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.

 

CNN Anderson Cooper UFO Program TONIGHT

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by disownedsky
I don't think I'd want to carry the legal analogy too far, but those making the claim are the prosecution. The defense theoretically don't have to do anything, but if they're smart, they'll attack the credibility of the prosecution's case.

I just saw an opportunity to be sarcastic and gave the legal comeback, rather than the scientific.


Originally posted by disownedsky
In science, the [burden of proof] lies with those asserting the validity of a particular hypothesis. They can expect to have their case for their hypothesis sharply criticized by the rest of the community. This is healthy and normal and how science works.

Yes, I understand how that applies to the scientific minority, as the foundations of Science are challenged almost daily by researchers on the fringe. Of course, when upstart researchers pose their hypotheses to the Scientific establishment, they are well aware of the rules of the game and knowingly enter into that gauntlet, hopefully prepared for the fierce pummeling they are sure to receive from their elders and betters.

What I don't understand is why the skeptical/debunking community often takes it upon itself to discredit not only the evidence provided by UFO witnesses, but to further assail the character of the UFO witnesses — people who are often unassuming civilians with no stake in the scientific community whatsoever, who have no axe to grind, and who are thoroughly unprepared for a public flogging. I don't see such UFO witnesses as posing a challenge or hypothesis to the scientific establishment, but I do see why they might prefer to remain silent, rather than submit themselves and their evidence to public ridicule. In this respect, I see the skeptical Gestapo as hindering the accumulation of UFO evidence for closer scrutiny.


Originally posted by disownedsky
For example, if your hypothesis is that the recent Hawaii "UFO" that looks just like a contrail is an anomalous phenomenon (good luck with that!) then the burden is on you to show that what was observed doesn't have a prosaic explanation.

In truth, I have no hypothesis as to the true nature of the sightings in Hawaii. I have not investigated the sighting, I have not spoken with the witnesses, and I don't foresee a trip to the site, although I totally deserve a mid-winter Hawaiian vacation. Earlier, I pointed out that the CNN segment gave the Hawaii sighting short shrift as Nickell quickly declared it a "contrail" without addressing other puzzling aspects of the sighting, which have been reported/published elsewhere... Such as the two objects (not one) "circling" in the sky, failing to spike on NOAA and FAA radar, and appearing approximately one hour before a U.S. missile test.

Not remarking upon nor even acknowledging these odd details, I think, significantly cheapened the value of the sighting. Oh, it's just a contrail. Well, two, actually. Yes, two contrails of aircraft circling in military testing airspace. True, they didn't appear on radar. So, in the final analysis... It's just a contrail. End of story.

Where's that deeply inquisitive conviction on the part of the skeptical community? Of all people, don't they want to address the particulars of the case? Or is it easier to dismiss it without even so much as a Google search? The answer to that seems obvious.

— Doc Velocity




posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I am a skeptic, just an open-minded skeptic. I believe in research, going to a site and investigating and interviewing witnesses, and considering all sorts of natural phenomena and human activity in the area before rendering a verdict (opinion). Joe Nickell, of the Skeptical Enquirer, didn't research anything in preparation for denouncing it on CNN.


Regarding the Hawaii sighting, Joe dug deep into his research and said: "Eh, that looks like a contrail to me, if there are any other videos, I haven't seen them." Regarding the NC sightings, Joe wisely observed: "If what they saw in North Carolina was an extraterrestrial craft, the bad news is that it burned up on entry." However, Joe Nickell and the Skeptical Enquirer have not been on the ground in either North Carolina nor Hawaii to investigate these sightings. In typical Skeptical Enquirer fashion, Joe Nickell made a canned appearance in this segment to explain the uninvestigated, make a few quips, and sign off with a chuckle.
Now you're up to speed, Ludacris.

Like I said in my initial post, if you are specifically talking about the skeptic in the show, you have a point. This guy is clearly not a good skeptic. I have no issues with that.


Originally posted by Doc VelocityAnd yet, Ludacris, you just stepped into your own trap, trying to come at me like a toothless bear when, in fact, you're totally lacking information about me or the reasons I made my earlier comment. So, you're attacking without knowing the facts, based only on earlier derisive remarks I made about skeptics. You need to do a little more research before committing yourself like that, Lude.

I would make some sort of comment about your knowledge and common sense, but I have no evidence at this point that you're in possession of those items — let me do a little investigating first and I'll get back to you.



If the remarks you made were truely derisive, then I failed to see the mocking tone in your writing and so was a mistake on my part. Its hard to tell the tone of someone when you are reading it objectively. Wouldn't you agree with my opinion above if you thought someone held those (mockery) views seriously?



new topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join