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

Originally posted by polomontana
I know you want me to debate on your terms but sorry, you can't define my claims.

Kid, at this point, I don't think the entirety of Mensa could decipher your claims.

reply to post by polomontana


Well.....I know this is gonna' get me in trouble, but.....

polo....you're a dick.

Originally posted by MrPenny
reply to post by polomontana

 

Well.....I know this is gonna' get me in trouble, but.....

polo....you're a dick.

whoa !......struck a nerve there ?

MrPenny i didn't expect that from you your posts are usually very enlightening ?

Originally posted by thrashee

Originally posted by polomontana
reply to post by thrashee

 

Another example of a skeptic that has ZERO evidence and then begging the MOD to close the thread because they can't debate the evidence as reported and investigated.

I didn't beg anyone to do anything. Try again.

Hey, I never claimed I was going to debate any evidence using the legal system. That's your OPINION. Don't you know M-Theory?

Another post that doesn't make sense.

Are you saying that I have to investigate these things using the scientific method?

thrashee, you sound desperate and frustrated because you can't limit me to a scientific debate because I never said that I was making a scientific argument.

There's other ways that we investigate evidence.

I mentioned M-Theory because you and other skeptics keep bringing up scientific claims and I never made a scientific argument.

On a side note, there are some interesting things in M-Therory.

Like the Bulk, Brane Worlds that can relate to these things when it comes to other civilizations who may live on other Branes or in other Bubble universes.

This is a debate we can have about the scientific method and theory.

This thread is about evidence that's been reported and investigated.

FOR THE LAST TIME, I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AS IT RELATES TO EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN REPORTED AND INVESTIGATED.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW.

reply to post by easynow


"Struck a nerve?".....nah. I come from a world where it's considered a favor to tell someone when their acting in a way they shouldn't. Maybe it's my generation. I don't know. But I stand by my statement.

Yes, it's rude, uncivil, and isn't the picture of decorum.....but it's the way I feel and perfectly expresses my thoughts.

And you're right...it's also not very enlightening....'cause I'm willing to bet most people reading this exchange are already thinking the same thing.



[edit on 30-7-2008 by MrPenny]

Originally posted by easynow

Originally posted by MrPenny
reply to post by polomontana

 

Well.....I know this is gonna' get me in trouble, but.....

polo....you're a dick.

whoa !......struck a nerve there ?

MrPenny i didn't expect that from you your posts are usually very enlightening ?

This is what happens when the skeptic is used to debating opinion and belief and not actual evidence as reported and investigated.

They are used to throwing out terms like scientific method when it has nothing to to with what was claimed in the first instance.

They want me to debate these things on their terms and not what I actually said or the evidence that I have posted.

To bad they have to resort to name calling.

I will be back later.

Hopefully some rebuttal evidence will be posted that pertains to the evidence as reported and investigated when I come back.

reply to post by polomontana


I would like to thank you and the other poster for quoting my assessment; further increasing its exposure to readers.

Thank you very much.

Originally posted by polomontana
FOR THE LAST TIME, I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AS IT RELATES TO EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN REPORTED AND INVESTIGATED.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW

.

No, but here's what you're too thick headed to understand: you didn't have to.

You made a claim that you had evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that aliens exist.

Whether you want the scientific method to be used to decide if your evidence is reasonable or unreasonable doesn't matter, only the results do.

You didn't clarify how "reasonable" could be arrived at, so quit complaining about the methods we've employed to determine that your evidence IS unreasonable.

No one is stating that you claimed to use the scientific method--we can all quite clearly see that you did not. You're using this as an excuse and accusation to avoid accounting for the fact that your claim has been used as toilet paper to wipe up what passes for logic in your head.

Why don't you demonstrate some modicum of grace and character and concede that, by our methods (you know, those that use logic, reason, and scientific processes), your claim has been put down like a miserable horse with a broken leg?

[edit on 30-7-2008 by thrashee]

We all need to ignore polo because he does not want to debate, he only wants argue that his side is the only correct one. He is constantly pushing aside our evidence as only opinion and refuses to accept that he has nothing but opinion in his evidence. His evidence basically tells us one thing that SOMETHING happened NOT WHAT. Making his conclusion based on his opinion of what the evidence says and uses his own conclusion as facts and evidence.

[edit on 30-7-2008 by riggs2099]

Also when given links to sites questioning his theory, he will tell us that proves nothing as it is a skeptical site and are only one sided and should not be taken into the equation. Yet he gives us links to videos and ufo stories that are on sites that have also made up thier mind as to what is happening and are also one sided, but he does not or will not see the contradiction.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
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?

I have to agree with polomontana, there is nothing to show that the lack of signs of implanting the implants (pardon the redundancy) is related to an intention of hiding them.

If there is a way of implanting things without making scars (like there is a way of giving shots without needles), the advantages over the common method of opening and closing the patient are enough to use that method, there is no need for any other intentions for using that method.

reply to post by thrashee


I noticed this statement by thrashee.

You notice how thrashee is desperately trying to get to a scientific claim so he can debate something that was never said.

He said:

"You didn't clarify how "reasonable" could be arrived at, so quit complaining about the methods we've employed to determine that your evidence IS unreasonable."

I've clarified it OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

It's arrived at by looking at the evidence as reported and investigated.

If you think the evidence is unreasonable then that's a subjective opinion made by you.

I say the evidence is reasonable based on what has been reported and investigated.

I can say that Omega Point Theory is unreasonable and that's just an opinion.

If I say it's unreasonable based on the evidence, then I have to provide evidence to counter the claim.

Polo is one of the dumbest people i've ever seen post here.

He is everything he claims ALL skeptics to be. Unreasonable, not open for debate, uninterested in any other possible explanation other than what he wants and most of all... a complete idiot.

Most skeptics are open to the idea, but are unconvinced by the the so-called evidence.

Believers mostly think that there is enough "evidence" to suggest to them to believe.

And then morons like Polo, unable to accept varying opinions believing his is the only reasonable answer. Backing it up with NOTHING.

You say if a fleet of Alien spacecrafts flying over the night sky i'd still deny it... well show me a video of this happening and i'll be happy to accept. Show me a video of an alien or alien spacecraft, show me a picture of an alien or alien spacecraft. Show me ANYTHING that doesnt require a leap of imagination to get to Alien evidence.

reply to post by ArMaP


Either way, the implants don't matter, whether there are scars or no scars, radio signals or no radio signals, metals of this earth or not of this earth....none of this shows that the implants were caused by alien life, and that alien life, therefore, must exist.

reply to post by riggs2099


Don't be too harsh on polomontana, he is just being a pseudo-sceptic about the data on the links you post.

reply to post by ArMaP


Are you kidding me? Have you read this thread?

Originally posted by polomontana
You notice how thrashee is desperately trying to get to a scientific claim so he can debate something that was never said.

As much as I enjoy the logic- and word- Charlie Foxtrot that you like to perform, let's just keep it simple.

You made a claim. We disputed your claim. Then you turn around and cry that you never said any sort of scientific method should be used in either your claim or how we arrived at our decision.

Then your claim is nothing more than your opinion. Period.

reply to post by thrashee



Give me evidence that something else occured and I will look at it.

I'm just showing you the evidence as investigated and reported.

I'm not saying that other possibilities don't exist. That can be said about most situations.

Those are just opinions until some actual evidencethat counters the evidence as reported and investigated.

Originally posted by polomontana
Give me evidence that something else occured and I will look at it.

Don't have to, in order to dispute your claim. You know this by now.

I'm just showing you the evidence as investigated and reported.

Then you never should have made a claim to begin with. Oops!

I'm not saying that other possibilities don't exist. That can be said about most situations.

No, but by virtue of your claim, you're surely stating that your conclusion is almost definitively the real possibility. I shouldn't say surely, because your method of reasoning follows a sliding scale that has been over-greased.

Those are just opinions until some actual evidencethat counters the evidence as reported and investigated.

You don't need evidence to counter evidence that isn't evidence for anything in the first place. Or do you not get that?