skeptics - the inner workings

Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s very funny Xevious.

If over 90% of all so-called sightings have been verified to be of a terrestrial nature and the rest remain unexplained, and that which was left unexplained shows NO evidence to suggest anything of a non-terrestrial nature, the skeptic is NOT being objective for not considering non-terrestrial phenomena?

And yet the UFOlogist IS being objective by suggesting non-terrestrial phenomena is valid?

It’s amazing how believers can lose objectivity to logic.
Click to expand...

It is pointless to base your argument on facts which are in dispute. Please keep your arguments to anything you can back. 90% are explained as terrestrial, yes. However, the argument that they are ALL of a terrestrial nature is likewise in need of backing to be valid. "All UFO's are of terrestrial origin." is the statement. If you could in any way prove that, there would not be any reason to discuss the issue at all. All the objects would then be identified!

It's amazing how debunkers can lose their objectivity to their irrational and emotional responses to this topic.
 
I wouldn't worry about Q. She is constantly on the rag, and we all don't listen to women, do we?
Click to expand...

Her gender has nothing to do with the issue. Rather, her claim to be logical and yet present as I show above, unscientific and irrational statements is highly amusing.
 
However, the argument that they are ALL of a terrestrial nature is likewise in need of backing to be valid.

Why would it not be valid? There is no indication that ANY sightings whatsoever are of a non-terrestrial nature.

"All UFO's are of terrestrial origin." is the statement. If you could in any way prove that, there would not be any reason to discuss the issue at all.

I can understand how the believer would cling to every last possibility, however remote, that their dreams of aliens visiting Earth will someday be realized.

And regardless of the overwhelming evidence against them, the believer will not be satisfied until every last sighting is verified as non-terrestrial. If one event remains ‘unexplained,’ the believer could continue to justify their belief, having the same result as pulling rotten teeth out of a dead horses mouth.

All the objects would then be identified!

… and the UFOlogist’s claim of aliens visiting Earth would be laid to rest once and for all.

What would the nutters do with all their spare time?

It's amazing how debunkers can lose their objectivity to their irrational and emotional responses to this topic. Rather, her claim to be logical and yet present as I show above, unscientific and irrational statements is highly amusing.

That’s ridiculous in the extreme. It is the believers who are making the leap of faith to suggest aliens are visiting Earth, which is supposed to be objective, scientific, logical and rational, how?
 
Q

I don't believe that aliens are visiting earth, but what exactly is irrational about thinking that they might be?
 
Its the same as me thinking that Elvis might be putting chemicals in my milk at night, and that's why it smells funny after 2 weeks. It's fine to say 'what if', but it becomes pointless once you realize that no reliable evidence actually points in that direction. Yes, there are unexplained UFOs. Claiming they are alien however is just pushing what one wants to believe. The simple matter is that many people are 'off', unable to identify common flying objects, or both. Nobody has ever produced a piece of evidence that points to aliens as the cause of UFOs. People have been able to explain away the great majority of UFO sightings as mistaken objects or hoaxes.

The choice seems clear.
 
I don't believe that aliens are visiting earth, but what exactly is irrational about thinking that they might be?

Let’s be clear on what it is you’re asking.

To ‘think’ that aliens might be visiting Earth is indeed thought provoking and interesting, as long as you put things into perspective. In other words, one must first look into the physics of space travel and the exobiology of our galaxy. I have no problems discussing either.

But to ‘believe’ that aliens are visiting Earth based on things that cannot or are yet to be explained is completely irrational.

If the vast majority of sightings turn out to be inconsequential events of a terrestrial nature, how does one make the leap to non-terrestrial events for the unexplained events, especially when nothing of those unexplained events suggests non-terrestrial activity, whatever that might be?

Sure, one could sit back and speculate that these events conclude that aliens are indeed visiting Earth. But that would be equivalent to speculating that a man with long sideburns might be Elvis.
 
Fair enough. Still if someone says that they believe, on the balance of probability, that aliens are visiting us, I'm not sure that's actually irrational as opposed to just very unlikely, or wishful thinking.

Sometime obvious terrestial explanations for ufos seem just as unlikely as aliens. I've seen a ufo close up that I can't imagine how to explain by any means at all. I don't think it was an alien craft but I also can't find any ordinary explanation for it. It's tempting to wonder.
 
But to ‘believe’ that aliens are visiting Earth based on things that cannot or are yet to be explained is completely irrational. (q)

Claiming they are alien however is just pushing what one wants to believe.
(persol)

ok, it seems obvious that you guys are specifically directing "claims/believe" at the other participants in this thread.

show the instances where this terminology occurs and perhaps clarifications can be made. failure to do so will indicate that this........

I have no problems discussing either.(q)

is just vomit.

Its the same as me thinking that Elvis might be putting chemicals in my milk at night, (persol)

that is utter bullshit. employing the santa claus gambit indicates an inherent weakness of your position. the probabilities of ufo's being et and elvis being alive and spiking milk is not equivalent. state your case if you wish to maintain the assertion. drag out some frikkin math while you are at it and calculate probabilities

ps: i have evidence that aliens have visited mars

:D

It's fine to say 'what if', but it becomes pointless once you realize that no reliable evidence actually points in that direction. (persol)

discuss the belgian flap. perhaps i would get some insight on the proper way to reason. your generalizations say absolutely nothing.

how does one make the leap to non-terrestrial events for the unexplained events, especially when nothing of those unexplained events suggests non-terrestrial activity, whatever that might be (q)

what unexplained events? give me references and links so i may review as you obviously have done.

Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)


*this is the wrong thread to engage in fallacious debunkery. however you wanna look like fools, please........
 
Originally posted by Canute
I don't think it was an alien craft but I also can't find any ordinary explanation for it.
Click to expand...

you do not see the contradiction?

edit:It's tempting to wonder

i refer back to..."after sighting a ufo, one speculates! why would i do that? cos i aint frikking brain dead!"

:D
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by spookz
you do not see the contradiction?

edit:It's tempting to wonder

i refer back to..."after sighting a ufo, one speculates! why would i do that? cos i aint frikking brain dead!"

:D
Click to expand...
I wasn't being unimaginative. It was about the size of firework so I wasn't inclined to think it had crossed interstellar space. ;)
 
I can understand how the believer would cling to every last possibility, however remote, that their dreams of aliens visiting Earth will someday be realized.

And regardless of the overwhelming evidence against them, the believer will not be satisfied until every last sighting is verified as non-terrestrial. If one event remains ‘unexplained,’ the believer could continue to justify their belief, having the same result as pulling rotten teeth out of a dead horses mouth.
Click to expand...

Once again, Q relies on facts in despute. I have presented plenty of cases in other posts, both in the form of NSA documents, FBI documents, numerous websites with official documentation. Where were you when those discussions were happening, Q? It seems you are only around when you want to make general statements about the phenomenon as a whole, not when anyone gets into any specific cases, accept maybe Ali's claim. This isn't meant as a personal attack, but it is a question of "Are you looking at the data we are showing you?"
 
Once again, Q relies on facts in despute. I have presented plenty of cases in other posts, both in the form of NSA documents, FBI documents, numerous websites with official documentation. Where were you when those discussions were happening, Q?

Do the so-called ‘facts’ in the other cases justify or suggest ET is visiting Earth? Or do they merely outline a case in which no conclusions are forthcoming?

Are you looking at the data we are showing you?

So far, you’ve presented nothing that can be even remotely considered to suggest non-terrestrial activity.

That said, there are cases in which the observer claims to have seen or has come in contact with aliens. Are you suggesting these claims be taken seriously?
 
Bottom line: Why are you continuing to rely on generalizations? Why did you not discuss the specifics of those cases when they were discussed, suggesting alternetive explanations, and participate in the actual discussions?

Do the so-called ‘facts’ in the other cases justify or suggest ET is visiting Earth? Or do they merely outline a case in which no conclusions are forthcoming?
Click to expand...

Why didn't you say anything in those discussions? For that matter, if you are asking this question here, it seems to show that you didn't look at any of those discussions. The bottom line is not the conclusion you draw, it is how you come to it. You claim "No evidence" yet when presented with it, you ask "How does that show what you say?" without actually participating in the discussions previous, and thus showing no indication you have ever considered the "facts" presented by those who speculate that ET's are present. It shows that your position is not based on anything the wonderers have said, but rather what your pre-concived notions are reguarding the phenomenon and those who advocate it.

I'm in your courner on some things, Q. The reason we clash so much is how you present yourself and your arguments.
 
i repeat....

Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)

:D
 
Why did you not discuss the specifics of those cases when they were discussed, suggesting alternetive explanations, and participate in the actual discussions?

What would be the point in that? Any alternative explanations I could provide are mere speculation based on someone else’s (biased) opinions.

But for the sake of argument, lets say that I offered an alternative explanation of a non-terrestrial nature and we learn that the phenomena is completely innocuous and inconsequential – what have we gained?

It shows that your position is not based on anything the wonderers have said, but rather what your pre-concived notions are reguarding the phenomenon and those who advocate it.

Nonsense, I am quite able to apply critical thinking to these cases without participating in the discussion. The only pre-conceived notions are from those who advocate the existence of ET visiting Earth.

I also find it interesting you use the term ‘wonderer’ instead of ‘believer.’ What is the difference?

Spookz - your quote is irrelevant to the discussion.
 
What would be the point in that?

it would be a blast

Any alternative explanations I could provide are mere speculation based on someone else’s (biased) opinions.

umm..use the belgium flap. the tentative conclusions derived from the data does not appear to be of any particular individuals opinion but rather reflects a consensus of opinion b/w the various orgs involved. this obviously does not rule out all possible biases but it would probably minimize it. in anycase q, you appear to be a sophisticated and discerning poster and could probably factor the bias into your assessment of the data and still arrive at a conclusion of your own. yes? no?

But for the sake of argument, lets say that I offered an alternative explanation of a non-terrestrial nature and we learn that the phenomena is completely innocuous and inconsequential – what have we gained?

more vague generalizations.
an et hypothesis would be considered only if the terrestrial ones are inadequate or can be firmly ruled out. to subsequently find out that the phenom turns out to be "completely innocuous and inconsequential" is to expose your crackpottery and utter lack of judgement for all to see

Nonsense, I am quite able to apply critical thinking to these cases without participating in the discussion.

umm... why would anyone care about this little personal factoid? if your code is not stored on this database for our perusal, you do not exist.

The only pre-conceived notions are from those who advocate the existence of ET visiting Earth.

trolling again. you simply cannot let this go. you are being directly addressed and all you want to harp on is some mythical "those"

I also find it interesting you use the term ‘wonderer’ instead of ‘believer.’ What is the difference?

religious/fanatic/dogmatic/moronic. either you are like a babe in the woods that knows not what he utters or is simple being disingenuous. the latter is probably the case.

Spookz - your quote is irrelevant to the discussion.

sorry, you gonna have to do better than that. an earlier post indicated why i think it is relevant. you have to put in a more vigorous effort if you want to maintain the above statement. it is directed specifically at a particular approach that you have adopted. if you wish i will point out more of your statements that prompted the quote but i rather you not waste my time. i am merely indulging you now and it is slightly tedious


blah blah blah
lets go dog, spin something fer yer buddies!
 
spookz

I tried making sense of your post but all I got out of it was, "blah blah blah." No value here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top