The Skeptics Dilemma

However, there's another side to the story, in my opinion. There are people who, although they are not entirely believers or skeptics, have been asking for the same type of evidence all along, since the beginning, and it's never been provided.

But the evidence these people are demanding is not feasible. How do you obtain alien DNA or metal fragments from a UFO firsthand? Most of us have not had any encounters ourselves, we just have the same evidence which is available to public access: radar reports, testimonials, Ufologist reports and investigations, photos and videos, and occasionally declassified government reports. So the skeptic needs to engage evidence which is available and not demand evidence which is unavailable.

In many respects, many UFO sightings have much in common with other paranormal and cryptozoological sightings. The line between "spirit" orbs and "UFO" orbs is unclear, and seems to be getting fuzzier all the time. In fact, it begins to seem that whether an orb is a ghost or an ET probe depends on whether it is a ghost hunter or a UFO hunter observing it!

I assume you mean by paranormal such things like sighting of spirits, orbs etc. There are many UFO sightings where none of these are present. I think most people are aware that UFO phenomena generally refers to unidentified flying machines and they are generally thought to be of ET origin because they exhibit technology which is uncharacteristic of human technology. The general description of seeing an object the size of several football fields, doing impossible motions in the sky sounds nothing like the sighting of orbs and spirits. It is far more indicative of an actual physical craft.

I can agree that many top-flight UFO reports show intelligent control of the observed UFO. However, many other paranormal things and entities show intelligence also, so this is not an adequate dividing line. UFOs sometimes leave physical traces; but so do some "ghosts," bigfoots, ABC's, and "demonic" entities. UFOs and their occupants can affect physical objects and make changes - so can poltergeists. UFOs affect electrical fields, kill batteries, and cause lights to flicker - so do ghosts.

I will call this as a slippery slope fallacy. That is you are going down a slippery slope by saying because ghosts, demons, orbs also display similar characteristics to some UFO sightings, that it is hard to say what is a UFO and what is a ghost, orb, demon etc. It is indeed true that some sighting may sound similar to orbs,. ghosts, demons etc, but not all. In general it is agreed UFO's are physical objects of tremendous size, that have certain generic shapes: saucer-like, cigar-shaped and triangular. They often emit a humming sound and have a very bright glow on their underside(usually orange, red or blue) They exhibit very erratic and fast motions. This description actually goes back hundreds of years.

Meanwhile, ghosts have a certain generic description. They are faint figures of human like form, they appear for a while and then disappear, they go through walls and other objects. They are often associated with haunting certain places and are seen regularly.

Very different descriptions.

[edit on 22-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Malcram


Malcram, you get a star for this one. Great links to follow up with when asked for peer-reviewed evidence.
That's one or two that's getting this fencer smiling.
Well done.

Cuhail

(EDIT for spelling)



[edit on 3/22/2009 by Cuhail]

reply to post by Katie


Am I a bogus skeptic because I feel rather skeptical about this?

Originally posted by nablator

Originally posted by Phage
There were marks on the ground but soil samples only indicate an impact and some heating, there are no foreign substances found in the samples.

Heating was not confirmed, as there was no attempt to compare calcite crystals to naturally occurring terrain in the area or cement.

There is no indication that the object sunk that deeply (.85 meters) into the ground,...

Where did you get that figure? That was the maximum length (.8 m), not the depth! The marks are very shallow, entirely consistent with skid marks from a vehicle doing a U-turn.

I could post a link to a 13 page analysis paper pointing out all the mistakes and exaggeration in J-J Velasco's report (he's not a scientist BTW), but it's all in French.

The french skeptics we know (Nab' & I) "debunked" Trans en Provence's analysis.

Problem is, it's long and all in french. I'll ask one of them to check if they ever had it translated into english and I'll post it here if it is the case.

One of them said (Eric Maillot) : "if a real ET spaceship landed there, the investigation was so bad and incomplete that they would have not been able to demonstrate it."

Here is 1 link in english I just found regarding Trans en Provence (TEP)
and the SSE :

"Amazingly, the cases that the panel found so impressive are old ones that have long been touted by UFO promoters and have failed to convince skeptics inside or outside the scientific community. One of their principal cases was an alleged UFO "landing trace" case in Trans-en-Provence, France. The soil appeared to have been compacted, and traces were found of iron, zinc, and phosphates. However, the connection of the alleged `landing trace' to any aerial event rests upon the testimony of just one individual. If he is either hoaxing or deluded, then the incident proves nothing about UFOs no matter how many tests might be performed upon soil samples."

www.csicop.org...

Cheers,
Europa

[edit on 22-3-2009 by Europa733]

Originally posted by Heike

..., there's another side to the story, in my opinion. There are people who, although they are not entirely believers or skeptics, have been asking for the same type of evidence all along, since the beginning, and it's never been provided.

In many respects, many UFO sightings have much in common with other paranormal and cryptozoological sightings. The line between "spirit" orbs and "UFO" orbs is unclear, and seems to be getting fuzzier all the time. In fact, it begins to seem that whether an orb is a ghost or an ET probe depends on whether it is a ghost hunter or a UFO hunter observing it!

UFOs share other characteristics of the paranormal, one of the primary ones being their apparent ability to change shape, size, and density as well as appear and disappear. UFOs have been reported to be connected to Bigfoot and ABC's (alien big cats) as well as other anomalous critters like the Flatwoods monster, which would obviously be categorized as part of the bigfoot-mothman-dover demon-bray road beast family if not for the presence of the UFO "craft" during the episode.

I agree that UFOs are something. That is to say, they aren't mass hysteria, imagination, crazy people, lies, fiction, or all hoaxes. They are a real phenomenon. However, I see little evidence to separate many UFO sightings from other paranormal sightings, and that makes it rather difficult to accept the ETH as being the most likely explanation, unless I should also decide that ghosts, mothman, the Jersey Devil, hellhounds, ABC's, etc. are also extraterrestrial.

I would like to see some fairly definite evidence that conclusively separates UFOs from these other phenomena and clearly points to them being extraterrestrial as opposed to paranormal. For example, test results from part of a craft which show it to be composed of physical substances or compounds not found on Earth. Or a DNA sample which is clearly different from Earth DNA. Or even a live alien who points to a star in the sky and says "that's where I'm from."

I know there are accounts from abductees and contactees which claim an ET origin, but even many respected UFO researchers shy away from those, especially contactees, because some of them are obviously hoaxes or other things which are more a manifestation of the human brain (sleep paralysis, false memories, hallucinations, etc.) and it becomes very difficult to draw a line between "genuine" abductions and Blossoms or Billys.

I/we are not asking for extraordinary evidence that UFOs exist, or that they are not all hoaxes, lies, figments of imagination, or misidentified natural phenomena. What we are asking for is any kind of definitive evidence that sets them apart from other paranormal phenomena and points to an extraterrestrial origin.

I can agree that many top-flight UFO reports show intelligent control of the observed UFO. However, many other paranormal things and entities show intelligence also, so this is not an adequate dividing line. UFOs sometimes leave physical traces; but so do some "ghosts," bigfoots, ABC's, and "demonic" entities. UFOs and their occupants can affect physical objects and make changes - so can poltergeists. UFOs affect electrical fields, kill batteries, and cause lights to flicker - so do ghosts.

I know that some of you will be outraged by this post, but I wish you'd step aside from your ETH for a moment and look at the other side objectively. Many UFO reports have more in common with what the average person would expect from a report of something paranormal than what they would expect from a report of a physical alien spaceship manned by intelligent EBE's.

I suggest that some ETH believers are just as closed-minded as the debunkers, and are unwilling to consider the evidence that points to UFOs being another type of paranormal phenomenon rather than ETs visiting from another planet. Their claims that skeptics require "extraordinary" evidence or are looking for 100% absolute proof before weighing the evidence are denial just as much as the debunker's refusal to consider that a bright white light in the sky isn't just Venus or a human black ops project.

Great and thankfully balance summation of the situation..People, and I include myself, are often skeptical because anything and everything is thrown is as further proof of extraterrestrial visitation.

Much of it turns out to be questionable assumption, with a fair amount of sheer delusion, exaggeration, attention seeking, and no shortage of hoaxes.
Add to that professional UFOlogists who skew manipulate data to further their careers.

The field is rife with well intentioned amateurs and conmen, unfortunately. This has contributed to the dubiousness of it all, and reinforced the more skeptically inclined.

Serious UFOlogists must rigorously 'clean house' if they want to be taken more seriously.


Mike F

reply to post by midicon


LOL. The definitions and hallmarks of 'bogus' or "pseudo-skepticism' and 'skepticism' are very different. Check the links to definitions and discussions on the previous page.

Interestingly, the formal meaning of skeptical is rather different to the common usage. You say, as many people do, that you "feel skeptical". But what does that mean? Emotions and reason can make poor bedfellows. Are you completely closed minded to the ideas presented? Do you deem them wrong or impossible or do you have prejudice against them? If so, that would not actually be legitimate 'skepticism'.

[edit on 22-3-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by mmiichael


But it's not the 'ufologists' job to spoonfeed us the truth or persuade us of anything. Not if we are interested in finding the truth ourselves. Yes, there are many hoaxes and poor evidence as you say. But it is our job to sort the wheat from the chaff, if we sincerely want to know. There is also a great deal of extremely credible evidence. As I said to a member earlier, we don't actually need to concern ourselves with every blurry photo and possibly CGI video etc. We can just go straight to the highly credible evidence, of which there is a great deal.

The truth is that the UFO community contains a lot of exaggeration and acceptance of flimsy evidence etc. While the scientific community is prejudiced against the issue and is lazy and biased in it's approach to it. If we rely on others to do the work for us we will be waiting a long time.

Talking of the need to 'clean house' is rather like insisting that the legal system needs to prevent lying witnesses and defendants (and lawyers, for that matter) from ever appearing in court. It is never going to happen. It's part of life. Our task, just as is a jury's, is to find the truth despite such lies and deceptions, based on the credible evidence.

[edit on 22-3-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram


Well sir, i see you can argue on How To Argue, why don't you jump

in one of those sts threads and open a "can-o-whoop-azz"

reply to post by Heike


You keep trying to frame the debate the same way and it will always lead to the same place.

Your last paragraph says it all:

I suggest that some ETH believers are just as closed-minded as the debunkers, and are unwilling to consider the evidence that points to UFOs being another type of paranormal phenomenon rather than ETs visiting from another planet. Their claims that skeptics require "extraordinary" evidence or are looking for 100% absolute proof before weighing the evidence are denial just as much as the debunker's refusal to consider that a bright white light in the sky isn't just Venus or a human black ops project.

Again, you are desperatley trying to debate an absolute when an absolute was never claimed.

I know why you want to debate an absolute because absolutes are illogical as seen by the absolute statements made by bogus or pseudo skeptics.

Nobody ever claimed the ET hypothesis was extraordinary evidence or exclusive evidence.

Nobody compared the ET hypothesis to General Relativity.

You said in your post yet again that people who support the ET hypothesis "are unwilling to consider the evidence that points to UFOs being another type of paranormal phenomenon rather than ETs visiting from another planet."

Who made this claim?

Who said they are unwilling to consider other explanations for these things?

In fact I have said several times that if you have another explanation than lets hear it.

A word to the wise, no matter how you try to frame the debate it will lead to the same place. This is because you are trying to debate an absolute that was never made.

Yes absolutes are illogical and I think the bogus and pseudo skeptics are showing that beautifully in this thread.

If you can show me where I said that I'm unwilling to accept other explanations for these things please quote me.

I will give you time to find the quote.

Wait, I'm having Deja Vu

Didn't we have this same debate a few posts ago but it was framed in a different context?

Again, if your trying to debate absolutes it will just keep ending up in the same place because an absolute was never made.

Originally posted by Europa733

Hi Europa. Well you will forgive me for not being willing to simply accept your word for having 'debunked' the Trans-en-Provence reports, just as you would never accept anyones word for having 'proved' an ET/UFO sighting. People claim to have 'debunked' things at ATS all the time when as far as I'm concerned they did nothing of the sort. I'll be interested to read you posts regarding it, if you can get a translation.

So far, all you have done is provide a quote from soneone who doesn't accept the reports and another which said that they "failed to impress skeptics" (what a shocker) which is essentially meaningless. One can always find someone to say they are unimpressed, you can't throw a stone without hitting someone like that at ATS, for instance LOL. So I look forward to your followup.

[edit on 22-3-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram


Hi Malcram,

You don't have to believe me at all, as a matter of fact I did not even read their work (skeptics), this is why I wrote "debunked" with quotes.

If I find the english version (if it exist), I'll post it for sure.

Cheers,
Europa

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
But the evidence these people are demanding is not feasible. ... So the skeptic needs to engage evidence which is available and not demand evidence which is unavailable.

I disagree. It is not reasonable to demand that the skeptic (or anyone else including scientists, researchers, and the general public) make a determination on what UFOs are without adequate evidence. I should not be forced to decide what UFOs are or where they come from based on insufficient evidence.

The skeptics and fence-sitters are not generally the ones making the demands, in any case. We are content to have UFOs "unexplained" awaiting better evidence. It is the believers who demand that we accept their hypothesis based on the available evidence.

The general description of seeing an object the size of several football fields, doing impossible motions in the sky sounds nothing like the sighting of orbs and spirits. It is far more indicative of an actual physical craft.

Where are you getting this "general description" from? I could overwhelm you with reports of UFOs which do not fit your "general description." Many UFO reports are distant lights in the sky from which size is impossible to determine, and I would almost bet that the great majority of UFO sightings are of something much smaller than "several football fields." In fact, many UFO sightings are of lights and lit "objects" which are so small that they could not possibly be manned craft unless the aliens are the size of Barbie dolls.

In general it is agreed UFO's are physical objects of tremendous size, that have certain generic shapes: saucer-like, cigar-shaped and triangular. They often emit a humming sound and have a very bright glow on their underside (usually orange, red or blue) They exhibit very erratic and fast motions. This description actually goes back hundreds of years.

Agreed by who?

The typical UFO sighting is that of two people together observing a moving, distant white or red light for several minutes.

Source

The number of different shapes, sizes, and configurations of claimed UFOs has been large, with descriptions of chevrons, equilateral triangles, spheres, domes, diamonds, shapeless black masses, eggs, and cylinders.

Source

I can easily provide data on the diversity of light colors (as well as many reported with no lights at all) and whether the UFO makes no noise at all or some type of noise other than a humming noise.

I have not said that UFOs are ghosts, nor have I said that they are bigfoot, Nessie, or anything else other than UFOs. What I have said, and still say, is that many UFO sightings share characteristics with other anomalous, paranormal phenomena.

Many UFO sightings report that UFOs change shape, change size, change color, and appear or disappear suddenly. Some are amorphous, some are "see-through," and some have physical and psychological effects on people which are quite similar to the effects experienced by witnesses of other paranormal phenomena. These characteristics are not what common sense would expect from physical spacecraft manned by physical EBEs.

As far as historical accounts go, I think if you do some research you will find that UFO sightings from before humans invented airplanes were quite often described as balloons, sailing ships in the sky, and dirigibles, as well as saucer-shaped or cigar-shaped craft with lit porthole windows and visible occupants.

If your claims about the general, typical, or "agreed upon" description of a UFO were correct, a much better case for their origin and nature could be made. It is the inconsistency of reports and the confusing myriad of sizes, shapes, colors, characteristics, and occupants which makes it difficult for reasonable people to render an opinion on the most likely explanation for them.

Hi Malcram,

I found more stuff about TEP :

"French Ufologist Reveals Serious Flaws In Gepan's Investigation

French UFOlogist Eric Maillot reveals many flaws in the GEPAN investigation and concludes that the Trans-en-Provence case is simply a tall tale which was intended as a practical joke but got out of hand. The results of Maillot's investigation are contained in one chapter of an excellent new book titled "UFOs: 1947-1997." The book's 29 chapters discuss major UFO cases and trends during each decade of the last 50 years, each authored by a leading U.S. or overseas UFOlogist. Contributors were selected by respected British UFOlogist Hilary Evans and by Dennis Stacy, editor of the MUFON UFO Journal. (SUN's editor was not invited to submit a chapter.)

Maillot notes that GEPAN did not send investigators to interview the "witness" (Renato Niccolai) until 40 days after the UFO incident (allegedly) occurred, and its investigators ignored significant discrepancies in Niccolai's subsequent accounts of what allegedly occurred. For example, according to Niccolai's original report to the Gendarmerie, the UFO had hovered about 3 ft. above the ground, yet it somehow (allegedly) left marks on the ground which resembled skid marks caused by an automobile tire. Although Niccolai reported that the UFO was not rotating, the skid-marks were circular.

Niccolai's wife was not home at the time of the (alleged) UFO incident. When she returned, Niccolai reportedly informed her: "Your [missing] cat is back. Extraterrestrials brought him home." Then he described his UFO sighting, which his wife initially assumed to be a practical joke. Later she told a neighbor who believed in UFOs, who in turn reported the incident to the Gendarmerie.

According to Maillot, GEPAN chose to focus its investigation on possible effects of the UFO on plants in the vicinity. Plant samples had been taken by the Gendarmerie the day after the (alleged) incident, again 15 days later, and by GEPAN 40 days later. But according to Maillot, the samples "were not collected in accordance with a strict and scientifically tested protocol....A bunch of amateurs could hardly have managed things more clumsily." The plant samples were analyzed by Michel Bounias, a biochemist, who had "no expertise in plant pathology," according to Maillot.

Bounias "concluded that they [plants] had undergone accelerated ageing, inversely proportional to the square of their distance from the center of the [ground] trace....Without explaining in any detail why he excluded every other possible cause...Bounias offered the hypothesis that this effect might be linked to the action of an energy field of an electric kind; later he added that the cause might more precisely have been a beam of pulsed microwaves," according to Maillot. This seemed to confirm the theory of a French physicist/UFOlogist--Dr. Jean-Pierre Petit--who has proposed that UFOs are propelled by emitting pulsed microwaves.

Belgian Plant Pathologist Challenges Bounias

Bounias' analysis was submitted in 1984 to a Belgian plant pathologist (referred to as Professor A) who is a member of the scientific counsel of Belgium's major UFO group: SOBEPS. When Professor A challeged Bounias' findings, "Bounais refused a scientific debate, even at a private level...and never answered the justified criticisms made by the Belgian," according to Maillot. "GEPAN's [director Jean-Jacques] Velasco, though informed of Professor A's conclusions, saw no reason to seek the advice of other experts to settle the dispute and hushed up the very existence of a scientific difference of opinion; almost nobody in ufological circles was aware of the matter, and it sank into oblivion," according to Maillot.

Skeptics UFO Newsletter -6- July 1997

In 1987, a French youth claimed he not only had seen a UFO hovering over some trees but that he had tape recorded the sound emitted by the UFO. According to Maillot, when leaves from the trees were submitted to Bounias for analysis he reported finding similar effects to those on the plants from Trans-en-Provence. However, a subsequent in-depth investigation "demonstrated beyond any doubt that this case was a hoax," according to Maillot. He concludes his lengthy assessment of the Trans-en-Provence case by quoting Niccolai as telling a UFO investigator: "There are so many silly people in the world. On some future day, I shall tell you the whole truth." Maillot comments: "From a single, uncertain and inconsistent testimony, GEPAN, with the help of some other scientific actors, all of them linked to ufological circles, succeeded in creating a case which achieved classic status." (Maillot's article was translated into English for the book by another French UFOlogist, Jacques Scornaux.)"

Source : www.csicop.org...

That's all I could find in english for now.


Cheers,
Europa

Skeptics are a bunch of buzz-kills. All of us skeptical people, I don't think that there is anyone whom believes 'everything'. Skeptics on the other hand, don't believe 'anything'.. they claim to be completely disassociated from religious control and fundamentalism, but really.. Science is their God. This term 'skeptic' is being over-used.. In reality, they are a cult like any other.

reply to post by Majorion

You know nothing about my beliefs other than what I have said on ATS.

reply to post by Malcram






Hello Malcram,
I like to think I’m open minded and in fact went on a google search like Katie suggested!
Sometimes of course scepticism and belief comes down to whatever proof we are willing to accept.
Intuition can be an important factor particularly when trying to evaluate a witness statement when nothing else is available.
Maybe we all fall into bogus scepticism now and again when a claim is made that is so outlandish and ridiculous that it beggars belief!
I myself tend toward believing the UFO phenomenon is of extraterrestrial origin as there seems to be an abundance of evidence.
good thread by the way!

Originally posted by Phage
You know nothing about my beliefs other than what I have said on ATS.

Likewise Phage, nobody really knows anything of my real beliefs in reality either.

Originally posted by platosallegory
Again, you are desperatley trying to debate an absolute when an absolute was never claimed.

No, I'm not. I said that

"some ETH believers are just as closed-minded as the debunkers, and are unwilling to consider the evidence that points to UFOs being another type of paranormal phenomenon"

Where is there an absolute in that? Last time I checked the dictionary, "some" was not a term which expressed an absolute.

In fact I have said several times that if you have another explanation than lets hear it.

I'm not the one interested in determining an explanation. You are. I don't know what UFOs are, as I have not seen one explanation that is the "most likely" explanation for all unidentified UFO sightings. How does a physical craft from another planet change shape? You may say that they could have technology we haven't yet dreamed of. Yes, they could. But we have, right here on Earth, known biological entities which can change shape. I conclude, therefore, that the most likely explanation for something which can change its shape is a biological entity, not a physical craft.

If you can show me where I said that I'm unwilling to accept other explanations for these things please quote me.

I never said that you wouldn't accept other explanations. I said "some ETH believers." It is you who have chosen to include yourself in that group, not I.

Besides, I'm not the one requiring an explanation. You are. You are the one taking skeptics to task for not accepting your "most likely" explanation. I am not required to have a "better" explanation in order to state that I don't agree that your hypothesis is the most likely. I frankly don't care if you accept any of my explanations or not. I'm content to say there isn't enough good evidence upon which to base a "most likely" hypothesis, and you're the one who has a problem with that.

As I said in my previous post, if most UFO sightings had the characteristics ascribed to them by Indigo_Child, then ETH would be the most likely explanation. But they don't. They do all sorts of weird stuff that I (and likely most "reasonable" people) wouldn't expect of a physical spacecraft from another planet manned by physical, intelligent beings.

reply to post by Europa733


To switch roles for a moment, why should we give this hearsay posted in the "Skeptic's UFO Newsletter' (is that a peer-reviewed newsletter? LOL) any credence whatsoever? It's still just a lot of "so and so says" and "according to so and so". I find it surprising that this would be considered acceptable to skeptics.

[edit on 22-3-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by midicon
reply to post by Malcram

 

Hello Malcram,
I like to think I’m open minded and in fact went on a google search like Katie suggested!...Maybe we all fall into bogus scepticism now and again when a claim is made that is so outlandish and ridiculous that it beggars belief!

Yeah agreed. I know I do. I often get knee jerk reaction, almost an emotional reaction of rejection to certain seemingly extreme claims, and then I have to catch myself and try to step back to a more open-minded, less prejudiced position. But it isn't always easy LOL.

[edit on 22-3-2009 by Malcram]