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

reply to post by SaviorComplex


I have always said that the greys are just a fad, before them it was nordic alien, witches and demons. Different cultures have different experiences because they usually have no american influence. I feel that alien abductions change so much through out the ages that it impossible to believe them. The grey's now but before them, there was all types "supposedly" taking people. I wonder what the next version of aliens will be

Originally posted by riggs2099
In North America large-headed gray aliens predominate, while in Britain abduction aliens are usually tall, blond, and Nordic, and South America tends toward more bizarre creatures, including hairy monsters

Where did you get this information Riggs? Not doubting you but I find this very interesting for the reason you mention in your post.

This is the problem I have with alien abductions being used as proof for alien contact. The type of alien you see depends on the country you live in.Why are the aliens not the same all over?

Like Savior points out it could be a number of things. It could mean people are making it up or seeing what they want to see. But it could also be that different groups of ET's have different agenda's throughout the world. Alot of possibilities if you ask me.

reply to post by Fastwalker81

en.wikipedia.org...

I found when I was looking this crap up for some abduction stories. I know it's wikipedia but there was some good information on there. Does not state if it's true or not just gives you information on what it's about. There was info for and against alien abductions. All the stuff for alien abductions, I have heard before and most of the information against, I have also heard including the stuff on types of aliens seen and what country they are usually seen in.



[edit on 15-8-2008 by riggs2099]

First off, I would like to thank everyone for the well wishes and everything is healing nicely.

Now, to Complex and the Rendlesham Forest case. Complex gave you alot of opinion.

First the lighthouse. The light house is not a possbility. It's not possible because of science and common sense.

Colonel Halt described what he saw.
www.youtube.com...

This is part of the actual recording as the object was seen along with other members of the military was with him.

Give me any evidence that a lighthouse can do what they described. Why has it never happened since? Why did these soldiers chase lights from a lighthouse that has been there flashing all this time?

All you had to do was cut on the lighthouse and create the same effect. You couldn't because a lighthouse can't do what was described.

The lighthouse attendent said the light flashes mostly out to sea. Should I listened to the lighthouse attendent or the skeptics? The skeptics have never been able to produce an effect even close to the one Halt and his team described on the tape.

The lighthouse is scientifically impossible as shown by the skeptic scientist on U.F.O. Hunters. Of course you will say it's biased because you don't agree with the conclusion. The scientist on the show doesn't accept these things but when you watch the experiment you will see why the lighthouse is not a possibility.

www.youtube.com...

You can see the experiment carried out by the skeptic and you can see the lighthouse attendent talk about the lights.

These are not my skeptical speculations, these are actual experiments and the lighthouse attendent speaking.

In order for the light house to be a possibility, you would have to show me how it's scientifically possible and you would have to reproduce the effect which would be easy. Just turn on the lighthouse. This only happened on this night and the lighthouse never produced anything like it again. The lighthouse is not a viable possibility.

Of course the skeptic will say, I'm not saying it's the lighthouse it's just a possibility. No it's not.

Who should I listen to, the skeptic or Colonel Halt and his men who were in charge of weapons so secret that they can't even talk about them.

On a side not, I'm reading this interesting book about U.F.O.'s around bases with nuclear or other powerful weapons. Here's a couple of interesting sites about this.

www.nicap.org...
www.nicap.org...

You said,

"And what about forester Vince Thurkettle or the Woodbridge police? They all tell a far different story than Halt or Penniston. The Woodbridge police were called to the scene on the night in question, and reported seeing nothing more than the lighthouse. Thurkettle and the police saw the supposed "landing marks" and said they were nothing more than rabbit diggings covered in old pine needles, that were not in a symmetrical pattern. They also identified the supposed burn marks on the trees as axe-cuts by foresters to indicate trees ready to be felled.

Further, in David Clarke's study of the DoD documents about the case, he found the British government to be, in his words, "disinterested" and their investigation "half-hearted." One would think if an alien craft did land at Rendlesham, the British government would have shown far more interest."

This makes absolutley no sense. I'm gonna take the word of Thurkettle and the police who were on the scene after the event? You can't be serious. Why should I accept their speculation over Colonel Halt's and his men eyewitness testimony as recorded as the event occured?

Thurkettle said he saw rabbit diggings 5 or 6 weeks later and that's evidence? You have to be kidding. That's just speculation.

You said they acted disinterested and that is supposed to be evidence to counter eyewitness testimony as recorded when the event occured?

Thurkettle also said he was visited by 2 men in black. He said they asked him questions about the forest incident and what was strange is that Halts memo wasn't released to the public yet. How did these men in black know about these things? Why were they asking everybody around the town about the incident? How do I know that Thurkettle wasn't spooked by these men in black? Thurkettle just gives his opinion and nothing more.

This is the same Thurkettle that Complex uses to try and debunk the case talking about being visited by two men in black suits in a black car and he learned that they were asking everyone in the area about the incident before the incident was even public.

This is not me talking, this is from Thurkettles own mouth. He's interviewed towards the end of the video.
www.youtube.com...

You also talked about the stories were not correct. I remember one sighting I had and I described it in 3 different ways. Does this mean the sighting didn't occur?

When you see these things, you are not thinking about getting dtails right for the skeptic especially if it's your first experience. There's nothing to suggest that Penniston didn't see what the others saw.

You have to give me a reason to accept second hand speculation instead of Halt, Penniston and the rest and events that were recorded as they occured.

Provide EVIDENCE, not speculation.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by polomontana]

Someone also talked about Unidentified Flying Objects and they tried to seperate them from extraterrestrials. You can't, these things don't have a terrestrial explanation, this is why there unidentified. We know what they are, extraterrestrial/extradimensional spacecraft. They are just unidentified by any terrestrial means.

Look at this poll:

Nearly 50 years since an alleged UFO was sighted at Roswell, New Mexico, a new CNN/Time poll released Sunday shows that 80 percent of Americans think the government is hiding knowledge of the existence of extraterrestrial life forms.

As for the Roswell incident, nearly two-thirds of the respondents to the poll said they believed that a UFO crash-landed in a field outside the New Mexico town 50 years ago next month.

www.cnn.com...

People automatically connect U.F.O.'s to extraterrestrials. Look at popular culture, U.F.O.'s carry around extraterrestrials. The only time you seperate the term is when your trying to split hairs.

A U.F.O. is identified, it's just unidentified in a terrestrial sense.

When you ask people like in the poll, about U.F.O.'s they start talking about life on other planets.

An unidentified flying object is a extraterrestrial/extradimensional craft or probe until we have a terrestrial explanation.

This is why the psyche connects the two because there is no other explanation.

Summary: A new national poll found that 72 percent of Americans believe the government is not telling the public everything it knows about UFO activity, and 68 percent think the government knows more about extraterrestrial life than it is letting on, the SCI FI Channel reported.

www.ufoevidence.org...

Here's a whole list of polls.
www.ufoevidence.org...

U.F.O.'s do mean extraterrestrial/extradimensional because we can't identify them by terrestrial means.

The human psyche connects the two because it's the only reasonable explanation for sightings, mass sightings, abduction cases, trace evidence, pictures, video and more.

Originally posted by polomontana
Someone also talked about Unidentified Flying Objects and they tried to seperate them from extraterrestrials. You can't, these things don't have a terrestrial explanation, this is why there unidentified. We know what they are, extraterrestrial/extradimensional spacecraft. They are just unidentified by any terrestrial means.

No. Otherwise it'd be called an INTFO (Identified Non Terrestrial Flying Object). They are exactly that--unidentified. Think about it: many supposed UFOs are actually proven to be terrestrial objects.

When you ask people like in the poll, about U.F.O.'s they start talking about life on other planets.

An unidentified flying object is a extraterrestrial/extradimensional craft or probe until we have a terrestrial explanation.

This is why the psyche connects the two because there is no other explanation.

Again, no. Correlation is not fact. And the psychological connections are caused by all the stories and conjectures, they're hardly proof that this link is the only correct one. I'm surprised even you stated something like this.

Welcome back and glad to hear you're doing well.

POLO...was hoping your tooth pulling would cause your eyes to open.... Your an idiot to give us polls..unlike you, I do not automatically change my mind to fit in with a group. What did you think the polls would do...sway our opinions because there are many that believe. A UFO is an unidentified flying object...meaning that a person sees something they cannot identify..not an unidentified alien object. I see something I cannot identify...I am supposed to assume automatically ALIEN. B.S. What about back in the day when thses hunters out in West Africa in Wesy Africa....when people were seeing unknown animals up in the mountains. Turned out to be gorillas, by your logic if you cannot identify it by our earthly standards, they should have been classified as ALIENS.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by riggs2099]

reply to post by thrashee


Thanks thrashee and it's good to be back into the debate.

U.F.O. just means we can't identify it in a terrestrial sense. If it has no terrestrial explanation then it's obviously extraterrestrial.

Again, this is why people automatically connect the two. It's because there is no other reasonable explanation.

The reason it's called unidentified is because we don't know if it's extraterrestrials/extrdimensional or a combination of both. We don't know how it's powered. We do know that it can't be explained in a terrestrial sense.

So it is a U.F.O. meaning it's not terrestrial until we can identify it in a terrestrial sense.

These things defy the laws of physics and appear out of nowhere. People get taken into the craft by extraterrestrial beings.

There's no other explanation

A pilot chases a u.f.o. and it stops on the drop of a dime and shoots straight up and disappears. We can't identify it in a terrestrial sense so it's unidentified.

That's why when you ask people about a UFO crash in Roswell, their not talking about something unidentified, there talking about a craft carrying extraterrestrials and the government covering it up.

It's only unidentified in a terrestrial sense. We know it's extraterrestrial/extradimensional craft or probe. There's no other reasonable explanation for these things.

Give me some other explanations. We can't identify it in terrestrial terms so tell me some other possibilities. If these things were terrestrial we could identify them but we can't.

reply to post by polomontana


What about the fact that some or all of these objects may just be military craft. You have no proof to say they aren't nor do we have proof that these are not aliens. With no proof either way, no one can say definitively what these are. You can not say that there is only the chance of this being one thing, when the other possibilty has just as much proof as the other.

Originally posted by polomontana
U.F.O. just means we can't identify it in a terrestrial sense. If it has no terrestrial explanation then it's obviously extraterrestrial.

If it's unidentified, it means we can't identify it in any sense, terrestrial or not. If you can't identify it as a terrestrial object, that doesn't mean it's therefore extraterrestrial, it just means you can't identify it with any known in your current knowledge.

Give me some other explanations. We can't identify it in terrestrial terms so tell me some other possibilities. If these things were terrestrial we could identify them but we can't.

Scores of UFOs are proven to actually be ball lightning, lanterns, aircraft, and the cliche weather balloon. Joe Schmoe may not be able to recognize a weather balloon, but a trained eye could, and would correctly label it as such. These are all possibilities. I'm certainly not claiming that they account for all sightings, but the point is that what some people do not recognize, others could and do.

No, I did not read all 1,000 pages of this thread, but I did read enough to come to the conclusion that the prevailing argument is that Skeptics don't believe because there is no proof...and those that either 'know' or subscribe to the belief that E.T. does exist, do so because eyewitness accounts, videos, photos and documents, have proved to be enough to sway them...

The Skeptics are the Agnostics and the Subscribers are the Zealots, or to tone that down - believers...

What's there to argue...?

Neither can be satifised until proof is brought to the table...so let's just put a stop to the cyclical arguments.

You're all very brilliant btw...



[edit on 8/17/2008 by chapter29] grammar x 2

[edit on 8/17/2008 by chapter29]

reply to post by thrashee


Thrashee, you said:

"If it's unidentified, it means we can't identify it in any sense, terrestrial or not. If you can't identify it as a terrestrial object, that doesn't mean it's therefore extraterrestrial, it just means you can't identify it with any known in your current knowledge."

Here comes the absolutes again. We can't identify it in ANY sense. Sure we can, we do it all the time. When something can't be explained in a terrestrial sense people automatically connect it to extraterrestrials because there is no other reasonable possibility.

We can just leave it open forever until we find a terrestrial explanation but that's not searching for truth, that's looking for answers that agree with your worldview or pre-existing belief about these things. There's over 700 cases that were investigated by project blue book alone that had no terrestrial explanation.

If it's not terrestrial what is it? Or do you say that it's not extraterrestrial because of a pre-existing belief or worldview. Then you are excluding a possibility based on your pre-existing belief. If it's not terrestrial what is it?

I'm trying to figure out at what point can we look past terrestrial explanations when none is found.

Originally posted by polomontana
Here comes the absolutes again. We can't identify it in ANY sense. Sure we can, we do it all the time. When something can't be explained in a terrestrial sense people automatically connect it to extraterrestrials because there is no other reasonable possibility.

Saying that an unidentified object means it's simply unidentified is less of an absolute than stating it must therefore be extraterrestrial. You're not ruling anything out, whereas if you assume it's non-terrestrial, you are limiting the options. And again, if you can't explain it by your own terrestrial knowledge base, that doesn't automatically make it extraterrestrial, it just means you cannot link it to anything that you know terrestrially. As I stated before, there are other trained eyes that may be able to identify it.

We can just leave it open forever until we find a terrestrial explanation but that's not searching for truth, that's looking for answers that agree with your worldview or pre-existing belief about these things. There's over 700 cases that were investigated by project blue book alone that had no terrestrial explanation.

I'm not saying some of these cases haven't eluded terrestrial explanations. In those cases, perhaps they are extraterrestrial. Understand that I'm not claiming that all of these UFOs can be explained by terrestrial means, nor am I ruling out extraterrestrial origins. I'm simply stating that just because an object is unidentified doesn't automatically mean it's extraterrestrial.

reply to post by thrashee


Looking at abduction cases, mass sightings, sightings, video, pictures and more, what do you think is the most reasonable answer outside of terrestrial origins?

It's just speculation.

Originally posted by polomontana
reply to post by thrashee

 

Looking at abduction cases, mass sightings, sightings, video, pictures and more, what do you think is the most reasonable answer outside of terrestrial origins?

It's just speculation.

I'll be really honest with you, Montana. I honestly don't know what to make of the UFO situation. I definitely believe in alien life, but whether that life has traveled here and is clandestinely interacting with the human population is another thing entirely. Regarding that, I quite frankly don't know what to believe.

I will tell you that I'd like to believe it. How exciting, seriously, would it be if aliens did exist and this eventually was made known? What profound implications that would have for mankind, both philosophically, technologically, and socially.

You are making a very big assumption using the word "terrestrial."

You assume that human beings are the only intelligent and/or civilized species on Earth, and I say we don't necessarily know that for a fact.

You say not terrestrial, I say you should be saying "not human."

I say that a civilization in the depths of the oceans is just as likely as a species traveling great distances from another planet to buzz around Earth making crop circles and carving up cattle.

Furthermore, beings from another dimension might share this 'physical' planet with us but not be in the same dimension; then by definition they, too, would be "terrestrial."

There are also several theories and some contactees who claim that UFOs and their occupants are in fact humans - or the descendants of humans - from the future. How can anyone be sure that a "Grey" or a UFO is extraterrestrial and not from the future? In my opinion, time travel is no less likely than interplanetary travel until or unless we discover a real possibility for FTL travel. We all talk about "warp" speed like it's a done deal because we've been seeing it on TV and movies for years, but in fact scientifically we still don't haven't come up with a definitive hypothesis for how FTL travel would be possible. And, if it isn't, these beings are spending years of their lives - possibly generations of lives - to come here and do what they do? Now that doesn't make sense!


[edit on 18-8-2008 by Heike]

Originally posted by polomontana
Give me any evidence that a lighthouse can do what they described. Why has it never happened since?

The skeptics have never been able to produce an effect even close to the one Halt and his team described on the tape.

If you read the police reports about the incident, you would see testimony from the police refering to seeing similar effects.

Originally posted by polomontana
These are not my skeptical speculations, these are actual experiments and the lighthouse attendent speaking.

As the video I posted shows, you can see the lighthouse from Rendlesham, contrary to the conclusions of UFO Hunters.

This video also shows you can see the lighthouse from Rendlesham. As does this photograph.

Originally posted by polomontana
This only happened on this night and the lighthouse never produced anything like it again.

Again, I refer you to police testimony, who were there the very night and other nights.

Originally posted by polomontana
Thurkettle said he saw rabbit diggings 5 or 6 weeks later and that's evidence? You have to be kidding. That's just speculation.

No, it's not speculation. Thurkettle was an experienced woodsman and forester. He knows what rabbit diggings look like. He identified them as such. How is that speculation?

According to this police report, police were called out the next day, and identified the "landing marks" as the same as Thurkettle would weeks later.

Originally posted by polomontana
Thurkettle also said he was visited by 2 men in black.

This is the same Thurkettle that Complex uses to try and debunk the case talking about being visited by two men in black suits in a black car and he learned that they were asking everyone in the area about the incident before the incident was even public.

All that proves is that someone was investigating the case. They could have been anyone. Suggesting that it proves anything else is speculation on your part.

That is right, Polomontana. You are speculation. PROVIDE EVIDENCE THIS IS PROOF OF ALIEN VISITATION, NOT SPECULATION.

Originally posted by polomontana
Provide EVIDENCE, not speculation.

I provided plenty of evidence. Identification by an expert. Video and photographic proof that the lighthouse can be seen from the forest. Witnesses who were there at the time and did not see a "alien craft." You dismiss it as speculation because it does not agree with your conclusions. Please tell us how this is speculation. Please tell us how testimony from police who were there at the time of the incident is just "speculation." Please tell us how expert testimony and identification is just "speculation."

Once again, you did nothing but dismiss evidence you do not agree with as speculation. In fact, it is quite obvious from your dismissal of the evidence provided, that you did not bother to read the police reports, or bother to watch the videos provided.

Originally posted by polomontana
I'm trying to figure out at what point can we look past terrestrial explanations when none is found.

At one.

All you will need is one case that cannot be falsified or shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be anything but.

Unfortunately (and yes, I mean that from the bottom of my heart), we do not seem to have reached that point. Even those who subscribe to the extraterrestrial hypothesis cannot agree on cases on a case-by-case basis.

Originally posted by Heike
You are making a very big assumption using the word "terrestrial."

You assume that human beings are the only intelligent and/or civilized species on Earth, and I say we don't necessarily know that for a fact.

I think you are arguing semantics, Heike. While we may not discuss "ultra-terrestrials," "cryptoterrestrials," and so forth in such specific terms, "extraterrestrial" can be seen as a convienent catch-all term for everything beyond the mundane. If tomorrow a little grey being lands at the White House and presents itself as our descendent, by default Polomontana and every other UFO believer will be proven right. Even if they were wrong about specific origins, they would be right in the fact there is not a mundane explanation behind the phenomena.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Of course the lighthouse can be seen from the Forest. That's just evidence of a lighthouse.

The lighthouse cannot do the things Halt and his men described on the tape as it occured.

The lighthouse light does not travel through the forest dodging trees. The lighthouse light is not so intense that it burns peoples eyes. For it to have been the lighthouse light it would have had to reflect off of another house and into the forest. This does not happen. The lighthouse light would have to been red. The lighthouse light would have had to break up into different crafts.

The lighthouse is not viable just because you can see it in the distance. You have to have evidence that the lighthouse light travels through the forest dodging trees and sending down beams of light.

This is why even the skeptical scientist said it wasn't possible based on science. There's no evidence that the light from the lighthouse travels through the forest. This has never been seen before the incedent or after the incident.

This is what I mean. Your willing to accept any silly and implausible explanation because you start with the priori that extraterrestrial/extradimensionals are implausible.

Of course you will claim to have an open mind because pseudoskeptics have to hide behind skepticism.

Your looking for any speculation without any evidence in order to support what you already think about these issues.

Thurkettle saw rabbit drippings, so what? That's evidence that Thurkettle knows what rabbit drippings look like and that's it. It doesn't discount what the Colonel and his men saw as recorded as the event occured.

There's only evidence that you can see the lighthouse in the distance from the forest. There's not a shred of evidence that the lighthouse light travels through the forest dodging trees.

Here's part of the transcript.

LT COLONEL HALT: 3.05: We see strange err, strobe like flashes to the err ... almost sporadic, but there's definitely something there, some kind of phenomena. 3.05: At about err... 10 degrees horizon err directly north, we got two strange objects, err ...half moon shape, dancing about with colored lights on them. but err. it has to be about 5-10 miles out, maybe less. The half moons have now turned into full circles as though there was an eclipse or something there for a minute or two.
(Break in tape)
LT COLONEL HALT: 3.15: Now we've got an object about ten degrees directly south...
SGT NEVILLES: There's one to the left.
LT COLONEL HALT: 10 degrees off the horizon, and the ones to the north are moving, one's moving away from us.
SGT NEVILLES: It's moving out fast.
LT COLONEL HALT: They're moving out fast.
MASTER SGT BALL: There's one on the right heading away too.
LT COLONEL HALT: Yeah, they're both heading north. Hey, here he comes from the south; he's coming in toward us now.
MASTER SERGEANT BALL: Explative.
LT COLONEL HALT: Now were observing what appears to be a beam coming down to the ground.
[Excited shouting in the background]
MASTER SGT BALL: Look at the colors... explative
LT COLONEL HALT: This is unreal.
Break in tape
LT COLONEL HALT: 3.30: And the objects are still in the sky, although the one to the south looks like it's loosing a little bit of altitude. We're turning around and heading back toward the base. The object to the sou... the object to the south is still beaming down lights to the ground.
(Break in tape)
LT COLONEL HALT: 0:400 Hours one object still hovering over the Woodbridge base at about 5-10 degrees off the horizon. Still moving erratic and similar lights beaming down as earlier.

You can read the full transcript here:
www.ufocasebook.com...

Tell me how a lighthouse in the distance can do this? Give me one shred of evidence. The lighthouse light is not even in play. It has never done anything like this since because it wasn't the lighthouse.

The Colonel and his men would have to be idiots to mistake a lighthouse light that has been there since they got to the base for these things they saw. The people are watching over weapons that they can't even talk about and I'm going to trust second hand speculation over what they saw and recorded as the event occured.

This is what the show UFO Hunters showed. The lighthouse doesn't even come into play scientifically when you listen to what Halt and his men were describing.




[edit on 18-8-2008 by polomontana]