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

Oh my God, he's back.

Tell me, TruthTeller, how is Montana progressing this thread

reply to post by TruthTellist


Your right,

My claim is based on evidence as reported and investigated.

What some of these skeptics will have you believe is they can disagree with my claim without debating the evidence that I presented.

This is why the skeptics are DESPERATE to seperate my claim from the actual evidence that has been reported and investigated.

This way they don't have to debate the evidence, they can just throw out any possibility and equate it with the evidence as reported and investigated.

My claim is based on the evidence not my opinion or belief.


[edit on 31-7-2008 by polomontana]

Watch, TruthTeller, as Montana's logic is exposed:

Originally posted by polomontana
What some of these skeptics will have you believe is they can disagree with my claim without debating the evidence that I presented.

We did debate your evidence. You just didn't like the results we came up with because we used logic and reason. Verify this yourself by going back.

This is why the skeptics are DESPERATE to seperate my claim from the actual evidence that has been reported and investigated.

No, we're desperate to separate your claim from your evidence because after your claim was falsified, you then began to ignore your claim and go down the path that your claim suddenly was the very same thing as your evidence (see the Jaws analogy).

This way they don't have to debate the evidence, they can just throw out any possibility and equate it with the evidence as reported and investigated.

We did deal with your evidence. This stuff regarding Jaws and throwing out any possibility is nothing but a straw man, and it's a position none of us ever took.

My claim is based on the evidence not my opinion or belief.

Your evidence was not opinion, but your claim is. Why, you ask? Because you failed to prove your claim with your evidence. So it remains a false statement--in other words, its only value is as your opinion.

I'm still waiting for the skeptics to prove to me that Dreyfuss wasn't replaced on Jaws by his long lost twin brother who was jealous.

This possibility has to be equated with the actual evidence.

Dreyfuss said in an interview that he couldn't remember what was going on when they shot Jaws because there was alot of partying and drinking.

Others remember, is this a cover up to hide the fact that he's not Richard Dreyfuss and it's his twin?

He also was absent from Jaws 2.

Did he stay away because he didn't want others to recognize the signs that he wasn't the real Richard Dreyfuss?

Now according to the skeptics logic, I will have to equate this possibility with the evidence that has been reported (Dreyfuss starring in Jaws) and investigated (watching Jaws).

I love Reductio Ad Absurdums.

Originally posted by polomontana
I'm still waiting for the skeptics to prove to me that Dreyfuss wasn't replaced on Jaws by his long lost twin brother who was jealous.

Why on earth are you waiting for that? Or do you still not understand that your whole Jaws analogy is incorrect for what it was trying to demonstrate?

I'll give you a hint, Montana: in order to make your Jaws analogy comparable to the argument that preceded it, you need to make a claim that differs from simply stating that Dreyfuss was in the movie.

I love Reductio Ad Absurdums.

I'm sure you do, seeing as how you concocted the "argument" that uses them.

reply to post by thrashee


Another attempt by a skeptic to debate something I never said.

You said,

"Your evidence was not opinion, but your claim is. Why, you ask? Because you failed to prove your claim with your evidence. So it remains a false statement--in other words, its only value is as your opinion."

When have I ever said or tried to PROVE my claim to you or any skeptic on this board?

Again, this is an attempt by the skeptics to seperate my claim from the evidence so they don't have to debate the evidence.

The reason why you keep debating yourself, because you want to debate something I never said.

My Claim is, the evidence shows.....

Not that, I'm going to prove to the pseudoskeptic that my claim is the correct one. There's always these other possibilities, but the possibilities have to have evidence if I'm going to equate them to the evidence as reported and investigated.

reply to post by OutoftheBoxthinker


Precisely how I view it at this point. I do believe that there is life outside of our planet, but that is a belief and not a proven fact that I am aware of.

I am very curious to see what unravels in the near future.

Originally posted by polomontana
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.

Do you see how everyone else in this thread is applauding me (and others) for laying out rational arguments? Does it not strike you as odd that you are the only one who thinks these arguments are absurd or illogical?

Originally posted by polomontana
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.

But Dr. Lier has not fully investigated it. He has only investigated one teeny-tiny part of it, so minute he would be laughed out of any peer-reviewed journal or conference. He has drawn a conclusion he cannot make. You cannot make that conclusion either, because there has not been a full investigation.

I have shown there can be mundane explanations for this, because foreign objects can be embedded in the human body. You tell me I have not proven the same objects that appear in abductees. But Dr. Lier has not proven they only appear in abductees.

Because he has not investigated it. He has only focused on a handful of abductees. He has no evidence these are isolated to abductees. Again, because he has not investigated it.

You can sit there and say that you are presenting evidence as "reported" (which is meaningless...anyone can "report" anything) and investigated. But again LIER HAS NOT FULLY INVESTIGATED IT.

Again. Lier has not fully investigated it. He has only focused on a tiny, tiny sample group. Neither you or Lier can say these appear only in abductees, because you have not had a full study.

Again. Lier has not fully investigated it. He has only focused on a tiny, tiny sample group. Neither you or Lier can say these appear only in abductees, because you have not had a full study.

Again. Lier has not fully investigated it. He has only focused on a tiny, tiny sample group. Neither you or Lier can say these appear only in abductees, because you have not had a full study.

Originally posted by polomontana
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.

You miss the point. I was not offering alternative explanations. I was demonstrating how your evidence does not support one single conclusion, that your conclusion based on that evidence is falsfiable, and that these things do occur in nature.

Originally posted by polomontana
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.

More evidence of your Asperger's Syndrome.

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

No, it doesn't. We have demonstrated that there can be other explanations.

You have contradicted yourself. You whine that skeptics are limiting possibilities and knowledge, but then you turn around and claim there is only one explanation for the evidence you presented and that someone can only draw one conclusion from it.

Again, you contradicted itself.

Originally posted by polomontana
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.

No one has said that. You are attributing claims to us we have not made. We are all open to the possibility to these things. We want these things to exist. And I'll repeat one more time: your evidence does not support your conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.

Originally posted by polomontana
REPORTED AND INVESTIGATED.

Again, "reported" is meaningless, because anyone can report anything. Saying it's "reported" does not mean a thing, and just because someone reports something it is not proof or evidence of anything.

Investigated, in this case, is also meaningless, as Lier has not fully investigated it. He only focuses on one tiny sample; he has not conducted the proper study to draw any conclusions.

And before you dispute this, tell us when and where Dr. Lier conducted a study to show these things do not appear in the general, non-abductee populace and only show up in abductees.

And before you start whining that I have no proof that they don't show up in the general public, I'll remind you, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim -- you.

Originally posted by polomontana
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.

The burden of proof is not on us. It is on the person making the claim -- YOU.

If you were serious about these claims, you would be working to prove they exist, instead of working on browbeating skeptics.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by SaviorComplex]

reply to post by thrashee


Wrong,

The claim is, Dreyfuss starred in Jaws based on the evidence as reported and investigated.

The possibility is that Dreyfuss was killed by his twin and replaced.

It has everything to do with the debate because it shows why you can't equate any possibility with the evidence that has been reported and investigated.

Then the skeptic will say, PROVE MY POSSIBILITY ISN'T POSSIBLE.

That's backwards logic.

This is how you use a Reductio Ad Absurdum.

I don't think your website covered this, because you are actually trying to debate the argument.

They are used to illustrate a point.

See, TruthTeller? See the common tactics employed by someone who dances around reason and logic?

First he makes a claim, then that claim is proven to be false.

So he resorts to three tactics: a) outright lie and state that we never debated his evidence, b) construct false arguments in an attempt to refute positions we never took (straw man), and the best of all, c) abandon his claim as though he was never trying to prove anything. The curious thing about this last one is that I acknowledged this and simply asked him to withdraw his claim, which he never did.

Notice, TruthTeller, how in the very same post he'll both state that we argued against something he never said, and then state his claim all over again!

Originally posted by polomontana
Another attempt by a skeptic to debate something I never said.

You may not have said it in so many words, but you are saying it.

For someone who gets so offended by someone "debating something you never said" you sure do like putting words in people's mouths.

Originally posted by polomontana
When have I ever said or tried to PROVE my claim to you or any skeptic on this board?

When you post links and stories, when you outline evidence (as you did in the case of alien implants), when you say there a questions a skeptic cannot answer, when you say the evidence shows only one conclusion, that is an attempt to prove an argument.

But, while you have attempted to prove your claims, I do not believe this was intentional on your part. You believe you do not have to prove anything. What you have been attempting to do is not prove your claim based on evidence, but prove your claims by bullying and browbeating skeptics.

See, when everyone finally gives up on you Polomontana, when everyone finally puts you on ignore, you'll proclaim to overwhelming silence that you won, and it won't because you've convinced anyone that you are right.




[edit on 31-7-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Again, I ask you Polomontana...

When you say things like this...

Originally posted by polomontana
I never said I was making a scientific argument.

...then when you say things like this...

Originally posted by polomontana
EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL/EXTRA-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS EXIS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AS REPORTED AND INVESTIGATED.

...what kind of claim are you making? While you may not specifically use the word "scientific," when you say something is true beyond a reasonable doubt because of the evidence, that is a scientific claim.

reply to post by polomontana


Montana,

Your analogy is still incorrect, because your claim is nothing but a restatement of the evidence. It's inherently self-supporting. Unfortunately, your original claim is not comparable.

If you can manage to correct this analogy so it accurately reflects the real argument, then we'll see about the rest of your charges.

It seems Complex is looking to a skeptics support group for applause.

Your post doesn't make any sense on several points.

First off have you read Dr. Liers book?

Dr. Roger K. Leir, author of The Aliens and the Scalpel and several other books has been said to be one of the world's most important leaders in physical evidence research involving the field of Ufology.

He and his surgical team have performed 11 surgeries on alleged alien abductees, resulting in the removal of twelve separate and distinct objects suspected of being alien implants. These objects have been scientifically investigated by some of the most prestigious laboratories in the world including Los Alamos National Labs, New Mexico Tech, and the University of California at San Diego. Their findings have been baffling and some comparisons have been made to meteorite samples. In addition, some of the tests show isotopic ratios not of this world.

www.fromheretoandromeda.com...

Do you know how long that he has been doing this?

Do you think your having some unique Eureka moment and nobody has thought about the same possibilities or looked into the same possibilities?

Do you think this can be easily handled, not by having some grand experiment but by asking other Dr.'s who take x-rays have they found these things in any of their patients?

Is there a reason to waste money trying to find average people who may have similar things in there bodies?

Just ask other Doctors.

Again I ask, have you read Dr. Liers book?

I have to ask you to explain what you mean by the term "FULLY INVESTIGATED."

Define that please.

Last I checked people were still investigating General Relativity, does this mean that we can't come to any conclusions until we have tested frame dragging and gravity waves and General Relativity is FULLY INVESTIGATED?

What about people in jail? Should there lawyers stop looking for other evidence because it has been FULLY INVESTIGATED?

It amazes me how these pseudoskeptics come up with these super duper ILLOGICAL terms.

FULLY INVESTIGATED
UNDENIABLE PROOF

Your reaching for the stars and missing by light years.

You also act as if I'm looking at Dr. Liers case in isolation. I have also laid out other evidence as well.

There's thousands of cases and that support these things, and you can't get passed one.

Originally posted by polomontana
It seems Complex is looking to a skeptics support group for applause.

Skeptics and believers alike are witnessing your obtuseness.

Originally posted by polomontana
Do you think this can be easily handled, not by having some grand experiment but by asking other Dr.'s who take x-rays have they found these things in any of their patients?

Is there a reason to waste money trying to find average people who may have similar things in there bodies?

It would not be a waste of money at all, because it would go to scientifically prove, one way or another, if these are "alien implants" and would be a big step forward, pro or con.

That is how the science works.

And before you start whining that we are changing the subject, WHEN YOU (YES YOU POLOMONTANA) MAKE THE CLAIM THAT THIS IS UNDENIABLE PROOF AND THERE IS ONLY ONE CONCLUSION (WHICH YOU HAVE DONE OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN) YOU ARE MAKING A SCIENTIFIC CLAIM. YES, YOU! AGAIN, SO YOU DON'T MISS IT: YOU ARE MAKING A SCIENTIFIC CLAIM.

Originally posted by polomontana
I have to ask you to explain what you mean by the term "FULLY INVESTIGATED."

Define that please.

I already have.

But I will do it again.

Because Lier has only focused on tiny group, he has not fully investigated this. How Lier has investigated this is not how the scientific method works.

And before you start whining you are not trying to prove this scientifically, I would refer you to my above comment about this. Besides, even if you aren't trying to prove this scientifically, Dr. Lier is!

Originally posted by polomontana
What about people in jail? Should there lawyers stop looking for other evidence because it has been FULLY INVESTIGATED?

That is law, not science. Two different standards of evidence.

Originally posted by polomontana
It amazes me how these pseudoskeptics come up with these super duper ILLOGICAL terms.

Like "pseudoskeptic?"

EVERYONE ELSE here can see that "fully investigated" is not an illogical term.

For someone who whines about people wanting to define how the
conversation may be conducted, you sure do it a lot.

Either you have aspergers, you are a troll, or you a child. Which is it, Polomontana?

reply to post by SaviorComplex


You said

"It would not be a waste of money at all, because it would go to scientifically prove, one way or another, if these are "alien implants" and would be a big step forward, pro or con."

Of course it would be a waste of money. Do you know how research works?

If your a researcher and you can find out the evidence by asking other Doctors who take x-rays, why should you spend money to find this out?

You can use the money in other areas like removing more implants or getting these implants tested.

Again I ask, have you read Dr. Lier's book or are you doing what skeptics usually do and are throwing out anything and hope it sticks?

Have you done the research and FULLY INVESTIGATED these things? Have you read the book?

This is what the skeptics want, they want to throw out any wild claims without doing the proper research and then they use terms like scientific method, fully investigated and undeniable proof.

How can you make these silly assertions when you have not investigated the research?

I will tell why Complex didn't answer the question, he's debating with himself if he should lie and say he read the book or not.

Your bending yourself into a pretzel Complex.

Originally posted by polomontana
Your bending yourself into a pretzel.

This is too good to pass up...Montana, can I quote you on this for my signature line?

Complex,

You said,

"And before you start whining that we are changing the subject, WHEN YOU (YES YOU POLOMONTANA) MAKE THE CLAIM THAT THIS IS UNDENIABLE PROOF AND THERE IS ONLY ONE CONCLUSION (WHICH YOU HAVE DONE OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN) YOU ARE MAKING A SCIENTIFIC CLAIM. YES, YOU! AGAIN, SO YOU DON'T MISS IT: YOU ARE MAKING A SCIENTIFIC CLAIM."

Here's an example as to how you gather evidence.

Dr. Lier's research as we have discussed.

You then have Dr. Edgar Mitchell saying these beings have visited earth and he's corroborated by other high ranking government officials, military, astronauts and others.

Dr. Mitchell can call up the Joint Chief's of Staff, you or I can't.

Dr. Mitchell travels in the same circles as those who gave corroborating testimony, my next door neighbor that used to drive a cab doesn't.

So with just 2 pieces of evidence, I have shown extraterrestrial/extradimensional beings exist beyond any reasonable doubt based on the evidence as reported and investigated.

There you have it Complex, no science just reason based on the evidence as reported and investigated.

I can give a lot of evidence but it seems skeptics on here are stuck on one or two cases that they have not even researched.

Originally posted by polomontana
Of course it would be a waste of money. Do you know how research works?

If your a researcher and you can find out the evidence by asking other Doctors who take x-rays, why should you spend money to find this out?

You can use the money in other areas like removing more implants or getting these implants tested.

This has to be some of the stupidest content I have ever read on this forum. sleeper's garbage wasn't this stupid.....John Lear makes more sense than this.....The Onion has more credibility than this.......

Originally posted by polomontana
You then have Dr. Edgar Mitchell saying these beings have visited earth and he's corroborated by other high ranking government officials, military, astronauts and others.

True.

But then again, he's countered by other high ranking government officials, military, astronauts, scientists and others who say these things aren't happening.

So I guess we're back to square one, aren't we?

Originally posted by polomontana
So with just 2 pieces of evidence, I have shown extraterrestrial/extradimensional beings exist beyond any reasonable doubt based on the evidence as reported and investigated.

Um...no you haven't. Lier has not made a full investigation that follows the scientific method (please, look it up, and please look up how any sort of scientific research is done), and in regards to Mitchell, for the reason I just outlined.

So, with just 2 pieces of evidence, I have shown how your claims of beyond a reasonable doubt are anything but.