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.

 

UFO/Alien Skepticism - Let's get it out in the open

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
This thread is directed to those who believe every photo, video, and supplied data is fake.

Let's start off by analyzing your methods.

You present controversy to supplied "evidence" of Alien/UFO phenomena. Your controversy, when cannot be proven to be true(in regards to faking provided evidence), ie Phoenix Lights, O'Hare reports, etc, leads your agenda to simple thinking. On comparison, a believer that'd believe a neon frisbee was a UFO.

For example, a believer will believe anything he or she sees, just because he or she is infatuated by the idea of ET, UFOs.

On the contrary, a extremist skeptic would support ideas such as flares, weather phenomena, weather balloons(got worn out and they had to start coming up with more ideas), Chinese lantern's, swamp gas(love that one), CGI.

Let's take a quick look at The Disclosure Act, hosted in 2001 at the National Press Club by Dr. Steven Greer


Steven M. Greer (June 28, 1955) is an American physician, ufologist, and conspiracy theorist. Greer is the founder of several UFO and free energy organizations, including the Disclosure Project.



The Disclosure Project selected most of its witnesses from within military/governmental departments.

Below is a partial list of some of the more notable people involved in the Project:[4]

* Nick Pope: British Ministry of Defense Official
* Dr. Roberto Pinotti: Italian UFO expert
* Astronaut Gordon Cooper (deceased)
* Astronaut Edgar Mitchell
* Monsignor Corrado Balducci (deceased)
* Dr. Carol Rosin
* Dan Willis: US Navy, Communications
* Admiral Lord Hill-Norton: Five-Star Admiral, Former Head of the British Ministry of Defense (deceased)
* Gordon Creighton: Former British Foreign Service official
* Dr. Robert Wood: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace Engineer
* Dr. Alfred Webre: Former Senior Policy Analyst, Stanford Research Institute
* Denise McKenzie: Former SAIC employee
* Colonel Philip J. Corso: US Army (deceased)
* Colonel Ross Dedrickson: US Air Force/AEC (ret.)
* Lieutenant Walter Haut: US Navy
* Dr. Hal Puthoff
* Dr. Eugene Mallove
* Lieutenant Colonel Thomas E. Bearden: US Army (ret.)
* John Callahan: FAA Head of Accidents and Investigations
* Larry Warren: Security Officer, RAF Bentwaters Woodbridge, NATO
* Major George A. Filer III: US Air Force (ret.)
* John Maynard: Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
* Captain Robert Salas: US Air Force, SAC Launch Controller
* Don Phillips: US Air Force, Lockheed Skunkworks, design engineer/CIA contractor, worked with Kelly Johnson
* Lieutenant Colonel Charles Brown: US Air Force (ret.) Office of Special Investigations, Project Grudge
* Mark McCandlish: US Air Force, conceptual artist for Rockwell X-30 and HYSTP programs
* James Kopf: US Navy/NSA Crypto Communications
* Major General Vasily Alexeyev: Russian Air Force


All of the witnesses above had some affiliation with US or other governmental military, ATC affiliation.

They all testify they witnessed either UFO phenomena, or we're within field and clearance of such events.

Criticism as follows.


On December 19, the Disclosure Project released two pages of a supposedly secret internal document from the Strategic Studies Institute, which talked about a staged alien invasion. However, the document was not written by anyone of the Strategic Studies Institute. It was a fictional scenario, written by anti-electronic surveillance activist Julianne McKinney, which this person had once sent to the leadership of the Strategic Studies Institute in response to a paper from the institute which she deemed undemocratic. The paper had been freely available on the internet for years, although it had not spread beyond one or two websites. The Disclosure Project withdrew the announcement from its website in late January 2009 without explanation.[5]


All of the preceding excerpts we're taken from wikipedia's synopsis which can be found in whole, here: en.wikipedia.org...

Is it not likely a government would hide such information of events, whether to control the populace's general idea on the situation, to keep from global panic, or simply because they are sinister enough to want to control the world by holding these technologies and events from the public?

On a lighter note, did none of it really happen? Have uncountable witnesses just lied, for what benefit? Ridicule?

However, what I find most interesting is the US government's "Project Bluebook", organized in 1952 referred to many instances as simply "unknown".

I believe I deserve an explanation for what has supposedly been happening, one more simple than weather balloons and swamp gas, to much phenomena has occurred to be denied.


"The second sighting occurred in 1974 while Reagan was still Governor. One week after the sighting, Reagan related the story to Norman C. Millar, then Washington Bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal, later the editor of the Los Angeles Times. Reagan told Millar:

"I was in a plane last week when I looked out the window and saw this white light. It was zigzagging around. I went up to the pilot and said, ‘Have you seen anything like that before?’ He was shocked and said, ‘Nope.’ And I said to him: ‘Let’s follow it!’

We followed it for several minutes. It was a bright white light. We followed it to Bakersfield, and all of a sudden to our utter amazement it went straight up into the heavens. When we got off the plane, I told Nancy all about it.’

The pilot of Governor Reagan plane was Bill Paynter, and he backed up Reagan’s version of the incident with the UFO."
-www.presidentialufo.com...

Is not only right that the skeptics assume skepticism of themselves? Clearly, the skeptics find logical explanation for everything. If someone in the Government, or a scientist, say's that photo was this, they believe it?

Is there not enough reports, enough sitings, enough videos, enough pictures, for you to become skeptical of yourself? To simply discriminate against every event, with stories and methodology as wild as the UFO itself?



Is it so simple, to believe that these recordings never happened? They we're faked?

I propose to you, skeptics, to supply what viable evidence you have that these events we're not cover storied, ate up and spat out by government officials, and third parties cooperation's?

I encourage an open debate, everyone, let's not be close minded here.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Revolution-2012]




posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
If anyone would like to post their feelings, support evidence on your beliefs, please do and please be as factual as possible.

I think there is a lot that needs to be discussed about Alien/UFO skepticism, which hasn't been discussed for along time, and I see members disgruntled on both sides of the fence, so let's put it right here.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
The problem with discussing aliens with someone who WANTS to believe is that they don't care about evidence, probabilities or anything else, they just want to believe. Faith is immune to logic.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
Is not only right that the skeptics assume skepticism of themselves?


I've already said that a true skeptic is skeptical of themselves, above all, and it takes a lot of effort to get past one's own preconceptions and beliefs and objectively assess all the available facts -- with emphasis on facts. I've been to magic shows, so I know that I can't even trust my own eyes.

That being said, I for one am perfectly willing to look at any and all evidence anyone is willing to supply to back up their claims. However, I'm also willing to point out exactly I see that evidence falling short of proof (of aliens, time travelers, thought forms, or whatever).

And at the very core of it all, I'm willing to say, "I don't know." I won't instantly brand something as a hoax if there's not enough evidence to indicate that. On the other hand, if there's not enough positive proof, I won't claim it to be true. Just because I don't know how something might have been hoaxed, doesn't mean it wasn't. Also, "I don't know," is in no way the same thing as saying, "It was aliens." Many people fail to see that distinction.

Anyway, please feel free to present what you feel is the best possible evidence of whatever it is you're trying to prove. But I've looked into this stuff for nearly 40 years, and while there's plenty of evidence lying (or flying) around, I can tell you that there's not even one tiny little bit of evidence that undeniably and unequivocally proves anything about anything.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I have been here over a year and I have yet to see anyone here at ATS (even us skeptics) say that there is nothing unexplainable going on.

However, all of us are presented with pictures and videos after pictures and videos and many of us spend our time presenting why we may believe what we are being shown is more then likely not of alien origin. And there sure are an awful lot of people who don't care about finding truth, they just want their beliefs confirmed regardless of anything. So many people say "what is this?", "please analyze" and you do as they ask and they blast you because you didnt give the answer they wanted.

And just because some of us spend time analyzing stuff presented doesnt mean we are solely out to call "hoax" or prove everything wrong. We want truth. And sometimes truth may not be what you (in general) wants to hear).

So, I'm not really sure what you are asking of us here. I am a skeptic....because Id say most stuff presented is crap and I have yet to see ANYTHING presently that makes me say "ah ha!" The only stuff that sparks my interest is usually cases that are much older and are truly unexplainable.

I am skeptic, but I believe there are things happening in this world of ours that can not be explained.

And see my signature....its so true, its scary.

[edit on 4/15/2009 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Very True, I feel the only way to become a true believer is to first become a true skeptic...

Because of ATS I now question everything.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
I borrowed this from Skeptical Inquirer. It pretty much sums up the problems with a lot of theories here, "inadvertently".

If you want to play the science game, here's what you do:

1. Submit your hypothesis to proper testing. Testimonials, intuitions, personal experience, and "other ways of knowing" don't count.
2. See if you can falsify the hypothesis.
3. Try to rule out alternative explanations and confounding factors.
4. Report your findings in journal articles submitted to peer review.
5. Allow the scientific community to critique the published evidence and engage in dialogue and debate.
6. Withhold judgment until your results can be replicated elsewhere.
7. Respect the consensus of the majority of the scientific community as to whether your hypothesis is probably
true or false (always allowing for revision based on further evidence).
8. Be willing to follow the evidence and admit you are wrong if that's what the evidence says.

If you want to play the science game, here are some of the things you don't do:

1. Accuse the entire scientific community of being wrong (unless you have compelling evidence, in which case you should argue for it in the scientific journals and
at professional meetings, not in the media).
2. Design poor-quality experiments that are almost guaranteed to show your hypothesis is true whether it really is or not. Use science to show that your treatment works, not to ask if it works.
3. Keep using arguments that have been thoroughly discredited. (The intelligent design folks are still claiming the eye could not have evolved because it is irreducibly complex; homeopaths are still claiming homeopathy cured more patients than conventional medicine during nineteenth-century epidemics).
4. Write books for the general public to promote your thesis—as if public opinion could influence science!
5. Form an activist organization to promote your beliefs.
6. Step outside the scientific paradigm and appeal to intuition and belief.
7. Mention the persecution of Galileo and compare yourself to him.
8. Invent a conspiracy theory
(Big Pharma is suppressing the truth!).
9. Claim to be a lone genius who knows more than all scientists put together.
10. Offer a treatment to the public after only the most preliminary studies have been conducted.
11. Set up a Web site to sell products that are not backed by good evidence.
12. Refuse to admit when your hypothesis is proven wrong.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
This thread is directed to those who believe every photo, video, and supplied data is fake.


i guess this will be a short-lived thread

i see a shortage of people described that way on these forums

maybe you should try on the bad astronomy forums or something?



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
The biggest problem with some skeptics is they approach any case with the mindset before even reading the facts, that it's an explainable phenomena. Which imo, is the complete wrong way to go about any real investigation. A biased slant is never a good way to approach it.

The way I try to approach every new thread or story or report is completely neutral. Even if it sounds far-fetched, or even if it sounds very plausible. It's how I am able to be on both sides of the fence so easily in regards to UFOs.

One problem with some skeptics imo, is that the more cases that come along that they can disprove, the easier it becomes (and more habitual) to dismiss all new claims out-of-hand as being hoaxes, lies, mistaken identity, or something else. If you've 'debunked' the last 50 cases you've chimed in over, then there is no way the 51st is a real ufo! Has to be fake, all the rest were, after all.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


"The biggest problem with some skeptics is they approach any case with the mindset before even reading the facts, that it's an explainable phenomena. Which imo, is the complete wrong way to go about any real investigation. A biased slant is never a good way to approach it."

Those would not be true skeptics, IMNSHO. skeptikos means "inquirer" or "investigator". So they would be classified as doubters.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Being skeptic gives power. People enjoy taking that stance because you dont seem weak. It gives the upper hand. Most critics of art will play the sarcasim card. It comes from a power element that is hard to challenge. There is no more evidence to suggest that the skeptic or critic is right but they usually have the edge of humour and therefore others agree as opposed to being laughed at. Its a bit like the emporers new clothes.

These things are real I know I've seen them for myself. I cant prove it but then the skeptic wouldnt want to be seen to believe it if I could. After all, they are a skeptic.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by starseedz]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by starseedz
Being skeptic gives power. People enjoy taking that stance because you dont seem weak. It gives the upper hand. Most critics of art will play the sarcasim card. It comes from a power element that is hard to challenge. There is no more evidence to suggest that the skeptic or critic is right but they usually have the edge of humour and therefor others agree as opposed to being laughed at. Its a bit like the emporers new clothes.

These things are real I know I've seen them for myself. I cant prove it but then the skeptic wouldnt want to be seen to believe it if I could. After all, they are a skeptic.


Real skeptics are open to belief, if there is proof. So "wouldn't want to be seen to believe if they could" is very, very strange to apply to a skeptic.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
The whole "skeptics have their minds made up and deny everything" is a straw man argument common to this forum. All anybody has to do is present good, solid, positive evidence of what they're claiming, and the argument is over. So far, however, people have presented a lot of evidence, but I don't know of a single bit of it actually proving anything, including "aliens," whatever that even means.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
The biggest problem with some skeptics is they approach any case with the mindset before even reading the facts, that it's an explainable phenomena. Which imo, is the complete wrong way to go about any real investigation. A biased slant is never a good way to approach it.

The way I try to approach every new thread or story or report is completely neutral. Even if it sounds far-fetched, or even if it sounds very plausible. It's how I am able to be on both sides of the fence so easily in regards to UFOs.

One problem with some skeptics imo, is that the more cases that come along that they can disprove, the easier it becomes (and more habitual) to dismiss all new claims out-of-hand as being hoaxes, lies, mistaken identity, or something else. If you've 'debunked' the last 50 cases you've chimed in over, then there is no way the 51st is a real ufo! Has to be fake, all the rest were, after all.



Ah. I think you have it very very wrong and your stance is very flawed. Most skeptics approach everything with logic and a checklist: Is it a bird? Is it Venus? Is it a helicopter? and so on. Then they go thru a process of elimination...which is what everyone should do. When the checklist has been gone thru and none of that is possible, then what we have is a UFO.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this and I wish everyone would do it. It would start eliminatign crap. Its the blind believers who think everything in the sky is a UFO that is ruining this topic....not the skeptics.


[edit on 4/15/2009 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I hear what you guy's are saying...I have come to realize that in my search for the truth I have always found that whatever I started to believe in one way or another backfired on me. My so called quest started with religion and then moved on to early civilizations, and then all of a sudden i saw my search going more towards ufology.

I have come to find out that the analysis of certain subjects have kept me behind in my quest, but I feel for there to be a Pro there needs to be a Con. I have found out that if research is based off of balanced idea's then only can we move forward about certain subjects.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Our own Sun is only about 5 Billion years old, and has about 5 Billion years left before death....it is a 'Main Sequence' star, a G-type, fairly common in our Galaxy.....and THIS is why there are likely many, many, many other similar Star Systems, with planets, that could support the evolution of life.
The math alone make it clear, it would be impossible for there not to be life elsewhere.


This is the latest incarnation of the HDF video. The narration has been edited to include research from a paper in Physical Review Letters (2004) which puts the size of the universe at 46.5 billion light years,

www.youtube.com...

Do the math....the question should be how long have they been visting, how many different kinds of races are there, how advanced are each different race, what does each different race want with us.. I could go on..


[edit on 15-4-2009 by Reevster]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Reevster
 


"Do the math....the question should be how long have they been visting, how many different kinds of races are there, how advanced are each different race, what does each different race want with us.. I could go on.."


Doing the math involves knowing the variables. If you have all the variables of the Drake Equation nailed down, about 50,000 astronomers would like to speak with you.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
If anyone would like to post their feelings, support evidence on your beliefs, please do and please be as factual as possible.

Sorry, no beliefs here, only doubts. You may be surprised to hear that many skeptics, like me, are ex-believers. I still think some UFO photos are possibly "real" (not misidentifications, hoaxes or natural phenomena). I won't tell which, you would be even more surprised. Extra-terrestrials visitation is a different matter.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Hmmm.


If you want to play the science game, here's what you do:

1. Submit your hypothesis to proper testing. Testimonials, intuitions, personal experience, and "other ways of knowing" don't count.

2. See if you can falsify the hypothesis.

3. Try to rule out alternative explanations and confounding factors.

5. Allow the scientific community to critique the published evidence and engage in dialogue and debate.

7. Respect the consensus of the majority of the scientific community as to whether your hypothesis is probably

true or false (always allowing for revision based on further evidence).
8. Be willing to follow the evidence and admit you are wrong if that's what the evidence says. ****

If you want to play the science game, here are some of the things you don't do:

3. Keep using arguments that have been thoroughly discredited. (The intelligent design folks are still claiming the eye could not have evolved because it is irreducibly complex; homeopaths are still claiming homeopathy cured more patients than conventional medicine during nineteenth-century epidemics).

6. Step outside the scientific paradigm and appeal to intuition and belief.

9. Claim to be a lone genius who knows more than all scientists put together.

10. Offer a treatment to the public after only the most preliminary studies have been conducted.



"Why do you think everything has to have an explanation we can understand?"-Gawdzilla(A Scientist)


For some reason or another, I see some problems with that comparison, I mean, honestly, as a skeptic you should...


1. Submit your hypothesis to proper testing. Testimonials, intuitions, personal experience, and "other ways of knowing" don't count.

2. See if you can falsify the hypothesis.

8. Be willing to follow the evidence and admit you are wrong if that's what the evidence says. ****


What exactly is quantifiable proof for the visitation of UFOs, or, man-made craft operating outside gravity?

There is a thing called being to skeptical, when countless witnesses report seeing such an event, do you not think that in itself is proof? That one out of those countless witnesses actually did see a intelligently controlled craft operating outside of gravity? You're scientific enough. Apparently 34% of people believe in UFOs, just to believe?

www.foxnews.com...


STEVE ALLEN, UFO WITNESS: Yes, sir. Thanks for having us.

Back in January, the 8th, we was at a friend of mine's house and burning some debris and looked off to the east and saw several sets of lights coming towards us. Thought it might have been several aircraft approaching us in some sort of formation. And the lights was more intense and very bright. And they all seemed to be moving at the same speed and altitude and everything, about 3,000 foot above the ground coming at us very fast.

O'REILLY: All right. So you see this thing and, you know, it could be anything. Could be a reflection. Could be anything. But then I understand that you saw military, U.S. military aircraft in proximity to the UFOs?

ALLEN: After it already came by us and did a little flame-job over Stephenville and disappeared, it came back by. And that's when it had the military craft in pursuit, probably four or five seconds behind. But...

O'REILLY: Now you know the military denies that any military aircraft were in the proximity of Stephenville that evening.

ALLEN: Yes, of course.

O'REILLY: Well, you know, it sounds like you might be a conspiratorialist here. Are you positive that U.S. military planes were hovering around or flying around these UFOs?

ALLEN: Yes, absolutely sure. Quite a few people saw the UFO itself, and then many more people saw the jets come past in pursuit. The constable saw it. One of the managers of the airport saw the jets. Quite a people saw that. Several other pilots, also.



Out of these 34% of Americans, I'd suggest(theoretical) at least 1% of American's who believe in UFOs, actually witnessed UFOs, that's roughly 1.2 million people in the US alone. Not ordinary phenomena. Out of 1.2 million people in the US who have more than likely witnessed UFOs, I assume that at least 1% of those people actually witnessed something controlled, and anti gravitational. That's at least 10000 people.

I myself have witnessed a UFO, at age 11, with my Grandfather, and mother(RIP) as counterparts. This was not a reflection, and it was not swamp gas, Chinese lantern, or anything else. It had disappeared, reappeared on opposite sides of the sky, moved as quick as an infinite fraction of a second, moved slowly, etc.

I am personally putting those who do not believe there is UFOs outside of explainable events on the podium, I'm skeptic myself I don't believe 95% of the video and photography I see. If you do believe in UFOs, and they have been on earth, then this thread isn't for you.




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join