• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

King of the Americas

Banned
K
Joined
Nov 15, 2001
Messages
6,513
I 'd like this thread to consist of "who's winning" the debate...

The skeptics/debunkers or those who believe/know they saw 'something' that wasn't a man-made and a human piloted craft.

This is a "skeptic's forum", James Randi fancies himself a debunker and even a hoaxer. I've always felt a little like so much chum being tossed into an already shark infested pool. I guess I'd say I felt more attacked than welcomed, but this being where it is, it was expected. That said, I've felt the tide turn lately (thank you ramjet & jakesteele)

I have seen 'things' I still have yet to identify, or have a plausible explanation offered by an aviation expert. And too I've opened several threads, and or taken part in many discussions, debates, and or deliberations here upon this, all ending in the same way...

'I' think the skeptics' thinking is skewed, and their methodology flawed, in arrival at "debunked claim". I am sure they are equally convinced of 'their' winning the logical argument.

So, I want to hear from those "on the fence", those who haven't made up their mind as to which group is 'probably' correct.

IS there 'something' around/up there/in the heavens that ISN'T us?

OR

Are ALL such reports merely a product of identification error?

---

Which camp has offered YOU the strongest argument(s)?
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
I 'd like this thread to consist of "who's winning" the debate...

The skeptics/debunkers or those who believe/know they saw 'something' that wasn't a man-made and a human piloted craft.
Click to expand...

How do they 'know' this? Believe and know are not the same word.

This is a "skeptic's forum", James Randi fancies himself a debunker and even a hoaxer. I've always felt a little like so much chum being tossed into an already shark infested pool. I guess I'd say I felt more attacked than welcomed, but this being where it is, it was expected. That said, I've felt the tide turn lately (thank you ramjet & jakesteele)
Click to expand...

Attacking the arguer is against the MA. Attacking your argument is fair game.

I have seen 'things' I still have yet to identify, or have a plausible explanation offered by an aviation expert. And too I've opened several threads, and or taken part in many discussions, debates, and or deliberations here upon this, all ending in the same way...
Click to expand...

You relying on evidence that is NOT compelling to cement your belief?

'I' think the skeptics' thinking is skewed, and their methodology flawed, in arrival at "debunked claim". I am sure they are equally convinced of 'their' winning the logical argument.
Click to expand...

You've started with your belief in alien visitation and look for any evidence to support it. Not finding any, you attack the methodology of skepticism.

So, I want to hear from those "on the fence", those who haven't made up their mind as to which group is 'probably' correct.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, facts aren't decided by group consensus or vote.

IS there 'something' around/up there/in the heavens that ISN'T us?
Click to expand...

Is there compelling evidence for it? Chances for the existence of alien life in the universe is virtually 1. Visiting Earth, not so much.

OR

Are ALL such reports merely a product of identification error?
Click to expand...

No, various reasons have been listed for why such reports can be incoorect. I think you participate in a recent thread listing them so saying here that they are all 'a product of identification error' is a bit dishonest.

Which camp has offered YOU the strongest argument(s)?
Click to expand...

I hope the answer is now obvious.
 
Given that the believers' argument consists of "Nobody knows what this is, therefore it must be an alien craft", you're pretty much onto a loser to start with.

That the vast majority of sightings are easily explained by well known natural phenomena just highlights the weakness of the argument.

For the record, I'd love for there to be alien life, and I'd love even more for it to visit this planet, for many reasons, but the likelihood of it happening is extremely small, also for many reasons.

As for which camp has offered the strongest arguments?

Neither.

It isn't about arguments, but about good evidence, which the skeptics don't require, and the believers don't have.
 
Alas wollery your comments will be unappreciated.

I can't think of many things much more exciting than visitors from another world, that we can communicate with and that don't exterminate or enslave us of course.
 
Alright, I am just going to respond 'in general', since I DON'T want this thread to get bogged down in another discussion as to what constitutes "scientific evidence/PROOF".

I use the terms knowers and believers, because I believe they are in the same camp. 'I' fancy myself a "knower", and not merely a 'believer'. I KNOW that what I saw was beyond human capability. You can believe something 'might' be true, but you don't know until you have 'enough' evidence to reach that conclusion.

Now, knowing something, and being able to 'prove' it, are two VERY different things.

In the other camp, we have the skeptics/debunkers.

All that I want to know is, "Who's making the best arguments, so far?"
 
Carl Sagan, who very much wanted to believe in alien life (prime mover of SETI and all), was invited to sit on a number of blue-ribbon panels to examine the very best and most credible "sightings".
His conclusion...."Not a shred of evidence."

That's the bottom line for those of us who identify as skeptics. Certainly there are sightings of phenomena that the observer cannot fit into his/her experience.
To make the huge leap that these things must then be intelligently-guided spacecraft from another world is.....Unjustified at best.
 
King of the Americas said:
Alright, I am just going to respond 'in general', since I DON'T want this thread to get bogged down in another discussion as to what constitutes "scientific evidence/PROOF".

I use the terms knowers and believers, because I believe they are in the same camp. 'I' fancy myself a "knower", and not merely a 'believer'. I KNOW that what I saw was beyond human capability. You can believe something 'might' be true, but you don't know until you have 'enough' evidence to reach that conclusion.

Now, knowing something, and being able to 'prove' it, are two VERY different things.

In the other camp, we have the skeptics/debunkers.

All that I want to know is, "Who's making the best arguments, so far?"
Click to expand...

Do you also Know it is beyond natural phenomenon? or optical illusion? or a misunderstood celestial object?

and are you SURE you are have full absolute knowledge of human capability?

Are you incapable of being mistaken?
 
King of the Americas said:
The skeptics/debunkers or those who believe/know they saw 'something' that wasn't a man-made and a human piloted craft.
Click to expand...

Given that every single person (with working eyes) on the planet has seen an awful lot of things that are neither man-made or human piloted, that doesn't seem much like a debate.

If instead you mean the debate between people who claim aliens are visiting us and skeptics then there is no debate. No-one can win anything because until the believers actually bring some evidence to support their claims there is no debate to win.

That said, I've felt the tide turn lately (thank you ramjet & jakesteele)
Click to expand...

This is akin to conspiracy theorists thanking David Icke for lending them credibility.

IS there 'something' around/up there/in the heavens that ISN'T us?
Click to expand...

Of course. The vast majority of the universe is made up of things that aren't us.

Which camp has offered YOU the strongest argument(s)?
Click to expand...

Given that only one camp has offered any argument, that's a rather easy question to answer. Wild speculation and denial of reality is not an argument.
 
I would just suggest that witnesses to unusual phenomena should remember:

"I can't explain that" does NOT equal "That can't be explained."
"It looks to me like a real alien craft" does NOT equal "It is a real alien craft."
"I have no alternative interpretation" does NOT equal "There is no alternative interpretation."
 
Bikewer said:
Carl Sagan, who very much wanted to believe in alien life (prime mover of SETI and all), was invited to sit on a number of blue-ribbon panels to examine the very best and most credible "sightings".
His conclusion...."Not a shred of evidence."

That's the bottom line for those of us who identify as skeptics. Certainly there are sightings of phenomena that the observer cannot fit into his/her experience.
To make the huge leap that these things must then be intelligently-guided spacecraft from another world is.....Unjustified at best.
Click to expand...

I know this is almost heresy, but Carl Sagan saying, "Not a shred of evidence." doesn't make the statement true. I'll concede that the evidence in quest is NOT 'proof', and that the evidence is weak, inconsistent, and without a lot of scientific merit. In fact, 'I' would say Sagan is EXACTLY wrong. All that we have are shreds of evidence.
 
Last edited:
Lanzy said:
Do you also Know it is beyond natural phenomenon? or optical illusion? or a misunderstood celestial object?

and are you SURE you are have full absolute knowledge of human capability?

Are you incapable of being mistaken?
Click to expand...

The ONLY thing I can do with m experience is tell you what it wasn't. I have no definition for what I saw. I have and DO study the sky, the stars, weather patters, and even satellites. Most of my time has been spent behind a pair of tripod mounted binoculars.

'They' were NOT planes. THIS, I 'know'. Our planes can't and don't, "combine to make a 4-fold larger version of themselves." Our craft 'bank' to turn. These made right angle turns without slowing... They took positions, then moved concert with one another...

This is not what I wanted this thread to be about...
 
spektator said:
i would just suggest that witnesses to unusual phenomena should remember:

"i can't explain that" does not equal "that can't be explained."
"it looks to me like a real alien craft" does not equal "it is a real alien craft."
"i have no alternative interpretation" does not equal "there is no alternative interpretation."
Click to expand...

agreed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom