I've only been posting here a few months, lurking about a year, and I'm already surprised by how much this whole 'skeptic' thing rears its head. Skepticism is simply maintaining a lack of belief until the evidence warrants a solid step either way. In effect, this means not believing, as, until there's evidence, it makes no difference by definition. I am generally skeptical - as is everyone with average intelligence - and specifically skeptical about alien visitation.

But so what? If someone came up to me and said they were skeptical about penguins existing, I wouldn't take it personally. If someone is right-wing, I can get along with them. If someone believes in UFOs, I don't think they're an idiot - just wrong. But because I'm a 'skeptic', I'm the enemy.

I don't get why it's so personal. This should never be a war. It should be a discussion of whatever evidence is being offered, with personalities left at the door. Either the evidence is solid, or it isn't.

There is a simple test. Imagine aliens land and say hello. If you're inclined to say "Ha! The skeptics were wrong!" then you simply don't understand what skepticism is. If you're inclined to say "I was wrong!", the same.

Originally posted by karl 12
Do scientists lose all objectivity when looking into this (taboo) subject?
Many are still under the false impression there is no evidence for UFOs when in fact there is..

Circumstantial evidence
Radar/sonar evidence
Ground Trace evidence
Government documentary evidence
Photographic/video evidence

..just no unequivocable proof.

So either it's not being disseminated or it's not good enough to convince people. I plump for the latter - as an explanation for the former.

Like andre, I see a lot of eyewitness reports on here that people seem keen to accept as gospel. Sorry, but that's not good enough. If it's a real phenomenon, I want something more verifiable than hearsay. For every other real phenomenon that impacts on my life in any way at all, I have it.

Originally posted by damagedoor
So either it's not being disseminated or it's not good enough to convince people. I plump for the latter - as an explanation for the former.

The OP and the like, those who would rather talk about the evils of skeptics rather than the evidence, do not see it as a failing of the evidence. They see it as the fault of the skeptics.

Originally posted by damagedoor
If someone believes in UFOs, I don't think they're an idiot - just wrong. But because I'm a 'skeptic', I'm the enemy. (...)

If you're inclined to say "Ha! The skeptics were wrong!" then you simply don't understand what skepticism is.

Sorry to point this out, but since you are talking about what people don’t understand, you don’t seem to understand what UFOs mean either.

I understand that some people will speak of UFOs as if they are proof of alien visitation, but those people are wrong too, regardless of there actually being alien craft flying in our skies.

UFOs don’t automatically mean alien spaceships, do they? The name says it all: unidentified flying objects.

To say that someone “believes in UFOs” is like saying someone believes in birds. People see birds flying, they see animals with wings in the skies. Can they tell exactly what kind of bird it is they just saw? For the most part, yes they can, but there are certainly misidentifications or birds people have never seen before. The same goes for UFOs.

UFOs are not a matter of belief, they are a fact.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
The OP and the like, those who would rather talk about the evils of skeptics rather than the evidence, do not see it as a failing of the evidence. They see it as the fault of the skeptics.

That's true, unfortunately. It seems strange. People who already believe don't need more evidence (it's already evidence of, rather than evidence for), but these threads, whether they like it or not, are actively seeking approval from the very people they denigrate.

I have a degree of sympathy. Different people here are looking for different things from the evidence posted. For me, if it could be balloons or geese or whatever, then it's not good enough. Infuriating.

Originally posted by Danx
Sorry to point this out, but since you are talking about what people don’t understand, you don’t seem to understand what UFOs mean either.

I understand that some people will speak of UFOs as if they are proof of alien visitation, but those people are wrong too, regardless of there actually being alien craft flying in our skies.

UFOs don’t automatically mean alien spaceships, do they? The name says it all: unidentified flying objects.

You're quite right. I did say alien visitation towards the beginning of my post, and figured it would carry through, but I should have been more careful.

For what it's worth, UFOs very obviously exist. To be honest, though, it's a worthless term. I can see countless unidentified objects in the sky on an average night, as can most people. And since someone knows what everything is - even if it's an alien spaceship - the term seems a bit pointless. But I know what you're saying.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
The OP and the like, those who would rather talk about the evils of skeptics rather than the evidence, do not see it as a failing of the evidence.

I think you may be engaging in psychological projection here- after all you have made several posts on this thread and not one of them attempts to deal with the list of highly credible UFO cases listed in the original post.

As for your above comment - I'm probably far more of a sceptic than you are ,I've just got a healthy interest in the subject

If someone believes in UFOs, I don't think they're an idiot - just wrong. But because I'm a 'skeptic', I'm the enemy. (...)

As mentioned, more correctly, it could be said that a "believer" is one who believes some UFOs (not all) are alien craft.

However, the term "skeptic" is often applied to "debunkers". Skepticism is healthy. It shows a willingness to demand more facts before making up one's mind. However debunkers are just the opposite of blind believers...i.e. they blindly refuse to accept any possible alien explanation and leap to any mundane theory that even slightly could explain it, even when said explanation does not fit the facts of the case.

I consider myself a "skeptical believer". I go into each case with a healthy skepticism that there is likely a mundane explanation before leaping to an alien explanation. Then, I follow the evidence to see where it goes... Often, I'm surprised.

I went into the Roswell Case expecting Mogul to emerge as the answer. Boy was I wrong! I went into the Mantell Case expecting it to be a good case for alien craft but...turned out (to me, from the evidence) to be a Skyhook balloon as the cause.

Originally posted by damagedoor
That's true, unfortunately. It seems strange. People who already believe don't need more evidence (it's already evidence of, rather than evidence for), but these threads, whether they like it or not, are actively seeking approval from the very people they denigrate.

I have a degree of sympathy. Different people here are looking for different things from the evidence posted. For me, if it could be balloons or geese or whatever, then it's not good enough. Infuriating.

It is true that there are many who will believe (anything) regardless of the evidence to the contrary, but there are also many who will say those who believe there is something unexplained are wrong, despite having never even looked at the evidence.

Also, the pseudoskeptics will commonly claim something is not real or impossible without actually proving it or substantiating those claims. It’s not just the ‘believers’ who have to substantiate their claims.

I understand skepticism, I recognize it is absolutely necessary if we’re ever gonna figure out what is bunk and what is not, but to be a real skeptic means looking at the evidence, and being a debunker means proving why something is bunk.

It goes both ways.

And those who reject the evidence, whether believer or so called skeptic, do not matter in serious discussions of the subject and should be ignored.


[edit on 5-1-2009 by danx]

Originally posted by Gazrok
However debunkers are just the opposite of blind believers...i.e. they blindly refuse to accept any possible alien explanation and leap to any mundane theory that even slightly could explain it, even when said explanation does not fit the facts of the case.

Yeah, I agree - this is absolutely wrong. An explanation has to fit the facts. However, I still feel that it's acceptable to say "I can't explain that, but alien visitation is not proved by it".

In other words, saying "It's a lantern" when it can't be is stupid. But something simply being unexplained is not evidence for aliens in any way, shape or form.

Originally posted by karl 12

*Rockefeller Briefing document:

Click link for individual case histories

Karl - you don't need these: it's information overload, and means nothing. For comparison, thousands of people would swear to a personal religious experience ... in different religions. Accumulation of dodgy evidence does not raise the overall quality of the evidence, or the likelihood the underlying premise is true.

I'd be happy with one single case for which alien visitation is the most likely explanation. And then we go from there.

Originally posted by karl 12
I think you may be engaging in psychological projection here- after all you have made several posts on this thread and not one of them attempts to deal with the list of highly credible UFO cases listed in the original post.

My goal here is a defense of skepticism, not a case-by-case examination of every UFO sighting over the past 7 decades. Such a challenge is both ridiculous and nothing more than a distraction from the topic-at-hand, skeptics and their supposed crimes.

Though perhaps I am confused. I did ask a question, which has so far gone unanswered. What is the point of thise thread? Perhaps if that were answered I would have a better understanding of what I'm supposed to be talking about.

Originally posted by karl 12
As for your above comment - I'm probably far more of a sceptic than you are, I've just got a healthy interest in the subject

Ah yes, here we go. Another variation on the "true skeptics vs. pseudoskeptic" charge.



[edit on 5-1-2009 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by danx
It is true that there are many who will believe (anything) regardless of the evidence to the contrary, but there are also many who will say those who believe there is something unexplained are wrong, despite having never even looked at the evidence.

Also, the pseudoskeptics will commonly claim something is not real or impossible without actually proving it or substantiating those claims. It’s not just the ‘believers’ who have to substantiate their claims.

I understand skepticism, I recognize it is absolutely necessary if we’re ever gonna figure out what is bunk and what is not, but to be a real skeptic means looking at the evidence, and being a debunker means proving why something is bunk.

It goes both ways.

Well, the burden of proof always rests on the person making the claim. If something is unexplained, it's simply that. If you want to claim it's a balloon, present some evidence. The same goes for claiming it's an alien spaceship. Or else it's simply ... unidentified.

The real difference on this site is between those who think "alien" is a legitimate explanation for a piece of evidence and those who are waiting for evidence as to why "alien" should be considered as such.

For those in the latter camp - including me - the evidence needs to be conclusively alien, not just unexplained.

Ho ho ho, believe in Rockefeller and his Illuminati think tanker liars.
They can think of thousands of reasons not to think UFOs are real.
That's what the do, write reports.
If UFOs are not real then what are they?
They must be from the unreal aliens for sure and the alien must
surely be a real existence.
They then give you all the reasons how they get here.
Speed, other dimensions, thoughts and more made up 'facts'.

Stanton Friedman is right we aren't being told.
Rockefeller knows all about UFOs in his hip pocket.
In fact he owns them with our money.

There is more fantastic science than where the UFO comes from
and that's Rocky's also.
You can believe in the Alien UFO, I'll believe in the Rocky UFO.

Also, the pseudoskeptics will commonly claim something is not real or impossible without actually proving it or substantiating those claims. It’s not just the ‘believers’ who have to substantiate their claims.

I understand skepticism, I recognize it is absolutely necessary if we’re ever gonna figure out what is bunk and what is not, but to be a real skeptic means looking at the evidence, and being a debunker means proving why something is bunk.

It goes both ways.

And those who reject the evidence, whether believer or so called skeptic, do not matter in serious discussions of the subject and should be ignored.

Agreed on that one good post

I think wilfull ignorance and fear of ridicule also play a role in detracting from serious research into the subject but the bottom line is there are objects flying around in the skies which science cannot explain.

Whether your a cynic,a debunker,a pseudosceptic,a mugwump,healthy agnostic or a wild eyed beleiver it realy doesn't change the fact we cannot identify certain objects in our skies (and seas) which sometimes outrun military fighter jets and seemingly defy the known laws of aeronautics.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Originally posted by Gazrok
However, the term "skeptic" is often applied to "debunkers". Skepticism is healthy. It shows a willingness to demand more facts before making up one's mind. However debunkers are just the opposite of blind believers...i.e. they blindly refuse to accept any possible alien explanation and leap to any mundane theory that even slightly could explain it, even when said explanation does not fit the facts of the case.

I agree with that one.
I've long suspected UFO debunkers are just 'mirror images' of
'true beleivers' - both do a great disservice to impartial study of the subject and both bring nothing to the table other than their own premeditated,preconceived ideas.

Apt quotes:

"I believe that the attitude of spirit that one must adopt with respect to these phenomena is a completely open attitude of spirit, i.e. who does not consist in denying a priori as besides our ancestors of the previous centuries had to deny things which appear perfectly elementary to us today"
Mr. Robert Galley, Minister for the French Army.

"Any scientist who did not read some serious books and articles presenting the real indications of the phenomenon should have intellectual honesty to abstain from making declarations presented as scientists"
Dr. Bernard HAISCH-Astronomer

"What constitutes a proof? Is it necessary that an UFO lands at the entry of the Pentagon, near the chiefs of Staff? Or is this a proof when a station of radar on the ground detects UFOs, sends a flotilla of interception, that the pilots see the UFO, take it with the radar and see it to move away at a fantastic speed? Is this a proof only when the pilot draws to him above and maintains its version before a martial court? Doesn't this constitute a proof"
E.J. Ruppelt (major chief of the project Blue Book)


"One refuses to study the facts because they are not included/understood, but to include/understand them, they would have initially to be studied"
A. MEESSEN-Physicist.


"There does not exist currently any machine manufactured by the man, plane or missile, which is capable of such performances, in particular to fly at supersonic speed without making bang? ?It cannot be something creates by the man and our defense system is impotent vis-a-vis these machines"
Colonel de Brouwer (Belgian air force) in 1990

"The best means of not finding an evidence, it is not to seek some".
Pierre Guerin (astrophysicist, research director at
CNRS)

"For the government to continue to maintain that UFOs are nonexistent in the face of the documents already released and of other cogent evidence presented in this book is puerile and in a sense an insult to the American people."
J. Allen Hyneck,PhD
Scientist with Project Blue Book

Originally posted by karl 12
I think wilfull ignorance and fear of ridicule also play a role in detracting from serious research into the subject but the bottom line is there are objects flying around in the skies which science cannot explain.

Whether your a cynic,a debunker,a pseudosceptic,a mugwump,healthy agnostic or a wild eyed beleiver it realy doesn't change the fact we cannot identify certain objects in our skies (and seas) which sometimes outrun military fighter jets and seemingly defy the known laws of aeronautics.

There are two issues here.

First, you need a verifiable instance of this taking place, with more evidence to back it up than hearsay.

Second, you need to show that the most likely explanation for said instance is alien visitation, rather than - say - human science that hasn't been released to you as an individual.

The first would be fascinating. The second would be revelatory. Less than both together, at least once, is meaningless.

If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times. There is absolutely to solid evidence that those strange lights in the sky are aliens. None. Absolutely none. And the lack of evidence is due to the fact that the UFO phenomenon is nothing but another classic example of a government smokescreen to divert attention from black projects.

Originally posted by karl 12
It is to introduce the opinion that the below deeply ingrained misconceptions are demonstrably false,do you disagree?

It is clear that I disagree. I stated repeatedly that the image you present of skeptics is not one that exists in reality.

Originally posted by karl 12
There were several instances of good quality,credible evidence posted and I wondered why you hadn't addressed it - now you're calling it ridiculous -I must have misunderstood.

I did not call the evidence "ridiculous." I called the demand to examine each and every one one of those cases ridiculous, when they have little to do with this discussion or my argument. My object is to defend skepticism, that has nothing to do with which cases are credible or not.

Your premise is a straw-man argument. You present a false-picture of what a skeptic really is, then "prove" that all skeptics are wrong by presenting a group of cases you believe disproves the non-existant claims of your non-existant skeptic.