has been keeping information away from the public for a great many years. This is indisputable.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I agree about the Government. I worked on components of the B-2 when they were saying that it didn't exist. I'm consulting on the side, on a few things that might be mistaken for UFO's, but, I can't go into that. Nothing sinister, just proprietary.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: neoholographic

The closest thing that I saw to evidence was the Gulf Breeze sightings in the late 80's. A guy named Ed Walters claimed to have seen something both in the air and on the ground. He had some amazing pictures. It came out later that when he sold his house a Styrofoam model of what he saw was found. Walters claimed that the model was planted in the house. A reporter, Craig Meyers claimed that he was able to recreate Walter's pictures using the model, but, I've never seen those pictures.

It's all EVIDENCE!

You may not think the evidence is good enough to reach the conclusion that extraterrestrial/extradimensional visitation has occurred, but that just means you have reached a different conclusion based on the accumulation of EVIDENCE.

This is just basic reason and logic that applies to everyday life. In most cases, we reach conclusions based on the evidence. These conclusions are usually associated with a level of certainty.

So I'm about 99% certain that extraterrestrial/extradimensional visitation has occurred. I have no other explanation for the accumulation of the evidence. Humans have been recording U.F.O.'s since man could draw on cave walls.

In just about every civilization there's stories about how they built their civilization by learning from beings from the sky. There's no scientific evidence of this knowledge being anywhere prior to these civilizations. Where did it come from? I write more about this in this thread:

Sumerians show why a natural interpretation of evolution is false
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The point is, you can't say there isn't any evidence to reach the conclusion that extraterrestrial/extradimensional visitation has occurred. You're reaching a conclusion that it hasn't occurred BASED ON THE SAME ACCUMULATION OF EVIDENCE!

For instance, look at recent Pilot video and testimony. You can look at it in these 3 ways.

1. I can look at the EVIDENCE and saythe Pilots are credible and they give a detailed explanation as to what they saw and based on the accumulation of evidence I have reached the conclusion that extraterrestrial/extradimensional visitation has occurred.

2. A skeptic can look at the same evidence and say this isn't evidence of extraterrestrial/extradimensional visitation but they realize that's their conclusion based on the evidence.

3. A pseudoskeptic will claim there isn't any evidence and all of the Pilots are idiots or liars and they will substitute their opinion over what the Pilots say they saw.

Why can't a pseudoskeptic admit that there's evidence to reach the conclusion that extraterrestrial/extradimensional visitation has occurred but they just don't reach the same conclusion based on the evidence? I accept that the skeptic looks at the same evidence and reaches a different conclusion.

This is different than "Proof." I can't prove that alien visitation has occurred without any doubt. I can conclude that alien visitation has occurred beyond any reasonable doubt based on the accumulation of evidence.

Answer this:

Where did modern civilization get it's knowledge from?

How did we go from living in huts and caves to building palaces and homes, building governments, going to work, paying taxes, science, politics, advanced mathematics and more? Where did this evolve from? The ancients tell us they got their knowledge from beings from the sky. If they didm't why can't we find any civilizations before them that gradually grew this knowledge?

I will end with the same question I keep asking:

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

Here is something I saw on the weather radar on 2-23-2018. Very interesting bird, yes?

a reply to: neoholographic

I'd like to respond to just this one sentence:

"Answer this:

Where did modern civilization get it's knowledge from?"

It's all there.. the chain of custody of where all our knowledge
came from is very much clear, obvious and nearly (problby
to 5 sigma) indisputable).

It came from hardworking scientists and inventors. Human,
every last one of them.

Some people say that fiber otpics and semicondutors and what not
came from reverse-engineering 'roswell'.

Well, no, there's a clear and easy trail to follow.. none of it requiring
"I don't know, so it must be god or aliens".

A lot is sitting in scientific journals or the patent office.

And early man was no dummy either.. far more bright than they are
given credit for.

Humans are a rather messed up species,but we aren't dummies...

I don't really want to go roundy roundy with you on your other very
passionate utterances.. but this one... the most low hanging fruit
of all of your entire list... bears addressing.

Kev