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

Originally posted by Malcram
Both your links show that you did not "dismiss the analogy as too simplistic"

I encourage any reader to do the same. They will see you are a liar.
Quoted from my own link above...

But ultimately, the scenario of missing items in the home is far too simplistic to be of any use as an analogy to a subject so complicated.

Proof that I did, despite your lie.

You have proven to everyone you are not a reasonable or trustworthy actor and will promote any sort of lie or distortion to make your case.

And we are done with you.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by SaviorComplex

 

I encourage any reader to click on them (before they are edited).

Now, that's rather ridiculous. You imply that he might go back and change the posts, which firstly you know perfectly well he can't because the posts are too old to be edited, and secondly you just let all of our readers know that you think they're too ignorant (or stupid) to realize that those posts are too old to be edited and that you just blatantly tried to manipulate their opinion of SC.

Good job, if you're trying to shoot yourself in the foot.

reply to post by Heike


I appreciate the defense, Heike. But I think it is best if we no longer engage in this.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
I think we need to put the brakes on this discussion, take a step back and look at what is happening. In at least three threads, we have Child and Malcram browbeating any and every one who does not subscribe to their pet theory. Any who do not, be they skeptic or believer, is worthy of any sort of derision or insult. This is reminiscent of Polomontana and his supporters/sock-puppets, who are less interested in proving their hypothesis and more interested in silencing those who do not agree with them.

I would suggest we do not engage them in this any longer. They will proclaim victory, confusing it with proving their pet beliefs. We however are not hobbled by such confusion. Everyone else has witnessed their childish and borish behavior, which should tell them enough about who is open-minded and interested in genuine, sincere discussion.

Amen to that

reply to post by Heike


Well done Heike. I'll explain to you what was said seeing as you have completely misunderstood.

I said click on the links before THEY are edited - the links. SC did LATER try to back away from the analogy. But both the links he gave took us to posts where he as not backing away from the analogy or claiming they were "too simplistic", as he claimed, but to where he defended the idea or tried to switch the analogy around. I was encouraging the reader to click the links and see the post where SC tried to defend the idea within the analogy, before the LINKS are changed so that they take us to the post where he LATER tried to claim the analogy was too simplistic. Do you understand? This has nothing to do with going back and editing posts. Don't be so quick to condemn until you have made sure you understand what is being said.

I note it doesn't matter that SC lies about what I said in earlier posts. I'm noting a marked pack mentality in operation here, with at least four members involved.

Edited to add: I just checked the links again and I appears that with regard to a certain detail, I was in error. The second link contains first a defense of the idea within the analogy, just as I said, and there also follows SC's claim that the analogy is "too simplistic". I did not see this when I looked back, otherwise I would hardly have encouraged anyone to click the link to see that I had got the order of the posts wrong. I thought his dismissal of the analogy came in a later post. As it is, it still comes AFTER his defense within it, as I claimed. However, as I also said, the first post does not at all dismiss the analogy as too simplistic and the second defends the idea within the analogy THEN tries to back away from the analogy (because, I maintain, it exposed the absurdity of SC's position too well for his liking). This is what I originally claimed. Those points stand. The error is with regard to which posts things were said in, not that they were said or in which order they were said.

However, I doubt that I shall receive a similar admission of error from SC regarding his false accusations. Rather I expect that a minor error regarding post order will be spun as supposed "proof" that the point I made regarding them was invalid. It changes nothing.


[edit on 2-4-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
So after our long and fierce exchange and you supposedly engaging in logical debate, you have returned to your original position which you announced earlier on in the other thread, “I will believe what I want to believe” In which case you have been fully refuted and debunked now.

You have ceased using logic and are back to appealing to fantasy.

That is a complete and total load of what comes out of the north end of a southbound cow.

My original position "The evidence is insufficient to validate the ETH" has NEVER changed, and NEVER been successfully refuted or debunked by you.
Stop making these claims. The reader can decide for themselves what is refuted or debunked, they don't need you to point it out to them.

There cannot be unlimited possibilities because we already have a limitation, “physical craft with unknown technology”

No, YOU already have a limitation. WE do not. I do not.

Is it a "physical craft" because it shows up on radar? Pffft. Birds and clouds show up on radar.

I do not have to accept YOUR limitations. If I allow you to make all the rules and agree to follow them, of course I'm going to lose. How stupid!

YOU said our knowledge of physics is incomplete. YOU said our knowledge of science is incomplete. YOU say our knowledge of reality, the world, and everything is incomplete. But then you want to claim that the possibilities of what an unidentified flying object can be are limited to the five YOU can think of. And you call this LOGIC?

Why can't they be something that has to do with all that knowledge we don't have yet because our knowledge is incomplete?

besides, you forgot about

6) Atmospheric Biological Entity (aka Rods or Skyfish)

So we are looking for things in our rational universe that can consistently explain, “physical craft with unknown technology and science”

Nope, we're not. You are. And wait, where did the "and science" come from? That wasn't there the last time you said it!

Lets go through each one, one by one:

No, let's not. I'm tired of it and I don't care. Your knowledge does not limit my possibilities.

You can have a whole herd of cows and keep piling up what comes out of them, but the simple statement which started this remains:

There is insufficient evidence to validate the ETH.

Why not? Why would they hide from primitive humans?

I just had to stop and check in on this one. I can't believe you can even ask this question. Hello .. we're hostile, aggressive, and homicidal even to each other. I can picture them like kids trying to decide who's going to knock on the witch's door. "You first." "No, you" "Not me. YOU knock." "Oh, forget it. Let's just go home..."

Besides, we're getting less primitive all the time, and perhaps THEY have ethics or morals which prevent them from simply destroying us.

If you come home to find your house burgled, the windows broken, things stolen would you think

1) Secret government services did it
2) People living in the walls did it
3) Your future family members travelled back in tme and did it
4) Extradimensional beings in your home did it
5) Intruders did it

This is a TERRIBLE analogy. Of the five choices you have given, only "intruders" are actually proven to exist and do such things. Therefore, of course any normal person will make that choice. Extraterrestrials, whether or not they exist, have not been proven to be on Earth. Therefore your analogy is totally bogus.

That is that does not belong to human science. Then the converse is true: it belongs to non-human science. Therefore explaining UFO’s. Now that they are explained we can call them ETV’s (extraterrestrial vehicles)

You're moving a little too fast here. You missed a step. Non-human does not equal extraterrestrial. A bird using a twig to "fish" for insects is non-human science.

You missed a logical connection too. Just because something is not a part of human science does not necessarily mean that it is part of some ET's science. It might not be part of anyone's science. It might be something they are able to do naturally, just as birds can fly and fish can breathe water but humans can't (without technology).

The logic is impeccable and only those do not accept logic will reject this. So therefore you stand completely refuted and debunked. There is nowhere else to go from here.

Your logic is far from impeccable. In fact you are playing extremely fast and loose with the "logic" and here you are again claiming that I am refuted and debunked. No, I am not.

There is insufficient evidence to validate the ETH.

You won't give me TIME to go look at those hair sample and Billy Hoaxer metal links so I can't say about those yet, but as it stands my position has not changed.

You wiggle and you squiggle, but you're still on the hook. Sorry.

Furthermore, you are missing what is actually probably one of the most important points of all. Why do we have to have a hypothesis? Is the world coming to an end next week if we haven't "solved" what UFOs are? Why do we need an explanation? What's so wrong with saying

"We don't know what they are!" ??

Lots of pretty whiz-bang smart people have already theorized and hypothesized that this is the real govt cover-up: they can't admit that they don't know what UFOs are and they can't do anything about them!!

Why wouldn’t they?

Oh .. let's see.

Because water is heavier and harder to move around in.
Because they probably can't breathe water.
Because there aren't (generally) any humans to watch or abduct under the water.
No cows to mutilate, either.
No crops to make circles in.

(edit to correct those pesky quote tags)


[edit on 2-4-2009 by Heike]

6) Atmospheric Biological Entity (aka Rods or Skyfish)

If not considering underground and underwater people was absurd enough, now you are asking us to consider the possibility of sky fish?

You have completely left the realms of science and logic and are now in a fantasy world. Your arguments have gone to the extremity of absurdity.

You have been defeated. Move on.


[edit on 2-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

The OP was about countering the claim that there is no evidence for UFOs, it made no claims about what the cause of the phenomenon is. I think you've all strayed from the original topic by arguing what that evidence shows.

However, just to stick my oar in I'd like to make some observations.

I don't think UFOs could be earth-native biological organisms because the chances are we would have found a corpse by now. Also why would governments need to classify this?

The theory of oceanic civilisations actually fits many cases very well.

Consider the case of Orlando Jorge Ferraudi

An example of evasive action taken by aliens can be found in an article called 'Another Astonishing South American Report' by Flying Saucer Review consultant Jane Guma. It describes the case of Orlando Jorge Ferraudi who in August 1965 was taken, fully conscious, into a UFO while fishing by a river on the coast of Brazil. The UFO then set off under water. Using telepathy, an alien explained that this was to avoid radar. After a while they emerged from the sea and flew at a low altitude to the coast of Uruguay, before crossing the Atlantic Ocean to Africa from where they flew upwards into space. The alien supposedly explained that "We must take these precautions so that we can thus avoid being regarded as invaders or conquerors. We want your people to get used to us slowly, to see us just as like anybody else, because we are not strangers in this part of the Universe." (Guma, p.7) It does however seem strange that the aliens would take such elaborate measures to avoid detection while explaining them to a human so that they eventually get published in a UFO magazine for everyone to read.

www.nicap.org...

This case is discussed in detail in Tim Good's 1998 book 'Alien Base' from which I quote,

During his interviews with Picco, Ferraudi would ask that the sound recorder be turned off at instances when asked if he knew where his 'abductors' came from. His off-the-record reply - though he now admits it openly - is interesting. 'I'm not supposed to say it yet: they come from inside the Earth.'

His account continued on-the-record,

We entered the ocean, maybe through the Gulf of Mexico, and after a few minutes of travelling underwater, we saw an immense sub-aquatic dome, similar to a giant Eskimo 'igloo', where buildings, people in motion and several ships similar to ours, could be seen.

The aliens were described as human except they had yellow eyes which is another point that complicates the basic ETH. There are many other cases where the 'aliens' are described as being human, so much so that they could pass unnoticed in the street.

Is it not possible that the UFO pilots could be both extraterrestrial and also part of an underground/oceanic civilisation?

I think Heike is right that the ETH in its simplest form does not explain all aspects of the phenomenon. It may be that we shouldn't even try and postulate an overarching hypothesis for all UFO cases, the truth is likely to be much more complex than we could possibly imagine.





[edit on 2/4/2009 by MarrsAttax]

The theory of oceanic civilisations actually fits many cases very well.

Consider the case of Orlando Jorge Ferraudi

An example of evasive action taken by aliens can be found in an article called 'Another Astonishing South American Report' by Flying Saucer Review consultant Jane Guma. It describes the case of Orlando Jorge Ferraudi who in August 1965 was taken, fully conscious, into a UFO while fishing by a river on the coast of Brazil. The UFO then set off under water. Using telepathy, an alien explained that this was to avoid radar. After a while they emerged from the sea and flew at a low altitude to the coast of Uruguay, before crossing the Atlantic Ocean to Africa from where they flew upwards into space. The alien supposedly explained that "We must take these precautions so that we can thus avoid being regarded as invaders or conquerors. We want your people to get used to us slowly, to see us just as like anybody else, because we are not strangers in this part of the Universe." (Guma, p.7) It does however seem strange that the aliens would take such elaborate measures to avoid detection while explaining them to a human so that they eventually get published in a UFO magazine for everyone to read.

www.nicap.org...

If you are at the beach and you can see nobody in the water and all of a sudden you see some human come out of the water, do you conclude, "Oh somebody went under water and now came out" or "This human has just come from an underwater civilisation"

The same applies to UFO's coming out of water. Just as they can fly around in the skies, they can also go under water. There is nothing stopping them from doing that as they do not obey any of known laws of physics anyway and they are not using a propulsion system that that could prevent them from going under water. A normal jet is prevented from going underwater because it requires combustion and hot gasses fired out from the exhaust to propel itself. A UFO does not, it uses some kind of field technology to move about.

The other possibility is there are ET bases underground and underwater. It's entirely plausible that ET could set up base on earth hidden from sight.

But the existence of terrestrial oceanic and underground civilisations at the moment is just a fantasy.

I think Heike is right that the ETH in its simplest form does not explain all aspects of the phenomenon. It may be that we shouldn't even try and postulate an overarching hypothesis for all UFO cases, the truth is likely to be much more complex than we could possibly imagine.

Heikie has an "ANYTHING-BUT-ETH" attitude. She will go to the most absurd lengths to find an explanation that is not ETH. The resistance to the ETH, but openness to everything else from underwater people to skyfish suggests some kind of agenda against ET.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Malcram
I said click on the links before THEY are edited - the links.

I'm sorry Malcram. Good try, but this makes no sense. It is not possible for anyone to edit links in YOUR post unless they are a moderator.

So unless you were telling people that YOU were going to change the links .. in which case I would ask .. why? .. you're claiming that you meant to tell people to click on the links before something which no one (except a Mod) can do gets done.

Right.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
6) Atmospheric Biological Entity (aka Rods or Skyfish)

You have been defeated. Move on.

You read that ENTIRE post of mine, took out of it the one thing I posted which you could ridicule, and claim I am defeated? I'm afraid not.

You ignored my rejection of your limitation.
You ignored my exposure of your faulty logic.
You ignored, again, the central issue:

The evidence is insufficient to validate the ETH.

In accordance with standard debate practice, anything you didn't address stands unchallenged as the truth.

You wanna take another shot at my post?



And for the record, I am NOT anti-ETH.

I am against people who find it necessary to label, stereotype, insult, belittle, deride, and make fun of anyone who doesn't believe the same as they do.

If you were pro SCH, I'd be anti-SCH.
If you were pro EDH, I'd be anti-EDH.

The entire POINT is for you to and your pack to (finally) see that skeptics' claims do not need to be debunked, ridiculed, labeled, stereotyped, marginalized, or otherwise discredited.

YOU are the one with the CLAIM - the claim that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth.

They are only saying "we don't believe it." And they have every right to say "we don't believe it" without having to logically PROVE why, or be called names if they can't.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
If you are at the beach and you can see nobody in the water and all of a sudden you see some human come out of the water, do you conclude, "Oh somebody went under water and now came out" or "This human has just come from an underwater civilisation"

The same applies to UFO's coming out of water...

The same also applies to UFOs you see in the sky.

If you are at the airport, see a plane land and people get off, do you think, "those people got on at another airport, went up in the sky and came down," or do you think, "those people come from a civilization in the sky!"?*

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
But the existence of terrestrial oceanic and underground civilisations at the moment is just a fantasy.

As are alien civilizations. Despite the fact we have no reason to assume there is not life beyond Earth (and I certainly do not), we still do not know.


(*For our purposes here, let us use sky civilization as a synonym for "space civilization." This should go without saying, but this caveat is here to prevent certain individuals from playing semantic games and to prevent those same from being purposefully obtuse just to be argumentative.)

[edit on 2-4-2009 by SaviorComplex]

[edit on 2-4-2009 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by Heike
I am against people who find it necessary to label, stereotype, insult, belittle, deride, and make fun of anyone who doesn't believe the same as they do.

Earlier in this thread (or another discussion on this topic) someone told us only those who agree with them are intelligent. A much better indicator of intelligence is recognizing the limits of your own knowledge and the fact you may be wrong.

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
.Also why would governments need to classify this?

They would cover it up for the exact same reasons they would cover-up an extraterrestrial presence on the planet.

Originally posted by Heike
I'm sorry Malcram. Good try, but this makes no sense. It is not possible for anyone to edit links in YOUR post unless they are a moderator.

So unless you were telling people that YOU were going to change the links .. in which case I would ask .. why? .. you're claiming that you meant to tell people to click on the links before something which no one (except a Mod) can do gets done.

Right.

Sigh.

Wrong. He didn't link to my posts. And there were no links in my post. So what are you talking about? The links in question were IN his post TO his posts. Only he could change the links in his posts

Now do you see what I was saying?

And I note SC has made no attempt to clear up your misconception while I've been away.

You even got a star for it. Well done. If that doesn't highlight the undercurrent of bias in this 'debate' I don't know what does.



[edit on 2-4-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
[If you are at the beach and you can see nobody in the water and all of a sudden you see some human come out of the water, do you conclude, "Oh somebody went under water and now came out" or "This human has just come from an underwater civilisation"

The same applies to UFO's coming out of water. Just as they can fly around in the skies, they can also go under water.

In the first instance it is reasonable to assume that someone just went swimming because I've seen people swimming before.

If I were to see a UFO/USO appearing from the water and assuming I'd had no exposure to reports of such things before my initial reaction is more likely to be 'What the F*** was that!!!' I might postulate afterwards that it was extraterrestrial but I wouldn't claim any certainty that that is what it was simply because to me it would still remain an unknown. My lack of knowledge about the existence of extra-terrestrial civilisations is exactly the same as my lack of knowledge of oceanic ones.

What if you were at the beach and a UFO came out of the water, landed next you and beings who looked human stepped out of it. Would your first thought still be that these were from another planet? Or would you perhaps be hit with the realisation that there is a hell of lot that you don't know about the universe?

I think that extraterrestrial life is almost certain but I can't accept your conclusion that because of this all UFOs must be extra-terrestrial in nature. You're arguing that because of the 'certainty' that life exists on other planets then ET is the likeliest explanation. But it's also a certainty that life exists on Earth so logically the idea that they are native to Earth must at least be considered as valid as the ETH. More so, in fact because the 'certainty' of extraterrestrial life is in fact nothing of the sort, only a very, very strong possibility. Until it is proven it will remain as that. You may have convinced yourself through your own logic that extraterrestrial life is 100% certain but you shouldn't expect other people to believe that because your logic is faulty. Only when it's proven will it be 100%.

Heikie has an "ANYTHING-BUT-ETH" attitude. She will go to the most absurd lengths to find an explanation that is not ETH. The resistance to the ETH, but openness to everything else from underwater people to skyfish suggests some kind of agenda against ET.

Rubbish. Heike has an open mind when faced with a genuine unknown. To ascribe an 'agenda' to her just because she isn't convinced by one hypothesis is fatuous. You are the one who is certain the mystery has been solved and is resisting any and all other explanations. Your single-mindedness far outweighs Heike's, at least that's how it appears to me.

Consider this. After Travis Walton experienced the usual small, large-headed beings he met someone else on board the craft that took him...

I walked back to the chair and stood beside it, looking at the buttons. I was thinking about pushing some of them, when I heard a faint sound. I whirled around and looked at the door. There, standing in the open doorway, was a human being!

I stood frozen to the spot. He was a man about six feet two inches tall. His helmeted head barely cleared the doorway. He was extremely muscular and evenly proportioned. He appeared to weigh about two hundred pounds. He wore a tight-fitting bright blue suit of soft material like velour.

www.travis-walton.com...

How does the ETH explain human 'aliens'?

Clearly there is more going on than basic contact with beings from another planet. What it is I can't say and neither can anyone else at this point.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
.Also why would governments need to classify this?

They would cover it up for the exact same reasons they would cover-up an extraterrestrial presence on the planet.

Sorry to be obtuse SC but could you clarify what you mean? Would people panic if a new lifeform was discovered in the atmosphere?

The same also applies to UFOs you see in the sky.

If you are at the airport, see a plane land and people get off, do you think, "those people got on at another airport, went up in the sky and came down," or do you think, "those people come from a civilization in the sky!"?*

I am afraid the logic in my example is one way there, SC.

If I see a plane land and people get off, I do not conclude that those people came from a sky-civilisation, because I can explain it. If if see a UFO which is showing non-human technology, I can't explain it as being terrestrial, so I conclude that it is ET.

As are alien civilizations. Despite the fact we have no reason to assume there is not life beyond Earth (and I certainly do not), we still do not know.

Nope, alien civilisations are not fantasy. As you say yourself we have no reason to believe they do not exist. In the scientific community today the odds of them existing are so staggering, most people just accept they exist and if we did not really accept they existed, we would not be creating official expolitics departments.

My friend, there is no mystery, we are in contact with ET and all the worlds governments know about it. You will be the last to know because you can only know things if an authority tells you or if you witness yourself. Those of us who can think independently and logically already know. And we also know what is going on.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Heike


As soon as you told me that I should consider every fantasy possibility in existence, from underwater civilisations to skyfish, you had lost the debate.

You are clearly not being rational anymore. Moreover, you even resorted to the tactic, "Well I do not accept that it was a physical craft" and thus going against the facts in the evidence.

Your entire argument/s can be summed up succiently as, "I will believe what I want to believe, and what I believe is just as good, scientific and logical as anybody else"

But the reality is while I have strongly supported the ETH with logical arguments and all the evidence, you have not provided a single shred of evidence to support any of your fantasy hypothesis. All you are doing is just asserting. You are not reasoning or arguing, you're "asserting" and thus your entire argument is one from faith and not from science and reason.
Thus you have now admitted your irrationality and therefore have lost the debate.



[edit on 2-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

I think that extraterrestrial life is almost certain but I can't accept your conclusion that because of this all UFOs must be extra-terrestrial in nature. You're arguing that because of the 'certainty' that life exists on other planets then ET is the likeliest explanation. But it's also a certainty that life exists on Earth so logically the idea that they are native to Earth must at least be considered as valid as the ETH. More so, in fact because the 'certainty' of extraterrestrial life is in fact nothing of the sort, only a very, very strong possibility. Until it is proven it will remain as that. You may have convinced yourself through your own logic that extraterrestrial life is 100% certain but you shouldn't expect other people to believe that because your logic is faulty. Only when it's proven will it be 100%.

There is nothing faulty about my logic. If it is faulty demonstrate it, don't just assert it.

I have never said all UFO''s are ET, what I've said that UFO's can be explained using the ETH. The other possiblities cannot form a part of our explanatory framework because there is no reason to believe they are true. Until you do produce significant evidence for these alternative hypothesis, they will remain on the fringe.

I am assuming you're a believer or at least more inclined that way. Then you should realise that if we keep UFO in the mystery category, we will never be able to bring UFO's out in the open. The only way to do this is to explain it with the best explanation, which is the ETH. If you start mixing ETH with everysingle fringe hypothesis it will never be taken seriously and will always remain a topic of ridicule. The UFO's can be explained; they are ETV's(extratesstrial vehicles) and from now on I am going to call them that.

UFO's are not a mystery for me. I have reasoned them out and I know what they are now. I hope you follow soon.

I walked back to the chair and stood beside it, looking at the buttons. I was thinking about pushing some of them, when I heard a faint sound. I whirled around and looked at the door. There, standing in the open doorway, was a human being!

I stood frozen to the spot. He was a man about six feet two inches tall. His helmeted head barely cleared the doorway. He was extremely muscular and evenly proportioned. He appeared to weigh about two hundred pounds. He wore a tight-fitting bright blue suit of soft material like velour.

www.travis-walton.com...

How does the ETH explain human 'aliens'?

It doesn't need too. As ET refers to a vast collection of intelligent species in the universe, some who which will be humanoid, or even virtually identical with humans some which may not be.