just trying to get this straight. skeptical types are morons, tyrants, trolls, bullies ... did i miss any?

and the believer types just want to be left alone to "have the joy of engaging in speculation with" their "fellow conspiracy-researchers".

it sounds to me like you need a board where disagreeing, constructive arguments/criticisms and/or pointing out errors are simply not allowed. anything less than that is already handled on the general boards by the moderators.

From the Tingley thread.

Just as it isn't the anyones job to prove it isn't a flying saucer, it isn't our job to prove it isn't an LED in a balloon. If YOU think it's an LED Balloon, it is up to YOU to provide evidence and to make your case.

See. This is were I have a problem. Any logical person can deduce it could be a balloon. No proof is needed from the skeptic. However, the "believer" says it isn't anyones job to prove it isn't a flying saucer. I could not disagree more. Make a case for a flying saucer, otherwise the explanation is as mundane as a balloon.

My logic would never had led me to believe any of those things. Besides, I just said it is a good tool in absence of evidence. My use of the word Proof was a typo.

Nevertheless, if I wanted to spend time on the Internet in a world of proof and testing and evidence I wouldn't spend it at a conspiracy website. I spend it at some kind of online university. I come here to indulge in wild and baseless speculation.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by bruxfain]

Originally posted by bruxfain Nevertheless, if I wanted to spend time on the Internet in a world of proof and testing and evidence I wouldn't spend it at a conspiracy website. I spend it at some kind of online university. I come here to indulge in wild and baseless speculation.

So do I...that should be apparent, given my postings.

I think 911 was an American Reichstag fire. Am I gonna shout it from the rooftops? No, because I'm just going by second-hand info. That means it is every bit as legitimate as the official story. I, personally, refuse to vouch for either because neither one is my personal experience. I have an opinion...but I'm not gonna call it a fact. I have no proof, either way.

Science I see differently. Opinions are a starting point...not an end. I respect modern day archaeology. But I have walked a site with a psychic.

I got radiation treatment for cancer...but I did alternative therapies too.

If I don't see an acceptable truth, then I don't bet the farm. But I'm not afraid to poke around the fringes to see what's hidden there. Bottom line, there's a difference and that's determined by proof. And I ain't no moron for demanding the truth. And that sits quite well with denying ignorance.

The funny thing about this thread is you wrote all those words and didn't post any proof. Where is the proof, please post the proof in this thread so we can all see it.

HI Skyfloating! S&F..

As I heard a member put it this way and plz don't quote me on this .. but.. it went something like this..

Imagine your in a court room, is there proof before evidence/witnesses are presented? No. In order to dertermine there's 'proof' that someone saw or did something in a court of law, you MUST have evidence.

If you'd put all the 'evidence' and witnesses of the UFO phenomenon, how much 'evidence' would you think there would be?

What your seeing isn't 'hard proof' ....some of it is hard 'evidence' THAT's what your seeing ....is the evidence........NOT the proof...but you'll have to take a good hard look at the credible witness and 'evidence' (pictures, videio) ................

and make the judgment yourself.

In my humble opinion I think ATS 'deny ignorance' is somewhat conflicted in certain ways. I do agree there are packs of 'you have no proofers who take debunking to a whole 'nuther level. It is annoying. I read posts mainly for entertainment and come away with at least something interesting from most every one. I just wish some people would lighten up a little.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
How have hoards of people having been brainwashed into the idea that we should only talk about whats already known?

Personally, I believe that trying to gain other's acceptence of our own beliefs will always be a moving target and a waste of what little time we have on this planet.

Hi, OP

I recognise your exasperation, lol

In the past, in countless fora, I've said much the same as you

although you've received much kinder responses than I did (wry smile).

As a rule, when I wrote similarly to you (usually when at the end of my tether with self-appointed sceptics who'd shot down newbies for sport) the self-styled sceptics -- sensing they'd drawn blood -- would gang-attack even my posts which had called for a little restraint re: the 'take no prisoners' style scepticism'. Can't win.

So, all things considered, this post of yours has fared pretty well : )


However, there's a positive to be drawn from most experiences and forum-scepticism is no exception (imo, anyway).

For ... those who've been ridiculed, put-down, dismissed, etc. by 'sceptics' come back stronger --- if they truly believe their theory or experience has genuine merit and warrants better and further discussion/investigation.

And I've noted that very often, those with an 'unprovable yet still demonstrably valid' experience or theory to relate -- step up to the plate again .. and again. And each time they do so, they hone and refine their story so that it includes relevant detail which is often lacking in a first post. In doing so, they flesh out the experience or theory so that it can be more clearly grasped by those with an open mind. In this way, the theory or experience is rendered more understandable to others.

This is particularly the case with paranormal type theories and experiences upon which -- as many know from hard experience -- the self-styled 'sceptics' really enjoy grinding their fangs.

How often have we seen a newby's post state blankly, ' I was abducted last night', or ' My house is haunted I think'. Followed by a very few lines about their experience ? And generally, they're ripped to bits by those posing as 'sceptics'. Being newbies, they retire, wounded and discredited and the 'sceptics' etch another notch on their belts.

Those to whom this has happened -- if they know their story is true (to the best of their knowledge) -- very often retire and regroup and when they've recovered from their mauling by the 'sceptics', they post again. Only this time, they flesh out their experience. They include seemingly 'unimportant' and minor details. They place their experience in context, i.e., they include others who may have been present or nearby or in the area in the hours or days previous; they describe any 'feelings' or moods that may have influenced the situation, etc. In short, they provide as much detail as they can, in order readers may get a 'feel' for the situation.

Very often, when a poster takes the time and has the confidence to provide a comprehensive account of their experience/theory, it not only makes it possible for the reader to identify with the poster -- it sometimes reminds a reader of a similar experience of their own.

There's strength in numbers. Not only do other's similar experiences serve as confirmation of the original poster's experience --- they also tend to balance out even the most determined 'sceptical' attack.

Therefore, the 'sceptics' are performing a service. They encourage us to greater effort.

Most importantly, genuine sceptics (as opposed to the other kind) compel genuine posters to analyse their experience and to see it from the perspective of a sceptical audience. Sceptics force us to examine our recollections 'from outside' ourselves. They help us to sort the wheat from the chaff, experience-wise.

And IF .. after sceptically scrutinising our own experience/theory .. we still believe it has genuine merit and bears repeating in the forum, then yes, we have a duty to recount it to others. And thanks to sceptics, we're much more likely to present an intelligent, articulate and valuable account


(sorry if this is jumbled. Someone has the tv on very loudly nearby and I can't concentrate any longer)

Originally posted by mmariebored

Originally posted by Skyfloating
How have hoards of people having been brainwashed into the idea that we should only talk about whats already known?

Personally, I believe that trying to gain other's acceptence of our own beliefs will always be a moving target and a waste of what little time we have on this planet.

Oh ... what a great post

and advice


Really good

(Starred ! )

Look, if you think the believers are thought of as anything more than idiots by the skeptics you are wrong. I happen to believe UFOs are out there. I have no proof they are from another planet. I can believe they are time travelers from our future before I can believe they are aliens from another planet. I need real hard science and data to make a good decision. All the math "geeks" at the top schools seem to think we are nuts, and since they are pretty much the smartest people on earth where does that leave our argument?

We, a "micro-society" on ATS have become an extremely divided group. Much as, historically, there have been liberal Republicans, and conservative Democrats, there have been conspiratorial fence sitters. The difference is the divisiveness that is more apparent now than earlier.

For instance:

Now, for just about any given conspiracy theory, if you read all the posts, using this thread as an example, you will find that the camps are equally, most visibly divided. You see that the pro-conspiracy folks, immediately, begin by putting down the skeptics as having fragile egos, being afraid, having no sense of self worth, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Then you see that some of the believers use the line of reasoning that skeptics are ruining all the fun, and that the skeptics are ruining the real, true, guessed at, reality of the true believer.

It appears that we are so divided that no real exchanges, intercourses, or acceptance by either side is possible. For instance, when I first came on ATS some time back, we used to send private messages back and forth to each other, regardless of faction, wherein we cussed, discussed and "re-cussed" our various stances. True there were more often than not, spates of spew at each other, but it seemed more personal and "open-minded". Having said that, I now say, it's been many a moon since I have bothered to use my u2u for anything other than notes and knowledge from the ATS management.

I feel like I have things to contribute, as do many of the skeptics and believers, but why bother? If I'm a true believer, I'm put down by the skeptics for being silly or not having proof. If I question a statement, then I'm the proud owner of a small mind, fragile ego, lack of self-centeredness, etc. etc. etc.

If you want folks to not question things you are putting down, in a mini-society like ATS, then you need to go away and start your own little place where you only admit posters who agree with you totally, whether true believer or skeptic. Otherwiser, if you don't like the fact that people question what you are saying (whether skeptic, or true believer), then you either need to provide proof (not evidence) that can squelch any skeptical or pro-believer argument, or you probably need to sit down, be quiet, and prepare to defend what you are putting in print here.