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.

 

Debunking the Debunkers??? Help here

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: flamengo

Carl Sagan?

I can't imagine anyone that would have been more over joyed to find evidence of the existence of intelligent alien life.

Sound like you've simply decided that you'd rather eat up everything that everyone ever puts out and simply ignore any one that offers a more mundane answer.

Instead of wasting your money on a book, just ignored those who debunk or are skeptics.


Carl Sagan is a prime example of a debunker who didn't actually believe his own debunking efforts.
Carl Sagan believed UFO's were real


See, now this is where I have a problem: someone who debunks or is a skeptic = someone who does not believe in the existence of intelligent alien life.



But that is the very definition of a skeptic. Why do you have a problem with what we all commonly know a skeptic to be?




posted on May, 29 2017 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13

A skeptic is one who questions everything.

Too many here (and everywhere) seem to want to classify a skeptic as a denier.

UFOs are a great example of this.

"Believers" say UFOs = Aliens.

"Deniers" say UFOs do NOT = Aliens (and in fact will go as far as to say UFOs themselves don't exist.

Skeptics on the other hand ask questions: Is it in fact a UFO? If it is (IE the object can not be explained, is flying, and is UNKNOWN), then: Is the object of alien origin?

There are many good threads discussing this here on ATS (I miss those, they were really good reading) talking about what UFOs might be: Aliens? Time travelers? Dimensional travelers? Government black OPs?

A skeptic is simply someone who is not always buying what just anyone sells. They ask questions to find for themselves whether they agree with the conclusion or not.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

Your definition of a skeptic is partially accurate. The full definition is a person who questions or doubts all accepted opinions. Die hard skeptics annoy me because they are obtuse. They shut the door on probability.

Any skeptic I have ever engaged with is fundamentally a non-believer in whatever topic we were discussing and no matter the evidence you place in front of them they will forever and always be a non-believer.

I agree it is very healthy to question things. It is how we ultimately come to a conclusion. The problem is when a particular topic arises and there is no clear answer because we simply do not have the correct evidence the skeptic will chime in with their equal lack of evidence and make the claim of disbelief due to lack of evidence. Usually this type of mentality comes from the scientific community which I find ironically hypocritical considering they pride themselves on evidence of proof yet many of their foundations are based purely on hypothesis only.

I've even debated various topics on ATS with degreed individuals who felt the need to inform me of their accreditations obviously to bolster their ego. Yet as the debate waged on they disappeared when they realized their degrees meant nothing in the absence of logic.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 11:55 PM
link   
The bottom line is if all the evidence is human based and there is no more after that then I need to be a skeptic....

As a side note....I look at the logistics and infrastructure needed for an event to happen. With aliens there is nothing other than human perception, I can't go on just that alone. If we look at something like chem trails I look at the need to 1000s of people, large industries devoted, lack of air samples, displacement of chemicals to part per trillion at 35,000 feet and so on and I just do not see it.

I kind of do this with everything and if it doesn't add up, then it doesn't add up...hehe



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Outlier13

A skeptic is one who questions everything.

Too many here (and everywhere) seem to want to classify a skeptic as a denier.

UFOs are a great example of this.

"Believers" say UFOs = Aliens.

"Deniers" say UFOs do NOT = Aliens (and in fact will go as far as to say UFOs themselves don't exist.

Skeptics on the other hand ask questions: Is it in fact a UFO? If it is (IE the object can not be explained, is flying, and is UNKNOWN), then: Is the object of alien origin?

There are many good threads discussing this here on ATS (I miss those, they were really good reading) talking about what UFOs might be: Aliens? Time travelers? Dimensional travelers? Government black OPs?

A skeptic is simply someone who is not always buying what just anyone sells. They ask questions to find for themselves whether they agree with the conclusion or not.



I think you are reading too much into the terms, and also what was said. No one has defamed any skeptics. Only "debunkers" Big difference. Being skeptical is always a good thing. It isn't difficult to discern between the two when one of them is simply trying to make the case go away by any means available, which is what debunkers do.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 12:10 AM
link   
If the evidence does not support a premise then perhaps the foundation is flawed.

The scientific process has given us the entire world we enjoy today, can anyone point out an example where blind belief serves the same function?

Generally it is not the scientific process that is flawed, generally the fault lies with an incorrect interpretation of what they believe science is.

The point above is a great example. If the evidence does not support an idea The odds are the idea is wrong, not the scientific process.

Of course when that contradics what people want to believe then it must be those stupid scientists that think they are smarter than everyone else, right?



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 06:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: flamengo

That's just it: Dyson spheres do not have to be solid shells.

They can be literally just 100's of thousands of objects that surround a star to collect it's energy.

You should check out Isaac Arthur on YouTube with his Science and Futurism channel. He's got several videos going indepth on the Fermi Paradox talking about solutions to it (answers). He doesn't just throw any answer away, but goes into how likely or unlikely each answer is.

He also goes into Dyson Swarms and why they do not have to be solid objects completely covering a star.

Some of the answers to the paradox are very interesting and thought provoking. He doesn't declare no life out there, simply offers ideas as to what the answers may be.



That is a great suggestion, I will certainly check it out, probably later today.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
I think the evidence is more on the ET side than not, but so what? You will never convince some until there is a white house landing, its just the way they are wired. Think liberal vs conservative, same kind of thing.

On the flip side, there are many cases that are in fact misidentified. And while many cases are promising, they really arent quite there to the point where other possibilities like a military black project cant be ruled out.

Instead, I would focus the cases(perhaps you have your own experience) that you consider to be the best. Even if those ebil skeptics are using underhanded tactics to debunk a case, they could still be right ... just because Hitler said it, doesnt make it wrong.



Yeah, I do have my own experiences, so I don't have any doubts myself that this is true.

So for the convincing part that you are implying, I will say this, you got to analyse the phenomena and get as much data as you can, and also take into consideration that a lot of people, and I mean a lot of people have been contributing with great thoughts on the subject, so there is enough stuff there to keep you entertained for generations.
So from this lore, you can already take a stand, I mean, you can already take a different rout that the so called skeptics are taking, instead of feed people what they want to hear as proof, take what you have been given, take the whole picture and see what it gives you. and I tell you it is a lot of information, a lot, so the skeptic reductionism is actually the defeat of your system, you cannot play this game because you will lose all the information, because the reducionist paradigm is the prison of the conscience, it is the mainstream narrative that keeps you locked up in a system that is completely obsolete. So you need to take all the info and the associations that came from the UFO phenomena as a whole and rebuild the paradigm, then you can achieve something, it is the other way around.


Just to complement that, studying this phenomena you will see that a class of people will get it, other will not, and others will do the wilful ignorance thing. That is why we have secrets societies, and elites, because there are people who gets it and people who will not, because it is too damned difficult and damaging, so they chose not to bother and be happy, but the ones who carry on get enlightened but unhappy, but if they can survive they got power, because true knowledge is power. That is why this knowledge is for the few, and skeptics are useful, because they turn away the plebe in this respect and keep society manageable. If the common man knew this whole thing society would implode. So we need 2 generations of social engineering to adapt people to this new reality, with all that we know is really silly and mostly wrong.
edit on 30-5-2017 by flamengo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Outlier13

A skeptic is one who questions everything.

Too many here (and everywhere) seem to want to classify a skeptic as a denier.

UFOs are a great example of this.

"Believers" say UFOs = Aliens.

"Deniers" say UFOs do NOT = Aliens (and in fact will go as far as to say UFOs themselves don't exist.

Skeptics on the other hand ask questions: Is it in fact a UFO? If it is (IE the object can not be explained, is flying, and is UNKNOWN), then: Is the object of alien origin?

There are many good threads discussing this here on ATS (I miss those, they were really good reading) talking about what UFOs might be: Aliens? Time travelers? Dimensional travelers? Government black OPs?

A skeptic is simply someone who is not always buying what just anyone sells. They ask questions to find for themselves whether they agree with the conclusion or not.



I have been debating with Skeptics for a long time, there are rarely such a thing as a true skeptic, 99% of them are people who are basically ignorant of the phenomena or simply didn;t want to look at the data, that means: lazies. Seriously I will not even waist my time.
But what about scepticism? I practice it all the time, all the theories I work with I have been toying with them for a long time, everything that I use I question, sometimes I discard but then take it back later, it is a process, not an end in itself, but foremost it has been used as a bullying system, a system to put in line with the mainstream thinking.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: flamengo
a reply to: Drunkenparrot

Actually the Fermi paradox is just a clever assumption. It does not take into consideration that Advanced civilisations do not use they Dyson globe and want to be discreet. So it actually the paradox is a flawed one.

Regarding the Blue book, I put a link to a book, you can find the criticism of the scientific method of the Blue book in many sources, is astonishing that you have not done your homework there, because it is something beyond the obvious.
Check out Richard Dolan for instance. Have a good read.


The Drake equation is equally flawed as at this moment in time, we only have irrefutable proof of life on one planet. Any extrapolation based on such a small sample pool has its own inherent risks.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 07:29 AM
link   



The Drake equation is equally flawed as at this moment in time, we only have irrefutable proof of life on one planet. Any extrapolation based on such a small sample pool has its own inherent risks.



In terms of accepted theory you are right, but if you research anomalies of the Moon and Mars then your proposition is wrong. Could be right for the rest of the galaxy, but if you take the mediocrity principle, then you can elaborate that it may be as occupied or has been occupied but generates a weak signal.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: flamengo



The Drake equation is equally flawed as at this moment in time, we only have irrefutable proof of life on one planet. Any extrapolation based on such a small sample pool has its own inherent risks.



In terms of accepted theory you are right, but if you research anomalies of the Moon and Mars then your proposition is wrong. Could be right for the rest of the galaxy, but if you take the mediocrity principle, then you can elaborate that it may be as occupied or has been occupied but generates a weak signal.


The problem is, you can elaborate whatever you wish, it doesn't actually make it right. You could turn your argument back on itself just as easily with regards to the credibility of the ''anomalies'.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Not necessarily, to me and to a lot of people they are good enough, they have been presented to its full potential, or with a lot of skill, it does not mean it is wrong, if you just spend some time researching you will get the confirmation that it is the real deal, you cannot miss it. People don;t get it because they don't spend time researching or a too gullible, they cave in to "skeptics" , "rationalism", which is not even rational, it is conformist, which is a different ball game altogether.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: flamengo
a reply to: Moresby

Carl Sagan knew a lot, and he was paid to obfuscate the UFO phenomena and the Mars monuments. Still he was intelligent enough to give it away to people who was researching. He was an insider, deal with it. As a scientist he was a good PR.

You idea to find the debunkers one by one is a good approach, and I was think about this possibility myself.


I'm sorry, but this sounds like the "usual arguments" (paraphrasing you) that alien visitation believers throw at people trying to give an honest skeptical explanation for a UFO sighting.

You talk about fallacies, but you are engaging in the classic "ad hominem attack" fallacy -- i.e., you attack Carl Sagan as a paid shill in an attempt to discredit anything he says with just a wave of your hand.


For the record (because you brought up this point earlier) I am a believer that there is almost certainly intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, but I am far far less convinced that intelligent aliens are visiting Earth (in spacecraft or whatever). And I think the late Carl Sagan -- and practically all scientists with an understanding of the scope of the universe -- also hold a similar belief that other intelligent life almost surely exists in the universe, but they are not necessarily visiting Earth.



originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Drunkenparrot

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

So anyone familiar enough with blue book to know of the misdirection and obsfucation that was the true purpose of the program should also know that the point was to hide the U2 and A12/SR71 programs under the guise of something fantastical like extraterrestrial visitation,. It was a little too successful as 60 years later the topic continues to be framed in the same light.

If you are interested in facts and truth, not just your own confirmation bias, why leave that out?


Your logic will only work in your reply if every single UFO case in Blue-Book was actually the U2 or other top secret aircraft being misidentified.

And that idea is pure rubbish.

Why is it rubbish? Why does the volume of reports make it more likely that some of those reports are not misidentifications of mundane objects or terrestrial craft ? By the way, some of them also could have been pure fabrications (either consciously fabricated stories or subconsciously fabricated stories).


edit on 30/5/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: flamengo
a reply to: uncommitted

Not necessarily, to me and to a lot of people they are good enough, they have been presented to its full potential, or with a lot of skill, it does not mean it is wrong, if you just spend some time researching you will get the confirmation that it is the real deal, you cannot miss it. People don;t get it because they don't spend time researching or a too gullible, they cave in to "skeptics" , "rationalism", which is not even rational, it is conformist, which is a different ball game altogether.


hmmmm, so basically anyone who doesn't agree with you is either gullible or sceptical which you appear to think is a bad thing. That's a very aloof approach and not one that usually wins friends.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: flamengo
a reply to: Moresby

Carl Sagan knew a lot, and he was paid to obfuscate the UFO phenomena and the Mars monuments. Still he was intelligent enough to give it away to people who was researching. He was an insider, deal with it. As a scientist he was a good PR.

You idea to find the debunkers one by one is a good approach, and I was think about this possibility myself.


I'm sorry, but this sounds like the "usual arguments" (paraphrasing you) that alien visitation believers throw at people trying to give an honest skeptical explanation for a UFO sighting.


Because we have seen his attitude with Richard Hoagland for instance, documented on the Monuments of Mars. We have him talking to the public, spinning the "swamp gas" event. We have S. Friedman explaining his attitude in a text. That is good enough for me. We see his attitude over and over again. "There may be alien life, but further and further away, to the point that it would no interfere with us." That is damage control, and that is not scientific, real scientists would get all the data, all the reports and try to deal with them, a few did, and guess what? Most of the honest ones became ufologists. Take James McDonald for instance. And if it was something scientific, they would not feel any heat or pressure to study such a thing, but why is that they did feel intimidated just for examining this?




For the record (because you brought up this point earlier) I am a believer that there is almost certainly intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, but I am far far less convinced that intelligent aliens are visiting Earth (in spacecraft or whatever). And I think the late Carl Sagan -- and practically all scientists with an understanding of the scope of the universe -- also hold a similar belief that other intelligent life almost surely exists in the universe.


You are a believer, because you don't want to know, you don't have time or intelligence to look at the data, or you chicken out, fair enough, it is your choice, I am not forcing you to do it, it is your problem, your responsability, but I will not take your uneducated opinion for parameter in anything, because it simply means nothing, it is an opinion of a person who admits been an ignorant, so what is good for the discussion? You read the books and the data, and then fair enough, you get a strong point to make, that is how it works in real life. You have a problem with the data, too bad, it sounds too crazy? Too bad. It seems reality it is just like that , and people won;t confront it, but that is not my business.



originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Drunkenparrot

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

So anyone familiar enough with blue book to know of the misdirection and obsfucation that was the true purpose of the program should also know that the point was to hide the U2 and A12/SR71 programs under the guise of something fantastical like extraterrestrial visitation,. It was a little too successful as 60 years later the topic continues to be framed in the same light.

If you are interested in facts and truth, not just your own confirmation bias, why leave that out?


Your logic will only work in your reply if every single UFO case in Blue-Book was actually the U2 or other top secret aircraft being misidentified.

And that idea is pure rubbish.



Why is it rubbish? Why does the volume of reports make it more likely that some of those reports are not misidentifications of mundane objects orof terrestrial craft ? By the way, some of them also could have been pure fabrications.



OMG, Blue book had thousands upon thousands of reports, most of them nothing to do with U2 in any shape or form, wake up brother.
edit on 30-5-2017 by flamengo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Actually just connect the Blue book, with thousands of cases, many of them really weird, with humanoids, like the Schiemer case or the Socorro case, basically examining just a few of them, would perceive that it has nothing to do with U2, and that is just a strawman. You put the U2 there at the first place, it has nothing to do with the case, and then we waist a time talking about it, filibusting at its best, pure obstructionism strategy, perfect skeptic attitude, and that is how we divert from the problems, a person who brings such comparison already proves himself completely ignorant on the subject.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: flamengo


This is the ONLY Dyson sphere we will ever see !

Dyson


As for Mog from Zog paying us a visit if a FRACTION of a percent of the claims made over the years about ufo's visiting Earth were true this must be the busiest part of the Universe.

As already stated it's not just a matter of distance but also time, the light from the furthest point of the Milky Way our own Galaxy takes 75,000 years to reach us. Even Drakes a equation is a guess based on assumptions.

There has to be life out there is a numbers thing is it advanced enough or close enough I don't think so, the real strange thing is although almost everyone one has a camera with them the quality of ufo reports has went down.

edit on 30-5-2017 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: flamengo
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

You are a believer, because you don't want to know, you don't have time or intelligence to look at the data, or you chicken out, fair enough, it is your choice, I am not forcing you to do it, it is your problem, your responsability, but I will not take your uneducated opinion for parameter in anything, because it simply means nothing, it is an opinion of a person who admits been an ignorant, so what is good for the discussion? You read the books and the data, and then fair enough, you get a strong point to make, that is how it works in real life. You have a problem with the data, too bad, it sounds too crazy? Too bad. It seems reality it is just like that , and people won;t confront it, but that is not my business.



Oh. I didn't realize that you knew me well enough (or at all, for that matter) to know why it is that I'm not convinced that aliens are visiting earth -- even if I DO believe other intelligent life is almost surely out there
somewhere. Or know me well enough to know whether or not I am well read on the subject of the UFO phenomenon.

It sounds to me as if you are just making broad generalizations about anyone who is skeptical about alien visitation. Again, that seems to be the "usual arguments" I often hear from people who try to explain away skepticism about alien visitation.





OMG, Blue book had thousands upon thousands of reports, most of them nothing to do with U2 in any shape or form, wake up brother.


I didn't say all Project Blue Book reports (or all UFO sightings in general) had anything to do with the U2 or other terrestrial military craft (U.S. military or otherwise). I think some of them could have been misidentifications of regular commercial aircraft, or misidentification of mundane astronomical objects or meteorological phenomenon, and others could have been fabricated stories, both intentionally fabricated hoaxes and subconsciously fabricated tales.

I know from personal experience that many people misidentify commercial aircraft or Venus, Sirius, Arcturus, etc as something "strange" , and there are people who lie and people who are prone to fantasy. I also know that memory is a malleable thing, and what our brains tell us we think we experienced is susceptible to added hyperbole and exaggeration -- i.e., fabricated by our own brains.

Those are all facts.

Again, you can say "but there are 1000's of reports...". However, the volume of reports does not necessarily mean that one or more of those reports are necessarily cases of alien visitation. The 12,000+ Blue Book reports and the hundreds-of-thousands of other reports could all still be NOT proof of alien visitation.

Sure, there are some reports that (as reported) defy terrestrial explanation, but that does not mean a terrestrial explanation does not exist, or that the details of the sighting as reported by the eyewitness(es) are 100% factual. It is a fallacy to say "we can't find a terrestrial explanation for a sighting as reported; therefore, it MUST have been an alien craft".


edit on 30/5/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

What does make you think they want to be seen and perceived as a fact, when clearly studying the data we have the opposite impression?
What does make you think they cannot disguise themselves if they want?
What does make you think speed of light is something we cannot beat if the spooky matter, billocation is a thing, for instance, you are basing yourself on a scientific view from a civilisation who just got started, absolutely unlikely would understand the modus operandi of an advanced civlisation if they are not overtly friendly towards us.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join