It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Only idiots believe in UFOs

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 07:02 PM

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
Isaac, in case ya missed it this just arrived via the List

and self-styled "Serious Ufologists", most of whom are self-deluded

courtesy Stuart Miller

Hi longhaircowboy,

Thanks, I'd seen that highlighed on Stuart Miller's blog earlier today.

I'll be keeping an eye on the Magonia website for the promised article by John Harney to see if he is as extreme when he writes the fuller piece.

All the best,


posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 07:53 PM
I'd respond to Harneys blog but I'm afraid it may just look like this-
Him callin anyone a buffoon is the kettle callin the pot ...............
His career as a comedian remains intact.

posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 08:16 PM
No offense intended longhaircowboy, besides it doesn't sound like you fit into any of the kook categories I mentioned, in fact, you sound like a good investigator.

posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 08:58 PM
I try to cover all the bases and I actually get out in the field and conduct face to face interviews and not just browse the web.
I am currently writing up a sighting that occurred last year at MacDill AFB and I'm gonna post it here at ATS. All the info I have has never been seen. It involves military personnel and radar sightings. And it occurred during the day.
And if my pursuit of this case makes me an idiot......oh well.

posted on May, 3 2006 @ 07:31 PM
Here's a couple of other choice quotes recently posted to the List.

I'd never heard the word "pelicanist" before, and naively
>assumed, being something of a bird-lover, that it was a term of
>approbation. Now I see that it's basically a synonym for
>"idiot," though with certain ornithological nuances.

Jeff Olson

Hence the term "pelicanist": one who proposes or advocates, with
great assurance (and perhaps a little ego inflation) a theory
for a UFO sighting that cannot stand up under analysis. This is
not synonymous with 'idiot', although it does not preclude some
form of 'idiocy' with respect to UFO explanations.
Bruce maccabee

I love these guys.

posted on May, 3 2006 @ 08:32 PM
"And if my pursuit of this case makes me an idiot......oh well."

Not especially saying it is an alien ship from whatever world makes people look like idiots. UFO's are indeed a phenomenon there is some pretty convincing proof. It just annoys me when people claim they are reptillians or grey what have you when there is absolutly no proof at all. the alien nuts as i refer to some really make the serious researchers look like bafoons. but we all know the difference.

posted on May, 4 2006 @ 02:14 AM
You are talking some good stuff over there dude..
Go be a teacher men !

posted on May, 8 2006 @ 08:36 PM
The word idiot seems to be quite popular on the List latetly.

No wonder that so
many people in important places look at us askance. Idiotic
claims deserve to be considered as coming from idiots.

- Dick Hall

I have experienced this sensation.

posted on May, 8 2006 @ 09:48 PM

posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 09:02 PM
that think alot of these people are idiots?

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 08:19 PM
Which people would you be referring to?
Keep in mind the intent of the thread.

posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 01:42 PM
I thought it worth adding to this thread the fact that in the last few days Kelly McGillis has suggested on the Forteana discussion list that an article by Donna Ferentes entitled "10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists" at the link below could "with very little revision" be entitled "Ufologists".

In summary, the relevant 10 alleged characteristics of conspiracy theorists are:

1. Arrogance.
2. Relentlessness.
3. Inability to answer questions.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad.
7. Inability to withdraw.
8. Leaping to conclusions.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.
10. It's always a conspiracy.

Under item 6 in that list (i.e. Inability to tell good evidence from bad), is the following comment: "Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same. "

[edit on 27-7-2006 by IsaacKoi]

posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 05:26 PM
Why do we continue to give homage to posts that are clearly meant to inflame and pander to the argumentative?

posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 03:29 PM
The Universe is a big place with alot of things undiscovered. New planets and
even entire galaxies are discovered today and in the future.
It is not 'idiotic' to specualte it may be possible that some form of life technologically
advanced enough may have the means to get here or at the very least is capable of
studying us before moving in and attempt contact(?).

Imagine for a moment that somewhere in the future humans have a spaceship
and travel outside the milkey way to look for other planets and colonize it potentially.
Do you think we would just drop down on a planet that looks suitable? I would
think we would investigate everything from a great distance before even getting

posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 09:09 AM

Originally posted by freddieb
Why do we continue to give homage to posts that are clearly meant to inflame and pander to the argumentative?

Hi Freddieb,

Sorry for the delayed response to your post.

I'm not sure if your post was in response to the one above it (from me) or this thread generally (started by me).

Just in case, I thought I should explain that I am not seeking "to give homage to posts that are clearly meant to inflame and pander to the argumentative". If you go back to my original post, you will see the purpose I had in mind in this thread.

Basically, it currently looks to me as if there is considerable evidence to contradict anyone that says that "only idiots believe in UFOs" _BUT_ although I've heard such inflamatory remark being expressed informally by friends it seems _very_ few people have been prepared to make any such explicit and inflamatory remark in the media, on television or (generally) even on the Internet.

As I've said previously during the course of this thread, I'm currently minded to think that there is much less ridicule of UFO witnesses, believers and investigators than is generally thought to be the case.

All the best,


[edit on 8-8-2006 by IsaacKoi]

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 09:00 AM
I feel the title of this thread is totally misleading, and is a blatent attempt for people to view it

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:07 AM

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
I'm currently planning on writing more on this topic and am attempting to find a few pithy quotations which explicitly express such dismissive views of UFO witnesses/believers generally, but I'd welcome any references, suggestions or recommendations anyone has.

(On the more positive side, I'm finding it a fairly trivial task to pull together quite a lot of material that opposes such dismissive views.)

3 years on, I am still interested in this project and amassing relevant material. Although I have found numerous statements by ufologists regarding ridicule of ufo witnesses/"believers", I have continued to struggle to find many pithy explicit examples of such ridicule.

On the positive side, I have continued to find material that opposes such dismissive views. In addition to the material which I have previously posted, I would highlight:

(1) Pages 199-216 of Stanton Friedman's book ‘Flying Saucers and Science’ (2008), which gathers together the data gathered from various opinion polls (some of which I have previously mentioned in this thread).

(2) An article in the skeptical journal "Skeptical Inquirer" : Goode, E. (2002). Education, scientific knowledge, and belief in the paranormal. Skeptical Inquirer, 26, 24-25. That article has been cited in several relevant studies (mainly by psychologists and/or skeptics) since then, including the article at this link which notes that "Other work has examined the association between education level and belief in UFOs, reporting no significant relationship (Goode, 2002). This stands in contrast to evidence of a negative association between education level and other paranormal beliefs, such as belief in the existence of ghosts, astrology, and reincarnation...".

[edit on 21-10-2009 by IsaacKoi]

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 08:02 AM
I'm not an idiot, I'm many things but an idiot is not one of them.
when I was 12-13 yrs old. I watched one for a good 20mins...
when I was 16-17 yrs old. I saw a glimse, but my two sisters watched it for a minute or two before telling me... and it looked like a classic ufo.
when I was 21-22 yrs old. I watched a satillite change directions from e-w to e-north. on a dime going thousands of miles an hour.

just because I have seen 3, I dont believe anymore.... I know... we are not alone...

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 08:03 AM
reply to post by IsaacKoi

I think it's difficult to say it's ridicule, or that it applies to what would fall under the umbrella of what defines a UFO today, but there's:

Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said "I don't think there are flying saucers'. So my antagonist said, "Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it's impossible?" "No", I said, "I can't prove it's impossible. It's just very unlikely". At that he said, "You are very unscientific. If you can't prove it impossible then how can you say that it's unlikely?" But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible. To define what I mean, I might have said to him, "Listen, I mean that from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence." It is just more likely. That is all.

* The Character of Physical Law. Cornell University Messenger Lectures (1964)

Via here and here.

I don't think it's asserting that people who believe in extraterrestrial UFOs are idiots though, and Feynman was quite aware of how irrational we are as a species (some of his views about other scientists and organisations are equally funny).

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 08:06 AM
reply to post by Anti-Evil

OP isn't asking if you're an idiot. OP is trying to find examples of scientists and prominent sceptics saying things to the effect of "Only idiots believe in UFOs". It's actually about as common as UFO sceptics writing things off as swamp gas.

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in