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

Originally posted by polomontana
You think if you don't say I don't think they exist then that absolves you from having to have any evidence.

You stated the evidence was incorrect or you didn't agree with the conclusions of the evidence. If you think something else occured or it didn't occur in that way you have to provide evidence.

And here is where your logic falls flat on its absurd face.

I never said I had a better explanation. This entire time I've only discussed YOUR evidence and the soundness of that evidence.

Nice how you keep trying to act like I've made claims of my own, but I haven't.

No matter how much you want to wriggle out of this, you can't. And each time I ask you to show me, copy a quote where I've done otherwise, you haven't.

What you're trying to do here is state that because I reject the soundness of your conclusion, I obviously believe in another conclusion, and therefore, I now have to provide my own evidence for this alternate conclusion.

Your logic is wrong. I can reject your conclusion without believing in another. This is just common sense.

[edit on 29-7-2008 by thrashee]

Originally posted by thrashee

I honestly don't care.

Then why are you acting like you care?

I mean, wouldn't the logical thing to do be to state your "conclusions" and then leave?

Why must you persist in lingering on this thread to continually post the same thing over and over again?

We get it; YOU don't need to show evidence. Your an exception.....

Originally posted by TruthTellist

Originally posted by thrashee

I honestly don't care.

Then why are you acting like you care?

I mean, wouldn't the logical thing to do be to state your "conclusions" and then leave?

Why must you persist in lingering on this thread to continually post the same thing over and over again?

We get it; YOU don't need to show evidence. Your an exception.....

It has nothing to do with being an exception.

Why isn't this sinking in for you?

If, as a skeptic, I come up to you and state that aliens do NOT exist, THEN I must provide evidence.

If, as a believer, you come up to me as a skeptic, and state that aliens DO exist, then the burden of proof is on you.

Does this still not make sense? If it doesn't, can you explain why it doesn't?

Originally posted by polomontana
You think if you don't say I don't think they exist then that absolves you from having to have any evidence.

Well, it kind of does. If you were to present a bunch of evidence and instead of going into this long debate he said; "I don't buy it!"

Where would that leave you?

Off to find some even better evidence I'd suspect, or just blow him off as a skeptic. Either way you'd still be the one with a claim to support.

[edit on 29-7-2008 by Szticks]

Originally posted by Malevolent_Aliens
How would you explain to the other skeptics your story?

I wouldn't be able to prove it, in the least. I would have no evidence, just a story.

Originally posted by Malevolent_Aliens
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.

At no point did I ever say anyone who sees UFOs or aliens is insane. I never said that. You are ascribing attitudes and statements that are not born of facts, but rather a caricature of skeptics that exists only in your mind.

reply to post by Szticks


Actually no.

The Skeptic - by denying polomontana's claims - is thereby saying he can Identify the Flying Objects.

This is the claim the Skeptic must back up with evidence. He must convince us why we should not believe our lying eyes.

He cannot simply say the UFOs on the tapes do not exist - he must identify it, then tell us how he has done so.

I think with some people you can't beat logic and reason into them no matter how long and hard you try, seems a waste of time bothering after a while, this looks like its gone similar to other threads he's posted, people have given some reason, if he decides to ignore it then theres little anyone can do or should do, at least everyone with some sense sees it.

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by Szticks

 

Actually no.

The Skeptic - by denying polomontana's claims - is thereby saying he can Identify the Flying Objects.

This is the claim the Skeptic must back up with evidence. He must convince us why we should not believe our lying eyes.

He cannot simply say the UFOs on the tapes do not exist - he must identify it, then tell us how he has done so.

Wrong. You're still struggling with basic premises.

The ONLY thing the skeptic must do is demonstrate why the evidence presented does not support its own claim.

That's it.

Forget this false notion you and Montana have that by refuting evidence, you are therefore supplying an alternative answer.

If you're still struggling this, consider this:

YOU: "We have evidence that the Loch Ness Monster is real."
SKEPTIC: "Your evidence is nothing but hearsay and bad photographs. They don't prove the existence of this creature."

Now, at what point is the skeptic making a claim that he KNOWS what the objects in the photographs are? Never. He is merely stating that what YOU'RE saying they are is not supported based upon the evidence.

Originally posted by Malevolent_Aliens
62 kids at recess see a ufo in the sky come down and land, aliens step outside the craft...They are all then interviewed, make sketches give their testimony take polygraph tests and pass yet you still think it was mere coincidence?

Where do you find that all 62 kids were interviewed?

At most, 12 children were interviewed.

According to Cynthia Hind:

I was able to interview about 10 or 12 older children and this was recorded for BBC television. SOURCE

According to Dominique Callimanopulos, who investigated the case with John Mack:

The twelve children we interviewed over the course of two days all described the same event with a steady consistency of detail. SOURCE

In addition, it is claimed that the children had little exposure to UFO pop-culture, for example:

This was witnessed by 62 schoolchildren, who had little or no exposure to TV or popular press accounts of UFOs.

However, according Dominique Callimanopulos:

"At first I thought it was a gardener," one fourth-grader told us. "Then I realized it was an alien."

For kids that have had little-to-no exposure, that is a rather extrodinary assumption. Why not assume it was a tokoloshie, as some of the other kids supposedly did?

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by Szticks

 

Actually no.

The Skeptic - by denying polomontana's claims - is thereby saying he can Identify the Flying Objects.

No, he's simply saying; "Your evidence does not lead me to believe that Aliens exist". Which was the premise for the discussion. It does not mean he disregards the things he sees as UFOs. He's just drawing a different conclusion than the one with the claim. In fact he's not making any claim at all. He's just not convinced.

This is the claim the Skeptic must back up with evidence. He must convince us why we should not believe our lying eyes.

He cannot simply say the UFOs on the tapes do not exist - he must identify it, then tell us how he has done so.

No, he does not say they do not exists. He's simply saying, "I do not believe." There is no claim being made at all. The one showing the evidence must either find more convincing evidence or simply shrug and move on to the next guy.


You guys are making it sound as if someone is in the wrong for not believing. Which simply isn't the case, everyone is entitled to their own personal beliefs, and if someone chooses to not believe we are visited by aliens they are not forced to supply evidence for their beliefs to be able to go on believing that.

However if they make the claim, "There are no aliens!" they would have to support evidence if they expect anyone to believe their claim. But no one has done that here.

I hereby nominate this thread for "Most Obtuse Exchange of the Year".

Thread author....please step forward and take a bow....you've earned it.

Originally posted by MrPenny
I hereby nominate this thread for "Most Obtuse Exchange of the Year".

Thread author....please step forward and take a bow....you've earned it.

Originally posted by MrPenny
I hereby nominate this thread for "Most Obtuse Exchange of the Year".

Thread author....please step forward and take a bow....you've earned it.

Yay, and I'm in it. Will there be plaques?


Doh! *slaps forehead*

I'm a skeptic myself of a different kind. I keep an open mind and keep the word " believe " out of the conversation. I've never seen an alien so I can't say they exist. I have seen UFOs but those could be military. I've heard and read all the stories and experiences from others who are credible witnesses and from normal good people, but should I "believe" them? No, but I'll keep it in my head and wait and see. CGI has gotten so good that it's impossible to tell what's real or fake. To me I'll have to see it to believe it and not on camera, with my own eyes. Chris Angel can do miracles on camera. Just like the bible, so many people believe in every word of it and will not take no for an answer. I can't and won't allow myself to " believe" in books written by man or UFOs that I don't know what they are. When a spaceship lands in front of me and an alien walks out then I might believe in them but until then it's just hoaxes, stories, imaginations and Unidentified Flying Objects.

[edit on 7/29/2008 by Solarskye]

I knew there were voices of reason in here

Originally posted by polomontana
reply to post by atlasastro

 

atlasastro,

Again, every sight you posted offers nothing but opinion. You or any of the skeptics have offered zero evidence just opinion.

Please prove that my sources are unevidential when looking at Alien experiences. Lets look at one of my sources and their opionions.....umm, lets call them qualified, educated, well researched opinion, balanced and grounded in logic and reality.
1instruct1.cit.cornell.edu...&French.pdf

Alien abduction experiences: Some clues from
neuropsychology and neuropsychiatry
Katharine J. Holden and Christophe r C. French
Uni versity of London, UK
COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHIATRY, 2002 , 7 (3), 163–178
Introduction. Many t housands of peopl e around t he worl d fi rmly beli eve that t hey
have been abduct ed by al ien beings and taken on boar d spaceships where t hey have
been subj ect ed to painful medical examinati on.
Met hod. Gi ven that such accounts are almost cert ai nly unt rue, four areas of
neuroscience are considered wi th respect to possibl e cl ues that may l ead towards a
full er understandi ng of t he al ien abducti on experience.

Please qualify your statement that this is purely an opinion. Please prove that neuroscience is not based on science and fact, and so making it just an opinion.

How do my sources differ from yours? Why do you not use this sphere of knowledge? Infact you ignore it as opinion, and only support your own belief and assert these beliefs via your own opinion. An opinion that has no evidence, and continually attacks skeptics as limiting knowledge. You yourself then dismiss any knowledge not supportive of your beliefs as merely opinion.

It seems you are trying to equate opinion with evidence.
It's not about belief. I know extra-terrestrial/extra/dimensional beings exist beyond any reasonable doubt based on the evidence not opinion.

And your evidences is where? This is your opinion, why should i accept it when you dismiss any opinion suggesting otherwise? You defy logic and are limiting the sphere of knowledge by purely debasing any skeptical view as merely an opinion.

You have to believe because the skeptic has no evidence to support there claims just opinion.

This is where your logic falls down. Yet again. You see, those skeptical of the existence of ET and those that claim they have had experienced contact, are so because of the lack of evidence. So what are skeptics supposed to do. Provide evidences that ET does not exist, well, we have no ET evidence to show you, so therefore ET must not exist.

If someone pulls a hoax or a fake pic, that doesn't mean all the evidence that supports things within ufology mean nothing. That's like saying evolution didn't occur because there have been hoaxes.

Where did i say that. Your analogy is ridiculous and inflamatory. Evolution is a widely accepted scientific theory backed by massive amounts of evidence through the fossil record and observation of life. Most Ufology and Alien/ET theory are debunked by science and unaccepted generally due to lack of evidence and limited information resulting in inconclusive speculation. Please, do not try and qualify your stance by relating it to a generally accepted scientific theory.

You examine the evidence and then you draw a conclusion. We do this everyday in life.

In your mind, it has to be about belief because that's the only way you can debate the issue because you have no evidence.

Again you make assumptions about how i operate personally. Please stay on topic. You ask why people are skeptical in your OP. When I present why i am skeptical, you dismiss this as opinion. You then claim I have no evidence, when all I am saying is that i am skeptical of the existence of ET due to the lack of evidence, you then ask me to show evidence of my lack of belief in ET. You defy all logic whilst claiming your position is founded in logic, that it is supported by difinitive evidence. Your links are videos, blogs and Ufo related sites, non of which are evidential, and offer opinion, though of a different degree to my offerings.

Let me give you a couple of examples:

Here's Dr. Roger Lier and implants. This is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that we have been visited by extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings.

youtube.com...

Answer these questions and I want evidence not opinion.

Why do these implant occur after a visitation?

Why are these implants connected to nerve endings?

How did these implants get in the body without an incision?

Why should I listen to the opinion of the skeptic and not the evidence presented by the Dr. and the patients?

Yes, that was a great video showing Aliens implanting things in people. UM....Not. Sorry, no evidence. Try again please. Try showing something where personal testimony, heresay, suggestions are not the core of your evidence. Circumstantial at best, pathetic at the worst. Please. The Claim is that Aliens Implanted these. Video showing Aliens Implanting devices, connecting them to nerves, no incisions(maybe because the were not incerted!...did that ever cross your mind.) No, no video of that=no evidence. Next.

This is EVIDENCE. If you are making the claim that this didn't occur this way you have to provide counter evidence for me to examine. It's not about belief. I don't believe they exist, I know they exist beyond any reasonable doubt and I'm waiting for the skeptics to offer some evidence outside of their opinion and I will look at it with an open mind.

I saw a video of Criss Angel Walking through a wall on Youtube. No it was real. I know for sure he went through the wall. Please prove Criss Did not walk through the wall. I know people say he is an illusionist, but they cannot prove it. I also saw him pull a coin out of his arm from under his skin without an incision, he is using real magic, its evidential from the video. Plesae prove it wrong. PLEASE.



[edit on 29-7-2008 by atlasastro]

[edit on 29-7-2008 by atlasastro]

Originally posted by atlasastro
I saw a video of Criss Angel Walking through a wall on Youtube. No it was real. I know for sure he went through the wall. Please prove Criss Did not walk through the wall. I know people say he is an illusionist, but they cannot prove it. I also saw him pull a coin out of his arm from under his skin without an incision, he is using real magic, its evidential from the video. Plesae prove it wrong.

Criss Angel himself says he is an illusionist. But that doesn't matter! He must be an alien, because even he cannot prove he is not! We can't explain how he does his illusions, so the only rational explanation is that he's either an alien, or employing magic!

reply to post by thrashee




A videotaped UFO is not a videotaped Alien.

It is simply an Airborne Object that Cannot be identified... So how does that imply Alien Existence.

Montana showed you videos of UFOs - you could have identified the objects, but you didn't. You put word's into his mouth and changed the topic to the existence of Aliens.

Just because we have Objects flying around that have not yet been identified does not mean Aliens are involved - it does however give you a chance to render them Identified Flying Objects.

Identify the objects in the videos polomontana showed you - that will be an acceptable refutation. That is all that was ever asked of you.




[edit on 29-7-2008 by TruthTellist]

Originally posted by MrPenny
I hereby nominate this thread for "Most Obtuse Exchange of the Year".

Thread author....please step forward and take a bow....you've earned it.

I would also add, Best thread for reassuring Skeptics.
Best thread for destroying rational curiosity and healthy invstigative skepticism in the Field of Ufology and Alien Existence. This award sponsored by Youtube and Google video, the difinitive source of all pure evidence in its rawest form(no sewage pun intended)
Best Thread for Redifining the existnces of Aliens as the inabillity of Skeptics to proves that our lack of evidences, is infact, their inability to disprove that what we believe is not based on any evidence because they cannot prove that ET don't exist so there, we win ok.

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by thrashee

 

A videotaped UFO is not a videotaped Alien.

It is simply an Airborne Object that Cannot be identified... So how does that imply Alien Existence.

Montana showed you videos of UFOs - you could have identified the objects, but you didn't. You put word's into his mouth and changed the topic to the existence of Aliens.

Just because we have Objects flying around that have not yet been identified does not mean Aliens are involved - it does however give you a chance to render them Identified Flying Objects.

Identify the objects in the videos polomontana showed you - that will be an acceptable refutation. That is all that was ever asked of you.

[edit on 29-7-2008 by TruthTellist]

It's kind of like pounding your head against a wall over and over again.

Do I need to speak slower? Did I somehow slip into Swahili?

I don't *need* to identify the objects. Can you guess yet why?

That's right--because I wasn't the one making a claim.

And you're wrong--Montana was citing those links and those objects as evidence of alien existence. He confirmed this over and over, and never stated anything different.

So please, for the love of all that's good and holy, please explain to me why you think that it is my responsibility to explain what those objects were, and why doing this is required to refute his claims?

Tell you what. If you can honestly attempt to explain why you think this is necessary, I'll even work with you on all this logic business. I'm just begging for some sort of explanation at this point instead of watching you miss the boat again and again.

[edit on 29-7-2008 by thrashee]