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

reply to post by SaviorComplex


I simply don't take seriously the 'explanations' of armchair skeptics. Their only agenda is to preserve a world view. It is not their agenda to understand the world. Just hang around this sight a few more years. It becomes evident, eventually.

Likewise, you will have to get past people who follow intuition to the breaking point against logic, as they also have a world view to espouse.

You will not find science on ATS. Just people with belief systems ramming each other in the head over and over again.

If you want to know what is going on: Go do you own research and get off ATS. And don't buy the party line from anyone.

reply to post by AccessDenied


From your post:

I do not believe aliens from another planet or galaxy are visiting us for whatever reason.
I believe in UFO's..MAN MADE.
I believe there are other species on the planet, or are visiting here from another time or dimension.
They aren't flying around in saucers crashing into cow fields. They use laws of physics we cannot comprehend. But they aren't green men from mars.
I do not discredit those people who truly believe what they have seen and experienced. Belief is a powerful thing. So is the mind.
But yes, Iam a see it to believe it person.

The man made UFO or saucer idea has been exploited as well as
any explanation.

The UFO technology is the highest held secret by the US and the
international industrialized governments.

Not even Von Braun said anything except to perpetuate the official
lie that Roswell happened.

The presence of Tesla and Von Braun in Los Alamos, New Mexico in
the two years encompassing 1936 to 1938 gave a boost to the UFO
technology sold by Tesla in 1914 to Admiral Von Tirpitz of Germany.

Von Braun went back to Germany with Peter van Dressers first
susessful rocket engine design ( does this make him rocket
scientist) with a thrust over normal 16 pounds of that date to help the
V2 in Germany. For now, we can't say what went on in Germany and
don't know if Henry Stevens with his two German engineers working on
uncovering WWII secrets will find anything.

Undaunted Von Braun's return tip in 1945 to New Mexico kept
the UFO technology going.

That is about how one of the supposed man mad UFO scenario goes
in one story by Lyne.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Of course you have to look at the totality of the evidence. These things don't happen in isolation.

I have provided just 3 or 4 cases and you or anyone else has not provided one shred of evidence the counters the evidence as investigated and reported.

These cases are still unexplained because there is no terrestrial explanation for them.

You continue to throw out possibilities without any evidence and then you try to equate that to the evidence as reported and investigated.

Back to the forest.

It could not have been the lighthouse. Of course the pseudoskeptic will say it's the lighthouse until their blue in the face even though there's no evidence to support this claim.

The reason I bring up science is because a scientific experiment was carried out that showed the lighthouse could not produce what Halt and his men were describing.

The lighthouse light is seen in the distance, it doesn't travel through the forest dodging trees and sendind down beams of light as it breaks into pieces.

If I was Halt and his men I would be dismissive. They would have to be idiots not to know the difference between a light that they have been around in the distance and lights traveling through the forest.

The lighthouse attendent told you that the lighthouse light has never beemed into the forest. The light beams out towards the sea. Why would a lighthouse beam into a forest miles away?

This is interesting from a skeptical person who went to Rendlesham Forest and he came to the same conclusion as the skeptic scientist on UFO Hunters.

The lighthouse could not do what the Colonel and his men described.

Here's a few passages:

In this case, I think too many people are looking at the case with a fixed view - some people refuse to believe in UFOs, simply because they don't want to. No matter what the witnesses say and no matter what the evidence points to, some people refuse to admit that something strange happened. Many times I have seen people take a few small parts of the story, inadequately explain them and claim to have solved the whole case.
On the other hand, it is equally as bad to have a fixed idea that it was a UFO and ignore the other side's arguments. In this article I will not ignore the sceptic's arguments, I will address each one explaining why I either agree or disagree with it.

Is the lighthouse visible from Rendlesham forest?

In short, yes. But it's harder to say how visible. Due to the angle which the lighthouse is at and the gentle slope of the land, the lighthouse is only visible from a comparatively small area. In day time, I found that it only takes about a few dozen steps to the North, East, South or West to put the lighthouse out of my view. Basically, there is a little notch on the horizon where the lighthouse is visible, if you move, the lighthouse disappears. I have to some photos to prove it:

The objects which the witnesses have described since the first time they have spoken on the record bear no resemblance to a lighthouse.

www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk...

He has pictures and video animations from his trip to the forest.

The pseudoskeptic has to hold onto the lighthouse at all cost. You would think they would want to know if the lighthouse could do the things that the Colonel described but they don't. No matter how many times these things are pointed out they will just ignore them.

Colonel Halt said something interesting.

Charles Halt - Deputy base commander at time - present on second night

"The whole time this was going on, we could see the lighthouse, the lighthouse was about 33-35 degrees off where this object was this seen....A lighthouse doesn't move through the forest, the lighthouse doesn't go up and down, it doesn't explode, doesn't change shape, size, doesn't send down beams of light from the sky."

The guy also made this interesting observation and you can see the pictures and animation on the website.

Mcgaha seems to believe that there is some kind of beam which sweeps through the trees, and that light gets scattered everywhere – creating some kind of optical illusion. I can only assume that Mcgaha has no idea of what the lighthouse actually looks like. Let’s see what the lighthouse’s wonderful “beam” really looks like, here’s a frame from my video footage. I zoomed in almost 10x to capture this shot on my camcorder.

Yes, that’s right - that really is the lighthouse. The little window in the farmhouse was much bigger than the lighthouse’s so-called “beam”. You must remember that the lighthouse is almost six miles away too, you can’t seriously expect it to “swing between the trees”. I decided to forget about the lighthouse for a while and walked off deeper into the forest".

He's saying the same thing as the guys on UFO Hunters were saying even the scientist who is a skeptic. When you see it and conduct the experiment you don't even know how the lighthouse comes into play.

Like I said you can see pictures and video stills of his trip to the forest.
www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk...


[edit on 19-8-2008 by polomontana]

Originally posted by polomontana
I have provided just 3 or 4 cases and you or anyone else has not provided one shred of evidence the counters the evidence as investigated and reported.

These cases are still unexplained because there is no terrestrial explanation for them.

Ok, cool. So your cases are unexplained.

Now what?

Originally posted by thrashee

Originally posted by polomontana
I have provided just 3 or 4 cases and you or anyone else has not provided one shred of evidence the counters the evidence as investigated and reported.

These cases are still unexplained because there is no terrestrial explanation for them.

Ok, cool. So your cases are unexplained.

Now what?

Of course, it's unexplained because there is no terrestrial explanation. I didn't say there wasn't an extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional explanation.

That's my point, people will say that these things are unexplained until they can try and find a terrestrial explanation and in alot of these cases they can't. So it's in unexplained limbo forever.

Originally posted by polomontana
Of course, it's unexplained because there is no terrestrial explanation. I didn't say there wasn't an extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional explanation.

But you also didn't state that there was (at least here).

That's my point, people will say that these things are unexplained until they can try and find a terrestrial explanation and in alot of these cases they can't. So it's in unexplained limbo forever.

Nope, there you go again assuming intent behind impartial science. It will remain unexplained until something explains it. If that something should be terrestrial, then so be it. If that something should be extraterrestrial, we'll have first had to have had the knowledge and exposure to truly know just what extraterrestrial means.

If we don't have a paradigm for what a certain sphere of knowledge encompasses, that's simply a limitation, not a bias. If one day disclosure happens, we get to examine these UFOs, and we incorporate this extraterrestrial knowledge into our framework, then we can learn to recognize and explain these phenomena as extraterrestrial.

Originally posted by thrashee

Originally posted by polomontana
Of course, it's unexplained because there is no terrestrial explanation. I didn't say there wasn't an extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional explanation.

But you also didn't state that there was (at least here).

That's my point, people will say that these things are unexplained until they can try and find a terrestrial explanation and in alot of these cases they can't. So it's in unexplained limbo forever.

Nope, there you go again assuming intent behind impartial science. It will remain unexplained until something explains it. If that something should be terrestrial, then so be it. If that something should be extraterrestrial, we'll have first had to have had the knowledge and exposure to truly know just what extraterrestrial means.

If we don't have a paradigm for what a certain sphere of knowledge encompasses, that's simply a limitation, not a bias. If one day disclosure happens, we get to examine these UFOs, and we incorporate this extraterrestrial knowledge into our framework, then we can learn to recognize and explain these phenomena as extraterrestrial.

Wrong thrashee,

We don't need to fully understand these things before we can include them in our sphere of knowledge.

I don't fully understand alot of things and they are included in my sphere of knowledge.

I think you said you need these things to be an empirical truth first.

This means you can't reason about your own origins because we still don't understand if we were seeded on earth or if we evolved on this planet.

You can't reason about anything in the field of theoretical physics because these things are not empirical truths first.

Originally posted by polomontana
We don't need to fully understand these things before we can include them in our sphere of knowledge.

I don't fully understand alot of things and they are included in my sphere of knowledge.

I think you said you need these things to be an empirical truth first.

That's not exactly what I mean. I'm not saying you have to fully understand everything about these things, I'm saying you have to have a frame of reference. For instance, if you found an object that was composed of metals that are not of this Earth, it would be logical to say that the object was possibly extraterrestrial, without having to explain just what that object was. The frame of reference is the unknown metal--it's the evidence that it's extraterrestrial.

The problem with UFO sightings is that they're simply not available for scrutiny and analysis. The best you really can hope for is to make rudimentary observations and conclude from them that no terrestrial knowledge available to the observer can account for it.

Again, then you go back to unknown, not ET.

Originally posted by polomontana
We don't need to fully understand these things before we can include them in our sphere of knowledge.

I don't fully understand alot of things and they are included in my sphere of knowledge.

You are right, we don't have to fully understand something for us to know about it.

However, you are confusing knowledge and belief.

For instance, we do not fully understand gravity. But we know it exists. It is quantifiable, it is measurable.

And the same with theoretical physics, as you so often bring up, mistaken in the belief that it supports your case. Theoretical physics are theories that describe natural phenomenon which we can observe, measure, quantify, with a core in mathematics. And then those theories are judged on how accurate they are in predicting empirical observations.

This is not the case with UFO phenomena. You believe that UFOs are driven by a non-human intelligence, but you have no knowledge to back up that belief. The evidence is fleeting; you have observations, but you have nothing that can be measured or quantified. You have no theories or the ability to create theories, that can describe the observations to any degree of accuracy. Sure, you can prescribe an alien origin to what you have observed but because of the fleeting nature of that observation, you have no way of testing your "theory" and therefore no way of knowing if it has any accuracy. Nor has any such "theory" ever been able to predict future observations.

Originally posted by polomontana
Of course you have to look at the totality of the evidence. These things don't happen in isolation.

No, you cannot do that, because you do not know if these things are related. You must first examine them case-by-case, bit-by-bit to see if they are related.

You only believe them to be related, once again confusing belief and knowledge. You do not want to apply a microscope to that totality, and go so far as a lame attempt to forbid any one else from a closer examination as well, because of what may be discovered. The knowledge you could gain may challenge your belief.

Originally posted by polomontanaI provided just 3 or 4 cases and you or anyone else has not provided one shred of evidence the counters the evidence as investigated and reported.

Stop right there. You are nothing but an unadulterated liar.

We did provide evidence. We did not "throw out possibilities." We gave explanations. We provided evidence and explanations of the cases, as investigated and reported.*

However, you did not even look at the evidence. You outright ignored it when it did not support your pre-determined conclusion. You even posted quotes, purposefully taken out of context.

We have proven that you have done this, Polomontana.

When you ignore evidence, when you twist quotes and context, you cannot claim we have not provided evidence. When you do, you are lying.

You have not provided an explanation about why you ignored evidence. You have not provided an explanation about why you posted quotes out of context.

You are done, Polomontana. This proves you are not a rational actor. This proves you do not want to have an honest, rational discussion. And we have empirical evidence to show that. This proves you are everything that you claim "pseudoskeptics" to be; you have a pre-determined conclusion, and will do anything and everything to insulate that belief, up to and including lying.

(By the way, this is one of the most ridiculous things you can say. Anyone can report anything. It does not make it true.)

[edit on 20-8-2008 by SaviorComplex]

[edit on 20-8-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Does any of this sound familiar?

The ufological "community" suffers from creative anemia. It has a disheartening tendency to refute dissenting voices--even those within its own ranks--with tired screeds that unnecessarily polarize the debate...

To a "t," Polomontana...to a "t."

Am I the only one who never, ever wants to hear the phrase "as investigated and reported" again?

reply to post by thrashee

Am I the only one who never, ever wants to hear the phrase "as investigated and reported" again?

Yes you probably are, if you don't mind me stepping in and saying.

Aliens exist and are visiting, supervising and living among us on this planet!

Bring it on cookies!

reply to post by Malevolent_Aliens


I'm honestly confounded here: in one thread, I get accused of not contributing anything to the thread and just trying to make personal attacks....

And then those very same accusers pop up elsewhere challenging me.

I can certainly go either way--pick one, and stick with it.

Originally posted by thrashee
Am I the only one who never, ever wants to hear the phrase "as investigated and reported" again?

Here, here! (Or hear, hear!) It is an absolute nonsense and meaningless phrase.

Originally posted by Malevolent_Aliens
Aliens exist and are visiting, supervising and living among us on this planet!

Okay.

Do you have anything else to add?

[edit on 20-8-2008 by SaviorComplex]

reply to post by SaviorComplex

Okay.

Do you have anything else to add?

No not really,

That's all for now!lol

reply to post by thrashee


All in a hard days work for the "disinfo" agents right?

reply to post by Turiddu


Phew, let's all get a beer!

Originally posted by thrashee
reply to post by Malevolent_Aliens

 

I'm honestly confounded here: in one thread, I get accused of not contributing anything to the thread and just trying to make personal attacks....

And then those very same accusers pop up elsewhere challenging me.

I can certainly go either way--pick one, and stick with it.

Don't you feel this thread is more appropriate for an argument? Of course the other one is best left un-disturbed as it has nothing to do with skeptics and experiencers only a few people hoping to discuss the moon anomalies in peace thus the reason for my transfer.

It’s great to be here thank you for the warm welcome!

[edit on 20-8-2008 by Malevolent_Aliens]