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.
Originally posted by HankMcCoy
Rufus from Dogma
"I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should be malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate."
Whether you believe UFO's are real, or you believe it is all nonsense, you are still BELIEVING in something, and beliefs are a dangerous concept, because they are hard to change.
Originally posted by DigThat
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.
Originally posted by Sophismata
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.
Originally posted by DigThat
Originally posted by Sophismata
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.
But if you saw a unicorn make a mark in your soil - Would you believe that a unicorn made an mark in your soil?
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Well, here's the thing...If sophismata claimed to see a unicorn, the believers on these boards would be saying things like "That's great!", and "Lucky You!", or "You must be an Indigo Child to have such great perception of Magical Creatures!"
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
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.
Originally posted by DigThat
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Well, here's the thing...If sophismata claimed to see a unicorn, the believers on these boards would be saying things like "That's great!", and "Lucky You!", or "You must be an Indigo Child to have such great perception of Magical Creatures!"
Some of the believers would - Not all of them.
You said it yourself:
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
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.
Originally posted by W_Heisenberg
I present for your consideration two out of several discussions on this board that do a disservice to factual discovery surrounding photographic evidence of intra- or extra-terrestrial activity.
In one, a color photograph of the evening sky was compared to one recorded by a color camera on the Atlantis STS. The photograph from low earth orbit could not possibly be the moon because the photographer ‘thought it would be bigger.’ And when magnified, the blobs in both photographs had similar gross characteristics in shape (circular) and color (grey). Therefore, they both were not only extraterrestrial vehicles, but the same make, model, and color.
ATS Link
Originally posted by polomontana
The skeptic in Ufology is dangerous because they give the governments power and they can manipulate the issue. The debate shouldn't be if UFO's exist, the only debate is are they extraterrestrial, interdimensional or both. The world is engrained with skepticism about ufology and that's because of people's personal belief systems. There's mountains of evidence that supports ufology and they exist without any reasonable doubt. When the Day of Visitation occurs the people will panic and the governments of the world will gain total control over them in order to protect them from the threat. The skeptic will allow this to occur because they don't allow for serious discussion and examination of ufology. Many of them want to discuss ufology as a myth or against the backdrop of an unreasonable standard. This allows them to give any unreasonable answer to suffice theirs and others belief systems. This will give governments total control. Like Reagan said, the governments would unite if they were faced with a threat from outside of this world. If there were serious dialogue about this situation and not ridicule the people would be prepared and educated about ufology and the more that's known would counter the governments spin. This is a dangerous situation and the skeptic has facilitated it. Look what Dr. Michio Kaku said a few years back:
Universities also discourage research by not granting tenure to
scientists who go out on a limb to study UFOs, said Dr. Kaku.
"It's a good idea," Dr. Kaku said, "to start asking these
questions only after you get tenure."
www.virtuallystrange.net...
What kind of nonsense is this? What happened to science being about exploration and seeking the truth? That's all baloney. Many of these people in the scientific establishment are skeptics. They are protecting their personal belief systems at the expense of reason. People will practically work for free to make sure the governments have what they need to protect us from what they will say is a threat. They will only be allowed to do this because of ignorance. People tend to ridicule what they don't understand so they don't have to look into the subject matter deeper. There's not a skeptic out their who can debunk ufology, they can muddy the waters by debunking a picture or a video and many people allow it because it supports their pre-existing beliefs. The skeptic has put the governments in a position to totally spin and control the situation and the masses will suffer because of it.
“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
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
"You must be an Indigo Child to have such great perception of Magical Creatures!"... while the skeptics on this board would say "did you get photos, videos, DNA, or maybe the ID out of his wallet?"
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
It bothers me to no end when people analyzing a photo claim "it can't be the moon, the moon would be larger". I always suggest that they take their normal camera (no telephoto lens...that would be cheating) and snap a photo of a really big-looking full moon. Then develop / download that photo. People would be amazed as to how tiny the moon will look in the picture.
Another thing that bothers me is the assertion that stars should be visible in a normal photograph (at normal exposure times that is). These people, too, should take their camera outside on a dark starry, starry night and snap a photo of the sky (no extra long exposure allowed - again that would be cheating). Then come inside and download that photo. Aside from Venus or possibly Sirius, there will be no stars or planets visible in the photo.
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
You, DigThat, said not all believers would accept this with no proof. Well, in my book that person is a skeptic. A skeptic, IMHO, is a person who asks questions and examines the evidence logically before drawing a conclusion (or concludes that the evidence is insufficient.) "Skeptic" does not need to be a dirty word around here
Originally posted by DigThat
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?
Originally posted by DigThat
I think its really the other way around.. Most of the so called Fair Skeptics deep down believes that flying saucers probably exists, but dont want to be giving the impression to the general public (and to an extent, themselves) that they are one of the "cooks" that believes everything and anything said, concerning the subject.
Originally posted by Togetic
Some would argue that pragmatism is the strategy of the government and those who want to see disclosure stopped. Well, look at who's winning right now. Idealists and ideologues are running the joint, and we've never been farther from disclosure.
Is it selling out? Maybe. But is the goal here disclosure? It appears to me like some would have it be making everyone else think what they think.
Originally posted by DigThat
I think you're partly right. But I dont see how the skeptical approach will bring disclosure, not if you mean on a short term basis. Maybe on a very long term. People have just to much other stuff to worry about.. I think that way would not work until we have to stopped fighting wars and stopped arguing over trivial matters.. I may be wrong
I think the disclosure project was a very good concept in trying to force disclosure. It certainly created a media buzz, and I think thats what you need in todays society. However, they made a mistake when they brought on witnesses like Clifford Stone who started talking about the "nordics" and stuff. Even if hes telling the truth, if they want people to come to the realization, or should I say be open to the possibility, that flying saucers are real, and "we're not alone"; They should have started with witnesses that seems more credible and a less "out there". But I cant really critize them when they atleast made an effort, and I havent.