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

Originally posted by polomontana
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.

Montana, all you have shown is that evidence exists. You haven't shown that that evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that aliens exist.

I know it's an excruciatingly hard distinction for you, but, well, it was your absurd claim to begin with, and since you won't retract it, you'll apparently sink with it.

Note that over and over again you keep spewing the same evidence, but you don't draw the link between evidence and its claim.

Keep trying.

I agree that the Jaws analogy is not a good one. In that case the evidence clearly points to RD having been in the movie since the credits say it was him and it looked like him and etc. It would be stretching it to come up with another possibility. So let's try a more reasonable analogy.

Pretend (whether you do or don't) that you know very little about domestic poultry. You visit my house, and as you are walking through the front yard you see a clean, sparkly white egg lying on the ground. You look around and see chickens, Muscovy ducks, regular ducks, and geese.

The evidence you see (the egg) can, by and of itself, be reasonably used as evidence to make the following claims:

One of my animals laid the egg.
It was a female animal.
The egg was laid recently.

If you have any general knowledge about poultry, you might also be able to reasonably state that the evidence supports other claims, such as:

It wasn't a goose that laid the egg. (Egg is too small.)

Now, where are we? Since the observer knows very little about the creatures involved, the evidence is equally strong that a duck, a Muscovy, or a chicken laid the egg. You might tend to think chicken egg first because it pretty much looks like a chicken egg from the store, and that's what you're used to seeing, and eating: chicken eggs. However, in actuality, at this point you have no valid reason to favor any one explanation over the others because the evidence you have supports all 3 possibilities equally well. Still with me?

If you now claim "It's a chicken egg," you will need to have some additional evidence that makes it more likely to be a chicken egg than a Muscovy or duck egg, especially since you don't know what duck eggs or Muscovy eggs look like. Otherwise you are arbitrarily choosing one possibility over the others based on nothing more than your own personal experience with eggs.

Now if I (in this analogy the expert ) come along and look at the egg, I will be able to say "No, that's a duck egg." Why? I have additional KNOWLEDGE that you don't have. I know that all of my chickens lay brown eggs, and my Muscovies lay eggs which are faintly greenish in color and larger than the one you are looking at. So, it's a duck egg.

Back to the real discussion now, and extrapolating:

Unless you have personal experience with extraterrestrial aliens or have someone to draw into this discussion who has additional KNOWLEDGE that none of the rest of us have, you are arbitrarily choosing one possibility (ET) out of others which are equally valid based on the available evidence. There is no specific evidence that points to "ET" over other possibilities. How or why are implants in people any more likely to have been put there by ETs than by time travelers or people from a hollow center of the Earth?

If you claim that certain pieces of evidence point directly to "ET" more so than other possibilities, then please list them in a reply and I/we will address them.

Otherwise, it is not I/we who are forcing you to consider (all) less likely possibilities, it is you who is arbitrarily choosing one possibility and claiming that it is more likely than the others without additional knowledge or supporting evidence.

P. S. Don't count your ducks before they hatch!

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

I do. Medical research is conducted in the very same manner I outlined. Lier has not done this.

reply to post by Heike


Absolutely beautiful point made.

reply to post by Heike


Brilliant analogy.....you need to hang around and continue your fine work as an "Opinion Donor".

Originally posted by MrPenny

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.......

I can tell you have never been around research.

These questions are asked and debated all the time.

What Complex proposed doesn't make sense.

Why should I go out testing and x-raying every Tom, Dick and Harry?

Who are these people that Complex wants me to x-ray?

Should I just x-ray blue collar workers? Should I just x-ray people who work at construction sites?

Who is the pool of people that I should test?

Should I just grab the phone book and say duck, duck, goose?

Or does it make more sense to go to other Doctors who test and x-ray people and ask them the questions?

Wouldn't be smarter to go to these Doctors you can give you answers because in most cases Doctors know more about the patients than the patients do?

Originally posted by polomontana
What Complex proposed doesn't make sense.

Why should I go out testing and x-raying every Tom, Dick and Harry?

I never said that. I said a "sample" of the general population, I never said everyone. And for all intents and purposes, they it would have to be random, with the exception that they cannot be abductees or believe they have an implant.

That is exactly how medical research is conducted.

reply to post by Heike


Intelligent post for a change, but there's an obvious flaw.

You said,

"If you claim that certain pieces of evidence point directly to "ET" more so than other possibilities, then please list them in a reply and I/we will address them.

Otherwise, it is not I/we who are forcing you to consider (all) less likely possibilities, it is you who is arbitrarily choosing one possibility and claiming that it is more likely than the others without additional knowledge or supporting evidence.

P. S. Don't count your ducks before they hatch!"

It goes back to Dreyfuss.

In order for you to make this statement, you have to equate these other possibilities with evidence that has been reported and investigated.

Your falling into the skeptics trap of trying to debate an argument that I never made.

I never said the evidence that was repoted and investigated was a possibility.

I take the evidence as it's reported and investigated until these other possibilities have evidence to support them.

Again, Dr. Mitchell said:

FORMER NASA astronaut and moon-walker Dr Edgar Mitchell - a veteran of the Apollo 14 mission - has stunningly claimed aliens exist.

And he says extra-terrestrials have visited Earth on several occasions - but the alien contact has been repeatedly covered up by governments for six decades.

Dr Mitchell, 77, said during a radio interview that sources at the space agency who had had contact with aliens described the beings as 'little people who look strange to us.'

www.news.com.au...

This is not a possibility, this is what was actually reported and investigated and there's corroborating evidence to support him.

For me to equate these other possibilities with the evidence as reported and investigated you have to provide me with evidence that counters it.

Again, Dr. Mitchell didn't say these things in isolation. These statements are not ambiguous.

Dr. Lier said this,

www.youtube.com...

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...

The evidence that has been reported and investigated is not ambiguous.

Is it open to new possible explanations? YES.

Does that mean I have to wait on these new possibilities to find some evidence in order to draw a conclusion based on the evidence as reported and investigated?

This is why the Dreyfuss argument illustrated my point.

There's always other possibilities and I'm open to hearing them but until they come with evidence, these are just possibilities and opinions.

You do know what opinions are like?

I've been watching this from the beginning and just wanted to pop in and say that I applaud you thrashee (your screen name is very appropiate, unfortunately), Savior Complex and all others who have shown staggering volumes of patience in trying to make polo understand how a true skeptic, a person truly seeking truth/knowledge, not belief, approaches this subject (and others) and its "evidence".

I admire your tenacity and dilligence guys/gals. Let it sink in polo...I'll step out, no need for unneeded redundancy in here...obtuse as it may seem this is a good thread, IMO.

Are we ready to debate what I actually said or are will still in desperate mode and we are trying to debate things that I never said.

So far:

The scientific method
opinions and beliefs
every possibility
undeniable proof
Fully Investigated
evidence that's reported and investigated is equal to every possibility

What's next or are we ready to debate the evidence and what I actually said?

Originally posted by polomontana
The evidence that has been reported and investigated is not ambiguous.

Is it open to new possible explanations? YES.

[SNIP]

There's always other possibilities and I'm open to hearing them but until they come with evidence, these are just possibilities and opinions.

Are you even aware of what is being written on your behalf? Or are there a thousand monkeys hammering away at a thousand keyboards at your house and we're being afflicted with the results?

Aha! (Picture me with a little light bulb blinking over my head). I see where the problems are now.

1) You're counting hearsay as evidence. Mitchell says they're ET. How does he know? Did someone follow them home? Did they show him a star chart with a big red blinking YOU ARE HERE arrow? Or did he just assume they're ET? Or did someone tell him they're ET? For it to be EVIDENCE I want more than just some guy saying it's so, no matter who he is. Nothing says they're above lying you know, and if they are from the future, or from a hollow Earth, they are going to have plenty of excellent motives to lie about it.

2) Fallacious evidential logic. The analyzed materials are "not of this Earth." Shouldn't we say ON this Earth? We haven't drilled very far into the Earth, and we haven't come anywhere near exploring the ocean's deepest areas. We don't know what's there, or isn't. Also, if humans continue to try to expand into space as we have been doing, it's quite likely that humans will mine and live on other planets in the future. If a human is born on Mars because our future civilization colonizes Mars, does that make him a Martian? or an ET? All this Doctor really had a right to say, in my opinion, is that it contains materials which he is not familiar with and/or hasn't seen before. We haven't explored the entire Earth yet! How can we conclusively say what does or doesn't exist in places we haven't looked yet?

3) Fallacious evidential logic, part B. Just because they don't look like "normal" humans does not automatically make them ETs. Who knows what we will look like in a few thousand more years? We sure look different now than when we started! And why is a 'grey' any more likely to be an ET alien than a hollow Earth or Ocean dweller? Oh, I remember .. because some guy said so, although we don't know why.

So you are putting "this guy said so," and "they don't look like humans" and "materials not currently found on Earth" together and that conclusively equals ET for you? That wouldn't hold up in a courtroom or a scientific paper.

And back one more step.
We have been off this Earth and collected rocks and meteorites.
Black ops are not going to tell the truth.
We have some pretty weird looking people right here on this planet, AND animatronics and suits are getting better every day. As is CGI .. didn't this guy say he saw them on a monitor, or was that the other guy? I forget.

How can you conclusively say the whole mess isn't disinfo staged for Mitchell & Co. to hide whatever the heck they're REALLY doing?

Isn't THAT actually a little more realistic and reasonable than grey aliens spending years of their lives to come here, mutilate a few cattle, butt probe a few humans, stick implants in some other humans, and make secret deals with ONE government out of all the available Earth governments to choose from?

Actually, Polo, to be honest I have to admit I'm with you on this one. I personally believe they're from another dimension or parallel universe. But I can also see that we don't have anywhere near enough evidence to make that claim stick .. yet. And the more claims we make that we can't adequately back up, the more we antagonize (and entertain) the skeptics and the harder it will be to get them to listen when we really DO have good enough evidence. That's why I'm here looking for more evidence instead of claiming I already know the answer. Saying what I think, or believe, or "my opinion is" is not the same as trying to claim that a few bits of circumstantial evidence prove anything. When we have the proof, I'll be right there with you to hit them over the head with it and enjoy every WHACK! and "I told you so!" - but we don't have that proof yet.

reply to post by MrPenny


LOL

What this gets down to is a difference of opinion. The difference of opinion is on what constitutes as reasonable doubt.

If person A says - I believe Richard Dreyfus was in Jaws because I know what he looks like, and I’ve seen the film.

And person B responds - Well it could have just been his twin brother.

What it gets down to is a person’s interpretation of reasonable. If person B, for whatever reason, finds it very very hard to believe that Richard Dreyfus was in Jaws something that might seem completely insane to person A seems like a more reasonable possibility to person B.

If someone really doesn’t think aliens exist, finds it very difficult to believe in the possibility of their existence, or subconsciously does not want aliens to exist they will find it much easier to believe in other explanations for the evidence. Someone who is neutral to the possibility of aliens might consider that same evidence as conclusive because they do not see reasonable doubt.

Polomontana

Please help me clear my doubt.

If your claim shows two possibilities (aliens and extra-dimensional beings) how can it be beyond a reasonable doubt, there is a doubt about what type of beings we are talking.

Unless those are not two possibilities but just one, and in that case aliens are extra-dimensional beings.

Which of these is true? Or is it a third (or even more) possibilities that I did not saw?

reply to post by ArMaP


LOL You must get lost often., so I'll resimplify things for you...again.


Maybe, Greys are from our future. That being they are indeed evolved from Humans and have developed a level of technology that allows them to travel back through time to ensure their own survival.

That would be where the Novelty comes in, and the Universe is a novelty-conserving engine. Therefore should we assume that intergalactic travels is possible, we must also then presuppose that time travel is also possible as both are ideas so far removed from Levels of Novelty currently allowed withing the limitations of our Space/Time.

We currently do not know whether or not Artificial intelligence is possible, but surely when it comes into existence a New period of novelty will have been entered. We could then rightly assume that both the problems of time and space travel will be solved with the aid of this new Entity.

The AI will then create advanced simulations of the Universe and Calculate that 'Human' Time travelers are indeed responsible for the inexplicable changes in the Humanoids on this planet over the past 500 000 years - changes pointing towards an unavoidable conclusion.... That Mankind is a Genetic Experiment perpetually conducting itself as a Direct Result of the Laws of the Inverse Square and the Conservation of novelty.

In speaking of ducks: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it certainly is a duck. This issue of UFO's and extraterrestrials have been quacking on since prehistoric times. Now that we have technologies to capture their images, let alone the proofs when an alien spacecraft and the bodies of the aliens were discovered in Roswell, New Mexico, it is reasonable to believe aliens and their spacecrafts exist. The evidences were already there however the Government covered them up and kept them in secret. Many people swear they have seen these entities (at Roswell and other places) so there is no reason to be skeptical about them. The Government is in possession of the proofs, go ask them. If they deny them (like they usually do) then it is still comforting to believe they are real based on testimonies of other people and the photos and videos where they could be seen. In fact, the reaction of the newspaper in Roswell when the alien spacecraft crashed there concurs that it was alien according to eyewitness accounts of a farmer and other people who have seen the wreck and debris on the ground. Only later did the military force the publisher to change its article about it as a coverup and later on some military personnel who handled everything alien at the crash site swear that they have seen the aliens and their unusual spacecraft. Most of the technologies we have today especially in the electronic sector are copies of alien technology.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by NoRunRichard]

[edit on 31-7-2008 by NoRunRichard]

Pay him no mind, ArMap. Sometimes people think that by taking their logic and turning it into a plate of spaghetti, you won't be able to unravel the nonsense they're really saying.

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by ArMaP

 

LOL You must get lost often., so I'll resimplify things for you...again.


Maybe, Greys are from our future. That being they are indeed evolved from Humans and have developed a level of technology that allows them to travel back through time to ensure their own survival.

So, as you'd asked, there is possibility #1. Aliens are actually us from the future.

That would be where the Novelty comes in, and the Universe is a novelty-conserving engine. Therefore should we assume that intergalactic travels is possible, we must also then presuppose that time travel is also possible as both are ideas so far removed from Levels of Novelty currently allowed withing the limitations of our Space/Time.

Uh oh, get your tomato sauce ready.

First, we need to ask ourselves: how novel is this Novelty, which is absolutely key in TruthTeller's replies? As it turns out, quite novel indeed. Don't worry, ArMap, I'd never heard of it either, and some quick research explains why: it's a quack numerology theory based upon the I-Ching and the Mayan calendar that would have you believe that your wildest dreams can be realized at a magical date in human development (anyone wanna guess what that magical date is?). Don't worry about the intricacies of this theory; fold it up into little squares, set it on your bathroom counter, and rest easy knowing you have an emergency reserve when your toilet paper runs out.

So TruthTeller's presumption that if you include the possibility of interstellar travel, you must also include the possibility of time travel, is false. Getting rid of that icky pseudo-science tag, this is just bad reasoning.

We currently do not know whether or not Artificial intelligence is possible, but surely when it comes into existence a New period of novelty will have been entered. We could then rightly assume that both the problems of time and space travel will be solved with the aid of this new Entity.

Until I dug up Novelty, I had no idea what TruthTeller was babbling about here, nor why. Actually, I still don't even with the idea of Novelty, other than AI is mentioned as possible according to this theory. Then again, so is everything. Nonetheless, it doesn't matter. TruthTeller isn't telling you any useful information here, so fold this up and set it next to your previous stack of reserves.

The AI will then create advanced simulations of the Universe and Calculate that 'Human' Time travelers are indeed responsible for the inexplicable changes in the Humanoids on this planet over the past 500 000 years - changes pointing towards an unavoidable conclusion.... That Mankind is a Genetic Experiment perpetually conducting itself as a Direct Result of the Laws of the Inverse Square and the Conservation of novelty.

Ah, I love theory dropping. Don't worry, he's just trying to sound intimidating. You know what he's really saying here? That this AI will magically determine that human time travelers are your very same aliens. Of course, he doesn't provide one single reason why this is the answer to which the AI comes, no evidence or rationale that this was chosen over interstellar travel, but you're supposed to ignore that little detail because you're still so awed over such things like Direct Result of the Laws of the Inverse Square.

So. What TruthTeller is really trying to say:

It could be either time travellers or interstellar travels.
Some AI will conclude it's time travellers.
Don't ask why.

Yes, TruthTeller, thank you for simplifying that. Again.

reply to post by thrashee


Now lets hear your theory..

...oh wait, you don't have one - You just derail threads.

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by thrashee

 

Now lets hear your theory..

...oh wait, you don't have one - You just derail threads.

Maybe you need to go back and reread the OP of this one