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

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.

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.

Ok, I think I understand where you're coming from. You're stating that skeptics seem to easily accept evidence that UFOs are hoaxes, while not accepting the evidence that point to them being real. Is that correct?

The first thing I'd note is the ease of proving both of these things. Think about it: which do you think would be harder to prove, that a photo was doctored by man or that the lights you saw in the sky came from outside this earth? It's going to be easier to prove hoaxes than it is the validity of UFOs by nature. This doesn't mean that a bias has been set forth.

Secondly, I think the real confusion here lies in the difference between debunkers and skeptics. As has been pointed out elsewhere, debunkers usually have that pre-existing belief that you're talking about. Their goal is specifically to debunk evidence of UFOs and prove them false, or hoaxes. A skeptic, on the other hand, merely lacks a belief (usually), and requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to believe.

The distinction between the two gets obfuscated because often times, while examining the validity of the evidence for UFOs, it is discovered that it is a hoax. That does not mean, however, that the skeptic who analyzed the data was setting out to specifically disprove the claim. In other words, finding that something was a hoax does not mean the skeptic is actually a debunker.

Think of it this way, Montana. A skeptic starts off in a neutral position. All that has to occur is a positive confirmation on the evidence presented. If that does not happen, then no alternative explanation is offered. It's simply left as unexplained (unless it's a hoax, obviously). That doesn't mean the skeptic is trying to rule out the possibility of UFOs, it just means that possibility hasn't been proven. They're still open to it, just as they are to any other explanation.

It's a matter of intent. I happen to agree with you that there are some who actively set out to disprove UFOs, and do label something as unexplained only until a different possibility can be verified. Those people are debunkers.

That is not the case of the average skeptic, however.

Now...thoughts? Does this make our position any clearer?

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

On further thought, I am going to have to agree with you, Polomontana.

You are right, the sphere of knowledge is limited. However, skeptics are not limiting it. No one is. It is the natural state of knowledge regarding this phenomenon, because as things stand some things remain impossible to know.

Skeptics are not attempting to limit your knowledge, but rather demonstrate to you that the natural state of the knowledge is limited.

reply to post by thrashee


You said,

"Think of it this way, Montana. A skeptic starts off in a neutral position. All that has to occur is a positive confirmation on the evidence presented. If that does not happen, then no alternative explanation is offered. It's simply left as unexplained (unless it's a hoax, obviously). That doesn't mean the skeptic is trying to rule out the possibility of UFOs, it just means that possibility hasn't been proven. They're still open to it, just as they are to any other explanation."

Prove a possibility that has no evidence? This just means any possibility will do for the skeptic.

The problem is there's no evidence that supports what the skeptic already believes.

So if the evidince says extra-terrestrial then it's unexplained until the skeptic finds an answer that they can agree with.

The evidence as reported and investigated says extra-terrestrial, that's why it's labled unexplained because there is no evidence that says terrestrial.

Take Dr. Lier yet again,

The only evidence that has been reported and investigated is 11 patients who said they had an abduction experience. An object was extracted that has not been explained but test have shown some strange properties. These objects were found connected to nerve endings and and some gave off a radio frequency while in the body.

This is the evidence.

Are there other possibilities? Yes, but the evidence as reported and investigated can't be refuted by just throwing out an opinion or a possibility.

These are not cases in isolation. I have listed other abduction cases and sightings.

I can fill 42 pages on ATS with abduction accounts and sightings. This is not a case in isolation.

Originally posted by polomontana
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.

First, the standard of evidence in journalism are different than the standards of evidence in science.

Second, you are confusing the mundane and the extrodinary.

Compared to extraterrestrials visiting the Earth, a President engaging in high-crimes and misdemeanors is mundane. Mundane because it is something that as human, we all know. It is part of our daily-lives. However, extraterrestrial visitation cannot be considered mundane, because it is something that we do not experience in our daily lives. Therefore, the standards of evidence we require for an accusation against a corrupt President is much lower than claims of extraterrestrial visitation.

(There used to be a comment about Dr. Mitchell backtracking on his comments. I was wrong, he did not, he clarified his comments, saying that someone at Roswell told him the crash was real, and a Pentagon insider gave him information)

Originally posted by polomontana
The biggest deal about Europa, is that it may be the most promising place off of the Earth for life in our solar system.

Yes it is promising. But there is also all that sulferic-acid indicated in the surface ice of Europa, and anyone standing on Europa would be getting a lethal dose of radiation every 12 minutes. How well shielded from the radiation the theorized ocean beneath the ice is unknown.

However, life on Europa is irrelevant to this discussion, as it is about extraterrestrial visitation, not life. You keep accusing skeptics of denying life elsewhere in the universe. No one here has done that, insofar as this thread is concerned. You have again confused a disbelief in extraterrestrial visitation* with a disbelief in extraterrestrial life. The two are not the same. Would discovering life on Europa or Mars or Venus prove extraterrestrial visitation? No, but it would up the ante.

(*This isn't to say that a skeptic does not believe in the possibility, rather is unconvinced by the evidence)

[edit on 1-8-2008 by SaviorComplex]

[edit on 1-8-2008 by SaviorComplex]

reply to post by polomontana


You have not given proof. People who say they are abducted have no proof of the abduction, onnly their word. In most cases they were not in control of their faculties prior to the abduction, intoxicated, on drugs . . .ect. In order for it to be valid, there must be physical proof. In some cases they state they have scars, but none of theses scars have been proven to be abduction related.

Heresay is not physical proof and therefore not evidence in supporting that aliens have or are visiting us.

Originally posted by AlienCarnage
reply to post by polomontana

 

You have not given proof. People who say they are abducted have no proof of the abduction, onnly their word. In most cases they were not in control of their faculties prior to the abduction, intoxicated, on drugs . . .ect. In order for it to be valid, there must be physical proof. In some cases they state they have scars, but none of theses scars have been proven to be abduction related.

Heresay is not physical proof and therefore not evidence in supporting that aliens have or are visiting us.

So the 62 kids in Zimbabwe were all drunk of kool-aid?

So the 12 kids in Russia and the 30-40 adults in Russia were all drunk?

See what I mean about Reductio Ad Absurdum?

I showed a skeptic wants to throw out any possibility and equate it with the evidence that has been reported and investigated.

When you are gathering evidence, hearsay counts if it's coming from credible sources.

Are newspapers would be empty if it wasn't for hearsay evidence that can be corroborated.

Like I said, Dr. Mitchell is not in isolation. I can list 42 pages of similar stories, abduction cases and mass sightings.

Originally posted by polomontana
Prove a possibility that has no evidence? This just means any possibility will do for the skeptic.

You're not listening. The skeptic isn't looking for "any possibility". The skeptic isn't staking a claim in the matter, until and unless one is presented with enough evidence to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that skeptics aren't out to prefer one possibility over another?

The problem is there's no evidence that supports what the skeptic already believes.

So if the evidince says extra-terrestrial then it's unexplained until the skeptic finds an answer that they can agree with.

Are you even reading my posts? The skeptic doesn't already believe something. I just got done explaining that to you, and your very next reply is to keep repeating yourself as though nary a word was said. The skeptic doesn't have some pre-defined answer they're trying to find.

Answer this for us: do you believe that all skeptics are simply biased, and have a pre-defined belief that excludes the possibility of UFOs?

Is this your bias?

Polo,

I can see we're going to need to be careful in our communications. Not sure why, but we seem to be prone to misunderstanding each other. So please don't think I'm being patronizing or condescending; I promise I'm not. I'm just trying to be as clear and simple (and now, direct) as possible to avoid misunderstanding.

I don't propose that E. Mitchell is lying. I propose that E. Mitchell may have been lied to, and that neither he nor any other human has sufficient knowledge to realize it.

If a person says that an alien said he's from Zeta Reticuli, why do we just take it for granted? It's not like me saying I'm from Germany. (Although, if you did question that I'd merely shrug and dig up my birth certificate.) Is there any human being or expert that has real, irrefutable evidence of exactly where any of these aliens are from? (Hence my too-subtle joke about "did anyone follow them home?") I could say I'm from Chicago, you have no way of knowing if I'm telling the truth or not unless you check official records and documents, and me giving you a street map of where my old house is doesn't help much either, I could have just gotten it off of Google. Where can we look to independently verify where an alien said he is from? Now, if they took an astronomer or 3 with them back to their home planet we might get some proof!

Someone's next question will be: "Why would they lie about it?"

Well, let's see:
If they're from the future, they are lying to protect the timeline. Or just to avoid answering lots of stupid questions like "who wins the superbowl next year?"
If they're from a hollow Earth, they don't want us to go looking for them! Ditto if they're from the unexplored ocean depths.
If they're just popping in from another dimension, they likely don't want us to figure out how to get to their world.

Just because a creature is obviously not human and says he's from 'another planet,' why don't we want some verification of that before we accept it? If it really matters for some reason (like for employment or something) we don't just accept where an ordinary human says he's from without checking up on it! So do you see now where I'm coming from when I say that I don't have enough evidence to decide where these aliens are from?

That's probably enough for one post, if you want to continue after we've done this point to death we'll move on to the next one.

While it is claimed that 62 kids witnessed this supposed UFO landing, at most only 12 of the kids have been interviewed. And there are inconsistences with the claims, as I have shown in earlier posts in this thread.

Originally posted by polomontana
So the 12 kids in Russia and the 30-40 adults in Russia were all drunk?

Could you please refresh our memories on this one? Where did it take place again?

reply to post by polomontana


First off, those who witnessed a "UFO" - A UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object, not necessarily an alien space craft. They saw something that was unidentified. This is not proof of alien visitation and therefore not a valid point to your argument.

Second the Kids were not drunk on “Kool-Aid”. They are kids and kids are prone to turn the ordinary into the extraordinary. Kids are known to have very imaginative and inventive minds. This is also not a valid point to your argument.

Newspaper stories don’t need to be accurate just entertaining enough to sell their paper or magazine so they don’t mind accepting hearsay. When it comes to investigating claims to find the truth we need proof.

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.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
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.

This thread is now 43 pages long yet the skeptics never mentioned what kind of "proof" or "evidence" they want. Despite the preponderance of UFO materials (sightings, photos, aliens and spacecrafts recovered from crash sites, videos, abductions, documentaries dedicated to UFO's that have crashed or landed on this planet, etc.) the skeptics stubbornly insist that this issue must FIT their psychology and philosophy which is the refusal in believing UFO's exist. The same psychology and philosophy can be applied to anything, the same set of reasoning or mold or argumentation can be applied whether you're a skeptic or a believer. Therefore this thread will just go around back to the original argument. A skeptic cannot be convinced of anything that is contrary to his belief and his belief is the vehicle upon which his psychology and philosophy travels along the road of argumentation to "prove" something, in this case, skepticism.

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
This thread is now 43 pages long yet the skeptics never mentioned what kind of "proof" or "evidence" they want. Despite the preponderance of UFO materials (sightings, photos, aliens and spacecrafts recovered from crash sites, videos, abductions, documentaries dedicated to UFO's that have crashed or landed on this planet, etc.) the skeptics stubbornly insist that this issue must FIT their psychology and philosophy which is the refusal in believing UFO's exist.

I think what skeptics are really learning here is the inherent bias believers have towards them. That's an interesting turn of events.

We cannot give you this magical, golden evidence because we're starting out from a neutral position. Contrary to what you and Montana apparently believe, we don't have some agenda to simply not believe. In other words, the magical evidence required will simply be that which proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that aliens exist. Then you'll have your answer.

The problem here is that you are apparently disgruntled with skeptics for not accepting the evidence at hand. This seems to be what really fuels this bias you have against us, and so you apparently reason that we're just being unfair and exercising our own beliefs.

I'm sorry if you feel that way, but we've demonstrated over and over again why the evidence you have on hand does not prove your claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Curiously, rather than addressing this directly, you seem to recycle back into the same loop of asserting that we're just biased.

[edit on 1-8-2008 by thrashee]

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
Despite the preponderance of UFO materials (sightings, photos, aliens and spacecrafts recovered from crash sites, videos, abductions, documentaries dedicated to UFO's that have crashed or landed on this planet, etc.) the skeptics stubbornly insist that this issue must FIT their psychology and philosophy which is the refusal in believing UFO's exist.

That's just it. There UFO"S, "UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS" so how can anyone say they are alien spacecraft And taking some one's word that it's real is throwing away all logic and reason. Believers will never change their minds because it would crush their confidence if all they believed in was false. Skeptics will not take that chance. We do require proof in terms of let me see it, touch it, smell it. So no matter how much logic and reason you use as a skeptic, it doesn't matter to a believer because they do not use the same logic and reason. Yes this thread will just go around and around and in the end there's still no proof.

Awesome thread!!

[edit on 8/1/2008 by Solarskye]

Originally posted by polomontana
So the 12 kids in Russia and the 30-40 adults in Russia were all drunk?

Are you refering to the Voronezh, Russia case in 1989?

Some problems with the account:

The original details of the case were brought forward by Genrikh Silanov, head of the Voronezh Geophysical Laboratory, who gave details to the TASS agency. Silanov stated that the media took an enormous amount of creative freedom with his report.

"Don't believe all you hear from Tass," he stated." We never gave them part of what they published."

Also...

Several drawings were made by some of the children who supposedly witnessed the events of Voronezh. A couple of these are included here. One of the drawings showed the Cyrillic alphabet character "zhe" on the side of the UFO.

Why in the world would an alien craft have Cyrillic writing on it?

Plus, some UFO sites seem to think the whole thing is a hoax:

It is quite certain that the reports of the Vononezh aliens were highly sensationalized, and it is probable that the event did not even happen in the first place. SOURCE

The Voronezh case is a hoax...SOURCE

The link above details how they used a divining-rod (!) to locate where the UFO landed, how some of the anomalous material could be explained via Chernobyl, and how despite claims of dozens of witnesses, only four children were interviewed, and no adults!

It is true, the poplar is curved but people insist in saying that it was like that forever. The holes, although trampled, can be seen. But it is said that they were dug a few years ago.

On October 28, Agence France Press published a new more informed dispatch: a commission directed by the vice-president of the University of Voronezh had carried out analyses and checks on the site of the landing, and refuted all the rumours: no radioactivity, no anomaly. The chief of the Laboratory of Geophysics of Voronezh specified that so-called "rock unknown on Earth requiring more analyses" was merely a piece of iron ore.

Russian ufologist Boris Shurinov would later note: "the case collapsed like a house of cards and the journalists who raveled on the spot found themselves vis-a-vis kids burning with the desire for being interviewed and very ready to declare themselves witnesses."
SOURCE

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
the skeptics stubbornly insist that this issue must FIT their psychology and philosophy which is the refusal in believing UFO's exist.

That characterization is so consistently wrong, that it calls into doubt your ability to read, comprehend, and formulate accurate opinions on any subject.

Here's my proposal:

Why don't we just address the original OP once and for all and be done with it.

Montana: do you believe that skeptics are inherently biased against the possibility that UFOs are real?

Is there a reason why what we've said when trying to address this has been summarily ignored and rejected by you?

What would it take for you to trust that not all skeptics have a pre-existing belief and truly do simply require proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it possible?

Please answer these questions as directly as possible: no more links to more evidence, no list of extraneous rhetorical questions, no forays into the justice system or journalism.

Originally posted by NoRunRichard

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.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
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.

This thread is now 43 pages long yet the skeptics never mentioned what kind of "proof" or "evidence" they want. Despite the preponderance of UFO materials (sightings, photos, aliens and spacecrafts recovered from crash sites, videos, abductions, documentaries dedicated to UFO's that have crashed or landed on this planet, etc.) the skeptics stubbornly insist that this issue must FIT their psychology and philosophy which is the refusal in believing UFO's exist. The same psychology and philosophy can be applied to anything, the same set of reasoning or mold or argumentation can be applied whether you're a skeptic or a believer. Therefore this thread will just go around back to the original argument. A skeptic cannot be convinced of anything that is contrary to his belief and his belief is the vehicle upon which his psychology and philosophy travels along the road of argumentation to "prove" something, in this case, skepticism.

Very good post.

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
This thread is now 43 pages long yet the skeptics never mentioned what kind of "proof" or "evidence" they want.

On the contrary, I have said what kind of evidence I want: incontrovertible.*

In this case, the definition of incontrovertible is a bit loose, because we don't know how that evidence will manifest. It could be a fleet of ships appearing over American-cities in a display that no one could possibly deny. It could be very public crash. It could be what appears to be a tiny piece of evidence that leads up to a much bigger conclusion.

Or it could be a predonderance of very strong evidence that leads us to a solid conclusion.

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
Despite the preponderance of UFO materials (sightings, photos, aliens and spacecrafts recovered from crash sites, videos, abductions, documentaries dedicated to UFO's that have crashed or landed on this planet, etc.)

This preponderance you are claiming is not a preponderance. Sightings do not give us hard evidence, rather circumstantial evidence that must be interpreted. At best it leads us to the dead end we call "unexplained." Photos are better, but rare is a photo that is not shown to be a hoax. And ultimately, the best photos again lead us to that dead end. As for alien bodies and spacecraft, we only have stories, no hard evidence has been forthcoming. And I do not see how you can use documentaries as evidence of anything, as documentaries can document the viewpoint of the producers just as easily they can the truth; and there are UFO documentaries produced in earlier decades that are laughable now (Overlords of the UFO, anyone?).

You may have this evidence, but it less-than-convincing.

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
the skeptics stubbornly insist that this issue must FIT their psychology and philosophy which is the refusal in believing UFO's exist.

Careful now, no one here is saying UFOs don't exist. We are saying we are unconvinced by claims of extraterrestrial visitation. There is a difference.

(*but it is understandable how you would think we haven't said what kind of proof we want. I have not been articulate about it in this thread. My apologies)

[edit on 1-8-2008 by SaviorComplex]

I think we need to narrow this down some or we're going to be here all year.

First off, everyone who believes unequivocally that we are alone in the universe as intelligent, sentient beings, take a spectator seat for a bit.

Second off, everyone who unequivocally believes that UFOs (a flying object that has not been identified and/or does not have a 'mundane' explanation) do not exist, take a spectator seat for a bit.

(Did we actually lose anyone?)

Now we can stop fussing about UFO evidence and the existence of 'extraterrestrials' in general and get to the real issue: Are aliens visiting Earth?

Isn't that the real question? Not "are there UFOs" or even "is there extraterrestrial life" but

are Aliens visiting (or living on/near) Earth??

Perhaps we can all agree that that is the real question and the evidence/questions we must consider or not, and thereby discard lots of extraneous stuff? I haven't seen anyone say "there are no UFOs" I just see some people not convinced that they are aliens.

Yes? No? If I'm wrong, just tell me so and proceed....

Originally posted by polomontana
The only evidence that has been reported and investigated is 11 patients who said they had an abduction experience.

That is fairly straightforward...hard to dispute what they say, I wasn't there. The unspoken assumption is that each of them had foreign bodies removed by Dr. Leir. Okay....now I don't claim any abduction experiences, but I'm full of foreign bodies. Shotgun pellets, metal slivers, glass, etc.....the point being that foreign objects can be found in many people.

An object was extracted that has not been explained but test have shown some strange properties.

Actually, there's a doctor from Israel that's offered an explanation, but I'm guessing you don't want to read that. The most prevalent strange properties I've been able to dig up is the metallurgical findings. And it's important to note that those particular findings don't cover all of the objects removed. The most glaring problem with this "evidence" is its lack of cross-reference. Claims are made that multiple labs have tested the objects, yet the official results have not been independently released.

These objects were found connected to nerve endings

Correction, the information I've found says they were found in close proximity to nerve endings. And that's not particularly surprising....there are a lot of nerve endings in the human body.

some gave off a radio frequency while in the body.

The only measuring device mentioned is a gaussmeter...otherwise known as a magnetometer. It measures, obviously, magnetic fields. Any metallic object has a native magnetic field.

I can fill 42 pages on ATS with abduction accounts and sightings. This is not a case in isolation.

It becomes a case in isolation because one man is reporting these findings. There appear to be no sources independent of Dr. Roger Leir that can support or confirm any of his claims. That's where skeptics do the "uh-oh".....it sure would bolster the case if multiple doctors and multiple labs, reported identical or nearly identical findings.