The Questions U.F.O. skeptics can't answer

reply to post by easynow


Wrong,

I'm not trying to force anything on anyone. I'm just presenting evidence.

It's not just circumstantial evidence, it's direct evidence as well.

Direct evidence is eyewitness testimony.

Direct evidence is testimony or other proof which expressly or straight-forwardly proves the existence of a fact. It is different from circumstantial evidence, which is evidence that, without going directly to prove the existence of a fact, gives rise to a logical inference that such fact does exist.

Direct evidence is evidence which, if believed, proves the existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption. It is evidence which comes from one who speaks directly of his or her own knowledge on the main or ultimate fact to be proved, or who saw or heard the factual matters which are the subject of the testimony. It is not necessary that this direct knowledge be gained through the senses of sight and hearing alone, but it may be obtained from any of the senses through which outside knowledge is acquired, including the senses of touch or pain.

State v Famber, 358 Mo 288, 214 SW2d 40.

en.wikipedia.org...

On a side note, do you know that people go to jail for life based on circumstantial evidence? So people can use reason to draw conclusions based on circumstantial evidence alone. With ufology, you direct and circumstantial evidence.

About Dr. Lier, I can find things in people background on all kinds of subjects, does that mean I have to discount the research because the messenger isn't perfect?

Should I discount Einstein or Hawking because I don't agree with everything they said?

Again,

The skeptics argument starts with a logical fallacy.

They say you have to have ABSOLUTE PROOF that these things exist before you can draw a conclusion on the available evidence.

This will not work in any field of study.

Why does this backwards logic only apply to ufology?

You will always have things that are "unexplained" in these areas if you limit the sphere of knowledge to your personal beliefs.

Is there a statute of limitations on how long I have to wait to draw a conclusion on these things? Do I have to stick my head in the sand until the skeptic finds an answer that fits their pre-existing belief?

Originally posted by polomontana
Direct evidence is eyewitness testimony.

Direct evidence is testimony or other proof which expressly or straight-forwardly proves the existence of a fact.

Direct evidence is evidence which, if believed, proves the existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption.

Eyewitness testimony of a UFO is not direct evidence of extraterrestrial visitation. It is circumstantial evidence. When a person witnesses an object in the night-sky, they are only seeing an object that defies explanation; they have no direct evidence it is piloted by an alien being. It does not prove, as you claim, the existence of extraterrestrial visitation, it merely suggests it.

Originally posted by polomontana
On a side note, do you know that people go to jail for life based on circumstantial evidence?

This isn't law, this is science. The standards of evidence are quite different. In science, circumstantial evidence is only used to support other forms of evidence.

reply to post by polomontana


in ufology eyewitness testimony is not considered direct evidence and in most cases more evidence is usually needed to substantiate the claims of the witness.

blanketed statements about eyewitness testimony being direct evidence is naive.

see this is where you and the skeptics differ.... because perception is reality and everyone has their own.










[edit on 28-7-2008 by easynow]

reply to post by polomontana


FFS - why is your entire ` argument ` a series of silly strawmen ????????

skeptics ask for EVIDENCE - why do beelievers not try harder to provide it ?

reply to post by SaviorComplex

Eyewitness testimony of a UFO is not direct evidence of extraterrestrial visitation. It is circumstantial evidence. When a person witnesses an object in the night-sky, they are only seeing an object that defies explanation; they have no direct evidence it is piloted by an alien being. It does not prove, as you claim, the existence of extraterrestrial visitation, it merely suggests it.

NO proof linking UFO's with Aliens?

Review the video with 62 Kids who saw a flying saucer land and an alien come out.
VIDEO.
youtube.com...

You keep passing this up?

Do you have an explanation for us?

There are 100's of more cases like this.

Is everyone delusional? 62 kids at the same time insane?

reply to post by SaviorComplex



This is direct testimony that these things exist.

The pictures and video are circumstantial not the eyewitness accounts.

You have abduction cases and sightings of these things, 62 kids in Zimbabwe, Travis Walton, Betty and Barney Hill and the list goes on.

Here's some cases project blue book investigated and they are "unexplained."

July 27 or 29, 1957, Longmont, Colorado. Early morning:
Witness: J.L. Siverly. One thick disc, ice blue, with a top like honeycomb (interconnected hexagons), hovered and rocked below the hill tops for 10 minutes. Middle band was scalloped, bottom had four kidney - shaped forms.

July 29, 1957, Cleveland, Ohio. 10:31 p.m:
Witnesses: Capital Airlines Capt. R.L. Stimley, First Officer F.J. Downing. One large, round, yellow-white object dimmed once, crossed the bow of the airliner, which then gave chase but was unable to catch it. Sighting last 8 minutes.

Nov. 26, 1957, Robins AFB, Georgia. 10:07 a.m:
Witnesses: three control tower operators, one weather observer and four others. One silver, cigar-shaped object suddenly vanished after 8 minutes.

Nov. 30, 1957, New Orleans, Louisiana. 2:11 p.m:
Witnesses: three U.S. Coast Guardsmen. One round object turned white, then gold, then separated into three parts and turned red. Sighting lasted 20 minutes.

Dec. 13, 1957, Col Anahuac, Mexico. 9:35 a.m:
Witness: R.C. Cano. Fourteen-fifteen circular, tapered discs, very bright, flew in a formation like a stack of coins, then changed to an inverted-V formation. Sighting lasted 20 minutes.

Dec. 17, 1957, near Grand Junction, Colorado. 7:20 p.m:
Witness: F.G. Hickman, 17. One round object changed from yellow to white to green to red, red tail was twice as long as the body. It stopped, started, backed up for 45 minutes.

There's over 700 "unexplained" cases.
www.ufologie.net...

These things occured in 1957, how long do I have to stick my head in the sand and label these things unexplained?

Again, tell me why I can't come to the conclusion that these things exist beyond any reasonable doubt.

It's because the skeptic wants to limit the sphere of possibilities based on their personal belief system.

This way any response is considered valid.

If I go outside and the ground is wet up and down my street and on my neighbors vehicles are wet, I can come to the resonable conclusion that it rained. There's the possibility that my neighbor went up and down the street with his water hose and sprayed the street and everyones yard but I have reason to weigh these 2 possibilities.

The skeptic will see the video of a craft and say it's a weather balloon and they will see this as a logical possibility because to them extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings are not possibilities. Most times they offer these things without a shred of evidence.

This is why most skeptics want to keep things in the realm of belief. This way they can offer any excuse outside of these things and they see those excuses as valid.

We do have something called reason and we can weigh the evidence.

I don't have to continue to label things unexplained when extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings explain it very well.

Also, there are people sitting in jail based on circumstantial evidence alone.

reply to post by polomontana

I think it's important to remember that as human beings, we will always accept or deny things based on our own experience. Whether or not you, as a skeptic, can go into a situation as a realistically objective person and gather information before accepting or rejecting a premise is the important question.

I, for example, belong a to UFO investigative group in MN called MN UFO Researchers (www.mnuforesearchers.org). We frequently go out to investigate UFO sightings, only to find that we can explain or even replicate the experience. So it's not that we're rejecting someone elses knowledge, but rather using our own to explain what some observers are very anxious about. In other cases, we can't replicate or explain the experience, so we are left to wonder.

I think a good skeptic is one who can put aside his own preconceptions as much is as reasonable, considering that bias is a given, and pursue all possibilities, even those that don't necessarily reside in common knowledge.

Simon Davidson
MNUFOR
www.mnuforesearchers.org

Originally posted by Malevolent_Aliens
Review the video with 62 Kids who saw a flying saucer land and an alien come out. Is everyone delusional? 62 kids at the same time insane?

How did they know it was an alien? Are they exobiologists, or did the alien tell them? And even so, where is the proof this "alien" wasn't lying? Everybody has to come up with proof. Even aliens.

Oh, so many questions and no answers.

Originally posted by secretnasaman
These are things they can not answer because a skeptic does not believe in UFOs, so there is no debate, no questions, no winning a debate with a debunker. They start and end with the premise that it is not true.They only exist to keep posting no! They have added a comedian in Bill NYE, as with the success of John Stewart, they need a lighter approach it seems!

Not all Skeptics think the UFO subject is complete bunk...i myself am skeptical, but in scenarios when credible witnesses and evidence comes to light then i really am left scratching my head...its not that all skeptics just are out to say "NO WAY doesnt exsist i dont care not logical"...i think id would like to at least hope that most skeptics are just bright thinkers not taking ppl's words for it...not dissmissing it but not just taking it at face value...when i hear a story of credible witness and evidence it intrigues me more to search into the subject and make an educated guess based upon the evidence at hand...so dont be quick to label all skeptics in this sort of life...i started off as a pig headed skeptic saying "no way cant exsist" but i ran into some startling stories that really indeed did have me scratching my head i.e. Salyut 6 sighting.....us skeptics sure do get a bad rap

Good Day
Skept!cal

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by Malevolent_Aliens
Review the video with 62 Kids who saw a flying saucer land and an alien come out. Is everyone delusional? 62 kids at the same time insane?

How did they know it was an alien? Are they exobiologists, or did the alien tell them? And even so, where is the proof this "alien" wasn't lying? Everybody has to come up with proof. Even aliens.

Oh, so many questions and no answers.

Again, this is just opinions. Provide some evidence that counters the claims of the children and Professor Mack's investigation.

You do know the difference between opinion and evidence?

You are asking people to debate a hypothetical based on a personal belief about the existence of these things.

This is not evidence that rebutts the underlying claim.

Show me some evidence that the beings they saw were lying. They could have been purple elaphants in disguise. In light of the similar evidence that supports these issues, your hypothetical can't be given the same weight as the actual testimony.

Why would I even debate that hypothetical when there's no evidence to support the assertion?

Also, in order to make this assertion you have to accept that these kids are telling the truth about what they saw.

If this is the case, unless you have evidence that rebutts their testimony then the only reasonable conclusion is that these things exist beyond any reasonable doubt.

Please, lets stick to evidence.

reply to post by Nohup

How did they know it was an alien? Are they exobiologists, or did the alien tell them? And even so, where is the proof this "alien" wasn't lying? Everybody has to come up with proof. Even aliens.
Oh, so many questions and no answers.

Good point and anticipated question:

These 62 kids described the beings they saw and had them sketched to match the description of your typical grey alien. They also state that most of these kids do not have television sets and have never seen what an alien looks like so this was a very first time they have ever seen a grey. Big black eyes, Big head, short etc. Their descriptions match 1000's of other cases and reports of eye witness testimony.

Now whether these greys are from earth your right we can't prove them to be from another planet, who knows they could have been living here all along but they sure do have nice high tech saucers don't you think?

Originally posted by polomontana
This is direct testimony that these things exist.

That people look up in the sky and see things they cannot explain? Sure. You will not get any arguments.

However, you are making a great leap of logic to say they are "direct evidence" that these are extraterrestrial craft.

Originally posted by polomontana
You have abduction cases and sightings of these things, 62 kids in Zimbabwe, Travis Walton, Betty and Barney Hill and the list goes on.

I have not examined the Zimbabwe incident in depth, so it would not be appropriate to comment.

As for Betty and Barney Hill: Invaders from Mars, Killers from Space, Bellero Shield, Conflabulation. And why in the world would they be wearing caps just like the USAF wore, and why would Barney call them "Nazis?" And in the earliest accounts, the Good Mrs. Hill did not describe the aliens as "alien" but rather human. Strange stuff!

Originally posted by polomontana
Here's some cases project blue book investigated and they are "unexplained."

Again, tell me why I can't come to the conclusion that these things exist beyond any reasonable doubt.

You obviously do not know the definition of unexplained.

For the last time: unexplained and unidentified do not mean alien, nor are they synonyms for alien.

Originally posted by polomontana
It's because the skeptic wants to limit the sphere of possibilities based on their personal belief system.

You are the one limiting the possibilities, because you already have your mind made up. To you, if it's unexplained, it means alien. You are filling the lack of knowledge and evidence with your desires.

reply to post by polomontana


You have to be blind as a bat if you think this sighting with 62 kids was not great eye witness evidence.

If these kids saw a murder take place the murderer would be sentenced in a heart beat.

Of course there is no hard proof in this case other than 62 kids telling the truth about what they saw. If you knew anything about kids at this age they could never get away with such a story if it was not true let alone pass polygraph tests.

If they were all having a mass delusion at the same time well perhaps life in itself is one great big mass delusion. If life is a mass delusion then somewhere in that delusion aliens must exist then right?

reply to post by Malevolent_Aliens


but one kid says the being had long hair. Never heard of "greys" with long hair.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


It's simple, if there was a logical explanation for these things then they wouldn't be unexplained.

You have yet to provide one shred of evidence to rebutt these things. You have yet to provide a logical explanation for any of the things that I have mentioned.

I'm not just filling in the blank, I'm looking at the evidence and I'm considering the possibilities.

Unexplained or extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings. I say the latter is more reasonable and I'm willing to listen to any skeptic that provides reasoned explanations backed by evidence.

I think based on the math and various theories, that we live in an extra-dimensional universe.

In an extra-dimensional universe we would extend into a 4th dimension of space.

We would see higher dimensional beings and objects in a 3-dimensional way. So we might see lights appear out of nowhere that move in ways that are foreign to us.

It's just like if you stick a basketball in front of a 2 dimensional being. They couldn't see the basketball in total but a bunch of 2 dimensional objects.

So, I'm not just saying these things out of desire. I look at the possibilities and extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings makes more sense than unexplained.

I could remove extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings as a possibility, then I'm limiting my sphere of knowledge for no reason. That's illogical.

You tell me, why are extra-dimensional/extra-terrestrial beings not a possibility?

I don't have to have absolute proof of black holes to come to the reasonable conclusion that black holes exist.

I don't have to have absolute evidence of virtual particles to come to the reasonable conclusion that virtual particles exist.

In my case, I have never seen a black hole or a virtual particle but I have had 3 sightings.

Here's another mass sighting in Voronez, Russia.
www.youtube.com...

They didn't only see a craft, they saw the beings as well.





[edit on 28-7-2008 by polomontana]

reply to post by polomontana



you also have to concede the possibilty the event didnt happen like those kids thought. Humans are not perfect, our own senses can deceive us, the brain can be tricked. It is a possibility. There is also the possibilty that it is a hoax.

The thing is for most people hearing stories isnt good enough. We need something more.

Sailors used to come back from sea with stories of mermaids. Do you automatically believe them becuase they told you?

[edit on 28-7-2008 by yeti101]

im glad that someone brought up the 62 kids from africa who saw aliens on the school ground.. id like to think that i can decide for myself which UFO cases are genuine, this one took me no time at all to agree with.

Has anyone noticed how the face of our retired military witnesses is getting more and more fiery eyed. these guys cant stand talking to bill nye. their frustration is very telling if you have a keen sense of human bodylanguage an art over looked when searching for the truth in others in my opinion. noboday ever talks about the vocal tone of a witness or the expressions on their face.

if a skeptic hasnt spent the man hours looking through cases and watching documenatries then their simpling failing the course on UFOs. to pass is to become a believer/knower.

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by polomontana

 

you also have to concede the possibilty the event didnt happen like those kids thought. Humans are not perfect, our own senses can deceive us, the brain can be tricked. It is a possibility. There is also the possibilty that it is a hoax.

The thing is for most people hearing stories isnt good enough. We need something more.

Sailors used to come back from sea with stories of mermaids. Do you automatically believe them becuase they told you?

[edit on 28-7-2008 by yeti101]

This is wrong,

I never said eyewitness accounts are perfect.

When there's a car accident, the police could get 3 different stories as to what happen. These stories can embelish the truth or leave things out.

The Police then apply reason to the eyewitness stories and then they come to a conclusion as to what happened.

When you compare these kids story to other similar stories then as a human being you should be able to come to a reasonable conclusion. Or you limit the possibilities and your left with another unexplained event.

When you have Presidents, police, high ranking government officials, pilots and more see mermaids then you can compare mermaids to these things.

reply to post by LordThumbs


I like that phrase you have under your name.

I cant prove I exist
I only have EVIDENCE