It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Originally posted by Phage
I am a skeptic about the ET hypothesis. You relate my opinion on ET's to my stand on religion.
Originally posted by Malcram
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 Majorion
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.
Originally posted by Europa733
Ufology is not a science, it does not get peer reviewed, that's all.
But on the other side, if anyone hade some empirical evidence of ET visitations, we wouldn't be on this thread "babysitting" our dear believers.
Unless one think there's a worldwide conspiracy or that our scientific community is just too dumb to realize it.
Originally posted by Majorion
reply to post by platosallegory
Yes, but my point is.. that there seems to be way too many people here on this mere conspiracy website, whom claim to be and refer to themselves as 'skeptics'... never in my life have I encountered even one person who refers to him/her self as a 'skeptic'. And as I was saying earlier, almost everyone is skeptical by nature.
I just find it incredibly odd; that there are this many 'skeptics' on a conspiracy website.
Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by akalepos
Where do we go with it? Well, I've been reading ATS for a couple of years now and my experience tells me we go nowhere LOL. The evidence is often ignored. If it is not ignored it is dismissed. If it is not completely dismissed it is seriously downplayed. So, I have no high hopes. But maybe I'm just getting cynical in my old age.
Originally posted by Europa733
Let's take a guess :
Who likes to do this in general ?
* Vague and/or exaggerated claims and ambiguous language.
* Lack of interest in having these claims tested, or reproduced by third parties.
* Claims that, for various reasons the scientific method cannot be used.
* There is no real research into, or progression of, the idea. Resistance or hostility to change.
* Misuse of scientific terms - equivocation and technobabble.
* Proponents of the idea are unable or unwilling to identify what would falsify the idea.
* Associated with the above, proponents are only concerned with data which confirms their hypothesis and ignore data which could disprove it.
* Reversing the burden of proof by claiming their idea has never been (totally) disproved.
* Claiming that a conspiracy of scientists or government officials exists which is hiding the truth about the believer's discoveries, or other invented complaints about scientific objectivity.
* Inability to obtain publication in recognized peer-reviewed publication.
* Science based on a political or religious doctrine and has a religious or political goal instead of the advancement of knowledge.
* Invocation of authority rather than evidence.
* Failure to be able to make verifiable predictions.
* Asking stupid questions in order to make an unsubstantiated assertion
1. Believers
2. Skeptics
But on the other side, if anyone hade some empirical evidence of ET visitations, we wouldn't be on this thread "babysitting" our dear believers.
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.
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.
Agreed by who?
Source
The typical UFO sighting is that of two people together observing a moving, distant white or red light for several minutes.
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.
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Actually, it is unreasonable. I would like to emphasise reason in unreasonable. The kind of evidence you are requesting is not evidence but proof ... Have you ever seen the world from space, still you believe it is not flat, and it goes around the sun in orbit?
Reasoning is also a valid means of gaining correct knowledge. We are using it all the time, "the clouds are dark, it is going to rain", "there is smoke, there must be fire"
Likewise, one can use reasoning with UFO evidence. Based on available evidence one can produce a consistent hypothesis.
Again I would like to reiterate how silly your demands are for physical evidence, as if such evidence even if it existed would be handed to you on a platter or mailed to your address? Get real.
I am not going to get into a dispute on general descriptions of UFO's. This is how UFO's are generally described in close encounters. So in these particular cases your objections of the similarity with paranormal phenomena does not hold.
It's fairly common knowledge that UFO's distinguishing characteristics are that they luminious, they move very fast, make very sharp turns. I have read enough to know that there are common characteristics.
Again, I agreed that some cases share characteristics with paranromal, but some don't. I recommend you look at the UFO seen over los angeles in the 40's(if i recall correctly) it shares no characteristics with paranormal at all. I have read many cases which have nothing to do with the paranormal.
I think in the interests of integrity you should examine all of this evidence,
There is naturally going to be inconsistency in testimonial reports for a whole host of reasons.
I've traveled to other countries, and I am aware of people who have flown (or boated, since I used to be in the Navy) around the world, and they didn't fall off an edge anywhere. Plus there's footage from space flights, and etc. etc. I have quite a lot of good evidence to base my belief in a round Earth on.
People withhold judgment for lack of sufficient evidence all the time, and in many cases we call them "prudent" for doing so. Forcing someone to make the call when there isn't enough evidence is little better than asking for an educated guess, and most often that kind of guesswork on limited evidence leads to mistakes.
Such reasoning is based on experience. We've seen clouds like that before, and they usually produce rain. We've seen fires before and seen them produce smoke, so when we see smoke we can conclude that it is being produced by a fire. We do not have any experience to draw on to tell us what an alien spacecraft should look like or how an ET should act.
I'm being silly? No one has handed me a piece of a giant squid, either, but scientists say they have one and they've analyzed it, dissected it, gotten its DNA profile, and etc. That's good enough for me. When they have the same evidence for an ET, that will be good enough as well. I'm not asking that I personally have the physical evidence, I'm asking that someone have it that I can reasonably trust.
No, they aren't. And the reason you "don't want to get into" this dispute is because you know they aren't. And "these particular cases" (close encounters) are generally the least reliable and most inconsistent of all UFO cases.
No, you haven't read enough, because those are NOT common characteristics of the majority of UFO sightings. Quite as many of them are reported as UFOs because they "hover noiselessly" as because they move fast and make sharp turns. I will also point out that the very fact of them making sharp turns at high speeds makes a physical craft with a physical occupant less likely, based on what we know about physics.
Exactly my point! Yes, there are some individual cases for which, if they were the only cases, or the majority of cases, or the typical case, I could agree that ETH is the most likely hypothesis. But there are thousands of UFO reports and only a few of them meet your criteria. Thus, I can say that the ETH is not the most likely answer for all UFO reports, or most UFO reports.
Besides, I have looked at the "battle of LA" case. I agree that it was most likely a solid object piloted by an intelligent being. Nothing about the case, however, implies where that craft or being came from. It could just as easily have come from the future, or under the oceans, or a parallel universe as from another planet. As far as I know, they didn't drop a star map or make an announcement about where they were from.
Why? In comparison to UFO reports, North American Sasquatch descriptions are remarkably consistent, as are descriptions of Mothman, the Jersey Devil, and many other anomalies. Why should UFO reports be so very inconsistent by comparison to reports of sightings of other anomalies?
Originally posted by Majorion
I just find it incredibly odd; that there are this many 'skeptics' on a conspiracy website.