Are skeptics disinformation agents?

Originally posted by HaveSeen4Myself
The hypnosis thing is uncharted territory for me. I have never been hypnotized to my knowledge although I have looked into it. What I need is someone to explain the process to me in a way that eases my concerns. Over the years, several people have recommended various websites to me. The ones I felt comfortable enough to try and contact never got back to me, so I have never actually talked to a hypnosis therapist. Finding someone I can trust in that capacity might be an impossibility, especially in light of the 'Homeland Security' intrusions of late. Any suggestions?

Homeland security "intrusions?" What does that mean? If you're implying that a hypnotherapist would leak your results to the feds, then that just may be a tad paranoid.

Just make sure a hypnotherapist is licensed and certified, preferrably as a regular psychology/therapist. That way they're bound by law to keep your info confidentially. And if they squeal to anyone, you can sue them and retire early.

I'm a skeptic, not because I'm anyone's agent, but because skepticism is the only way to approach any matter scientifically.

Science demands that proof consist of reproducible results, or at the very least compelling evidence. To my knowledge, no one has presented a single, solitary bit of proof, or even compelling evidence, that extraterrestrial aircraft have ever entered the Earth's atmosphere, or that they exist anywhere else, for that matter.

At this time, belief in "UFOs" ranks right there with belief in angels. Both are possible, in my opinion, but I've never knowingly seen either an angel or an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

When someone presents incontrovertible proof or I become convinced that I have seen one or the other, I will remain a skeptic of both.


[edit on 2007/1/9 by GradyPhilpott]

I'm with the OP and with haveseen.

you know why? ok i tell you folks.

i'm relatively new to this board, but one thing i've noticed are the hardcore debunkers and the hardcore skeptics.

I myself had a few experiences...but that's ot i guess. And that's why i don't like skeptics. they're always trying to debunk every ufo case as hoax, fake, bogus, weather....you name it.

They are closed minded, they hate it if someone has another worldview or believes stuff that's "out of the box". They are blind for other stuff. These are the same people that believed that the earth is flat. They are the so called "sheeple"

Some of them are not really skeptics...but they are "on the job" they simply have to debunk this stuff.The ones that are "on the job" (the so called "shills") sometimes admitt it through their handle/moniker/nickname or their avatar or something else...just look around carefully...you'll see what i mean...

Others are running a personel agenda...trying to convince everyone of their believesystem...that we are alone in the universe.

Althought they never convinced me to change my mind (they never ever will) ... however...sometimes they're successfull convincing other people.

I've seen several tactics on the net. they're always using the same tactics and excuses to debunk stuff.

Originally posted by AgainstSecrecy
i'm relatively new to this board, but one thing i've noticed are the hardcore debunkers and the hardcore skeptics.

Agreed; there are debunkers here who wouldn't believe in aliens or UFO's if one danced on their bed. On the other hand, there are people who take things solely on faith and expect others to believe them as well, then deride them as debunkers when they ask for a scintilla of proof. I put myself in a category of people who don't immediately believe that every UFO report that comes down the pike is true, but are willing to listen and not draw conclusions.

I myself had a few experiences...but that's ot i guess. And that's why i don't like skeptics. they're always trying to debunk every ufo case as hoax, fake, bogus, weather....you name it.

I'm not trying to debunk every case as a hoax. I have seen one or two weird things in my time, as well. I am trying to sift through the garbage to find the stuff worth considering and presenting to the public. Maybe there are others with an agenda, and I will admit that I have a preferred direction that I would like ufology to go in. But I am not insisting that everyone see it my way.

They are closed minded, they hate it if someone has another world-view or believes stuff that's "out of the box". They are blind for other stuff. These are the same people that believed that the earth is flat. They are the so called "sheeple"

I agree that there are closed minded people out there. But questioning, I hope you would agree, is not closed-minded. I would like to think it is an important capacity of being open-minded.

Some of them are not really skeptics...but they are "on the job" they simply have to debunk this stuff.The ones that are "on the job" (the so called "shills") sometimes admitt it through their handle/moniker/nickname or their avatar or something else...just look around carefully...you'll see what i mean...

Others are running a personel agenda...trying to convince everyone of their believesystem...that we are alone in the universe.

Althought they never convinced me to change my mind (they never ever will) ... however...sometimes they're successfull convincing other people.

Agreed. You're never going to change those people, and they're never going to believe you. I say ignore them.

I've seen several tactics on the net. they're always using the same tactics and excuses to debunk stuff.

I am curious to know what you mean.

Originally posted by Togetic
I am curious to know what you mean.

ok, i'll give you a few examples.

one tactic is to just claim it's "hoax, fake" without having any evidence to support the claim...just throw it into the room.

another tactic is to just claim it's soemthing else (weather, lighting, kite etc. ... choose one) also without having any evidence to support the claim. just throw it into the room.

another one is to offend the messenger or the message...name calling. make the messenger look like a fool...bringing him to a point were he looses credibility.

some are also faking "evidence" to support their claims.(mostly the faked "evidence" is very poor faked). if you bust them they offend you and call you names...

edit:

another one is to try to convince the people that they also are "believers" but in the same sentence claiming it's a hoax or weather etc.

another one is that they try to make themselfs look more credible ie: "i got a phd in blablablabla" or "i'm a imageing professionel... i know what i'm talking about" ... and stuff like that. but they got no real evidence to support this claim. and if they got it's clearly faked.

and a few more.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by AgainstSecrecy]

Those are all unethical tactics and I hope in the end that people avoid them. Let me say that again: if you call yourself a "skeptic" and use tactics like those listed above, I don't want you on my team. We're supposed to be working together on this thing, not undermining each other.

And yet, I don't want people who are making a claim to be offended when reasonable skeptics ask for proof. I, for example, want to find cases that can be presented to the public for the purpose of creating positive, political change that may someday result in disclosure.

I know that some may not wish to believe it, but there are a lot of people out there who will not take something like this--something that will redefine their very view of the Universe--on faith. Nor should we expect them to; I would find such the suggestion that they should offensive were I in their shoes.

That's why, like it or not, we're the ones who carry the burden of proof on this thing. I know that it's hard to accept for some people in the ufology community, but it's true. We need to accept that fact and start planning for how to do it. We're the ones who need to come up with the proof: and the proof needs to be clear and convincing. It is the only way that the public at large will be on our side.

And that's the rub, isn't it? This is the hard part: where do those who believe they have spiritual connections with other beings or who say that they can call flying saucers with their mind belong in the "New Ufology"? The long and the short of it is that they can't belong. What they say may very well be proven true someday, and if such a statement puts me on the outs with any cosmic beings I will have to accept that.

But the fact remains that those stories don't help to convince anyone. They merely open us--all of us--up to ridicule. They encourage people to make fun. But worst of all, it makes them not listen. And if you have profound beliefs, would you rather talk about them now and be made sport of, or give it 25 or 30 years for the pragmatists to soften everyone's hearts and then tell them your stories? Which, in the end, is better?

For all the people clashing in this forum, I believe that they are all seeking the truth: the undeniable, spiritually fulfilling, scientifically accurate truth. But it will take time. There must be a vanguard who can present the facts to people, who can make the people open their eyes and think about these subjects rationally. There must be a clear message presented with proof that people are not afraid to embrace.

When you say "I have been visited," and someone responds "do you have proof," don't take offense at that. We're not going to achieve disclosure by using those unprovable stories in place of hard evidence. Maybe it's unfortunate, but that's the way people are. For all we know, you have had some mystical experience that has changed your life for the better. And if you have, that probably makes you luckier than most of us.

I'm a skeptic....no dis info agent here though. My theory is this: try and debunk the crap out of everything and when you can't, well then it's worth looking into.

I believe that another race of people could be out there in another Galaxy, until they land and say hello though, I'll always remain a little skeptical about it.

Having said that, I posted in another thread about all the latest sightings and it is kind of getting my interest up.

Originally posted by HaveSeen4Myself

I submit that many people in the UFO field are disinfo specialists who create a constant string of hoaxes. If there ever was any truth, it is discounted by all the lies and fakes out there.

Absolute truth. Then, after they get through with the hoaxings, they get back to their real job as skeptics and debunkers of actual sightings.

I mostly agree(80%). Certainly, there are more pretending-skeptics then real skeptics. It is very convenient for agents to hide under the skeptic umbrella while pursuing their agenda rather than just admit they are disbelievers. Besides why would an ignorant and innocent disbeliever bother reading anything here? It would most certainly be a complete waste of time for them. From what I see here the same people are always the ones asking for proof/evidence only to claim it as fake once you post it! I am not saying we should belive everything all I am saying is that people should be more tolerant and open! THE FACT THAT MOST PEOPLE HERE ARE NOT IS CAUSE FOR SUSPICION!!!

I joined about a month ago and this is what i see:

"Skeptics"=70-80%
Skeptics= 10-20%
Believers= 5-10%

We live in a sad world indeed! For the record I am pro-disclosure but if the governments deem that the time has not come yet then I will accept that but I don't have to and shouldn't have to accept intolerance and rudeness from perpetual "skeptics"!

When I first joined I was also somewhat skeptical but after doing some online research I quickly became a believer! Its really that simple and as John Lear says "DEAL WITH IT"!

My gripe against UFO debunkers:

If they think something doesn't exist, then why do they waste their time trying to prove it doesn't exist? Doesn't the concentrated efforts of debunkers lend more credence to the very thing they're debunking? Do they spend their lives traversing the internet debunking everything they deem false?

At what point does someone decide to become a debunker? Is it destiny or are recruiters used? A typical day must be something like this:

After the morning motivational speech via webcast from the grand pooba debunker at headquarters, epsilon squadron's first assigment is on youtube to search and debunk any new UFO videos via the comments section by posting "ANOTHER OBVIOUS CGI FAKE" or similar. Copy/paste comments if possible to fill a few pages on each video. Then it's off to usenet, ATS, google, etc to rendezvous with special forces in a back-up role battling kooks with tin foil hats in conspiracy/UFO forums, while pretending to enjoy it.

Originally posted by HaveSeen4Myself
My gripe against UFO debunkers:

If they think something doesn't exist, then why do they waste their time trying to prove it doesn't exist? Doesn't the concentrated efforts of debunkers lend more credence to the very thing they're debunking? Do they spend their lives traversing the internet debunking everything they deem false?

I think they are more interested in imposing their beliefs than in finding any scientific proof, for or against.

At what point does someone decide to become a debunker? Is it destiny or are recruiters used? A typical day must be something like this:

After the morning motivational speech via webcast from the grand pooba debunker at headquarters, epsilon squadron's first assigment is on youtube to search and debunk any new UFO videos via the comments section by posting "ANOTHER OBVIOUS CGI FAKE" or similar. Copy/paste comments if possible to fill a few pages on each video. Then it's off to usenet, ATS, google, etc to rendezvous with special forces in a back-up role battling kooks with tin foil hats in conspiracy/UFO forums, while pretending to enjoy it.

I agree that UFO debunkers (as opposed to skeptics) are too conclusory and do not engage in scientific research. They need to stop and take a hard look at the evidence. They don't need to believe everything, nor do they need to accept everything someone says, but they need to take a good, hard look at the evidence. There is a a lot of good stuff out there that deserves a close look.