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

Zoom out the entire universe in your mind.

Then tell us that only one planet out of the billions available has intelligent life. Try to imagine how you would even find Earth amongst all those planets.

Does it seem likely to you that we are alone?

Come on, the only reason we think we are alone is because we were brought up thinking we are. Its difficult to change core beliefs for some people.

Nobody looking at the universe from the outside would think "naah, there is no life there". Or "yes, one planet can have intelligent life".


[edit on 12-8-2008 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus


Copernicus,

Read through this thread. You'll see that no skeptic here disagrees with what you've stated.

Originally posted by Copernicus

Zoom out the entire universe in your mind.

Then tell us that only one planet out of the billions available has intelligent life. Try to imagine how you would even find Earth amongst all those planets.

Does it seem likely to you that we are alone?

Come on, the only reason we think we are alone is because we were brought up thinking we are. Its difficult to change core beliefs for some people.

Nobody looking at the universe from the outside would think "naah, there is no life there". Or "yes, one planet can have intelligent life".


[edit on 12-8-2008 by Copernicus]

Nice post.

Mod Edit: 1-line post. Please review this link.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by Gemwolf]

EDIT Somehow posted in the wrong thread.

[edit on 8/12/2008 by AceWombat04]

Originally posted by polomontana
Nice post.

You do realize that one-line posts are unacceptable, right?

Perhaps you would care to tell us why it is a nice post? I'm curious, since he made a great case for us being effectively alone.

reply to post by thrashee


Of course the pseudoskeptic is not going to come out and say they don't exist. They would be saying there close minded. This is how they hide behind skepticism. They have to say there open-minded.

It's just like most criminals don't come out and say there criminals. They hide behind a normal life while doing their crimes.

A pseudoskeptic hides behind skepticism in order to try and hide there feelings about the subject.

This is why you hear it's a fantasy out of one breathe and then the next minute you hear I'm open. I'm skeptical about certain issues, but I don't have to belittle the subject in order to debate it.

This is why you have to look for the signs of pseudoskepticism.

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

en.wikipedia.org...

We have seen most of these on this thread BIG TIME, if I can borrow a phrase from Dick Cheney.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by polomontana]

Originally posted by polomontana
It's just like most criminals don't come out and say there criminals. They hide behind a normal life while doing their crimes.

A pseudoskeptic hides behind skepticism in order to try and hide there feelings about the subject.

Notice how Montana is now likening us to criminals. Unbelievable.

Our feelings are irrelevant. You've never ONCE asked us how we actually feel about the subject.

For the last time, we have the ability to remove our personal feelings regarding the issue and simply stick to the facts.

I think you're just jealous that you do not possess such a capability at this sort of distinction.


This is why you hear it's a fantasy out of one breathe and then the next minute you hear I'm open. I'm skeptical about certain issues, but I don't have to belittle the subject in order to debate it.


Show us anywhere we've called it a fantasy. Go on. Back up your allegations for once. Of course, you WON'T, you just want a soapbox to whine against skeptics.

I hope true believers are taking note here to see how not to act in order to not harm your own cause.

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

Criticism doesn't require proof. It's just criticism. Besides, the "proof" was our logical explanation of why your evidence wasn't good enough, which is far more than you've ever given us as far as a reply or exchange of any sort.

We've made NO counter-claims, despite the fact that you persist in lying and stating that we have.

Notice the phrase "empirical evidence"? That would be the dreaded scientific approach you repeatedly ignore, which is why I find it ironic that you posted this.

Unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it--if by dismissing you mean we're simply stating it's not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thanks for clearing that up, Montana.

Why is it that the only thing you can argue against anymore is the skeptic himself, rather than anything we've actually stated? You've resorted to bare bones ad hom attacks now because you've painted yourself into a corner by refusing to address the actual exchange or anything we've asked you.

Keep posting, please. It only gets better.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by thrashee]

Originally posted by TheInfamousOne
...Skeptics are skeptic because of their lack of experience in matters such as these. ...

I do not think that is true. I've never seen a UFO, never seen aliens, never seen Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Chupacabras, etc. Yet I do not rule them out entirely.

What you find as "skeptics" here are not really skeptics at all. Instead, what you have are a bunch of people who are very similar to my friend. I was telling him some stuff about 9/11, and he said "I do not WANT to believe it". I said "What do you mean you don't want to believe it?" and he replied "If what you are saying is true, then that would mean I would have to totally rethink how I view things. And I don't want to do that!" (He eventually did, btw. )

I think the "debunkers" on here are in the same boat. If they admit that there is evidence for UFOs, then they would have to undergo a paradigm shift. One where humans would be susceptible to NOT being the dominant species in this universe. One where their science is shown to be incomplete. One in which the government HAS been lying to them (although, why this last one is even DEBATABLE on a "conspiracy site" is beyond me!) all along, one in which they may have to face the fact that evil people are in collusion with things far in technological advance than us.

None of it is true to the "debunker", because it's not truth that matters. It's them keeping in the same mindset, and not getting out of that. It is where they are comfortable. Maybe I should pity them, instead of detest their fear, and love of lies.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by sir_chancealot]

reply to post by sir_chancealot


That's a very good post. That's my point, they start with a belief and everything else is filtered through that belief.

reply to post by polomontana


You're kidding right? You guys actually throw it on us without proving your allegations first. There can be tons of evidence but without the alien, spaceship,Bigfoot,monsters etc... there's no proof. You can believe all you want but can you show me actual proof. I tend to keep an open mind about all this and will not let myself go in either direction. I'm not going to believe because others say so, but I'm not going to dismiss it all together. I start with no belief at all. Polo, where's your proof.


[edit on 8/12/2008 by Solarskye]

Wait a minute.. it just dawned on me that we've been totally set up from the very beginning. The TITLE of this thread was:

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

Then the first statement in the OP says:

You say that you know or think that extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings can't or don't exist, are you saying that the eyewitness to an event can't know these things either?

Haven't we already determined that a skeptic is an open-minded person without pre-conceived beliefs? The ones who have already decided that "ETs/EDs can't or don't exist by definition would be debunkers or pseuodskeptics, not skeptics.

Therefore the title of the thread should have been "The Questions UFO debunkers can't answer" or perhaps "The Questions UFO pseudoskeptics can't answer."

The OP has not asked a question that a SKEPTIC can't answer, since by his very first statement he clearly defined that the people he is asking these questions of are NOT true undecided and open-minded skeptics.

Second question:

Are you limiting another person's sphere of knowledge based on your pre-existing belief on these issues?

Again the person with a "pre-existing belief" that ET cannot exist is not a skeptic.

do you say these things could not have happened based on your personal belief about these issues? Are you saying that your friend couldn't know and experience these things based on what you believe?

Again, a SKEPTIC would not say these things could not have happened, a skeptic would consider the evidence and the testimony and try to figure out what did happen.

Dear Mr. Montana,

You have not asked a single question that a UFO SKEPTIC can not answer. In fact, you have not asked a question that is even valid to ask of a SKEPTIC.

We've been hornswoggled!!

P.S. Why haven't you answered my question about the evidence for other paranormal and cryptozoological phenomena, which many people consider to be just as compelling as the evidence for UFOs and ETs?

Originally posted by polomontana
That's a very good post. That's my point, they start with a belief and everything else is filtered through that belief.

Like your beliefs of skeptics? You have a pre-existing beliefs about skeptics, and everything we have said has to be fit that belief or your ignore it.

Is this why you have failed to address our questions or acknowledge statements we have made that are contrary to your claims?

reply to post by thrashee


It was just an analogy thrashee. Nobody was comparing you to criminals. I don't believe that I actually have to say that because it's obvious.

Secondly, the terms fantasy, dolt and other things that I will not mention has been used on this thread. This is just one sign of pseudoskepticism.

It said,

"Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence"

That's my point, you throw out every possibility and some might be plausible but they have no evidence.

Complex said empirical truth. There's a difference between an empirical truth and empirical evidence.

Empirical

–adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

Did you notice that second one? DEPENDING UPON EXPERIENCE AND OBSERVATION ALONE , WITHOUT USING SCIENTIFIC METHOD OR THEORY.

dictionary.reference.com...

That's my point, there's other ways to know the truth outside of the scientific method. So there is empirical evidence that supports these things, it's just not an empirical truth. That's why I said beyond any reasonable doubt. There's always room for more investigation.

A computer would be an empirical truth. Anyone can go into their nearest Best Buy and see a computer. Everyone can't see or experience a U.F.O. or extraterrestrials.

This is why you have to look at the totality of the evidence. Empirical evidence, direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.

I have tried to debate the issues thrashee and I have presented the evidence.

I will try again. This is just one case that you keep ignoring.

My claim, extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings exist beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence.

I then presented the evidence. This is one case out of many.

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

I even gave you one with a skeptics p.o.v.
www.youtube.com...

Give me some evidence that counters what they said they saw.

I don't want explanations without any evidence. I don't want every possibility without any evidence.

If your gonna speculate that's fine but it doesn't counter the evidence as reported and investigated.

reply to post by Solarskye


If your open minded, why do you compare u.f.o.'s and aliens to bigfoot or monsters?

They both have seperate evidence. You lump them together so you don't have to debate the evidence.

Presidents, military, police officers, pilots, astronauts, high ranking government officials have not seen monsters.

Again, go back and read the thread. Thrashee and others have tried it already. I'm not trying to prove anything to you.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by polomontana]

For me, it seems obvious that certain people who believe in extraordinary stuff are themselves close-minded. I don't care what I feel about subjects such as these, I just gather those facts that I can be certain enough are true, and base my conclusion on those. It is another thing altogether to speculate about possibilities. Speculation is exactly talking without boundaries, and believe me skeptics are very well versed when it comes to that. Most of the time all conversations are spoiled by people who actually come and say "this is 100% proof/certtain/absolute truth".

This basically means that we cannot converse in peace either. It does not really matter how you put it, people are different and it can be very difficult to accept other people's views into your own territory, whether after that you care to believe them or not.

I wouldn't be suprised to try and find an invitation only forum for those who think they know for certain and then deny nothing. I also wonder if such a forum ever achieves any result, because most things are believed anyway and someday one of those is going to be true. So, then they have ten years of achieves and suddenly everybody knows that they have believed in it allt eh time.

But nevermind, situation such as this is never going to change anywhere. There are certain things that you cannot change in our world, and this applies to skeptics as well.

reply to post by polomontana

In all the things I listed not one of them have evidence pointing to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Let me put my hands on one of these and the debates over and I'm charging admission.

Heike has it right. The OP has lost the line between skeptics and debunker's and until he draws the line back with skeptics on one side and debunker's on the other side and changes his way of thinking then this thread will just keep going and nothing changes. I'm open minded to facts not beliefs, there are other ways to be open minded. When I said monsters I was preferring to Lochness.

I could care less about who see's what. Their profession and character still doesn't make it fact.

Thrashee has said it over and over in this discussion that we ( skeptics ) don't have to prove anything. We want knowledge but we will not accept anything other than facts, science and hands on proof. Speculations, assumptions, stories, theories etc.. are not "FACT"

Originally posted by polomontana
It was just an analogy thrashee. Nobody was comparing you to criminals. I don't believe that I actually have to say that because it's obvious.

Just as it's obvious why you chose that analogy.

Secondly, the terms fantasy, dolt and other things that I will not mention has been used on this thread. This is just one sign of pseudoskepticism.

Don't confuse being insulted because of your dimwittedness as an attack on your belief. Trust me, the UFO phenomena has enough hurdles to cross without you harming their cause.

That's my point, you throw out every possibility and some might be plausible but they have no evidence.

Really? Show me ONE place where we've tossed out ANY possibility. Again, I'm tired of your blanket accusations. I want proof that we've said UFOs or alien life is not possible.

Complex said empirical truth. There's a difference between an empirical truth and empirical evidence.

Exactly. You can't have one without the other. It's about time you started figuring this out.

Get it through your head. No one has rejected anything. No one has made a counter claim. No one has said aliens have not visited earth or don't exist. All we're saying is that your positive claim--the ridiculous claim, at that--that this evidence of yours, the same evidence that you are too afraid to apply scientific methods against, proves beyond a reasonable doubt that aliens exist.

Anyway, carry on with your bias and beliefs regarding skeptics. In case you can't tell, almost every single person in here is now asking why you haven't responded to their questions. Maybe you should quit trying to smear skeptics and start bearing responsibility for your own thread.

reply to post by Solarskye


You said,

"We want knowledge but we will not accept anything other than facts, science and hands on proof. Speculations, assumptions, stories, theories etc.. are not "FACT"

I'm so glad the world does not follow your standards. If they did, we would still be living in caves.

Things always start with speculation, assumptions, stories and theories.

Beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't = fact.

If we were to go by your standards, the whole field of Theoretical Physics would be wiped out.

How could you tell the difference between which theories to pursue and which ones not to pursue if these things have to be facts first? You use reason.

Originally posted by polomontana
Presidents, military, police officers, pilots, astronauts, high ranking government officials have not seen monsters.

How do you know? Why are you trying to limit their "sphere of knowledge?"

Could you please point to one incident where a President, military officer, etc saw something that is a definitive alien craft? Not hearsay, not a light in the sky, not Jimmy Carter (as he as disowned his supposed alien encounter on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast), an actual proven alien craft.

Originally posted by polomontana
Complex said empirical truth. There's a difference between an empirical truth and empirical evidence.

Please quote me, and quote me within context.

Originally posted by polomontana
This is why you have to look at the totality of the evidence. Empirical evidence, direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.

No we don't. Just as you continue to claim we are not allowed to tell you how to look at the evidence, you cannot tell us how we falsify your claims. Just as someone cannot see the forest for the trees, you cannot see the trees for the forest; you cannot say the forest is healthy unless you examine the trees within.

Originally posted by polomontana
I then presented the evidence. This is one case out of many.

And we presented counter-arguments, not throwing out every possibility, as you continually lie about, but rather that your claims of beyond a reasonable doubt are anything but. You have ignored any counter-arguments we have made, you do not address them, rather dismiss them without comment.