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

Originally posted by polomontana
Again, I'm not saying that there's evidence of evidence.

I'm saying there's evidence and then I'm posting the evidence.


Esteemed UFO researcher J. Allen Hynek would proclaim that "... there was definitely something here that was not terrestrial."

ufos.about.com...

This is not evidence of evidence, this is evidence that was reported and investigated.

Just to show you how easy this is. My last post on this thread. From your source, dismissing your evidence, as no evidence. Case closed. Move along. This thread is dead.

Hynek was critical of the popular extraterrestrial hypothesis, and began expressing his doubts to theories that UFOs were physical spacecraft from other planets. As Hynek himself said in October 1976: "I have come to support less and less the idea that UFOs are 'nuts and bolts' spacecrafts from other worlds. There are just too many things going against this theory. To me, it seems ridiculous that super intelligences would travel great distances to do relatively stupid things like stop cars, collect soil samples, and frighten people. I think we must begin to re-examine the evidence. We must begin to look closer to home."

Chew on that, chew hard, chew real hard, as the truth is often very hard to swallow.

Originally posted by atlasastro
I think the OP...is just here to TROLL away by attacking skeptics...try shine a light into the darkened room of an individual obviously in possession of little reason, the best you can do is invite them out into the light, the rest is up to them. Sadly I believe the OP is set on living in the Dark and wants others in there to keep him company.

After a reviewing the posts made by Polomontana, I'm no longer willing to declare him a troll. I don't think he is complete control of his facilities.

Based on how he is presenting his arguments, his immovable stance, his constant repetition, I believe he may be suffering from Asperger's Syndrome.

Having experience with Asperger's Syndrome, from what I can see in Polomontana's posts he is exhibiting many of the same symptoms. This is not meant to be an attack on him or his character, I feel sympathetic to him. Rather, this is meant as a way to explain his behavior. Polomontana is probably a good kid, but because of his condition, does not realize how he is presenting himself.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by SaviorComplex]

I think you lot must have more patience than me. I just can't bring myself to engage him in logical conversation, since all logic seems to evade him.

I do commend you for posting all these rational thoughts to someone who is obviously ignoring them.

Polomontana
I only noticed now one thing about this claim.

THE EVIDENCE SHOWS EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL/EXTRA-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS EXIST BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT

Are extra-terrestrial beings the same as extra-dimensional beings?

If they are not (or if you do not have evidence to point that they are the same) your claim is two claims in one, and that implies that there is a reasonable doubt, even you can not know if it applies to one or the other.

Alright so I have been playing with some names for what is out there and in here, Tri-dimensionsals and bi-dimensionals and multi-dimensionals,

A mutli-dimensional is in a (hyperbeing of space) bending things, molding things, re-creating things.


Okay lets say a tri-dimensional is a being that operates in the quantum field, the metaphysical space and the physical time zone.


A bi-dimensional is someone that operates into two fields the physical and non-physical.

So there you have it folks don't go killing each other over the new name interpretations or categorizations for a result, WE ARE ALL ONLY THOUGHTFORMS, THOUGHT INTO EXISTANCE. Somebody had to plant the seed before you came into existance, but before that seed arrived it was only a thought, think about that.

We are only awareness extracting forms to our equation

[edit on 31-7-2008 by menguard]

For the the skeptics.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems -Kurt Gödel
en.wikipedia.org...



Google video- "dangerous knowledge" you might become a believer.
Part 1 of 2 watch both.
video.google.com...

[edit on 31-7-2008 by divideby3]

Originally posted by polomontana
reply to post by riggs2099

 

Riggs, I see you don't understand either.

I'm watching the movie Jaws now and it actually illustrates what I'm saying beautifully.

If I claim that Jaws was a good movie, then that's my opinion.

If I claim Richard Dreyfuss was in the movie Jaws, that's based on evidence.

Is it possible that Richard Dreyfuss had a jealous twin brother that killed the real Richard Dreyfuss and that's who we see today?

It's possible but there's no evidence to support this possibility.

Now, I can use the pseudoskeptics logic and say, give me undeniable proof that Richard Dreyfuss didn't have a long lost twin and that's who we see today.

You know, I'm gonna stop right there.

I want undeniable proof that this possibility isn't the case.

[edit on 30-7-2008 by polomontana]

That is actually a good explanation of what a lot of skeptics do.

You can always find some alternative possibility to the evidence. It may be ridiculous and absurd but many skeptics think that they are not responsible for any support of the negative claim.

"Riggs, I see you don't understand either.

I'm watching the movie Jaws now and it actually illustrates what I'm saying beautifully.

If I claim that Jaws was a good movie, then that's my opinion.

If I claim Richard Dreyfuss was in the movie Jaws, that's based on evidence.

Is it possible that Richard Dreyfuss had a jealous twin brother that killed the real Richard Dreyfuss and that's who we see today?

It's possible but there's no evidence to support this possibility.

Now, I can use the pseudoskeptics logic and say, give me undeniable proof that Richard Dreyfuss didn't have a long lost twin and that's who we see today.

You know, I'm gonna stop right there.

I want undeniable proof that this possibility isn't the case."

-The Eloquent polomontana

Originally posted by Jezus
That is actually a good explanation of what a lot of skeptics do.
You can always find some alternative possibility to the evidence. It may be ridiculous and absurd but many skeptics think that they are not responsible for any support of the negative claim.

It all depends on who is making the claim. If you, as a believer, tell me you have proof that aliens exist, guess who know bears the burden of proof?

Same thing if I come to you claiming that I can prove they do not exist.

I think many people confuse this with an exchange where you make a claim, and then somehow think that I must provide evidence of my own that your claim is false. The only evidence that needs to be considered is the evidence presented at first.

reply to post by thrashee


Ok, So what if Stephen Spielberg was the one making the claim about dreyfuss?

Originally posted by thrashee
Same thing if I come to you claiming that I can prove they do not exist.

The only evidence that needs to be considered is the evidence presented at first.

And then all one needs to do is demonstrate that the evidence is either inadequate, there is reasonable doubt, or that there are other explanations for the evidence.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by thrashee

 

Ok, So what if Stephen Spielberg was the one making the claim about dreyfuss?

This is the problem with following Montana's logic: you might notice that his claim is exactly the same thing as his evidence. In other words, there is absolutely nothing here to dispute.

Read back a few posts to see this illustrated more completely.

Originally posted by divideby3
For the the skeptics.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems -Kurt Gödel
en.wikipedia.org...

Ah, the quoting of Godel's theorem. Before I respond, what exactly would you have us know regarding this?

reply to post by thrashee


"In other words, there is absolutely nothing here to dispute. "

So... Why are you still here?

"Honestly, I don't care"

you must...

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Ack...if this is true, I feel bad.

The alleged existence of UFOs is one thing. The alleged extra-terrestrial origin is another. It is important not only to prove that UFOs do exist but also to prove that they are extra-terrestrial.

I personally think the existence of UFOs is fairly solid, but I thusfar encountered no credible evidence that they are of extra-terrestrial origin. For all I know, they could be US or Russian Black Ops projects.

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by thrashee

 

"In other words, there is absolutely nothing here to dispute. "

So... Why are you still here?

"Honestly, I don't care"

you must...

That type of quote-mining might land you a job on the evening news.

I'm here for the sake of preventing the spread of shoddy logic

reply to post by thrashee



"Let me dumb it down for you.

Let's say you and I are scientists, and you burst into the office one day claiming, "Unicorns exist!!""

Do You call this "preventing the spread of shoddy logic "?

You are the one who is contaminating and derailing this thread.

Originally posted by TruthTellist
"Let me dumb it down for you.

Let's say you and I are scientists, and you burst into the office one day claiming, "Unicorns exist!!""

Do You call this "preventing the spread of shoddy logic "?

You are the one who is contaminating and derailing this thread.

I see. So jumping back in here after having remained on the sidelines for so long, merely to piggy-back off Montana and cherry-pick previous comments I've made, is progressing this thread how, exactly?

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Complex I'm not going to reply to your whole post because it's long and very illogical but something you said sums up my position.

You said,

"Not in the least. Is it evidence that it is impossible that these could be alien implants? Not at all. However, it is evidence that there are other possibilities. That there is a reasonable doubt. It shows that there are mundane occurances of foreign objects being found in the body, with nerve-ends connected to them."

WOW!!! WOW!!! WOW!!!

It's evidence that there are other possibilities? There's always other possibilities , but they have to have evidence to support them in order to be equated to the evidence that has been reported and investigated.

Example:

In the Scott Peterson Trial, his lawyer introduced the possibility that people in a van did the crime. There was no evidence to support this and he got ridiculed on CourtTv and shows like On The Record every night.

There's always other possibilities and I have said that over and over again.

There's the possibility that a Russians put these implants there. You have evidence that the KGB is carrying out secret operations and they might want to track these people and control them to carry out assasination attempts in the U.S.

This is a possibility without any evidence.

What the skeptic is saying is equating every possibility with evidence that has been reported and investigated.

I could say it's possible that the 12 children and 30 adults in Russia really saw the Russian Basketball olympic team dressed up and playing a prank.

There's no evidence to support this possibility, yet according to the skeptics I should give this possibility and any possibility the same weight as the actual evidence as it's reported and investigated.

Back to my Reductio Ad Absurdum because the illogical and ABSURD arguments keep coming.

The evidence from Jaws tells me that Richard Dreyfuss starred in the movie.

It's a possibility that Dreyfuss had a long lost jealous twin that killed him and replaced him on Jaws and this is who we see today.

If the skeptic wants me to accept every possibility and equate it with the evidence as it has been reported and investigated, they have to first equate this ABSURD argument with the evidence as reported and investigated.

I didn't say based on my opinion.

I didn't say based on my beliefs.

I said based on the evidence as reported and investigated.

I then laid out the evidence as reported and investigated.

It's simple, you can say these things are unexplained and bring every possibility to the table or you can explain these things by what has been investigated and reported.

Like I said in the beginning, the skeptic desperately wishes to limit the sphere of another persons knowledge and this is why they are so desperate to equate every possibility with actual evidence that's been reported and investigated.

The skeptic wants these things to remain unexplained even though the evidence gives us an explanation as to what occured.

The skeptic does not want to accept the evidence as reported and investigated because they disagree with the underlying subject matter about extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings.

So everybody has to leave these things unexplained because there HAS to be another possibility or explanation to the evidence as reported and investigated.

Did you skeptics here what I said?

REPORTED AND INVESTIGATED.

There will always be other possibilities. Why do you think lawyers are still looking for other possibilities for there clients that are in jail.

Until they find evidence that supports these possibilities there clients will remain in jail.

Again, the skeptics want these things to remain unexplained even though the evidence that's been investigated and reported gives us an explanation that they don't agree with.

Is there a statute of limitations on how long that I have to accept every possibility and equate that to evidence that's been reported and investigated?

If these skeptics were serious, they would look to find evidence to support the possibilities that they suggest. It's alot of skeptics in a position to look for evidence that supports your opinions.

There not serious, they just want to be able to throw out any possibility without evidence as far as the eye can see.



[edit on 31-7-2008 by polomontana]