Anybody who says that ET's don't exist, or have never visited earth is WRONG!

A couple of points because this issue has been beaten to death in the past.

There is no scientific rule that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. This suggestion - coined not by Sagan but by the late Marcello Truzzi even though Sagan gets lot of the credit - is logically incoherent. Evidence is either sufficient, or it is not.

As for the Shrike's complaints, I'm sorry but I just don't see how he knows anything about science. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, at first. If you've searched high and low for evidence, and there is none to be found and your methods are reasonable and conclusive, yes, only then would absence of evidence be evidence of absence.

And it's not that there even is an absence of evidence. There IS evidence, but it is inconclusive. Shrike blabs a lot about hearsay, but as someone pointed out firsthand testimony does not qualify as such.

Originally posted by Adept_Zero

Originally posted by Monts
I think this is a really important point.

There have been countless witnesses whom have claimed that UFO's/ET's are a reality, and even some who say that the government is actively involved in a continuing cover-up.

There is no convincing evidence that could lead someone to believe that there is an actual cover-up, though.

Convincing evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Apparently there is enough evidence that some are convinced there is a continuing cover-up so your point is self-defeating.

If you are going to argue that the evidence does not "lead someone to believe that there is an actual cover-up" because you can point to yourself or someone else as not being lead to it, then this is a non-sequitor. There can be convincing evidence yet people can still be in denial or hold to different theories. Even in science.

Note: I am not arguing in favor or against a cover-up theory.

Is this really worth another thread?????

According to the BBC "Two of the best known crystal skulls - artefacts once thought to be the work of ancient American civilisations - are modern fakes, a scientific study shows."

news.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by Monts

Anybody who says that ET's don't exist, or have never visited earth is WRONG!

They may be wrong, but they have the right to be wrong, just as they have the right to believe they are right about being wrong - even if they are not.

Somebody help me out here. I cant decide on being a believer or a skeptic. Its either wait for conclusive proof or be entertainment for hoaxers

hmmmm which one should i pick.... hmmmmm too hard

I personally think it's a mistake to jump from...

UNEXPLAINED STUFF to ALIENS FROM OTHER PLANETS

...as if that's the default explanation. The first fallback explanation is "we don't know." Before you can get to aliens, you first have to eliminate "we don't know." And even then, you probably have to get past "human time travelers" before you get to aliens. Aliens are at least third down on the list of possible explanations.

But in a case like this, you can't rely on circumstantial evidence, because that only works for things we know exist in the first place.

I'm not saying ETs don't exist, because I can't prove a negative. They might, they might not. But until I see good, solid, positive proof of such a thing, I'm going to live my life as if they don't.

Originally posted by vinunleaded
Somebody help me out here. I cant decide on being a believer or a skeptic. Its either wait for conclusive proof or be entertainment for hoaxers

Why don't you instead seek for the empirical evidence yourself instead of waiting for someone else to give it to you?

Originally posted by jclmavg
A couple of points because this issue has been beaten to death in the past.

There is no scientific rule that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. This suggestion - coined not by Sagan but by the late Marcello Truzzi even though Sagan gets lot of the credit - is logically incoherent. Evidence is either sufficient, or it is not.

As for the Shrike's complaints, I'm sorry but I just don't see how he knows anything about science. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, at first. If you've searched high and low for evidence, and there is none to be found and your methods are reasonable and conclusive, yes, only then would absence of evidence be evidence of absence.

And it's not that there even is an absence of evidence. There IS evidence, but it is inconclusive. Shrike blabs a lot about hearsay, but as someone pointed out firsthand testimony does not qualify as such.

You thought that by expressing your POV you were clearing up the air and including me in trying to muddy the issues. Your reply gives you away as really doing the muddying. I was clear in specifying that a claim does not have to be extraordinary that any claim should be supported by evidence. That's common sense.

I'm not a scientist but one doesn't have to be one to come to logical conclusions based on what's offered. If you don't have any evidence or none is available then, mister, there is no evidence! You can't create evidence out of thin air. It either exists and you can work with it or you have nothing supportable. Weird thinking to think otherwise.

I don't care if the testimony is first-hand or last-hand. Make a claim and support it or shut up!

Originally posted by EnigmaAgent
According to the BBC "Two of the best known crystal skulls - artefacts once thought to be the work of ancient American civilisations - are modern fakes, a scientific study shows."

news.bbc.co.uk...

I don't believe in media. The corrupted governments control them. Therefore, they can play out their agenda from there. Enuff said.

Originally posted by EnigmaAgent
According to the BBC "Two of the best known crystal skulls - artefacts once thought to be the work of ancient American civilisations - are modern fakes, a scientific study shows."

news.bbc.co.uk...

You don't need scientific studies to tell you that the legends behind the famous crystall skulls, most notably the Mitchell-Hedges ("Skull of Doom"). "The age of the object, as well as the other claims made about its making and history, were fabricated by Mitchell-Hughes." ... "Anna has continued the hoax. Even though there is no evidence that she was even at Lubaantun when the discovery was supposedly made,"

Go to www.skepdic.com... for some facts about the above but don't criticize the source as being wrong for there are thousands of similar sources and most all rely on the real facts about the skull that can be verified by your own research.

But first, here is the usual b.s. about the M-H skull and most others, spoken by mentally-challenged individuals..

"I personally feel that the Crystal Skulls are not only here to share ancient knowledge and wisdom, but to assist in awakening our race to higher spiritual laws and understanding of itself....If the Crystal Skulls were not brought by extraterrestrials then certainly we must conclude their [sic] have been civilizations much more technologically or spiritually advanced than our own today." --Joshua "Illinois" Shapiro

"[The] crystal stimulates an unknown part of the brain, opening a psychic door to the absolute." -- Frank Dorland

Originally posted by HazyChestNutz
I don't believe in media. The corrupted governments control them. Therefore, they can play out their agenda from there. Enuff said.

Why believe anything? All information comes from sources you can doubt if you work hard enough at it. Why even believe what you see with your own eyes? A magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat. Go ahead and believe it happened, if you want.

That pretty much ends the discussion, though. Nothing anybody can say or do will convince you to change your opinion, if you doubt every source.

Originally posted by RKallisti

Originally posted by vinunleaded
Somebody help me out here. I cant decide on being a believer or a skeptic. Its either wait for conclusive proof or be entertainment for hoaxers

Why don't you instead seek for the empirical evidence yourself instead of waiting for someone else to give it to you?

I do try to seek for evidence but the "Believers vs Skeptics" posts on this forum imply we should not seek for evidence at all. They are all from the people who say "unexplained automatically = aliens"

Originally posted by The Shrike
I'm not a scientist

Let's be honest here, what is your educational level? Some might suggest this is an unfair request, I do not think so. Much of the better publications and discussions involve people who have higher education, preferably a university degree. I see nothing in your posts to conclude you are able to match that level of discussion.

but one doesn't have to be one to come to logical conclusions based on what's offered. If you don't have any evidence or none is available then, mister, there is no evidence! You can't create evidence out of thin air. It either exists and you can work with it or you have nothing supportable. Weird thinking to think otherwise.

Yawn, another silly claim from The Shrike. To suggest there is "no evidence" means there is no documentation, no witness reports, no film or photograph which suggests UFOs might be extraordinary in some way. There are people who are way better qualified than you and me who have supported the ET hypothesis. In the end your statement reveals the true you: one-sided, dogmatic and biased. You could care less about a carefully weighed review of the evidence there is today. You only see the world in black and white: Everyone is crazy until they show you a dead alien and saucer on your doorstep. Well bud, the world does not work that way. Poor you, you just can't live with uncertainties.

reply to post by jclmavg


I order to stay within ATS policy I cannot reply to you in the manner that you deserve so aside from this reply, I'll ignore your off-topic comments.