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

reply to post by AlienCarnage


I know, I was a handsome devil when this thread started now look at what it's done to me....

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

You have been caught in lie again, Polomontana. I never said aliens were impossible or claimed you said that. I proved you said that, by using your own words.

Originally posted by polomontana
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.

No. We are not starting from either position, as you claim. You have made this claim, when time and time again, we have told you otherwise.

Why do you claim this, when we have told you it is not the case.

You have made the frequent claim that we are trying to "limit your sphere of knowledge." Yet, why do you think you can dictate what we do and do not believe?

Polomontana, please acknowledge that we have said we do not believe extraterrestrials do not exist, nor do we believe extraterrestrials are impossible? Will you please acknowledge that is our position?

If you insist on making that claim, do as Thrashee said, and PROVE IT.

By the way: you're not using priori right.

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

Once again, we used your exact words.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by riggs2099
reply to post by AlienCarnage

 

I know, I was a handsome devil when this thread started now look at what it's done to me...

.

Ah, Riggs! You're still beautiful to us!

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....

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.

I must answer this one for the last time. Yes I would be a skeptic at first and then I would proceed in the process of verifying the credibility of this claim like I stated above. And if the scientific investigation finds traces of landing pods, radiation on the landing site, and accuracy of the results of the cross-examination of the eyewitness time after time that's when I will believe what he said.

You skeptics reject the limiting knowledge and pre-existing belief arguments we believers know you use in the same way you reject the existence of intelligent alien life on other planets. These 2 facts exist in the skeptics psyche in order for this forum to be this long. You are not looking for verification through logic for the existence of aliens, it is your stupid belief that only Earth has intelligent life regardless of the preponderance of evidences defying your logic to the contrary. You deny everything as hoaxes, fakes, etc. and this kills all hopes of proving alien existence and this is what you want to see. When one or 2 photos are fakes, you label ALL photo evidences as fakes. With regard to aliens and their spaceship, only the Government is in possession of these. And even these evidences is dismissed by skeptics in statements such as "Even Lockheed could build these things" and this statement will also kill all hopes of proving alien existence. Montana has been correct all along that your pre-existing belief and limiting knowledge is your tool in asserting your belief that intelligent life only exists on Earth yet you continue to deny his observations. These are the "reasons" in the background that you use in "asserting" in your arguments under the guise of "Montana's unanswered OP" and "You don't have proof to back it up." So for the last time I'm through with all this BS.

[edit on 10-8-2008 by NoRunRichard]

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
You skeptics reject the limiting knowledge and pre-existing belief arguments we believers know you use in the same way you reject the existence of intelligent alien life on other planets. These 2 facts exist in the skeptics psyche in order for this forum to be this long.

Except these are beliefs of your own, not facts. I'll give you the same responsibility as I did for Montana: PROVE that we have these pre-existing beliefs.

You can't. Your logic is essentially that because we don't agree with you, that means we must have our own pre-existing beliefs. It's a patently absurd claim, especially considering the fact that us skeptics have told you over and over again that our own beliefs regarding these things vary.

What about this don't you understand? We have the unique ability of separating our beliefs on this subject with any claims to KNOW. This is what makes us honest. We may personally believe the evidence is overwhelming in support of alien visitation, but you won't find one of us who is willing to make the claim that that evidence PROVES beyond a reasonable doubt that aliens do exist.

You are not looking for verification through logic for the existence of aliens, it is your stupid belief that only Earth has intelligent life regardless of the preponderance of evidences defying your logic to the contrary.

Do you people simply not read prior posts? Or do you just plug your ears and only hear what you want to hear? I've said it many times that reasonably I can assume alien life exists by numbers alone. That's not the same thing as what's being discussed here--the visitation of that life on Earth. If you're going to accuse of of holding some "pre-existing belief", at least get the blame right.

You deny everything as hoaxes, fakes, etc. and this kills all hopes of proving alien existence and this is what you want to see.

Again, you have absolutely no clue what we "want" to see. But what you still can't comprehend is that our wants have nothing to do with it. Can you imagine a world in which the greatest physicists of all time refused to experimentally verify their own theories because they just "wanted" their theory to be right? It's called scientific integrity, and if you're afraid of that, that just means your own belief is more important than truth.

When one or 2 photos are fakes, you label ALL photo evidences as fakes. With regard to aliens and their spaceship, only the Government is in possession of these. And even these evidences is dismissed by skeptics in statements such as "Even Lockheed could build these things" and this statement will also kill all hopes of proving alien existence.

Um. No. Now you're just giving sweeping generalizations. We analyze each photo or evidence on its own merit. If the majority of them are bogus or inconclusive, don't blame the investigator, but the evidence.

Montana has been correct all along that your pre-existing belief and limiting knowledge is your tool in asserting your belief that intelligent life only exists on Earth yet you continue to deny his observations. These are the "reasons" in the background that you use in "asserting" in your arguments under the guise of "Montana's unanswered OP" and "You don't have proof to back it up." So for the last time I'm through with all this BS.

There are so many logical things wrong in this conclusion of yours that it's not even worth pointing them out.

I hope you are done with this "BS" now, because frankly I'm beginning to think that in order to be a real believer, you must flush logic and reason down the toilet. If you want to maintain that we've "killed all hope" for you, go right ahead. I guess that just means your beliefs weren't that solid after all.

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
in the same way you reject the existence of intelligent alien life on other planets.

Got that far and stopped reading.....

Your insistence on getting that concept wrong and your insistence on repeating it....makes every other assertion you make less than authoritative, reasoned, and correct. Nothing else you say beyond that point is worth reading or contemplating.

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
you reject the existence of intelligent alien life on other planets. your...belief that only Earth has intelligent life regardless of the preponderance of evidences defying your logic to the contrary.

Why do you keep saying this, despite our insistence it is not the case. Why have you and Polomontana refused to acknowledge that we have said otherwise? Why is it you hold eyewitness testimony as "direct evidence" (in Polomontana's words) and enough to verify that ETs are visiting the Earth, yet do not accept the eyewitness testimony to our own beliefs?

As Thrashee challenged Polomontana, I challenge you. Back up this claim. PROVE IT.

"OH MY ... "

Heike is shocked speechless as she surveys the devastation. Eventually she regains her composure, and, hands on hips, glares around the thread.

"What a mess! What have ya'll been DOING? I swear I had this all cleaned up, toys put away, lights off .. everything. And now look at it! You all just waited for me to stop watching this thread and then started up again .. didn't you?

All right, come on .. if you're enjoying it this much, we'll take it for another spin.

Hey Montana! Front and center! Listen up!

You do realize, don't you, that the "totality of evidence" is just as much in favor of Bigfoot, lake monsters, ghosts, poltergeists, demons, chupacabra, and Batboy as it is in favor of extraterrestrials, don't you? Okay, so I lied about Batboy. But not about the rest of them.

If you state that the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that ETs are visiting Earth, then you must concede the existence of Bigfoot, Nessie and all her sisters, ghosts, etc. or become one of those knowledge-limiting skeptics you are complaining about.

Just as an example, Bigfoot has:

Tons of eyewitness acounts
Video evidence
Photo evidence
Audio recordings
Trace evidence
Physical evidence

Nessie has
Eyewitness accounts going back to 565 AD
Video evidence
Photo evidence
Trace evidence
Audio recordings

Shall I continue, or is that enough?

You stated earlier that you don't believe in Nessie. Why not? I say that the totality of evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that she exists, and if you disagree you must have a priori determined that she can't exist or you would have no choice but to accept her existence based on the veritable MOUNTAIN of evidence. Certainly there are plenty of eyewitnesses who have clearly described what they saw and told us what it was. Why don't you believe them?

Now what have you got to say?

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
you reject the existence of intelligent alien life on other planets. your...belief that only Earth has intelligent life regardless of the preponderance of evidences defying your logic to the contrary.

Why do you keep saying this, despite our insistence it is not the case. Why have you and Polomontana refused to acknowledge that we have said otherwise? Why is it you hold eyewitness testimony as "direct evidence" (in Polomontana's words) and enough to verify that ETs are visiting the Earth, yet do not accept the eyewitness testimony to our own beliefs?

As Thrashee challenged Polomontana, I challenge you. Back up this claim. PROVE IT.

The proof is in every post you skeptics made in this thread, just read it and every statement points to the denial to accept and rejection of alien existence and visitation of Earth. Thrashee said "he can assume the existence of aliens just by numbers" but assuming is only pretending to believe. Ah, and we now have the "denial that aliens have been visiting Earth." This is a new one in order to complicate things, where is this in this thread? I'm sure this is nowhere to be found. See, we believers deny you just as you skeptics deny the truth of the existence of aliens and aliens visiting Earth. You skeptics think you're honest? I don't believe so. Where have we found skeptics accepting the truth of the existence of aliens and their visitations on Earth? The most significant things we have heard from you are pretenses and stupidity. And by the way, why are you skeptics very eager to argue against believers in this thread that is now 54 pages long? How much are you being paid to do this? Bye!

The minions of polomontana have taken over for him I see... Someone please slap these fools upside the head. Believing something does not make it fact. Until you get solid proof, pics/vid, bodies, or something else that can be scientifically examined, you can not say there is undeniable proof.. Oh yeh...because we know your gonna say it....YAWN...The government won't let it out or they are covering it up. The believers cop out when asked for some valid info.

[edit on 10-8-2008 by riggs2099]

OK .. this is the best argument I've heard in a VERY long time~! S&F~! Thanks!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by ArMaP


OK .. so riddle me this. If someone YOU PERSONALLY know who in your book has a creditable character..............anyone that is NOT fictional in your world that you live and breath RIGHT NOW, albeit Grandmother, parents, teacher, president...ANYONE that you know that you hold in high esteem for they're character as being reputable, comes to you and says...

ArMaP, I saw a UFO land in my backyard last night. What would your FIRST...

thought be?
Feeling be..?
Reaction be...?

Now is here's the kicker. Should your first thought be.."No way, can't happen"

what is it about his character/reputation that is now suddenly so low that would make you think that ?? why would you think they would be lying to you? If they stuck to their story after a decade and still told it the same exact way the first time..

What would you think?

Originally posted by NoRunRichard
The proof is in every post you skeptics made in this thread, just read it and every statement points to the denial to accept and rejection of alien existence and visitation of Earth. Thrashee said "he can assume the existence of aliens just by numbers" but assuming is only pretending to believe. Ah, and we now have the "denial that aliens have been visiting Earth." This is a new one in order to complicate things, where is this in this thread? I'm sure this is nowhere to be found.

Are you sure you really want to challenge that? Tell you what, why don't you go look back through my posts before you do, lest you look like you didn't do your homework.

See, we believers deny you just as you skeptics deny the truth of the existence of aliens and aliens visiting Earth. You skeptics think you're honest? I don't believe so. Where have we found skeptics accepting the truth of the existence of aliens and their visitations on Earth?

EXACTLY. And now we get to the heart of the matter. If we don't accept your evidence as absolute proof, if we don't accept your "truth", we're dishonest. This is a crucial turning point here, because we finally have a believer admitting what they've refused to admit all along--that if you deny their belief, they will spite you for it.

Face it. You believe it's the truth, but that truth has not been proven. And that's exactly why we won't accept it.

Originally posted by riggs2099
The Op is asking for us that aren't willing to believe without proof because he says we are close minded and that we are unable to give some other POV a chance. What about you guys who scream that its true, its fact, and all the other things...why are you not willing to accept that these things may not be happening. I am willing to accept something if there is viable proof to back it up and not believe just because I want to. You,who blindly believe without anything to back it up, are the sheep.

TOTALLY AGREE!

reply to post by polomontana


I think skepticism is not a bad thing. After all, as a "believer" I do concur with many skeptics that until we can get out hands on something, scientific analysis cannot proceed in the form of a study of said material.

The mistake is confusing the lack of materials to analyze as proof of something. Just like it would be a mistake to assume testimony is proof of something.

UFO research needs to be compared to criminal investigations or other non-scientific investigations, because it does not aim to "prove" something one way or another, it aims to do the same that most debunkers are trying to do, it aims to find an explanation to events for which every conventional explanation has failed. The only difference is that UFO research allows for the possibility of alien visitation as a possible answer, while a debunker considers every possibility other than the possibility of alien visitation.

But most of what UFO researchers spend their time on is debunking the 90%+ claims that turn out to be ordinary objects or hoaxes because honestly, that's what most reports represent.

In the end, it works similar to most debunking: Multiple hypotheses are constructed, then compared to the available data to see what fits best.

-rrr

Originally posted by thrashee

EXACTLY. And now we get to the heart of the matter. If we don't accept your evidence as absolute proof, if we don't accept your "truth", we're dishonest. This is a crucial turning point here, because we finally have a believer admitting what they've refused to admit all along--that if you deny their belief, they will spite you for it.

Face it. You believe it's the truth, but that truth has not been proven. And that's exactly why we won't accept it.

Well the fact is that many people believe it is the truth and that is HAS been proven thoroughly.

Why can't you accept the fact that their are some people who know everything that you know, maybe more, and have come to a different conclusion?

Just as the only thing that is going to convince you is disclosure or a personal experience, the only thing that is going to convince a believer otherwise is if some other explanation for all the evidence reveals itself.

Originally posted by Jezus
Why can't you accept the fact that their are some people who know everything that you know, maybe more, and have come to a different conclusion?

What makes you think we can't accept that fact? That hasn't been what this thread is about--not by a long-shot. The problem here is that because we've come to a different conclusion, that must mean we're simply biased and have a disbelief that we need to protect.

A pseudoskeptic does start with the belief that extraterrestrials don't or can't exist. I think we have seen the signs of pseudoskepticism on this thread.

The pseudoskeptic tries to say he has no burden of proof, and he does. Here's some background on pseudoskepticism. My comments are in quotations.

While a Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University in 1987, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics in the journal Zetetic Scholar which he founded:

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

"As soon as you make the claim that these things didn't occur the way the eyewitness said they occured, then you have a burden of proof to present evidence to support your claim. The pseudoskeptic doesn't say I don't know because they have to be correct because there coming from a point of belief.

What complex, thrashee and others have done is try to build a negative hypothesis based on nothing. Then they try to say that they have no burden of proof. This is how pseudoskeptics hide behind skepticism.

This is why thrashee tried to build his website argument without having to talk about the evidence at first and when that fell down he found himself face to face with the evidence.

It's like what complex said about Dr. Lier. He wants to introduce all of these possibilities without any evidence and without doing any research. He never even read his book. This is another sign of a pseudoskeptic. They want to try to debate these things from a negative point of view without any research."

Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:

The tendency to deny, rather than doubt
Double standards in the application of criticism
The making of judgments without full inquiry
Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of argument.
Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.
Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it

"You have seen several of these here on this thread.

Tendancy to discredit, rather than investigate. This is why you get questions that has been asked and answered. If Complex would have bothered to read Dr. Liers book then he would have already read the answer to his question. He wasn't interested in doing research on the work, he just wanted to discredit the work without any investigation.

Using ridicule or ad hominem attacks. This is common, you hear things like it's fantasy, fairytale, make believe, little green men and more. This is to belittle the discussion because they can't debate it within reason because they havn't done the research.

Notice on shows like Larry King and others when they talk about ufology. Your hearing eyewitness accounts from people in the military to the farmer. Your seeing videos, pictures and classified documents. The skeptic comes on with hardly anything outside of opinion. They must have been seeing things, I even heard one skeptic throw out a psychological problem. This is just to throw out any possibility to try and muddy the waters because they have no evidence."

There's one more quote that was very interesting.

"instead of becoming scientifically minded, they become adherents of scientism, the belief system in which science and only science has all the answers to everything" and that even many pseudoskeptics are unwilling to spend the time to "read significantly into the literature on the subjects about which they are most skeptical"

en.wikipedia.org...

"They don't look into the subjects because they "believe" they already have the answers. That's why they try to discredit the subject without any investigation.

They act as if science has all the answers. Any scientist worth his salt will tell you that science doesn't have all the answers. There's other ways we come to know the truth about things like reason and investigation.

If you noticed, thrashee, complex and others kept bringing up the scientific method when I wasn't making a scientific argument. It took about 15 pages of debate before it sunk in.

A skeptic can say, I don't know and that's why they are skeptical in the first place. That doesn't mean that I can't know either. I can look at the evidence and come to a conclusion based on the evidence that extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings exist beyond a reasonable doubt. If you notice, some here have even tried to dictate how I can evaluate and investigate the evidence. This is the desperation of the pseudoskeptic because there coming from a place of belief.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by polomontana]

Originally posted by polomontana
A pseudoskeptic does start with the belief that extraterrestrials don't or can't exist. I think we have seen the signs of pseudoskepticism on this thread.

The pseudoskeptic tries to say he has no burden of proof, and he does. Here's some background on pseudoskepticism. My comments are in quotations.

While you've provided yet more entertaining reading, you're just flat out wrong. What you haven't yet been able to grasp in more than 50 pages of posts is that none of us here are stating that aliens DON'T exist.

You can keep building up a faux argument and putting words in our mouths, but we'll just laugh and shrug and still keep pointing out that you're dead wrong.

What complex, thrashee and others have done is try to build a negative hypothesis based on nothing. Then they try to say that they have no burden of proof. This is how pseudoskeptics hide behind skepticism.

We're not hiding behind anything. We don't have a burden of proof, and if you don't understand why at this point, then I'm afraid nothing is going to help you. Well, save one thing--which is to get it through your head what we are and are not trying to state here.

This is why thrashee tried to build his website argument without having to talk about the evidence at first and when that fell down he found himself face to face with the evidence.

We did talk about your evidence. We quite painstakingly pointed out why a reasonable doubt still existed.

I've grown weary with your perpetual reference to a website. That website was solely to help you get a clue about how to properly use logic in discourse, and in typical Montana fashion, you've made that link somehow be part of your attack against me. It's beyond laughable, and it only shows how childish you are.

You have the gall to say we're trying to hide? You won't even answer questions related to your own OP. Instead, you persist in arguing against positions we never took.

You're an utter waste of time. Call us pseudoskeptics (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean), claim we have pre-existing beliefs, make claims and then complain that it was never your intent to prove anything, fine. We get it. You don't like skeptics because they rain on your parade and aren't as gullible as you when it comes to believing whatever your heart desires. Congratulations--you opened a ridiculous thread with a ridiculously biased OP, and it's now gone on to 1000+ replies.

It's my fault in persisting in trying to engage you--you aren't capable of being engaged. You're just going to regurgitate the same bogus logic without incorporating a shred of what anyone else has actually said. For my own sanity--and I hope others figure this out as well--any time I see a future post by Polomontana, I'll politely ignore it as nothing but a potential black hole.




[edit on 12-8-2008 by thrashee]

Originally posted by polomontana
A pseudoskeptic does start with the belief that extraterrestrials don't or can't exist. I think we have seen the signs of pseudoskepticism on this thread.

Please show this, without lying about the positions we have taken. At no point has anyone here said that extraterrestrial cannot or do not exist.

I see you fail to acknowledge what we have asked you to acknowledge, so you may continue to lie about what we have said. If you wish to continue to lie about our starting positions, Polomontana, please provide the quotes from this thread where we have stated this. Otherwise, acknowledge what we have said ourselves about our position.

PROVE IT.

Originally posted by polomontana
The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved...

It's like what complex said about Dr. Lier. He wants to introduce all of these possibilities without any evidence...

Once again, you have lied about my position, Polomontana. I never said his claim was disproven or want to introduce all possibilities. Instead, I said his case is not proven, which is exactly what your quote says a skeptic must do.

If you wish to continue to make this claim about me, please provide the quotes from this thread. PROVE IT.

Please do not say I have not done the research. You do not know this. Simply because I do not agree with your conclusion that Dr. Lier has proven his case, does not mean I have not researched it. You are doing the exact same thing that you claim skeptics are doing, by "limiting my sphere of knowledge."