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

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Malevolent_Aliens
"Even if he was assassinated innocently, congratulations to the cops"

WHOA. Hold you. I misread what you claimed earlier.

Yes, I admit I said it was a public service. No bones about it.

However, I did not say "innocently." You added that.

Wrong, you edited your post earlier.

You said if he was assassinated whether innocent or not congratulations to the cops because he was a danger anyway. Something to that affect. You have spoken the truth about how you feel. Thanks for sharing that with us!

Originally posted by Malevolent_Aliens
It doesn't matter what site it comes from it doesn't prove a thing only further supports that he was murdered, you have asked me questions that can be found in the reports so it appears you didn't read the reports from the links I provided.

So, at first, you claim I'm getting it from the police.

Then when I show you it comes from Cooper's people, it doesn't matter.

And when the pathologist says:

Death of this man is due to gunshot wounds to the torso with perforations of the heart. A gunshot wound to the head with skull fracture is contributory...

...it's further proof he was murdered? That's a strange conclusion.

Okay, I'm really confused now. I came back to this thread to see if someone had responded to my brilliant and logical posts and see a couple of pages about some deceased person named Cooper. Not to mention a lot of flame throwing and personal attacks.

Wasn't this thread about "limiting another person's sphere of knowledge based on your pre-existing belief on these issues?"

Actually, I don't think anyone can limit another person's sphere of knowledge. You can only limit your OWN sphere of knowledge by what you refuse to look at or learn about.

Right now I have a mental picture of a bunch of children at a playground. Having drawn a big line down the middle in the sand, they are now dividing themselves up into two groups - the Skeptics and the Believers - so everyone knows which side they're on and who the "enemy" is.

I was hoping that people here might have outgrown that sort of thinking. That there would be room for the curious, open-minded person who wants to learn new things, add information from both sides of an issue and allow it to modify their existing beliefs - or not - and discuss, theorize, hypothesize, and debate (which in my opinion can be a form of thinking out loud while using more than one brain, kind of like a distributed computer network).

Hey, that's me! I'm in the middle, where do I go? I'm not a Skeptic because I've seen a UFO and I believe some eyewitness accounts and pictures I've seen and heard. But I'm not a Believer because I'm still not convinced where UFOs come from or who pilots them, and I won't accept every claim at face value. (For example, I'm still not convinced that our world leaders are reptilians). Am I going to get sand kicked in my face from both sides because I won't join either camp?

I don't believe there are two groups with a dividing line between them. I believe there is a continuum that stretches from people who believe nothing is real unless the mainstream scientists say it is to the people who've been to Alpha something-or-other with beautiful Nordic aliens who have the answers to all of our problems. Most of us are probably somewhere in the middle; why can't we see that in the big picture we have more in common than not?

How about picking a few specific cases and "investigating" them, or throwing together the bits and pieces of knowledge that each of us has and seeing if we can come up with a "big picture" that is coherent and makes sense?

The dictionary definitions of ignorance include:
"lack of knowledge, learning, information" and "The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed" and "the lack of knowledge or education." Ignorance can not be denied by fighting amongst ourselves, and it will never be corrected by accusations, insults, or hatred. The only cure for ignorance is information and knowledge. If you really want to deny ignorance, you must help others learn. And, if you didn't already know this, people don't learn very well when they're on the defensive or angry. Give them facts and information they didn't have before, stimulate them to think about things in different ways and see different points of view, that is denying ignorance. And you will never accomplish that with insults, accusations, derision, condescension. You will seldom accomplish it with sarcasm or irony (although good humor sometimes helps).

How about we all take a collective deep breath, try to show our fellow ATSers a bit of courtesy and basic respect, and go back to considering the question. Do we automatically refuse to accept information that doesn't match our current beliefs without considering it on its own merits? I think sometimes I do, and that is something I have to work on. It helps if you point it out to me when I'm doing it (nicely of course) because sometimes I can't see it myself.

What about you? Do you have "filters" that sometimes reject new information before really even get a chance to think about the possible validity of it?

Originally posted by Heike
How about we all take a collective deep breath, try to show our fellow ATSers a bit of courtesy and basic ...

You know what? You're right. My behavior has been rather deplorable. I apologize.

Originally posted by Malevolent_Aliens
reply to post by SaviorComplex

 

It’s people like you that destroy this world for the rest of us, shame on you for saying what you did earlier “Who cares if he was innocent congratulations to the cops” you are a disgrace to society and the human race.

[edit on 1-8-2008 by Malevolent_Aliens]

Is this not considered "abuse" and "personal attack". Yet you ask the mods to delete anything said about you. Maybe your feelings have been hurt, or maybe, just maybe... your losing this arguement because you've been talking out your ass.

Okay, I tried the nice way and that didn't work. On behalf of the OP and others here...


PLEASE take the Cooper argument somewhere else, start a new thread or something!!! It is way OFF TOPIC in my opinion.

reply to post by Hamlin

Is this not considered "abuse" and "personal attack". Yet you ask the mods to delete anything said about you. Maybe your feelings have been hurt, or maybe, just maybe... your losing this arguement because you've been talking out your ass.

Did you even read what Savior Complex wrote?

I wouldn't have said what I did unless I had a good reason for it, after Savior openly stated he doesn't care if William Cooper was innocently murdered or not congratulations to the cops it was a good thing they killed him anyway that was enough for me.

He has lost all my respect and it's not about the argument of William Coopers death, it's about what he said. That is just plain wrong and if there were less people out there thinking like him in this world it would be a better place. Period!




[edit on 1-8-2008 by Malevolent_Aliens]

Originally posted by Malevolent_Aliens
Oh I see, your just going to deny ever saying what you said now after editing your statements.

Never said it*. I did edit my comment, adding further context and clarification. Never said "innocently" because I know he is not innocent. You've given several different versions of what I said. And the first time you quoted my statement about his "assassination," you didn't even quote what you are claiming I said.

Besides, I hate adverbs like that. They are clunky and lazy writing. I do admit to using them, but I hate myself and feel dirty for it.

(* of course, it is possible I did say it and just forgot. But since I don't think Cooper was innocent, and adverbs like "innocently" are the source of all evil in the world...)


[edit on 1-8-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by Heike
Okay, I tried the nice way and that didn't work. On behalf of the OP and others here...

PLEASE take the Cooper argument somewhere else, start a new thread or something!!! It is way OFF TOPIC in my opinion.

I don't think it's off-topic in and of itself, but I agree it has become a distraction to the original topic. My apologies.

Enough!!!!

Get back on the topic and leave off the bickering from all sides.

There's room for me to wear out a skittle button in this thread, and it stops now. Everything before here are just monuments to bad posting.

Everthing past this point will be in line with ATS T&C, one way or another.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


You always speak the truth right?

Your opening statement: “Never said it*.”

Your closing statement: ”(* of course, it is possible I did say it and just forgot.”

You show a real consistency.

Lastly, you have judged W.C. to be a murderer based on a story that you read.
Anybody can make up a story, how can you really say and actually know he was a murderer?
Everyone that knows W.C. has stated they know he wouldn’t have just shot someone.
I believe you are wrongfully accusing the man and the evidence is there if you look for it.



[edit on 1-8-2008 by Malevolent_Aliens]

First off, this thread is not 42 pages long because I'm throwing out any claim. This thread is this long because skeptics see the logic in my post but it runs up against what they already believe about the subject.

Again, it boils down to skeptics equating every possibility to actual evidence that's been reported and in investigated.

What the skeptics want to do is keep these cases open forever until they find and answer that doesn't include an extra-terrestrial.

I can show you cases that happened 20-30 years ago that's still unexplained even though the evidence explains what occured.

So, the evidence has to remain unexplained according to the skeptic so they can throw out any possibility and equate it to evidence that has been reported and investigated.

You can come to a conclusion based on the evidence while still looking for evidence that supports other possibilities, but without evidence you can't equate those possibilities with the evidence that has been reported and investigated.

Let me give you an example,

If evidence is shown that a U.F.O. case was a hoax, you will see the skeptic say it's hoax based on the evidence.

This is because there not looking for answers, there looking for anything that doesn't include extra-dimensional/extra-dimensional beings.

This is why I say they are not seeking the truth, they are seeking to find an answer that agrees with what they already believe.

This is why when they can't find an answer that fits what they already believe, the case is 'UNEXPLAINED" EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN REPORTED AND INVESTIGATED EXPLAINS IT.

When skeptics find evidence of a hoax or it's been explained in a way that fits what they already believe like weather balloons or Lanterns, then it's case closed.

When they skeptic can't find evidence of a hoax, lantern or weather balloon, then it'S "UNEXPLAINED" UNTIL THEY CAN FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS WHAT THEY ALREADY BELIEVE.

This is what I meant by limiting the sphere of knowledge.

When the skeptic can't find an answer that fits what they already believe about ufology, then the case is unexplained so they can equate every possibility with what has been reported and investigated.

When I can't find an answer backed by evidence, I accept that extra-terrestrials/extra-dimensional beings can exist and I look at other possibilities but they have to be backed by evidence.

This is the skeptic limiting possibilities. They start with the priori that these things can't or don't exist.

This is why when they can't find an answer that doesn't include extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings, it's left unexplained until they can find an answer that they already agree with.

See how illogical it is? The skeptic has set up an illogical system that's not designed to seek the truth but to find answers that agree with what they already believe.

If the evidence points to an extra-terrestrial then it's unexplained, if the evidence points to a hoax then it's explained.

So if all of these cases that has been gathered all of these years is left unexplained, how will you ever find evidence?

The answer is most skeptics are not looking for answers, they are looking to support what they already believe about the subject.

[edit on 1-8-2008 by polomontana]

[edit on 1-8-2008 by polomontana]

Originally posted by polomontana
First off, this thread is not 42 pages long because I'm throwing out any claim. This thread is this long because skeptics see the logic in my post but it runs up against what they already believe about the subject.

Montana, because the powers that be have their eyes turned upon us, I'm going to try to be as civil as I possibly can.

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. I don't know if we failed to clarify our position somewhere, or if you simply don't believe what we're telling you.

All we want is some good evidence. As you said, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe we've demonstrated several times why the evidence that has so far been presented does not fit the bill there. It may be good evidence, it may all corroborate together nicely, but it still does not remove the "beyond a reasonable doubt."

As for us needing "every possibility", I'm honestly not sure where you came up with that, but in the end it does not matter. We are comfortable stating "We don't know" versus making unsupported conjectures based upon the evidence.

Ultimately, if you choose to believe that we're merely responding to some inherent belief that we possess, there's little we can say anymore to convince you otherwise. I'd be more than happy to discuss this with you, but only if it's a true exchange. Only if you honestly want to know where we're coming from. I fear I will have an embolism if we continue to chase down a path of red herrings and bad analogies.

First off this thread is so long because there are two people bickering about something that was on topic to start but ended up in a school yard you said this you said that match.

Though this was an interesting thread at the beginning and mabee we can get back on topic now.

As for being a skeptic, I have not seen anything that can be explained as extraterestial, it is usually explainable by simple reasoning or it is a hoax. There are some that are unexplained, not because they are extraterestial in origin but because it is to hard to determine one way or the other. There has been no absolute proof. If there was there would no longer be a debate.

Even though I am a skeptic, I would love to be shown of proof of alien visitors to this planet, but unfortunately there is none.

I have Theories of my own but I don't post them because there is no proof to back them up.

Just ensure you can back up your photo's theories . . .ect.

[edit on 8/1/2008 by AlienCarnage]

You calling my analogies bad Thrashee? J/K

Well.. Polo... now that you have explained your position (claim?) in terms that are clear and simple enough for my poor tired old brain to understand, I agree with you. Well, mostly.

I think a lot of people are that way out of FEAR rather than stubbornness or ignorance. They are afraid of what it will mean to them if aliens are real and killing cattle and abducting people and etc. Take the average guy with a family. He's got a security system, a barky dog, life insurance policies out the wazoo .. in short he's doing everything he can to protect his family. Now you tell him that aliens can abduct his kids out of their bedrooms and there's nothing he can do to prevent it. Imagine his state of mind if he believes this!

Another thing I wonder if is there is an "order" out there that we don't directly know about. Some one has said "You will NOT admit that aliens exist." Make stupid excuses, obfuscate, confuse, misdirect, heck LIE and make up stuff. We don't care, but do NOT admit that aliens are real. Or even "Do not admit that we don't know what the heck UFOs are and we can't do anything about them." So the scientists and the authorities do everything they can to explain all the sightings and incidents, but when they run into one they can't explain they are stuck because they CAN'T admit the truth. I dunno, just an idea.

Oh, and PS .. most people function the way you describe and not just about "out-there" topics. Every time a piece of new and different information is presented to us, we first try to fit it in with what we already know/believe, and if it doesn't fit most people are more likely to discard it than make the time and effort to consider it.

JMHO

*** ATTENTION ***

This arguing and name calling stops now.

Not one more post calling someone a cooperite or anything else, other than by member name.

You will be civil in your posts.

The posts will get back on topic.

All posts from here on out that include name calling and / or off topic - insulting remarks will be removed and the member warned.

Originally posted by polomontana
I can show you cases that happened 20-30 years ago that's still unexplained even though the evidence explains what occured.

Please show us these cases, where it is demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that they are undeniably alien encounters.

Originally posted by polomontana
You can come to a conclusion based on the evidence while still looking for evidence that supports other possibilities, but without evidence you can't equate those possibilities with the evidence that has been reported and investigated.

Once again, "Reported and investigated" is meaningless when anyone can report anything. As is investigated in this context, as the investigation itself shows there is a lack of evidence to form a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, the only thing beyond a reasonable doubt is that it's unexplained.

Which you have forgotten the definition for.

Originally posted by polomontana
If evidence is shown that a U.F.O. case was a hoax, you will see the skeptic say it's hoax based on the evidence.

This is because there not looking for answers, there looking for anything that doesn't include extra-dimensional/extra-dimensional beings.

Are you trying to suggest there are no hoaxes or misindentifications?

Originally posted by polomontana
This is why when they can't find an answer that fits what they already believe, the case is 'UNEXPLAINED" EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN REPORTED AND INVESTIGATED EXPLAINS IT.

Refer to

Originally posted by polomontana
When skeptics find evidence of a hoax or it's been explained in a way that fits what they already believe like weather balloons or Lanterns, then it's case closed.

When they skeptic can't find evidence of a hoax, lantern or weather balloon, then it'S "UNEXPLAINED" UNTIL THEY CAN FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS WHAT THEY ALREADY BELIEVE.

Originally posted by polomontana
This is what I meant by limiting the sphere of knowledge.

This term, which you have repeated over and over again, is a contradiction. According to you, there is only one possible explanation. That in itself is a limiting the sphere of knowledge.

Originally posted by polomontana
When the skeptic can't find an answer that fits what they already believe about ufology...

This is the exact behavior you have engaged in this entire thread. When someone demonstrates that your claims are not beyond a reasonable doubt, you dismiss it as non-sensical, you attempt to define what is and is not acceptable ways of examining the evidence, and you move the goal-posts.

Originally posted by polomontana
When I can't find an answer backed by evidence, I accept that extra-terrestrials/extra-dimensional beings can exist and I look at other possibilities but they have to be backed by evidence.

No, you don't. You assume that the only explanation can be aliens.

Originally posted by polomontana
See how illogical it is? The skeptic has set up an illogical system that's not designed to seek the truth but to find answers that agree with what they already believe. The answer is most skeptics are not looking for answers, they are looking to support what they already believe about the subject.

The only one here that has set up an illogical system is you. Faced with a gap in data, you fill that gap with your desire. You come from the position that aliens exist, the evidence is in things no one can explain (because of a lack of data), and because aliens exist these things cannot be explained. It is a circular logic.

The point of this entire thread, the point of this entire argument is that you feel so insecure about the weight of your evidence that instead of attempting to prove your claims based on that evidence, you want to discuss skeptics instead. You do not want to prove your case via the evidence, but want to prove it by attacking skeptics.

reply to post by Heike


Heike, I don't understand this but I'm glad your seeking the truth.

You said,

"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."

You said words like assume and I don't care you the guy is and hearsay.

You can't be serious. You do know how to gather information?

Have you ever watched All The Presidents Men or read the book?

Did you see when Bernstein was talking to the F.B.I. agent and the agent said I heard this or that?

Did you see when Woodward was talking to Deepthroat in the garage?

Why did Woodward or Bernstein listen to this hearsay evidence?

It was because it was coming from people with credentials and they went an corraborated the stories.

Dr. Mitchell is not my next door neighbor that used to drive a cab and his story is corroborated by others in these same areas as well as direct and circumstantial evidence.

Why should I accept a possibility over what was actually said by Dr. Mitchell?

Until you give me evidence that shows why Dr. Mitchell would put his reputation on the line, then I'm not going to accept your opinion.

Until you show me why Dr. Mitchell didn't say, people told me and it might be true. He said, aliens have visited earth and he's not ambiguous about it. This means the people he talked to were in positions that would make him open himself to ridicule.

He also talked about the other reports from people that travel in the same circles as well as things that's been released by governments like France and Britain.

These things are not in isolation.

You said,

"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?"

No it's not.

What's reasonable to me is that these beings are doing experiments on us because they are connected to us in an evolutionary way.

Just like we do experiments on lower lifeforms like dogs and mice to find out about ourselves, it's more likely that they are doing the same.

They could also be producing hybrids.

You claim they travelled for miles. How do you know they didn't evolve in our own backyard? If they did why would they have to travel for years?

Have you heard about some of the latest discoveries about Mars and Titan? Have you read about Venus and the aciidic clouds or red rain?

Science has shown that the conditions for life to occur happened in our own back yard. They confirmed water on Mars.

To quote on Nasa Scientist, where there's water, there's life.

From NASA's website.

Narrator:

In a solar system full of amazing planets and moons, Jupiter's moon, Europa, stands out. Sandwiched between its icy skin and mantle, there's an ocean, twice the volume of all of Earth's oceans.

Bob Pappalardo, Senior Research Scientist, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Everywhere on Earth, where there's water, there's life. The search for life in our solar system is essentially the search for liquid water. The biggest deal about Europa, is that it may be the most promising place off of the Earth for life in our solar system.

www.nasa.gov...

NASA Spacecraft Confirms Martian Water, Mission Extended TUCSON, Ariz. -- Laboratory tests aboard NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander have identified water in a soil sample. The lander's robotic arm delivered the sample Wednesday to an instrument that identifies vapors produced by the heating of samples.

"We have water," said William Boynton of the University of Arizona, lead scientist for the Thermal and Evolved-Gas Analyzer, or TEGA. "We've seen evidence for this water ice before in observations by the Mars Odyssey orbiter and in disappearing chunks observed by Phoenix last month, but this is the first time Martian water has been touched and tasted."

www.nasa.gov...

You are the one being unreasonable, I say the evidence suggest that they didn't travel miles because they evolved in our own backyard.

Do you know that it's likely that your an extra-terrestrial?

Have you heard of Panspermia or Directed Panspermia?

Directed panspermia posits in regards to the question of origin of life on earth that "organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet. In 1973, Francis Crick and the chemist Leslie Orgel published an article in the International Journal of Solar System Studies (Icarus) which presented their Directed Panspermia proposal to the origin of life on earth. The abstract for the aforementioned Icarus article stated the following.

www.conservapedia.com...

This is coming from Nobel Prize Winner Francis Crick not me. This was before things like Water on Mars and Red Rain.

en.wikipedia.org...

So you could be a visitor on this planet.

[edit on 1-8-2008 by polomontana]

[edit on 1-8-2008 by polomontana]