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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Oh please spare me... just because YOU believe in UFO's uncatagorically still does not mean they exist.


Are you seriously suggesting that there are no UFOs? That everything flying around in the skies has been identified?

Now THAT's what I'd call a faith-based position.




posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright

Originally posted by grover
Oh please spare me... just because YOU believe in UFO's uncatagorically still does not mean they exist.


Are you seriously suggesting that there are no UFOs? That everything flying around in the skies has been identified?

Now THAT's what I'd call a faith-based position.


No, I don't get that feeling from what he is saying. If I might butt in the opinion of a humble bumbler, I was under the impression that he merely states that the OP's assumptions that alien 'UFOs' do not in and of themselves make the FACTS of alien UFOs' a reality. I don't see an intent to disprove alien 'UFOs' so much as to usurp the OP's claim that 'UFOs' are real based solely on him saying they are.

I hope that makes sense.. it seems clearer in my own mind..



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DigThat
I dont understand the people who labels themself as "skeptics" 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.


The word skeptic, in this context, does not have the same meaning as the conventional context. At least, it doesn't for me. When I call myself a skeptic, I mean that I don't jump to conclusions, seek facts before blind belief, and don't let wishful thinking interfere with careful investigation.

And yes, you're right, I wouldn't be here unless I thought sincerely that there was something to all this. I favor the hypothesis that what are flying around in the sky are craft. Maybe this is presumptive, and I would like to think that a) many things people see--the vast majority, in fact--are explainable and b) I am not opposed to my opinion changing based on other evidence put forward. But I would like to think that I can prove this upon a preponderance of the evidence using the evidence available: burn marks on the ground, soil samples, video, pictures, and the credible testimony of military witnesses.

I would not, however, cite people like Steven Greer, to support a claim that aliens have in their possession solutions to all of our energy problems, because his "evidence" is based on unsubstantiated testimony that I personally deem to be without credibility and his alleged conversations aliens that I also personally deem to be without credibility.

[edit on 1/23/2007 by Togetic]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I think that we have a problem with termonology here.

First. Stop calling them UFO's. UFO means Unidentified Flying Object. It means that there is something in the sky and you don't know what it is. If you want to refer to alien space vehicles call them something like ETV (Extra Terrestial Vehicle) or ETE (Extra Terrestial Entities).

Second. Stop misusing the word "Skeptic". A "Skeptic" is someone who's mind can be changed. I know, I happen to be one. "Close Minded" is a good term for someone who won't be convinced no matter how much information you present to them. For those who actively work against those who are trying to collect information, I prefer the term "Debunker".

Last. Stop using terms like "Evidence" and "Proof". Untill something like in the movie "The Day The Earth Stood Still" happens there is no "Evidence" or "Proof". You show up with a body or find a wrecked ship, that's "Proof". With the advances in technology, these days pictures are not "Proof". I am not calling all pictures fakes or misrepresented objects, I am just saying that there is no way to reliably confirm images these days.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Hank-
And maybe you're right. I just get a bit touchy with the term "UFO" being used interchangably with the concept of ET. Or EBE or whatever we're calling them this week.

I take the term "UFO" literally. And I fail to see how anyone can dispute that they do in fact exist. Now the "what" is very much up in the air, at least as far as I'm concerned, which is what I thought the OP was saying.

But don't mind me. I'm as cluess as anyone.

[Edit for typo]

[edit on 1/23/2007 by yeahright]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   
yearight,

I gotcha now. With that added bit about literally meaning no UFOs it makes total sense. With that, I agree. I see UFOs every day, mostly when I am not wearing my glasses.


They are real, even though some of them end up being birds, airplanes, and Venus.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I'm a skeptic. I never let anyone tell me what I am seeing or hearing.

I think the biggest contention between "skeptics" and "believers" is simply this:

"Skeptics" do not use UFO's as proof of E.T.'s. "Believers" do.

Images and video's of UFO's are interesting. I enjoy trying to figure out what the object is, if the media is hoaxed and what exactly is going on. I am not using the information to support any belief I may have of E.T.'s.

I wish that "believers" would step back and realize a skeptic is not necessarily trying to prove or disprove the existence of aliens. They are simply trying to figure out what the media is showing and if its authentic.





- NSBiz



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
First. Stop calling them UFO's. UFO means Unidentified Flying Object. It means that there is something in the sky and you don't know what it is. If you want to refer to alien space vehicles call them something like ETV (Extra Terrestial Vehicle) or ETE (Extra Terrestial Entities).

Second. Stop misusing the word "Skeptic". A "Skeptic" is someone who's mind can be changed. I know, I happen to be one. "Close Minded" is a good term for someone who won't be convinced no matter how much information you present to them. For those who actively work against those who are trying to collect information, I prefer the term "Debunker".

Last. Stop using terms like "Evidence" and "Proof". Untill something like in the movie "The Day The Earth Stood Still" happens there is no "Evidence" or "Proof". You show up with a body or find a wrecked ship, that's "Proof". With the advances in technology, these days pictures are not "Proof". I am not calling all pictures fakes or misrepresented objects, I am just saying that there is no way to reliably confirm images these days.


I agree with what you are saying. I find that I have been sloppy with my terminology, and I personally will try to change it.

With respect to the words "evidence" and "proof," I agree first that there has been no "proof" presented as of yet. The word has inherent in it a definiteness that none of the evidence has so far brought: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. See dictionary.reference.com....

On the other hand, the definition of evidence that I have used is "having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." This is a very broad definition; it is the one used in evidentiary proceedings in the courts, and is sufficient for this purpose. Given that definition, I have to ask what videos, testimony, etc. are if not evidence? And what are they if they do not apply to the classic definition of evidnece?



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Anyone care to read what the U.K. Ministry Of Defence has to say about UFOs?

Per the report, the phenomena of seeing something exists, but since there is absolutely no physical evidence, they pose no threat, nor show signs of intelligent life. So it is likened to a plasma ball, or weather phenomena that is not understood at the time of writing.

Is that report skeptical/dangerous?





[edit on 1/23/07 by makeitso]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by makeitso
Anyone care to read what the U.K. Ministry Of Defence has to say about UFOs?

Per the report, the phenomena of seeing something exists, but sise there is absolutely no physical evidence, they post no threat, nor show signs of intelligent life. So it is likened to a plasma ball, or weather phenomena that is not understood at the time of writing.

Is that report skeptical/dangerous?


Skeptical, yes. The report does not draw any conclusions after reviewing the available evidence. This assumes that they reviewed the evidence completely, objectively, and in good faith. Otherwise it is perhaps ideological.

Dangerous? Assuming that it was made a) in good faith and b) without intent to deceive, then no. Otherwise, perhaps not presently dangerous, but dangerous to disclosure and to principles of good government and openness.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DigThat
If you don't believe, then why the hell are you wasting your time?

You're looking at it as though its only black or white.

I personally am skeptical about most ufo sightings. Why? Because 99.9% of them are bunk. In this day and age, any bored 9th grader w/ a pc can create images and videos that, 10 years ago, were considered cutting edge. Now take that image or vid, save it to someone's hard drive. Then Modify the size, and repost it on some other website. Do that 4 more times, then add slick re-editing, a soundtrack, more effects, and post it on youtube.

What you end up with is a poor quality 7th generation product that kinda looks like it might be something interesting. However, you can't possibly inspect it and expect any reliable results...the quality just isnt there.

Then you get these people who find boards like this and they want to fit it. They want to be the BMOC. They create poorly scripted stories to garner "oooh"s and "ahhh"s from people. It makes them feel wanted. It gives them meaning.


Now having said all of that, I can admit that i have seen a ufo. Two in fact. Together. Up close (less than 100 yards). With 5 other witnesses.

The reason I can be so critical is that I truly despise these fakes and frauds, intentional or not. They detract from that .1% of real sightings and, the wilder the claim, the more thay make people like me look like complete flakes. And I don't like that one bit.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic
The word skeptic, in this context, does not have the same meaning as the conventional context. At least, it doesn't for me. When I call myself a skeptic, I mean that I don't jump to conclusions, seek facts before blind belief, and don't let wishful thinking interfere with careful investigation.

And yes, you're right, I wouldn't be here unless I thought sincerely that there was something to all this. I believe that what are flying around in the sky are craft. But I would like to think that I can prove this upon a preponderance of the evidence using the evidence available: burn marks on the ground, soil samples, video, pictures, and the credible testimony of military witnesses. I would not, however, cite people like Steven Greer, to support a claim that aliens have in their possession solutions to all of our energy problems, because his "evidence" is based on unsubstantiated testimony that I personally deem to be without credibility and his alleged conversations aliens that I also personally deem to be without credibility.

I wouldnt cite Steven Greer on many things either. However, some of the witnesses that he has are just those credible military witnesses that you speak of.

But just like you, I have a hard time believing certain things Steven Greer says and some of his witnesses. With that said, I don't think any of them have been proven wrong, and if you call yourself a skeptic - shouldnt the skeptical approach be used both ways? It seems to me people who calls themselves skeptics only use theyre skepticism when it suits them. Thats why I don't call myself a skeptic, I prefer the word logic.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Now having said all of that, I can admit that i have seen a ufo. Two in fact. Together. Up close (less than 100 yards). With 5 other witnesses.


Then we both have something in common.
Seeing is believing?



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Imagine a spectrum. Think of Believers and Skeptics as two sides of this spectrum. On the far left end of the spectrum you have Closed-minded Believers. On the far right end you have Close-minded Skeptics. Slightly left of center ar the Open-minded Believers and slightly to the right of center are the open minded skeptics. Right in the center of this spectrum are people who are neither Believers nor Skeptics, but are open minded to both ideas.

The "dangerous" people are at both far ends of the spectrum - that is the both the Closed-Minded Believer and the Close-Minded Skeptic. They are the ones that spread (unintentional) misinformation and add nothing at all to the conversations on this Board. Close-mindedness does a dis-service to both Believers and Skeptics.

The close-minded camps on the two sides of any issue are harmful to the legitimate claims made by each side.

An analogy to this can be illustrated by the two political parties here in the United States. Ultra-left wing liberals are actually harmful to the ideals of the Democratic Party, while Ultra-right wing conservatives are actually harmful to the Republican party.

Edited to add:
I personally am slightly to the right of center, meaning I'm a bit of a skeptic. I want to believe, but I don't take anything at face value. When I'm shown evidence of a ETV or UFO or whatever, I examine that evidence closely and try to think of other possible explanations before making a judgement.

[edit on 23-1-2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
the "dangerous" people are at both far ends of the spectrum
Yea, I totally agree. Ignorance is something that you must keep reminding yourself to stay clear off.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I'm a skeptic, but I really want to be wrong...
I want the saucer on the White House lawn, not
some blurry seagull-shaped, jolting video.

It's just the gaps that people reach across.

"I saw this and wondered what it may be"

"Oh I'm on the Galactic Council and also a
reptile, we were driving to Dulce and flew
over your house to make you see that earthlings
should leave nuclear devices alone"
AND
"I don't have to prove I'm an alien, but the guys
on Zeta Reticula asked me to come on this site,
not CNN, but this site to explain why we're taking
over your planet!"

Sometimes, it's just a plane or a bird... I too wish you
know.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DigThat

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Now having said all of that, I can admit that i have seen a ufo. Two in fact. Together. Up close (less than 100 yards). With 5 other witnesses.

Then we both have something in common.
Seeing is believing?

That doesn't mean that every blurry pic on the internet is proof. Which is my while point.

99.9% are still, most likely, false.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
That doesn't mean that every blurry pic on the internet is proof. Which is my while point.
99.9% are still, most likely, false.
I agree, never claimed otherwise. Well, I dont know if I would say that 99.9% are false but certainly most of em are.

[edit on 23-1-2007 by DigThat]

[edit on 23-1-2007 by DigThat]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   
how can anyone say aliens or ETs are a FACT? seriously.....NOTHING has been proven.

all you have are grainy vids, or stuff that is to blurry or far away or obviously fake to tell anything. so how can you say the only thing we should argue is how "they" are here???

ETs are NOT a prove fact. They are something a small group of people who seek something more out of life, belive in. im sure there are aliens are real but get real people they don't exist on earth.

the gov won't disclose anything becuase frankly they have nothing to disclose. there aren't secret aliens being held in some military base somewhere. there aren't people being abducted AT ALL. i dont care who you are or what you have to say, 99% of these alien stories are fake. crop circles = fake. UFO vids = grainy and NOT proof of anything. Abductees = not relieable AT ALL. usually dillusional or they mistake what happened to them in a dream as something that actually happened.

I love how these ufo believers think that the rest of the world is crazy because we won't belive some weak "proof" that they have tried to offer. skeptics aren't bad because they don't belive you..they just keep it real and say the things that you belivers do not want to admit.

just because you belive something, doesn't make it true.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
99.9% are still, most likely, false.


Not to be pedantic, but given the paucity of hard evidence, it might be more correct to say the 100% of alleged alien craft sightings are *probably* false. Let me illustrate: Let's say that I go into my back yard and find 100 marks in the soil from hooved animals. Would it make sense for me to say, "Well, sure the vast majority of these are just deer, but surely at least 1% of them (one hoof print) is from a unicorn, no?"

And the answer would be "No." Not a single mark in my back yard is from a unicorn. Even if I have 1000 marks in my soil, it doesn't really make sense to say that 99.9% of them are non-unicorn. They're probably ALL non-unicorn.

Just a point I had to make. I hear a lot of believer-hope tied up in that 5% or 1% or 0.1% of never-explained cases.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join