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 skeptics -- get in here.. right now!

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Basic psychology will tell you about skeptics mindsets. They cannot deal with such startling things properly. I believe it's called 'actualization of fears' in proper terms. Just like most necrophiliacs, they turn a fear of death into an insatiable obsession, skeptics turn a fear of reality is not what I have been told and turn it into reality is what big brother tells me.

This is the best I can explain it right now under the current H20 and caffeine binge I'm under atm. It's not once a nonbeliever always a skeptic either. Just because someone denies one thing that, in their opinion, just isn't true or has not enough evidence, does not mean the person is to be labeled skeptic. They could easily believe millions of other conspiracy theories.




posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   
The problem I have with skeptics the most is ...

A: they seem to think their 5000000 points haven't already been thought out and researched by the enthusiasts as well!

It is like....no duh! I have seen a real UFO, yet I TOO know that some fuzzy light wiggling around proved NOTHING etc.....
DUH!!!!!!!

The video you talked about rocks!

and then their PROOF! PROOF! PROOF! cry bugs me too... well if it was me an a group of hikers who saw it, and we all said it together you might believe us, but if someone over there NOT in our group saw, it someone there, but only one fro OUR group reports it, the 3 seperate people are not the same as a group all at once etc....

OR the number one........ they point out spelling and grammer!!!!! WTH????

I have seen a few UFO's and now I am supposed to be a super speller and typist???? GEESH!



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mellisamouse
 




Most are not saying they dont believe you or anybody that posted the vids are fake or nothing was there. If you filmed it and the best you can get out of it was a blurry fuzzy light moving around means it was a UFO.. but it does not deserve being called an alien spacecraft if thats all you could see. What you get on film is usually better than what you could see with the naked eye. If it look that blurry on film it must have been even more blurry with your naked eye unless it was filmed with a crappy cell phone cam or you dont know how to use your cam. If you filmed a fuzzy dot which could be many things and you go ahead and call it aliens flying around in ships you deserve to be criticized.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by disfugured
 


I KNOW! Exactly!

If it is just some fuzzy dot then don't bother posting and waisting everyones time etc....

My most recent sighting was mabey 40 feet above us, so close and so huge no one could deny it....etc......

I am kicking myself for not having a camera, because even a crappy cell phone and that one was undeniable because it was sooooo close etc...

what I am waiting for is for others to see the same thing and actually HAVE a camera at the same time........I am still kicking myself yet STILL don't have a proper camera!

lol....

I guess my point is even though I am a believer in UFO's, I am a skeptic of most UFO VIDEOS! lol....make sense?

[edit on 7-7-2009 by mellisamouse]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by plejarenlyran
 


so you watched the video and have zero doubts or questions? thats very interesting becuase i watched the exact same thing and notice the following problems.

1. Strange behaviour doing a peice to camera in the middle of a sighting. How many genuine ufo phenomenon have been filmed? this guy takes them out his viewfinder.....riiiight..

2. He filmed this from a built up area yet we dont have 1 other photo/video or witness to this event? ..Riiiight...

3. the video ends abruptly we dont see the sighting to its conclusion, why not?

the most obvious problem is number 2. if you think its possible nobody else saw this apart from the cameraman you are insane.

at least santilli knew how to orchastrate a decent hoax. This attempt is really amateur.



[edit on 7-7-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
I'm sadly more sceptic now since joining this site a few years ago.
And since I've yet to see a clear unfuzzy video of a UFO, even the UFO vid the OP mentioned is of awful quality, I personally can't believe any vids that I see anymore.

Anyone remember the good UFO vid that was I think made in haiti (I could be wrong) a couple of years ago? It was clear as day, and probably the best I've ever seen. It turned out it was fake due to the cgi replication of the palm trees in the street.

Well that done it for me. A UFO vid that convinced so many (the thread was well over a 100 pages long) proved to me that they can all be faked.

I personally stick to written testimonies, radar, and admittedly a few NASA images/videos.

Imagine how crap this site would be if we didn't have sceptics.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I dont know why the word Skeptic is almost a dirty word on this site.

Being a skeptic certainly does not mean non-believer.

I for one believe in ET life and that it is a distinct possibility that this planet has indeed been visited by them.

That does not mean that every light in the sky or crappy youtube video I see stands as proof of their existence.

The video being talked about does indeed show UFO's. As in what the acronym stands for, not little green men.

The motto of this board is "Deny Ignorance" so why do so many get their shorts in a bunch when people do just that and try to determine the truth rather than having the wool pulled over their eyes?



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Oh, those evil, suppressing "skeptics" LOL.

I have said this before and I will say it again, if "skeptics" were the loudest voice, and therefore this subject's public representative, I assure you "ufology" wouldn't be the complete laughing stock of a subject that it is today. We have blind believers, the ignorant and the folks that treat this like a religion to thank for that.

So why concern yourself with skeptics? We ARE NOT THE VOCAL MAJORITY here at all, and not even close when it comes to the national scene. So no need to worry about us, you guys just keep doing what your doing and let the newscaster laugh openly every time something even remotely investigate comes along. And of course, the media will never look into something that should be, because this subject is as laughable as it is.



[edit on 5-7-2009 by IgnoreTheFacts]


I *Snip* for complete close-mindedness. UFO's are a fact. They exist, I know it, most people know it, and UFOLOGY IS NOT a joke btw. Only fox and a few mainstream news companies laugh of the truth. Tell me, are you an athiest too, because that would explain *Snip*

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/7/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
In reality there is no "skeptics" or "believers" in ufology, the real ufologists are the ones who act scientific in their research, remaining as neutral as humanly possible when reviewing cases. Sure human imperfections show up and sometimes we take one 'side of the fence' more than the other but for the most part a real and good ufologist only looks at the facts and remains open to all, no case has been confirmed real beyond a doubt, but there has been many confirmed hoaxes without a doubt. Think about that, and think about how the only way to discover the truth is to scientifically analyze the data, not blindly saying anything we see in the sky or hear online is alien related.

Unfortunately ufology has some people on two very biased sides, one being psuedoskeptics and the other being psuedobeleivers, both are bad for ufology and both are holding us back. These people are the ones that have reasons OTHER than pursuit of the truth in mind when researching UFOs, they are simply trying to prove or disprove UFOs and ultimately aliens for their own selfish purposes, whether that is to preserve their own ideology or to create their own reality, either way it is wrong. Balancing between these two ends of the 'ufology spectrum' is the only way to proceed productively.

I am never afraid to admit I was wrong, regardless how much I wanted to be right. For example, in the "orb thread" that this OP references I thought there was no way balloons could possibly be what we saw, in fact I got quite irate about that explanation and I am sorry. But after ATS member TheMythLives posted some good videos and explanations I now think it a decent probability that what we see in that video is a balloon/CGI combination. I am not afraid to admit that because my ego, I am not going to get in the way of the ultimate goal of ufology-THE TRUTH.

In conclusion, ufology can be a VERY stressful field due to its very nature, but this is NOT the "skeptics" fault, like I said any real ufologist is a skeptic because he/she investigates all facts and remains as unbiased as possible until a likely explanation can be found, regardless if it is swamp gas or a Pleadian mothership. A real ufologist is also a "believer" because he/she believes that something strange is indeed going on that needs to be investigated and has not been properly documented before by science. So the real problem here in my opinion is internal bickering between the same people with the same goals, some just have a different idea on how to go about reaching the truth than others, and this must stop.Really the ultimate goal of ufology should not be to prove aliens exist, it should be to determine what the hell these things flying around in our skies and sometimes crashing really are! This is my opinion on the matter anyways.




[edit on 7/7/2009 by jkrog08]

[edit on 7/7/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
lol the title of this thread is funny.

Thats all.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
I'm sadly more sceptic now since joining this site a few years ago.
And since I've yet to see a clear unfuzzy video of a UFO, even the UFO vid the OP mentioned is of awful quality, I personally can't believe any vids that I see anymore.

Anyone remember the good UFO vid that was I think made in haiti (I could be wrong) a couple of years ago? It was clear as day, and probably the best I've ever seen. It turned out it was fake due to the cgi replication of the palm trees in the street.

Well that done it for me. A UFO vid that convinced so many (the thread was well over a 100 pages long) proved to me that they can all be faked.

I personally stick to written testimonies, radar, and admittedly a few NASA images/videos.

Imagine how crap this site would be if we didn't have sceptics.


The Haiti video seemed very CGI to me, i spotted it after watching the video a couple of times. I always say if a UFO vid is to clean then it's usually computer generated.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by r66y712
 


Can I just say that using the comparison of necrophilia to skepticism is not only somewhat bizarre, but objectionable?

Also, suggesting generally that skeptics are “actualizing” their fears is unfair, and in the case of the vast majority, wrong.

Where are you taking into account philosophical and scientific skepticism? Are they both just representations of a primal fear of the unknown?

It is in no way unwarranted, or even arrogant, to say that the subject of UFOs/extraterrestrials etc. is an incomplete area of study; it is a topic of countless explanations, often contradictory, and has a myriad of self-appointed spokesmen of varying abilities and agendas who profess a dizzying amount of alien-inspired enlightenment.

In short, though it patently obvious many have had real experiences of real events, no one really knows what is going on. It’s all speculation; there is no way to regulate the release of “evidence” about the subject; personal agendas absolutely have become more important to many individuals than the actual subject matter. Therefore, the subject will and has become obfuscated to such an extent that the genuine phenomena is no inextricably linked with the dross and proselytizing.

So is it really unfair to take a step back when presented with spectacular video “evidence” and question what we are looking at?

It may be galling for the “believers” to see skeptics voicing concerns about the source of such evidence, but from the other side of the fence let me tell you it is just as dismaying to see such complete and fanatical defense of something that could well have been faked.

Skeptics – the real, questioning minds and not those who deny because of their own agendas – maintain a modicum of restraint. That’s all.

We are all looking for the truth - but until we have a solid foundation on which to begin to build that truth, all we have is unfounded conjecture and opinion.

And as we all know, without substantiation - or the dreaded and much needed undeniable “proof” - that is all there is left.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   
It seems plejaranlyran is no more.

Seven days on ATS and banned.

Perhaps his extremely vocal desire to suppress freedom of speech wasn’t the best approach after all…



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by avat178
 


Just curious but how did you know it was fake?

It still looks good even now.




posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beamish
It seems plejaranlyran is no more.

Seven days on ATS and banned.

Perhaps his extremely vocal desire to suppress freedom of speech wasn’t the best approach after all…



This post might glean a little light on why he was banned (again):

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Ahhh...We have a serial skeptic-hater!

Many thanks for the info, Chadwickus.

As an aside to anyone on this thread who agreed with plejaranlyran; what are your feelings now that he's been outed? Is he still entitled to his opinion, no matter how biased it may be, or does this new information taint him as someone who just wants to intice hatred?

Edit to add: I have often incorrectly been accused of being "dis-info". With threads such as this, is it fair to assume that there are many, devious ways to drive wedges between the UFO community?



[edit on 8-7-2009 by Beamish]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
While I do believe in life outside of our little planet, I feel there is a need for the skeptics or debunkers as it really does filter a lot of the crap people put out there.

However, when faced with a totally unexplainable event, it seems you do hear the dame old story.....swamp gas,lightning,balloons.....



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I think the divisions in Ufology are as vast and pervasive as the divisions within, say, the Christian church and its multitude of denominations. Each claims to, and may have, the truth. But if you gather up all of these truths and hold them up against one another, obvious contradictions pop up.

I can be labeled a skeptic, and a believer, based on the responses I've given in UFO discussion forums; I value insights from both camps (not trying to imply a black and white divide). I come here mainly for perspective, not quick to judge or jump to conclusions.

To say that one disdains skeptics, or disdains believers, is a regression of argument. We're all after the same thing. Any guesses as to what that thing is?



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mellisamouse
The problem I have with skeptics the most is ...

A: they seem to think their 5000000 points haven't already been thought out and researched by the enthusiasts as well!


Sometimes the enthusiasts haven't thought out those points, that is why they are brought up. When a sighting is explained in prosaic terms it is because someone looked at it with a critical eye and thought of one of the "5000000" points that someone else had overlooked or ignored.


Originally posted by mellisamouse
and then their PROOF! PROOF! PROOF! cry bugs me too...


Yes, that pesky proof always gets in the way, doesn't it? Why should anyone believe an extraordinary claim without requisite proof?


Originally posted by mellisamouse
well if it was me an a group of hikers who saw it, and we all said it together you might believe us, but if someone over there NOT in our group saw, it someone there, but only one fro OUR group reports it, the 3 seperate people are not the same as a group all at once etc...


Do three men make a tiger?

While there is no reason to doubt that multiple, independent eyewitnesses may have seen something (unless it can be shown to be a fabrication), the problem for critical thinkers arises when things are ascribed to the object that the witnesses have no way of knowing. To use a more prosaic example, if I were to tell you I saw a stranger walking down the street, you would have little reason to doubt me. But if I said he was beats his wife, without ever having spoken to him and no proof to back up my claims, you would have cause for doubt.


Originally posted by mellisamouse
OR the number one........ they point out spelling and grammer!!!!! WTH????


It's grammar, not "grammer". The ellipsis is three periods ("...") not however many you feel like typing. One explanation mark and one question mark suffice at the end of a sentence. Multiples do not get your point across with any more force and if anything distract from your point. While no one is perfect and we all make mistakes, grammar is important and you should at least make an attempt at following the rules.

[edit on 8-7-2009 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join