U.F.O. skepticism is very subjective

There is NO clear cut conclusive evidence proving that ET's have visited our planet.

But many skeptics(not all) immediately jump to the conclusion that because there is no conclusive proof of ET visitation means that ET's visitation has never occurred.

But let's assume just for a moment that this phenomenon is occurring and has been kept secret at the highest level for 60 years at least.

Do you think, that under such circumstances, any of us could actually prove that ET's have visited?

A question to ponder.

reply to post by RFBurns


WRONG! In a court case the burden is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the defendant. Innocent until proven guilty. true both sides do provide evidence, but the burden is with the prosecutor.

when a grand jury decides to indict someone, they base it on evidence of the persons GUILT. Not evidence of innocence.

reply to post by Majorion


right, and can you prove that interdimensional pink unicorns ridden by elven fairies who fart dust have never been here? No, you cant but it doesnt make the argument any more valid.

Originally posted by NavalFC
reply to post by Majorion

 

right, and can you prove that interdimensional pink unicorns ridden by elven fairies who fart dust have never been here? No, you cant but it doesnt make the argument any more valid.

You are the one who mentioned farting fairies and mythical unicorns, I haven't tried to prove or disprove anything. I'm sorry that pink unicorns are the far reaches of your imagination and open mindedness.

Originally posted by Majorion
There is NO clear cut conclusive evidence proving that ET's have visited our planet.

But many skeptics(not all) immediately jump to the conclusion that because there is no conclusive proof of ET visitation means that ET's visitation has never occurred.

But let's assume just for a moment that this phenomenon is occurring and has been kept secret at the highest level for 60 years at least.

Do you think, that under such circumstances, any of us could actually prove that ET's have visited?

A question to ponder.

Ok now were getting somewhere!!

Without any hard evidence, such as some craft or pieces of it, perhaps something even like parts of an alien or blood to examine, no we cannot prove that aliens are visiting us currently or have done so in the past. There are the ancient texts, glyphs and rock/cave paintings however. But even that doesnt give us enough proof.

Also, you are absolutely right in that just because we do not have any definative evidence in our hands right now, doesnt mean that it is not happening, or has not happend before.

I think that what is required is an open mind to the possibility, and also some reservation and carefull study of the issue to reach a conclusion.

I for one lean to the possiblity that it has occured in the past and is occuring currently. And no I cannot prove that so it would be pointless for the jumping skeptics to swarm in and say prove it. It is just my own conclusions on the issue. When I see more evidence, to either side of the subject, I will make adjustments to my conclusions accordingly.


Cheers!!!!

Ok, here's a story worthy to be discussed:
The Height 611 UFO Crash
On January 29, 1986 something of very strange happened in Dalnegorsk, Primorsky Krai region, former USSR.

See location in Google Maps



Dalnegorsk's inhabitants noticed a reddish ball flying parallel to the ground, emitting no sounds, which size was about "the half of the Moon's disc": its speed was approximately 34 mph and it was hovering about 700-800 meters above the ground.


Height 611, Dalnegorsk

Eye witnesses described the fall in different ways: someone claimed that the ball fell down emitting a flash, others claimed that it kept hovering over the Hill for a while, performing slow ascending and descending manoeuvres.

Artist impression of the crash
Full res:
vayfon.narod.ru...

Three days after the sighting, Valery Dvuzhilny, Head of the Far Eastern Committee for Anomalous Phenomena, climbed the hill with a grup of volunteers: they discovered a landing ground of 2x2 meters, and the appearence of the ground was like affected by very hight temperatures: remnants of silica rocks were found splintered due to exposure to high temperatures and "smoky" looking.
The objects collected at the site were later dubbed as "tiny nets", "mesh", "little balls", "lead balls", and "glass pieces" (i.e., that is what each resembled).
Black glass-like drops and mesh particles (like tiny nets) were also found:
totally, 70 g of lead, 5 g of mesh particles and 40 g of black glass like drops were found on the site.

The Height 611 incident was observed by a big amount of people: policemen, firefighters, journalists, doctors, teachers, Protection Ministry of Internal Affairs officers, a group of schoolchildren.
One of the most interesting eyewitness was Vladimir Kondakova: he was on the bus when the ball flew over his head near Hight 611. The object was already flying low: in according to what the witness reported, it was round, without any projections: it was metallic in colour and slightly reminiscent of the hot stainless steel.
He thought that it was some military projectile launched, he did not heard any noises. He also reported to don't have heard any noise at the moment of the crash.

Witnesses described in some different ways what happened after the fall of the object. Some pointed out that it fell to the ground and never re-appeared, while others, including the group of schoolgirls who were at the stadium "Stroitel", reported that the object slowly rose and fell 6 times, for around half an hour: while rising was bright, while falling its luminous intensity was weak: in 1988, using proton magnetometer, were found 6 magnetic "spots" on the site.

In according to Ministry of Internal Affairs officers, fire at the site continued until deep night, although it was a flat floor and, except for a small stump, there was nothing to burn. The trajectory of the object's flight was from south-west (from the Chinese border) and did not correspond to launches from the Baikonur launch site.

When Dvuzhilny climbed the hill, the snow was up to a depth of 50-60 cm (rise was extremely difficult). The crash site was found quickly, there was no snow on it at all: it was densely covered by siliceous shales, its appearance was pointing to recent events. There was a strong smell of something chemical, it recalled the smell of some products used for
the wood. The The crash occurred in a point characterized by elevated magnetic anomalies, up to 200 nT, which is under Mount Izvestkovoy. The anomalies in the crash site were formed with gravitational fields, electrostatic and magnetic components, the main vectors of which were directed vertically upwards: the anomalies in the area have adverse effects on radio electronic equipment, and on the human body: headaches, increase blood pressure, sensor failure, loss of coordination and more issues.

A thorough inspection of radioactivity at most places and on different samples returned that all values were no higher than natural background (alpha, beta, gamma, fast and slow neutrons). During the time after the crash, all the surroundings were carefully examined, but nothing relevant was found.

Wednesday, January 29, 1986 (the day of the crash), the weather condition were:

16 hr. 305 wind, at speed of 3.7 R = 742.0.
19 hr. 315 wind, at speed of 1.6 R = 742.9.
22 hr. the wind was absent R = 742.9.
The temperature was 23 degrees Celsius, precipitation and clouds were absent.


Valery Dvuzhilny


The landing ground


The analysis:

A chemical analysis of the drops showed they were mostly composed of lead, silicon, and iron. Some of the drops contained significant amounts of zinc, bismuth, and rare earth elements. An analysis of the soil, rocks, and burnt wood taken from the landing ground was also performed.
It was noted that the chemical composition was similar to the composition of similar samples taken from the site of the Tunguska event.
The mesh particles were also analyzed. The material of which the particles were composed did not dissolve in potent acids and organic solvents even when exposed to high temperatures for prolonged periods of time. It was discovered that one of the mesh particles was composed of scandium, gold, lanthanum, sodium, and samarium. A different analysis of another mesh particle showed gold, silver, and nickel, but after that particle was heated in a vacuum, the analysis no longer showed these elements; however, molybdenum and rhenium were detected.

The quantity of gold detected in one of the mesh particles translates to 1,100 g per one metric ton of ore. Normally, gold deposits start getting developed when the quantity reaches 4 per one metric ton. There are no gold mines in Dalnegorsk as none of the ores contain this amount of gold.

Cut rhododendron branches from the area.
The death of tissue was caused by some unknown type of radiation.


Sample from the area


More samples from the area


The landing ground (more recent image)


Some plants were buried internally, with no external traces of darkening. The depth of destruction is up to 60-70 per cent, with destruction of cellular structures thta was detected with the microscope: in according to AP Kulikova, of Institute of Chemistry FEB USSR Academy of Sciences, it was determined by ultrahigh temperatures.






Totally, were found scattered across the site a little more than 30 g. of glass-like drops. They ranged from 3 to 6 mm. Weight of up to 80 mgr largest conglomerate, consisting of 4 sintered, weighing 850 mgr.

The first attempts to drill them in order to analyze them with a spectral analysis tool had no success. It was impossible to drill even with a diamond tool, their strength was incredibly high. At the Japanese microanalyzer one of them resulted to contain:
cobalt - 0.49 percent, silicon dioxide - 3 percent, tungsten - 2.4 percent.
Not found chromium, nickel, manganese, which are usually for the
production of any marks of steel.
Under the metallographic microscope at this shlife iron on the structure resembled iron, but the results obtained in another microanalyzer showed that the metal composition was magnesium, iron, nickel, lanthanum, Praseodymium, neodim, caesium. And lanthanum content was up to 16 percent, praseodymium to 11 per cent, cesium to 57 per cent, neodymium to 18 percent, and iron and nickel basis and were not found but in very small quantities.

The mesh found in the area had an extremely complex appearance, reminiscent of braided mesh. It, like other materials (lead, alloys), was found only at the crash site, and is the most mysterious of them.
It is flat with a lot of openings and jumpers. It had a number of
interesting properties: not soluble in strong organic solvents and
acids, such as nitric, sulfuric, fluorspar. Atomic absorption analysis
has identified 11 metals: zinc, cobalt, copper, iron, manganese,
silicon, calcium and large quantities of potassium and sodium. In the
presence of oxygen from the air burns at a temperature of the
persistence of forms about 1000 degrees, but in a vacuum withstands up
to 2000 degrees. Checking on superconductivity is negative, but at 120
degrees K, in liquid nitrogen supermagnitnye has properties similar to
meteorites glazing. At the same time behaves in a normal room
conditions as the dielectric, with little up, as semiconductor, and
when up in a vacuum as the conductor of electric current. One of the
samples was subjected to radiation exposure on atomic reactor in Tashkent and analyze neutron activation method:

Were identified the following elements:
scandium - 0.2 percent,
Gold - 10-5 percent,
lanthanum - 1.2 * 10-3 percent,
sodium - 0.9 percent,
samarium -4 * 10-4 per cent.
X-ray and a number of other analyses revealed the existence of organic substances aliphatic and aromatic type, which means some affiliation on its origin from the stump. In 1988, at the X-ray alalize, until up in a vacuum were clearly peaks of gold, silver, nickel and reainiya.
Following up in a vacuum R - 5-10 mm r.st. and temperature - 1500 degrees at rentgenogramme missing peaks of gold, silver and nickel, but there were peaks of alpha-titanium, molybdenum.
Soak made on coltan substrate and these elements in a vacuum chamber was not. So far, remains a mystery: how disappeared gold, silver, nickel and molybdenum and emerged alpha-titanium and rhenium?

The group of study, hunted high and low every possible evidence of fallen debris, like i.e. wreckage, but it was clear very soon that nothing anomalous was there but the landing ground: actually, the are was covered by snow, it would have been very easy to spot even the smallest objetc, while the snow surface was unbroken except for the landing ground.
During the last 20 years, Valery Dvuzhilny carefully gathered, classified, made a description of objects, photographs, physical and chemical analysis. He repeated several times some of the analysis in order to keep the results up to date.

Over these 20 years research were conducted on 19 samples in:
Research Institute of Geology and Geophysics (Leningrad, Novosibirsk, Vladivostok), Electric them B.O. Paton (Kiev), Geochemistry and Ghysics Minerals (Kiev), Institute of minerals (DVIMS, Khabarovsk), Geology, Geophysics, Minerals (NIIGGiMS, Irkutsk), NII alloys (Moscow), volcanology (Kamchatka), Research Institute of Chemistry FEB (Vladivostok) etc. , the most modern methods were used - electron microscopy, X-ray, microprobe, materials, isotope etc. and Research wew conducted by 8 Ph.D., and 18 candidates of science (holders of first post-graduate scientific degree).


Samples of the "black glass-like" material from the area, under Japanese scanning electron microscope.

Valery Dvuzhilny, who's a biologist, had a serious approach to this case, and he's always been available to share the documentation, including analysis results, with other researchers and scientists.

Many possible explanations have been provided to the incident so far: a stage of a Soviet missiles launched from Baikonur, a crashed top secret military aircraft, a secret Japanese satellite, and so on.
The launch from Baikonur could be rule straight out, since nothing was launched the day of the incident. After more recent analysis on the Height 611 samples, scientists have identified a "super hard, high-temperature resistant alloy manufactured artificially with some special technology: it's difficult to imagine a possible way to get this kind of structure, its designation, physical composition and other properties.
The Committee on meteorites from Moscow, ruled out the meteorite hypotesis twenty years ago, after analyzing the samples and wintnesses.
Ball lightning are always been rare for the province and were never recorded the last 10 years before the crash.


The white strips are quartz threads: some of them were only 17 micron in diameter, and were made of more thin threads


Sample- black vitreous substance after vacuum melting. The form does
not match the original. Dimensions also changed from the original,
about 1.5 times

A falling spy satellite was also ruled out, not just for the absence of wreckage, but also for the presence of carbide alloy hafnium and tantalum, rare minerals and metals, metal alloys: besides, it's fly path was parallel to the ground.

The question, of course is "what crashed on Height 611"?
The findings of scientists and specialists suggest that the object had a "solid metal case". It was produced artificially by special technology (nobody has been able to find on Earth any analogue alloy). In the fall and the impact on the rock "a metal ball without holes and stainless steel color" destroyed releasing just the samples that Dvuzhilny and his staff were able to recover.

Another interesting detail is that eyewitnesses claimed that the ball for half an hour has made six attempts to takeoff. At the hill top six spots were found magnetized: and the were silica rocks: silica is a nonmagnetic material.


Artist impression of the attempts of takeoff
vayfon.narod.ru...

This fact was confirmed by a group of scientists from Tomsk using a proton magnetometer; besides trees, bushes at the site had traces of radiation injuries; it was found that magnetization was caused by a powerful constant magnetic field: temperatures were generated from 1800 to 3500 degrees Celsius: rocks containing silicon were melted; the object was a source of plasma and created few holes into the stump of wood: so, high temperatures, some unknown radiations source, some unknown high voltage source, some unknown plasma source, some unknown powerful magnetic fields source, some unknown alloys.
Over the years, a great variety of analyses up to the spectral and laser isotope microprobe - at the Russian, and at the Japanese, and French equipment. Apply methods and computers processed the information received. The research was carried out in various scientific research institutes in Russia, England, New Zealand (mathematical calculations of harmonics Captain Kathy Bruce).

The crash at Height 611 is one of the most interesting cases of CE-2: the researcher has always been available to share what was found to the site for analyses: and analyses suggest that despite what has been found suggest in many ways to have been created by some advanced technology, at the status quo, in according to all the scientists who conducted analyses on the samples, no terrestrial technology is known to be able to produce the same results.

Russian newspaper Komsomol'skaya Pravda (NOT english Pravda) in its December 1, 2000 issue published an article about the Dalnegorsk case (NLO svili v Primorje gnezdo). I find this very interesting: in the early 1990s , according to the newspaper, Russian generals from the anti-aircraft forces became concerned about the UFO activity in the area, and contacted local UFO researchers. An exchange of information ensued.

It is newsworthy when a major Russian newspaper mentions such fact (the author actually quoted Valery Dvuzhilni, the chief investigator of the Height 611 UFO crash).

Sources & references:

vlad.kp.ru...

www.ufo.obninsk.ru...

vadim-andreev.narod.ru...

dalkosmo.narod.ru...

anomalia.kulichki.ru...

www.ufoevidence.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.nationmaster.com...


What crashed there? Artificial but NOT man made...

Interesting! Obviously not your typical meteor or even a meteorite or remains of a meteor after passing through the atmosphere. This left too much unusual evidence that any normal meteor impact would leave, not to mention the lack of the typical impact crator.

Looking through the links..great post!!!!




Cheers!!!!

reply to post by internos


Excellent post internos, first time I read about this fascinating case, I will go through the links to check out more information, but how were they sure that this artificial object was NOT man made? Have they completely and conclusively ruled that out?.. Because if that's the case, I don't see how this could have been anything other than alien technology.

While not everyone does it, there are some who do limit themselves to only certain explanations at the outset. They are not skeptics however; they are pseudoskeptics.

Real skeptics cannot make any assertions, including the assertion that UFOs or extraterrestrial visitation do not occur or exist, without absolute proof. They can hypothesize, or have personal feelings, but they cannot assert that something is true or untrue - real or unreal - without proof.

Pseudoskeptics on the other hand don't have to abide by those rules, and can (and do) make assertions based on available evidence (or even no evidence) without proof. This is ironic, because it places pseudoskeptics closer on the spectrum of belief to "believers," that it does to real skepticism.

Again, real skepticism requires that one make absolutely no assertions whatsoever, without absolute proof. Since it's impossible to prove a negative, anyone saying unequivocally that UFOs do not exist (which makes little sense to me anyway, since flying objects which are unidentified - even if they are potentially identifiable - clearly occur) or that alien visitation absolutely does not occur, is a psuedoskeptic.

That isn't a derogatory term, or an insult. One is completely free to be a pseudoskeptic, just as one is free to practice whatever religious, secular ethical, or spiritual beliefs they wish to. It is a perfectly valid belief system, but that's what it is; a belief system. They just can't accurately call themselves skeptics or skeptical, because they are not.

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
You're suggesting that the burden of proof lays on the 'skeptic' and not the person spinning the tale! You're in essence asking someone to disprove something put into an unfalsifiable context.

Yes but its worth pointing out that many people often hide behind true open minded scepticism and are in fact just closed minded,prejudiced cynics (I'm not refering to you here btw )

Theres a big difference,especialy when it comes to recognising and accepting that there
actualy 'is' evidence for the UFO subject,just not conclusive,unequivocable proof.

Heres some interesting quotes about UFO debunkery,the values of trying to cultivate a balanced,informed opinion and the difference between myopic,preconceived cynicism and true,open minded,objective enquiry:

"Any scientist who did not read some serious books and articles presenting the real indications of the phenomenon should have intellectual honesty to abstain from making declarations presented as scientists"
Dr. Bernard HAISCH-Astronomer


"What constitutes a proof? Is it necessary that an UFO lands at the entry of the Pentagon, near the chiefs of Staff? Or is this a proof when a station of radar on the ground detects UFOs, sends a flotilla of interception, that the pilots see the UFO, take it with the radar and see it to move away at a fantastic speed? Is this a proof only when the pilot draws to him above and maintains its version before a martial court? Doesn't this constitute a proof"
E.J. Ruppelt (major chief of the project Blue Book)


"One refuses to study the facts because they are not included/understood, but to include/understand them, they would have initially to be studied"
A. MEESSEN-Physicist.


"There does not exist currently any machine manufactured by the man, plane or missile, which is capable of such performances, in particular to fly at supersonic speed without making bang? ?It cannot be something creates by the man and our defense system is impotent vis-a-vis these machines"
Colonel de Brouwer (Belgian air force) in 1990


"I believe that the attitude of spirit that one must adopt with respect to these phenomena is a completely open attitude of spirit, i.e. who does not consist in denying a priori as besides our ancestors of the previous centuries had to deny things which appear perfectly elementary to us today"
(Mr. Robert Galley, Minister for the Armies) ?


"The best means of not finding an evidence, it is not to seek some".
Pierre Guerin (astrophysicist, research director at
CNRS)

Taken from Stanton Friedman's Seti challenge:

www.v-j-enterprises.com...

1. Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.

2. What the public doesn't know, I won't tell them.

3. If one can't attack the data, attack the people; it is much easier.

4. Do one's research by proclamation. Investigation is too much trouble and nobody will know the difference anyway

Also this site lists some quite astute points:
How to debunk just about anything:
www.bibleufo.com...

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Originally posted by RFBurns
I think a good skeptical question would be...."Can it be proven that ET life/UFO's do NOT exsist?"

No, that isn't a good question at all. It is based on a caricature of skeptics that exists only in the minds of the fundamentalist believer, not in reality.

First, you are confusing being unconvinced of extraterrestrial visitation is the same as a disbelief in extraterrestrials. The two are not one in the same; the only person who subscribes to such thinking is the fundamentalist believer. Skeptics do not subscribe to such thinking; almost every single skeptic believes that extraterrestrials exist, we just do not necessarily believe it is coming here. Nor do we say UFOs do not exist; that is a ridiculous notion, as it is self-evident people will see things in the sky they cannot identify. And here again we have an insight into the mind of the fundamentalist believer, believing that unidentified is synonymous with extraterrestrial.

Thus, a skeptic does not start out from a position of trying to disprove such things exist. Rather, they attempt to show what else it may be, that there may be mundane explanations without jumping to the supernatural.

Originally posted by Dodecahedral
I noticed u.f.o. skeptics are very subjective when it comes to ufology.

"UFO skeptics" are engaged in debate, not in seeking the truth.

Basically the "UFO skeptics" I've come across adopt a Procrustean approach, cutting down or stretching out evidence to make a forced fit deliberately, to "explain away" UFO reports at all cost.

Originally posted by karl 12
If one can't attack the data, attack the people; it is much easier.

The entire thread is built on this premise. Convinced of extraterrestrial visitation, but frustrated that the evidence needed to prove it remains elusive, the OP turns instead to attacking skeptics. He fails to understand attacking skeptics is not a substitute for proving that extraterrestrials are visiting the planet. At best, by attacking and browbeating skeptics, all he can achieve is convincing people he may be right. However, convincing people he may be right and proving he is right are two very different things; the OP has confused this.

This thread is the latest in a re-occuring series that would rather spend less time seeking out and examining the evidence, and more time attacking skeptics. (In fact, this OP seems very familiar. The syntax, word use...) The OP and others like him seem to think that if it were not for skeptics, they would have the necessary proof or that we would be able to see the proof for what it is. The evidence will stand on its own merits, regardless of any skeptic. If the evidence cannot stand up to the scrutiny of skeptics, it is not the fault of the skeptics, but a failing of the evidence. The OP and others like him fail to recognize this.

Threads like this do not serve to get us one step closer to the truth.

[edit on 7-12-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by karl 12

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
You're suggesting that the burden of proof lays on the 'skeptic' and not the person spinning the tale! You're in essence asking someone to disprove something put into an unfalsifiable context.

Yes but its worth pointing out that many people often hide behind true open minded scepticism and are in fact just closed minded,prejudiced cynics (I'm not refering to you here btw

)

Theres a big difference,especialy when it comes to recognising and accepting that there
actualy 'is' evidence for the UFO subject,just not conclusive,unequivocable proof.

Heres some interesting quotes about UFO debunkery,the values of trying to cultivate a balanced,informed opinion and the difference between myopic,preconceived cynicism and true,open minded,objective enquiry:

"Any scientist who did not read some serious books and articles presenting the real indications of the phenomenon should have intellectual honesty to abstain from making declarations presented as scientists"
Dr. Bernard HAISCH-Astronomer


"What constitutes a proof? Is it necessary that an UFO lands at the entry of the Pentagon, near the chiefs of Staff? Or is this a proof when a station of radar on the ground detects UFOs, sends a flotilla of interception, that the pilots see the UFO, take it with the radar and see it to move away at a fantastic speed? Is this a proof only when the pilot draws to him above and maintains its version before a martial court? Doesn't this constitute a proof"
E.J. Ruppelt (major chief of the project Blue Book)


"One refuses to study the facts because they are not included/understood, but to include/understand them, they would have initially to be studied"
A. MEESSEN-Physicist.


"There does not exist currently any machine manufactured by the man, plane or missile, which is capable of such performances, in particular to fly at supersonic speed without making bang? ?It cannot be something creates by the man and our defense system is impotent vis-a-vis these machines"
Colonel de Brouwer (Belgian air force) in 1990


"I believe that the attitude of spirit that one must adopt with respect to these phenomena is a completely open attitude of spirit, i.e. who does not consist in denying a priori as besides our ancestors of the previous centuries had to deny things which appear perfectly elementary to us today"
(Mr. Robert Galley, Minister for the Armies) ?


"The best means of not finding an evidence, it is not to seek some".
Pierre Guerin (astrophysicist, research director at
CNRS)

Taken from Stanton Friedman's Seti challenge:

www.v-j-enterprises.com...

1. Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.

2. What the public doesn't know, I won't tell them.

3. If one can't attack the data, attack the people; it is much easier.

4. Do one's research by proclamation. Investigation is too much trouble and nobody will know the difference anyway

Also this site lists some quite astute points:
How to debunk just about anything:
www.bibleufo.com...

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Very good posts.

If you start with limited definition of what constitutes a "natural explanation" then there will never be enough evidence unless extraterrestrials landed on your doorstep.

The skeptic will keep it in the unexplained column as far as the eye can see. That makes no sense unles you start off with a subjective view of what's considered a "natural explanation."

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
If the evidence cannot stand up to the scrutiny of skeptics, it is not the fault of the skeptics

Exactly there lies the point, the scrutiny of skeptics. No one is trying to convince skeptics of anything, it is the skeptics who attempt to explain everything away regardless of any evidence presented. Sometimes, there just isn't an explanation. And very rarely, the only possible explanation is the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

Originally posted by Majorion
Exactly there lies the point, the scrutiny of skeptics.

You are taking what I said, twisting and changing it. It is very revealing, and proves my point.

The full quote is "it is a failing of the evidence." However, you want to put the focus back on the skeptic, blaming them for weakness of the evidence. Like the other fundamentalist believers, you have zero interest in the truth. Your only worry is being right, confirming your beliefs. If this was not the case, you and the OP would welcome the contribution of skeptics. Instead, you do not want skeptics looking at the evidence. So, instead of searching for and examining the evidence, you engage in the closed-minded behavior of attacking those who might challenge your beliefs.

Originally posted by Majorion
No one is trying to convince skeptics of anything,

Then who are you trying to prove it to? Each other? If that is the case, it is a pointless exercise and waste of energy, as you already believe.

Originally posted by Majorion
it is the skeptics who attempt to explain everything away regardless of any evidence presented.

Like the other fundamentalist believers, you are projecting your own behaviors on the skeptics.

Originally posted by Majorion
Sometimes, there just isn't an explanation.

And no skeptic will deny thisl sometimes there is not enough information to find an explanation. Thus the "unidentified" in "UFO." It is the fundamentalist believer who confuses "unexplained" with "extraterrestrial."

Originally posted by MajorionAnd very rarely, the only possible explanation is the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

So rare, it has never happened. There has never been a case that can be undeniably attributed to extraterrestrials. If there was, we would not be having this conversation.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
There has never been a case that can be undeniably attributed to extraterrestrials. If there was, we would not be having this conversation.

Perhaps you are unaware of the many cases attributed to extraterrestrials in the Cometa report.

But your preconceived notions are inhibiting you to open your eyes, your argument from the skeptical perspective is that of lack of evidence, if you're looking for definitive proof of extraterrestrial visitation, you're not gonna find any. But if you keep an open mind and research this subject more thoroughly, you will find compelling evidence in many cases.

On top of all of this, I've had my own experience involving UFOs, maybe if you had your own sighting, and a really close up sighting might I add, perhaps then you will change your mind about this subject matter. I have nothing against those who are skeptical. In fact, I support them on many issues, like all the hoaxers, bogus and ridiculous crap in this field. But I don't like it when a skeptic attacks my beliefs without any substance, just for the hell of attacking those who believe differently than them.

Peace SaviorComplex,

Majorion

Originally posted by NavalFC
reply to post by RFBurns

 

WRONG! In a court case the burden is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the defendant. Innocent until proven guilty. true both sides do provide evidence, but the burden is with the prosecutor.

Yes,the comparison with a court case is interesting.
People have been executed for far less credible circumstantial evidence than that which supports the UFO subject.
The sheer volume (and calibre) of all the high ranking goverment/military officials that state the UFO subject to be a very real one would be quite shocking to the average jury - perhaps that is why the government does not permit all these people to submit sworn testimony in the US Congress.
As for all the other corroborating evidence,whilst its correct to say there is no unequivocable proof in the public domain, there does exist quite credible radar/sonar evidence,government documentary evidence,ground trace evidence and photographic/video evidence-no to mention all the highly credible circumstantial evidence mentioned above.
I think its high time the subject warranted objective scientific enquiry and I think its fair to say a lot of the self procalimed (and well paid) TV 'sceptics' aren't realy scientificaly minded at all ...they appear to enjoy projecting their own preconceived opinions onto the subject and often bring nothing to the table but cynicism.


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Originally posted by Majorion
Perhaps you are unaware of the many cases attributed to extraterrestrials in the Cometa report.

I asked for undeniable proof. May I quote you?

Originally posted by Majorion
if you're looking for definitive proof of extraterrestrial visitation, you're not gonna find any.

Originally posted by Majorion
But your preconceived notions are inhibiting you to open your eyes

Don't you just love it when people who already have their mind made up accuse you of being blind, ignorant, closed-minded, and what not?

Originally posted by Majorion
if you're looking for definitive proof of extraterrestrial visitation, you're not gonna find any.

Originally posted by Majorion
On top of all of this, I've had my own experience involving UFOs, maybe if you had your own sighting...

I have. I don't know what I saw, but I don't immediately jump to the supernatural as an explanation.

Originally posted by Majorion
I have nothing against those who are skeptical. In fact, I support them on many issues, like all the hoaxers, bogus and ridiculous crap in this field.

If you have no problem with skeptics, why would you lump them in with hoaxers and "bogus and ridiculous crap?" Your words belie your true attitude.

reply to post by SaviorComplex

Don't you just love it when people who already have their mind made up accuse you of being blind, ignorant, closed-minded, and what not?

Even though you've taken every one of my quotes to try and prove the above statement, I haven't made any of those statements as obvious to anyone who actually takes the time to go through the quotes. infact on the contrary, you are the one who name called me all these things that you've stated. And I know that you "just love it".

If you have no problem with skeptics, why would you lump them in with hoaxers and "bogus and ridiculous crap?" Your words belie your true attitude

Nice try in twisting my words, you know damn well what I meant by me supporting skeptics on the issues of hoaxers, lies, bogus crap. It is obvious what I meant by that. The fact that you're using such tactics shows your true attitude, and your "age" for that matter.

My words belie my "true attitude"?

Who's the real conspiracy nut now?

Edit to add: one more thing SaviorComplex, you say you had your own sighting, was it the moon?

[edit on 8/12/08 by Majorion]