Thoughts on why skeptics are good for Ufology

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Good morning, sir. I have come to respect you a lot more for the way you handled yourself under the "skeptics" and "debunkers" mallot. I sort of carried it overboard on purpose to illustrate the difference between the skeptic who is "open" as you hold and the kind I am used to on here. This is why I am trepidatious about starting threads of my own about my experiences. Until now I just relate my stories in other threads. Directly because of ridicule.

Have you seen this one yet? Read the first couple comments…

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This poor girl is relating a story that is about 40 years old and right away people attack her for changing or even lying about her retelling of it. Shows little respect and is outright abusive. The abusers won't admit it that way though, they will call themselves skeptics to hide behind their tyranny (thats what bullies do). Barely pass TnC inspection with their accusations and then hide behind gentle euphemisms. Thats my problem with the open and free environment we are supposed to have around here. Its one thing to be a true skeptic (I agree with your definition) and quite another to bully and play innocent.

I would like to take this moment to apologize for that behavior on my part, I was doing that on purpose. It did generate the desired result. You delved into your story in even more detail, describing your equipment and such so as to convince me that you are sincere. I already know that you are. If I had continued to poo poo your recounting with more "wheres the proof" and even insult you, that would sting even more. I am sure glad you are the type to take this in stride, you are a better man than I.

I felt so bad doing that last night late and didn't want to leave you hanging but It was late and I was "inter-netted out" if you get my meaning. I don't like to make such long posts and stay in one thread so long if I can help it. Thanks for being so patient with me. I wanted to tell you one of my UFO experiences but I can't find the book mark I made of it on here. I have a ghostly one if you want to hear it and the OP doesn't mind. You can skeptic that for me if you want. I should be willing to take what I dish out, right?

You said something about us being kind of the same and I agree with that. Your story is very compelling and I want to know one more thing about it if you would be so kind. When the "unknown" track first approached your position before it stopped, did you know the altitude along the approach path? Was it descending, was it level at 20,000 feet? This would be a good way to determine its origins as meteors don't fly level at 20,000 feet and then stop.

Oh, and more more thing.


Believer……Skeptic…….Denier. With Skeptic being the broader term, as you can have someone that believes most of what they see, and only skeptical about a few….all the way to those that accept only hand full of cases and deny all the rest.

Be sure to add witness to the end of your scale past the believer end. Those who witness something otherworldly don't have to believe anything… they know. if you had witnessed this thing (been able to run outside and watch it hover for "two minutes" over your ship and then climb straight up and disappear at (impossible speed) and totally silent)) then you would know, too. You wouldn't be saying I think I saw an unearthly phenomenon, you would be insisting you know you did. Especially if you (who understands and has observed all manner of man made military and civilian aircraft and are obviously a trained and qualified observer) saw it with your own two eyes and the shape and lighting of it was "unknown" or unidentified. You would be able to state that it was not of this world. You would try to convince people maybe that even though it wasn't earth tech, it was tech.

Thats what I saw one night. Thanks for the chat. This will be my last reply here unless you want me to link one of my ghostly experiences.

See you on the boards Erik The Awful,

Intrptr out




posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


You don't have to apologize to me about anything.

At my age, having lived literally all around the world while growing up, seeing the world as a young adult, I've developed thick skin over time.

The video popped up at 40 to 45 miles away from ownship, approached ownship at 20,000 feet of altitude level flight for about 1 minute to 1 minute 15 seconds) at a speed of about Mach 2. Then stopped for 2 minutes, no motion, holding altitude, then suddenly read 80,000 feet. Then 1 sweep (4 seconds) later, it was gone. No more video return.

If the OP doesn't mind and you post your link, I'll read it. Keep in mind others will too.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
page 1 & 2 summary

Pseudoskeptics set an impossible level of proof.
Many skeptics trim their list of possible explanations due to group think.
post by Unresponsible
 


I’m a skeptic that believes in life out there.
The proliferation of (terrible) videos on youtube is a problem.
Still waiting to see high quality evidence
post by wmd_2008
 


Subthread0.0 Stanton Friedman
Related to (Unresponsible’s post on pseudoskeptics)
Skepticism is necessary. Some “skeptics”:
1.) Venemous (emotion based) responses
2.) Do not consider the facts: Stanton Friedman “I have my mind made up don’t bother me with the facts”
This isn’t true skepticism
post by EnPassant
 


Subthread0.1 Stanton Friedman
Stan got some facts wrong
post by wmd_2008
 


Varied categories of skeptics with equally varied reactions
I try to be polite and avoid insulting someone because this helps drive the topic
Live and let live goes both ways (believers insulting skeptics). Cycle of violence = no enthuiasm
post by eriktheawful
 


I have an experience and share it for others who might need help with their experiences. It is not to convince anybody.
post by Danbones
 


Subthread1.0 witnesses
We should add another category called “witness”. It is not a matter of belief but direct experience.
post by intrptr
 


Subthread1.1 witnesses
A witness could be a believer, denier, or skeptic. Examples of each.
post by eriktheawful
 


Subthread1.2 witnesses
Not all skeptics change their belief system when confronted with extraordinary evidence
post by intrptr
 


”Labeling oneself a skeptic is just as bad as labeling yourself a true believer … Instead you should claim to have an open mind. ”
post by amazing
 


Subthread2.2 Motivations of Abrasive Posters
New to ATS and I feel bullied. Why do they even post? Is it to stop the flow of information?
post by waltwillis
 


Subthread0.2 Stanton Friedman
He deserves credit for his objectivity and hard work
post by EnPassant
 


Responsibility to share my experiences. Witnesses have a responsibility to share.
In my experience skeptic intent is to prove me wrong not seek out more data. No amount of proof will suffice.
post by intrptr
 


Subthread0.3 Stanton Friedman
Agree with wmd_2008 about the AMA. I don’t participate.
post by intrptr
 


Subthread0.4 Stanton Friedman
He was promoting his books
post by wmd_2008
 


Subthread2.1 Motivations of Abrasive Posters
Stick it out. People can be abrasive but there is value here is well.
post by intrptr
 


Law of One. Hypothesis: (1) You have free will. (2) You choose your experiences with the goal of reintegrating with God. (3) Maybe skeptics chose their predisposition before being born to act as opposition. This creates experience for both sides.
post by NONPOINT21
 


Subthread1.3 witnesses
note: difficult to summarize the story. read his personal account. overall point - a true skeptic doesn’t deny proof.
post by eriktheawful
 


Subthread1.4 witnesses
Strong arguments for aliens (ETH). It isn’t just speculation
post by EnPassant
 


Started out as a believer. All of the contradictions in Ufology require critical thinking or “a skeptical believer”.
Eriktheawful’s story is a good example of how an experience should be analyzed.
post by BigfootNZ
 


A skeptic is open to truth but aggresive.
A denier is an ostrich.
Introduces the idea of a “skeptical/knower” who has vetted the evidence from a personal experience.
Personal account follows
post by pdawg67
 


Subthread1.5 witnesses
Your (eriktheawful) experience is intriguing. note: provides an example of debunking of erik’s experience
post by intrptr
 


Subthread2.2 Motivations of Abrasive Posters
Maybe they started out as believers and turned skeptical waiting for quality evidence.
post by gortex
 


Subthread2.3 Motivations of Abrasive Posters
Maybe they just enjoy the subject like “believers”
post by thesearchfortruth
 


Subthread2.3 Motivations of Abrasive Posters
Here to exchange information with other like minded people that have had an alien experience not people seeking to make fun.
post by waltwillis
 


end of page 1 & 2 summary



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by compressedFusion
 


Wow, really cool summation of the thread and everyones replies.

Makes it easy to catch some highlights.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


thing is, i have gained knowledge relevant to my questions by yakking it up on the internet and in person
its not about me helping skeptics...
its about people with a common experience; that's where the barriers are the thinnest
...............................
skeptics:
and if you ever get the living crap scared out of you, and you get left with artifacts,
you'll know exactly what i mean:
till then, you won't
simple as that
edit on Tuepm3b20143America/Chicago31 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 



The video popped up at 40 to 45 miles away from ownship, approached ownship at 20,000 feet of altitude level flight for about 1 minute to 1 minute 15 seconds) at a speed of about Mach 2. Then stopped for 2 minutes, no motion, holding altitude, then suddenly read 80,000 feet. Then 1 sweep (4 seconds) later, it was gone. No more video return.

When you say "video return" I get a little confused. Does your radar tracking have Hi magnification cameras attached and did you receive images along with radar return?

I know Nasa uses this for rocket launches and the F14 TomCat had a radar camera in its nose that could zoom in on a target they were tracking.

Overall there is only one conclusion to be drawn from your experience. It was not of this earth. What space age material doesn't disintegrate at that climb rate in the atmosphere? Even the newest hypersonic hi altitude crafts can't exceed Mach 5 or 6 without glowing white hot. If the government had such tech they wouldn't need to distract us by designing lesser craft to fool us. They would just use the best they had and conquer the world straightaway. Thats what the power hungry have always done.

The sword, the bow, gunpowder, rifles, machine-guns, planes, tanks, bombs, artillery, etc.

My summation: Whatever it was that approached your ship decloaked and approached your position to passively record your sensor technology as it was being tracked. It made sudden moves (sounds like) just at the edge of detection envelope to see what capabilities of your ships sensors were. Just observing…

A lot of reports have that "flavor".

"--Intermittent primary return in trail… in trail, I say again."

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


To Keeping it simple, which you just did so well



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


No cameras on that radar.

"Video" in a radar system is what we call the return signal. Any hits are processed, and then presented to some sort of display. What ever is displayed is referred to as "video"

When you look at a PPI display, you'll see many things on it depending upon what it is for. You will have graphics on the screen that are part of how the system look. Things like the sweep itself, range indicators, bearing indicators, the markers used to show different kinds of aircraft (Friendly, Hostile, Unknown).

The "video" will appear as small dots on the screen, with the track markers on it.

Here is a example of what "processed" video looks like on a PPI display:



Only thing that is missing is the tracking overlays. you can sort of see them in these two examples. These guys are sitting at consoles that look just like the old NTDS display consoles:





Now you can switch the channels and take a look at the radar's "raw video" too. However, it will fill the screen with all sorts of crap: rain, clouds, coast lines and sea (or ground) clutter near the radar's origin:



So when I say "video" when it comes to radar, I don't mean an actual picture image from a camera. Sorry about the confusion of terminology there!




posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Thanks for the radar primer. Thats why I come to ATS. To learn.

Guess what I found?

From another thread…


Something like that happened to me once a long time ago.

I was listening to a police scanner and calls kept coming into dispatch about an object in a quarry near my house. Every half hour this lady would call and say she could see this "thing" in the quarry and it was what she called a UFO. This only invoked laughter from the on duty sherrifs who laughed and dismissed it. When someone else called it in, one patrol car decided to finally check it out and then another. This took a while. I had by now locked the radio on that channel and waited for further. Meanwhile I went outside and looked up at the hill that the quarry was right behind. I knew in 15 minutes I could hike up that hill and look down from a cliff at the top, right into that quarry. I was petrified. A feeling of fear came over me that was uncanny.

I kept going back inside to hear more but the radio was silent. Each time I was pulled out front to look up there I was frightened out of my wits. I grew up there. I stomped those foothills since I was a kid, day or night and was never afraid of anything. At that age we partied up there all the time right there on that hilltop with kegs and kids from high school. I knew that whole area for miles around like the back of my hand.

The quarry was a big open hole in the ground where the local cement company had begun quarrying but stopped because the grade of the cement wasn't good enough. It was a huge hole with a broad flat bottom and nothing but a few grasses growing. The lime in the grey hard packed ground was to acidic for plant growth. It was essentially bare. When I think back, I realize that it would be perfect to land in and hide.

Any way, I gave up on this until couple of hours go by when the radio again crackles but it is now the two sherrifs talking to each other outside their vehicles in or near the quarry. One is asking the other to get closer because he is well confused about something he sees but doesn't want to say. The other cop asks where and he says keep coming up the hill and meet him overlooking the quarry. At that point one of them says ( and I remember this very clearly) "Do you see that?"

The other one says. "What is that"?

Dispatch is trying to get ahold of both of them but neither seem to hear it because they keep talking to each other on their hand helds. This is back in the walkie talkie 70's. Both mens earlier joking "goose chase" tone is now deadly serious and you can hear the anxiety in their voice. Each keeps saying what is that and what do we do when they both go quiet for a minute. Then one says, well whatever it was it's gone now.

I know, what a let down. Much later one of my friends mom got me a job at a company and we worked in the same department and one day I told the story of the thing in the quarry and this woman says, I was the lady calling that in. My jaw dropped. She described being able to look out her kitchen window and see this thing in the air that settled into the quarry and she could see the glow from it and called the police and they laughed at her. So she ignored it but kept looking out her window and the glow was still there and she called in again and again to report. She did see it leave later and disappear at fantastic speed up into the sky but never heard back from the police about it. I told her my end how they were getting these calls from dispatch about the crazy lady that sees a UFO but just laughed it off.

Afer we finished telling our side to it we both fell silent. Now she knew the whole story and now I knew what she saw was something out of this world. To this day I look back and wonder if I was supposed to go up there? I was so compelled, and afraid at the same time. It went on so long and I kept hearing over and over that it "was still there". Yet I couldn't bring myself to go.
edit on 26-9-2012 by intrptr because: spelling

- See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 25-3-2014 by intrptr because: additional



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 




intrptr
This poor girl is relating a story that is about 40 years old and right away people attack her for changing or even lying about her retelling of it...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


intrptr, thank you for sharing this post. This is exactly the type of situation that motivated this thread. First here are some words from her in the thread that establish how she feels.


post by Zaimless
Zaimless
I understand the scepticism here, what I do not understand is saying I am a liar. ... I don't lie, there is no point in lying ... I am not here to prove anything. I was only sharing and experience ...If you can do nothing but berate me...Its real easy to knock down someone that is trying to figure it out ... You were not there, you did not experience it...

...

This is stupid, you all sound stupid. Like humans that have nothing to do but attack people ... You can call me a liar if you want, but I am not.



First let me say sorry to Zaimless.

Second I would like to say that there are lots of good points so far. I will summarize them in the end and try to integrate them into my original statement. Please allow me to forgo integrating those comments for the time being.

I have seen this scenario play out many times. Eventually you ask yourself what is the point? We all know that strangers aren't going to be convinced by anecdotal evidence. At this stage in the game you could add a 100,000 more accounts similar to Erik's impossible bogey on the radar or Zaimless's account. Aren't we left with the same conclusion? And the conclusion is that there isn't enough data to make a solid conclusion.

Why torture each other asking for proof? You can't squeeze blood from a turnip, but we keep squeezing. I don't think people should stop their critical thinking and not be skeptical. We can certainly, as a community, be more polite about it though. There is truly nothing to gain by antagonizing witnesses. Nobody is on trial here.

I created this thread to point out the futility of constantly trying to analyze and demand proof. It seems like threads such as Zaimless' are the norm. How many times does it take before we realize that the only thing that will convince anybody that isn't on the believer/witness side of the spectrum is solid evidence? Sure there are nuances to the spectrum, but I think everybody knows what I mean.

I also submit that the most important role of the skeptic will only be clear if and when we have to work with an intelligent species other than ourselves.

reply to post by eriktheawful
 



eriktheawful
If the OP doesn't mind and you post your link, I'll read it. Keep in mind others will too.


I don't mind at all. I will summarize things at the end anyway. It will happen a few days after this thread has seen no activity. I will try to ascertain the reason for any material that people felt motivated to discuss and draw my conclusions.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


It's too bad the scanner was not recorded, not that it would be proof of anything, other than showing that something happened, but would be very cool to actually hear them. But, most people are not going to record their police scanners (can you imagine the hours of tape?).

I can understand your hesitation of going up to the quarry. Something was going down, and you had no idea what that something was. Then add in law enforcement being called in, did you really want to be anywhere near that? The hesitation and fear would be completely understandable.

It would have been great had you been able to go up there with a camera in hand. But then you were how old then? It may not have even crossed you mind, while trying to decide simply if you wanted to go up there or not.

Thanks for sharing the experience with us. There isn't really a whole lot for me to "pick apart" as a skeptic. I can ask questions like: exactly when did this happen? Exactly where was this? What was the name of the woman? Things like that, but that is also getting a bit personal here on ATS, and I try hard to not ask personal questions like that since it's against the TCs.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Yah, exactly when??? I was still living at home with my parents so I was still a kid. The model of scanner was a Bearcat 210XL. A base station that plugged in the wall.

The lady is probably passed on, she was my friends mom. Her name was Sydney Dully (spelling?). The police were Santa Clara County Sheriffs, good luck finding that archive. I doubt they even recorded their dispatches back then?

And remember too that any reports of such things were (twilight zone} and you got the theme song if you tried to convince people "something weird" happened. When it was over, I tried to tell my dad about it and his response was (shrug).

The pull I felt to go up there was inexplicable. The fear of the unknown (not the police) was enormous. I didn't want to be walking up some dark trail with bushes on either side and suddenly encounter…? Not voluntarily anyway.

I had no thoughts to record the calls while they were occurring because like the cops, I thought it was a prank. It was only when they decided to go up to the quarry and take a look did I realize the proximity to my home. Then my attention was glued to the radio for more reports and stepping outside to look up at the hill behind which sat the gravel pit ( I just remembered we used to call it "the pit").

The really strange thing to my mind is why they were there in the first place. It almost becomes a personal thing when I think back to it. Questions in my mind are why did they sit there for (what I recall) a couple of hours? I was surely aware of this only because of the scanner. Was I supposed to go up there? Were they there waiting for me? I'll never know. Just wondering. Thats the worst part.

Did you ever stop to think that your encounter with that craft aboard ship was a personal one? Have you ever thought you had another experience involving anything else untowardly since then? At all? Something you may have experienced but dismissed as "nothing"?

This experience is not the only one. A couple years or so after that I had a another where I actually saw a "craft". I have made simple drawings and started to describe it but am not comfortable (armored) enough to bring it yet.

I thought of something else compelling about your gulf "anomaly" The thingy came directly at you for a bit and must have started alarms in CIC? You said you were in a hi state of combat readiness. Just wondering if the reason it made you aware and "parked" 40 or 50 miles away was to give it that "buffer zoe" incase you fired upon it. If its not a disclosure of classified information, how long would a missile have taken to get there at that range if it was fired upon for some reason? Two minutes is a long time to expose oneself in order to gather intel about systems capability.

The reason I ask about missiles is I personally entertain the notion that the "craft" at Roswell (if you believe in such things) was shot down. A debris field and crash site (two sites) could be explained by that.

Think your "object" knew that? Think it stayed aloof for that reason?



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


Normally the way it works is based upon this attitude, which you will find etched in a brass plaque and mounted to the door of every CIC in the US Navy:

"In God We Trust. All Others We Track."

Weapons conditions range from "White and Tight" to "Red and Free". White and tight, the ship is peace time sailing. All weapons are secured. No live ordinance is out. Red and Free, you're in a shooting war, weapons are at the ready, if it's near us and is hostile (has been designated as such or has open fire upon your ship), it will be shot down.
Unknown means it is not showing any IFF, and is unknown. Sometimes this can be commercial aircraft or private ones. They are normally radioed and warned off. If they continue upon a flight path that the CO determines as hostile in intent, he can order the target to be shot down. After the USS Stark Incident, COs were reminded to defend their ship and crew.

I can tell you now that no CO is going to just light off a missile at someone just because they are unknown. Not if they can help it. The nightmare of shooting down a unarmed passenger jet is just too scary an idea.

So the flight profile is looked at. What is it's altitude and speed? Is it's speed constant? Is it instead decending and accelerating towards your ship? That last one is a good indication that it's on a attack run.

What we saw did not fit that profile (an attack run), and the other worst mistake a CO can make is shooting a very expensive missile at what might be: nothing.

You only have so many missiles on your ship. We had 38 SM-2 ER Block II (aka as RIM-67C ), on board (two missile rings, each holds 20, but you have two "T-SAM"s, which are a fake missile filled with electronics for testing purposes and have no rocket fuel in them. They are blue in body with white fins). You do not want to be wasting these missiles at over $200,000 each (might cost more now, that's how much they were when I was in).

We watched it. If it had started to head in towards us again, or if we had seen video separation (normally what you see when a fighter jet shoots a missile), we would have loaded 2 missiles and fired. Takes about 17 seconds to get a missile on the rail and fired with that system.

How fast do the missiles go? That's still classified (actually amazed it still is to tell you the truth). But I can tell you that the older version of the missile could go Mach 3.5

ETA: I really have no idea what it was doing. 45 miles is over the horizon. If it was a UFO, it could have gotten a lot closer (IE flown under the radar) if it wanted too. Where it popped up at: there were no other ships in that area, nor any aircraft there.
I do remember someone cracking a joke about Saddam using a UFO to run away though.


edit on 26-3-2014 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-3-2014 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 



We watched it. If it had started to head in towards us again…

"Good" thing it "stopped" when it did. If I was them I wouldn't trust you either. But I am on a mission to gather information. I "pop up" (within 40-50 miles is danger close, right?) I approach, get your attention, stop. You paint me, I record your signature, I split, quickly. Event ends before you have time to react in a hostile way.

Theres your sign.

Intelligent design.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by compressedFusion
 


Nice, never seen a thread summary before... interesting.

Dont burn yourself out on doing em, id assume they'd take quite a bit of energy to do
. Or at least id give up on em after a while lol.


Danbones
thing is, i have gained knowledge relevant to my questions by yakking it up on the internet and in person
its not about me helping skeptics...
its about people with a common experience; that's where the barriers are the thinnest


The problem is, this can be dangerous. All it takes is one person yanking your chain and others (and they are out their) within your group of like minded experiences and you make an idiot of yourself. The only thing I can I can liken it to is a religious community, where everyone shares the same belief because they want to feed their own beliefs and ideals on others that will make them feel worth or justification (usually because they see everyone else apart from those with like minds as people to fear and fight). Thing is ive never seen that sort of thing go well.

And in that regard that is the fault of the people who troll and bash on the believers for no good reason, or the aggressive skeptics. All that does is drive the believers into the arms of each other where their beliefs can become warped with no critical thinking. If the people on the other side of the coin didn't attack them and offered alternatives or simply said 'you cant really say yay or nay but you did see something' then at least the over exuberant believers would leave it at that... unfortunately the way things are any comment from someone outside the circle for a believer tends to be considered an attack...

And so the circling of the wagons by the believers continues and every twitch or shadow behind a rock is something coming to deny you them their experience and has to be shot at...

And that is why believers like myself have sort of given up on the subject, it just hasnt got much discourse outside of fighting any more. Except maybe info/hypothetical/historical case threads like from Karl.
edit on 27-3-2014 by BigfootNZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by BigfootNZ
 



BigfootNZ
Nice, never seen a thread summary before... Dont burn yourself out on doing em


Thanks. Thankfully I have only posted 2 threads. I'll see how it goes with this one. Everybody has been very polite with great feedback/thoughts.



BigfootNZ
And in that regard that is the fault of the people who troll and bash on the believers for no good reason, or the aggressive skeptics. All that does is drive the believers into the arms of each other where their beliefs can become warped with no critical thinking. If the people on the other side of the coin didn't attack them and offered alternatives or simply said 'you cant really say yay or nay but you did see something' then at least the over exuberant believers would leave it at that...


I think that is an excellent point. If you take out the aggressive attitude then I think we would see more productivity.

Unfortunately, this is also connected to the idea that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". This develops a burden of proof that shouldn't be there for the witness (they typically aren't trying to "prove" anything). Usually they are just relating a story or an experience. They often share these experiences under the constant fear of being ridiculed.

I think the analysis of the data should be disconnected from the witness except to ask neutral or polite follow up questions.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by compressedFusion
 



Thanks. Thankfully I have only posted 2 threads. I'll see how it goes with this one. Everybody has been very polite with great feedback/thoughts.

Because you host an excellent thread. That makes it easy. Like to see more from you if you are so inclined.






top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join