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.


Why does Ufology waste time with skeptics?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 06:23 PM
I see it on these boards and I see it in debates about ufology. Why waste time trying to convince a skeptic that UFO's exist? When you read a post about a picture or a video, seconds later a skeptic shows up and calls it fake and then the rest of the post is trying to convince him or her that it's not fake. I think that's debating from a position of weakness. You should never try to prove to a skeptic that UFO's exist, you should always lay out the abundance of evidence that supports this and then have the skeptic try to lay out counter evidence. In every debate that I've been in with a skeptic, they can't counter the evidence that supports ufology. They have to debate the issue outside of reason and that way they can come up with any unreasonable answer. Things like it's a balloon or it's just a children's toy. These answers make no sense within reason. The only way they can debate against all the evidence is to start with the priori that UFO's are an unreasonable explanation for any event caught on video or in pictures. This is what I call intellectual dishonesty. It's not a search for the truth but a search for answers that support your pre-existing beliefs. When you put together ancient manuscripts, cave paintings, paintings, pictures and video of UFO's and the beings who fly them and then add in eyewitness accounts from Presidents, astronauts, police officers, government officials and the military, you have both direct and circumstantial evidence that supports ufology. There's more evidence for UFO's than there is for Black Holes. If Ufology was just a name of a theory in physics someone would have won the nobel peace prize by now for the discovery. They try to say that you need some super duper evidence when all you need is reason. I read one thread the other day that said the UFO in the video looked too good to be true. If this is the case, then how will we ever know? I think that's the point. Those of us who know that UFO's exist need to spend more time debating skeptics from a position of strength because it makes no sense to try and prove it to them. Most people have to satisfy there belief system so you just present the abundance of evidence and let them rack their brains trying to rebutt the evidence. They havn't yet in any of the debates I've been in.

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 06:33 PM
I think a huge problem with ufology is that there are so many hoaxes out there that any genuine evidence will often be disregarded as hoax.
Now I do believe in UFOs as is the term. Unidentified Flying Objects, I've encountered a couple myself that I had no explaination for. And I tend to be pretty skeptical. Especially now with all graphics technology we have available that can create authetic looking pictures and videos. The thing is that the hoaxers are thrilled by a gullible audience and when that audience becomes the most audible in the ufo community that discredits us as a whole.

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:00 PM
That was well-worth a read. I happen to agree with you. Time spent convincing a diehard skeptic is time wasted. I dont think we should shut them out altogether, but rather allow them to be party to our findings.. with the understanding that it isn't obligated to be proven to anyone.

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:04 PM
I think there is a bigger problem with people who willingly accept any potential scrap of evidence when what has been presented is very very poor evidence. When there is a large number of hoaxes and pranks people who constantly support them do not give the people who want to prove the existence of aliens a good look.

You mentioned the example of UFOs in paintings. I have seen some of the paintings mentioned on here and claimed by some as proof that UFOs visited Earth hundreds of years ago. However, no matter how hard I tried I could not see any resemblance to a UFO. I pointed the apparent UFO out to others and they joked at how there is no way it could be one. When people make such rediculous claims no wonder people look down on believers of aliens. There was a website partly in English and partly in Italian (I think) which explained what many of the supposed UFOs really were. The paintings were debunked excellently for example in one what was meant to be a UFO was really some kind of ceremonial object which was further backed up by further pictures of it being used in the ceremony or whatever its use was. If I could find this website I would link to it as it was a really really interesting read. I too once believed what was shown in the paintings were UFOs and found them fascinating however since investigating further it has led me to believe that they are not.

The majority of supposed evidence I wont give the time of day as to me it is just too unreliable or suspicious. However, there are some cases which have led me to believe in aliens. It is a shame that there is so much rubbish to go through before you find the good information.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by Sceptical_Alien]

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:08 PM
I was fortunate to have seen a UFO. A light in the sky that moved in a way tht no known aircraft could have moved. This was witnessed by me and my family from my bedroom window. But that was no proof that it was manned by aliens.

I think the point of contention is not over whether the evidence presented is fake, but whether aliens are really driving these UFOs.

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:36 PM
We know UFOs exist let the dis believers prove us wrong,Take for example the Disclosure Project the evidence would hold up in any court of law.Its not a leap of faith its a firm grip on credible eye witness restimony. I rest my case.

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:48 PM
Very good post .A true sceptic is someone who impartialy and objectively searches for the truth and goes where the evidence takes them.
A cynic is someone who utterly fails to educate themselves about the topic and just pours scorn and derision on the subject.
A lot of UFO sceptics are in reality UFO cynics.
The (negative) traits of UFO cynics include hopeless prejudice,hysterical cynicism,childish obstinance and a complete dismissal of the scientific principle of arriving at judgement AFTER dispassionately examining evidence.
Impartiality and objectivity are completely absent from the attitude of a UFO cynic whose mindset is "I do not beleive in UFOs therefore UFOs do not exist" (how scientific)
For inexplicable events, the UFO cynic has an almost hysterical need to shoehorn in explanations which completely disregard vast swathes of evidence and contain glaring inconsistencies,contradictions and irregularities.
The sheer weight of expert eyewitness testimony from highly credible,sober trained observers is easily dealt with by being blatantly ignored by the UFO cynic,as is all multiple radar correllations and plotting techniques.
The UFO cynic will always be a presumptuous,bigot who,if an event does not fit snugly into their very narrow version of reality ,will start making noisy negative sounds irrespective of any facts.
Pretending to have opinions whilst doing nothing to educate themselves is a lazy,prejudice and bias and you are so right that people in the UFO community should use their time more wisey than trying to deal with these people who bring absolutely nothing to the table but negative preconceived notions.
Regards Karl
PS UFO cynics are not to be confused with fencesitters who are usualy genuine,objective,impartial and open to factual evidence.

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:48 PM
I have 400 witnesses ready to testify who are not hiding behind some bogus screen name. your witness..

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 08:00 PM
Think of us skeptics as the internal auditers of ufology.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by RWPBR]

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 08:05 PM

I think there is a bigger problem with people who willingly accept any potential scrap of evidence when what has been presented is very very poor evidence.

This was an excellent point! Bill Ryan comes to mind. Now as a believer I am disheartened when I see a fellow believer get completely and knowingly sucked in to a hoax. So desperate to "reveal" the truths...that they allow and infact propagate a load a BS. It's sad and frustrating.

Wasting time with debunkers? Well...we need them to be honest. We need the kick in the pants or we'll all end up blindly following "Mr. X" on his wild whim and fancy like Ryan does...

What a dis-service that guy does.

Admittedly I refuse to get into big debates about why I believe in aliens and becomes pointless after a while because there is neither proof for it or against it. Bottom line. You can go around in a lovely circle to your heart's content but without the dang aliens popping in for a Photo Op with the's all conjecture and possibilities in both camps.

There are definitely earmarks to hoaxes...and skeptics and debunkers keep the balance. Yes they are a pain at times...but you want all the sloppy Bill Ryan's of the world running wild and doing more damage than good?

I say...if you can debunk it do it. Some things can't be debunked...and it's THOSE things we need to watching for. If we all follow "Mr. X" on his wild goose hunt...we'll miss it for sure.

Just a lowly opinion of a believer

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 08:16 PM
Great point SteveR and that's what I'm saying. You should debate a skeptic from the position of strength and lay out the evidence instead of trying to prove anything to them. You will just debate until your blue in the face because it's more about a belief system than it is about the evidence. Skeptics always start out with the priori that UFO's and the beings that fly them can't be a logical conclusion. This is a roadblock to the truth.

Now about paintings of UFO's. You can't look at the paintings in isolation. This is why you have to look at the evidence in total. You can't look at the paintings without looking at the ancient manuscripts. Lets look at the Bible. The painters were not painting UFO's they were just trying to capture the imagry from ancient texts. This makes it even more powerful. They painted UFO's without knowing it. The Bible is full of stories about clouds that hover and glow in the dar. People enter into the cloud and a voice comes out of the cloud. The Bible says that the Lord rides upon a swift cloud. At Pentecost, Jesus was taking up into a Cloud. Look at these verses:

While he was saying this, a cloud formed and began to overshadow them; and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. Luke 9:34

entered the Cloud?

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

10And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

11Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Jesus was taken up, what took him up? He was the received by a cloud.

You can find references to clouds, chariots of fire and beings that talk to Daniel and others throughout the Bible.

You then look at other texts outside of the Bible like the Sumerians or ancient manuscripts from India and around the world and they talk about the same things.

You can go here to check out some UFO's in paintings and cave paintings.

Also check out:

You couple this with pictures, video, and eyewitness accounts from well respected people around the globe and there is no reasonable doubt that these things exist. Like I said, if ufology was a theory in physics someone would have won a nobel peace prize for it by now. It's not accepted because of a persons belief system not the evidence.

What about alien visitations? Why would a well respected male or female say anything about being visited by aliens? I know of people who have to be forced to tell their story. A skeptic will say all these people are kooks are they didn't see what they think they saw. I remember a skeptic said this on Larry King and he asked her how do you know what they saw? She was actually stumped by Larry King!!

I think this ties in with the Paranormal. I think ghost, apparitions and some UFO's are beings from dimensions right next to us. Science is exploring extra dimensions and parallel universes. I think we sense people from other dimensions and they appear to us as apparitions and ghosts in some cases. That's because we are connected to the same conscience awareness but we are located in different points in space time.

What about water on mars? I think they will find microbrial life next and then they will asks if life is common in our universe did intelligent life evolve somewhere else in our universe. What if they are millions of years ahead of us, what kind of technology do they have? Have they visited us? I think some of us know the answer to these questions. I will leave you with a quote from Nikola Telsa.

“The day Science begins to study nonphysical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all previous centuries of its existence.” NIKOLA TESLA

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:36 AM
I also agree with what most of the posters here are trying to say, 'sceptics' are needed in order to not get ahead of oneself. I myself who has seen a UFO have successfully debunked a bunch of videos that has surfaced here on this forum. Does this make me some kinda UFO hater bent on maintaining the status quo? No. It just means that there are fakes out there and they need to be pointed out as such.

Though, I've been thinking. What'll it take to get proof of UFOs? I want a criteria to be established for UFO folks such as us. Some kinda frame to go by so that we'll become more organized.

Like, if I told you there were no such things as UAVs (Unmanned Air Vehicles), and I asked you to prove me wrong, what would you do? Send me to some sites that showed pictures of UAVs? No good, right? You couldn't Show me a UAV because they're highly classified too, so what the hell do you do?

I'm still pondering this question, and I still don't have an answer for it. But someone here might.

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 10:10 AM
Personally Im a sceptic, but I have not allways been that.. My belief disappeared with no compelling evidence (Please, look at your 'superior' evidence) and growing up I guess..

So now I stay around to see whatever people find, mostly because I believe there's a few natural phonomenons among them. And because I get a thrill out of it... Seeing good pictures/videos of supposed aliens can make me a bit scared if I have to go outside afterwards.. I find it fun!

And by being a sceptic, I mean that I don't believe in UFO's visiting out planet (Or trans-dimensional beings, blah blah), but I am a believer in life on other planets, be that cellular-life stadie or higher.

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 10:28 AM

Originally posted by polomontana
I see it on these boards and I see it in debates about ufology. Why waste time trying to convince a skeptic that UFO's exist?

Because it's pointless to preach to the choir.

Look, you've basically got three kinds of people. If you tell people "Hey, aliens exist!" here are the responses you will get:

Type A: "Duh! Of course they do!"

Type B: "Do they? Show me some proof and I'll think about it."

Type C: "No they don't."

Now if you're just talking to be talking, then Type A will make a nice, agreeable audience that will eat your words up like they were candy. But how satisfying is that? How much does it achieve? Not much.

Type C is even LESS satisfying, because it doesn't matter how much evidence, thought, or research you put into it, they simply won't believe, no matter what. It's like talking to a brick wall.

Type B, however, might just listen. They might just give you the time of day. They will not, however, just believe something because you said so. They will want proof, or at the very least evidence and a credible argument, before believing you. Convincing a skeptic is not an easy thing to do. Neither is scaling a mountain. Both are possible, and both are very very rewarding.

So before you go bashing skeptics, keep in mind we're the only market demographic the UFO believers have a chance at penetrating, as far as the "what I'll buy into" information trade goes.

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 10:55 AM
A die-hard believer is as big a problem to UFOlogy as a die-hard skeptic. In order for the study of UFOs to be taken seriously, we need to foster critical thinking rather than that let it degenerate into a factionalized quasi-religion. It is important to remember that this is the study of UNIDENTIFIED flying objects in the hope of identifying their nature and origin.

As has been pointed out, hoaxes have muddied the waters very badly. Fake photos and videos are so prevalent that it's hard to separate the truly unexplained images for more in-depth study. At least some hoaxes, like the "alien autopsy video, are easily dismissed (it helps when the perpetrators confess!). The most heinous hoax to date is probably the so-called "MJ-12 documents." Despite the fact that they have no provenance and there are no known original copies, and that they contain numerous errors and anachronisms, some people still use them as "proof" of extraterrestrial visitors and government conspiracies.

The single biggest obstacle to serious UFO research is the "Roswell Incident." It's a boat anchor that is dragging UFOlogy down. Two hardcore believers made very scholarly studies of the event and independently reached the same conclusion: the evidence indicated it was actually balloon debris from the MOGUL Project. Of course, the fanatics immediately declared their former colleagues were fomenting the alleged cover-up.

We need to dump Roswell (case closed!) and the "MJ-12" mythos and move on to the truly promising unexplained sightings. There have been events that even the most skeptical among us can't simply write off or explain away.

We also need to given human beings due credit for their achievements. Don't attribute ancient works of technology and architechture to ancient astronauts. Don't attribute modern advances to reverse engineered extraterrestrial technology.

Most of all, employ critical thinking when examining the "evidence." The truth is out there. Be prepared to accept it even if it is disappointing.

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 10:58 AM

Originally posted by polomontana
Why waste time trying to convince a skeptic that UFO's exist?

If you can't convince a person who merely wants some evidence or a rational explanation, then you don't have a good theory. YOu have an irrational beleif, no different than beleif in the greek gods or the tooth fairy.

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 11:01 AM
You ask a very legitimate question. Such a question can be applied to a host of other things,both spiritual and physical..

I often wonder why anyone tries to convince someone of somthing that he/she obviously has no desire to believe. I mean, for most skeptic a saucer could land out in his yard and he would still try to "rationalize" it out because he/she doesn't wnat to believe something that is contrary to what he/she has believed previously.


posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 11:06 AM
The human race has always been wasting time.

The time spend wasting time on skeptics might be a sign of love among us.
A common goal perhaps that we are not yet aware of.

One day I could turn into a skeptic - And believe nothing - but that would mean part of my memory was erased.

Maybe it is what we put into our memory that makes this paradox exsist - maybe some are taking care of their memory and try keep it intact - not being influenced by the subject we are wasting time on.

Why are skeptics wasting time with the believers then?

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
A die-hard believer is as big a problem to UFOlogy as a die-hard skeptic. In order for the study of UFOs to be taken seriously, we need to foster critical thinking rather than that let it degenerate into a factionalized quasi-religion.


Most of all, employ critical thinking when examining the "evidence." The truth is out there. Be prepared to accept it even if it is disappointing.

You have voted Shadowhawk for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Couldn't have put it better myself, Shadowhawk. In fact, I couldn't have even put it that well. Spot on ol' boy.

And as for the others who make the mistake of saying "skeptics don't believe, or have no desire to believe," nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm a skeptic. I believe that somewhere out there is intelligent life that didn't originate from Earth.

What I remain unconvinced of is that anyone here has had direct contact with it. And it's not because I don't think it's possible, but rather because no one here at ATS has provided sufficient evidence to convince me.

There's a pretty big difference there.

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
We also need to given human beings due credit for their achievements. Don't attribute ancient works of technology and architechture to ancient astronauts. Don't attribute modern advances to reverse engineered extraterrestrial technology.

(Way above vote to ShadowHawk..) Thank goodness I'm not the only one around here! Aliens may well exist, and they *might* even be visiting here. But aliens are not underneath every rock and around every corner, affecting and causing everything that happens.

Why do skeptics like myself even come here? I'll let you in on a little secret: some of us "kind of" believe this stuff. At least the part about aliens existing. We're not convinced they've made it to earth, although they might have.

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in