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

reply to post by polomontana



i was listening to some ufo show or something and it made total sense..you really cant prove you only have evidense.

but like you mentioned, its almost weird that these skeptics dont take into the account of our military,astronaut,presidential,pilot testimony..

maybe they never seen an x press conferense before..

[edit on 03/06/2008 by LordThumbs]

reply to post by polomontana


its still just stories. Sooner or later to definitively state we are being visited by E.T we need more than just stories.

in order to reach the last 40% who dont believe (in america) i feel that we need more of an outreach strategy to bring the video or testimony to the people. a congressional hearing would be nice!

or the classic disclosure speech by the government would bring everyone on the same page.. FINALLY

so i agree those of us who have harder heads than others need to have proof hit em on the head.

reply to post by yeti101


We have more than just stories, but lets use your premise that it's just stories.

Why should I wait to come to a reasonable conclusion on these things after looking over all the direct and circumstantial evidence along with 3 sightings that I had?

Should I wait to come to a conclusion until every skeptic has there undeniable proof? How does that make any sense?

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

No, "unexplained" means there is not enough evidence to explain it. It does not mean it defies logical explanation or that

I have offered explanations, so have other people. YOU have yet to provide evidence these things are alien.

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 have offered explanations, so have other people. YOU have yet to provide evidence these things are alien; you are making leaps of logic, assigning new definitions to words, claiming stories are hard evidence, and dismissing everyone who does not agree with you as lacking evidence, explanation, or as a pseudoskeptic.

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

Please, what possibility have you considered outside of "extraterrestrial?" You are closed-minded; that is not considering possibilities. To you, there are no other possibilities, because you DO NOT KNOW the definition of "unexplained" thinking it means "alien" and thinking leaps of logic where YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE is evidence of alien. That is not reasonable or rational. It is the height of stupidity, the very thing primitives did when cowering in their caves.

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

AT NO POINT has anyone said that. YOU are the one claiming we are saying that. We are saying there are better, more "mundane" explanations. What we are saying is that a lack of evidence, that unexplained does not mean alien. You are the one putting words in our mouths.

I am putting Polomontana on Ignore. I would advise everyone else on here to do the same; he is a troll with little desire to discuss these things. He is every bit as closed-minded and blind as the skeptics he constantly attacks personally. He does not seek to prove extraterrestrial visitation, rather confusing browbeating skeptics as "proof."

reply to post by LordThumbs


I think they see the eyewitness testimony from pilots, police military and more they just discount it because of their pre-existing belief that these things don't or can't exist.

We would never make it in this world if we didn't weigh eyewitness testimony. It's only in things that come up against a pre-existing belief that gets classified as meaningless.

If no pilots were seeing these things, then the skeptic would be asking,"If these things exist, why hasn't any pilots seen them?"

When you start with a logical fallacy, then you have to continue to build logical fallacies to support the initial premise.

reply to post by polomontana



i have also seen something in the sky i cant explain. But i dont jump to the conclusion it was aliens in a spaceship.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Put me on ignore if you wish.

Of course many people who claim to be skeptics don't see extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings as a reasonable possibility.

Look, when I see the video of the 62 kids in Zimbabwe, I ask the questions.

Is it:

A. A Mass Delusion
B. Made up story
c. The government using billion dollar technology to scare kids in Zimbabwe
d. Visitation.

I look at all the possibilities and the investigation from people like Harvard Professor John Mack.

I come to a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence from the kids and other similar events that occur.

Now, I'm open to ant other possibilities and evidence. I have yet to see any offered by the skeptics.

Why should I wait to reach a reasonable conclusion? Should I stick my head in the sand until every skeptic has there undeniable proof of these things?

reply to post by SaviorComplex


A Question For All The Skeptics?

If you were to see a ufo tomorrow come down, make a landing and an alien being come outside of the ship only to beam you with a laser temporarily paralyzing you then to re-board the ship and take off again what would you do about it?

Who would you tell?

How would you explain to the other skeptics your story?

You would probably realize just a day ago you considered anyone who saw ufo's and aliens to be insane, only to realize you were now one of those persons.

So what would you do about it?

Just Curious!