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

Originally posted by NoRunRichard

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.

The question is, would you take this person's word on his sighting. I gave no inferrence of any investigative work being done, just an individual reporting a sighting, would you take his word or not?

The skeptics here seem to be doing an end run around logic.

I have to ask this question, how can you seek the truth this way?

If you go into a situation and you limit the answers, how can you seek the truth?

A picture, video or eyewitness account is either:

A
B
C
D
But it's not E because E is extraterrestrials.
F
G
H
And so on....

When you can't find an explanation that fit's what you already believe than it's U - Unexplained.

This is because you don't accept the explanation given by the eyewitnesses or your own eyes because it includes extra - terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings.

How can you seek the truth this way?

If x = Unexplained, then X= Infinite possibilities as long as you don't accept what the eyewitness or witnesses said they saw.

This is why skeptics are so desperate to prove me wrong. They see logic and reason in what I'm saying and an argument that is reasonable when it comes to ufology can't happen.

Ufology has to be left out of the realm of reason so they can compare it to fantasy, make believe and unicorns.

Here's another question, am I making a reasoned argument?

I can admit a skeptic is making a reasoned argument, yet I don't agree with them. Armap for instance. He's a skeptic and his questions are reasonable.

So again skeptics, am I making a reasoned argument?

If you say yes, then you think extra-terrestrials are a reasonable possibility and you agree with me.

If you say no, then your mind is made up and you are not seeking the truth.

Why are things labled "Unexplained" when the eywitness has explained what they saw over and over again?

At the end of the day, you can never find out anything if when you can't explain these things in the terms of your pre-existing belief, you say it's unexplained even though it has been explained?

You just don't accept the explanation because you start with a priori that these things can't or don't exist. If you limit the possibilities before the investigation begins, you will always end up with unexplained if the possibility that is explained by the eyewitnesses is not accepted.

Originally posted by polomontana
The skeptics here seem to be doing an end run around logic.

I have to ask this question, how can you seek the truth this way?

If you go into a situation and you limit the answers, how can you seek the truth?

Montana, your entire "reasoning", of which we are all supposedly scared of confronting, is quite simply this:

I have evidence of God's existence.
What do you mean that evidence doesn't scientifically prove God's existence?
That just proves you are an atheist, and that's why that evidence isn't good enough for you.

If you don't clearly see why this type of thinking is fundamentally flawed, then you're simply not worth the effort.

Trying to talk to you is like trying to talk face to face with a person on a trampoline: every now and then you think you're looking them in the eyes, only for them to bounce right back up and down again.

Keep jumping. It's all you've been doing this entire time.

reply to post by polomontana


*****ring******
*****ring******
*****ring******

"uuuhhh.....'ello?"

"it's the what?.....the 'clue phone'?"

"oh.....it's for you polo".......

Originally posted by polomontana
So again skeptics, am I making a reasoned argument?

If you say yes, then you think extra-terrestrials are a reasonable possibility and you agree with me.

If you say no, then your mind is made up and you are not seeking the truth.

Speaking of limiting knowledge and possibilities.....Brilliant.

reply to post by thrashee


Now I'm upset....my "sphere of knowledge" has been limited and I wanna' know who to talk to....

He's never going to "get it" thrashee....he's willfully ignoring what has been written in this thread, or, he has a debilitating mental scotoma;

mental scotoma a figurative blind spot in a person's psychological awareness, the person being unable to gain insight into and to understand their mental problems; lack of insight Source

In an odd way I feel sorry for the poor chap.....must be a miserable existence...being unable to comprehend other's written words.

Gutenberg wept....



[edit on 7-8-2008 by MrPenny]

Of course we 'limit' possibilities. I said that in quotation marks because, well..

We start with maximum number of possibilities we can figure out. After that we reduce obvious false positieves out of equation. Eventually, there is only one possible explanation left. If we have more, we must either accept that we don't know or just use occam's razor to figure out most likely outcome.

What you call limiting is actually reductionism. You can read about reductionism here, it is a wikipedia article.

I would give at least more than one possibility about why you are writing as you do. Maybe you just don't understand why empirical evidence rules out everything that is out of its boundaries. Even we can argue that such evidence does not contain everything and we would be right. That however does not say for certain that a certain _specific_ type of observation would ever be there even if we observe entire universe, as it may just as well not exist. Another possibility that comes in mind is that you are simply dumb, which I don't believe to be true because you do spell quite correctly. So, we still have the possibility that when you write you are angry, and because of that just don't get it.

You could always have that blind spot as well, or maybe you are simply too young to have grasped understanding of scientific method.

I don't know, but what is obvious is that you ignore most if not all logic that is in any way against your beliefs and knowledge. I don't really care that much. You may just as well be a troll, in which case you have some serious attitude problems.

Keep in mind though that I do not specify you to have any of those, except for the being angry part. People can't think when they are angry.

By the way, I don't see much critic raised against anybody who clearly just enjoys speculating about these things. Difference is usually in that they don't really claim to know any truth. They just want to speculate. Nothing wrong with that.

Claiming to be a horn of truth or explicitly correct about something is way out of just having a debate by speculating. That however, speculating and debating for the sake of it, is not something that you do.

Actually, I find the OP's reasoning both logical and reasonable.

If two people examine a problem and in doing so start with entirely different base references, they are always going to arrive at conclusions coloured by those starting references.

Just because his reasoning doesn't match that of those attacking him does not make it wrong, or make those attacking him right.

In fact, all I see from the likes of Mr Penny and the gang is limited and prejudiced reasoning and arrogant close-mindedness... not to mention a veneer of rudeness that stinks to high heaven.

Nighty night

Originally posted by Dagar
they are always going to arrive at conclusions coloured by those starting references.

So you've read this entire thread and you still haven't clued in on the idea that the skeptics here are not arriving at any conclusion, based on the evidence. Have you not grasped the distinction between saying, "it's not that weird thing you're claiming", and "it's not definite what that is, other than it's a weird thing?"

Can you explain how that can be repeated over and over again, to supposedly "open-minded" people, yet they consistently stick to the same rote jargon over and over again?

What is it? Do our words look like this?.....iwth wofnai ieh oo owhthr iwor, iwerh "weot89 i ** qwoetr m,m, aweir af"? How can you not be grasping what is very clear, simple English?

If this is how poorly people process language and information....everything single thing they write--about any subject--becomes less than legitimate or authoritative.


[edit on 7-8-2008 by MrPenny]

Originally posted by Dagar
Actually, I find the OP's reasoning both logical and reasonable.

If two people examine a problem and in doing so start with entirely different base references, they are always going to arrive at conclusions coloured by those starting references.

Just because his reasoning doesn't match that of those attacking him does not make it wrong, or make those attacking him right.

In fact, all I see from the likes of Mr Penny and the gang is limited and prejudiced reasoning and arrogant close-mindedness... not to mention a veneer of rudeness that stinks to high heaven.

Nighty night

Excellent Post. This is it in a nutshell.

If you start with the basic premise that extraterrestrials are not a reasonable possibility, then you will go over these different possibilities as far as the I can see because you reject the possibility that the eyewitness actually saw what they said they saw.

When you can't find a possibility that fits what you already believe, you say that it's unexplained. You will never explain it as the eyewitness or eyewitnesses saw it because you reject that possibility.

So your not seeking the truth, your seeking answers to back what you already concluded beforehand that extraterrestrials don't or can't exist.

It is interesting how Montana has such positive things to say about those that seem to aggree with him, but still refuses to answer questions that others ask him that relate directly to his OP.

reply to post by polomontana


I don't believe aliens DON'T exist.

I still think your evidence is laughable.

Therefore, your entire OP is a farce.

Got anything else to say other than regurgitating the same inane logic over and over again?



[edit on 7-8-2008 by thrashee]

Montana, Let me sum this up for you, the reason most skeptics debate most of the posts on ATS is because the Posters of the threads state things as if they are 100% factual, when asked for the evidence, they spout sources that have nothing to do with their OP. Do you want to know a secret, there is no way you can prove anything in a post, what most skeptics are trying to get the poster to admit is that their story is not proof of existence of aliens or whatever. Posters who post stories that state "Proof of Alien visitation" should read "Interesting story of supposed visitation", and in there OP it should state that it is up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. They should not try to force the reader into believing that their story should be taken as fact.

This is my take if any other skeptics disagree, please feel free to correct me.

[edit on 8/7/2008 by AlienCarnage]

reply to post by AlienCarnage


Nope, I think you're dead on. This thread has killed my inner child

reply to post by AlienCarnage


I do not completely agree with that.

I do not try to make the posters admit that they do not have proof of whatever they state, I try to make them see that there may be (and usually are) other possibilities, with mixed results.

One of the things I find funny is when someone that can only see one possible explanation for an event accuses the sceptics of thinking "inside the box", because what happens with those people is that they only had their box changed for a new one and they fail to see that they are having (to borrow the expression) their sphere of understanding limited by thinking that there is only one possible explanation

Well, would you look at that!

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 polomontana
So your not seeking the truth, your seeking answers to back what you already concluded beforehand that extraterrestrials don't or can't exist.

A coincidence? Why is it you never see Polomontana and NoRichard on at the same time?

Despite the fact that we have said again and again that we either believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life in the universe or at least are open to the possibility, why do you refuse to acknowledge this Polomontana?

Why are you limiting our sphere of knowledge?

Originally posted by polomontana
Why are things labled "Unexplained" when the eywitness has explained what they saw over and over again?

Because there is a vast difference between explaining what you saw and having an explanation.

To use a more down to Earth example: I am driving down the street, and I see a man shoot another man dead. That is all I see, the shooting, and I don't know either of the men. When the police come, I will explain what I saw. However, that does not explain who the men were or why the shooting took place.

Now, if that was all I saw, but then I told the police the victim is John Doe and the shooter is Joe Blow, that Joe shot John over a woman, and that though the shooting took place on Main Street, they live on Elm Street, I am drawing conclusions about them that I have no evidence for.

This would be the same as if I saw a unidentified object in the sky, then without further evidence, declared it to be an alien craft.

Now, it is a possibility it is an alien craft. However, I have no evidence to back that up. I can only explain what I saw, but I cannot give you an explanation for it. "Unexplained" is not an explanation; in fact, it says it right in the word.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


I thought you were accusing me of being polomontana.

Now you are accusing norunrichard.

I think you and thrashee are the same person. You style is just too similiar for comfort

I'm reporting you.

First post.
I was reading this and i gotto say it made me angry. The amount of people who lump skeptics ass arrogant willing to brush any evidence aside morons is just stupid. When i read the believers post i see just as much arrogance in them as i do the sceptics.

Now as to why i'm a skeptic, alot of people have been throwing around the 'credible eye witness accounts' card and the videos and the pictures cards, and i'll throw the eye witness accounts crap out straight away because people are liars. Human beings as a whole cannot be trusted, its as simple as that, by some of your logic if a 'credible' eyewitness comes to me and say's I'VE JUST SEEN A UNICORN!. Do you believe him? Of course you don't, but why is seeing a Unicorn just as unrealistic as seing a supposed Alien from millions of light years away.

I've watched hundreds of videos, documented accounts, interviews with eyewitness'. And the one thing all these people have in common is they're just normal people, trying to get their 15 minutes of fame, or a bit of money. I wouldn't trust these people to sell me a Big Issue so why should i trust them when they say they've seen an Alien?

Originally posted by polomontana
So again skeptics, am I making a reasoned argument?

If you say yes, then you think extra-terrestrials are a reasonable possibility and you agree with me.

If you say no, then your mind is made up and you are not seeking the truth.

You are not making a reasoned argument in the least, for a multitude of reasons.

First, you are making the claim that extraterrestrial visitation is reasonable explanation in very case. This is not true. Every reasonable UFO researcher will acknowledge this. Every case must be looked at on an individual basis.

Second, you are not making a reasonable argument because of the choices you offer. Either you believe extraterrestrial visitation and the existence of life on other worlds, or you don't. To claim there is no middle ground, that there is no difference between a belief in extraterrestrial visitation and life on other worlds is not a reasonable argument.

To use the murder anology again, that would be like claiming someone who isn't convinced by the evidence that John Doe killed Joe Blow does not believe murder ever happens. That is a ridiculous notion, but it is the very argument you are forwarding.

There is also an irony in how you present the choices. You say either someone agrees with your particular line of thinking, or you condemn them as closed-minded. Do you see the irony and hypocrisy in that?

Third, your argument is not reasonable because no one has said such things are impossible. It is not reasonable because you have ignored, time and time again, that every skeptic here has been resounding in explaining that we believe that extraterrestrial life exists. We have never said such things are impossible, as you have claimed. What we have said are that your claims of these things being beyond a reasonable doubt are anything but. There is a difference between being unconvinced by the evidence and having a pre-existing belief that such things are not possible.

There are scientists across the world who are looking for evidence of extraterrestrial life, who are not convinced by supposed evidence of extraterrestrial visitation. They can be found in the pages of ICARUS, the Internationl Journal of Astrobiology, Astrobiology, and dozens of other journals and magazine. They could be found at colleges and observatories worldwide. Would you accuse them of saying extraterrestrial life is impossible because they do not believe UFOs are evidence of such?

Fourth, you accuse skeptics of ignoring what eye-witnesses have said, and then drawing conclusions based on pre-existing beliefs. This is the very thing you have done regarding skeptics. You have projected the antithesis of your beliefs onto skeptics, claiming if the do not accept these possibilities as possibilities. Yet, as I stated above, we have are open to them. What better eye-witnesses to our own beliefs than us? However, you have ignored our own eye-witness testimony time and time again, because it does not fit your pre-concieved conclusion about skeptics.

I have questions for you, Polomontana. And please answer them, do not ignore them. Ignoring them would demonstrate that you are not a rational or reasonable actor.

Do you think it is reasonable to believe extraterrestrial life and be unconvinced by claims of extraterrestrial visitation?

Do you think a belief in extraterrestrial visitation and a belief in extraterrestrial life are inseperable?

Will you acknowledge that no one here has said such things as extraterrestrial life or extraterrestrial visitation are impossible?

Do you acknowledge extraterrestrial visitation is not reasonable in every case?

(Does anyone here think we should start doing a running tally on how many times Polomontana either ignores a question or outright refuses to answer it?)

[edit on 8-8-2008 by SaviorComplex]