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

May I have a moment?

Thank you.

This is a large thread. We would appreciate your not using one line posts that do nothing to advance the topic. We'd also like to remind you all that as a discussion forum, people will have different beliefs and perspectives. Debating and disagreeing with someone is not only permissible, it's kinda the point.

However, being disagreeable (as opposed to disagreeing) is not permitted. Please do not personally attack, insult or otherwise abuse your fellow members. Maybe some of you might actually win someone over to your view if you approach it the right way.

Feeling the need to lash out is normal. However acting on that feeling is not permitted. Use the Alert function, send a Complaint/Suggestion via the Member Center, hit the Ignore button, or take a stroll around the block instead.

Thank you all in advance for your cooperation.

Originally posted by polomontana
The lighthouse light doesn't flash through the woods, dodging trees and sending down beams of light. It doesn't break up into pieces.

You're right. There is no possible way for light to do that.

Never.

Nope.

Not Ever.

No way, no how!

Of course, those are examples of sunlight in the forest, breaking apart, sending down "beams."

However, considering the lighthouse light was bright enough (according to the very quotes you posted, Polomontana) to be described as an "explosion" and scare the witnesses, it would have created a similar effect as the pictures above.

Originally posted by polomontana
Here we go again. Pseudoskeptics speaking in absolutes.

I frankly can't remember if this has been done yet, but I'm sick of hearing the term pseudoskeptic used as a backhanded insult to us. Let's define, shall we?

Pseudoskepticism

The term pseudoskepticism (or pseudoscepticism) denotes thinking that appears to be skeptical but is not. The term is most commonly encountered in the form popularised by Marcello Truzzi, where he defined pseudoskeptics as those who take "the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves 'skeptics'".[1][2]

Montana, you'd love this guy Truzzi, the original skeptic's skeptic, if you don't already know about him. What's interesting, however, is when he says this (from the same source):

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.

So you see, Montana, every time you say things such as:

Who said anything about 100% proof? Why are you talking about 100% when I said beyond any reasonable doubt?

and

Pseudoskeptics also use science as a catch phrase when they don't have any argument.
Well it's not science, well your not using the scientific method.

you're breaking your own rules. Rules that have been confirmed by people in your camp. It's just that simple. We can play this shell game over and over again, but let's face it: we've been to this exact point many, many times. When others quite easily catch you with your evidence, you resort to this response each and every time. First we're using the scientific method when you didn't want us to, then we're failing to use science, etc. Your last resort is straw man and ad hom attacks on the skeptic himself.

So again, here's the problem with statements such as these:

If there is no terrestrial explanation for these things, what is the most logical explanation for mass sightings, sightings, pictures, video, trace evidence and abduction cases?

Think burden of proof, Montana. We're not claiming these things are anything. You are. So guess what, guy? It doesn't matter what you think is the most logical explanation--you still have to prove your claim.

You're the one making the leap from unknown to "extraterrestrial". You're trying to use inductive reasoning, but no amount of this is ever going to be enough for a skeptic, simply because by nature it's not good enough for proof. It's not because we're unfair, it's not because we don't like you--it's because this is not enough for scientifically proving something as a truth.

Why are you so afraid of this? Shouldn't you want this type of rigid scrutiny and process applied to such a fundamentally significant phenomenon like alien visitation? Doesn't this topic deserve to be treated like a "grown up"?

A lot of scientists are believers of various things. And they tend to likely have more rigid standards when experimenting and theorizing those things they believe. Why? Because they recognize their inherent potential bias, and seek to guard against this. This is nothing but integrity and the capacity of self-awareness.

reply to post by thrashee


It would seem this should end this thread, you have summed up what has been the hot debate in this topic. For some reason, I believe this will disputed too.

For the skeptical mind, is even skeptical of how someone will react to the truth as well.

Originally posted by thrashee
I frankly can't remember if this has been done yet, but I'm sick of hearing the term pseudoskeptic used as a backhanded insult to us.

I'm sick of it as well. That is why I asked for it to stop, and will ask for a moderator to step in every time he uses it.

However, I noticed Truzzi established several criteria to recognize a pseudoskeptic. I thought it would be a fun exercise to see how some of these apply to Polomontana.

The tendency to deny, rather than doubt

Originally posted by polomontana
First off you have not provided a shred of evidence.

Double standards in the application of criticism

Originally posted by polomontana
Pseudoskeptics also use science as a catch phrase when they don't have any argument.

And then you say...

Originally posted by polomontana
You would have to give me scientific evidence that the lighthouse can cause these effects...

The making of judgments without full inquiry

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by polomontana
The lighthouse light would have to been red.

It is red.* I provided this photo in my previous post.

Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments

Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'

Originally posted by polomontana
Pseudoskeptics also use science as a catch phrase when they don't have any argument.

Presenting insufficient evidence or proof

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

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

Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence

Originally posted by polomontana
If there is no terrestrial explanation for these things, what is the most logical explanation for mass sightings, sightings, pictures, video, trace evidence and abduction cases?

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Kudos to both thrashee and SaviorComplex. I haven't seen that thorough a thrashing of another's viewpoints in quite some time. Those are excellent examples of using the facts and reason to establish and support a position, while completely discrediting the opponents points.

Way to go......

If I could give SC and Thrashee applause you would have it guys. I whole heartedly agree with MrPenny. Although in my eyes you have succinctly handed polomontona and gallery the proverbial hat in this issue, I sense that this will be lost on him/her. There is a rigidity in polomontanas way of thinking that seems to be adept at tossing the obvious and alternative viewpoints aside with barely a glance. Damn good job nonetheless.

reply to post by thrashee


Your all over the place thrashee.

You said,

"Think burden of proof, Montana. We're not claiming these things are anything. You are. So guess what, guy? It doesn't matter what you think is the most logical explanation--you still have to prove your claim."

First off, I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else. I never said that I was trying to prove anything to you.

Where have I said that I was trying to prove anything to you?

You are the one trying to disprove my claim. Which is silly but that's what pseudoskeptics do. Why are you desperate to try and disprove a claim that you can't disprove because I never said that I was trying to prove anything to you in the first place?

You are the ones going in circles because your desperate to be right.

The pseudoskeptic can't say, I don't know. They have to say that you can't know either. This is why their desperate in trying to disprove my claim.

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.

en.wikipedia.org...

Secondly, I said over and over again that I'm not making a scientific argument. Never have I said that I'm making a scientific argument.

My claim: extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings exist beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence as investigated and reported.

The only thing you can do is say that I disagree with the claim, when you try to disprove the claim by building a negative hypothesis then the burden of proof is on you.

You tried to stay away from the evidence with your website argument and when that fell apart you slipped up.

You said extraterrestrials are a reasonable possibility
You said you need empirical truth before you can even reason about these things.

You can't build a negative hypothesis and then say you have no burden of proof.

If you say you disagree with me and then you present your argument as to why you think differently then your admitting you don't know. This is why your skeptical in the first place.

As soon as you try to disprove my claim by debating the evidence or building a negative hypothesis then the burden of proof is on you.

For instance, thrashee doesn't support my claim because he needs these things to be an empirical truth first.

You have already told us why you don't accept my claim because you have a standard of proof that pretty much cancels out 50% of all theories.

I didn't say the evidence proves that extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings exist beyond any reasonable doubt.

I said based on the evidence as reported and investigated extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings exist beyond a reasonable doubt.

There's always room for more evidence and I have said this over and over again in this thread.

The reason why you won't answer the hypothetical is because your so bias that your scared to even speculate about the issue. We know that you need things to be an empirical truth but you need them to be an empirical truth before you can even speculate about them?

Are you this biased?

I ask the hypothetical question again.

If there's no terrestrial explanation for these things what is the most logical explanation for abduction cases, sightings, mass sightings, trace evidence, pictures and video?

If all these things were given a terrestrial explanation, I could accept that extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings do not exist.

I can say this because I'm seeking the truth wherever it leads.

Can you say the same?

What happened.
You can't have your UFO without your ET.
The CIA will not allow such a thing.
Ask Spielberg.
And better yet, deny the UFO to make everyone silly.
Then free energy is all hokum and the sheeple wool has
covered everyone's mind.

Here is what they will allow:

www.coasttocoastam.com...

Thu 08.21 >>
Coast to Coast AM science adviser, Richard C. Hoagland will reveal his decoding of Wernher von Braun's 50 year old secret of the control of gravity, and the implications for anti-gravity technology, free energy and space exploration.

Will he skip the part that by 1925 Von Braun was exposed to Tesla
technology sent to Germany in 1914. He got rushed through studies and
handed a PhD promoted in the SS and sent to New Mexico to replace
Willy Ley.

Being top scientist in Germany he went back and did not defect like Ley.
Some more alien or Tesla tech along with the best engine for the V2,
Von Braun headed home only to return in 1945. So I'd say add on
another 10 years of anti-gravity technology under the belt.

The 1950s and Korean War or by 55 whenever UFOs went over the
Capital in Washington DC must have been the pinnical of success for
the anti gravity machine.

Can any pseudoskeptic on this board please quote where I said I was trying to prove anything to you?

Originally posted by polomontana
First off, I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else. I never said that I was trying to prove anything to you.

You are the one trying to disprove my claim. Which is silly but that's what pseudoskeptics do.

Proving once again that, no matter how clearly you spell it out, no matter how many sources you include, Montana somehow fumbles the ball.

Quite frankly, I'm going to cut this short; I didn't even bother to read the rest of your reply because it will simply be a regurgitation of what you've already said.

Fine, Montana. You don't want to prove anything. However, what you DO want to do is continue to call skeptics pseudoskeptics and CONTINUE to accuse them of using pre-existing beliefs because they don't accept your claims. That was your whole OP, after all.

This type of reasoning is frankly slanderous, and it's sad that this entire thread has clearly demonstrated how logical and fair skeptics are, and how vehemently you will cling to your own beliefs.

If your intent was to call out skeptics and put them in their place, you have failed miserably. Consider this a bunk experiment that back-fired in a most ridiculous way. Maybe you'll have better luck next time.

Cue "this is what pseudo-skeptics do" rote response.

Can you believe the backwards logic on this thread?

The pseudoskeptic is trying to disprove my claim and then turn around and say they have no burden of proof.

Have you ever heard of anything so silly?

As soon as you say the evidence shows this or the evidence shows that, then you are building a negative hypothesis and you have to have evidence to support your claim.

Complex tried to show that because there's a lighthouse 6 miles away that the lighthouse is responsible for what Halt and his men saw.

He can't do it because it can't be shown that the lighthouse light did the things that Colonel Halt and his men described.

So Complex has to give you pictures of sunlight in the trees LOL. I'm sorry, I hardly use LOL but it was definately needed there.

thrashee has finally told us his standard. He needs these things to be an empirical truth first. So of course he disagrees with my claim.

If you go by thrashee statement, we might as well stop looking into Dark matter/Dark energy.

Dark matter/dark energy is based on observation and according to thrashee these things need to be an empirical truth first before we can draw any conclusions.

You guys are standing in quicksand because your logic is terrible.

Originally posted by polomontana
Can you believe the backwards logic on this thread?

The pseudoskeptic is trying to disprove my claim and then turn around and say they have no burden of proof.

You really don't get the fact that every time you say something like this, every person reading chuckles and shakes their head, do you?

Buh-bye, Montana. Better luck next time.

Originally posted by polomontana
Can any pseudoskeptic on this board please quote where I said I was trying to prove anything to you?

Sure can!

This post

And this post

And this post

And this post

That's just for starters. There are hundreds of posts like that, where we have discussed a case, and you have attempted to prove to us that is, beyond any reasonable doubt, evidence of extraterrestrial visitation, and attempting to prove claims of a reasonable doubt are wrong.

Now, you may not have used the specific words saying you are trying to prove something, but that is what you were doing. Trying to prove something.




[edit on 21-8-2008 by SaviorComplex]

reply to post by thrashee


Nope, sadly people might have let your backwards logic slide in the past but it will not happen here.

You can't even answer a hypothetical question.

This is how biased you and others are.

I asked you twice, and I will do it again.

If there is no terrestrial explanation for these things then what is the most logical explanation for abduction cases, mass sightings, trace evidence, photos, sightings and video?

I can speculate and say if there's a terrestrial explanation for these things I will accept that extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional beings don't exist.

This is because I'm seeking the truth wherever it leads.

Can you say the same?

Originally posted by polomontana
reply to post by thrashee

 

Nope, sadly people might have let your backwards logic slide in the past but it will not happen here.

I'd ask you to show where my logic is backwards, since I've provided source after source to support that same logic, but we all know you'd just mangle it, so why bother.

You can't even answer a hypothetical question.

This is how biased you and others are.

I asked you twice, and I will do it again.

If there is no terrestrial explanation for these things then what is the most logical explanation for abduction cases, mass sightings, trace evidence, photos, sightings and video?

The most logical explanation is to assume the FACT: it's unknown. You may think you're clever in continuing to back us skeptics into the corner and trying to get us to make a counter-claim, but we're too smart for that.

SaviorComplex has just wonderfully called you out on your claims. Now why don't YOU show where WE have taken counter claims. Hypotheticals, trips down theoretical physics lane, and youtube videos won't cut it.

Find where we've taken an opposing counter claim--that is, where we have ever claimed that aliens DON'T exist, and THEN you have earned the right to challenge our own failure to provide proof.

This is because I'm seeking the truth wherever it leads.

Uh-huh. Except you won't use science or logic to do so. I think we all know what truth means for you.

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

Terms and Conditions

There will be no more namecalling. Period.

Please remain on topic and post to the topic and not the individual.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by MemoryShock]

Originally posted by polomontana
thrashee has finally told us his standard. He needs these things to be an empirical truth first. So of course he disagrees with my claim.

If you go by thrashee statement, we might as well stop looking into Dark matter/Dark energy.

Dark matter/dark energy is based on observation and according to thrashee these things need to be an empirical truth first before we can draw any conclusions.

Dark Matter is an empirical truth. We may not know what it is, what it is composed of, and what not, but we know it exists. Because of observations, consistant observations (which UFO sightings are not), because of what we can measure and quantify, we know dark matter exists. There is not enough observable mass to the universe, so something must be holding it together.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by polomontana
You can't even answer a hypothetical question.

All right, now I'm angry. You need to back up and apologize for that one, right now, before I go back and add up every single question, hypothetical and not hypothetical, that has been asked of YOU in this thread which you ignored or refused to answer.

How DARE you?

You go back and answer all the questions we have asked you before you sit there and claim that Thrashee can't answer a question.

I respectfully request of all of you who have been participating in this thread, do not post again until polomontana either apologizes to Thrashee or goes back and answers all the unanswered questions.

I'm sorry Mods but this is just too blatantly unfair and hypocritical for me to ignore!!!

reply to post by thrashee


Thrashee as I have already pointed out.

You already told us why you disagree with my claim.

You said you need empirical truth first.

Again, this means you don't accept half of the theories out there.

When you start to build a negative hypothesis based on my claim then the burden of proof is on you.

You can disagree with my claim but you can't dispute it without any evidence because you are now making a counter claim.

What you did is fine thrashee, you said you need things to be an empirical truth. That standard doesn't make sense to me if your seeking the truth, but your entitled to your view.

What Complex did was try and build a negative hypothesis based on my claim. He tried to show pictures of the sun beaming through trees and compare that to a lighthouse 6 miles away.

So Complex falls flat because he's trying to debate my claim with evidence and he can't. He can give me evidence that a lighthouse exists or that Thurkettle works in the forest but that's it.

He can't give me any evidence that the lighthouse light can do what the Colonel and his men described.