It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


SCEPCOP ~ Debunking pseudo-sceptics.

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:48 PM
All phonies work against information.
They play name games and never say a thing which
is what a dis info agent does.
So both defeat the truth.

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:47 PM
reply to post by DGFenrir

Did you even read through the thread?

Of course it would be nice to see unequivocable proof yet there are many reasons to take the UFO subject seriously - from credible government documentary evidence, radar/sonar evidence, electromagnetic interference evidence and ground trace evidence, right through to credible circumstantial evidence in the form of sworn eyewitness testimony from 1000's of credible individuals.

Just pouring derision and scorn onto the subject without ever actualy addressing specific incidents seems to me to be highly ignorant and irresponsible -probably the absolute opposite of true,open minded scepticism

I think pseudosceptics are just as bad as people who think 'everything' is a UFO and the definition below pretty much sums them up:

"There are organized group of scoffers masquerading under the term "skeptics" who deny, ridicule and suppress anything progressive that challenges the static views of the establishment. They are debunkers who tend to distort, dismiss and obfuscate any phenomenon that challenges a conventional materialistic view of reality. In truth, they are not true skeptics engaging in open inquiry, but selective debunkers with an agenda to defend the establishment."

Don't know if you've ever looked at some of the 'government sanctioned' UFO investigations but about 30 per cent of UFO cases remain unexplained - and that isn't even including the incidents where the USAF have just 'made the explanations up'. (link).

"The opposite conclusion could have been drawn from The Condon Report's content, namely, that a phenomenon with such a high ratio of unexplained cases (about 30 percent) should arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue its study."
"From a scientific and engineering standpoint, it is unacceptable to simply ignore substantial numbers of unexplained observations... the only promising approach is a continuing moderate-level effort with emphasis on improved data collection by objective means... involving available remote sensing capabilities and certain software changes."
Ronald D Story - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics UFO Subcommittee -New York: Doubleday, 1980

"Probably the most striking discrepancy in the Condon report, however, was between its contents and conclusions. Condon had concluded that science could gain nothing from studying UFOs. Yet, the report ended up with a near 30 percent unexplained rate, and a core of cases that came within a hair's breadth of being conclusive evidence for the reality of alien technology – cases which, under the most rigorous analysis, appeared to be the result of extraordinary craft in the skies."
Richard Dolan PHD

"There are unidentified flying objects. That is, there are a hard core of cases - perhaps 20 to 30 percent in different studies - for which there is no explanation... We can only imagine what purpose lies behind the activities of these quiet, harmlessly cruising objects that time and again approach the earth. The most likely explanation, it seems to me, is that they are simply watching what we are up to." (Redbook, vol. 143)
Dr. Margaret Mead, world-renowned Anthropologist.


NICAP list - Project Bluebook 'actual unknowns'

Full List - 1,600 incidents (pdf)


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

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 11:00 PM
The UFO craft must be denied in any way possible.
The UFO is a big millstone around the neck of government and the elite.
From the Foo to two woks sealed together to saucers to ovals to
wings to triangles, there are enough sightings of levitating and hovering
strange craft for any one to find some type of craft is being denied.
We are ignorant of the craft.
Thus in a way ignorance is denied.
This ignorance on our part has been orchestrated since 1943 to a
great extent by the ones holding the power plants and the electrical
to mechanical force engine as well as a plethora of energy devices.
So it is natural for the elite to hide behind splinter groups to splinter
our knowledge at every opportunity.

None of them will help us, they are all on the other side.

Ed: Its a strange situation. Lets say a bunker agent puts up some
UFO that is actually a true UFO capture. Hordes of de bunkers will
cry fake and thus dissolve evidence credibility. Then some will
all agree the ETs are involved.
So now we have bunkers, debunkers, skeptics, pseudo skeptics
and Debunking pseudo-sceptics all saying what was there is no more.

[edit on 11/29/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 07:29 AM
Interesting reading on the predictable tactics of pseudosceptics:

Debunking the UFO Debunkers

As a ufologist, an autonomous theologian, and social researcher, I am the target of debunkers from the broadest range of debunkers imaginable. My work reveals the cover-up of UFOs and challenges the common concepts of UFOs, it uncovers the contradictions and misconceptions of mainstream Christian doctrines and beliefs, and calls into question many social, academic, scientific, political, and historical improprieties and misinformation and disingenuousness. Early in my research I had several confrontations with James Oberg, a UFO skeptic, whose style of debunking is almost legendary. His tactics led me into a study of debunking to counter his dismissive and completely illogical points, which were almost baffling in their ability to convince others proof of UFOs was a total sham. I found, through years of experience that his tactics were very similar to those used by almost every UFO skeptic in the field. Anyone armed with the knowledge of how debunkers operate can see common threads in the way they argue their points and counter them.

It almost always starts with a condescending and self-assured attitude, which suggests that the debunker's points are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Dismissive terms such as ridiculous, absurd, trivial, or even pathetic are used to make the UFO believer seem ignorant and gullible. Science is used as the Holy Grail of reality, which bravely defending common sense against the unruly hordes of quacks and myth-worshiping infidels. Arguments are as abstract and theoretical as possible, but presented in a manner that makes science superior to any actual evidence that might challenge it, making such evidence seem to be completely worthless. They constantly reinforce the popular misconception that anything that challenges the status quo must be inherently unscientific. They deliberately confuse the “process” of science with the “content” of science.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:40 AM
Quotes on excessive scepticism:

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
Herbert Spencer, British philosopher

"It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative
scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the
preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When
this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their
prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them."
Arthur C. Clarke, 1963

"I am not very skeptical... a good deal of skepticism in a scientific man
is advisable to avoid much loss of time, but I have met not a few men,
who... have often thus been deterred from experiments or observations
which would have proven servicable."
Charles Darwin

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

"'Type one' error is thinking that something special is happening when
nothing special really is happening. 'Type two' error is thinking that
nothing special is happening, when in fact something rare or infrequent
is happening.'
M. Truzzi

Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place."
Paul Kurtz

"When adults first become conscious of something new, they usually
either attack or try to escape from it... Attack includes such mild
forms as ridicule, and escape includes merely putting out of mind."
W. I. B Beveridge, The Art of Scientific Investigation, 1950

"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second,
it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer

"Theories have four stages of acceptance: i) this is worthless nonsense;
ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view; iii) this is true, but quite unimportant; iv) I always said so.
J.B.S. Haldane, 1963

"When a thing is new, people say: 'It is not true.' Later, when its
truth becomes obvious, they say: 'It is not important.' Finally, when
its importance cannot be denied, they say: 'Anyway, it is not new.'"
William James, 1896

"A danger sign of the lapse from true skepticism in to dogmatism is an
inability to respect those who disagree"
Dr. Leonard George

"If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you.
You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the
world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) But every now
and then, a new idea turns out to be on the mark, valid and wonderful.
If you are too much in the habit of being skeptical about everything,
you are going to miss or resent it, and either way you will be standing
in the way of understanding and progress. "
Carl Sagan

"Sit down before facts like a child, and be prepared to give up every
preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses
Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."
T.H. Huxley

"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em."
Louis Armstrong


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

posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 04:54 AM
UFO Debunker's Guidebook

How to debunk UFOs and Discredit UFO Proponents:

1. Point out that very large percentages of things reported as UFOs turn out to have conventional explanations (but don't talk about individual observers' varying abilities or how believers screen and investigate cases).

2. Always refer to them as UFO believers or ETH believers, implying that their position is faith-based.

3. Argue that any given case could have been something conventional and we will never know because we never have all the facts (but don't acknowledge that well-qualified observers have reported unexplained craft-like objects displaying extraordinary performance totaling in the hundreds or thousands).

4. (Corollary to 3): Avoid any mention of the patterns of appearance and behavior in unexplained cases worldwide for many decades.

5. Focus on the well-known problems and limitations of human perception (but never mention that people are incarcerated on the basis of eye-witness testimony, that our court systems could not function without it, and that if human perception were as inadequate as claimed, nobody would dare to cross a busy street or fly an airplane).

6. Comment regularly on human credulity and wishful thinking, in a desire for saviors from space (just don't mention that it applies only to cultists on the fringes of ufology, nor that close encounter cases typically scare the pants off of the witnesses rather than inspire them).

7. Always act as if no one before you has really conducted a thorough investigation in classic UFO cases so that it's only a matter of time and diligence before the answers will be found (but avoid mentioning that the suggested answers you propose either have already been found wanting or fail to account for the salient features of the case).

8. Demand that UFO believers produce just one spaceship or physical evidence that one has been here. (Never mind that other scientific topics don't require that degree of concrete proof in order to consider something worth studying, such as Agent Orange, SETI signals, or Black Holes.)


posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 05:02 AM
Here Winston's article is completely destroyed

posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 08:17 PM

Originally posted by dereks
Here Winston's article is completely destroyed

LOL Not quite. In my opinion this article you posted in pretty poor, much of it being endlessly repeated claims that Wu is using logical fallacies. The author quotes him and then responds with basically little more than "That's a straw man...that's ad hominem...that's an appeal to emotion" etc. but usually without demonstrating that this is actually the case.

Anyone can respond to any argument with "That's ad hominem...that's an appeal to authority...that....". It doesn't mean these claims are valid and the author didn't really bother to demonstrate that they were valid and in most cases they weren't (IMO).

My impression was that the author simply used repeated unproven claims of logical fallacy to avoid a sensible debate and avoid actually addressing the points Wu made, as if by simply making the claim that something was a logical fallacy, it could be ignored and he would not have to actually address the many valid points made. We see that tactic a lot here at ATS too, usually from those who appear to have only just heard of 'logical fallacies', having found a list of them on the internet, and who then proceed to incorrectly identify almost anything anyone who happens to disagree with them says as "logical fallacies'.

As clever as the author seems to think he is being, this approach simply appears immature and evasive to me, and by contrast, makes Wu's argument appear all the more reasonable.

Consequently, as a rebuttal I thought it was very poor.

So, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

[edit on 29-1-2010 by Malcram]

posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 09:55 PM
Hi all. Of course karl 12 you do your usual job of outstanding research. Next we have to analyse and make report of reasoning too, yes?
Nice to make the extreme observations, better-yet when it can be analysed.


posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 06:04 AM
Thanks for the replies, theres a good site here which deals with debunkers, cynics and pelicanists.

"Over the years, I've read my share of debunking and extremely skeptical books about UFOs. In the early years, when I was trying to make sense of the field, I considered very seriously the "facts" and arguments of these irrational critics. They did succeed in leading me astray for a while, but perseverance in reading the literature luckily saved the day, and I eventually understood what I was reading to be the highly prejudiced material that it is."

Keith Rowell, Oregon MUFON Assistant State Director.

"Their critiques virtually all consist of scoffing, ridicule, ad hominem attacks, and the amazing claim that their dogmatic beliefs that certain things are impossible necessarily constitute laws of nature. It is a modern replay of the cardinals refusing to look through Galileo's telescope because truth has already been revealed to them. Interestingly many of the vocal skeptics are not themselves practicing scientists."

Astrophysicist Dr Bernard Haisch, Ph.D.

"Skeptics, who flatly deny the existence of any unexplained phenomenon in the name of 'rationalism,' are among the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public. People are not stupid and they know very well when they have seen something out of the ordinary. When a so-called expert tells them the object must have been the moon or a mirage, he is really teaching the public that science is impotent or unwilling to pursue the study of the unknown."

Astrophysicist, Dr Jacques Vallee.

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 03:13 AM
UFO researcher Kenny Young makes some interesting comments about 'UFO sceptic' organisations:

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 03:04 PM
Dismissing testimonies and experiences as invalid
Cherry picking of evidence
Selective Skepticism

These three are the ones that are most common on this forum. I run across them so often and so blatantly out in the open, that only a blind person wouldn't be able to recognize the above pathetic techniques and practices. It's quite sad as the types of people who employ these methods actually think of themselves as true Skeptics when it's blatantly obvious they are anything but. They bob and weave to avoid the great cases, ones with excellent documentation, evidence, and solid witness testimony, while at the same time egotistically championing themselves after "debunking" the complete rubbish topics a true skeptical researcher does automatically on a daily basis.

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 04:45 PM
Regarding the Kenny Young video above. Young seems a bit confused about what skepticism really is. Skepticism is not a belief, it is an approach. If your mind is already made up then you're not using a skeptical approach - you're using a dismissive approach. Young is making a straw man argument, a common tactic in the UFO community.

edited for spelling

[edit on 2-4-2010 by cripmeister]

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 03:48 AM
reply to post by cripmeister

"You replace one belief with another. You can't be without a belief. What you call 'you' is only a belief. If the belief goes, you go with it. That is the reason why, when you are not satisfied with one belief-structure, you replace it with another" - UGK

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 06:27 AM

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by cripmeister

"You replace one belief with another. You can't be without a belief. What you call 'you' is only a belief. If the belief goes, you go with it. That is the reason why, when you are not satisfied with one belief-structure, you replace it with another" - UGK

I beg to differ. Who said that and in what context?

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:12 AM
reply to post by cripmeister

on the basis of what context do you beg to differ?

[edit on 3/4/10 by mcrom901]

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 09:43 AM
reply to post by mcrom901

Care to elaborate on that?

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 10:31 AM
reply to post by karl 12

Star and Flag for you karl, these kind of people are ripe in this forum, aren't they? I sometimes wonder what their drive is, could it be money, or power of some kinds we cannot see? Some are very passionate too, writing very long posts to disseminate anything that would change the current status quo. I personally know people like this, they will even say that they want things to remain the same, for they "can't handle change."

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 10:59 AM
reply to post by autowrench

Autowrench, thanks for the reply and you certainly make some good points there - here is the best definiton of a true sceptic I could find and I think many UFO 'debunkers' fail dismally when it comes to being accepted into this category.

Skeptic - One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity.



reply to post by Jocko Flocko

Hey Jocko -very succinctly put.

I also think its pretty suspicious when debunkers refuse to take into account all the facts surrounding certain incidents (or just refuse to address them outright) - Here's a good question about it from Jerry Cohen.

If you solve 10 million easy cases, but haven't touched the surface of the "real" phenomena (i.e. the true "core " cases), what have you really done?



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

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 11:41 AM

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by mcrom901

Care to elaborate on that?

oh i c.... well, perhaps your need to change your motto from 'i want to believe' to 'i want to know my beliefs'...... cause thus far what you have demonstrated here is the typical pseudo-skeptical syndrome..... your 'skeptical' dismissal of the quote in my post further refutes your own comments in regards to the kenny young video..... hmmmm.... can you see through the pattern here?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in