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.

 

Skeptics are dangerous: here's why

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I don't know if its a result of 'perceiving what I expect', or factual, but I find the close-minded, generalizing, unwavering attitudes to be held by posters referred to as 'believers'. It appears to be the 'skeptics' who want to discuss alternative possibilities before passing judgement. And, help me with this, are there any 'skeptics' on this forum that do not admit that something bizarre and unknown is happening on a fairly regular basis?




posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
But so far, the UFO community has offered only fakes and blurry photos (and blurry bird photos at that) and aliens who only come down to talk to a few and never seem to want to talk or meet with governments in public.

I feel this comment can be put down to complete(wilfull)ignorance of many facts regarding this subject.
Works by Richard Dolan,Timothy Good,Dr Allen J Hyneck,Nick Pope,Jaques Vallee and Matthew Hurley have all shown there are many good reasons,both scientific and circumstantial, to beleive this subject is not all fantasy.
At 'black vault .com' there exist many 'Freedom of information act' declassified government documents which clearly show how many countries and organisations such as NATO and the UN take this subject seriously.
Also there are many accounts of objects being plotted on multiple radar over military installations/nuclear facilities and sworn eyewitness testimony has been taken from trained military observers - it is becoming more and more presumptive to blatantly ignore these accounts.
Regarding the circumstantial evidence I suggest you attempt to impartialy watch the full disclosure project film which also shows academics,scientists and high ranking military officials views on the subject.
Obviously there is no unequivocable evidence but it is worth remembering that even if one percent of this subject is true then it is a real one.
If you dont look objectively and extensively into this subject then how can you hope to hold an informed opinion?
Cheers Karl
PS Paintings 8,9 and 18 are quite interesting as they were painted hundreds of years ago
xfacts.com...
PPS Its also worth remembering that Dr Allen J Hyneck and Nick Pope were both admitted sceptics before starting work for their respective governments investigating this subject.
After several years of impartial research,both completely reversed their positions.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I love the way that skeptics portray UFO believers as so gullible that we do not possess the intelligence to question any and all claims made. I also love how skeptics portray themselves as superior in the critical thinking department. Gee, one could gather that if not for skeptics, the world would regress back into the dark ages.

Let's reflect a little....shall we?

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 deliver this message to future generations. They depicted UFOs in their artwork, etched drawings on the ground and into granite walls, and even included their accounts in biblical texts. They laboriously constructed beacons of information; some of the most massive structures on the planet, specifically meant to focus our attention to the heavens. Many of these sites are characterized by advanced techniques of engineering and astronomy which are still mind-boggling by modern standards. By contrast, where is all the evidence of skeptical ancestry (i.e. ancient messages claiming UFOs are B.S.)? To discount the CONSENSUS of virtually all previous intelligent civilizations is the epitome of blissful ignorance, and hardly an example of refined critical thinking.



[edit on 1/23/2007 by HaveSeen4Myself]

[edit on 1/23/2007 by HaveSeen4Myself]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by HaveSeen4Myself
I love the way that skeptics portray UFO believers as so gullible that we do not possess the intelligence to question any and all claims made. I also love how skeptics portray themselves as superior in the critical thinking department. Gee, one could gather that if not for skeptics, the world would regress back into the dark ages.

Let's reflect a little....shall we?

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 deliver this message to future generations. They depicted UFOs in their artwork, etched drawings on the ground and into granite walls, and even included their accounts in biblical texts. They laboriously constructed beacons of information; some of the most massive structures on the planet, specifically meant to focus our attention to the heavens. Many of these sites are characterized by advanced techniques of engineering and astronomy which are still mind-boggling by modern standards. By contrast, where is all the evidence of skeptical ancestry (i.e. ancient messages claiming UFOs are B.S.)? To discount the CONSENSUS of virtually all previous intelligent civilizations is the epitome of blissful ignorance, and hardly an example of refined critical thinking.



[edit on 1/23/2007 by HaveSeen4Myself]

[edit on 1/23/2007 by HaveSeen4Myself]


Not sure who you are trying to convince about the possibility that UFO can be extraterrestrial in nature. No one claiming to be a skeptic has claimed anything to the contrary.

Here a definition of the word skeptic.

skep·tic –noun

1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.


Now does that sound so bad?

[edit on 23-1-2007 by greerISaFraud]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   
In a very real sense, you have a point... Although I am a believer in UFOs... I do think that honest skepticism is needed. However, unfortunately, that is indeed in short supply. This is when skeptics become dangerous... They become almost overjoyed to try and "debunk" any claim simply because it goes against what they have been told all of their lives..



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by HaveSeen4Myself
I love the way that skeptics portray UFO believers as so gullible that we do not possess the intelligence to question any and all claims made. I also love how skeptics portray themselves as superior in the critical thinking department. Gee, one could gather that if not for skeptics, the world would regress back into the dark ages.

Let's reflect a little....shall we?

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 deliver this message to future generations. They depicted UFOs in their artwork, etched drawings on the ground and into granite walls, and even included their accounts in biblical texts. They laboriously constructed beacons of information; some of the most massive structures on the planet, specifically meant to focus our attention to the heavens. Many of these sites are characterized by advanced techniques of engineering and astronomy which are still mind-boggling by modern standards. By contrast, where is all the evidence of skeptical ancestry (i.e. ancient messages claiming UFOs are B.S.)? To discount the CONSENSUS of virtually all previous intelligent civilizations is the epitome of blissful ignorance, and hardly an example of refined critical thinking.


I don't quite understand your point. You seem to be making the argument that believers have existed throughout history and we are foolish not to heed their messages. A reasonable skeptic does not discount that fact (I hope). Indeed, there are many fascinating images of gods throughout cultures that have common themes, such as gods coming from the heavens. It's another piece of the puzzle that must be considered along with the totality of the circumstances. A reasonable believer, likewise, needs to recognize that we need to put energy into researching, for example, ball lightning, so that it can be either posited or discounted as a potential explanation for what people see.

I will be honest: as someone who considers himself a "fair" skeptic in the vein of other respondents on the list, if I had to make a determination based on all the available evidence, I would be forced to conclude that there is valid testimony and documentation that there is something going on and that the extraterrestrial explanation is not outrightly discounted. I have read more books on the subject than I can even remember, and something is happening. And it's more than airplanes. I just cannot say what it is, I can only say what it might be. And, as a personal policy, I try to keep speculation to a minimum, or I clearly label it as such.

On the other hand, I am not ready to conclude that these things are aliens, gods, or even military men. Likewise, I think the people who believe that any aliens are either all good or all bad are engaged in wishful thinking. The testimony of people who have been allegedly abducted is contradictory and incomplete regardless of questions about its veracity.

Looking through this list is an incredible expose of ideology and blind faith--to nothing and to something. It's rather sad, honestly. It's the reason why, since I have been on this forum, I have advocated the creation of a new group that disregards and openly criticizes the fallacies of the fringes and works to collect objective evidence and credible testimony.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   

. It's the reason why, since I have been on this forum, I have advocated the creation of a new group that disregards and openly criticizes the fallacies of the fringes and works to collect objective evidence and credible testimony.


I would support that 100%, and think that it is exactly what is needed.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86
I vote that we take all the skeptics out back and shoot 'em like the mad dogs they obviously are ...

Um ... er ... ahhh ... Wait a sec'! I'm a skeptic, and a fair one at that. See my signature.


The unfortunate thing here is that ,from hard core debunker to hard core believer, and all the shades in the middle, we are tied to the human condition. It's obvious that there are varying or individual needs for different levels of proof.

If your level of required proof is lower, or higher than mine, then so be it. If it is so all-fired important that you get me around to your way of thinking then it is your problem. You need to come up with the evidence that will sway me to your way of thinking.

On the other hand, if you truly believe that flying saucers (UFOs) are full of little green twinkies from the planet Munimula, and you are happy with that particular belief system, then what does it matter what I think? Adding my belief scalp to your belt will not change the reality of the UFO or the unreality of the UFO, one bit.

I think you will find, in the end, that the little green twinkies from the planet Munimula, will exist or not, whether I am skeptical or not. Nect Pas????


I heartily agree with you.


You have voted sigung86 for the Way Above Top Secret award.


I think ufology needs to realize that regardless of the beliefs of others it must set for itself a high bar of proof; it is the only way that the public at large will take ufology seriously and pay attention. I do not ask believers to abandon their beliefs, but I do ask them to a) not represent your beliefs as a part of ufology because it hurts your cause more than helps by alienating people and b) demand that the public be given the proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they are entitled to before they must re-evaluate their own belief systems!

And likewise, I ask skeptics to not be so overly harsh in their skepticism. The skeptics owe it to the public to set a standard of proof, and they must be willing to accept proof that meets that standard. As Sherlock Holmes said, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." I believe the fair skeptics would agree that skeptics do not have a monopoly on determining what is improbable. There must be a point where their skepticism will be satiated.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
But so far, the UFO community has offered only fakes and blurry photos (and blurry bird photos at that)

Ok, your post has merit, but I had to comment on this ^^^ part.

This time last year there was a thread w/ a pic of a seagull flying over San Diego harbor. Seagull. Clear as day to anyone who has gone outside and actually seen a bird. But there were like 12 pages of "OMG!!!111 its a ufo!!!!" and "proof positive!!! here it is!!!". *sigh*

Thats when I decided to stop lurking and register. I did resist the urge to scream my lungs out in that post though...



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by HaveSeen4Myself
I love the way that skeptics portray UFO believers as so gullible that we do not possess the intelligence to question any and all claims made. I also love how skeptics portray themselves as superior in the critical thinking department. Gee, one could gather that if not for skeptics, the world would regress back into the dark ages.


I am glad you brought up that point.

Skeptics are the ones that look at the world as it is and say, "No, this isn't all there is." Not ready to believe the world was flat, Columbus decided to search for a better trade route to the Orient.. and doubled the size of the known world. This is merely one example of progressive thought brought on by a skeptical view of man's limitations. Go ahead and do your own research, there are hundreds of examples.

True progess ALWAYS comes from those not willing to believe in the limitations of even their imaginations. True progess comes from a skeptical mindset willing to take chances, be wrong, and throw away their beliefs. THAT is why a 'skeptic' will be the one to make the breakthrough for Ufology.

[edit on 23-1-2007 by HankMcCoy]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
Okay, correct me if I misunderstand. As I read the OP, what (s)he seems to be saying is that the question should not be whether or not UFOs exist, the question should be "what are they"?

I don't think the OP is suggesting skepticism should not exist at the individual theory level. Since there's no true consensus as to what the UFO phenomena really constitute, you'd be in a position of believing everything if you weren't skeptical, wouldn't you? Impractical, to say the least.

Especially in reference to Dr. Kaku's statements - a bit absurd to question the existence of UFOs. Skepticism about their existence makes no sense. Skepticism about the myriad of theories of their origins makes perfect sense, to me.

So there's skepticism and there's skepticism.

Maybe.


Bingo!! That was exactly my point.

Nobody is talking about a single video or picture, I'm talking about the whole of ufology. Just like a theory in physics or biology that doesn't work out doesn't discredit those fields, a video or picture that's debunked doesn't discredit ufology. The skeptic tries to illuminate a strange story or a video or picture and then blanket ufology with it. That makes no sense. Nobody is talking about just believing things on face value. There's plenty of evidence out there to draw a conclusion about ufology. Skeptics don't want to do this because they want to continue to debate and debunk the next picture. This is a way to avoid the issue. The issue is about ufology as a whole and you can say that these things exist without any reasonable doubt.

Ufology cannot be debunked. U.F.O.'s exist and there's circumstantial and direct evidence to examine. Skeptics want the debate to continue to be in the realm of mythology because then any unreasonable answer will feed what they already believe. You can have a ship that stops on a dime, shoots straight up and then disappears and the skeptic can call it a kite and it will be reasonable to most of them because it supports the priori that U.F.O.'s don't exist. This is their answer before they even asks the questions.

This is dangerous because our actions are starting to affect other beings throughout the multiverse. We have to advance mentally as our technology advances because it makes no sense to continue to deny our connection to them. It's the ego that thinks in terms of it's just me.

This will allow the governments of the world to control the situation when the Day of Visitation occurs. Some will be taken and this will cause a widespread panic. Governments will unite in the name of protecting humanity and people will get chipped in order not to be taken. People will work for nothing in order to build things like Star Wars in order to protect themselves. The skeptic will have helped to facilitate this because they have not allowed a serious discussion on these things. People could be better prepared because the evidence clearly points to their existence, the only debate is are they extraterrestrial, interdimensional or something else.

It's really a sad state of affairs because the evidence is right there in black and white. We send people to death row based on less evidence. There's more evidence for Ufology than there is for black holes. Black holes don't threaten the ego or that person's pre-existing belief system, U.F.O.'s do. This happens with things like psychic ability. The skeptic will bring up Miss Cleo or Sylvia Browne and try to blanket all psychics with them. It's very dishonest and it does a disservice to humanity.

“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



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Although it has been said that many UFO cynics bring nothing to the table but hysterical prejudice and noisy negative mindsets, I think there is a great importance for true sceptics.
A true sceptic is a person that neutraly follows the facts and goes where the evidence takes them(free from preconceived notions).
I think the trouble arrives when small minded folk set themselves up as 'sceptics' with absolutely no intention of impartialy investigating reports.
Its probably more about attention defecit disorder with these people than an objective desire for a definitive explanation to the subject.
Somewhere in the middle of hysterical cynicism and hopeless gullibility is the best place to put oneself when looking into this topic.
The attitude"Dont bother me with the facts,my minds made up" belongs in the middle ages.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Togetic your words are very wise and well received. If all self proclaimed skeptics thought along the same lines as yourself, I think the division that exists in the UFO community would not be nearly as defined.

I have a serious problem with the 'UFOs don't exist' skeptics, however. These are often the ones who are the most vocal and quick to ridicule. UFO believers are an integral part of those who consider themselves fair skeptics, myself included.

I had an experience when I was 12 years old that included interaction with an EBE. Up until that encounter, I wasn't even concerned with the subject of alien life. For this reason, I cannot expect everyone to accept the idea freely.

Again, Togetic, I am very impressed with your skeptical open-mindedness. In no way would I ever try to belittle someone with an outlook on the idea of UFO/aliens such as yourself. I wanted to make sure we were on the same page and also further clarify my position.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   
The argument "they're out to get us!" is beyond counterproductive. We can do better than that. First, if there was some organization out there trying to stop ufology, they're doing a really crappy job at it. I'm sure that the last time Stanton Friedman tried the brakes on his car they worked.

Second, if there was a group out there trying to undermine ufology and disclosure: so what? Why does that stop you? So what if no one believes what we're saying sometimes? So what if there are conspiracies wrapped within black projects? Forget them all. They are statements that, if true, helps only the conspirators. We're all very smart people here who are just trying to do what's right: never lose sight of that.

I am increasingly convinced that ufology is as much if not more a victim of its own internalized defeatism as it is public resistance.
But I am also convinced that it can change.

[edit on 1/23/2007 by Togetic]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by HaveSeen4Myself
Togetic your words are very wise and well received. If all self proclaimed skeptics thought along the same lines as yourself, I think the division that exists in the UFO community would not be nearly as defined.

I have a serious problem with the 'UFOs don't exist' skeptics, however. These are often the ones who are the most vocal and quick to ridicule. UFO believers are an integral part of those who consider themselves fair skeptics, myself included.

I had an experience when I was 12 years old that included interaction with an EBE. Up until that encounter, I wasn't even concerned with the subject of alien life. For this reason, I cannot expect everyone to accept the idea freely.

Again, Togetic, I am very impressed with your skeptical open-mindedness. In no way would I ever try to belittle someone with an outlook on the idea of UFO/aliens such as yourself. I wanted to make sure we were on the same page and also further clarify my position.


I appreciate that. I'm sure there's stuff that you and I disagree on, but I hope that our conversation--and that of others--helps to raise the tone.

I also hope that the post immediately above this one doesn't come across as insulting--it's meant to be more of a positive pep talk than anything.

[edit on 1/23/2007 by Togetic]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Reality hurts,Thanks for reply.That part of the post wasnt mine as I was quoting someone else.
I do agree with you that some on both sides of the fence are far too gullible or cynical.
It would be nice to have an open,non hysterical,impartial look into various reports free from this.
It has now been said that anybody who suggests all UFO sightings are misidents or hoaxes deserves just as much ridicule as the UFO reporters usualy receive themselves.
I would tend to go along with this since many objects are corellated on radar travelling at tremendous speeds,executing right angle turns and performing unprecedented aerial manouverability and flight characteristics.
Many 'sceptical'explanations for these events omit vast swathes of factual evidence and assume many contradictory notions;they also tend to utterly disregard trained pilot testimony.
Attempting to shoehorn in rational explanations is a sport for some and they completely ignore all other factual discrepencies,maybe its more about the insecure need to explain something that does not fit into their own narrow version of reality .
The same criticism should be applied to the over gullible folks when they see photographs of seagulls and tend to think everything is a UFO.
There is a fine line and that is why the scientific method of non agenda based ,impartial and objective study is so important.
At present sceptics like to pretend they are on the side of critical, scientific thinking but nothing could be further from the truth.
Cheers Karl



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by polomontana
This is dangerous because our actions are starting to affect other beings throughout the multiverse. We have to advance mentally as our technology advances because it makes no sense to continue to deny our connection to them. It's the ego that thinks in terms of it's just me.

This will allow the governments of the world to control the situation when the Day of Visitation occurs. Some will be taken and this will cause a widespread panic. Governments will unite in the name of protecting humanity and people will get chipped in order not to be taken. People will work for nothing in order to build things like Star Wars in order to protect themselves. The skeptic will have helped to facilitate this because they have not allowed a serious discussion on these things. People could be better prepared because the evidence clearly points to their existence, the only debate is are they extraterrestrial, interdimensional or something else.



Hello Polomontana.

I would like to continue with this discussion, but these paragraphs makes no sense to me at all.

How do you know that our actions are affecting others in the mulitverse? Who is telling you this?

So you are saying that one day the aliens will come (again how do you know this) and our governments and people will panic and build space weapons and that it is the skeptics fault for not believing sooner?

Is this what you are saying?



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Okay seriously, enough with the skeptics are dangerous - skeptics are disinformation agents. This just reeks of a person who wants to silence all voices that oppose their viewpoint and I think the world already has enough of that. If UFO’s exists prove it. I believe in UFO and I believe aliens from other worlds control them but I can offer no solid proof.

For every hardcore skeptic there are two fanatically gullible believers who are equally, if not more, harmful.



[edit on 23-1-2007 by zerotime]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Oh please spare me... just because YOU believe in UFO's uncatagorically still does not mean they exist. Maybe they do and maybe they don't...either way a refusal to think skeptically is one step short of dogmatism.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I dont understand the people who labels themself as "skeptics" and not "believers" in the world of ufology. I'll make an comparison..

I don't believe that Vampires or Bigfoots is/has been real because there arent any proof of it, right? This make me a "skeptic" of Vampires and Bigfoot, yes? I don't spend time trying to convince anyone that might think they are real. Why I don't do that is because I think that would be a big waste of my time - cause the people who believes that they do exist will do so regardless of what i say.

Now people who claims they are skeptical that Unidentfied Flying Objects - or more precisly, "flying saucers" is something that is real; why would they then spend so much time on the subject, if they didnt think there would be anything to it? I mean what would be the point? I'm also skeptical to stories of indivduals I dont trust. Does this make me skeptical if flying saucers exist? No, it doesnt..

When you have witness testimony by multiple, experienced, credible, proffesional trained pilots - and on top of that in some cases got both ground and airborne radar confirmation to back them up. To then dismiss it as some weather phenomon, swamp gas, cooks or hoaxers wouldnt make them skeptical, it would make them ignorant.

In short: If you don't believe, then why the hell are you wasting your time?

[edit on 23-1-2007 by DigThat]

[edit on 23-1-2007 by DigThat]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join