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.

 

The Fair Skeptic Registry

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 01:26 AM
link   
"I'd like to extend this thread as a sort of olive branch between the UFOlogists and the Skeptics." == thelibra

Its a pretty good start, but what happens when you go to the next stage ? The absolute best skeptics have to be the Ufologists themselves. Thats
when you leave mythology and enter science.

"The criteria is my magic "DELETE" button that will wipe out such unwanted posts. " == Springer

What many have done on ATS is to provide a service by giving their
research and evidenced opinions to the public for free in a public forum in
the name and spirit of the truth. At what point do these efforts become
"unwanted" ? This is NOT a T&C question. The example for this question
would be a missing 24 page in depth discussion containing NEW
information concerning the Roswell Incident. If those who have such
things posted are the arbiters of when to delete it, seems the membership loses out. Or the "Delete" button can be hit by accident, perhaps ?
SkyWay's question is still open.

"It's pretty easy to spot the "un fair", posting history is great data set to start with." == Springer

Unless that, too, is "deleted". In the example I offered above, the author
of the deleted topic has himself been deleted. But unlike the WITD affair,
all the posts in his topics by others are gone as well. It is one thing to
adhere to rules of conduct, but quite another to arbitrarily decide which
content is desirable.
Dare I even use the Moon Photo thread as another example ? That
modern replay of the great 1835 Moon Hoax, rehearsed in 2005 on
fantasticforum.com ?


[edit on 17-12-2006 by nightwing]

[edit on 17-12-2006 by nightwing]




posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 04:10 AM
link   
You know...I started digging into something. It stinks frankly and it's one of those things that really doesn't take more than cross referencing posts and following a hunch.

On October 3 2006 someone signed up and has been playing around on ATS relatively unheeded by staff. this worries me frankly as it is with more than few brain cells I've made OBVIOUS conclusions...anyone with a few spare minutes to back-track, read and compare...could manage. I have now four pages of examples. Yet they are, as I stated allowed to run a muck without intervention.

This is either A) ATS is turning a blind eye to it (insert numerous reasons here) -(and no that's not a slam against ATS...time is a premium, people are busy....whatever) B) nobody is as smart as I am or C) I have too much free time on my hands D) this poster is flying under the radar...(



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 04:57 AM
link   
just generic :

rather than generate " board drama " by sharing your suspicions with other members - you should contact the staff [ via u2u or the complain button ]

they take it seriously - the last time i had a suspicion that a banned member was back trolling [ i was wrong as it happened ] , but magic contacted me straigh away - saying thanks and assuring me that an staff investigation of the matter was underway .

IIRC :

skeptic overlord - tracks down people using proxies and can tell if IPs are spoofed

byrd and magic are the staff experts in comparing writing styles and other none technical analysis of suspects posts

they are the people you shoukd talk to , not us

just my 0.002 groats



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 05:16 AM
link   
Interesting concept. I would consider myself a rather big skeptic when it comes to Aliens & UFOs, that's probably why you don't see me post in this side of the forums that much. But I do want to believe. There's like what, 100-400 billion stars in our galaxy? Thinking we humans are the only only is the height of arrogance.

Very promising idea, it would help weed out the masses of nonsense posts and organize things here better. I'm in.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
justgeneric

I think that is one of the things we should not do, mixing what we think of the other members of ATS with the content of their posts.

I think that we should be skeptical about the information but we should leave the analysis of the behaviour of the other members to the ATS moderators.


[edit on 17/12/2006 by ArMaP]



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
So where is the evidence you skeptics are reviewing? Anything new?



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
ignaroant ape...board drama? Squeeze me? I didn't offer a name of the poster, and didn't get into it here in any detail. so where's the drama. I asked for U2u discussions about it. There's no board drama there.

Not much different than u2uing with another member who might also be able to help with the evidence.

Board drama huh? Interesting accusation.

oh yeah...I'll send it to the MOD squad I suppose. Disregard
Though I would have thought that having additional insight might be helpful before doing so.

Cheers.

Tp ArmAp - I'm not launching a vendetta campaign. All I need is some help wading through it all...no takers that's fine. It'll take me awhile to finish cross referencing...like days...I do have other things to do you know
.

[edit on 12/17/2006 by justgeneric]

[edit on 12/17/2006 by justgeneric]



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Each of us is both a skeptic and a believer.

Those who are often referred to as believers can be very skeptical when it comes to the "explanations" of the skeptics.

And those who consider themselves to be skeptics are firm believers in the conventional view of things that are rather unconventional.

It all depends on your point of view.



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 06:43 AM
link   
First off, a big welcome to Outrageo, skip_brilliantine, and Beachcoma as the newest Fair Skeptics.

As promised, the member list...

Current Members

To the best of my knowledge all the people below are wanting to be on the Fair Skeptics Registry. If I am wrong, please let me know and I'll correct it. Our current members are:

sigung86
Sophismata
Springer
FredT
eaglewingz
ignorant_ape
behindthescenes
ArMaP
cheepnis
spines
Dracotic
jritzmann
Outrageo
skip_brilliantine
Beachcoma


Maybe Members?

I'm not trying to exclude any of you below, I just wasn't sure whether or not you actually wanted to be members now or in the future.

justgeneric - requested to be removed temporarily from the list due to other projects.
SkyWay - uncertain from posts if you want to join or just had questions.
nightwing - uncertain from posts if you want to join or just had questions.
laiguana - uncertain from posts if you want to join or just had questions.

Mission Statement

I'm going to try and draw up a mission statement using the input we've had so far from everyone, that sums up what we want to do, how we'll do it, and why. If there are any further suggestions as to qualifications, or additions, or removals, or whatever, now is the time to let me know.



[edit on 12/19/2006 by thelibra]



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra

Maybe Members?

I'm not trying to exclude any of you below, I just wasn't sure whether or not you actually wanted to be members now or in the future.

justgeneric - requested to be removed temporarily from the list due to other projects.
SkyWay - uncertain from posts if you want to join or just had questions.
nightwing - uncertain from posts if you want to join or just had questions.
laiguana - uncertain from posts if you want to join or just had questions.
[edit on 12/19/2006 by thelibra]


Being a member of the ATS forum is enough for me. I don't feel any need to join any of the other groups within it. Besides, if I feel so inclined I can post on any of the threads with paranormal/ufo cases that may be under review by the "fair skeptics."



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkyWay
Being a member of the ATS forum is enough for me. I don't feel any need to join any of the other groups within it.


Fair enough, just know the offer is there if you change your mind.


Originally posted by SkyWay
Besides, if I feel so inclined I can post on any of the threads with paranormal/ufo cases that may be under review by the "fair skeptics."


Actually, that might not always be the case. Torbjon has suggested the possibility of an option for members to make replies only available to Fair Skeptics and Staff, so that someone genuinely wanting fair results can prevent their thread from being hijacked. If such a thing were implemented, then you actually wouldn't be able to respond. However, that's still just in idea form, and still down the road.

(EDIT: However, after careful consideration, I think this would be a bad idea. The free exchange and competition of information, even bad information, is what promotes evolution of thought. To limit responses to only "right thinking people" would exclude the direct and indirect value that the "wrong thinkers" contribute. The risk of a hijacked thread is worth the value that comes from the sharing of ideas, even unfair ones.)


[edit on 12/20/2006 by thelibra]



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Well folks, here it is... Please feel free to nitpick, adjust grammar, spelling, suggest rewording, omissions, additions, etc...


Proposed Mission Statement



The Fair Skeptics will give equal, thorough, and careful consideration to any presentation of evidence he or she agrees to review. They will not exhibit bias, insult, or sensationalism in their findings. Their findings will be exhibited in a logical and rational fashion, with steps neccessary to duplicate the results and the details neccessary to understand the findings. Most importantly, the Fair Skeptic realizes the need for the free exchange and deliberation of information by all parties.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Hi guys. I haven't been on this site a long time, but I do think I belong in the Fair Skeptic regristry, because that is what I try to be. I don't like to believe everything I see and hear, however, I don't like the idea that were the only ones in this universe. I'm not sure what I should put as qualifications, but I am pretty good at photoediting and am willing to do research.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Hello "thelibra"-

I am interested in being a "fair skeptic." My qualifications are:

*some editing/writing for Tinwiki... I have been busy lately (with holidays etc) but will continue to assist in that effort in the future.

*a growing personal collection of UFO literature at my residence.. some examples-
The UFO Encyclopedia Vol A-K
UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Coverup, 1941-1973
Alien Agenda
Unconventional Flying Objects- A Scientific Analysis
Invisible Residents
...and the list goes on. Although I have not read all of these books, I've read a few and will get to the others with time.

*My own personal need to better understand reality has led me to a great curiousity in the UFO phenomenon.

*Former founder/staff of an internet site which received high traffic volumes.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Hi, I would also like to be a part of this project. I consider myself a skeptic and try to use common sense and evidence when drawing conclusions about unusual topics. I have always had a fascination with UFOs and the paranormal, ever since I was a kid. I believe there's a lot of strange things happening out there and hopefully we as a group can provide solid evidence to support the claims.

My only official qualification is a degree in computer science. I am currently employed as a website programmer. I consider myself to be an optimistic person that is strong willed and I only believe in things when I prove them to myself with facts. However I do possess a sense of 'faith' in certain unprovable things, I believe this to be a healthy quality the comes with being human.

I am constantly on the edge of my seat, waiting for the day Nasa announces life outside of earth, whether it be microbial or fully fledged aliens. I just want proof that we aren't a freak of nature.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
A big welcome to wswbkbroiler, Scramjet76, and Toasty. I still haven't heard from nightwing or laiguana as to whether or not they wish to be members or just had questions to pose for the group.

Also, I need some input as to whether or not the Mission Statement is cool with everyone, or if we need to change anything. Further, how do we want to go about becoming "Open For Business?"


Updated Member List (19 Confirmed)

sigung86
Sophismata
Springer
FredT
eaglewingz
ignorant_ape
behindthescenes
ArMaP
cheepnis
spines
Dracotic
jritzmann
Outrageo
skip_brilliantine
Beachcoma
torbjon
wswbkbroiler
Scramjet76
Toasty




[edit on 12/21/2006 by thelibra]



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   
I think this is a nice idea, but I don't know if I would like to be labeled as a skeptic. Once people are labeled and catlouged, it is harder for them to break out of those labels.

I am interested to see how it plays out and I can't wait to see your first assessment of some actual case.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I'd wager that anyone who looks into UFO cases must also be a skeptic at heart.

With the large number of deliberate hoaxes, honest misidentifications, and attention-seekers, the eye of a skeptic is a helpful quality to have.

I'd like to think of myself as an objective researcher. There have been some cases I went into thinking one thing, only to find another. Roswell is a prime example. I went into it thinking the Mogul explanation would prove conclusive. I found quite the opposite. Yet, even with that case there are many unanswered questions and a large number of witnesses that are credible, and some equally not credible. Nightwing (to name just one) has provided many counterpoints as well to a UFO being the explanation, so who knows what the hell happened there? I went into the Mantell case thinking it one of the classic UFO cases. Research led me to conclude a Skyhook fits the bill better than any other explanation.

Skeptics play an important role in UFOlogy. They help to separate the wheat from the chaff...and that's always a good thing when Billy Meiers and George Adamskis are the kinds of characters that seem to drag the field down and lend an air of ridiculousness, to what should be one of the most profoundly studied phenomena of our time.

I'd be willing to bet that in the next decade, EBE's will be discovered and acknowledged by science. Not intelligent life mind you, but microbes, etc. on other worlds in our solar system. Then, maybe the idea of ET intelligent life won't seem so far-fetched. After all, the odds are more IN favor of ET civilizations, than against it.

[edit on 21-12-2006 by Gazrok]



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
imo, there is no such thing as a fair skeptic. only people who can't use their common sense is a skeptic and those people are never intelligent with their thought process.

they might THINK they are but they're not, they're not even really thinking.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Gazrock,you said the magic word-objectivity.
Without impartiality people will see only what they want to see(both ufologists and sceptics/cynics)
Impartiality and objectivity is crucial.
Far too many unimpartial and unobjective people out there hinder the subject of Ufology and some sceptical explanations for inexplicable events are bordering on the ridiculous.
Fencesitters(mugwumps)should approach data in a rational,dispassionate manner and copy the scientific principle of impartialy arriving at judgements after examining evidence.
All cynics will ever do is pour derision and scorn on this topic because it doesnt fit into their narrow version of reality and so should be ignored.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join