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

reply to post by SaviorComplex


You said,

"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."

Again, you make this statement because you have been trying to debate things that I never said. If you have come to a conclusion that extraterrestrials are a reasonable possibility, then I'm not going case by case. I'm not trying to debate case by case. This is what you want to do because you want each case in isolation.

I GO BY THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE.

Eyewitness accounts, mass sightings, cave paintings, paintings, video, pictures, ancient manuscripts, trace evidence and more.

You keep trying to debate this way because you don't read what I said, you try to debate my claim in your terms which is silly. Try debating what I said.

This is how you investigate something, you look at the totality of the evidence.

You said,

"econd, 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."

Of course your going to say that I'm not making a reasonable argument because you can't. That was the point of the question. I never gave you an either or choice in the question, if you would have took time to read it, then you would understand why I asked the question.

Of course the pseudoskeptic can't see these things as a reasonable possibilty.

Complex, simple question, do you think extra-terrestrials are a reasonable possibility?

The place that you go wrong complex, is you can say I'm not convinved about the evidence and that's fine, what you can't say is that other reasonable people can't be convinced by the same evidence and through that evidence they can come to know these extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings exist beyond any reasonable doubt.

Here's the question.

Can a reasonable person look at the same evidence that you are looking at and reach the conclusion that extra-terrestrials/extra-dimensional beings exist beyond any reasonable doubt?

If you answer yes, then why do you keep trying to debate issues outside of my claim?

If you say no, then you prove my point about pseudoskeptics.

Now your questions,

All of your questions is about belief. I'm not talking about belief or opinion. Where have I stated my opinion? Where have I stated my belief?

Complex, you constantly try to get me to debate things that I never said.

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

When did I ever make this claim?

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

Did you even read what I said? Based on the evidence, I look at the evidence in TOTAL so of course I'm not going case by case. Of course some cases are going to turn out to be false, I said this 20 or 30 pages ago if you would stop and read what I'm saying. Your so blinded by trying to prove me wrong that you can't even read what I'm saying.

You then talked about skeptics being eyewitnesses, eyewitness to what? You are trying to replace the eyewitness account with your pre-existing belief.

It's always funny to watch these shows on TV about ufology. The people who accept these things come with eyewitness accounts, video, pictures, documents and more and the skeptic is trying to tell them what they saw and experienced.

I saw one where the guy accused a military person of having some kind of psychological syndrome and he threw out every other possibility without a shred of evidence.

If extra-terrestrials are a reasonable possibility, why is the case left unexplained? The eyewitness explained it well.

Of course you can still look at other possibilities. We do it after court cases. The defense attorney still looks for other evidence to help free his client.

That's why I say a reasonable doubt, this always leaves open room for other possibilities when they are presented with evidence.

The skeptic goes a step further. They don't want you to draw a conclusion on the available evidence. They want to throw out every possibility under the sun for as long as the eye can see.

I'm not saying case closed and you can't present new evidence that supports these other possibilities. I'm saying beyond a reasonable doubt. This means every possibility without any evidence does not equate to the actual evidence as reported and investigated.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by polomontana]

You also asked this question?

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

Microbial or intelligent life?

Flush out your question.

Originally posted by polomontana
You also asked this question?

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

Microbial or intelligent life?

Either/or. It doesn't matter.

Originally posted by polomontana
I GO BY THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE.

And my point is that one cannot operate that way. One must examine the evidence bit-by-bit. You cannot simply say the "totality of the evidence" shows something without examining bit-by-bit, because that is what the totality is based on.

Originally posted by polomontana
Try debating what I said.

We are. That is why we have quoted you. You claim these things are beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is all we are debating. You keep changing the parameters, as it suits you.

Originally posted by polomontana
I never gave you an either or choice in the question, if you would have took time to read it, then you would understand why I asked the question.

Ummmm...

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 do know this is an either/or question? That you only presented two choices? Right?

Originally posted by polomontana
Complex, simple question, do you think extra-terrestrials are a reasonable possibility?

To quote you:

Originally posted by polomontana
Did you even read what I said?

If you had, you would not have to ask that question. Please, go back and read what I wrote. But judging by your behavior and attitude, it won't matter what I have said, because you will continue to believe what you do, despite the evidence, just as you accuse skeptics of doing.

Originally posted by polomontana
The place that you go wrong complex, is you can say I'm not convinved about the evidence and that's fine, what you can't say is that other reasonable people can't be convinced...

Never said that. To quote you:

Originally posted by polomontana
Try debating what I said.

And to quote you again:

Originally posted by polomontana
...read what I said

Originally posted by polomontana
Can a reasonable person look at the same evidence that you are looking at and reach the conclusion that extra-terrestrials/extra-dimensional beings exist beyond any reasonable doubt?

Sure.

Originally posted by polomontana
If you answer yes, then why do you keep trying to debate issues outside of my claim?

Because you are not reasonable. A reasonable person would not say that someone unconvinced about extraterrestrial visitation does not believe in extraterrestrials. A reasonable person would not ask an either/question then claim they did not ask an either or question. A reasonable person would acknowledge what others have said and not refuse to answer their questions. A reasonable person would agree that evidence can be debated, even if they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable person would not then say what evidence can or cannot be debated, or how it can be debate. A reasonable person would not dismiss another's evidence or arguments with a simple declarative statement. These are all things you have done, Polomontana. Shall I go on?

Originally posted by polomontana
All of your questions is about belief. I'm not talking about belief or opinion. Where have I stated my opinion? Where have I stated my belief?

Complex, you constantly try to get me to debate things that I never said.

Actually, they are based on what you have said. Every single question was based on statements you have made, and your refusal to acknowledge what we say. Plus, they are here to demonstrate whether you are a rational and reasonable actor. Please answer them, do not dance around them. Answer them yes or no. There are no other choices.

Originally posted by polomontana
"Will you acknowledge that no one here has said such things as extraterrestrial life or extraterrestrial visitation are impossible?"

When did I ever make this claim?

In just about every post you've made. For instance:

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.

This is despite all of us saying we believe they do exist. So yes, you have made that claim.

Originally posted by polomontana
You then talked about skeptics being eyewitnesses, eyewitness to what? You are trying to replace the eyewitness account with your pre-existing belief.

To quote you:

Originally posted by polomontana
Did you even read what I said?

Here it is again:

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
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.

It is because of this attitude and your refusal to acknowledge what we have said about our own beliefs, that I asked you the aforementioned questions.

Originally posted by polomontana
If extra-terrestrials are a reasonable possibility, why is the case left unexplained? The eyewitness explained it well.

I have discussed the difference between explaining what you saw, and having an explanation for it. To quote you again:

Originally posted by polomontana
Did you even read what I said?

Originally posted by polomontana
The skeptic goes a step further. They don't want you to draw a conclusion on the available evidence. They want to throw out every possibility under the sun for as long as the eye can see...

Because a conclusion cannot be drawn on the available evidence, and we don't want to throw out "every possibility" because that would be ridiculous. We want to examine possibilities based on what evidence is available. That is a far-cry from wanting to "throw out every possibility."

Please acknowledge I said this, Polomontana. Please acknowledge I said this, and please acknowledge I do not want to "throw out every possibility" under the sun. In fact, I want you go go back over everything I have said in this post, and acknowledge I have said it, so there is no confusion on where I stand.

He won't do it, Savior, because he's simply not honest.

We say that we can't definitively claim ONE possibility as the TRUTH, and he twists that to mean that we are trying to "throw out" possibilities. We say that his evidence isn't enough to state that we can KNOW instead of BELIEVE, and he twists that to mean we simply need to disbelieve.

And now he's refusing to answer honest questions presented to him by using what at this point is a thread-bare excuse: "Where did I state that I was saying these things?"

What in the holy hell does that have to do with asking questions? Can we not ask personal questions now?

All Montana has demonstrated at this point is that he will manipulate the rules of engagement solely for his own benefit, and he will spare nothing in order to do so. Again, this coming from the guy who wanted to claim that we were limiting his "sphere of knowledge".

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Most of your post just quotes what I said, so let me point out the few places where you said something.

You said,

"And my point is that one cannot operate that way. One must examine the evidence bit-by-bit. You cannot simply say the "totality of the evidence" shows something without examining bit-by-bit, because that is what the totality is based on."

How in the world can you tell me how I can operate when evaluating the evidence?

This is your problem. You want my claim to fit your terms. You cannot dictate how I can evaluate the evidence.

You want to debate what you want to debate and not my claim.

Of course you don't have to examine each case to come to a conclusion about ufology.

Just like I don't have to examine each theory in physics to come to a conclusion about physics.

Just like I don't have to examine each theory in genetics in order to reach a conclusion about genetics.

Of course some cases are false and some are not in ufology, this is why I come to the conclusion that extra-terrestrials are a reasonable possibility based on the preponderance of the evidence.

Like I said before, you are trying to debate things that I never said.

YOU AND THRASHEE TRY AND TRY AGAIN TO GET ME TO DEBATE ISSUES OUTSIDE OF MY CLAIM.

This is because you can't debate my claim. You can't prove me wrong because if your skeptical about these issues then you don't know. That doesn't mean that I can't know.

If you were a skeptic you would know this. A skeptic is comfortable with saying I don't know and this is why there skeptical in the first place.

A pseudoskeptic has to be correct and this is why your desperately trying to debate things that I never said.

You said,

"Because a conclusion cannot be drawn on the available evidence, and we don't want to throw out "every possibility" because that would be ridiculous. We want to examine possibilities based on what evidence is available. That is a far-cry from wanting to "throw out every possibility."

Why can't a conclusion be drawn on the available evidence?

Again, your doing exactly what pseudoskeptics do. You are trying to set parameters as to how I examine and evaluate the evidence.

The possibilities that you examine have no evidence to counter the claims of the eyewitness accounts. This is why there called unexplained in the first place.

It's because you don't accept the explanation that's given by the eyewitness. If you can't find a possibility that agrees with what you already believe about these things, then it's,"he saw something." It's never that he saw what he said he saw.

Of course you throw out every possibility and equate those possibilities to the eyewitness accounts. You compare those possibilities to the evidence that has been recorded and investigated.

Of course you can come to the conclusion that these things exist beyond a reasonable doubt.

There's always room for other possibilities but until then the evidence as reported and investigated stands.

I don't say unexplained. You will never get to the truth that way because you can always come up with a new possibility that has no evidence as to what the eyewitnesses saw.

I can post over 700 unknown cases from project blue book alone, I can post thousands of unexplained cases.

You choose to leave them unexplained because you don't want to accept the eyewitness testimony, so it has to be something else.

I choose to accept the explanation of the eywitness or witnesses when there's been no other evidence to counter what they saw.

NOT POSSIBILITIES, EVIDENCE. NOT OPINION, EVIDENCE.

Complex, you are trying to prove my claim wrong and you can't. If your a skeptic than you don't know and you can't try to show why I can't know because that's illogical.

A pseudoskeptic will try to prove me wrong because they are coming from a place of belief.

This is why you keep bringing up things that I never said. Scientific method, belief, opinion, undeniable proof, fully investigated.

Again and again you are not hearing what I'm saying because you desperately want to try and prove me wrong.

Here's one last excercise for you and thrashee and if you try to bring up things that I never said then your going on ignore. This is just going in circles because you want me to debate issues that I never said.

Like your last post, you made the claim that I said skeptics think extra-terrestrials are impossible. I never said that. You do it time and time again out of desperation.

PLEASE STOP TRYING TO DEBATE ISSUES THAT i NEVER RAISED. iF YOU WANT TO DEBATE THOSE ISSUES THAT'S FINE BUT DO IT IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT YOU THINK.

You say, I think you need the scientific method in order to reach a conclusion about these things.

Don't try to debate what I said on your terms. It's just illogical.

A simple excercise, the kids in Zimbabwe. I want you to give me evidence that counters what they said they saw.

I don't want speculation
I don't want opinion
I don't want belief

If your going to speculate without any evidence then state that this is what you "think" before you state your speculation.

If your speculating then your not debating my claim.

62 kids in Zimbabwe
www.youtube.com...

Here's another report on the same sighting with a skeptic included.
www.youtube.com...

Can you try to debate my claim, if not it's fine to mention what you think about the subject just do it in context of your own claims.

Originally posted by polomontana
How in the world can you tell me how I can operate when evaluating the evidence?

That is how you choose to evaluate it. I choose to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis. You cannot tell me or anyone else how we choose to falsify or debate your claim. You are doing the exact same thing you accuse me of. I choose to look at it on a case by case basis, and you say I cannot.

That is hypocrisy.

Originally posted by polomontana
You want to debate what you want to debate and not my claim.

Your claim is that "it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt." That is what we have been debating. But when we try, you change the subject. You make the debate about ANYTHING but the evidence. You are the one who is not debating your claim.

Originally posted by polomontana
Like I said before, you are trying to debate things that I never said.

Everything we have debated has been based on quotes from you. Saying otherwise, is a lie.

Originally posted by polomontana
If you were a skeptic you would know this. A skeptic is comfortable with saying I don't know and this is why there skeptical in the first place.

That has been the whole point, the whole time. That is exactly what we have said. Based on the evidence, we don't know what that is, hence unexplained.

We have said this again and again. We do not know.. But you have ignored them, and put words in our mouths, attributed arguments and attitudes to us we have not made. Then you turn around and say we are doing it to you. In short, you are projecting your own attitude and behavior on us.

Originally posted by polomontana
A pseudoskeptic has to be correct and this is why your desperately trying to debate things that I never said.

You said everything in the quotes. Saying otherwise is a lie.

Originally posted by polomontana
Why can't a conclusion be drawn on the available evidence?

Again, your doing exactly what pseudoskeptics do. You are trying to set parameters as to how I examine and evaluate the evidence.

No, I am not saying setting any parameters on how you examine or evaluate it. I am saying you are making a leap to an unwarranted conclusion. There is a difference. The only one here who is saying a person cannot look at evidence a certain way is you.

To sum up: I am not saying you are wrong in how you examine or evaluate it. I am saying you are wrong in the conclusion. There is a difference.

YOU are saying how we can or cannot debate this evidence. You are the one whining that we are not debating your claim or evidence, but when you do, you turn around and say we can't debate it a certain way, all the while saying that we are the ones telling you that. You discuss everything but the evidence!

If I say, "let's use science to debate this," you turn around and saying, "NO!! NO!!! NO!!!! You are not allowed to do that! Because I never specifically used the word "science!" If I say, "let's examine this on a base by case basis." you say, "NO!!!! NO!!!! You have to look at the totality!" Then you turn around and say:

Originally posted by polomontana
You are trying to set parameters as to how I examine and evaluate the evidence.

Why are we not afforded the luxury of examining and evaluating the evidence how we choose? Why are you the only one who is allowed to do that?

I'll tell you exactly why. It is because you want to make it so no one can debate you. And when someone tries, you want to debate not about the evidence, but how things can be debated. So you can sit there and delude yourself that no one can ever counter your argument.

Originally posted by polomontana
NOT POSSIBILITIES, EVIDENCE. NOT OPINION, EVIDENCE.

No, it is opinion. When you jump to a conclusion when there is a lack of evidence, when you come to a conclusion based on evidence that relies on your interpretation, that is opinion.

Originally posted by polomontana
Like your last post, you made the claim that I said skeptics think extra-terrestrials are impossible. I never said that.

You have been caught lying, Polomontana. You have said that things, repeatedly. Even in the fact of me posting your quote, you still deny it and lie about saying it. Everyone here can now see you are a bold-faced liar. Nothing more. Shall I post every instance of you saying it?

Originally posted by polomontana
A simple excercise, the kids in Zimbabwe. I want you to give me evidence that counters what they said they saw.

No, sorry. I have brought up points and facts about this case, but you choose to either ignore or dismiss them. Like you say, they are not opinions or speculation, FACTS. But you ignored them. Please, go back and re-read what I said about them.

I want to know, Polomontana, how are we allowed to debate you? Please, spell out the parameters.



[edit on 8-8-2008 by SaviorComplex]

First, you said this;

You just don't accept the explanation because you start with a priori that these things can't or don't exist.

Then, you said this;

Like your last post, you made the claim that I said skeptics think extra-terrestrials are impossible. I never said that. You do it time and time again out of desperation.

You, are a bold-faced liar.


First, you said this;

If you answer yes, then why do you keep trying to debate issues outside of my claim?

If you say no, then you prove my point about pseudoskeptics.

Then, you said this;

Again, your doing exactly what pseudoskeptics do. You are trying to set parameters as to how I examine and evaluate the evidence.

You are way in over your head champ.

Originally posted by MrPenny
First, you said this;

You just don't accept the explanation because you start with a priori that these things can't or don't exist.

Then, you said this;

Like your last post, you made the claim that I said skeptics think extra-terrestrials are impossible. I never said that. You do it time and time again out of desperation.

You, are a bold-faced liar.


First, you said this;

If you answer yes, then why do you keep trying to debate issues outside of my claim?

If you say no, then you prove my point about pseudoskeptics.

Then, you said this;

Again, your doing exactly what pseudoskeptics do. You are trying to set parameters as to how I examine and evaluate the evidence.

You are way in over your head champ.

You have to be kidding me.

Because I said you start with a priori that these things can't or don't exist that means that you or complex said extra-terrestrials are impossible?

Where did this backwards logic come from?

Do you know what a priori means?

I never said that you start off with the priori that extra-terrestrials are impossible.

You can think something can't or doesn't exist without thinking it's impossible.

impossible is a more absolute and it doesn't surprise me that pseudoskeptics are speaking in ABSOLUTE terms.

I never said impossible and of course complex, you and others keep trying to debate things that I never said.

Does impossible equate to can't or don't exist? No

Polomontana

Why don't you answer my question?

I even sent you a U2U to try to not put my question in the middle of the discussion, but you keep on ignoring me.

I'm out of here. Enjoy the thread.

PS: you should give stars to posts you classify as "excellent", not doing it makes you look bad.

Click here for more information.

All the semantics in the world won't save you now, Montana.

While I'm nursing my sprained brain from trying to engage you, I'm going to sit back and watch as you drown in your own reasoning.

But because I'm such a nice guy, here:

Originally posted by thrashee
All the semantics in the world won't save you now, Montana.

While I'm nursing my sprained brain from trying to engage you, I'm going to sit back and watch as you drown in your own reasoning.

But because I'm such a nice guy, here:

Sorry thrashee it's not semantics, it's called the english language.

Doesn't or can't exist doesn't equate to impossible.

I don't think the Loch Ness monstor exist but It's not impossible that he does exist.

Complex used impossible because he was trying to prove a point that I wasn't making. That's because impossible is more absolute than ca't or doesn't exist.

Any first year english student can tell you this.

Again, it's not semantics it's the english language.

I said you start with a priori that extra-terrestrials can't or don't exist.

That's different from saying.

You start with a priori that extra-terrestrials are impossible.

Complex, you and others have been doing this the whole post. You try to debate things that I never said.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Polomontana

Why don't you answer my question?

I even sent you a U2U to try to not put my question in the middle of the discussion, but you keep on ignoring me.

I'm out of here. Enjoy the thread.

PS: you should give stars to posts you classify as "excellent", not doing it makes you look bad.

Sorry Armap, I thought I answered it but I see that I didn't.

You asked was there a difference between extra-dimensional/extra-terrestrial beings or do I see them the same.

There's a difference and I could speculate about that difference.

Extra-terrestrials seem to have evolved in a similar way that we evolved. This is why I think abductions occur in some cases. I think they are trying to learn things about their species by looking at lower lifeforms, the same way we try to learn things about us by looking at mice and dogs.

They seem to know that we have feelings and thoughts so they try to erase memories of the experience but they feel they have to do it in order to fix problems within there species.

This is speculation and of course some of them can have more nefarious goals.

An extra-dimensional being is capable of doing things that would appear like magic to us. This is because they are traveling in a higher dimension of space. So they could easily walk through walls or stick there hand right through you.

I think we have reports that match both extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings.

An extra-dimensional craft would appear as lights out of nowhere. This is because this is the only way we can see them. We will see them in a 3 dimensional way the same way a 2 dimensional being would see a 3-dimensional basketball. He couldn't see the basketball but he would see a bunch of 2 dimensional lines.

The claim is based on the evidence that extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings exist beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, I think I know what your next question will be.

If you are speculating about extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings then how can you reach the conclusion that they exist beyond a reasonable doubt?

If that was your next question, I can answer it for you.

hey hey hey hey..people people.

oh my goodness. you guys have been going and going and going..lol what is going on here..

a believer comes into being when

A. substantial amounts of "evidence" are shown to that individual and they are convinced.

B. Testemony has conviced the person that the experience is real, and they believe simply based on hear say. (which is how i came into it) i know i know it looks like i just sold out and just went with the most sensationalist testemony on the national geographic channel.

C. you have a grey tickle your little toesy woeseys just before you fall asleep.

i can only imagine whats been said on this thread, ill step aside so i dont bother anyone.

Originally posted by polomontana
Sorry thrashee it's not semantics, it's called the english language.

Thank you for providing me with my next signature. The hits just keep on comin'.

Doesn't or can't exist doesn't equate to impossible.
I don't think the Loch Ness monstor exist but It's not impossible that he does exist.

"I don't think" isn't the same as "doesn't or can't", is it? Try again.

In any case, who gives a flying poo? Once again we're chasing the dribble down your chin in vain. The real point is, you're accusing us of maintaining a belief which we don't have, and using that belief as an excuse to justify your own lousy claims.

Tell you what, kiddo. Since you maintain that we possess a belief that we don't, and since you don't have the stones to actually answer my questions in any meaningful or honest way, then just do this:

PROVE IT.

Oh, that's right. You can't. You're not interested in proving anything, are you? You just want free reign to both smear skeptics and make ridiculous claims without having to back them up.

You're right in line with a religious fundamentalist, Montana.

Interestingly enough, this article popped up today in my Google Space.com widget. I think it applies here beautifully.


[edit on 8-8-2008 by thrashee]

reply to post by thrashee


Was he monitoring this thread . . .
I guess this type of thing happens more often than not.

Dude I brought this article up like awhile back. Polo will never look at it nor will any other believer because it goes against everything that twit thinks. I thought this thread was dead.., we have shown the believers all they have is hypothesis and no proof.

You know I have gone back through all of the pages and read everything again. Montana has lead this topic in circles over and over again, avoiding questions and stating the same comments about skeptics over and over that have been refuted time and time again. I think it would do everyone good to just jump off this never ending train before it takes our sanity, I mean just look what it has done to poor riggs2099 avatar but then agan that is just my opinion.

[edit on 8/8/2008 by AlienCarnage]