Why "sceptic" claims there is no evidence don't hold water

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by Malcram

 

Heres the problem you want aliens to exist so when something extraordinary happend its your first instinct. This is no different then people that claim its a miracle see its must be god who did it. Truth is we have scientists doing some amazing things one for instance is a personal camouflage device that you happened to mention. metameterials for example will make things seem invisible there is no limit to what can be accomplished so saying we cant possibly do that it must be aliens just doesnt work.

With all due respect dragonridr, you haven't the faintest clue what I want or what my first instinct is, and I can assure you that is not so and not at all my first instict, far from it, as I've already expressed here a few times. Therefore your second comment is also false because it is based on the false assumption which preceded it.

And your last point actually illustrates mine. I agree, our science can accomplish some amazing things. But it cannot do what I described in my analogy. Not even close. The link you provided was to an emerging camouflage tech, which was only one attribute of the analogy I gave. And I made no mention of anything as relatively mundane or limited as a "personal camouflage device"

That's my point. If clearly intelligently controlled craft are observed doing many truly incredible things which our most advanced tech simply can't - even bearing in mind black project craft - then a point is reached where it becomes illogical and unreasonable to insist that they must still be man-made, or even that they are likely to be.

You are apparently saying that there is nothing that our secret tech - which you know nothing about - can't do. So no matter what is observed, no matter how outlandish or incredible, it must be man-made because our science can do anything, so we need never consider other possibilities, because our omnipotent science has it covered. That's incredibly naive, and actually bears a lot more resemblance to a religious devotion and faith in a god than the ETH does.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by Malcram]

You missed out photos/videos that have resisted debunking and remain unexplained.

The picture you provided has been debunked as a model in the past, and actually bears striking resemblance to the types of models used in other earlier hoaxes from that era.

The YouTube video you provided has been revealed to be several (around 11) oil platforms viewed through a FLIR camera. They weren't "flying" at all. (Fox NEWS is also very sensationalist and somewhere on par with newsgroups like "Pravda" from Russia. Though they never did reveal the actual source of these videos, the NGC special "UFOs: Are they real?" has.)

Again, all testimony here absolutely must be disregarded and clearly shows favoritism for the existence of alien craft.

You missed out cases where unidentified phenomena have been seen by more than one trained observer from separate locations.

But no evidence was recorded to corroborate these witnesses stories. Therefore, they must be dismissed.

You also missed out cases where the phenomenon has been sighted by trained observers as well as confirmed by reliable ground radar.

Almost all of these cases have proven to be examples of RADAR ducting, false returns, and atmospheric ducting. Many of the RADAR tapes are available for examination which can verify this. Many that aren't have been withheld by proponents of UFO phenomena to obstruct a closer look that may falsify their claim.

I'm sorry but I can't agree with your assessment that this amounts to nothing.

This is expected on a website where belief in the paranormal is favored over careful scrutiny.

It's okay. I came prepared for things of this nature having been a member of Phil Plait's BAUT and James Randi's JREF for years.

Skeptics are voicing more and more concern over strange beliefs and the popularity of UFOs having been developed from a lack of information/education. Many MANY more will be through these parts I'm sure.

reply to post by LogicalResponse

- The picture you provided has been debunked as a model...
- The YouTube video you provided has been revealed to be several (around 11) oil platforms viewed through a FLIR camera...
- Almost all of these cases have proven to be examples of RADAR ducting, false returns, and atmospheric ducting...
- Many that aren't have been withheld by proponents of UFO phenomena to obstruct a closer look that may falsify their claim...

This is expected on a website where belief in the paranormal is favored over careful scrutiny.

It's okay. I came prepared for things of this nature having been a member of Phil Plait's BAUT and James Randi's JREF for years.

Hi Logical response. I'm sure Marrs will respond to you himself in due course. But for now, in the spirit of "careful scrutiny" can I ask you to provide some evidence for your assertions? Perhaps just start with one of them. Cheers.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram


You just proved my point you tell me i cant possibly know about the science we have currently but in the same breath say it has to be an alien. Did you know that the US government has been chasing anti gravity since the 1940,s. there is even some evidence that the Nazis also had experiments in anti gravity. Which also correlates nicely with the end of ww2 flying saucers entered into the methos, Prior to that most UFOs seemed to be cylindrical and looked a lot like dirigibles no coincidence there though. That was what people believed they should look like more rocket like.

Look I would be ecstatic if UFO were aliens however i cannot rule out other possibilities and far too often i am disappointed when some UFO evidence turns out to have another explanation. And by your logic the lack of us not knowing what it is doesn't mean its aliens. Its once we know what it is and proves to be aliens now that will be exciting, Until then it is a belief neither proved or disproved. But reality is theres lots of people that truly believe certain things that doesn't make it reality however.

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by Malcram

You just proved my point you tell me i cant possibly know about the science we have currently but in the same breath say it has to be an alien.

I didn't say our secret tech had to be alien. I said tech which can't feasibly be considered man made because it is spectacularly more advanced in countless ways is more logically considered alien.

Did you know that the US government has been chasing anti gravity since the 1940,s. there is even some evidence that the Nazis also had experiments in anti gravity.

"Chasing" and "experiments" doesn't really mean anything though does it? Mankind has been "chasing" all sorts of things for millennia. It doesn't mean we've "caught" them.

Look I would be ecstatic if UFO were aliens however i cannot rule out other possibilities

My point is that when a clearly intelligently controlled craft displays a nature and capabilities infinitely beyond anything we have even dreamed of constructing, then logic itself rules out other possibilities, and we can only avoid the ETH in those cases if we avoid logic.

And by your logic the lack of us not knowing what it is doesn't mean its aliens.

I hope that's not my logic as I have no idea what that means LOL. I'm not saying that something being unidentified necessarily means it is Alien, but that if it is identified as a craft yet is stupendously more advanced than the most advanced in many ways than human tech, then the ETH becomes the more logical hypothesis in that case.

Its once we know what it is and proves to be aliens now that will be exciting, Until then it is a belief neither proved or disproved. But reality is theres lots of people that truly believe certain things that doesn't make it reality however.

Oh, I agree. We aren't talking about absolute proof, however. We are talking about what logic dictates in the face of witnessing certain clearly intelligently controlled UFOs. There are some extreme scenarios in which we would logically have to conclude that a UFO is in all likelihood Alien. But as you say, 'absolute proof, the real 'holy grail', is the most exciting prospect and infinitely more satisfying that a 'logical conclusion' LOL.


[edit on 28-3-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram


What your describing is a Shirlock Holmes Quote:

How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

The only problem is you have to eliminate the other possibilities not just dismiss them because they don't fit your idea of the facts.So if your going to prove aliens exist using the method what else could it be then you have to eliminate everything else! I will be waiting for your proof and good luck because as much as id like it to be otherwise i can usually come up with an alternative explanation.

reply to post by Malcram

I'm not saying that something being unidentified necessarily means it is Alien, but that if it is identified as a craft yet is stupendously more advanced than the most advanced in many ways than human tech, then the ETH becomes the more logical hypothesis in that case.

Well you may not say that but virtually every other UFO enthusiast does. Since it is now well attested that the governments of the world, especially the Brits and Americans, are flying advanced prototype aircraft in our skies, and since there is absoutely no way of knowing just how advanced these aircraft are, then there is no way to distinguish what may, or may not, be of alien origin. I think we should always look for down to earth explanations for these sightings rather than looking up at the heavens for our answers.

I'm not sure what the exact point of this thread is.

Are you trying to state that all skeptics ridicule UFOlogists?
I know I don't, and I consider myself a skeptic

I believe in aliens. I believe they may have the tech to get to Earth. Just because I question every blurry photograph doesn't mean I'm not hoping that one day solid evidence will present itself.
My computers runs SETI, even though I know in my heart that the chance of it actually working is zero, it doesn't stop me from wishing
So my mind is open to the idea of aliens and their possibility of getting here, it just employs a finer filter than most.



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dd9b3a72df20.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Daisy-Lola
I'm not sure what the exact point of this thread is.

Are you trying to state that all skeptics ridicule UFOlogists?
I know I don't, and I consider myself a skeptic

I believe in aliens. I believe they may have the tech to get to Earth. Just because I question every blurry photograph doesn't mean I'm not hoping that one day solid evidence will present itself.
My computers runs SETI, even though I know in my heart that the chance of it actually working is zero, it doesn't stop me from wishing
So my mind is open to the idea of aliens and their possibility of getting here, it just employs a finer filter than most.



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dd9b3a72df20.jpg[/atsimg]

I'm saying mainstream science, while claiming to be open to the idea of ET life, is totally closed to the idea we've been visited.

reply to post by SaviorComplex

I think this is a failing on both the skeptics and believers' part. Both confuse "lack of evidence" with "lack of unequivocable evidence."

Of course there is evidence, but it's not "Unequivocal"evidence, so that's where everyone has been going wrong then? talk about lets move the goal posts, and it seems it is only skeptics who do this, does anyone else not agree?

Professional witnesses, working in highly classified fields, come forward, and tell their stories, you know those people who were intelligent enough to get the jobs they did, the people trusted to work with Nuclear weapons, or fly the Worlds most advanced technological flying machines, the people who advise the people who advise the President, they where good enough for that job, but they must be wrong, because memory is unreliable, WHAT A CROCK !

You cant have it all ways, throwing fractions of population and coming up with wildly strange numbers doesn't cut it either IMO, the real problem is compartmentalisation, not knowing what the right hand is doing while the left hand is left in the dark, keeping all elements of a subject or program so spread out, and information away from others doing the work on the same project, that is the problem.

You said something along the lines, and other skeptics have said the same, how is it these people can say they saw these things, but others of higher rank see nothing and say it's not true, every day life should show you how likely and possible that is, do you know everything your neighbours do? or every little secret your friends and family have? do they know everything that you do or know? answer honestly to yourself, and you get your answer.

It comes down to, if I don't know it has to be wrong mentality, there is plenty of evidence, a lot of it, but because it wasn't the skeptic who saw it, then it's a lie, or they where mistaken, well see I believe all skeptics to be mistaken, I really do, it's obvious something is up there, undeniable in some cases.

But until skeptics stop calling people liars, or mistaken because memory is unreliable, nothing is going to move anywhere, I like many millions of others, don't need any more convincing.

And as for the implant scenario, if this isnt the result of these objects being placed inside these peoples bodies, then what is it? how do they get there, a lot of times with zero sign of the body being cut or damaged in any way whatsoever, and the implants themselves having that persons body matter actually growing onto the objects, something medical science is striving to do, to prevent rejection of transplanted organs etc, how is that possible?
you cant dismiss that as anything other than someone or something has placed those items there, whether they where abducted or not, they are there, more than enough evidence of that, or is the World renowned Scientist and surgeon who removes these things mistaken also? because if he is, then I want him fired for being unreliable, just like all the Pilots, Astronauts, Policemen, Military Personnel, even Presidents, are they all mistaken?

I say it is the skeptics who are mistaken and very unreliable, even discounting ET, someone is doing all this, and we as people who are on the receiving end of all these happenings have a right to know, without being side tracked into believing the huge 1 mile wide triangle we have just seen is just a bloody Mylar balloon, PLEASE, give us a little credit, and a break.

No doubt this will be lost in the eager rush to get a post in and jumping to the last post. sad.

Ah the null hypothesis, "extraordinary evidence" fallacy again.

There cannot be any valid objection to the argument that there is no evidence. There is tons of evidence, anybody here should be familiar with the thousands of high level witnesses, photographs, videos, radar reports and the many high-level investigations done on the subject. To claim that none of this exists is going against facts.

Make a distinction between "proof" and "evidence" It's not just a semantical issue, they mean completely different things. Proof is actually a demonstration of the truth of something using evidence; whereas evidence is just support for a particular hypothesis, without proving it.

Stop this "no evidence" BS.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by Malcram

 

What your describing is a Shirlock Holmes Quote:

How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

The only problem is you have to eliminate the other possibilities not just dismiss them because they don't fit your idea of the facts.So if your going to prove aliens exist using the method what else could it be then you have to eliminate everything else! I will be waiting for your proof and good luck because as much as id like it to be otherwise i can usually come up with an alternative explanation.

What about the parts you cant explain, doesn't that have you curious? Sir Authur Conan Doyle (creator of sherlock Holmes, was a huge fan of the Paranormal, a skeptic in some ways, and a total believer in others, if he had been alive today and experiencing the UFO Phenomenon, what would his take be on the subject?

Why is there so much resistance to a modern day investigation by TPTB? with the capability we have an investigation would surly clear most of it up, so why the lack of wanting to?

I don't believe for a second that every UFO is ET, what does concern me however is, if this really is all down to the military and secret projects, why oh why where the crew of Columbia allowed to die, when it seems we don't need to stick people on top of a giant bomb to get them to the ISS to run some experiments with ants, and this is the problem I have, if it's military like many many skeptics believe, why are there not huge protests, before more crews die in preventable accidents?

No matter who is behind this, we need answers, me because I want to visit space before I die, and others because well with technology like they seem to have, why are we allowed to remain sick, why is cancer not cured, why are kids starving? we all need answers in one form or another.

Originally posted by azzllin
I don't believe for a second that every UFO is ET, what does concern me however is, if this really is all down to the military and secret projects, why oh why where the crew of Columbia allowed to die, when it seems we don't need to stick people on top of a giant bomb to get them to the ISS to run some experiments with ants, and this is the problem I have, if it's military like many many skeptics believe, why are there not huge protests, before more crews die in preventable accidents?

There could be a few reason why:

-The military and Black OPs aren't exactly the same thing. Sure, they may be tied to each other, but definitely one doesn't have jurisdiction over the other.

-NASA and The Military aren't the same thing. Sure, they may have ties, but both are different fields. Many NASA employees could have come from the Military, but its much easier said then done.

-Maybe the Columbia crew didn't die, and it was all just a smoke screen, as they're now the new test pilots for new advanced tech(far fetched, I know).

-I'm almost positive that nobody wanted anybody in Columbia to die. It just happened. Thats almost like getting mad at Ford when someone dies from an accident in a '67 Mustang, when all the new '09 models have airbags.


As for protests, what good would that do? You're pissed that a few astronauts died, when they could be experimenting on more advanced vehicles? What if these new advanced vehicles are just as unstable as the rockets, and those test pilots have also died, yet, its just not publicly known? Most people think 9-11 was an inside job from our Government, and look how many died, while also looking at how much 9-11 protests have accomplished. Pointing the finger at a certain group does nothing. Finding strong evidence is more helpful then mere protests or just casual thinking.
Opening peoples eyes is whats important, not the blame game. Finding evidence is more important to finding out the truth, not assumption of who's piloting these crafts.

There is an explanation for why there would be a difference between civilian technology and black technology. Phil Schnieider explains this in his briefings to the public, "The technology that is new for you, is old for the black ops" Apparently, according to Schneider and some other whistle blowers the technology the black ops have is well beyond civilian technology. This includes anti-gravity, development of special space-age metals which are inpenetrable and can withstand heats up to 10 million degrees faranheit, interstellar travel, nanotech, time-distortion technology etc. In the words of the Lockheed Martin guy, "You know Star Trek and Star Wars, well we were doing that 60 years ago!"

Where are these black ops situated? They're underground. There are entire cities underground apparently created by black-ops governments.

The civilian world does not know about this and thus it is following its own technological development, not realising it is obsolete.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child

There is an explanation for why there would be a difference between civilian technology and black technology. Phil Schnieider explains this in his briefings to the public, "The technology that is new for you, is old for the black ops" Apparently, according to Schneider and some other whistle blowers the technology the black ops have is well beyond civilian technology. This includes anti-gravity, development of special space-age metals which are inpenetrable and can withstand heats up to 10 million degrees faranheit, interstellar travel, nanotech, time-distortion technology etc.

The key words here are according to. According to my Aunt fairies live at the bottom of the garden! It doesn't make it fact. . . "According to," is just not good enough. All those advanced scientific break throughs you mention could just be the inane ramblings of some sad deluded person.
Sorry to keep going on about this but I won't take any of this seriously until I see some proof, and by proof I mean something tangable and not the thoughts and theories of someone like Schneifer.

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


Well the differnce here Mintwithahole, your aunt is not a high level credible witness and is not an insider in the fairy world.

In any case I am presenting a plausible explanation for why there would be a dichotomy between civilian and black-ops technology. Besides, isn't it a proven matter now that the government does have black-ops technology and they do have technology that has been suppressed for 60 years, which is finally going to be released into the civilian sector? Does that not support what Schneider and the Lockheed Martin guy is saying?

Repeat post.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child

Well the differnce here Mintwithahole, your aunt is not a high level credible witness and is not an insider in the fairy world.

To me she is more credible than Schneider as I know and trust her. I don't trust Schneider.

In any case I am presenting a plausible explanation for why there would be a dichotomy between civilian and black-ops technology. Besides, isn't it a proven matter now that the government does have black-ops technology and they do have technology that has been suppressed for 60 years, which is finally going to be released into the civilian sector? Does that not support what Schneider and the Lockheed Martin guy is saying?

I agree it is a plausible explanation which I myself use to explain most UFO sightings. Its not just technology they are keeping from us either as some have said cures for cancers and other deseases have been locked away out of sight. Basically, what I'm saying is that no mans/womans word can just simply be taken as gospel and offered up as proof of UFOs and aliens,etc. I'm not saying Shneider is wrong or right in what he says, just that word of mouth doesn't count for anything. . . "Unfortunately.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
I'm not saying Shneider is wrong or right in what he says, just that word of mouth doesn't count for anything. . . "Unfortunately.

Of course eyewitness testimony counts for something. It is a valid category of evidence that must be taken into consideration with the other types of evidence. If your car was stolen and you went out and your neighbour said "I saw the whole thing and know exactly who stole it!" You would not reply "word of mouth doesn't count for anything, unfortunately" and go back indoors, would you? Nor would the Police or a Judge and Jury disregard it. It's valid evidence.

What you are saying is that you choose to disregard it in the case of the ET/UFO issue.


[edit on 30-3-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram

Of course eyewitness testimony counts for something. It is a valid category of evidence that must be taken into consideration with the other types of evidence.

It honestly doesn't matter that much because of personal bias, imagination, faulty memory, etc. You put forward the example of if my car was stolen to show that eye witness evidence is valid. When there's an accident the police interview witnesses there and then because they know full well that our memories are prone to being interferred with by our imagination. You see a bright star crossing the skies on a Monday, Tuesday morning it's become saucer shaped and by Friday it's silver and comes complete with portholes!
Yes, eyewitness testimony shows that something interesting happened and that the witness has seen something, but it's then a huge leap of faith to start talking about alien piloted vehicles. In the end your description of an event will be marred by your own personal bias and beliefs. One mans star is another mans flying saucer.