Is the bar for skeptics a bit too low?

On the OP....

The "Burden of Proof" lies in the person making the claim, not the person who is to believe/disbelieve that claim.

Thank god our court systems dont work like the OP thinks it should. Or else we'd all be guilty until proven innocent.

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr
Look, what do we do if the visiting ETs have a POLICY NOT TO "Prove" themselves to us? If that's the case - and I believe it is - then isn't it rather unwise and unproductive to keep demanding and waiting for Proof-that-never-comes?

Not from where I sit. If the "aliens" have a non-disclosure policy, that's their problem, not mine. I'll just continue to go about my merry way as if they didn't exist. If they think I desperately need to know something that is important to me, they better make themselves a little more obvious about it. Otherwise, I'm stuck in the position of having to guess or assume what I need to do, and why I need to do it. And in that case, I ain't gonna do nuthin'.

I think the wisest course of action when dealing with someone or something being purposely evasive is to assume that they're a bunch of liars and wait for more information to check things out. Are you telling me aliens can't lie? Who told you? The aliens?

For Meier, he's always had an uphill battle with me because he's never been able to offer much besides the photos, which I've considered to be of marginal value from the get-go.

You should see some of the earlier, more laughable photos...
Also, in the Meier case, there's the issue of at least TWO proven hoaxes (i.e. the Asket and Nera photo, and the "time travel, dinosaur" pic, both of which were taken, and proven to be from, mass media sources)...and both can be seen here on ATS if you search. Add on the dubious "ray gun" photos with 5 fingered hands which contradict the claimed 6 fingered handprints, and the "wedding cake" UFO with missing ball bearing and a base surprisingly similar to the trash can lids on Billy's ranch, and you've got a lot more evidence on the hoax side....at least in regards to this case.

Originally posted by Choronzon
The "Burden of Proof" lies in the person making the claim, not the person who is to believe/disbelieve that claim.

What the OP is suggesting is that if a skeptic introduces a positive counter-claim (i.e., That UFO you saw was definitely a meteor.), then they should be required to provide the necessary evidence to prove that claim. I got not problem with that. That's why I like to stick with an "I don't know," which is not to be interpreted an admission of the truth of the original claim. That keeps the burden of proof squarely on the original claimant.

Thank god our court systems dont work like the OP thinks it should. Or else we'd all be guilty until proven innocent.

Well, as I've said, this isn't a courtroom, and around here you are definitely guilty of hoaxing or misinterpreting what you saw until it is proven otherwise. There's a name for people who believe everything is absolutely true unless shown evidence to the contrary. "Gullible suckers."

[edit on 22-2-2008 by Nohup]

Originally posted by Gazrok
Also, in the Meier case, there's the issue of at least TWO proven hoaxes (i.e. the Asket and Nera photo, and the "time travel, dinosaur" pic, both of which were taken, and proven to be from, mass media sources)...and both can be seen here on ATS if you search. Add on the dubious "ray gun" photos with 5 fingered hands which contradict the claimed 6 fingered handprints, and the "wedding cake" UFO with missing ball bearing and a base surprisingly similar to the trash can lids on Billy's ranch, and you've got a lot more evidence on the hoax side....at least in regards to this case.

Oh, I've seen them all. I remember flipping through the big glossy "Contact" book at Waldenbooks when it first came out. The longer Meier goes with only worthless junk to back up his claims, the more ignorable he becomes. Thirty years? Come on, man! Again, like with Roswell, another case eating up a lot of time and energy that ultimately goes nowhere, while other good cases go uninvestigated.

Originally posted by Choronzon
On the OP....

The "Burden of Proof" lies in the person making the claim, not the person who is to believe/disbelieve that claim.

Thank god our court systems dont work like the OP thinks it should. Or else we'd all be guilty until proven innocent.

Our court systems work on a basis where both sides have to prove their case, no matter who is making a claim, which is exactly the point of my post. I'm not really sure why you didn't pick that up. Below average OP understanding is not unusual on ATS though, and that is in no way an insult to you.

[edit on 22-2-2008 by AGENT51]

Originally posted by jritzmann


I do agree that the skeptic view on UFOs is pretty dismal. The worst to me is McGaha. He's just embarrassingly inept, and to boot, incredibly condescending. My all time favorite was him telling a Bentwaters witness that no guards were on duty...to the very man who assigned the on-duty security. I think my jaw dropped at that one.

I totally agree. I like a good skeptic. But McGaha is a bit off the charts. Which is probably why the media uses him so much. He's a great skeptic to come in a boost the ratings a bit when a heated argument is needed. And yes, I saw that very Larry King episode you were talking about, Jeff. It really blew me away that he got away with that.

[edit on 22-2-2008 by AGENT51]

Originally posted by AGENT51
Our court systems work on a basis where both sides have to prove their case, no matter who is making a claim, which is exactly the point of my post. I'm not really sure why you didn't pick that up. Below average OP understanding is not unusual on ATS though, and that is in no way an insult to you.
[edit on 22-2-2008 by AGENT51]

You must not live in America. In America if someone files a claim against you, unless the claiment provides admissible evidence, you are assumed innocent, and are responsible for nothing. You do not even have to open your mouth.

The only exception to that rule is a testimony from a police officer. A police officer is a respected member of the court, his testimony is considered admissable evidence.

[edit on 2/22/2008 by Choronzon]

Of course you don't have to do or say anything if someone is making a claim against you. OJ got off didnt he? He lawyers made claims and arguments for him. Point proven.

Originally posted by AGENT51
Our court systems work on a basis where both sides have to prove their case, no matter who is making a claim,

Not in all cases. In criminal cases, the defense does not need to "prove" the defendants innocence. By the standard of "reasonable doubt", all they need to do is introduce some doubt. The prosecutor is charged with "proving" the defendants guilt.

The same may be true of civil cases....where the litigant is burdened with "proving" the defendant's liability.

Same in most of the cases discussed here. It is possible in most of the cases to introduce a great deal of "reasonable doubt".

reply to post by MrPenny



I think you are perhaps missing the point of the argument for the sake of being argumentative. Both sides in a court system generally make an argument for their case. A defendant has a lawyer and a plaintiff has a lawyer. This is my analogy for what I feel UFology should be like. But there are too many unknowns to make it happen.


[edit on 22-2-2008 by AGENT51]

[edit on 22-2-2008 by AGENT51]