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

reply to post by easynow


My point is the skeptic has to have evidence to support there claims.

It's not about belief, it's about the evidence.

Also, you can't say that I can't come to the conclusion based on the evidence that these things exist beyond any reasonable. If you say that I'm wrong, then you have to rebutt the evidence with more than your opinion.

most of the so called skeptics on this board never bring any evidence to the table. Of course I can debate an issue if I can count any wild opinion as evidence.

I can simply say all the people who accept these things are crazy. No evidence, nothing to support my claim, just nonsense.

I would like it if one skeptic will actually try to rebutt the evidence.

Originally posted by thrashee
reply to post by easynow

 

Here's the thing regarding the skeptic's position: the skeptic has nothing to prove. Does everyone here understand that? It's not the skeptic's job to disprove any claims--it's the person making statements that UFOs existence who have to prove that.

This may seem unfair, but it's just the way logic, reason, and science work.

There is no level playing field--there's just the field, in which where one person makes a claim that X exists, they then have to prove that. All the skeptic has to do is sit back until they can provide proof.

You must be someone that has listen to some Professor tell this obviously silly thing about science.

Do you know how science works?

It's built on theories and thought experiments.

Have you ever read the Einstein, Bohr debates?

In science, if your going to make a claim that string theory is not correct or classical objects can travel faster than light, you have to provide evidence to support your claim.

Easynow is correct. Skeptics want it this way so they can bring any silly opinion to the table and then they can say, I don't need any evidence.

I can claim people are living in a fantasy, a hoax, mass hysteria without a shred of evidence to support the claim.

That's not how science works. That's not how logic and reason work.

Where you get this nonsense is beyond me. You must make it up as you go.

Originally posted by thrashee
reply to post by easynow

 

Here's the thing regarding the skeptic's position: the skeptic has nothing to prove. Does everyone here understand that? It's not the skeptic's job to disprove any claims--it's the person making statements that UFOs existence who have to prove that.

This may seem unfair, but it's just the way logic, reason, and science work.

There is no level playing field--there's just the field, in which where one person makes a claim that X exists, they then have to prove that. All the skeptic has to do is sit back until they can provide proof.

ok last post i swear...lol


your right..the skeptic has nothing to prove until you open your mouth and make a statement.

that is what polomontana is trying to get you to see

if the skeptic just sat back and did nothing than nothing would be expected.

once again when you make a claim...you need to back it up

it's easy for people to just say "oh it's balloons" but if they had to prove it...they probably wouldn't say it.....

polomontana,

Are you contributing to the same thread everyone else is contributing to?

In this thread, no one has written that your conclusion is not correct. What I've read over and over again are people trying to demonstrate the fallacy of deciding that conclusion is the only correct one, based on the available evidence. That conclusion simply isn't supported.....it is only one possibility of many.

Now...if skeptics are wrong, and your theory is the correct one....prove it. Skeptics already know you cannot....so we search for something provable, or if not provable, more likely. Your example with string theory is interesting....what you're suggesting is this; finding the theory lacking and developing a new theory...not disproving the first, but searching for evidence that supports the new theory. That's the way science works. If the theory is lacking, develop a new theory.

easynow mentioned the "Oh, it's ballons" line....well, if it looks like balloons, acts like balloons, the probability is it's balloons. That's the way theories work....if it fits the observable evidence, it's good.

reply to post by MrPenny


Who said my conclusion was the only conclusion?

I said if you have evidence that counters the evidence that has been reported and investigated then present it. I'm open to all possibilities, so far I havn't seen any evidence outside of what has been reported and investigated. I've seen alot of opinion but not much more.

Originally posted by easynow

Originally posted by thrashee
reply to post by easynow

 

Here's the thing regarding the skeptic's position: the skeptic has nothing to prove. Does everyone here understand that? It's not the skeptic's job to disprove any claims--it's the person making statements that UFOs existence who have to prove that.

This may seem unfair, but it's just the way logic, reason, and science work.

There is no level playing field--there's just the field, in which where one person makes a claim that X exists, they then have to prove that. All the skeptic has to do is sit back until they can provide proof.

ok last post i swear...lol


your right..the skeptic has nothing to prove until you open your mouth and make a statement.

that is what polomontana is trying to get you to see

if the skeptic just sat back and did nothing than nothing would be expected.

once again when you make a claim...you need to back it up

it's easy for people to just say "oh it's balloons" but if they had to prove it...they probably wouldn't say it.....

Good points,

I don't think anybody believes that science works the way thrashee said it works.

If you ever seen scientist debate theory, they bring evidence to support their claims. If you were to come in and say I don't need any evidence, you would be laughed out of the debate.

If a skeptic comes into a debate and they don't need any evidence, then they can make any claim and say it's valid.

I don't think I have heard this kind of logic when it comes to debates in any field of study.

polomontana,

the problem with your OP is that you start off the bat assuming that skeptics maintain a certain belief that UFOs don't exist, and then fail to provide evidence for that.

That's not the position of a skeptic. A skeptic looks at the claims that believers make regarding so-called evidence for the existence of UFOs, and say, "I'm skeptical about your evidence. Prove it."

Since it's the believers making the claim, it's the believers' responsibility to back that claim up. That's what I was getting at regarding the burden of proof fallacy.

Now, if I start off stating, "UFOs don't exist", I would then have to prove that. But again, that's not what we're doing.

Look at your example of the UFOs whilst balloons are nearby. The first claim is made by a believer that they saw a UFO. The skeptic is therefore under no obligation to disprove the believer, but rather, the believer must prove his own claim.

Now, part of your OP was asking why skeptics "believe" that "evidence" doesn't count as "knowing". First off, evidence is just that....it's evidence subject to scrutiny until it can be proven to support a claim. So you can see lights in the sky all you want and call it evidence that UFOs exist....none of that amounts to a hill of beans until you can somehow analyze that data and prove that those lights are, indeed, of extraterrestrial origin. If you can't do that, you don't have proof that UFOs exist, and no one "knows" anything because of it.

Originally posted by polomontana
If a skeptic comes into a debate and they don't need any evidence, then they can make any claim and say it's valid.

I don't think I have heard this kind of logic when it comes to debates in any field of study.

You're still missing the point. The skeptic doesn't have to bring in any evidence, precisely because it's not the skeptic making a claim. Do you understand? So in your example, you and I are scientists, and you say, "I have evidence that UFOs exist". I'd say fine, let's go into a debate, and bring that evidence." Do I need to bring evidence of my own? No. The burden of proof is not on me. My sole job is to analyze your evidence and debate its merits.

Now, if I came up to you and said, "I have evidence that UFOs don't exist", then the tables would indeed be turned. But that's not the case.

Originally posted by polomontana
I said if you have evidence that counters the evidence that has been reported and investigated then present it.

You still don't get it, do you? Skeptics are using the same evidence and drawing different conclusions, or are unwilling to draw a firm conclusion at all. What is being attempted is to show that skeptics don't need new evidence to disprove anything....the evidence that already exists does not conclusively point to any conclusion.

How can you possibly ask people to show evidence to counter something, when the existing evidence is already less than stellar? Skeptics don't need new evidence to disprove anything when the existing evidence is just as likely to point towards different scenarios. Everybody is working with the same evidence. Different approaches, that's all.

You seem to be locked into a mindset that the evidence shown points to one conclusion. It does not. That's what the majority of skeptics on this site are trying to demonstrate....there may be a multiplicity of explanations.

reply to post by thrashee


That makes no sense,

If a person makes a claim about what they saw or what they extracted from an individual that's evidence.

They don't have to prove to a skeptic that it's evidence. I havn't mention the word proof in any of my post.

I said, based on the evidence extra-terrestrial/extra-terrestrials exist beyond anty reasonable doubt.

I didn't say I'm going to prove this to a skeptic.

This is not about my belief but the evidence. If you think I'm wrong then show me evidence that points to an explanation that's outside of what's been reported and investigated and I will listen.

Many skeptics don't think they exist and the honest ones tell you this upfront.

This is why a skeptic can make the absurd claim that they don't need any evidence.

I can win a debate in any field of study if I don't need evidence.

I am going to kill this debate quickly.

Some say...show us some real, verifiable proof and I'll maybe take you seriously. I say, show us some real proof that UFO's/aliens do not exist, or even visited our planet and I'll gladly shut up.

You always take the word of high ranking officers. So...why not take it when it could be taken? You believe them when they say they went to the moon. You believe them when they say Phoenix landed on mars. Of course, they have some video to prove this. Although...c'mon, that can be CG...right? That can be photoshopped too...right? As a matter of fact, every picture they took can be photoshopped, or with some 3dsmax and some After Effects, they can be accomplished. This is no game, but it seems we're playing one. Any person who uses video or picture as some sort of proof of UFO's is a fool...as, the first thing they'd hear is...That's CG! There are people in this world who have never seen sky scrapers and don't even know they exist. I'm sure if you show them a video of the towers going down...then showed them that you can create some cool plane crashes with Maya, they can say 9/11 was CG. Can they not?

But, in 9/11's defense, we have thousands of folks who've seen it and who were right there. True? But, we have whole cities seeing UFO's and still people call CG, fake, rubbish, more proof...etc. Yes, that's right, an entire city will, some residents consisting of Air Force and military who know what Earth planes look like better than anyone, are all liars with nothing better to do.

The disclosure project was HUGE! Many people in the forces, some with documents, came out and said; Yes, aliens are real, UFO's are real. We have seen them. We have worked with the people who have worked with them and yet, they want more proof. They want to touch the spacecrafts it seems. Some of these people have worked in NASA...but of course, they're probably just going mad now. There're are cases of policemen and men of the air force who have seen these things reported them...and still work with the forces to this day. But, I guess...they are liars too.

Many people would quicker believe in Jesus, someone they have never seen or touched, before they believe in UFO's or the likes. The people who spoke and wrote about Christ are all dead. How do you know for a fact that this man existed? Most of the folks who believe in him have not even experienced his power..or have anything to go by to say why they believe in him, other than a book that...in a sense...could very well be CG(Made up, in this case). In fact, there is more evidence and proof that suggests UFOs/aliens exists and have visited Earth than there is of Jesus existing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to start some religious talk here...I'm just making a point.

Why is it so hard to believe so many people, some of which are liars I'm sure, while other's may be insane, or seeing things. Now, I don't blame you for wanting more...I believe and I want more. It's not enough. Logically speaking, all these years of technological advancement and only a few shots can actually be taken a little seriously is very frustrating, especially to the believers, but it does not disprove anything. There is one particular shot that MANY, if not all the professional video experts have taken a look at and believe it is real. A shot taken in the 40s I believe(Correct me on the time period if I'm wrong). A shot taken in a time where CG of that caliber was not possible.

If I was a skeptic and my brother told me...he saw a UFO or was abducted...I would believe him. Let me ask you something, if someone you know and trust very much told you he saw, or was abducted by an alien, would you believe him? That person came to you, because he knew he can trust you like you trust him. S/he does not want to feel mad, so he came to the only person who can believe his/her possible madness...would you believe them if they told you that? Would you take their word to mean anything?

reply to post by MrPenny


Your wrong,

The evidence doesn't point to different conclusions.

This is why things are labled "unexplained."

A person can have a sighting and describe there encounter. This doesn't point to multiple explanations until evidence is provided that suggest something different occured.

What happens is these things are stuck in the unexplained column when you can't find an explanation outside of the evidence that's been reported.

I'm drawing a conclusion based on the evidence as it was reported and investigated.

I'm not saying a guy who saw a spacecraft along with others really saw a bunch of lanterns without any evidence.

If your going to make the claim that the eyewitness didn't see a spacecraft then provide some evidence that he saw Chinese lanterns.

This is what I mean, if a skeptic can come to the debate with any wild speculation without any proof then there's no need for any debate.

That's illogical.

You believers refuse to listen and have all made up your minds. We, the skeptics aren't saying UFO's do not exist we are saying there is absolutly no proof that they are aliens. All your evidence all points to one of many possibilties. People have got to stop talking with polo he will never listen to reason and will continue to believe the conclusions he has come to and refuses to look at other possibilties.

Originally posted by polomontana
That makes no sense,

If a person makes a claim about what they saw or what they extracted from an individual that's evidence.

No, it's simply a claim. And guess what...it's now up to you to support that claim. I'm sorry, but for as much as you've name-dropped scientists and theories, I'm surprised that you're now willing to stake hearsay as evidence right now. 'Nuff said. In either case, it doesn't matter. Prove it.

They don't have to prove to a skeptic that it's evidence. I havn't mention the word proof in any of my post.

I said, based on the evidence extra-terrestrial/extra-terrestrials exist beyond anty reasonable doubt.

I'll let the contradiction here speak for itself.

This is not about my belief but the evidence. If you think I'm wrong then show me evidence that points to an explanation that's outside of what's been reported and investigated and I will listen.

Why do you still not understand this? I DON'T HAVE TO HAVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE YOU WRONG, BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM.

Do you understand that????

I don't care how much evidence you think you have; unless you can PROVE it, I CAN STILL REMAIN SKEPTICAL. Period.

This is why a skeptic can make the absurd claim that they don't need any evidence.
I can win a debate in any field of study if I don't need evidence.

They can make that "absurd claim" because it's the truth! And yes, you CAN win any debate in any field without evidence, IF YOUR OPPONENT IS THE ONE MAKING A CLAIM AND CAN'T PROVE IT.

Originally posted by sdrawkcabII
I am going to kill this debate quickly.

Some say...show us some real, verifiable proof and I'll maybe take you seriously. I say, show us some real proof that UFO's/aliens do not exist, or even visited our planet and I'll gladly shut up.

You mean you're going to kill your own position in this debate quickly. The nonsense you spouted above is none other than the fallacy of argument from ignorance. Because I'm too tired to actually spell it out for you what this means, just look it up:

en.wikipedia.org...

You always take the word of high ranking officers. So...why not take it when it could be taken?

Appeal to authority. (Another fallacy).

The rest of what follows regarding 9/11 and Jesus is a red herring (yet another fallacy).

Why is it so hard to believe so many people, some of which are liars I'm sure, while other's may be insane, or seeing things

Appeal to the people (can you guess? another fallacy).

If I was a skeptic and my brother told me...he saw a UFO or was abducted...I would believe him. Let me ask you something, if someone you know a

Anecdotal evidence (yup, you know the words by now).



[edit on 28-7-2008 by thrashee]

UFO's are privately funded science experiments, as well as military experiments, using Tesla's notes and theories which were acquired and confiscated by the US as a matter of national security after Tesla's death in the 1940s.

I had a physics professor in college who use to work for a privately funded organization that experimented with integrating electro-mechanics to propel air ships, of which the ideal shape is that of a cigar or saucer shape. BTW there was no discussion of the UFO phenomena, just a discussion of Tesla and his genius and contributions to modern techonology.

Now one might say give me hard evidence of the fact, well I don't have to because one, physics professor told me and he actually worked on these projects, two, Tesla's theories and experiments speak for themselves, three, its rational, four, its terrestial.

If you want evidence search tesla experiments in google.

Please be reasonable, aliens aren't going on sight-seeing exhibitions of planet earth that conveniently and coincidentally seem to happen near military bases in the middle of nowhere.

[edit on 28-7-2008 by uva3021]

Originally posted by uva3021
Now one might say give me hard evidence of the fact, well I don't have to because one, physics professor told me and he actually worked on these projects, two, Tesla's theories and experiments speak for themselves, three, its rational, four, its terrestial.

See, logic applies to both sides. Actually, you do have to provide evidence because it's your claim. One, your first reason is nothing but hearsay; two, Tesla's theories prove nothing regarding whether possible UFOs were developed as you state (non causa pro causa); three, whether something is rational does not substitute as proof (a type of special pleading); four, same thing with whether it's terrestrial.

Please be reasonable, aliens aren't going on sight-seeing exhibitions of planet earth that conveniently and coincidentally seem to happen near military bases in the middle of nowhere.

Well, you made the claim. Now you have to prove it.

reply to post by thrashee


You don't know the difference between direct, circumstantial and hearsay evidence.

I havn't said this is a belief. I havn't said this is based on my personal knowledge outside of my 3 sightiings.

This is based on evidence as reported and investigated.

Federal Rules of Evidence [1], which generally defines hearsay as a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Rule 801, 28 U.S.C.

en.wikipedia.org...

I have just laid out the evidence. The skeptic doesn't even offer hearsay just wild speculation. If your going to say these things didn't happened the way they were reported and investigated, then you have to have counter evidence.

I look at implants, abduction cases, sightings, video, picture, trace evidence and more.

I don't draw a conclusion outside of the evidence that's presented.

It's skeptic who speculate without evidence as to what a person really saw or experienced. A person can say they saw beings that other people experienced and I can say they saw Alf without any evidence. I can bring any silly opinion to the table. When the case is investigated and there's no other conclusion, it's labled unexplained. Why, the person told you what happened. It's unexplained because you don't want to accept these things as a reasonable answer. This is illogical.

If an abductee has an implant removed that was inserted without an incision and connected to nerve endings, I look for other possible explanations and evidence. When there is none, I accept the evidence that's reported until someone comes with a reasonable explanation that counters the evidence not just wild speculation.

I noticed that you havn't provided a shred of evidence about anything. Your just giving your opinion and you somehow equate that to evidence.

You make the wild claim that you don't need any evidence just proof. If that was the standard we would still be living in caves. There's alot of things that are not proven but they are supported by the evidence.

Prove black holes
Prove virtual particles
Prove you love your family

Again, nobody has said anything about proof, just evidence that supports the underlying claim.

It seems your having a tough time with something so simple.

Why should anyone that accepts these things have to prove anything to you or any skeptic?

That's silly.

reply to post by polomontana

Ok polo give us all just one, just one case that we can all look over that proves without a doubt that there is alien life here. We can all look at the evidence and see if there no other possible answer.

Originally posted by riggs2099
reply to post by polomontana

 

Ok polo give us all just one, just one case that we can all look over that proves without a doubt that there is alien life here. We can all look at the evidence and see if there no other possible answer.

Riggs,

I gave you one. I keep posting the same story because I'm looking for a response.

Dr. Lier and the implants.
youtube.com...

This is evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings have visited earth.

I hope you understand what I'm saying here.

Until you give me evidence that counters the claims made by the Dr. and the patients the evidence supports the underlying claim.

I have looked at other explanations but none come with any evidence. I'm always open to evidence and I will look at it with an open mind.

These patients are also corroborated by others who have had the same experiens and others who have seen the same things.