It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Skeptics and UFO - why debunk UFO?

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 12:32 AM
I keep seeing threads of where skeptics always try to identify the unexplained. UFO in particular. To begin my case I will now write out the meaning of UFO because people forget to remember what it stands for: Unidentified Flying Oject.

meaning anything that flies in the sky that to a certain person is Unidentified. Claims of UFO come from every where because some people cannot for them selves explain the phenomena. One thing that i notice about skeptics is that most of the time(most not all the time) they conclude that a person posting something about UFO, is stating that UFOs are from space with ETs.

After the fact, debunkers try to convince readers in threads, like if they them selves were there or concluded on a picture that seemed like "inconclusive proof" of a UFO.

Proof of a UFO in my opinion are any picture, video , radar scans and such that show a Flying object that to most is Unidentified. Whether it be from space or terrestrial, one cannot say.

Mind you that there are hoaxers out there. So next time one tries to debunk or conclude on a UFO please remember what UFO are.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by IchooseFreewill]

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 12:56 AM

Your completely right here...However.
Most people post their UFO pictures in the alien thread.
So people automatically assume they're talking about an alien spacecraft, unless they specify otherwise.

You make a good point, however this is what the hard core skeptics are already thinking of.
Yet to the newbies out there this is a great message.

Starred and Flagged!


posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 12:58 AM
I think there is a healthy balance between skeptics and people that are willing to believe anything. A healthy researcher is both imo.

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 01:02 AM
A good point. I myself have seen quite a few "UFOs", but where they come from, I can only speculate.

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 01:23 AM
Why hoax a ufo? That, I don't get. Especially people who go way out of their way...

[edit on 17-8-2008 by conspiracyjunkie]

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 01:26 AM
Skeptics like myself can be easily shut up in two simple ways:

1) The original poster very clearly states that what they have seen or videotaped is something they consider to be odd, without immediately jumping to the "it's aliens from space because it couldn't possibly be anything else" inference. Because it could possibly be a lot of things, including my personal favorite, UNKNOWN. With UFO's, honesty is the best policy. Just say, "I don't have a clue as to what this can be," and ask if somebody might be able to identify it. Along with that, if somebody says, well, it's probably a helicopter coming in a weird angle, unless they know better, the OP should just say, "You could be right." Don't get all bent out of shape if somebody offers a perfectly good alternate explanation. If you have a better explanation, please feel free to offer the evidence, however:

2) If you want a skeptic to really shut up, just produce some real proof of something. Personally, I'm just dying for someone to produce the goods. I want you to succeed in convincing me. But I'm not going to jump to any shaky, illogical conclusions, and if the evidence and the proof isn't good enough to convince me, then don't get mad at me, get mad at the flaws in the proof.

But for the most part, the notion of the rock-headed skeptic is a straw man argument. There are a few fringe folk who still refuse to understand that there are UFOs out there, but they are a very tiny group of people. So weeping that "oh, the skeptics won't listen no matter what," is as generally inaccurate as saying all UFO witnesses are delusional kooks or hoaxers just looking for attention. Is that true? Of course not.

That tiny minority of skeptics can and should be ignored. The bigger challenge, however, is to convince people like me, who actually accept that weird things happen and are willing to look hard at your evidence. We're the toughest nuts to crack, because we won't accept shoddy evidence and flawed logic, because it means more to us than it does the unreasonable skeptic. At the moment us reasonable skeptics are still baffled by real UFOs. We have yet to be convinced they're aliens, or time travelers, or thought projections. We want you to help us gain some insight into the truth of these things. And we don't like ignorant people who don't understand simple logic, who think they know better, and who whine rather than come up with good evidence.

Why debunk? Because who needs more bunk? We're sick of bunk.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by Nohup]

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 01:57 AM
reply to post by IchooseFreewill

Mind you that there are hoaxers out there. So next time one tries to debunk or conclude on a UFO please remember what UFO are.

first - yes people do hoax - and time and time agan , for resons i will not speculate on - posters profess belief in the validity of the most obvious hoaxes - shoud we just sit back and lett them wallow in ignorance ?

second - for various reasons people look at identifiable phenonemon and fail to recognise them for what they are , should the people who can correctly identify them just sit back and let them wallow in ignorance ?

look at the banner at the top of the screen " DENY IGNORANCE " some of us are attempting to follow that motto

appologies for being snide - but your OP reeks of embracing ignorance

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Techsnow
I think there is a healthy balance between skeptics and people that are willing to believe anything. A healthy researcher is both imo.

yep thats the one there is and always will be balance and I think that is the key to determine if it is real or fake, for instance if joe bloggs seen fozzy bear running about in the woods making monkey noises and actually believed in a 6ft fozzy bear making monkey noises the balance or the de bunker would say no its not its someone in a fozzie bear costume pretending to be a real bear making monkey noises i.e HOAX and the same goes for ufos, see its all about balance

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 02:12 AM
I don't think it is a matter of trying to convince the skeptics that UFOs exist. I recently have my own video documented experience with an Unidentified Flying Object.

Check them out:

I am not jumping to any conclusions about 'what' they are. But they are something.

Sure Occam's razor can be applied to every case but the truth is people just don't open their minds to things that do defy logic and explanation because that is the inherit nature of the phenomenon itself. It defies our own perceived reality.

So again I am not trying to impose my theories upon people about what I saw and recorded. I am simply presenting my experience of what really happened. Sure I wish I had an amazing close up of the object so that we could all analyze better and maybe get fair weathered skeptics to consider some good honest UFO footage. But no. The cycle will always repeat. People will believe what they want to believe. We actually become more defensive if our beliefs are challenged. It's like trying to convince someone that chocolate is the best ice cream flavor to a person that is a vehement vanilla lover. People don't like to be wrong or told that they are wrong so it will always be a stalemate.

Overall the cliche still rings true: seeing is believing. That's really what it comes down to. Photo and video evidence is great, but its nothing compared to just witnessing something that is truly unexplainable.

I am keeping my eyes to the skies and camera ready because I think there are more on the way.

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 11:05 AM
I feel like Fox Moulder wearing a T-shirt that says "I want to Believe!" and nobody believes my intentions are honest.

I want to believe! As a matter of fact, I do! I am not a skeptic to the larger question of UFO's - the answer (to me) is yes. However, do we have any evidence that UFOs are extraterrestrial? I hate to say this; I don’t think so. We have a lot of speculations, assumptions and conspiracy theories.

I find the quality of the evidence to be exceptionally lacking. Lights in the sky don't cut it for me. Blurry, out of focus, super zoomed pictures could be anything. I find myself asking, why? Why does it seem like the evidence (honest to goodness video from say......a reporter) is so difficult to obtain? This is the era of (literally) billions of devices that can capture images & video and yet we are left with......not much of anything.

It's a difficult position to be in. I am a believer. I am also a skeptic when it comes to the nature of evidence. When I object to obviously (IMO only) absurd claims (Billy Mier, ect) people charge me with being a disinfo agent or other nonsense.

I want to believe; I really, really do.

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 11:13 AM
reply to post by IchooseFreewill

Good viewpoint... I tend to catch myself doing exactly that. Most of the time it's because I get frustrated that believers are so blind that I get blind myself.
So for myself, I will in the future refrain from stating that "those are not aliens" and instead say "you can't be sure what those are" which would be more correct. It is only fair to maintain balance.

Unless of course it's obvious what is being seen. Like that annoying airshow video which got waaay too much attention.

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 12:39 PM
reply to post by Techsnow

I agree 100% I consider to be a mix of both.
I will debunk something without hesitation if I know for a fact that it is not unidentifiable. However I am also a believer in that I have seen UFO's firsthand and know that there are some things in our skies that we cannot identify or explain and some that just do not seem to be the plausible work of mankind today with our knowledge at present time. That is not to say that it makes them of Extra Terrestrial origin.. but just an unknown origin. Is ET origin part of the possiblities.. yes but it is not the only explanation possible.

There are some however that deny everything even though they cannot give any proof to back up their statements. They can not prove an identifiable origin and yet they scream like children that it cannot be a UFO.

That is not knowledge.. that is blindness. It is an unwillingness to accept or allow others to consider that which they cannot explain.

They call themselves skeptics but they are really not.. a skeptic questions things based on facts.. these people just deny everything.. thats just not the same.

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 01:40 PM
reply to post by IchooseFreewill

It is interesting you write this because many of the threads the OP asks:
Can anyone tell me what I saw or what this is?

That is opening up for people to look and make a statement about what they believe it to be.

Most of the videos are nocturnal lights and many others (like the one posted above) are small dots. It is hard to assume anything because there could be a rash of down to earth explanations. Dr J Allen Hynek also stated these were the most difficult ones because there is so little information about them.
Now with the remote control flying toys with lights out there, it is even harder to tell what is what. Everyone comes here for answers and sometimes the answer is birds, balloons, conventional aircraft or even outright hoax or trickery.

I love your avatar, Nohup!

new topics

top topics


log in