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

Originally posted by ArMaP
As my ability to have this type of discussion in English is even weaker than in Portuguese (and because I do not have the time), I will keep my posts to a minimum, but I will keep on reading.

You're doing quite a fine job at English, and you made good points.

reply to post by thrashee


Why thankyou for the intelligent reply thrashee. Good of you to notice I might be a troll, but I'm not. I only said those things as a snide remark or bitter. Not at anyone, but the actuall subject itself. If people spent as much time arguing with each other, maybe we'd be closer to the truth. All there is are lies and deception. But the truth is contagious and humanity doesn't want any part in it. So i'm bored because no matter how much one argues, no matter how many hoaxes there are. It seems like the farther back we go.

reply to post by thrashee



What you have just posted is completely illogical.

People look closely because this is the crux of the skeptics backwards logic.

The reason he avoided talking about evidence is because he couldn't dispute the evidence as reported and investigated.

He then realized his argument he lifted from the website wasn't working, he tried to talk about the evidence and we get this hodge podge of nonsense.

He didn't dispute the evidence as reported and investigated, he offered opinion.

His main point is that Dr. Lier is not credible, yet he didn't offer any evidence outside of his opinion.

Did you see the UFO Hunters episode where the skeptic pulled out the implant and it was sent to a geologist for review?

Did you bother to do any research are are you repeating websites again that offer zero evidence?

Nothing you said disputes that:

Implants were found without incisions.
Implants were connected to nerve endings.
Implants were found in patients after a visitation.
Implants gave off a radio frequency in the body that stopped when they were taking out of the body.

You have not disputed the evidence as reported and investigated.

All you have done is repeat an opinion that you read off of some website.

Do you understand the difference between opinion and evidence?

I'm not offering opinion or belief just the evidence as it was reported and investigated.

If you have evidence that counters this then by all means post it.

Now people see why thrashee has avoided talking about evidence, it's because he has none.

He then tries to tell me what I can use as I gather information to come to a reasonable conclusion.

Let me guess, any evidence that's supports things within ufology can't be considered according to thrashee.

If a physicist writes a brilliant paper on physics and he's a lousy guy, should I discount the paper even after it's been investigated and shown to be correct?

Should I wait until someone comes up with an explanation before I draw a conclusion?

You like to mention science, should I discount General Relativity until we test for gravity waves and frame dragging? Do I need absolute proof on these things before I can draw a reasonable conclusion on Relativity?

This is illogical.

If you have evidence that Dr. Lier is lying and he didn't pull any implants out of these patients that were attached to nerve endings and gave off a radio frequency, then post it. I'm all ears.

Thrashee, you were better off avoiding the evidence with your website arguments.



[edit on 29-7-2008 by polomontana]

Give it up Polo. Your clutching at straws, Thrashee intelligently and logically proved you to be talking #.

What you fail to see is YOUR evidence is ALL opinion. And do you have evidence that he is NOT lying?




Dr Christian Kaiser, from the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Southampton says aliens have never visited earth. Give me evidence of why(as you must believe) he is a liar.

Originally posted by Hamlin
Give it up Polo. Your clutching at straws, Thrashee intelligently and logically proved you to be talking #.

What you fail to see is YOUR evidence is ALL opinion. And do you have evidence that he is NOT lying?




Dr Christian Kaiser, from the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Southampton says aliens have never visited earth. Give me evidence of why(as you must believe) he is a liar.

Hamlin,

When did I ever say he was lying.

It's his opinion, do you have a link to a paper that outlines his claims.

Secondly,

Explain to me how my evidence is all opinion?

Implants were taking out of patients and there were no incinsions.
Implants were connected to nerve endings
Implants gave off a frequency
A skeptic pulled out one of the implants
The implants were discovered after a visitation

You show me where my opinion is in there.

reply to post by polomontana


You know what, Montana?

I was in the middle of dissecting your last post, line by line, point by point, as we've been doing for the past 20-30 posts....and it dawned on me. There's absolutely no point in doing so.

I really was trying with you. I really thought that we might be able to have a logical, honest discourse where if one of us disagreed with the other, we'd actually address those points on their own merit.

That's not going to happen. Believe what you want to believe, both about your own position and about mine. You haven't demonstrated to me that your evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt, and I obviously haven't convinced you of this fact.

Originally posted by thrashee
reply to post by polomontana

 

You know what, Montana?

I was in the middle of dissecting your last post, line by line, point by point, as we've been doing for the past 20-30 posts....and it dawned on me. There's absolutely no point in doing so.

I really was trying with you. I really thought that we might be able to have a logical, honest discourse where if one of us disagreed with the other, we'd actually address those points on their own merit.

That's not going to happen. Believe what you want to believe, both about your own position and about mine. You haven't demonstrated to me that your evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt, and I obviously haven't convinced you of this fact.

Translation:

Polo, you will not debate the scientific method when I never mentioned the scientific method.

Polo, you will not prove these things to me, when I never said that I was trying to prove anything to you.

Polo, it's unfair, you are debating the evidence as reported and investigated, while thrashe wants to debate opinion and belief.

Sorry thrashee, if you want to use all the usual arguments posed by the skeptics, you need to find another thread.

[edit on 29-7-2008 by Jezus]

Originally posted by thrashee
Do you REALLY want to open yourself up as well? Have you NOT been paying attention?

I had no evidence. It's something I've had to state for the last 20 pages. The skeptic--the one who is not trying to prove anything--doesn't have to have evidence for anything. They only have to refute the evidence presented by the one who is making the claim.

I know, I know. You're going to froth. You're going to spin. You're going to scratch your little head and wonder why.

It's just the way reason works. Go figure it out. Go read a book. Go take a class. Do SOMETHING to prove that you're capable of grasping this most simple of facts.

We're skeptics because we lack the belief that you have. And when you come to us and claim that you have evidence--beyond a reasonable doubt--that your belief is true, can you just imagine what we're going to ask you next?

Just try. Put that little thinking cap on and risk burning out a few brain cells trying to fathom what it is.

Can you guess yet? That's right--we're going to ask for proof. And guess what? When you can't provide that proof, guess what just happened. Can you do it? Burn a few more brain cells.

That's right...we're going to state that you didn't successfully back up your claim.

Now here comes the really really hard part that's really really hard to understand. Once we demonstrate that your evidence does not support your claim, our job is over. We have nothing further to do. We have nothing to prove to you. We have no answer that we must provide instead.

Now--this next part is going to be the really really really difficult part for you to grasp, but we believe in you, sport, we think you can do it--do you know why we don't have to provide any proof to you? Do you know why we aren't required to offer any "counter" evidence?

Go on....burn those remaining cells right on up till that itty bitty light bulb flickers on.

Because we weren't the ones making a claim in the first place.

Can you dig it? We weren't trying to explain something. We weren't making a claim. We have nothing to prove.

You did. So the proof is on you.

Woah!!! I know, I know! It's like asking you to do 4th level calculus with a horrible hang over! It's like it goes against every grain of insight and "knowledge" you've ever had!

But...can you just imagine that?

Phew--that sure was tough, but look, we got through it ok!

I'm not going to try to prove anything to you.

If you don't consider any of the evidence presented as evidence then there isn't anything I can do. You have already decided you don't want it to be true. It is very difficult to prove something to someone who will use any single possibility of it not being true as proof it is not true.

I could bring an alien to your house but it could just be a man in an incredible suit.

Only two things are going to convince you.
1. A direct personal experience (I hope this doesn’t happen to you because you wouldn’t be able to handle it)
2. Disclosure, the majority believes, thus you believe

Now the fact that you don’t want to believe is fine, that is your decision. However, it does spark in interest for me. What exactly is it about a person that they consciously or subconsciously attack knowledge of something? That they actively disbelieve in something? I don’t know.

On a side note, you should relax. You don’t have anything to be upset about. I don’t know what you are so insecure or self conscious about but I am not your enemy pal.

Originally posted by polomontana
Implants were taking out of patients and there were no incinsions.

As you probably did not notice my post some 15 pages back I will repeat just a small part of it.

By calling it an implant you are already implying that it was implanted and are limiting the sphere of possibilities (if I can borrow the sphere for a little time ) to an implant.

And if those things were not implanted? Considering the testimony of the doctors and of the witnesses (and if I remember it well), the great majority of the people who have "implants" removed did not saw them being implanted, they could be there prior to any other event to which they connect the "implant".

Originally posted by Jezus
If you don't consider any of the evidence presented as evidence then there isn't anything I can do. You have already decided you don't want it to be true. It is very difficult to prove something to someone who will use any single possibility of it not being true as proof it is not true.

The context of the debate hinged upon the claim that the evidence provided proved beyond a reasonable doubt that aliens existed. The evidence that was provided most clearly did not support this claim, and thus I was failed to be convinced.

As far as what it would take me to reasonably believe in this, you may be absolutely correct in your two possibilities.

Now the fact that you don’t want to believe is fine, that is your decision. However, it does spark in interest for me. What exactly is it about a person that they consciously or subconsciously attack knowledge of something? That they actively disbelieve in something? I don’t know.

It really has nothing to do with not wanting to believe. And I never stated I actively disbelieved in aliens--in fact, that was a key point of my argument. Actively disbelieving would have been a claim for which I would then have had to provide evidence. A simple lack of belief carries with it no such responsibility.

On a side note, you should relax. You don’t have anything to be upset about. I don’t know what you are so insecure or self conscious about but I am not your enemy pal.

You're absolutely right. Your post came along right at my boiling point with Montana, and I took it out in my response to you. For that, I apologize.

Polomontana, you can debate for as long as you like but the situation remains the same, you have no proof and neither does anyone else on the planet so you'll just have to stay frustrated at us until proof does arrive, if ever.

Don't forget that there will be secret military aircraft out there, I bet the government would rather have people thinking there are aliens flying around rather than people getting nosey about government technology, and with that, maybe the generals and other army officials accasionally 'feed' us 'inside info' just to keep the story 'real'.

Still though, in the extremely slim chance that ET has been here, I want to damn well know about it, so I research.

Most sceptics will consider the possibility that alien life HAS been here, yet you yourself will not consider the possibility that alien life has NOT been here even though you have had no personal experience in the matter, so who is the most open minded?

I see polo is still ranting and raving he has undeniable proof. Giving links to youtube videos and constantly contradicting himself. I don't even think he is a believer I am beginning to suspect he is a troll. I mean what intelligent person can look at what the skeptics have been saying and not see thier point of view. I see he is still using his favourite sayings in the whole world...LOGICAL FALLACY and SPHERE OF KNOWLEDGE. It is hard to have a intelligent debate with someone who refuses to see the other point of view. I love this from polo...EXTRA-TERRESTRIALS/EXTRA-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS EXIST BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE...and yet he stays here and tells people over and over that aliens do exist and there is no other alternative. BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT...means that you are certain but unwilling to say for sure because of error or false information. You constantly posting information that you say is not wrong and only points to one conclusion, and are unwilling to say that you may wrong because the information you have read is not fact and that in the future something else may come along and be the answer.

[edit on 29-7-2008 by riggs2099]

reply to post by riggs2099


Riggs said,

"BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT...means that you are certain but unwilling to say for sure because of error or false information."

So let me get this right. Juries listen to evidence for months, convict a criminal BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT and then let them go free because they are unsure of the evidence?

Skeptics logic.

Riggs, reasonable doubt always leaves open the possibility that new evidence may come to light to counter the evidence as reported and investigated, that's why the standard is not beyond a shadow of a doubt. It doesn't mean the evidence is false or your unsure of the evidence.

I'm going to bed early tonight, I can't keep debating things that don't make any sense or things that I never said.

Night all.

That is not my definition it is the definition on the web. And as you have said in your last post and I quote
"reasonable doubt always leaves open the possibility that new evidence may come to light to counter the evidence as reported and investigated"
So then if you truly believe this then why are you so sure that aliens exist if all the evidence has not been weighed.

the reason i dont trust witness testimony alone is becuase a huge amount of it has proven to be false or hoaxed. Ufologists are the biggest disinfo agents going. They surpress information about "ufo" incidents that doesnt support their ET theory.

every time i look into a case i find details missing from the ufologists version of events. Theyre manipulating the information but believers dont care becuase its what they want to hear. You should be more objective and shouldnt take every piece of information they give you as fact. Or at least be aware you never get the full story from them.


[edit on 30-7-2008 by yeti101]

Originally posted by polomontana
Again, skeptics make these arguments about things you never said.

My claim

"Extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings exist beyond any reasonable doubt based on the evidence."

I never said this was the correct claim, if you have evidence then present it.

I never said anything about solid proof or proving anything to anyone.

Please try to stay focused.

This is by far the best post on the thread so far. First you say this

My claim

"Extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings exist beyond any reasonable doubt based on the evidence."

So you claim that the evidence proves your claim beyond all reasonable doubt. You believe the evidence.
Then you say this.

I never said this was the correct claim, if you have evidence then present it.

So you are unsure that your claim is right. So, your evidence has not given you the confidence to say that your claim is right. So your evidence has not removed all reasonable doubt.

I never said anything about solid proof or proving anything to anyone.

I totally agree with you. You have talked alot about evidence, present alot too. And i agree with you totally because non of it is solid. At least you are consistent on this, as your logic, arguements and evidence all fall under this umbrella. Thanks for the laughs OP.

To paraphrase Obi-won "these arn't the trolls your are looking for, Move along."

[edit on 30-7-2008 by atlasastro]

Originally posted by polomontana
The reason he avoided talking about evidence is because he couldn't dispute the evidence as reported and investigated.

He didn't dispute the evidence as reported and investigated, he offered opinion.

Let me guess, any evidence that's supports things within ufology can't be considered according to thrashee.

Actually, that is what you are doing. When the evidence you have presented is shown to be inadequate or unreliable, you dismiss it as opinion. Anytime someone makes a cogent counter-argument, you dismiss it as opinion. For the simple reason it does not agree with you. You dismiss it as opinion to shield yourself from having to defend your position or consider the weight of the argument.

Thrashee did talk about the evidence, but you refuse to acknowledge that. Instead, you claim he didn't talk about the evidence, when it is clear to any reasonable, rational person that he was. Instead of discussing the evidence or providing a further counter-argument, you wish to discuss the skeptic personally. You seek to prove your point not on the weight of evidence or argument, but by browbeating anyone who does not agree with you.

Let's look at your evidence point-by-point:

Originally posted by polomontana
Implants were found without incisions.

How does this suggest they were put there by aliens? This contradicts other supposed evidence of alien abduction, where the abductee claims the aliens left behind signs of their tests, such as scoop marks. A simple Google-search will reveal a variety of sites discussing scars left behind by aliens. In fact, Dr. Leir's own site discusses scoop-marks. If these implants are left by aliens, why do the aliens leave scars and marks in some procedures, but no trace in others?

Originally posted by polomontana
Implants were connected to nerve endings.

Which makes sense, whether it was put there by aliens or not. This is a natural phenomenon known to medicine. Bits of wood, metal, glass and plastic can become embedded inside the body through various accidents in every day life. If there is no imflammatory response and the object is not removed or rejected from the body, for all intents and purposes becomes part of the body. The circulature and nerves initially damaged by the introduction of the object will reconstruct themselves, connecting themselves to the foriegn object. As a very graphic example of this, consider people who don't move from a seat for years and their skin grows into the seat, such as this case or this case.

Originally posted by polomontana
Implants were found in patients after a visitation.

By itself, this is not evidence of an extraterrestrial-origin. In order to rise to the level of evidence, one would need to conduct a study with a sample of the general population who do not believe themselves to be abductees. You would need to find if similar objects appear in the general population or only abductees. If you find that they do not appear in the general population, could then and only then could you use "visitation" as evidence of their origin.

To the best of my knowledge, Lier has not conducted this kind of study.

Originally posted by polomontana
Implants gave off a radio frequency in the body that stopped when they were taking out of the body.

What evidence does Dr. Leir have to support this claim?

The claim they give off a radio frequency contradicts the claims there are no incision marks or scars. If the aliens would go to such great lengths to ensure these implants escape detection, such as covering up marks/scars, why would the implants produce a detectable signal? Doesn't that strike you as strange?

On a side note, I believe Polomontana has me on ignore, so anyone feel free to copy-and-paste my arguments in your own post so he may see and respond to them.

[edit on 30-7-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by polomontana
The reason he avoided talking about evidence is because he couldn't dispute the evidence as reported and investigated.

He didn't dispute the evidence as reported and investigated, he offered opinion.

Let me guess, any evidence that's supports things within ufology can't be considered according to thrashee.

Actually, that is what you are doing. When the evidence you have presented is shown to be inadequate or unreliable, you dismiss it as opinion. Anytime someone makes a cogent counter-argument, you dismiss it as opinion. For the simple reason it does not agree with you. You dismiss it as opinion to shield yourself from having to defend your position or consider the weight of the argument.

Thrashee did talk about the evidence, but you refuse to acknowledge that. Instead, you claim he didn't talk about the evidence, when it is clear to any reasonable, rational person that he was. Instead of discussing the evidence or providing a further counter-argument, you wish to discuss the skeptic personally. You seek to prove your point not on the weight of evidence or argument, but by browbeating anyone who does not agree with you.

Let's look at your evidence point-by-point:

Originally posted by polomontana
Implants were found without incisions.

How does this suggest they were put there by aliens? This contradicts other supposed evidence of alien abduction, where the abductee claims the aliens left behind signs of their tests, such as scoop marks. A simple Google-search will reveal a variety of sites discussing scars left behind by aliens. In fact, Dr. Leir's own site discusses scoop-marks. If these implants are left by aliens, why do the aliens leave scars and marks in some procedures, but no trace in others?

Originally posted by polomontana
Implants were connected to nerve endings.

Which makes sense, whether it was put there by aliens or not. This is a natural phenomenon known to medicine. Bits of wood, metal, glass and plastic can become embedded inside the body through various accidents in every day life. If there is no imflammatory response and the object is not removed or rejected from the body, for all intents and purposes becomes part of the body. The circulature and nerves initially damaged by the introduction of the object will reconstruct themselves, connecting themselves to the foriegn object. As a very graphic example of this, consider people who don't move from a seat for years and their skin grows into the seat, such as this case or this case.

Originally posted by polomontana
Implants were found in patients after a visitation.

By itself, this is not evidence of an extraterrestrial-origin. In order to rise to the level of evidence, one would need to conduct a study with a sample of the general population who do not believe themselves to be abductees. You would need to find if similar objects appear in the general population or only abductees. If you find that they do not appear in the general population, could then and only then could you use "visitation" as evidence of their origin.

To the best of my knowledge, Lier has not conducted this kind of study.

Originally posted by polomontana
Implants gave off a radio frequency in the body that stopped when they were taking out of the body.

What evidence does Dr. Leir have to support this claim?

The claim they give off a radio frequency contradicts the claims there are no incision marks or scars. If the aliens would go to such great lengths to ensure these implants escape detection, such as covering up marks/scars, why would the implants produce a detectable signal? Doesn't that strike you as strange?

On a side note, I believe Polomontana has me on ignore, so anyone feel free to copy-and-paste my arguments in your own post so he may see and respond to them.

[edit on 30-7-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Does that work for ya?

Glad to be of help.

Originally posted by MrPenny
Does that work for ya?

Glad to be of help.

Thanks, mate! Much appreciated! You get a star.