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.

 

Are skeptics disinformation agents?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 03:18 AM
link   
I think so. The government doesn't have to deny Ufology because they can depend on the skeptic to carry out that job for them. Think about it, when a video or picture is posted a skeptic looks to debunk it with any answer. Most are not looking for the truth but they are looking for the truth as they see it. When you start out with the priori that UFO's and the beings who fly them can't be the final answer, then any answer outside of reason will suffice. This is why I think skeptics are unwittingly disinformation agents. I think it boils down to protecting a belief system.

I can understand that because when it first hit me that The Bible and other ancient text were trying to describe modern technology in the language of the time, it was hard for me to accept it. I was brought up with the view that UFO's are just in movies. I kept asking myself what could be an explanation for these things that I was reading. There was none within reason. If you start with the priori that UFO's can't be the logical conclusion, then are you truly seeking the truth? Why would the government need anyone to cover things up when skeptics do that job for them? I think it's a disservice to humanity because when the Day of Visitation occurs there will be so many people ill prepared because of the skeptic. There's volumes of evidence that supports Ufology, but you can often hear skeptics say balloons, kites or some other ridiculous conclusion outside of reason. I do think it's a percentage of skeptics that are truly seeking the truth and it takes some people longer than others to accept things. On the most part, alot of skeptics that I have ran into are protecting their beilief system wether that belief is atheism, secularism or some other ism.

If there's a UFO sighting over the White House, does the government need to deny anything? Nope, because the skeptic will fill the role of the Men in Black everytime. I remember I was debating some atheist in a chatroom one day and one of the regulars came in there and was shocked because he saw a ghost. The guy was upset and he said he's an athiest and he's not supposed to see them. It took other atheist in the chatroom 2 minutes to convince him that he didn't see what he think he saw. Like I said, most people want to protect the belief system and it trumps reason. The skeptic knows this so they will say a UFO that flies faster than a plane, stops on a dime, flies straight up and disappears is just a weather balloon. Someone who doesn't think that UFO's are logical will accept this answer or any answer to protect the belief even if the answer is outside of reason.

“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

[edit on 29-12-2006 by polomontana]




posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 03:44 AM
link   
I 100% agree with you. I think it is very much a possibility that there are these skeptic agents at work even here in ATS. They might even infiltrate the moderator group someday! Nooooo



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 04:18 AM
link   
The mere concept of UFO Skepticism in itself is a paradoxial oxymoron. If in fact UFOs do NOT exist, then exactly why/when did this exhaustive skeptic movement come into such a seemingly useless existence? Compounding this conundrum is the veracity with which ufology is pursued. Much more questionable concepts are not attacked with a fraction of effort. Why would so many individuals essentially waste their time disproving something so mundane that they claim never existed in the first place? UFO skeptics despise these questions and often will spew pure venom when confonted with them. Another typical reaction is to simply ignore the question.

When I started researching the UFO phenomenon eleven years ago on the internet, many forums and newsgroups pertaining to the subject were in their infancy. Much to my surprize, the skeptics were already firmly embedded and were actually the majority. When I posted my UFO encounters, I was personally attacked and ridiculed relentlessly. What immediately became apparent to me was that these so called skeptics were part of an internet-wide network assembled by 'OPPONENTS OF THE TRUTH.'



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 05:30 AM
link   
well it's hard for people to chainge a belief structure. a few centuries ago people "knew" the earth was flat. agan a short time later they all "knew" the earth was the center of the universe.

hard core skeptics are going to need an alien to come down in a ship, land on their front lawn, knock on their door and say "hi im bob the alien from (wherever) want to deny me?"



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 05:51 AM
link   
It's hard to believe there are NOT people like you posted about, in our boards, trying to make us not believe. Would be a fun job though



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by polomontana
Most are not looking for the truth but they are looking for the truth as they see it. When you start out with the priori that UFO's and the beings who fly them can't be the final answer, then any answer outside of reason will suffice.


Skeptics, like myself, are only looking for the truth. Sure, I would love to believe in all sorts of stuff. But I can't until there is conclusive evidence that such a thing is true. Simply saying "that light in the sky must be a UFO flown by aliens" doesn't mean that it is true. You need to prove it.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 06:35 AM
link   
While I know ufo do exist, I do not know exactly what their nature or purpose is, and to be honest, I don't believe anyone else knowns either.

Whats wrong with remaining a bit skeptical? Are we suppose to believe every account, and everything that is shoved into our face? Is that not just as stupid as denying everyting?



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 06:39 AM
link   
That doesn't hold water. You're not out there debunking 'all sorts of stuff'. The evidence supporting the existence of UFOs is overwhelming. Virtually every culture since the earliest known HISTORY OF MANKIND has recorded accounts of alien visitation. Our ancestors obviously had a profound respect and appreciation for these visitors, and went to great lengths to get the message to future generations. They depicted UFOs in their artwork, etched drawings on the ground and into granite walls and published their accounts in biblical texts. They constructed beacons of information; some of the most massive structures on the planet, specifically meant to focus our attention to the skies. On many of these sites the advanced techniques of engineering and astronomy involved serve as testimony to their commitment. Something tells me that our ancient relatives were looking out for our best interest much moreso than these modern day cowboys/skeptics/debunkers. To cast doubt on the concensus of previous intelligent civilizations is the rhetoric of arrogant and meddling privateers.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Wow, another "if you don't believe every wild claim I make you're a disinfo agent" thread...how original!


The fact is even if some of the UFO reports are actually visitations by an alien race, most likely 95% of them are still hoaxes or misidentifications.

As Lysergic said, it is not denying ignorance to accept everything lock stock and barrel, you must examine everything carefully.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Well from my perspective as a skeptic, it's the UFO believers that are the flat earthers and will usually be the first to resort to insults when their evidence is questioned.

Skeptics are far from "disinformation agents" or "opponents of the truth", the majority of us are only trying to educate and hopefully prevent others from being deceived by hoaxes. There are thousands of "alien" threads on this site alone and to be absolutely blunt, there is not a single verifiable incident among them. I mean not one single photo or video that has been proven beyond doubt to be an extra-terrestrial craft piloted by an alien lifeform.

The day that happens, the world will change and probably for the better. But we'll all know about it and you won't have to search Youtube for the proof.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   
ETs attempted a 'First Contact' event in 1952 in a very public fashion. This event was actually very well documented by the media. Immediate steps were taken by the U.S. government, which quickly imposed a $10,000 fine and imprisonment for any further such media coverage of UFOs/ET. Skeptics were born. There tactics haven't changed much over a half century, and a determined effort continues today, right here at ATS and every other major forum/newsgroup pertaining to the subject. The internet is/has been/will continue to be scraped clean of the most convincing evidence.

In July of 1952 large fleets of UFOs flew slowly in formation directly over the White House and the U.S. Capitol...not once but TWICE within a seven day period. They were picked up on Washington National Airport radar and reported by thousands of local witnesses. Fighter jets were eventually dispatched from Andrews AFB and as the F-94s approached, the UFOs went vertical at a radar estimated 7200 MPH or just disappeared at other times. After the jets landed back at Andrews, the UFOs would immediately return. This cat and mouse game was repeated several times until the wee hours of the morning, according to reports. A week later the UFOs returned again to the skies directly over the capitol of the most powerful nation in the world. They were aggressively pursued and easily eluded our best fighter jets. When the jets returned to Andrews AFB, the UFOs again appeared over the White House. This scenario happened over, and over, and over all night. The story made HEADLINE NEWS in The NY Times and Washington Post (and many other US newspapers), some with a large photograph and caption commemorating the event.

Life has always had its share of mysteries, but when it comes to the topic of UFO/ET a different set of rules seem to apply. All other evidence aside, if bigfoot crossed the White House lawn several times in large packs while taunting authorities in front of god and everybody... with pictures and headlines on the front page, wouldn't that be enough proof for even the harshest of judges? When I started researching on the internet in 1995, UFO skeptics were the majority, already paTROLLING every major newsgroup and forum relating to the subject. Their arsenal of personal attacks and ridicule was not appropriate then, and I have long since determined most of them to be sworn enemies of the truth.

[edit on 12/29/2006 by HaveSeen4Myself]

[edit on 12/29/2006 by HaveSeen4Myself]

[edit on 12/29/2006 by HaveSeen4Myself]



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Just chiming in to offer up my opinion on the matter.

My being a skeptic should not be looked at as a bad thing. After all, if people who were skeptical did not exist then blind faith in the existence of UFOs would be worse then it already is.

I, and many other skeptics, believe that there may be something else out there. But, until we are able to prove this without a reasonable doubt then a seed of doubt should and must always be present.

Oh, and on that note: There are two plagues to any extra-terrestrial forum. These are both beasts of the same nature at opposite ends of the spectrum. I am talking about, of course, the die-hard skeptic and the blind faith believer.

One will discredit any sighting without first giving it thought. No research into the location, wtiness, image/video will be done. No attempts at substantiating the sighting by researching the area in which it was taken for prior sightings/media coverage of event will be undertaken (if such information is available). Before even seeing the evidence they will discredit it without any studied reason as to 'why'. They are not read up on the 'essentials' and should be ignored.

The other side of the spectrum is the die hard believer. These are people who will believe whatever they read on the internet. They also believe, in the same light, that if it was written in a book and published then it must be true. These are the folks who believe any account and any piece of evidence put forward. They are so desperate to substantiate their beliefs that even obvious hoaxes are put on a pedestal. They too should be ignored.

As we can see...the die hard skeptic is one who, for whatever reason, does not believe and feels that since he does not believe that anyone who thinks differently must be wrong. The blind faith believer is as much as a sore on any community as the aformentioned skeptic. So what is it that is needed?

A nice mix of skeptics who truly research the events and believers who do the same is needed. One side is not needed more then the other and they help tp balance out any good e.t. board.

They should be equipped with the knowladge that allows them to debate sightings/events...not ignorantly screaming at eachother.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by HaveSeen4Myself
When I started researching on the internet in 1995, UFO skeptics were the majority, already paTROLLING every major newsgroup and forum relating to the subject. Their arsenal of personal attacks and ridicule was not appropriate then, and I have long since determined most of them to be sworn enemies of the truth.


So you are going to lump all skeptics into the catagory of 'die-hard'?

Even though not all of us throw personal insults and make ignorant assumptions about the believers whom we debate we must all be disinformation agents?

I have close friends on this board whom believe in the existence of e.t.'s and we manage to debate the individual sightings or broad categories without any name calling and with a great deal of respectt for one another. Because they can admit to when something is obviously a hoax and I can admit to when something is beyond my explination I believe that we make a nice balance that this topic needs.

So please, stop assuming that we are all in the same catagory of trolling name-callers who do nothing but ignorantly attack the character of others...and look in the mirror if you could.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Actually, you are dead wrong. You try to essentially explain your displaced presence in the UFO community with forked tongue. Only opponents of the truth will say that skeptics are a vital part of the UFO experience. The truth be known, skeptics only exist to cloud the matter and the more convincing the UFO encounter, the more spirited the attack. I realize the forces I'm up against are well funded and well versed, but I will not simply lay down and give up. You will have to pry the keyboard from my COLD DEAD HANDS before I will go quietly into the night.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by HaveSeen4Myself
Actually, you are dead wrong. You try to essentially explain your displaced presence in the UFO community with forked tongue. Only opponents of the truth will say that skeptics are a vital part of the UFO experience. The truth be known, skeptics only exist to cloud the matter and the more convincing the UFO encounter, the more spirited the attack. I realize the forces I'm up against are well funded and well versed, but I will not simply lay down and give up. You will have to pry the keyboard from my COLD DEAD HANDS before I will go quietly into the night.


So we should allow blind faith in topics to coninue?

Sightings which are either hoaxes or genuine cases of mistaken identity must be believed?

Skeptics, like myself, who are attempting to find this very same truth by weeding out the fakes and zealots (on both ends of the spectrum) are only a menace to this?

How is it that by helping to bring to attention the cases which warrant some further research that I am helping to "cloud the truth"?

And hell, if I am well funded those funds seem to have gotten lost in the mail.

::awaits pay check from the big bad machine::

[edit on 12/29/0606 by spines]



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Skepticism is healthy.
Otherwise I'd probably own the deed to a bridge, and would be dreaming of the millions I could make selling Amway.

Even though I believe in ET's, and that they Might be able to travel the immense distances.

I'd still like to see a good Photo of an alien, or a ship.
Something less questionable than everything thats ever been put out there so far.

I look at every link that I find here..and every book.
NOt to mention being the president of our little UFO club, back in middle school.
Still nothing. No pics, no Vids, no personal appearances. Tends to make one think there is nothing left to talk about.


Edit to add:
If you have a link, to a decent video, or photo, I'd love to see it.



[edit on 29-12-2006 by spacedoubt]



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I completely disagree with the OP. As being someone you would call a skeptic myself, I can say that as far as I'm concerned, I do not post disinfo at all. I do not 'look for any other explanation'. The fact is that most, if not ALL ufo pictures and videos have either innocent explanations, or are easily fakes. I guess you could call my belief that birds and fakers are a more likely than a species developing interstellar travel to strike deals with the US Gov and build DUMBs.

The point about Skeptics always looking for other answers is a two way thing. First of all that's the point of having skeptics, second off. Where skeptics may always look for other explanations, I find that an equal amount of ET Believers will look for none, and believe anything they see without considering it's validity.

I can promise you that I am a reasonable person, and if evidence where to come up that easily proved alien contact, the rational center of my brain would kick in and force me to believe it. Because thats who, as a skeptic, I am... Someone who's brain needs for everything to be rational.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by RCarter
Skeptics ... are only looking for the truth.


Thank you.

Skeptics provide a valuable service. They dive in and debunk things that are crap and help to showcase those things that are true. Skeptics are different than people who are completely die hard unbelievers.... hard heads who refuse to believe truth. Skeptics value truth.

Example .... just a few hundred years ago people believed that trees gave birth to birds. That was the belief. Afterall ... people saw trees and in the spring new baby birds came from them so naturally trees must give birth to birds, right?

It took someone skeptical of that belief to find out the truth and to discover scientific facts.

Seriously ... skeptics are helpful. It's those that are unbelievers that refuse to accept truth when it is shown is where you are more likely to find your disinformation agents.



[edit on 12/29/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Skeptics provide a valuable service? Mwahaha. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. That's a valuable service is disinformation, which is also a disservice to valuable information. Anyone who doubts what I say only needs to look around at other controversial topics to get the full scope. The efforts expended dispelling ufology is only equalled by the 9/11 'conspiracy theory' debunking campaign. In other words, those upholding the 'official story' are often times the same individuals providing this 'valuable service' to the UFO community.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   
HaveSeen5Myself do you not see the irony in any of your posts? Pointing the finger at skeptics for researching other possibilities while your choose to believe with little evidence. Who really are the biased ones?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join