It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That wasn't a skeptic, that was a jerk.
Then the skeptics comes on and talks about "wishful thinking" and "vivid imagination."
In a case like that I would tend to believe the police officer because he might actually recognize members of "the mob". I would even believe that an astronaut or a pilot would realize people were committing a crime, but as far as them providing accurate descriptions? Not so much.
If you had these same Police Officers, Astronauts, Pilots and people who are respected in their community say, I was an eyewitness to Mob crimes and some of them were even abducted by the Mob.
So at the end of the day, a skeptics opinion is meaningless when weighed against eyewitness accounts from Police, Pilots, Astronauts and more.
So at the end of the day, a skeptics opinion is meaningless when weighed against eyewitness accounts from Police, Pilots, Astronauts and more.
Originally posted by neoholographic
The skeptic just gave a silly opinion based on his belief against what the Police Officer actually saw and experienced.
If you had these same Police Officers, Astronauts, Pilots and people who are respected in their community say, I was an eyewitness to Mob crimes and some of them were even abducted by the Mob. Their eyewitness testimony would be given a lot of weight and I doubt you will hear any skeptic challenging their eyewitness testimony with silly opinions.
To be fair this comparison doesn't really work because "mob crimes" are earthly mundane things that everyone knows have happened. UFOs on the other hand, by their definition, are unknown and remain unexplained.
Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by schuyler
Wrong,
A true skeptic knows his or her opinion is meaningless without evidence. It's just an opinion.
What you described is an opinion based on evidence. That's true skepticism. It's possible that Carter may have saw Venus at that time. The isn't just an opinion. This is a rebuttal based on facts.
Saying someone has a "vivid imagination" is just an opinion.
I I saw the profession skeptic Michael Shermer debating these issues. He could rebut anything the guy was saying about Ufology so he started talking about "little green men."
Skeptics do this all the time. Skepticism has been turned into a belief system by many people who claim to be skeptics instead a true search for the truth.
You then talked about Pilots. Yes, their eyewitness testimony should be given weight. Just like we give weight to well respected people in the community. Unless you can impeach their testimony and some how show they become blathering idiots with vivid imaginations when talking about U.F.O.'s, you have to give what their saying weight. We trust some of these people with our lives.
So when a Pilot or Police Officer describe what they saw and experienced, why should I doubt them based on the skeptics opinion? That makes no sense.
First their needs to be evidence presented that counters what they're saying or that impeaches the witness.
So I assume the Pilots, Police Officers and Astronauts are telling the truth until I have some evidence that their not. The reason skeptics try to belittle these eyewitnesses is because of their personal belief system.
Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by schuyler
Wrong,
A true skeptic knows his or her opinion is meaningless without evidence. It's just an opinion.
What you described is an opinion based on evidence. That's true skepticism. It's possible that Carter may have saw Venus at that time. The isn't just an opinion. This is a rebuttal based on facts.
Saying someone has a "vivid imagination" is just an opinion.
I I saw the profession skeptic Michael Shermer debating these issues. He could rebut anything the guy was saying about Ufology so he started talking about "little green men."
Skeptics do this all the time. Skepticism has been turned into a belief system by many people who claim to be skeptics instead a true search for the truth.
You then talked about Pilots. Yes, their eyewitness testimony should be given weight. Just like we give weight to well respected people in the community. Unless you can impeach their testimony and some how show they become blathering idiots with vivid imaginations when talking about U.F.O.'s, you have to give what their saying weight. We trust some of these people with our lives.
So when a Pilot or Police Officer describe what they saw and experienced, why should I doubt them based on the skeptics opinion? That makes no sense.
First their needs to be evidence presented that counters what they're saying or that impeaches the witness.
So I assume the Pilots, Police Officers and Astronauts are telling the truth until I have some evidence that their not. The reason skeptics try to belittle these eyewitnesses is because of their personal belief system.
Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by schuyler
Wrong,
A true skeptic knows his or her opinion is meaningless without evidence. It's just an opinion.
What you described is an opinion based on evidence. That's true skepticism. It's possible that Carter may have saw Venus at that time. The isn't just an opinion. This is a rebuttal based on facts.
Saying someone has a "vivid imagination" is just an opinion.
I I saw the profession skeptic Michael Shermer debating these issues. He could rebut anything the guy was saying about Ufology so he started talking about "little green men."
Skeptics do this all the time. Skepticism has been turned into a belief system by many people who claim to be skeptics instead a true search for the truth.
You then talked about Pilots. Yes, their eyewitness testimony should be given weight. Just like we give weight to well respected people in the community. Unless you can impeach their testimony and some how show they become blathering idiots with vivid imaginations when talking about U.F.O.'s, you have to give what their saying weight. We trust some of these people with our lives.
So when a Pilot or Police Officer describe what they saw and experienced, why should I doubt them based on the skeptics opinion? That makes no sense.
First their needs to be evidence presented that counters what they're saying or that impeaches the witness.
So I assume the Pilots, Police Officers and Astronauts are telling the truth until I have some evidence that their not. The reason skeptics try to belittle these eyewitnesses is because of their personal belief system.
Originally posted by neoholographic
If you had these same Police Officers, Astronauts, Pilots and people who are respected in their community say, I was an eyewitness to Mob crimes and some of them were even abducted by the Mob. Their eyewitness testimony would be given a lot of weight and I doubt you will hear any skeptic challenging their eyewitness testimony with silly opinions.
When it comes to U.F.O.'s these well respected people all of a sudden become blathering idiots with wild imaginations.