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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Very eloquently put polomontana. I think you accomplished with your post communicating the essence of UFO skeptics and the obstacle they represent. I have tried many times without success to convey the message that you seem to have effortlessly concocted here. You would be an excellent spokesperson for the ufology community as a whole if we should be so lucky. You will be getting an ATS vote from me when they become available to me tomorrow.




posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Thanks for your words Haveseenformyself. I have read your post as well and they are very enlightning.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 07:05 AM
link   
You have voted polomontana for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Thanks for the vote and I did the same. I read the thread you started called UFO Skeptics! *Take Off Your Masks* and that was intersting as well.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   
You two should date.

Sounds like a match made in heaven. Or is that Alpha Centauri....



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Outstanding post polomontana. Just outstanding. I usually refer to those bone-heads as Debunkers, ie I don't believe but Neither Should You.

Skeptics I feel are wanting to know what the hell the truth is. And until their presented with satisfactory in the positive, they keep on keeping on. But so far closer than the debunkers. Phil Klass was a debunker, and as I understand (no proof) Aviation Journalism was not where he got all his income -- from, if you know what I mean (cia).

Dallas



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Polomontana! I have just voted for you! Keep up the good work!

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



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Hullo.
I'm not a Dis-info agent, although I'm not
quite sure what one is.
I believe that life COULD exist elsewhere and
I also believe it's POSSIBLE that life from elsewhere
COULD POSSIBLY visit this planet.
There is certainly enough strange images on the internet
or in UFO magazines that SEEM to show a flying illuminous
object.
I would love to find out that there's a Galactic Council or
that certain countries are meeting with beings from out of
space, but to date, there is NO 100% -factual guaranteed
evidence.
I'm sorry if this annoys anyone, but I believe it's true.
After 35 years of having an interest in this phenomena, I've
heard of plans of diclosure, cock-sure information to be given
in the next year and assurance from aliens to abductees that
they're gonna come out soon.
35 years and it's still "world will end...", "grey from Zeta Reticulli
told me that next year..."
I haven't lost faith, it just seems that the same old ploys surface
that drag on with no outcome.
(Shrugs)



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I really do think that this year is going to be a big one in terms of disclosure but this topic deals specifically with those die-hard skeptics out there who would probably not even believe in UFO's even if they landed on the White House Lawn!

Then of course there are those people who actually enjoy playing the skeptic role in forums like these because that's how they get their kicks. Geesh... if only they could re-direct their debunking hobby to something more productive like knitting or crotchet for example.... better yet, bungee jumping off of bridges over shallow rivers would even be better!



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Thanks Dallas and Palasheea,

I also think that Iron Man points out a flaw in the skeptic arguement. What is 100% factual guaranteed evidence? Human beings have always weighed the evidence using reason. Skeptics use an unreasonable standard to begin with as a way of getting to the truth. They start with a black or white priori, either we have proof without a shadow of a doubt or we can't even weigh the evidence. So using this standard the skeptic has set up a red herring and he could always try to discredit Ufology by debunking a picture here and a video there. This makes no sense because in Ufology you have mountains of direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence - eyewitness accounts from Presidents, people in the military, police officers and well respected people in different communities. Circumstantial evidence - cave paintings, ancient manuscript, paintings, pictures and video. You have more evidence for Ufology than you have for many court cases or for black holes. Again, the skeptics starts off buy saying we have to have proof without a shadow of a doubt and we do have proof without any reasonable doubt. In our court systems 12 human beings use reason to weigh the evidence. If the jurors were told at the start of trials that to not weigh the evidence until the prosecutor or the defense attorney have proven there case without a shadow of a doubt, then we would never get to the truth and that is what most skeptics want in Ufology to protect their belief system. They don't want to seek the truth, they just want to muddy the waters because like Jack Nicholson said they can't handle the truth. That's understandable because it's something that runs up against a persons belief system. In the end, I think we need to accept this truth because we are advancing in technology and we need to also advance mentally and spiritually. We need to look at these things from the standpoint that yes they exist, now what can we learn from this and how can it help us advance. The weather balloon and flashing light excuse is getting old and it's an affront to reason and intelligence. Skeptics want a UFO to land in their front yard and invite them to a barbecue before they use reason to weigh the evidence.

[edit on 4-1-2007 by polomontana]



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Very good summarization, polomontana. Skeptics' and debunkers' endless effort to marginalize the subject of ufology, while being masqueraded as a service to society, continues to represent a disservice to humanity. Veteran ufologists such as Stanton T. Friedman, J. Allen Hynek, John A. Keel, Donald E. Keyhoe, Sherman J. Larsen, James E. McDonald, William L. Moore, Leonard H. Stringfield, and Jacques Vallee have brough to light many hard-evidence cases. Dwight Eisenhower certainly believed in UFOs, since he took so many drastic measures to deal with them. The only reason skeptics get away with this deception is because they work in concert with the greedy few who benefit from non-disclosure. The same ones in control of the media/political/military/banking monopoly we know as government.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Then there are those people who for all we know, may actually believe that the evidence presented in Ufology in support for the existence of UFO's and extraterrestrials is there but we would be the last one's to know that because they PREFER to publicly present themselves as skeptics of such phenomena where they are even wearing that skepticism as a BADGE OF HONOR just to prove to everybody else that they are BETTER and more SUPERIOR to us low-life's who are more honest and are not afraid of ridicule because we know that such phenomena exist also but we are not afraid to say so because saying anything otherwise would be out and out lying.

For those who wear their skepticism as a BADGE OF HONOR, they are living with the illusion that one is considered more politically correct and is more in synch with the existing status quo (but only as they perceive it) by presenting themselves as UFO skeptics even though statitics are showing in ever increasing numbers each year that goes by that more and more Americans believe that UFO's are out there!

But rest assured, once the belief in UFO's among American's topples over that proverbial 'tipping point', these same people who are now proudly calling themselves skeptics will then miraculously morph themselves into believers as by then it would be politically incorrect to appear anything otherwise. For such people like this, it's all about which way the wind blows.... not about things like honesty, integrity and the TRUTH!



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Iveseen4Myself, i just wanted to let you know that you should not get frustrated with trying to "prove" that UFO's exist(if you are doing that) and yes skepticism can be both disinformation and just someone not believing it for various reasons such as lack of knowledge, World View, need more evidence, etc,.
The real purpose of this is to get the IDEA of ET's into the mass consciousness so that the plausibility of them "landing" can happen. Remember, theres alot of things going on with the various ET groups but (and please try to understand) whether the ET be bad or good. They do not want to cause a mass panic. The benevolent ones want you to ask yourself "DO YOU WISH WE SHOW UP" and the malevolent ones such as some reptilian and grey factions just dont want to cause a widespread panic becuase they would lose control. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND ALL WHO READS THIS, to watch a couple of vidoes on perhaps video google "Bashar," just type in that. Whether or not you believe it is not the point, ITS THE MESSAGE!

Light and Love



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea
I really do think that this year is going to be a big one in terms of disclosure but this topic deals specifically with those die-hard skeptics out there who would probably not even believe in UFO's even if they landed on the White House Lawn!


Excuse me, has one landed on the White House lawn? Did I miss something? Oh that's right -- that never happened.

And as for skeptics bungee jumping into shallow rivers -- that most likely would never happen. You see, a skeptic would look at the man encouraging him to jump off the bridge and question the man's motives, question the actual depth of the water, heck, the skeptic would even question the bungee itself.

Now, the believer on the other hand -- all you would have to tell the believer is that the river is actually a worm hole and the bungee cord an alien tether, and off they go to dash their heads open!




posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by polomontana
Thanks Dallas and Palasheea,

I also think that Iron Man points out a flaw in the skeptic arguement. What is 100% factual guaranteed evidence? Human beings have always weighed the evidence using reason. Skeptics use an unreasonable standard to begin with as a way of getting to the truth.


Unreasonable standard? Trying to rule out every possible logical or scientific explanation before reaching to cosmic reasons is unreasonable?




So using this standard the skeptic has set up a red herring and he could always try to discredit Ufology by debunking a picture here and a video there.


I think those forwarding videos and photos that nearly always end up being either too obscure to say what -- if anything -- it could be, or obvious fakes do a better job at discrediting Ufology than any skeptic could.



You have more evidence for Ufology than you have for many court cases or for black holes.

Really? You mean to tell me the mountains -- as you put it earlier -- of scientific evidence of light signatures, gamma ray emissions, radio wave burst readings, etc. is not enough to at least add credence to the theory of black holes?!
As for trials, eyewitness testimony most often doesn't include claims of alien abductions and anal probes by big-eyed grays. So, it's a little easier for a jury to come to a conclusion that a couple of people who say John Doe murdered Jane Doe may be enough to reach a verdict.



Again, the skeptics starts off buy saying we have to have proof without a shadow of a doubt and we do have proof without any reasonable doubt.

What's wrong with that standard? The reason we are skeptics is because there is reasonable doubt.



They don't want to seek the truth, they just want to muddy the waters because like Jack Nicholson said they can't handle the truth. That's understandable because it's something that runs up against a persons belief system.


I could handle it. Really I could. If it were true, that is.



In the end, I think we need to accept this truth because we are advancing in technology and we need to also advance mentally and spiritually. We need to look at these things from the standpoint that yes they exist, now what can we learn from this and how can it help us advance.

What is the truth? I only ask because on ATS alone I've read perhaps a dozen or so different theories as to the origin and reality of aliens and UFOs. And many of those theories directly contradict each other.

So, what's the truth? Write your theory below. I bet you will have many responses all offering their take on the "reality" of UFOs.



The weather balloon and flashing light excuse is getting old and it's an affront to reason and intelligence.

So are videos and pictures of weather balloons and flashing lights from domesticated, explainable sources that the person is trying to pass off as a UFO.



Skeptics want a UFO to land in their front yard and invite them to a barbecue before they use reason to weigh the evidence.


I couldn't have said it better. Thank you. And I do use reason to weigh the "evidence." It's just that the evidence is flimsy at best.



[edit on 4-1-2007 by behindthescenes]

[edit on 4-1-2007 by behindthescenes]



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by HaveSeen4Myself
Very good summarization, polomontana. Skeptics' and debunkers' endless effort to marginalize the subject of ufology, while being masqueraded as a service to society, continues to represent a disservice to humanity.

Disservice to humanity? Perhaps you're being a little too grandiose here. I'm not sure I would equate Ufology's contribution to the betterment of man with that of say medical research or, heck, even fairer economic policy that truly aids in third world nation growth.



Dwight Eisenhower certainly believed in UFOs, since he took so many drastic measures to deal with them.

Well now, if you're referring to Majic, I think that subject is still open to debate. Certainly the documented "evidence" has been called a forgery by a number of individuals.



The only reason skeptics get away with this deception is because they work in concert with the greedy few who benefit from non-disclosure.

Wow. Really? I'd really love to know who those "greedy few" are. I could use the extra income as it is.
But just for argument's sake, assuming you're right and aliens are on earth flying around in UFOs, how would keeping that a secret financially help those "greedy few?"
I'm trying to figure that one out.



The same ones in control of the media/political/military/banking monopoly we know as government.


Ah...I see. So the IMF, Fed, Congress, the President, ABC, CBS, NY Times, Washington Post and the Joint Chiefs all earn illicit income from keeping the existence of UFOs secret.....wow....perhaps I now ought to write a get-rich-quick book. "KEEPING SECRETS: How withholding your knowledge of UFOs can make you millions!"




posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea
Then there are those people who for all we know, may actually believe that the evidence presented in Ufology in support for the existence of UFO's and extraterrestrials is there but we would be the last one's to know that because they PREFER to publicly present themselves as skeptics of such phenomena where they are even wearing that skepticism as a BADGE OF HONOR just to prove to everybody else that they are BETTER and more SUPERIOR to us low-life's who are more honest and are not afraid of ridicule because we know that such phenomena exist also but we are not afraid to say so because saying anything otherwise would be out and out lying.


Badge of honor? Let's be honest here, the fact that I even read books on UFOs, am interested in the subject, and what's more, have written articles concerning the topic -- with my real name published in the byline -- does not grant me a badge of honor. It places me right down there with the rest of you "low-lifes." Believe me, I can't tell you how many interviews with editors of newspapers I've had and the subject of my UFO Magazine article comes up and I have to waste energy actually defending my belief in the validity of the subject.

Being a skeptic does nothing more than try to bring credibility into a subject that is otherwise convoluted and disjointed.



For those who wear their skepticism as a BADGE OF HONOR, they are living with the illusion that one is considered more politically correct and is more in synch with the existing status quo (but only as they perceive it) by presenting themselves as UFO skeptics even though statitics are showing in ever increasing numbers each year that goes by that more and more Americans believe that UFO's are out there!


See my comments above. You should see the snickers I get from fellow writers that I even research the subject. Again, no badge of honor here other than the love of solving mysteries and puzzles.



But rest assured, once the belief in UFO's among American's topples over that proverbial 'tipping point', these same people who are now proudly calling themselves skeptics will then miraculously morph themselves into believers as by then it would be politically incorrect to appear anything otherwise.

What's that tipping point you mention? The idea of "disclosure" that has been repeatedly said to be any day now for the past 40 years?


For such people like this, it's all about which way the wind blows.... not about things like honesty, integrity and the TRUTH!


Believing in what someone else tells you about UFOs does not contribute to the qualities of honesty, integrity and truth.






posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   


a skeptic would look at the man encouraging him to jump off the bridge and question the man's motives, question the actual depth of the water, heck, the skeptic would even question the bungee itself.


A skeptic would say that no such man exists and that the bridge was a mere reflection on the water, and the video-taped evidence of the bungee cord was photoshopped.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by HaveSeen4Myself


a skeptic would look at the man encouraging him to jump off the bridge and question the man's motives, question the actual depth of the water, heck, the skeptic would even question the bungee itself.


A skeptic would say that no such man exists and that the bridge was a mere reflection on the water, and the video-taped evidence of the bungee cord was photoshopped.


Touche'. That was very clever.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Erm, I didn't think I was being over the top when I
mentioned a 100% guarantee.
You're asking people to 'dump' their belief systems,
the idea that they're not top of the tree, the idea that
the world around them has been a sham, controlled by
Governments who are hand-in-hand with aliens.

Think about it, if I told you that the Earth is square,
and referred you to a website, would you instantly
accept my statement or would you investigate it
seriously and with a balanced view?

Remember, most so-called skeptics are merely
disappointed with the same old stories of mystery,
unproven revelations and finally, either a hoax or
an official answer that's ridiculed by certain parts
of the public.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join