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

Originally posted by polomontana
My claim that based on the preponderance of evidence extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional are a reasonable possibility and the evidence shows that extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings exist beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's no wonder why you can't be debated. The example I've quoted is so tortuously illogical and requires such a stupefying leap backward in reasoning that it leaves most level-headed people gasping in amusement.

Mr. Penny,

It's a very simple statement.

People just want me to debate these things on their terms.

That's not gonna happen.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by polomontana]

Originally posted by polomontana
I didn't say, extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings are an empirical truth. This is what you want to debate.

My claim that based on the preponderance of evidence extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional are a reasonable possibility and the evidence shows that extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings exist beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not based on opinion, belief, scientific method or empirical truth.

So, extraterrestrial visitation is not an empirical truth, but they exist beyond a reasonable doubt?

They exist beyond a reasonable doubt, but this is not your belief nor opinion, nor based on any empirical evidence?

Is anyone else confused here?

Anyone else think that Polomontana does not know what "opinion" is?

What you stated in the quote above is the epitome and definition of belief and opinion. When you have no empirical evidence, when you draw a conclusion based on evidence that relies on your interpretation, that is opinion.

The reason no one can debate you, Polomontana, is because you do not debate. You refuse to debate. You state your opinion as if it is an undeniable truth. When there are questions about that or the scant evidence you provide, you dismiss the questions without answer. You instead restate your opinion, repost the same links, then declare, without backing it up, your evidence and opinion are irrefutable. You do not tell us why.

And then you have the audacity to say people are just repeating themselves.

By the way, I noticed that once again, you did not answer questions about Voronezh. I watched the video, and nothing in it says why claims of the witnesses in the video outweigh the findings of others who have investigated the incident. Anyone else notice that Polomontana once again ignored the questions?

Again, I ask:

What in the video refutes the findings of others who have studied the incident? What refutes the claim the poplar tree was already bent? What refutes the claim the depressions were already there? What refutes the claim that scorch marks were already there? What refutes any of the counter-arguments?

Answer the question without reposting the YouTube video. We have seen it, but it does not provide the answers to the questions we have asked. Answer the question without making a simple declarative statement. Back up your claim. If you cannot answer without reposting the Youtube video or just making a declarative statement, it will be proof you cannot answer them.

Originally posted by polomontana
You can't choose how I investigate things within ufology.

Just as you cannot chose how we falsify your claims and show a reasonable doubt. Which is the exact thing you have attempted to do, which is why you think no one can debate you. When someone presents an argument to falsify and show a reasonable doubt, you want to choose how they can make that argument, what methods they want to use. You want to choose what methods people can use so you will not have to debate, so you will not have to answer questions, so you will not be challenged, so you will not have to think. You cannot be debated, because you make it impossible to debate you, not because of the strength of your evidence or arguments, but because you refuse to debate.

Originally posted by polomontana
People just want me to debate these things on their terms.

That's not gonna happen.

Of course it isn't. Because you are not going to debate.

Your terms are that there are no terms. When an argument, evidence, or question is presented, the terms shift so Polomontana does not have to acknowledge those questions, evidence, or arguments. The terms shift so you do not have to debate. Thus, there never has been a debate, just you telling us what we can and cannot debate.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by SaviorComplex]

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Savior, maybe you're being too hard on the guy. After all, it's our fault for assuming that "beyond a reasonable doubt" would entail reason or account for doubt.

Montana, you've consistently defended your own beliefs by projecting the antithesis of them onto us. It's a wonderfully self-preserving mindset to have, and I'm sure it works just dandy for you. The only real problem I have here is that you justify your own prejudice against skeptics in this manner. I find your reasoning, your debates, and your sheer disregard for honest discourse utterly reprehensible. If I were a mod, I would bar you from the ability to create threads, as you cannot be trusted to stay on topic for your own OP.

Polomontana

May I ask my question again? It was only answered by TruthTellist, but I would like your answer, after all it was a question for you.

When you said:
THE EVIDENCE SHOWS EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL/EXTRA-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS EXIST BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT

the fact that you used two possibilities (extra-terrestrial and extra-dimensional beings) isn't that in itself a reasonable doubt?

Are you undecided if those beings are ETs or EDs? Or are they the same thing?

Originally posted by thrashee
Good idea, Savior. They were buried 5 pages ago

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?


I'm thinking at this point the OP has abandoned his thread. *shrug*

These statements are too good to be true and the person who will answer to their questions will be a fool. I've never met a skeptic who does not question anything because they have ego, arrogance, pride, and a pre-existing belief that intelligent alien life does not exist somewhere in the Universe. These kinds of statements of theirs also further show that they are hypocrites, telling you they're not biased and all they need is proof beyond reasonable doubt. I've never met a skeptic who didn't say "Really, do you have ABSOLUTE proof to back up that claim?" Like I said several pages back, even if an entire alien spaceship was actually shown to skeptics they will still not tell you that they believe in it because of the design of their logic and their preference that denies the existence of intelligent alien life besides that of Earth. Because they are skeptics they will tell you that Earth is the only planet with intelligent life. So regardless of any evidence and reasoning a believer will offer in this forum the end result will still be the skeptics denying the existence of aliens and alien spacecraft. Look how long this thread is now, the possibility of a skeptic accepting the truth has already passed many pages ago. And any believer who would show proof will just be making an ass of himself because some skeptics, 1% of them, will believe you but will not say they do but they already have possession of any technical information the believer offered, sort of like a con game. The bottom line in this forum is that THE SKEPTICS IN THIS FORUM WILL NOT CHANGE THEIR MINDS concerning the existence of intelligent alien life regardless of how many pages these arguments will take.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by NoRunRichard]

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
These statements are too good to be true and the person who will answer to their questions will be a fool. I've never met a skeptic who does not question anything because they have ego, arrogance, pride, and a pre-existing belief that intelligent alien life does not exist somewhere in the Universe.

Unfortunately for you, sir, you're now a liar: you've "met" me, and I've outright said in this thread that the existence of alien life is probable based on numbers and odds alone.

Now. Let's exercise a modicum of thinking here and try to understand the difference between aliens existing and UFOs being proof that aliens exist and have therefore visited Earth.

It's a very minor distinction that you accidentally ignored.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" was the claim Montana made. Let's just forego semantics here when discussing proof and stick to his words. Do I really need to point out the sheer idiocy in including that kind of requirement in a claim? You understand that all one needs do, therefore, is introduce a reasonable doubt, and poof!! His claim is put down. We've done precisely that, over and over again, and instead of directly discussing our logic, Montana has taken us on the scenic route across a country side of befuddled logic, false accusations, and irrelevant data. And the real kicker is, the destination ended up being a contradiction of the journey itself--he never meant to hold his claims up to scientific standards!

I'm going to let you in on a secret regarding us skeptics: you believers shoot yourselves in the foot. You do it time after time. Go take a trip through the ATS threads. See how many of them start off with "Undeniable proof that aliens are among us!!!", only to find out that that proof is a third-hand account of a second-hand story. How about "Alien craft captured on film!!", only to discover a photo with a streak in the sky. "Breaking news! Expert comes forward with tale of cover-up!!", only to find the expert witness is a nut job without a shred of evidence.

You're absolutely begging not to be taken seriously. And when we don't, you cry foul and just blame it on our "pre-existing belief" that conveniently is the antithesis of yours.

Did you honestly think any skeptic in here was going to be convinced by this thread? In any case, that wasn't even what this thread was about, mind you. Montana was asking questions to skeptics. His premise was just as flawed as the train wreck that followed. This thread can easily be summed up by the irony that Montana refuses to address the OP in a thread entitled "The Questions Skeptics Can't Answer".

reply to post by thrashee

Did you honestly think any skeptic in here was going to be convinced by this thread? In any case, that wasn't even what this thread was about, mind you. Montana was asking questions to skeptics. His premise was just as flawed as the train wreck that followed. This thread can easily be summed up by the irony that Montana refuses to address the OP in a thread entitled "The Questions Skeptics Can't Answer"

You know thrashee, I believe Saviour, you and I as well as many others have all answered the OP questions, so what are these questions that we can not answer?

If you figure it out let me know, because the only question that comes to mind that I can't answer is why we continue to ask Montana questions to help support his OP when it is obvious that even he realizes that he can no longer justify the OP questions he asked as being un answerable by skeptics.

[edit on 8/6/2008 by AlienCarnage]

reply to post by AlienCarnage


Good point, AlienCarnage. One can only wonder.

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
These statements are too good to be true and the person who will answer to their questions will be a fool. I've never met a skeptic who does not question anything because they have ego, arrogance, pride, and a pre-existing belief that intelligent alien life does not exist somewhere in the Universe.

Originally posted by thrashee

Unfortunately for you, sir, you're now a liar: you've "met" me, and I've outright said in this thread that the existence of alien life is probable based on numbers and odds alone.

Now. Let's exercise a modicum of thinking here and try to understand the difference between aliens existing and UFOs being proof that aliens exist and have therefore visited Earth.

What I've stated is reality. You (and don't patronize me) are the liars. You're just twisting things around, you're good at that. "Probability" is not definite belief intelligent alien life exists, this is just like saying "maybe." That's why you are skeptics, you question everything and never believe in the facts. By the way, you accuse me as a liar, that's your ego at work. Everything I've stated above is true and you want to slither away from it from this high-profile forum.

....Montana has taken us on the scenic route across a country side of befuddled logic, false accusations, and irrelevant data. And the real kicker is, the destination ended up being a contradiction of the journey itself--he never meant to hold his claims up to scientific standards!

You embellish your statements with figuratives in order to make it look legit. To tell you the truth I'm tired of reading these gimrack statements. Montana is doing exactly what he and I said: To not answer your questions on your terms. The preponderance of evidence he is saying defies any logic denying the existence of alien beings. Yet you continue to hound him with your logic because of your ego, credibility, and arrogance because you're philosophers and what good is your philosophy if the denial of the existence of aliens won't fit in it, right? I have no problem in believing this, you have a problem, maybe something is wrong with you.

I'm going to let you in on a secret regarding us skeptics: you believers shoot yourselves in the foot. You do it time after time....How about "Alien craft captured on film!!", only to discover a photo with a streak in the sky. "Breaking news! Expert comes forward with tale of cover-up!!", only to find the expert witness is a nut job without a shred of evidence.

You skeptics shoot yourselves in the foot also when faced with the preponderance of evidence on the matter. Of course not all evidences and photos are true but a vast majority of them are. I say again, the preponderance of evidence, including such events as the crash at Roswell defy any logic to the contrary.

You're absolutely begging not to be taken seriously. And when we don't, you cry foul and just blame it on our "pre-existing belief" that conveniently is the antithesis of yours.

It's not convenience, this is you skeptics, you must have this pre-existing belief in order to tenaciously argue negatively.

Did you honestly think any skeptic in here was going to be convinced by this thread? In any case, that wasn't even what this thread was about, mind you. Montana was asking questions to skeptics. His premise was just as flawed as the train wreck that followed. This thread can easily be summed up by the irony that Montana refuses to address the OP in a thread entitled "The Questions Skeptics Can't Answer".

I don't see any flaws in his reasoning, that is only your invention because he doesn't agree with you. If he refuses to answer his OP that is because he doesn't trust you to agree with him, after all you're skeptics, right? So be it.

reply to post by NoRunRichard


Ok here is a theoretical question.
Say someone told you I had a alien space craft that landed in my back yard, and he told me that the skies of the world would be one day filled with his type of ship.

My response would be to ask for proof of the visitation.
What would be your response?

Originally posted by AlienCarnage
reply to post by NoRunRichard

 

Ok here is a theoretical question.
Say someone told you I had a alien space craft that landed in my back yard, and he told me that the skies of the world would be one day filled with his type of ship.

My response would be to ask for proof of the visitation.
What would be your response?

Of course later anybody would ask that person to lead him to the location of the landing site. This has already been proven by tests and investigations conducted on the landing site. I also believe that some people have photos of the landing site and the alien spacecraft. Another credible proof would be photos taken by the military and the Government.

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
What I've stated is reality. You (and don't patronize me) are the liars. You're just twisting things around, you're good at that. "Probability" is not definite belief intelligent alien life exists, this is just like saying "maybe." That's why you are skeptics, you question everything and never believe in the facts. By the way, you accuse me as a liar, that's your ego at work. Everything I've stated above is true and you want to slither away from it from this high-profile forum.

Put the Kool-Aid down. Do so immediately, otherwise there may be no hope for you.

Yes, that equates to a "maybe". And you know what does NOT equal "maybe"? That's right--that so-called pre-existing belief you seem to think every skeptic has. Thanks for validating my point I'm sorry, did I "twist" too fast for you, or were you able to keep up?

You embellish your statements with figuratives in order to make it look legit. To tell you the truth I'm tired of reading these gimrack statements. Montana is doing exactly what he and I said: To not answer your questions on your terms. The preponderance of evidence he is saying defies any logic denying the existence of alien beings.

It was legit. A lobotomized chimpanzee could read through these forums and make the same conclusions. And I'll tell you, I got a good chuckle about your claim that Montana is refusing to answer questions on OUR terms. I know, it's too difficult to address such questions as "do you believe all skeptics x, y, z...." Or have you still not figured out that I could give a rat's behind about the evidence any longer? Defies ANY logic? Are you sure you want to make such a claim? That's almost as bad as "beyond reasonable doubt". Actually, it's exactly as bad.

Look here, guy (or gal). Has the scientific, political, (hell, let's throw in Montana's favorite red herrings), legal, and journalism communities accepted as fact that aliens exist? Hmm, guess they're all defying that logic of which you speak.

Yet you continue to hound him with your logic because of your ego, credibility, and arrogance because you're philosophers and what good is your philosophy if the denial of the existence of aliens won't fit in it, right? I have no problem in believing this, you have a problem, maybe something is wrong with you.

Actually, I gave up using logic with him long ago. You didn't catch on to that either, did you? We're philosophers, eh? Maybe you also missed that part where we weren't maintaining ANY belief. Yeah, so many hard details to keep track of. Take your shoes off to count if you have to.

You skeptics shoot yourselves in the foot also when faced with the preponderance of evidence on the matter. Of course not all evidences and photos are true but a vast majority of them are. I say again, the preponderance of evidence, including such events as the crash at Roswell defy any logic to the contrary.

We do, eh? Well, until YOUR belief is regarded as FACT, I wouldn't worry about our feet


The vast majority? Do me a favor: start counting how many threads in here get the HOAX label applied to them. Then tell me your numbers again.

It's not convenience, this is you skeptics, you must have this pre-existing belief in order to tenaciously argue negatively.

We're tenacious because, oh, I don't know, with things like the existence of alien life, scrutiny and analyzation is kinda a neat-o thing to have. Maybe it's just a hip scientific fad that will pass in another 2,000 years. Hold your breath.

I don't see any flaws in his reasoning, that is only your invention because he doesn't agree with you. If he refuses to answer his OP that is because he doesn't trust you to agree with him, after all you're skeptics, right? So be it.

Did something gouge your eyes out when you were a kid? I see, so he can ONLY answer his questions IF I agree with him, eh? Sounds like a real healthy belief system you got going there. Once again, danka for making my point for me.

Originally posted by thrashee

Put the Kool-Aid down. Do so immediately, otherwise there may be no hope for you.

Yes, that equates to a "maybe". And you know what does NOT equal "maybe"? That's right--that so-called pre-existing belief you seem to think every skeptic has. Thanks for validating my point

I'm sorry, did I "twist" too fast for you, or were you able to keep up?

Yep, you twisted things around again but I was able to keep up.

You embellish your statements with figuratives in order to make it look legit. To tell you the truth I'm tired of reading these gimrack statements. Montana is doing exactly what he and I said: To not answer your questions on your terms. The preponderance of evidence he is saying defies any logic denying the existence of alien beings.

It was legit. A lobotomized chimpanzee could read through these forums and make the same conclusions. And I'll tell you, I got a good chuckle about your claim that Montana is refusing to answer questions on OUR terms. I know, it's too difficult to address such questions as "do you believe all skeptics x, y, z...." Or have you still not figured out that I could give a rat's behind about the evidence any longer? Defies ANY logic? Are you sure you want to make such a claim? That's almost as bad as "beyond reasonable doubt". Actually, it's exactly as bad.

Yes, it defies any logic. Don't you think the military and the Government don't have photo evidences? Oh yes, you're skeptics, you don't believe in anything. Your logic is what put you skeptics in a little box as one contributor once said.

Look here, guy (or gal). Has the scientific, political, (hell, let's throw in Montana's favorite red herrings), legal, and journalism communities accepted as fact that aliens exist? Hmm, guess they're all defying that logic of which you speak.

Yes.

Originally posted by NoRunRichard

You skeptics shoot yourselves in the foot also when faced with the preponderance of evidence on the matter. Of course not all evidences and photos are true but a vast majority of them are. I say again, the preponderance of evidence, including such events as the crash at Roswell defy any logic to the contrary.

We do, eh? Well, until YOUR belief is regarded as FACT, I wouldn't worry about our feet

That's right again! These evidences are to be regarded as fact.

The vast majority? Do me a favor: start counting how many threads in here get the HOAX label applied to them. Then tell me your numbers again.

On the other hand, words such as hoax, fakes, etc. are your convenient descriptions of anything that does not square with your beliefs and logic.

We're tenacious because, oh, I don't know, with things like the existence of alien life, scrutiny and analyzation is kinda a neat-o thing to have. Maybe it's just a hip scientific fad that will pass in another 2,000 years. Hold your breath.

It is and I'm sure it will, maybe even earlier.

Did something gouge your eyes out when you were a kid? I see, so he can ONLY answer his questions IF I agree with him, eh? Sounds like a real healthy belief system you got going there. Once again, danka for making my point for me.

Right. There's no point in continuing the argument if there is no agreement between the 2 people otherwise it would be a waste of time and energy for the both of you. With the preponderance of photographic and material evidences from people and the Government logic becomes absurd when it comes to discussing this subject especially with a real abductee.

[edit on 7-8-2008 by NoRunRichard]

[edit on 7-8-2008 by NoRunRichard]

[edit on 7-8-2008 by NoRunRichard]

[edit on 7-8-2008 by NoRunRichard]

reply to post by NoRunRichard


It wouldn't be a waste of time if people--even on the opposite "sides", could come to an understanding of how each other thinks and reasons. This has clearly not been the case here.

We've said it over and over again that reasonable doubt still exists, despite your evidence. We've taken the time to elaborate on that reasonable doubt. And we've asked you to address that reasoning if you disagreed with it.

Instead, you fall back on another belief--that we're protecting our own belief even though not one of you has actually asked what we actually believe in. See, we can maintain a difference between our beliefs and what we still require in order to claim to know. That's the biggest difference between the two camps present here.

Think about it. You're now claiming as fact that the government has indisputable proof of alien existence. But this "fact" is unfortunately as unsupported and unproven as any other.

Why is it so hard for you to simply state that you believe aliens exist because there is enough evidence to support that? And why can't we simply state that we don't know aliens exist because there's not enough evidence to support that?




[edit on 7-8-2008 by thrashee]

Originally posted by thrashee
reply to post by NoRunRichard

 

It wouldn't be a waste of time if people--even on the opposite "sides", could come to an understanding of how each other thinks and reasons. This has clearly not been the case here.

We've said it over and over again that reasonable doubt still exists, despite your evidence. We've taken the time to elaborate on that reasonable doubt. And we've asked you to address that reasoning if you disagreed with it.

Instead, you fall back on another belief--that we're protecting our own belief even though not one of you has actually asked what we actually believe in. See, we can maintain a difference between our beliefs and what we still require in order to claim to know. That's the biggest difference between the two camps present here.

Think about it. You're now claiming as fact that the government has indisputable proof of alien existence. But this "fact" is unfortunately as unsupported and unproven as any other.

Why is it so hard for you to simply state that you believe aliens exist because there is enough evidence to support that? And why can't we simply state that we don't know aliens exist because there's not enough evidence to support that?




[edit on 7-8-2008 by thrashee]

Many pages ago I asked you what evidence do you need to prove alien existence beyond a reasonable doubt and you said "We're looking for any evidence proving aliens exist beyond a reasonable doubt" or something to that effect. This could be anything, the evidence could be a pen from the alien spaceship or the aliens and their spaceship themselves. Later I also said that no skeptic could be satisfied even if they are shown the aliens and their spacecraft themselves and I was not wrong about this. You label every evidence as "unsupported and unproven and reasonable doubt exists" because you wanted it to be that way in order to defend your denial that aliens exist. See, you can't be satisfied with any evidence otherwise this argument should have ended many pages ago, you simply just refuse to acknowledge. So I think I'm through with this BS.

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
Many pages ago I asked you what evidence do you need to prove alien existence beyond a reasonable doubt and you said "We're looking for any evidence proving aliens exist beyond a reasonable doubt" or something to that effect. This could be anything, the evidence could be a pen from the alien spaceship or the aliens and their spaceship themselves. Later I also said that no skeptic could be satisfied even if they are shown the aliens and their spacecraft themselves and I was not wrong about this. You label every evidence as "unsupported and unproven and reasonable doubt exists" because you wanted it to be that way in order to defend your denial that aliens exist. See, you can't be satisfied with any evidence otherwise this argument should have ended many pages ago, you simply just refuse to acknowledge. So I think I'm through with this BS.

Do you have a pen from an alien spacecraft? And if so, what about this pen will prove that it came from an alien spacecraft? And what about it would prove that the spacecraft itself is actually from space, rather than, as others have pointed out, from time or another dimension?

Do you have aliens to present to us? Do you have their craft to present to us?

No. You have photos of unknown objects. Many of them are hoaxes. You have crop circles, many of which are hoaxes. You have eye witness testimonies and abduction stories. You have ex-government officials claiming that they've seen this or that.

So until you can pop out an alien or a spacecraft, why don't you refrain from making such ridiculous claims like "skeptics will never believe no matter the evidence".

Again, all of that may be enough evidence for you, but it's not for science, and it's not for me. What you're really doing is exactly what this OP originally addressed--you're attempting to limit my "sphere of knowledge" by refusing to accept why all of these things carry with them reasonable doubt, and then proclaiming that my logic and processes are merely based upon a need to disbelieve. And again I'll point out that no one has actually addressed our reasonings one on one. If you don't think something we call a reasonable doubt is, in fact, exactly that, then discuss why. Explain why you think we're wrong. Debate the merits of the reasoning. But don't simply run to the nearest "pre-existing belief" excuse, or construct straw man arguments to discredit us; when you pull such tactics, you only make it appear as though you know full well you cannot actually use reason to back up your own claims.

Originally posted by NoRunRichardI've never met a skeptic who does not question anything because they have ego, arrogance, pride, and a pre-existing belief that intelligent alien life does not exist somewhere in the Universe.

Are you forgetting about me?

I have an ego, obviously, as anybody else, but I try not to let it interfere with my actions, when these actions affect or involve other people. That does not mean that I am successful, but at least I try.

Arrogance is something I do not have, and if you could know me "in real life" you would noticed that, in the 16,574 days that I have lived until now arrogance has never been present. I may (and I really do) have other defects of personality, but never arrogance.

Pride, maybe some, but in what I have made of myself, pride of never lying (at least in the last 15 years, I learned my lesson) and pride of always trying to not affect negatively other people (a side effect of lying, always).

Pre-existing belief that intelligent alien life does not exist is also something I do not have, and as I said before, I try to avoid beliefs, they may point me to a wrong direction while trying to understand something.

You can read any of my 4,781 posts on ATS and BTS (not counting this one) to see if what I just say is true or not.

I've never met a skeptic who didn't say "Really, do you have ABSOLUTE proof to back up that claim?"

Hi, my name is ArMaP (not my real name), glad to know you.

There, you already met one.

Like I said several pages back, even if an entire alien spaceship was actually shown to skeptics they will still not tell you that they believe in it because of the design of their logic and their preference that denies the existence of intelligent alien life besides that of Earth.

I would not tell you that I believed in it because believing is not my goal, my goal is knowing and understanding, I have to room for beliefs in me, the closest thing I have is opinions.

And it would be needed more than seeing a space ship to know its origin, in the same way that if someone says to me "This car belongs to the US president" I would not accept that without questioning it, in the same way I do with almost everything.

Because they are skeptics they will tell you that Earth is the only planet with intelligent life.

No, that would be a sentence that a real sceptic would not say, that sentence is a sentence that a believer would say; a believer in the uniqueness of Earth as a life-bearing planet, or a non-believer (a different kind of believer) in extra-terrestrial life.

A sceptic would probably say something like "How can we know if the Earth is the only planet with intelligent (or other) life?". I could go a littler farther and ask "How do we know if Earth has intelligent life? What is the definition of life? What is the definition of intelligence?".

(I really do this sometimes, and it usually irritates the person with which I am talking )

Look how long this thread is now, the possibility of a skeptic accepting the truth has already passed many pages ago.

See, this is what I don't like (personal opinion, it does not mean you are wrong), you are defining the truth, something a sceptic, as I see them (us), would never do. It may be true but it may not be true, the fact that you sure about it does not make it true or false.

And any believer who would show proof will just be making an ass of himself because some skeptics, 1% of them, will believe you but will not say they do but they already have possession of any technical information the believer offered, sort of like a con game.

You should read some threads to see how things really happen.

The bottom line in this forum is that THE SKEPTICS IN THIS FORUM WILL NOT CHANGE THEIR MINDS concerning the existence of intelligent alien life regardless of how many pages these arguments will take.

As I said before, look for some threads to see how things happen here, you will see that, usually, the treads where things work as they should, with all people working together to try to find the truth, are those that do not have titles as "OMG", "SMOKING GUN", "DEFINITE PROOF", etc., but those that are start with less provocative titles, titles that show that the person who created the thread is looking for truth and does not want to force his/hers truth to other people.

I remember at least two cases, the O'Hare Airport UFO Sighting and another one that happened in the same area at the time this was being discussed, the More "Anonymous" Chicago UFO images thread, that are a good example of threads where the sceptics did not denied anything, in fact, some of the sceptics were the last people to post, most believers "abandoned the ship".

Originally posted by thrashee

Unfortunately for you, sir, you're now a liar: you've "met" me, and I've outright said in this thread that the existence of alien life is probable based on numbers and odds alone.

Now. Let's exercise a modicum of thinking here and try to understand the difference between aliens existing and UFOs being proof that aliens exist and have therefore visited Earth.

It's a very minor distinction that you accidentally ignored.

Have you noticed that Polomontana also fails to make the same distinction? While we are very clear about the fact we are discussion extraterrestrial visitation, Polomontana and NoRichard just happen to both accuse us of saying extraterrestrials don't exist.

Interesting coincidence, isn't it?

Originally posted by thrashee
Did you honestly think any skeptic in here was going to be convinced by this thread? In any case, that wasn't even what this thread was about, mind you. Montana was asking questions to skeptics...

I don't think the point was to ask skeptics questions either. The point was an attempt to enact a de facto silencing of skeptics by convincing others not to listen to skeptics if a very strict structure of rules were followed, rules that would change based on the situation, so constructed as to make debate impossible.