Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Pseudoskeptics and Disinformants on ATS

page: 8
70
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Wow, this www.eceti.org... is really interesting!



That is interesting. Ive seen orbs like this myself, which is why I dont buy the "its a camera malfunction" explanation.




posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Phil J. Fry
 


I thought it was clear from the opening post that there is a difference between the skeptic (= good, = you) and the pseudoskeptic.

Nice post!



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Thank you and yes, from your initial post, it was clear what you are talking about. Unfortunately not all members share the same view as i have shown in my post and for them, you, me, everyone is a disinfo agent, as soon as you dare not to share their opinions



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I just realize that you list "CatHerder" as one of your ATS-friends. Sorry if I offended you in any way. It was wrong of me to name examples. I have no evidence whatsoever that the name mentioned is a disinfo-agent.

I dont wish to silence those who disagree with me either...


CatHerder was not a friend until you made me aware of him; after reading the post you directed me to, I decided to add him.

If it was wrong to a name him, if you have no evidence that he is a disinfo-agent, then why did you name him? This only furthers and strengthens the idea that you are trying to silence those you do not agree with, and cast a pallor of suspension on anyone who engages in skepticism.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

CatHerder was not a friend until you made me aware of him; after reading the post you directed me to, I decided to add him.

If it was wrong to a name him, if you have no evidence that he is a disinfo-agent, then why did you name him? This only furthers and strengthens the idea that you are trying to silence those you do not agree with, and cast a pallor of suspension on anyone who engages in skepticism.



You kept calling for an example so I made the mistake of giving in to your request. Simple as that.

As I dont use the 9/11 Forum I doubt that I have the agenda to silence that person.

One major point of this thread was to point out differences between skeptics and pseudoskeptics.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Not a "shred of evidence"? No more than 5 minutes of research?For the UFO topic, start by reviewing the threads of a member named Isaac Koi. Return here and tell me again there is not a shred of research done.
After reviewing those threads come back here and I will give you 1000+ more.

How dare some people keep claiming that we are not doing any research.


Could you please explain to me what Isaac Koi's research has lead to? Do we have any solid answers, or is it still just reports of "seeing something"..
What has he researched. Has he made any red lines between events? Has he cross-checked all the 1800 pages of ufo sitings, or just made a list of it?

What kind of research methods does he use? Does he have a database with variables to do the cross checking on? Or just a simple .doc ?

Making a list of ufo events is not research, nor is linking to stories or books. It's a bit more work than that. Its all fun and unlimited ammount of reading, but not classified as research.

If Im mistaking, well ... show me some result of the research please ..

And by that I do not mean : "ufos are round in most of the reports" .. If you get what I'm talking about..

So, I have returned, and where is the 1000 others who have done research.. and have results to show us ..



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by tep200377
 


Your first claim was that no research had been done. Lets handle that claim first before we go into the rest of your accusiations, shall we?

Your claim that no research has been done has been refuted. Are you still denying that or still holding on to that sweeping generalization?

[edit on 21-1-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by tep200377
 


Your first claim was that no research had been done. Lets handle that claim first before we go into the rest of your accusiations, shall we?

Your claim that no research has been done has been refuted. Are you still denying that or still holding on to that sweeping generalization?

[edit on 21-1-2008 by Skyfloating]


Since you suddenly are going in to details, no.. I'd say that 98% of UFO posters are not researching more than 5 minutes. Heck, most of them aren't even posting their own stuff... just "what is your thougts of this 10 year old debunked 1000 times video.."

Just because you have 1 person that has done a lot of reading and posting doesn't mean its all based on research.

And back to my point.. What has come out as a result of all this research you are claiming to?



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by tep200377
 


I find your earlier assertion that noresearch hs been done (which you are now trying to understate by saying 2% have done research) an intolerable slap in the face of hundreds of respected ATS-members I have gotten to know.

When I then provide you an example of one who has conducted research, you denigrate that research by saying it doesnt amount to anything.

There cannot possibly be a discussion about the results of research if you dont even acknowledge that research has been done.
I guess youd count photos, videos, witness-reports by respected people (presidents, astronauts, scientists, intelligence agents, government-employees and the common joe), thousands of publications, initiatives, projects set up around UFOlogy as "no research" and "no evidence" whatsoever.

No true skeptic would assert that "no research has been done".



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Please answer my question and stop baiting on to other things. Is there any results of your so called research? Do we have any results here?

To be more to the point.. Has the thousands of research hours lead to nothing? ... And if .. wouldn't that be a hint?

[edit on 21-1-2008 by tep200377]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by tep200377

Please answer my question and stop baiting on to other things. Is there any results of your so called research? Do we have any results here?

To be more to the point.. Has the thousands of research hours lead to nothing? ... And if .. wouldn't that be a hint?



What research? By your own words there has been no research. Before we talk about results of research we would have to agree that research has been conducted...something you deny. Therefore we cannot discuss results of research until you admit that you are wrong about their being no research.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by tep200377
 



I think you are misunderstanding the entire point of this thread.

When you "research" patterns and trends or even *research* marketing statistics at times "research" is based on asking questions to individuals about there personal habits. This type of research is not considered "proof" but instead hopes to target said buying habits of individuals based on their statements made.

The same with this topic. One has to make their own assessment of the information available.

This thread isn't set out to "prove" anything, but to increase awareness and to help some posters understand the dynamics that can operate on a board such as this one. Your incessantly demanding proof and names in unnecessary and childish.

Same applies when people use the term "trolls" you don't find a wealth of their postings you have to use your own judgement and skills to see such behavior being applied.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
What research? By your own words there has been no research. Before we talk about results of research we would have to agree that research has been conducted...something you deny. Therefore we cannot discuss results of research until you admit that you are wrong about their being no research.


This is a fine example of "believers" stuggeling to debate their beliefes. When asked a critical question, it all becomes childish. Yes, childish. Why don't you just man up and answer my questions and stop behaving like a fool.

I just can't understand why you can't answer my question because I don't think there is done any research. This just strengthens my claim.

A good quote : If you are gonna talk the talk, you have to walk the walk..

Results please ..



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by tep200377
 


Alright, an answer you shall have: The results of research can be found in the form of witness-testimony, videos, photos, the ocassional artefact and removed implant...also right here on ATS.

Rather than steering this thread in a direction it was not meant for, I think an archive-search can answer most of your questions concerning the UFO-Phenomenon.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by tep200377
 


the post from "interestedalways" pretty much sums the matter up with regards to the point of this thread.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Hi interestedalways


Originally posted by interestedalways
reply to post by tep200377
 



I think you are misunderstanding the entire point of this thread.

When you "research" patterns and trends or even *research* marketing statistics at times "research" is based on asking questions to individuals about there personal habits. This type of research is not considered "proof" but instead hopes to target said buying habits of individuals based on their statements made.


My point is to point out why the skeptics are in fact skeptics. There is still no solid evidence of ufo's, aliens or things like a planet-x on collision course with the earth. Even after thousands of "research" hours, there is still no answers other than "stories".. Images is still just blinking dots. CGI is still the majority of sightings on video.


The same with this topic. One has to make their own assessment of the information available.


Is that the same thing we skeptics do? Yes .. Then this thread is useless.


This thread isn't set out to "prove" anything, but to increase awareness and to help some posters understand the dynamics that can operate on a board such as this one. Your incessantly demanding proof and names in unnecessary and childish.


Where did i ask for proof? I asked for results.. Is that childish?


Same applies when people use the term "trolls" you don't find a wealth of their postings you have to use your own judgement and skills to see such behavior being applied.


I didn't quite get this one...



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by tep200377
 


Alright, an answer you shall have: The results of research can be found in the form of witness-testimony, videos, photos, the ocassional artefact and removed implant...also right here on ATS.

Rather than steering this thread in a direction it was not meant for, I think an archive-search can answer most of your questions concerning the UFO-Phenomenon.



I rest my case. You obviously don't know what research is. Research leads to results. Results can be posted. Results should be based on "hands on" elements, or as a "non conclusive result" which means it lacks for information. That is where we skeptics join the game.

I don't steer this thread in any wrong direction. You can't possibly expect all ATS to agreeing with you, therefore you will get questions. My first post here was to point out why there we skeptics do what we do.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Same applies when people use the term "trolls" you don't find a wealth of their postings you have to use your own judgement and skills to see such behavior being applied.


You are right, that didn't read clearly.

It would have been clearer had I said "Same applies when people use the term trolls, you don't find a wealth of their postings all located in one place you have to use your own judgement and skills see such behavior being applied.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by tep200377
 


Alas...its frustrating to be aware of rock-solid evidence such as witness-testimony, pictures that havent been debunked, videos, artefacts, implants and personal experiences with UFOs, abductee accounts, statements made by respected and intelligent public figures...

...and then to have a so-called "skeptic" come by and say "There is no evidence whatsoever".

The next thing that skeptic will predictably say is "show me one piece of evidence". You show him one piece and he will try to rip that piece of evidence apart using the methods described in the opening post. Considering not that one piece that has been torn apart (by questionable means) but the mass of indicators available, it is easy to see that research into UFOlogy is warranted.

Some of us have become paranoid of a cover-up because there is no other way we can explain the complete denial evident in phrases such as "there has been no research done".

As stated in the opening post, a skeptic does not take in a position of denial but a position of "maybe, maybe not".



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by interestedalways
You are right, that didn't read clearly.

It would have been clearer had I said "Same applies when people use the term trolls, you don't find a wealth of their postings all located in one place you have to use your own judgement and skills see such behavior being applied.


Ok
I'm not american or english, so I'm not that good of a reader/writer yet. You cleared it up for me now





new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join