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.

 

Hoaxers, Believers, Researchers, & Debunkers: A Case Study

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Paperjacket


Also you can't prove something REAL by eliminating misperception because misperception is the false perception to the outer world real or unreal


All sightings are based on peoples perceptions. The way to determine if what you saw was real or not is by verification from @a external sources. It doesn't prove it but it certainly helps. This will also help eliminate the possibility that you misperceived. Once you master this, we can move on to false memories.




posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Paperjacket


Also you can't prove something REAL by eliminating misperception because misperception is the false perception to the outer world real or unreal


All sightings are based on peoples perceptions. The way to determine if what you saw was real or not is by verification from @a external sources. It doesn't prove it but it certainly helps. This will also help eliminate the possibility that you misperceived. Once you master this, we can move on to false memories.



Apparently you are still confused and mixing different concepts. As what I have said, you can NOT determine if what you saw was REAL even if the external sources as you have claimed exist because there is possible group misperception.

For example, someone claims a UFO sighting, following your logic, if there are other people who make the same claim, then you come to the conclusion it is REAL. Apparently you are wrong.

I have said the only way to come to a conclusion is through reasoning based on certain logical methodology. If you claim a UFO sighting, then you need to prove it as a UFO sighting. External sources won't help you to come to such a conclusion.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Paperjacket


Apparently you are still confused and mixing different concepts. As what I have said, you can NOT determine if what you saw was REAL even if the external sources as you have claimed exist because there is possible group misperception.

I don't disagree and its not what I said. You quoted this from me -> "It doesn't prove it but it certainly helps."


For example, someone claims a UFO sighting, following your logic, if there are other people who make the same claim, then you come to the conclusion it is REAL. Apparently you are wrong.

Again, not what I said and I clarified my point also. I have also argued at length that this could happen. Same with radar returns. It helps eliminate that a sighting was due to misperception if you have external verification.


I have said the only way to come to a conclusion is through reasoning based on certain logical methodology. If you claim a UFO sighting, then you need to prove it as a UFO sighting. External sources won't help you to come to such a conclusion.

External sources of verification include: Photos, video, radar, other people, star charts, satellite logs, etc. If you eliminate those sources, there is no way to prove what you saw was a real object. In fact, I am having a hard time believing you are for real since I have no way to verify if you are being serious.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Paperjacket


Apparently you are still confused and mixing different concepts. As what I have said, you can NOT determine if what you saw was REAL even if the external sources as you have claimed exist because there is possible group misperception.

I don't disagree and its not what I said. You quoted this from me -> "It doesn't prove it but it certainly helps."


For example, someone claims a UFO sighting, following your logic, if there are other people who make the same claim, then you come to the conclusion it is REAL. Apparently you are wrong.

Again, not what I said and I clarified my point also. I have also argued at length that this could happen. Same with radar returns. It helps eliminate that a sighting was due to misperception if you have external verification.


I have said the only way to come to a conclusion is through reasoning based on certain logical methodology. If you claim a UFO sighting, then you need to prove it as a UFO sighting. External sources won't help you to come to such a conclusion.

External sources of verification include: Photos, video, radar, other people, star charts, satellite logs, etc. If you eliminate those sources, there is no way to prove what you saw was a real object. In fact, I am having a hard time believing you are for real since I have no way to verify if you are being serious.


Okay, at least you are one step closer to my point of view.

In fact, I just give you an example to show that what you called external source can not prove if something is REAL or UNREAL. It is however the logical reasoning that prove REAL or UNREAL. Does logical reasoning need external source? Maybe or mabybe not depending on what kind of methodology you adopt. That is to say, when external sources are used in proof, it is the way how they are used that play critical role in proof while not the sources themselves.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Paperjacket


Okay, at least you are one step closer to my point of view.

More like you are one step closer to understanding what my point was in the first place.


In fact, I just give you an example to show that what you called external source can not prove if something is REAL or UNREAL.
Maybe not.


It is however the logical reasoning that prove REAL or UNREAL.
How do you reason that something is real without having something else verify its realness? How do you distinguish between objective and subjective observations? That is really what we are talking about. Why else would you say to someone "did you see that?" If they say "no", then what? If they say "yes", doesn't that help?


Does logical reasoning need external source?
In the case of verifying if a flying object was really there, yes absolutely. If there is no way to verify what you perceived as a real external object, you cant rule out anything including misperception. Misperceptions are known to happen and can be demonstrated.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Paperjacket






I love the graphics you clearly made to enhance the conveyance of your experience and thinking on this thread! Awesome job!



I, however, would like to offer a tangent of thought to the decision flow chart you offered in the graphic I've included from your original post.

I think there is a leap made in the automatic epiphany of either belief or disbelief of a sighting being a UFO.

Personally, I do my damnedest to make certain that I weigh things out. Including that which I dislike from the intellectual standpoint, or which may uncomfortably challenge my current establishment of thought.

What if there were a paradigm shift from "believer/disbeliever" to that of "possible or probable vs unlikely" ?



Given that I personally cannot make a truly qualified decision as to the correctness of things such as UFO's, God, Santa Claus, or Osama Bin-Laden, I hold my inner convictions in check. I look at it in the following manner...

UFO's, as in, Alien craft visiting our planet? I think this is highly possible, if not downright probable.

God? Well, I do not find much to lend credence to this as being possible or probable.

Santa Claus? Well, I for one can attest to the idea that there are no additional presents for my daughter under the pagan inspired tree decoration in the morning. However, I've never once stayed up all night to diligently watch to see if the bozo came to steal the cookies


Osama Bin-Laden? I've never seen the man. I cannot genuinely say that he existed, nor that he did not. Nor can I attest to the idea that he is responsible, either in whole or in part, for the things he has been accused of.



For all of the above things, I neither believe nor disbelieve. I've obviously given you the idea as to which way I tend to lean. However, I am fully prepared to be wrong. This being said, I do not believe or have a personal belief on these or many topics other than what I can personally attest to.

Were I to actually see an unidentified flying object, I would do the following...

I'd Attempt to maintain as open of an opinion and mind as possible





What are your thoughts about what I've stated here? I'm ok with the idea that many will flat out disagree. Some vehemently and vocally. Please be open with your response.





edit on 3-2-2015 by nullafides because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Paperjacket


Okay, at least you are one step closer to my point of view.

More like you are one step closer to understanding what my point was in the first place.


In fact, I just give you an example to show that what you called external source can not prove if something is REAL or UNREAL.
Maybe not.


It is however the logical reasoning that prove REAL or UNREAL.
How do you reason that something is real without having something else verify its realness? How do you distinguish between objective and subjective observations? That is really what we are talking about. Why else would you say to someone "did you see that?" If they say "no", then what? If they say "yes", doesn't that help?


Does logical reasoning need external source?
In the case of verifying if a flying object was really there, yes absolutely. If there is no way to verify what you perceived as a real external object, you cant rule out anything including misperception. Misperceptions are known to happen and can be demonstrated.



Sorry I just can not agree.

You misunderstand my words again. Given your example, if other say "yes", it just helps YOU to BELIEVE that you saw something but not sufficient to CLAIM what you have seen. This is totally different concepts, I hope you understand it.
If you want to claim what you saw, you can't just say because three of us all saw it.

Of course in the alien study, external source is needed because as what I have said method of exclusion is a better way. But external sources themselves do not PROVE a claim just as the exmple I gave in which group misperception may lrad to nowhere. It is your logical analysis on those external sources play the critical part.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: nullafides

originally posted by: Paperjacket






I love the graphics you clearly made to enhance the conveyance of your experience and thinking on this thread! Awesome job!



I, however, would like to offer a tangent of thought to the decision flow chart you offered in the graphic I've included from your original post.

I think there is a leap made in the automatic epiphany of either belief or disbelief of a sighting being a UFO.

Personally, I do my damnedest to make certain that I weigh things out. Including that which I dislike from the intellectual standpoint, or which may uncomfortably challenge my current establishment of thought.

What if there were a paradigm shift from "believer/disbeliever" to that of "possible or probable vs unlikely" ?



Given that I personally cannot make a truly qualified decision as to the correctness of things such as UFO's, God, Santa Claus, or Osama Bin-Laden, I hold my inner convictions in check. I look at it in the following manner...

UFO's, as in, Alien craft visiting our planet? I think this is highly possible, if not downright probable.

God? Well, I do not find much to lend credence to this as being possible or probable.

Santa Claus? Well, I for one can attest to the idea that there are no additional presents for my daughter under the pagan inspired tree decoration in the morning. However, I've never once stayed up all night to diligently watch to see if the bozo came to steal the cookies


Osama Bin-Laden? I've never seen the man. I cannot genuinely say that he existed, nor that he did not. Nor can I attest to the idea that he is responsible, either in whole or in part, for the things he has been accused of.



For all of the above things, I neither believe nor disbelieve. I've obviously given you the idea as to which way I tend to lean. However, I am fully prepared to be wrong. This being said, I do not believe or have a personal belief on these or many topics other than what I can personally attest to.

Were I to actually see an unidentified flying object, I would do the following...

I'd Attempt to maintain as open of an opinion and mind as possible


What are your thoughts about what I've stated here? I'm ok with the idea that many will flat out disagree. Some vehemently and vocally. Please be open with your response.




Thx for your reply and I agree with you especially upon that open minds are critical in reaserch (in fact in every field).

First I would like to quote Bertrand Russell's definition of Philosophy. He wrote "Philosophy… is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation."

If we stay in a status as UFO/NON-UFO beilievers, it is more like theology though not being maintained by authority but by personal will. I prefer a philosophy way and I think that your idea and my idea are both quite close in this respect.

The difference is that you tend to accept all possiblities in the first place and I tend to exclude least possible things in the first place but still remain open for correction. I think the basic nature is quite the same. In fact, since it is not mathematical proof, the method of exclusion is not perfect in this case and therefore words such as probably, unlikely are always used.

Thx!



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Paperjacket


You misunderstand my words again. Given your example, if other say "yes", it just helps YOU to BELIEVE that you saw something but not sufficient to CLAIM what you have seen. This is totally different concepts, I hope you understand it.

You are correct that I misunderstand you but that is because I can't make sense of what you are saying. Belief and claim go together. In order to claim something, you usually believe it first.


claim
verb
state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof



If you want to claim what you saw, you can't just say because three of us all saw it.

given the definition of "claim", why not? This is probably the worst strawman argument I have ever seen since the strawman won the argument!
All of UFOlogy is based on claims weaker than that! In fact, three people claiming they saw the same thing with no other evidence would be a top notch case here.


Of course in the alien study, external source is needed because as what I have said method of exclusion is a better way.
What are you excluding and how are you excluding them? And how do you arrive at aliens?



But external sources themselves do not PROVE a claim just as the exmple I gave in which group misperception may lrad to nowhere. It is your logical analysis on those external sources play the critical part.

Nowhere have I used the word prove. Here is what I am saying.
It is impossible to rule out misperceptions without external verification. That's it.
your only argument is to make up your own definitions of words and to argue with your own points that make no sense.

At this point, I think I have been played. Well done!
edit on 4-2-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Some guys at the defense contractor where I was employed back in the '80s filled a bunch of latex gloves with helium, tied them all together to a flashlight payload, covered them with a paperjacket, and launched it in the parking lot at night as a UFO hoax. They even gave it a name: Moonbeam-1 [after the closest sounding thing to the security guard's name].


Oddly enough this is a true story... and on topic.
edit on 4-2-2015 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: draknoir2

Probably not the first time I have fallen for this. God, I am such an idiot!



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: draknoir2

Probably not the first time I have fallen for this. God, I am such an idiot!


Never heard that one debunked, I'll bet.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Paperjacket

3. Researchers
Researchers are those who try to prove the existence of extraterrestrials based on reasoning or those who try to prove the non-existence of extraterrestrials based on reasoning. .


How about those who are just trying to find out what is going on with the UFO phenomenon without starting from either biased point of view?

Which one of your two examples would describe Vallee, for instance?



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2
Still having a problem with the arbitrary nature and flawed logic of your flow chart.


I don't see how you get "the arbitary nature and flawed logic" thing.


You arbitrarily decided that ET and Not Natural by default do not require proof while holding Terrestrial and Natural to a different, higher standard of proof.You've built a burden of proof logic flaw into your chart that favors the exotic over the mundane. It doesn't work that way.

Soylent also pointed this out.


It is not arbitary, there are many methodologies, that is all.


Your selection of that particular "methodology" is the definition of arbitrary.


However you need to prove that.


Ok try this.

In science the first place we go when faced with something we can't explain is not "Extraterrestrial" it's nature.

Do you know why that is?



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Thanks, good to hear that others like to keep open minds



originally posted by: Paperjacket
The difference is that you tend to accept all possiblities in the first place and I tend to exclude least possible things in the first place but still remain open for correction. I think the basic nature is quite the same. In fact, since it is not mathematical proof, the method of exclusion is not perfect in this case and therefore words such as probably, unlikely are always used.

Thx!


What I think I didn't elaborate on is this, I do not accept "all possibilities"....I weight them in my head.

I'm not so hip on Bigfoot, for instance. Not that I do not think it is improbable, rather, you seem to get alot of believers, and as a result, a lot of bait for hoaxes. But, do I immediately discount anything bigfoot related ? No. I tend to keep an open ear to almost everything. But, once it goes in, I give it a critical review, and then file appropriately.

What I truly dislike is the standard approach many here give which is "We have officially stricken X source from our list, as they are known hoaxers". Dig a bit, not too deep, and you'll come across that being said. Often in the UFO circles.

A prime example I give for this is Sorcha Faal, the russian writer comes up with a ton of outrageous comments and suppositions.

I don't ignore her (?), I simply give it an appropriate weight in my head. If something catches my eye that she (?) has written, I'll read it.


I think we're almost exactly on the same paragraph of the same page, I just wanted to throw out a clarification on how I view things



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

Biased point of view means you come to a determined conclusion despite of insufficient proof or even proof directing to the other direction.

Therefore except believers and hoaxers, evrybody should be the kind you refer to.

I am not sure what the word "Vallee" you mentioned means.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2
Still having a problem with the arbitrary nature and flawed logic of your flow chart.


I don't see how you get "the arbitary nature and flawed logic" thing.


You arbitrarily decided that ET and Not Natural by default do not require proof while holding Terrestrial and Natural to a different, higher standard of proof.You've built a burden of proof logic flaw into your chart that favors the exotic over the mundane. It doesn't work that way.

Soylent also pointed this out.


It is not arbitary, there are many methodologies, that is all.


Your selection of that particular "methodology" is the definition of arbitrary.


However you need to prove that.


Ok try this.

In science the first place we go when faced with something we can't explain is not "Extraterrestrial" it's nature.

Do you know why that is?


Of course in science you explain everything in definite world in the first place and if you can not explain something with definite knowledge, you simply do not exclude possiblity from the other world. This is also the very nature of the method of exclusion, or a scientic attitude.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Paperjacket


I am not sure what the word "Vallee" you mentioned means.


I think it has to do with parking cars or maybe this guy: Jacques Vallée



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: nullafides

Well I think that one can be as much skeptical as he/she wants. It is totally ok. But being sleptical does not mean that one does not draw any conclusion.

The thing is, extremely one can be very much skeptical so as to you weigh every possiblity with probability. But at last, in his/her head, one or two probability will prevail unless he/she is a agnostic, which means in his/her head, he/she rules out other possiblity.

But even one comes to a conclusion at a time, he/she may change his conclusion due to such as more information, new theory, etc.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Paperjacket


I am not sure what the word "Vallee" you mentioned means.


I think it has to do with parking cars or maybe this guy: Jacques Vallée



Thx for your help and frankly speaking I have not read his theory and I don't think I can make any comments at this moment. But the wiki link does look like he is a sort of researcher who brings possible theory to explain UFO, a phenomenen remains unsolved and open for any reasonable explanations. If his theory is not proved wrong, it remains a possibility.
edit on 5-2-2015 by Paperjacket because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join