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.


The Fair Skeptic Registry

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 03:56 AM

Originally posted by SkyWay
Without some standards then ANYONE can be accepted. ... Then any bigoted debunker could become part of the registry. That would defeat the whole purpose.

I, for better or worse, tend to see people in a rosier light. I think that if a group like this is formed then by virtue of the fact that it becomes active that it would be self-governing. People will tend to exclude themselves if they continuously try to upset or sway the general consensus in the face of overwhelming evidence that is contrary to their particular belief. Many folk will tend to exclude themselves if they see that they are unable to sway control of proffered group opinions to their particular way of thinking.

Other than that, if everyone feels it is necessary to have "standards" then, by all means, tres proceed. I suggest that, perhaps, you start by submitting a list or set of standards that are acceptable to you and let everyone have a look at it and either buy into it, or modify it, making the set acceptable to everyone, or at least a majority, that are members in good standing of the "Fair Skeptics".

It crosses my mind that the group will become what it is with or without interventions like that, however, I have been very wrong a time or two. I used to subscribe to the world on the back of the turtle philosophy.

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 06:40 AM

I can't imagine that anyone would think that this group would see itself as the final arbiter on any given situation, unless it were an obvious hoax. Even then, there will be people who will swear by it and decide that we are under the control of the Masons, the UN, the CIA, the New World Order, the Zetans, the Reptilians, etc.

Very true. Case in point...Billy Meier. He's been caught at fakery (Asket & Nera hoax, time travel "photos"), and yet still attracts followers and believers despite his earlier photos being such obvious fakes that no expert is even needed (the "wedding cake" photos being the obvious choice).

What's worse, is that he can't even fib well. When skeptics pointed out the startling resemblence between his trash can lids and the bottom of the "wedding cake" UFO, he claimed this was due to the aliens sending out design ideas telepathically, and that the ship design elements made its way into other household items...and people BOUGHT it!!!!

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 06:55 AM

Welcome Newest Members

Welcome supercheetah and spreadthetruth, and thank you for joining.

Current Members (22 Confirmed (edited))


Anyone left out?

Since only a couple of people ever responded as to clarify whether or not they wanted to be members, I'm just going to say, if you aren't on the member list, and want to be on the member list, please say so.

Down to Business

Since the only comment I've had on the mission statement is to correct some spelling mistakes, I'm going to assume everyone is cool with it enough to move on. Now that we've figured out what we are, we need to start getting organized. The dust is beginning to settle, and when it does, I'd like to see an "Open for Business" sign. Who wants to help with the running of this thing? I've already got a couple of volunteers through U2U (torbjon and sigung86), but I figured I'd extend an active invitation in case anyone else wanted to help out. I know most of you are going to be busy enough with every day stuff that just getting around to FSing threads is going to be a bit of a drain, but I don't want it said the opportunity wasn't available.


Originally posted by Gazrok
I'm not so sure the intention is to provide a "verdict" on cases (other than ferreting out the obvious ones), but really more of a concerted effort to do the research, look at the facts, and provide information, along with stating our interpretations of what the data could mean.

Gazrok had it in a nutshell on this one. If individual FSes want to provide a "conclusion" along with their findings, that's fine, so long as it is understood that a conclusion is the logical result of examination of the data and emprical evidence within a case study. However, a conclusion is certainly not required; one could merely post their data and findings, and let others draw their own conclusions.

One thing I did want to clear up though is that, indeed, the FS won't provide a verdict "as a whole". We aren't going to vote, count the votes, and then give a legit or hoax decision with a compiled report on individual findings, etc. If this thing really takes off, and we just get a heck of a lot of business and members, we might revamp the system, but for now, I'm just thinking along the lines of each FS individually responding to case requests. That gives us all one less thing we have to agree upon.

Originally posted by SkyWay
Without some standards then ANYONE can be accepted.

Skyway, with all due respect, while I appreciate your continued interest in the Fair Skeptics, you declined membership. As such, your input on how the Fair Skeptics are joined or run is no longer needed. Further, this issue was repeatedly addressed in the previous four pages. If you genuinely care, you should go back and re-read them. We have standards, they can be enforced, members can be assisted in meeting those standards, and they can be removed if they refuse to comply. The Fair Skeptics aren't some elite club of know-it-alls. We're a group of people who either think we're fair, or want to be fair, and are banding together to show the world that "Skeptic" is not a bad word and to give evidence for cases a fair go. Some of us will have to learn a few things, and some of us will have to adjust the way we think a bit, and some of us will have to teach. But as long as I'm heading this thing, anyone who wants to try their hand at being a Fair Skeptic will at least be given the opportunity.

[edit on 12/27/2006 by thelibra]

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 06:58 AM

Anyone left out?

*raises hand*

[edit on 27-12-2006 by Gazrok]

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Gazrok

Anyone left out?

*raises hand*

I have no idea how I left you out of the list, I even replied to you in the same post. Wow... sorry about that. Anyway, you're added to it now, I still had enough time left on the previous post to edit the list.

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 09:45 AM
I would like to join this, if you will take me. I don't have a very good posting record in all honesty... and my dry sarcastic sense of humor can rub people up the wrong way, so I'd like to kind of use this to turn my posting habits around and become a better member.

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 10:01 AM
Since I've got some time off, I'm hoping to actually finish my "Phoenix Lights" project, and get that posted within the next few days. I've been working off and on on it for a while now. I'm also going to be sure to upload all the pics in the post (or posts) to ATS so there won't be any broken links and they'll be visible while reading the post.

There's bound to be some people that aren't happy with my conclusions, but then, I'm providing the data from both camps, so should give us all plenty to discuss.

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 11:47 AM

Originally posted by thelibra

Anyone left out?

Since only a couple of people ever responded as to clarify whether or not they wanted to be members, I'm just going to say, if you aren't on the member list, and want to be on the member list, please say so.

Please add me to this list.


posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 11:53 AM
So, does anyone have any idea what our debut analysis will be?

I actually have an idea if anyone is interested....

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 11:54 AM
Great Stuff!!! I'm beginning to feel like I did when I was a kid and the roller coaster car started up the first big hill.

I'm thinking that with the obvious cross-section of folks we have on board that this is going to be fun, if not, at times, controversial.

Let's get going!

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 12:18 PM
How is it planned to differentiate such postings from others? Perhaps "Fair Skeptic Case Review - Casename" in the subject line? Just one idea to toss out. Otherwise, not sure how it would be much different than a standard member posting with member replies, etc.

I envisioned it as more of a pool of people to invite to a "fair skeptic" thread to get feedback (in addition to members of course) and facts, etc. However, I think most have always been fine with all members chiming in on their threads with questions, other evidences, etc. What is the differentiating factor?

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 03:07 PM

Membership Application Closes in 24 Hours

More on why, later... but for now, just know that membership application closes in 24 hours. If your name isn't already on the list, and you haven't posted in the thread requesting to be a member by this time tomorrow, you'll have to wait until the next membership opening, or until you're invited.

(edit: clarification)

[edit on 12/27/2006 by thelibra]

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 03:20 PM
Hi Gazrok... I like the idea of the heading on any posts we make as members of the group. We also have to remember that we don't EVER go into a thread and start off with, Are you a freakin' Moron???

I know you have never done that, but some might ... I have been close a time or two.

This is an idea. I was watching the UFO Files the other day (See! I told you I'm fair minded), and they had a bit on about MUFON. The MUFON group has a manual they use to investigate from. Perhaps, it might not be a bad idea to start members working on a manual with questions that we would ask to try and find shape and scope of the phenomenon under investigation?

I'm not sure, but it seems better than simply having all of us or some of us running at something willy-nilly and flailing at it in an attempt to get to the bottom of it. This "manual" could be a work in progress, as we gain experience.

I suspect that without some lead in tactics from someone like ... Looks at audience in a stage aside Leer ... YOU, who has had experience in this sort of thing, at least to get the creative juices flowing, we will wallow around a good deal more than we need to.

Not saying everyone has to follow a manual, and that we won't all have our own agenda of questions and investigative procedures, but it seems, in the greater scheme of things, that it would be an exercise in futility to be constantly reinventing each and every wheel, each and every time.

Just a few more thoughts for a yea or nay.

[edit on 27-12-2006 by sigung86]

[edit on 27-12-2006 by sigung86]

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 06:36 PM
I'd like to sign on to the list.

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 10:52 PM
Membership Application Closes in 24 Hours==thelibra

It would appear you have also placed a time limit on my initial data
collection, but I doubt it affects the results of this first test. So far,
only one member has questioned my first post, which was tailored
to sound as either a story, or an outline of the data I already have.
One Supermod and one Admin are the only sources of additional data.
Both have confirmed that an unusual thread has dissappeared. That
thread would have been an excellent primer for your idea, thelibra.
There were examples of most everything that occurs to obfuscate
Ufology and maintain a base noise floor. And ATS is bereft of examples.
My "work in progress" in THIS thread, applies as follows.

1. Determine if there is any way to recover the "example" thread.

2. Failing that, DEMONSTRATE a method in this thread that can
be used independant from the beliefs and bias of the user. Show its
application in a way that will become obvious to ALL.

So, thelibra, in a way, SkyWay was pointing to the problem but
was stating it backwards. Without a rigorous METHOD that
all your members agree to abide by, there will be no difference
between the oratory from your group and any other story out there.
Whatever your beliefs are does NOT matter if you abide by the
METHOD. The ONLY entrance requirement for your group
becomes a willingness to adhere to the METHOD.

I am not applying for membership unless that method is
scientific in nature. And even then, the demonstration I have
begun carries a probable risk that I may NOT be around to
be a member. But I am ruthless when it comes to data
collection and validation, and success there outweighs ANY
other consideration. I am being careful with the risk because
if I am banned, I want that very act to be the correlation and
validation of that particular hypothesis to be tested.

But the final point is that introspection is part of science. If
THIS PLACE cannot use such a method and deal with
introspection in your own household, you have not a snowballs
chance of applying it to the real world.

posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 02:41 AM
I'd like to be included in this group.

I'd classify myself as someone who truely believes in life on worlds other than ours but has yet to see concrete evidence that they have come here.

There are however some really compelling cases that certainly point to us being visited.

I am a trained observer and have experience deciphering crime scene data not only from actual crime scenes but from photos of crime scenes as well. I am NOT a CSI guy but do some of what that job entails.

Ive also read dozens of UFO books and very well may have seen every TV program ever aired about UFO's.

I look forward to analyzing any and all cases posed to the body and maybe we can come to some pretty deep conclusions on some!


posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 03:38 AM

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

Hi thelibra,

While I consider the proposed Registry to be an interesting (and hopefully fruitful) idea, I have some reservations about the distinctions apparently being drawn.

By "UFOlogists", it appears that you mean those that support the Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis, i.e. that UFOs are probably piloted by extraterrestrials ("ETH proponents").

By "Skeptic", it appears that you mean those that oppose the Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis ("ETH opponents").

Many ETH proponents would in fact consider themselves to be quite fair and quite skeptical.

In fact, most experienced ETH proponents accept that a majority of UFO reports have mundane causes. Figures of 90 to 95% are commonly accepted by ETH proponents (although Stan Friedman has queried this percentage, citing figures from various studies which suggest a figure closer to 75%).

So, most experienced ETH proponents would assume that a mundane explanation for any particular sighting is more likely than not.

It is worth remembering that several of the most significant hoaxes in ufology have been exposed by ETH proponents.

Many of the pro-ETHers would be insulted by any implication that their beliefs and methodology do not conform to a reasonably accurate definition of skepticism, yet (rather confusingly) refer to the other side of the debate as "skeptics".

Personally, over the last few years I've striven quite hard to be as neutral as possible and have so far (despite posting hundreds of pages of material relating to ufology on UFO Updates and elsewhere) I've generally avoided being labelled a "skeptic" or a "ufologist"/"believer".

I think this neutrality has helped maintain and develop contacts with many of those within ufology, on all sides of the debate.

The term "skeptic" has (within ufology, though probably not to the wider public) connotations of someone unwilling to fairly evaluate the evidence. To many within ufology, the term "fair skeptic" would appear to be an oxymoron.

While disagreeing with such a view of the term "skeptic" (I think it is a in fact a compliment, and is basically the opposite of saying someone is "gullible"), because of it I wouldn't want to be labelled myself as a "skeptic", "fair" or otherwise.

The use of the term "fair skeptic" in relation to those on the Registry would appear to exclude those that wished to remain neutral, or support the ETH (regardless of how rational and critical they are, e.g. if they haven't made their minds up or consider that 99.99999% of sightings are due to misperception, hoaxes or delusions).

The term "fair analyst" would be fine.

In terms of my own experience/qualifications, I am a barrister in England with an interest in various issues relating to ufology. I recently circulated a 1,800 draft UFO/SETI chronology as a free download on the Internet. If you happen to want to know more, feel free to ask me or see my emails on UFO Updates, with links at: .

Kind Regards,

Isaac Koi

posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 04:59 AM
I think the term skeptic is fine. It means looking for evidence against the story being given. If there is none, we'll say... That's the 'fair' part.

posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 05:17 AM

Originally posted by CaptainLazy
I think the term skeptic is fine. It means looking for evidence against the story being given.

There's a clear difference between what the word "skeptic" means to most people, and how it is used by those within ufology.

As I said in my post above, I think that to most people the word "skeptic" means basically the opposite of "gullible". I'd agree with the following definitions:

(1) “Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. Skepticism is a method, not a position”. Discussed by Michael Shermer in his “Why People Believe Weird Things” (1997) at page 8 (in the Prologue) of the Freeman softcover edition.

(2) “… a skeptic is one who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it” by Michael Shermer in his “Why People Believe Weird Things” (1997) at pages 16-17 (in Chapter 1) of the Freeman softcover edition.

However, this would mean that many supporters of the Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) are "skeptics" (or at least consider that they fulfil the definitions above).

The usage of the word "skeptic" within ufology is generally VERY different.

Do a search on UFO Updates (or ATS) and read a few hundred posts containing the words "skeptic" or "skeptics".

See also the discussions by:

(a) Charles F Emmons in his “At The Threshold: UFOs, Science and the New Age” (1997) at page 75 (in Chapter 5) of the Wild Flower Press softcover edition.

(b) Ed Conroy in his “Report on Communion” (1989) at page 199-200 (in Chapter 6) of the Avon paperback edition.

(c) Edward Ashpole in his “The UFO Phenomena” (1995) at page 104 (in Chapter 8) of the Headline hardback edition.

(d) Mac Tonnies in his “After the Martian Apocalypse” (2004) at pages 248-250 (in Chapter 11) of the Paraview Pocket Books softcover edition.

Within ufology, terms such as “sceptic” and “debunker” are often used in discussion in an apparently derogatory manner. Labelling a person a “sceptic” or “debunker” is often intended as an insult, apparently intended to imply that a person is not objective. Given most of the above definitions of these terms, this usage is rather surprising.

Kind Regards,

Isaac Koi

posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 05:49 AM

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
The use of the term "fair skeptic" in relation to those on the Registry would appear to exclude those that wished to remain neutral, or support the ETH

Hey IsaacKoi,

I absolutely agree with you, but like you so eloquently stated that this is all "oximoronic" and "rather confusing". I certainly agree and find it annoying and counter-productive. Definitely something that deserves more attention and I'm glad that you brought this up. I would not shy away from someone calling me a pro-ETHer as I think the evidence points that direction. Of course I'm highly skeptical as everyone acknowledges that most reports and pics and videos are mis-identifications and some are Hoaxed and even a few seem like disinformation.

So there are surely lots of people that think of themselves as "skeptics" that would never want me in their "club".

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in