visit full thread |
board home |
site home |
recent posts |
top topics
The human is a very curious creature, if he thought he was seeing an alien spaceship, then I know at least I, would get closer to see it. It maybe stupid, but it's a mechanism built into our brains. Who wants to miss out on such a Grande opportunity of seeing an alien spaceship, or even aliens walking around it.
No I am not skeptical of the existence of aliens, but that does not mean I should not be skeptical of the various claims made by people. There are so many claims, so much disinformation and misidentification, and theories presented as facts. If you were not skeptical, you would be left with a whole hotchpotch of conflicting ideas, and that would obfuscate the whole matter for you.
We are, like yourself, trying to seek the truth. Yes, there are many skeptics who do not seek the truth, but seek to hide from it, and they are pseudoskeptics. However, an intellectually honest skeptic, analyses the evidence objectively, and does not let his predispositions corrupt his investigation.
In the case of Woodsy recent photographs, we cannot see anything, but static, noise, some obscure outlines, and some bright lights. How do you know that Woodsy did not ask his friends to pose with flashlights, and put some objects in the clearing to have a laugh with believers online? We don't know, yet there is no evidence to suggest that this is not the case.
In the same way there is no evidence at all to suggest they're real UFO's.
So, what can any honest investigator do, when there is no evidence of anything? He discards it.
If people want to believe that woodsy's UFO's are real, just reflect on his case:
1. Some teenager registers, and then claims he saw landed flying UFO's
2. He presents pictures that show nothing but random lights, dark outlines and a lot of noise
So, you did not see any UFO's. You don't know who this person is. Yet, you believe him, simply on this strangers word? There is one word for this, and that is gullible. It is as intellectually dishonest as a pseudoskeptics attempt to label every UFO a weather balloon or a ball of lightening, or every UFO witnesss, as delusional.
The whole nature of UFO photographs, is that in this day and age, where the average person has access to the state of art image editing software like photoshop, it can be fairly easy to create a convincing UFO photograph. The photographs need to be analysed in labs and with special equipment, before anyone can make a ruling on them. This is is why, in my humble opinion, UFO photographs are not the best form of evidence today, and shall only be used to supplement evidence, not as the only form of evidence.
[edit on 20-11-2004 by Indigo_Child]
From Thread: No more!!!
Posted by Indigo_Child, on November 20, 2004 at 04:46 GMTThe human is a very curious creature, if he thought he was seeing an alien spaceship, then I know at least I, would get closer to see it. It maybe stupid, but it's a mechanism built into our brains. Who wants to miss out on such a Grande opportunity of seeing an alien spaceship, or even aliens walking around it.
No I am not skeptical of the existence of aliens, but that does not mean I should not be skeptical of the various claims made by people. There are so many claims, so much disinformation and misidentification, and theories presented as facts. If you were not skeptical, you would be left with a whole hotchpotch of conflicting ideas, and that would obfuscate the whole matter for you.
We are, like yourself, trying to seek the truth. Yes, there are many skeptics who do not seek the truth, but seek to hide from it, and they are pseudoskeptics. However, an intellectually honest skeptic, analyses the evidence objectively, and does not let his predispositions corrupt his investigation.
In the case of Woodsy recent photographs, we cannot see anything, but static, noise, some obscure outlines, and some bright lights. How do you know that Woodsy did not ask his friends to pose with flashlights, and put some objects in the clearing to have a laugh with believers online? We don't know, yet there is no evidence to suggest that this is not the case.
In the same way there is no evidence at all to suggest they're real UFO's.
So, what can any honest investigator do, when there is no evidence of anything? He discards it.
If people want to believe that woodsy's UFO's are real, just reflect on his case:
1. Some teenager registers, and then claims he saw landed flying UFO's
2. He presents pictures that show nothing but random lights, dark outlines and a lot of noise
So, you did not see any UFO's. You don't know who this person is. Yet, you believe him, simply on this strangers word? There is one word for this, and that is gullible. It is as intellectually dishonest as a pseudoskeptics attempt to label every UFO a weather balloon or a ball of lightening, or every UFO witnesss, as delusional.
The whole nature of UFO photographs, is that in this day and age, where the average person has access to the state of art image editing software like photoshop, it can be fairly easy to create a convincing UFO photograph. The photographs need to be analysed in labs and with special equipment, before anyone can make a ruling on them. This is is why, in my humble opinion, UFO photographs are not the best form of evidence today, and shall only be used to supplement evidence, not as the only form of evidence.
[edit on 20-11-2004 by Indigo_Child]
You may use this content as long as you comply with our Creative Commons Deed by properly sourcing the author as owner, source the AboveTopSecret.com website as co-owner, do not create a derivative work, and do not use it for commerical purposes.
