The Fair Skeptic Registry

It occurs to me that more and more skeptics are getting a bad name because of hecklers who will always cry "photochop" or "hoax" without even a cursory examination of the evidence. Likewise, there are those who will cry "brilliant" or "genuine" without even doing a contrast check to see the string holding the paper plate in the photo. This schism is really starting to tear apart some of the membership here.

I'd like to extend this thread as a sort of olive branch between the UFOlogists and the Skeptics.

What I propose is that skeptics, like myself, whom are willing to give UFO cases a fair go, examine the evidence, and present an unbiased finding, drop their card in this thread. We can police our own easily enough, and hopefully we can draw a definitive line between the automatic "nay-sayers and yes-men", and those whom would give UFO cases an honest hard look at the facts, and then present a lucid case as to why we arrived at our conclusions.

Then, if a UFOlogist honestly believes they have something genuine, they can U2U the people on this list a link to their thread and ask for their analysis. Or, I suppose, alternately, they could just post a link in this thread.

Anyway, if the "Fair Skeptics" would like to put themselves on the list as good representatives of the skeptic community, maybe we can start bridging the gap that's forming. Feel free to list any special talents you have or qualifications for verifying or debunking cases.

Hey! I'm finally, just about first on a list!

I have no "real" special talent. I do, however, from years of investigating and hoping for a positive outcome, have a hardhead, and a desire to cut through the hoaxes, flummery, and simple belief systems, to get to the facts.

And, perhaps, not so tongue-in-cheek, I'd love to meet an Reptilian, Nordic, or Gray... And I'd love to see a real photograph of the tubeson Mars.

Originally posted by sigung86
Hey! I'm finally, just about first on a list!

Welcome to the list! Hopefully we'll see some additional members on this as well, but if not, at least UFOlogists know they'll get a fair read from the two of us.

Now if I can just remember the name of that guy who runs the CGI imaging studio. Seen him in a lot of UFO video and photo threads, and he usually has a very solid step by step on the aspects he checks out.

I'd like to be considered a "fair skeptic" although perhaps I haven't been entirely up to this point. Case in point - I've wasted too much energy on certain threads that I consider to belong more in "Religion" or "Supernatural" type categories than here in Aliens. At most, I should point out where such folks stray from known *fact* and then leave the thread..

So what would be my qualifications? For one, I have a good background in science. LOTS of biology and zoology in college, a good amount of neuroscience, and 2 semesters of physics. I also have the dubious distinction of having once been a believer in all manner of things and now I'm a skeptic - so I've been in both camps in my lifetime.

As for my thoughts on aliens - I actually think they probably DO exist. Somewhere. I even will grant that they might be visiting us. Airline pilot reports from reputable sources are especially interesting, for example.

Welcome aboard Sophismata, glad to have you with us. I hope you don't mind, but I sent you a U2U with an invite to a neuroscience thread going on. I couldn't help but notice your interest in it.

Sign me up. I am skeptical but I know of a few cases that I can't go into that have some people I UTTERLY RESPECT completely stumped and therefor leave me VERY OPEN to the possibility there is a "core data set and or story" that we simply don't understand.

My qualifications are 15+ years being involved in one way or another with sites like this one, hundreds of conversations and or interviews with many of the "upper crust" of UFOlogy and the mythos surrounding it, and of course I, at least (maybe no one else does), consider being one of the three owners of AboveTopSecret.com a qualification of some merit.

I LIKE THIS IDEA and "thelibra" just scored 50,000 ATS POINTS for coming up with it!

Springer...

Originally posted by Springer
I LIKE THIS IDEA and "thelibra" just scored 50,000 ATS POINTS for coming up with it!

Springer...

WOW...Errr... WOW. I didn't even know that was possible! Thank you, Springer! It's cool enough that you thought it was a good enough thread to comment on, much less joining in on the fun. That means a lot to me, thank you.

Actually I am a general skeptic and would like to sign up as well. Despite my modest talents being a nurse requires me to be as objective as possible when analyzing new data and situations

Originally posted by thelibra

Now if I can just remember the name of that guy who runs the CGI imaging studio.

I believe that would be jritzmann you're thinking of.

I'd like to be on the list as well. Due to seeing the same images reposted over and over again after being explained, I've started leaning more "skeptical" than I used to. This sounds like a chance to enter more "Wow, I can't explain that. You really caught something there" posts again.

My main qualification is that I read every UFO book I could get my hands on in the 70's and early 80's. I believe something is up there, but I tend to lean more toward an undiscovered terrestrial energy and/or lifeform.

i consider my self a " fair skeptic " by your definition - and IMHO only cry " hoax " when i have a genuine scientific challenge [ real or imagined ] to the evidence

and that is part of the problem - one mans legitimate science , is anothers pseudo scientific idiocy

my own travels on ATS.com have not exactly been smooth sailing - and there are a few who would class me as an arrogant ass hat - but i can point to others who are IMHO so dangersouy gulible i wonder how many bridges they own

there are several threads i have never addressed - mostly because i do not posess the information or skill to desconstruct them properly - but mostly because the " evidence " is so vague annecdotal or ambiguous that i see no opening

and " shock horror " there are even UFO encounters i believe have merit

should i have given them the " ape seal of approval ? " maaybee , but i am a dammed busy monkie

i wish you all the best , and will endeavour to assist your enterprise in anyway i can .

BUT , i can already see a problem in the defining of " fair " for some people - any explaination that fals outside thier prenotions is tantamount to heresy

so WHO defines " fair "

PS : glad to see that springer is excited about your plan - habing a staff member taking such a close interest will at least make people who would attempt to derail you think twice .

also , what do " believers " belive in .

not everyone applies the same level of skepticism or belief to all issues

a very close friend of mine is sold hook line and sinker on the ABC [ alien big cats ] in the UK issue - but is utterly comtemptuous of nessie etc .

ps - by alien i mean affrican / souf american felines - not cats from saturn


and indeed some beliefs are mutualy exclusinve , and contradict other beliefs

are grey " aliens " humans from the future or an EBE race from Zeta R. ?

or even humans from Zeta R. of the furure

Welcome, welcome, FredT, eaglewingz, and ignorant_ape! We're delighted to have you as members and appreciate the encouragement.

Now to answer a few points...

Originally posted by eaglewingz

Originally posted by thelibra

Now if I can just remember the name of that guy who runs the CGI imaging studio.

I believe that would be jritzmann you're thinking of.

That was it exactly. Thank you! You and Sanctum both figured it out overnight. I went ahead and sent him an invite, It'd be great to have his digital imaging talents in our skeptic pool.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
and that is part of the problem - one mans legitimate science , is anothers pseudo scientific idiocy

I suggest the solution to this potential problem is that the Fair Skeptics not be a democracy of whether or not a case is "genuine" or "hoax", but rather a collection of individual findings when someone seeks a review of their case. If multiple Skeptics want to collaborate on figuring their answer, that's absolutely fine, but the Skeptics are by no means required to agree upon a particular conclusion.

So as a result, we may literally have some cases that are split down the middle in terms of "hoax", "genuine", or "unknown", etc...

But that way, if, for instance, I say "Oh, well, because there's orange dots in the photo, it's genuine all right" and then ignorant ape says "because there's orange dots in the photo, it's definitely a fake", then it's fine and dandy, because no one says we have to agree, we just have to give the presenter's case a fair go.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
also , what do " believers " belive in .

not everyone applies the same level of skepticism or belief to all issues

I'm actually counting on that.

If all of us thought the same way, used the exact same methods to determine our conclusions, and had the same exact level of believe in the same exact subjects of UFOlogy, paranormal, etc, then there'd be no reason to have multiple people, except to bang the same message on a drum over and over.

However, because of our rather diverse mixture of beliefs, talents, methods, and so forth, we can provide a more diverse range with which to examine the data from. We might also learn something from one another in the process.

Further, if someone presents a case that just floors us, across the board, despite our diversity, that in and of itself lends a serious credibility to the case.

Although I have a feeling I have the rep of being a nay-sayer skeptic. Honestly, I have yet to see anything on here that couldn't be debunked.

That said, those who post things for analysis please don't jump to immediate conclusions and I won't jump to immediate debunking....

Great Idea!

I think having my own experiences and ideas about things and setting about debunking them myself LOL is a pretty good qualifier, I could be wrong.

I have a lot of varied experience, no fancy degrees just a lot of life lessons. I like to research, try things out offer examples and alternate lines of thought to the whole alien thing.

I am also a believer and weeding out the frauds is something that is desperately needed.

Computer and software savvy, technically inclined and I like to think I approach things fairly and with a preference for looking first at scientific explanations, before venturing into the more "out there" ideas and philosophies.

I can be a bit of a bimbo but every now and again I come up with something intelligent.

I'm not a "fluffy" person and I like facts...tangibles.

Welcome behindthescenes and justgeneric. We're happy to have you as members of the team. Also thank you very much to the staff members who've taken an interest in this thread. It is my sincerest hope that something comes of this little project, and I really look forward to seeing what comes of our first case.

The invitation remains open to anyone who'd like to be a member of the Fair Skeptics.

What criteria do you use to decide if someone is in fact "fair," and not just a nay-sayer who does little more than harass people who post messages about out-of-the-ordinary experiences and knowledge. It seems you are accepting anyone who applies. Are there ANY standards at all?

Thats an interesting idea.

I am a skeptical with no special talent and with little imagination, so you can count me in, if you want.

Good question posed about criteria. I suppose looking at posting history combined with the initial volunteering post would help them decide who should assist.

Then again who would respond unless they really thought they could help in a fair way?

Besides I'd like to think that the OP and any MODS monitoring the threads can help keep debunkers and skeptics on the straight and narrow with respect to remaining as considerate as possible when reviewing the "claims". Hopefully it wouldn't be required and those who volunteer can self monitor themselves

It's not a MOD job it's a collective investment into an area that really needs some cleaning up...better done on a peer basis rather than MODS trying to get into it. Just people trying to remain impartial about a subject that desperately needs impartiality.

IMO

[edit on 12/15/2006 by justgeneric]

Without some standard that has to be met to merit the designation of "fair skeptic" the term becomes meaningless. If the only criteria is that those who ask to be part of the registry call themselves fair then any closed-minded debunker can become part of it. Kinda like awarding a Phd. to anyone who calls himself a doctor. Empty and meaninless.

This is a touchie subject and would do well for the pros to wait for the cons to catch up. I would happily relate my experiences to those interested.