Skeptics need to smell the coffee about ufology

I think the skeptics do a disservice to humanity as well as logic when it comes to ufology.

Think about it, ufology is one of the only areas where the evidence doesn't matter.

With ufology you have direct and circumstantial evidence yet the skeptic gives more weight to opinions rather than the actual evidence.

Direct evidence - eyewitness accounts from Presidents, pilots, police officers, high ranking government officials and more.

Circumstantial evidence - cave paintings, paintings, ancient manuscripts, pictures and video.

The skeptic offers up their opinion and they give it equal weight to actual evidence. This is ABSURD.

There's two kinds of skeptics. I was a skeptic but I never belittled ufology because credible people kept coming forth and just to discount ufology out of hand goes against reason.

The second type of skeptic is the radical skeptic and skepticism is their religion.

They come in with a pre-existing belief about ufology and reason and logic mean nothing to them just their pre-existing belief.

Some discount ufology because of religious beliefs or because of their secular beliefs.

Some fear the questions ufology brings. They are set in their beliefs and any uncertainty scares them.

With ufology, you have to start asking questions that your pre-existing belief system already answers in the radical skeptics mind.

Questions like, do they have anything to do with why we are here. Are they connected to the Bible and much more.

At the end of the day the radical skeptics dogma is an affront to reason and turns logic on it's head.

reply to post by polomontana


Very similar reasoning was used to justify the burning of "witches" in Salem...

Have a look at Springer's thread here. I'd say it covers your concerns.

I'm a skeptic, but I feel I follow the rules. However, I reserve the right to ask for evidence and proof of UFO existence. I'm afraid your being convinced is not enough on its own to convince me too - and I don't see that I'm doing a "disservice to humanity" as a consequence, myself...

LW

Skeptics actually believe in Ufo's, life in the universe, and ufo witnesses.

It's the out-of-this-world-visiting-earth theories that they are skeptical about; mainly due to the vast distances to cover.

Originally posted by polomontana
Think about it, ufology is one of the only areas where the evidence doesn't matter.

Evidence always matters. Without evidence, there is no proof. Without evidence it is just a belief.

Originally posted by polomontana
Direct evidence - eyewitness accounts from Presidents, pilots, police officers, high ranking government officials and more.

In the courts, eye-witness testimony is among the weakest forms of evidence. Human perception is a very malleable thing; ask ten different people what they saw or heard, and you can get ten different answers. Based on how they percieve a particular incident (be it a mundane, run-of-the-mill everyday thing or something extrodinary), humans can remember something completely different than how it really happened, even within minutes of the incident.

Besides, seeing something unidentified does not automatically mean something is piloted by intelligent-beings-from-beyond-the-sun. I would suggest looking up the definition of unidentified.

Originally posted by polomontana
Circumstantial evidence - cave paintings, paintings, ancient manuscripts, pictures and video.

Which are typically misinterpreted by those seeking to find evidence of alien contact, based on ignorance of the myths and culture of the society that produced such things. Point to one cave-painting, painting, or ancient manuscript that can only be explained through alien contact. You can't. In fact, in most cases, alien contact is the among weakest explainations for such things.

And direct me to one video that doesn't amount of a light in the sky, or something so fuzzy it is all but unidentifiable.

Originally posted by polomontana
With ufology, you have to start asking questions that your pre-existing belief system already answers in the radical skeptics mind.

Perhaps you are the one that needs to start asking questions outside your pre-existing belief system. You are as every bit as closed-minded as you accuse skeptics of being; your mind is already made up and you cannot be swayed.

What we are looking for is empiricial evidence. Something you can measure. Something you can verify. We are looking for evidence that is irrefutable, that cannot be explained any other way than it being "of alien origin." So far, no evidence of that sort has been forth-coming.

Well there's skeptics and there's blind skeptics. The latter are as bad as blind believers. You gotta be somewhere in between to keep your head on straight.

There's too much circumstantial evidence to say nothing is happening. Hell there's more circumstantial evidence for the existence of EBEs than Jesus Christ, yet he's got a ton more believers. Then again, we don't have church of the Zetas telling us we'll go to hell if we don't believe in them.

reply to post by Kruel


Just where I stand. I have seen some "unexplained" things myself. I can't say that it was of alien origin, just highly unusual and unlikely to be a known phenomenon that I misunderstood.

But, there is a logical position for both those that think the universe is too vast not to have a variety of life capable of visiting earth, and those that think the universe is too vast for that life to ever accidentally run across us. (I leave out those that somehow suppose we're the only life in the cosmos because that position is an insult to life itself.)

I just go along with an eye out for some proof.

Originally posted by Kruel
Then again, we don't have church of the Zetas telling us we'll go to hell if we don't believe in them.

Six of one...

Originally posted by polomontana
I think the skeptics do a disservice to humanity as well as logic when it comes to ufology.

...a half dozen of another.

So because I require some proof I do am hurting the UFO community?

I believe yet I am also a skeptic.

I dont believe that every light in the sky is Darth Vader nor every world leader is a reptilian. I do believe that there is a strong possibility that life exists elsewhere, intelligent life.

I dont rush to shoot down every theory or picture of a flying disk but I will use reason and common sense to ferret out other logical explanations before I jump to any haphazard conclusion.

With the advent of photoshop, high powered PC's, digital cameras, the field is ripe with hoaxters and fakes. We would be doing a disservice to the community by blindly accepting these blatant hoaxes as the real Mcoy.

So while a naysayer or radical skeptic is dangerous, those who strive to educate themselves and others by SEEKING THE TRUTH only strengthen the community.

Strong beliefs peppered with healthy skepticism will lead to unravelling the mystery of other beings visiting our planet.

You know what? It's interesting that 30 people could see one guy murder another, and we would take them at their word, and the murderer could even be sentenced to death on the eyewitness testimony of those 30 people.

Yet, have those SAME 30 people testify to seeing a "UFO", and suddenly their testimony isn't "reliable" or "accurate", they're "mistaken", or "uninformed".

Interesting, isn't it?

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
You know what? It's interesting that 30 people could see one guy murder another, and we would take them at their word, and the murderer could even be sentenced to death on the eyewitness testimony of those 30 people.

Yet, have those SAME 30 people testify to seeing a "UFO", and suddenly their testimony isn't "reliable" or "accurate", they're "mistaken", or "uninformed".

Interesting, isn't it?

You would witness that murder from what....100 feet away?

Isnt there a difference looking at an object thousands of feet or miles up in the sky rather than from up close or even 100 feet?

From that murder you would have physical evidence, the murder weapon, blood samples, fingerprints, DNA, hair fibers, footprints, etc. Those COMBINED with witness testimony get a conviction.

A light in the sky just doesnt cut it.

Being skeptical = great

Being cynical = Not helping matters at all.


I am not a "believer" in UFOs, I'm a KNOWER. I have directly seen and experienced them, so I KNOW they are real.

That being said, I do try and rule out other possibilities when I see things that appear extraordinary. That is what is called being an open-minded skeptic. That is the way I see the vast majority of folks here approaching the subject, and that to me is quite positive.

Even from 100 feet away you're going to get vastly different accounts of the event. One of the first tests the FBI does at the Academy is have someone run into a room, do something, and then leave. They then have the agents in training report on what they saw and in the end only about 30% end up passing. Even after they go through all their training and do the same test at the end only about 60-70% end up passing. If ufology is to ever be taken seriously it must be approached with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you go out willing to believe every unexplained light in the sky is alien in origin you'll just end up looking like a fool, but if you go out with trying to debunk each case that you come across and find just one that cannot be completely explained away by modern science, well that's worth more than any number of lights in the sky you are just willing to believe are extraterrestrial.

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
You know what? It's interesting that 30 people could see one guy murder another, and we would take them at their word...

Yet, have those SAME 30 people testify to seeing a "UFO", and suddenly their testimony isn't "reliable" or "accurate", they're "mistaken", or "uninformed".

Interesting, isn't it?

What I think is interesting is that you apparently decided not to read other posts on this thread.

I said in the courts that eye-witness evidence is among the weakest forms of evidence. You seemed to have missed that.

In the court-system, eye-witness testimony is used as supporting evidence, used to back up what empirical evidence is already telling us. It is rare to find someone who is convicted on eye-witness testimony alone without controversy. This is for the exact same reasons you cited in skeptics dismissing eye-witness testimony concerning UFOs. Perception and memory are malleable.

Eye-witness testimony alone is not enough to prove the existence of alien life visiting the Earth. Without something empirical, we do not know what the witnesses are seeing. Even the witnesses themselves do not know -- thus the label of "unidentified."

reply to post by polomontana


Common, there is a place here for everybody, the skeptics keep ufology on the right path, if not you would have people around the world down on their knees in front of a reptilian statue.

This is a jungle were anyone can come and post whatever they want and we have to navigate thru that jungle try to find that true gem that will finally validate our claims.

I know about eye witnesses, I know about some circumstancial stuff that is out there, plus the highly publicized cases.

It is my personal belief that something is going on, but what is it? I don't know. Maybe aliens from othe planets, maybe our governments playing tricks on us, who knows? There is information and disinformation.

At this point all we can do is look at what we have and make a personal opinion, but I don't see how can I go with my opinion alone and try to convince other people, they have to form their own opinion own their own.

Unless, of course, we get the proverbial UFO landing in the White House lawn, then all hell is going to break loose, and the mother of all conspiracies shall begin.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by Bunch]

Despite having 3 UFO sightings, I still consider myself a skeptic. The fact is, I don't know what it was I saw on either of those occasions. And yes, public / governmental attitudes towards the subject have lead me to question my own sanity, despite having been with other people on each sighting.

The trouble is, I simply cannot make that leap to becoming a believer. It just seems illogical (Captain )

And as quite a few on these boards have echoed in the past: I don't want to believe - I want to know.

If it weren't for the skeptics, people would be running around taking pictures of distant street lamps, calling them UFOs, and having others absolutely believe them. Each and everyone of us should be lookng for the rational explanation first.

But then it isn't really skeptics that are the problem. The problem is debunkers - those who can never say, "well crap... that's a strange one."

I think that the more recent change in the public perception of the UFO subject also has something to do of our perception concerning our own technologies and scientific knowledge. It seems like everyday there's a report that says that there are planets everywhere; we have more of an inkling that the universe truly is 'teaming with life'. And as scientific research begins to talk of the possible technology of warp drives, advancements in SETI style searches, and tapping into the zero point field, the more we humans -- as egocentric as we are -- can allow ourselves to believe that maybe, just maybe, someone figured it out before we did

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Being skeptical = great

Being cynical = Not helping matters at all.


I am not a "believer" in UFOs, I'm a KNOWER. I have directly seen and experienced them, so I KNOW they are real.

That being said, I do try and rule out other possibilities when I see things that appear extraordinary. That is what is called being an open-minded skeptic. That is the way I see the vast majority of folks here approaching the subject, and that to me is quite positive.

Hi Detective,
I was about to post the same thing myself. In fact, I find that I'm generally a pretty skeptical KNOWER as well. Because of the technologies that people can now bring to bear to create "proof", I'm starting to think there is virtually no such thing available besides your own experience or corroborated testimony by people you really trust.

For example, some of the most convincing bodies of "proof" in recent memory was the photos of the CARET Drone, which I'm 100% convinced is a complete hoax. How would we know that something was proof unless we saw it for ourselves or trust the person who related such an experience?

BTW, I'd really like to learn about what you saw. Here's a very recent thread where I describe my sighting and a couple other, potentially related things:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by polomontana
With ufology, you have to start asking questions that your pre-existing belief system already answers in the radical skeptics mind.

Questions like, do they have anything to do with why we are here. Are they connected to the Bible and much more.

Last time I looked UFO means "Unidentified” and it is when you and others put the "they" to it all that we start to see a separation between what is factual and what is opinionated. As of right here and now with all that anyone can show, we have Unidentified Flying Objects out there.

So what kind of coffee we talking about here…

Just becouse you beleive that there is life out there doesn't automatically mean that you wear a tin foil hat and talk to crystals. I personally beleive in UFOs. Alot of the threads I have seen I laugh at. They seem to be written by tin foil hat wearers.
The nice thing about this site is the skeptics. They are moderate in their disbeleif.

Originally posted by polomontana
I think the skeptics do a disservice to humanity as well as logic when it comes to ufology.

I think the blind believers do a disservice to humanity as well as logic when it comes to ufology.

Then again, I am a skeptic. Well in a way. I believe in aliens. But I question everything. I've seen so many "wow awesome that is so convincing, aliens must exist, this is proof!" type of replies when a weak blurry image with little to back it up is posted. I cant do that and maintain a straight face. Then again it is the internet, it wouldnt surprise me if people sit and laugh to themselves when they post their theories.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by merka]