UFO sceptic forums?

Just a thought but does anyone actualy know any UFO sceptic forums out there?.
Obviously there are many noisy,prejudiced,unimpartial UFO cynics in the sceptic community but Im interested if theres any sane,non hysterical,objective ones.
Cheers Karl

Sure. I have a link for you right here:

Link



edit = fixed link

[edit on 2/18/2007 by Mechanic 32]

Thanks for that .This is a very good one (although I think this site is specificaly for proponents of the UFO subject ) .
Do you not think UFO sceptic forums are conspicuous by their absence as,
with some very narrow minded folk attempting to shoehorn rational explanations (and blatantly ignoring glaring contradictions/discrepencies/facts) to explain some events;they fail to back up their own arguments with an open forum?
Thanks for the reply.
Cheers Karl

karl, sorry for the biased humor there.

But no I personally know of no Forum just for "sane,non hysterical,objective" skeptics.

But then again, I don't get out much. I'm a confirmed ATS-a-holic.


edit for spelling and to add:

Originally posted by karl 12

although I think this site is specificaly for proponents of the UFO subject

Actually I don't find that to be true. I see both sides here. Both skeptics and believers.

From the fanatical that believe that they are here already, to those that believe that this is some form of mass illusion.

Only you (or any individual) can decide for yourself what you truly believe.

Good luck with your research, and keep your eyes to the sky.


[edit on 2/19/2007 by Mechanic 32]

Mechanic! I suppose your right as I realise in both beleiver and sceptic camps their exists a lunatic fringe.
Being a true sceptic involves impartialy going where the evidence takes you (free from preconceived notions) and arriving at judgements AFTER dispassionately examining evidence-something I see very little of with some self proclaimed sceptics.
Of course one will occasionaly encounter small minded cynics who pour derision and scorn onto the subject but ,on the whole i think the ATS community is quite well balanced and objective.
What I realy wondered was why there is no UFO sceptic forums out there.
Im not suggesting they cannot back up their own arguments and are scared of open ,honest debate but find it quite telling that,although many debunkers get well paid for tv soundbytes,they do not enjoy debating their own viewpoints.
Cheers Karl

I think the reason there are no forums is because it would be limited in scope, they would say "no proof" and that would be that, which is why sceptics join forums like this, cause then they can get more balance, I don't think "everything" on ATS is true, but some of it's alot of fun, and I'll debate either side as it suits me that day, thats why I love this place, I'm more interested in someones convictions, rather then "proof" of UFO's ( a term that I detest)

Originally posted by karl 12
Being a true sceptic involves impartialy going where the evidence takes you (free from preconceived notions) and arriving at judgements AFTER dispassionately examining evidence

Hi Karl 12,

Well, most members of most Forums (from ATS forums to Randi's forums, from UFO Updates to Ufologyinuk, etc etc) would claim that they are sceptics according to that definition...

Kind Regards,

Isaac

Mystery is always more fun than skepticism.

The hardcore skeptics that I've known are entrenched in a mindset of rationally explaining everything, as though mankind's Science is the last word in physical (and superphysical) possibility. To me, this is very much like goldfish in a bowl, attempting to explain everything they see in terms of water, gravel and fish flakes. Which is an overly-generous analogy, I suppose, considering that goldfish probably know a great deal more about water, gravel and fish flakes than human skeptics know about their world as explained by Science.

But, in both instances, we have captive observers, viewing the universe through a very narrow window of personal experience, and projecting their finite notions of existence only to the limits of their experience, basically refusing to entertain any notions that transcend their powers to render an explanation. In short, if it defies Scientific explanation, it simply doesn't exist.

In this respect, Science is no different than religion, inasmuch as both systems of thought are human-centric and earth-centric and, apparently, have very little to do with the infinitely diverse remainder of the universe. It's funny how Science has explained everything to the far reaches of our perception — that's how it's presented, anyway, with quasars, black holes and big bangs permeating our thinking and language today — but the "scientific universe" is nothing but a veil of theory that enshrouds 99.999999% of our understanding.

I mean, we can't even figure out what makes our own planet tick, nevermind the vast reaches of outer space. So, why limit ourselves to accepting only that which fits into our primitive scientific models? We can conceive of so much more than Science can validate — so what if a malcontent minority of skeptics relegate UFOs, BigFoot and the Bermuda Triangle to the realm of nonsense? If they want to confine themselves to a narrow perception of reality, good luck to them.

I know this — everything that Science is today was once considered nonsense. A century from now, today's skeptics and scientific dogmatists will be considered the court jesters of the 21st Century. And the one thing that will remain constant is the human capacity to seek mystery over mundane scientific explanations.

— Doc Velocity

Allan Hynek was a skeptic at first...maybe check out his story........
Skeptics are having a hard time these days and keeping up with the frequency and intensity of the reports cant be easy.
Too many mass sightings are happening all over the world to actually keep up a pretense of skepticism much longer.....
There is a preponderance of evidence that has built over time which becomes hard to debunk.......
Even if they debunk one thing there is two new sightings to take its place.
Many remain UNEXPLAINED.........................
It is a matter of pride that this site remains both skepticall and neutral in investigating the reports which it gets....The pros and cons get a thorough thrashing here.
It is high time somebody collected just the unexplained cases and compiled them.....
French UFO investigations about to be released may be helpfull,
they seem to have a more scientific base to their investigations...


[edit on 19-2-2007 by bergle]

Bergle. Its also interesting to note that Nick Pope was also an admitted UFOsceptic(as was Dr Allen J Hyneck) before starting work at the UK government's 'Ministry of defense' UFO desk.
As with Dr Hyneck(Project blue book);after extensive research into military,radar corellated reports/civilian pilot testimony both completely reversed their positions and became convinced of the reality of this subject.
It strikes me as quite strange that many UFO cynics rarely read any government literature/authors on this topic yet assume they posess an informed opinion.
If you havent read it already'Open skies closed minds' by Nick Pope is an excellent book(As is 'Above top secret' by Timothy Good)
Cheers Karl

"Being a true sceptic involves impartialy going where the evidence takes you (free from preconceived notions) and arriving at judgements AFTER dispassionately examining evidence"


Hi Karl 12,

Well, most members of most Forums (from ATS forums to Randi's forums, from UFO Updates to Ufologyinuk, etc etc) would claim that they are sceptics according to that definition...

Kind Regards,

Isaac

Isaac ,Thanks for the reply,Im sure many people are impartial and objectively research his phenomenon.
(But)there does exist within sceptic groups hystericaly prejudice 'UFO cynics 'who foster the childish mindset
"Dont bother me with the facts my minds made up"
These folks are obviously just as bad as people who think everythings a UFO and do a great disservice to the subject.
As I have mentioned above,these people have no qualms about appearing on television documentaries for large sums of money yet it seems are notably reticent to openly and honestly debate their position.
Cheers Karl

Originally posted by karl 12
Thanks for that .This is a very good one (although I think this site is specificaly for proponents of the UFO subject )

?
This forum is for discussion of UFOs, aliens, etc. Doesn't matter if you are pro or con.

Do you not think UFO sceptic forums are conspicuous by their absence

Why would someoen who doesn't beleive in UFOs have a forum where other peopel who don't beleive in UFOs can come and discuss UFOs?

If you want a place to openly discuss UFOs, without having to toe some pro or con line, then this is the best place on the net for it.

I consider myself to be a fairly rational (American with a "k") skeptic, however I'm not interested in bypassing logic and reason just so I can "explain away" something. I'm not quite sure what the point of that would be.

The most prevalent argument used by skeptics when it comes to UFOs is, "since the sighting or photo could have been ___________, then that is what it must have been." Since Kenneth Arnold's flying saucers "could have been birds, then that's what they must have been. Case closed." Or somebody will say, "re-entering space junk can look like what you describe, so that's what you saw," without offering any decent evidence or proof that that was what the person really saw.

I've seen that argument in a hundred different forms, and it doesn't become any more rational or logical the more I see it. I just continues to stink.

Because there are hoaxers and lunatics and people who just make good old simple mistakes, I personally think a healthy skepticism is the only rational way to approach the subject of UFOs. Either that, or you get into the same conundrum as religious folk who accept one nutty prophet as telling the truth, who have to then accept just about every other nutty prophet who comes along. If I accept one blurry video of a LITS as proof positive of alien contact with Earth, then I pretty much have to accept them all, don't I?

I generally try to stay away from fanatics on either end of the spectrum, who feel that they have to take an absolute stand one way or another on the subject and then defend that position to the death.

Anyway, I remain skeptical, but I prefer to simply say, "I don't know," or "I don't have enough information," rather than try to convince myself or someone else of the relative significance of one lousy bit of questionable evidence, either pro or con.

So I guess I do the opposite of "deny ignorance," by actually admitting and embracing my ignorance, as opposed to declaring something "explained" based on insufficient information.