I'm pretty tired of skeptics who are unable to think outside the box.

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by Skeptical Ed

 

Read the tittle of this thread.

There is my answer.

Which is: "I'm pretty tired of skeptics who are unable to think outside the box."

Skeptics are not inside the box because hat's where all of the bs is located. We come in from outside and examine what is inside and if it shows faulty logic or common sense or reason, we think we can offer a better case because being outside means we are mentally superior.

With respect Ed, I don't think you've read this entire thread.

On multiple pages within this thread, the distinction between true skeptics and pseudoskeptics has been demonstrated.

The title of the thread, which Tifozi quoted to you, is meant to have the emphasis placed upon the 'who can't think outside the box' part of the line.

I consider myself a skeptic, who follows the available evidence where-ever it leads. So does OzWeatherman (see either page 1 or 2 of this thread, I forget which). This conversation has been had many times in this thread earlier, and Tifozi is clearly on the 'true skeptic' side of the fence. I think that your argument comes from a miscommunication. Tifozi has no problem with true skeptics, Tifozi has a problem with pseudoskeptics. From your own reply on this page to Pathos, I can see that you share this sentiment as well.

Sorry for the confusion, I hope this clears up the misunderstanding...

-WFA

Outside the box and inside the box are the most meaningless and overworked phrases in our limited business-speak vocabulary and are usually used as an admonishment to underlings by bosses who have never had an original thought in their lives. Consider that everyone thinks inside her or his own box. The only questions are the size and shape of said boxes, how fast they change, and where they overlap.
There is also no sharp line between skeptics and non-skeptics but a continuum of what one can accept and what one cannot accept. Stories such as politicians wives visiting Venus go on the gob pile. Eyewitness accounts from military pilots, who are warned off by being told that the silvery disk 500' off their starboard side is Venus showing up at noon, are far more credible. Much of the friction is due to the acceptance levels of the parties involved. At the ends of the spectrum we have those who reject everything and those who accept everything. Everyone else is somewhere in between and when an individual accepts night-time lights as alien evidence, some with a higher standard of proof will state their opinion, sometimes forcefully. Someone's UFO is someone else's IFO.

No one knows the sources of the UFO's; aliens, reverse engineered alien technology, or advanced human technology. All are possibilities and all are not exclusive.

Keep an open mind. Be curious. Strengthen your standards and apply them equally to all reports and stories. Accept the fact that there are hoaxers who have agendas, really crazy people who like to post, people who mis-identify common objects, and trained technical people whose testimonies are difficult for the close-minded to dismiss. The difficulty is often in determining who is who.

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
One day perhaps, you may learn the Scientific method, and that 'absolute proof' does not exist. At that point in your mental development, you might become a true skeptic. You have yet to demonstrate this here within the thread.
-WFA

Your injecting philosophy. In order to say something exists in the physical world, science and logic dictates that you need 'absolute physical proof' of its existence. Logic also dictates that if I cannot touch, smell, taste, or hear something then its not real. Theories start off as theoretical observations; however, they are not considered factual until something substantial is found.

When I asked people if they "knew every man made aircraft ever made, and their shape, function, and make up", I was trying to get everyone to realize that -- without knowing every single aircraft in existence, no one can 'factually' say that "alien made UFOs have been visiting Earth."

Now, science is also solved by looking outside of the box. When people begin with creating a hypothesis, they are philosophically expressing their point of study. However, theories are not proven to be 100% factual until proof is found.

My issue is that no one can definitively say "alien made UFOs have been entering Earth's atmosphere" until we can dismiss man made objects. Sure, you can examine an 'unknown' object's performance visually; however, how can you eliminate all man made craft without prior knowledge.

We are talking about physical objects, so we are going to need physical proof. We are not talking about the "Big Bang Theory", which we do not have the tools necessary to examine the evidence. Thus, "The Big Bang Theory" is not yet factual. Its a theory.

Without injecting science into the study of UFOs, there would be no tools to measure any time of evidence. It becomes a religion.

------------------------------------

Sorry for the repetition. If you guys do not understand the above logic, there is not much more we can debate on.

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar I think that your argument comes from a miscommunication. Tifozi has no problem with true skeptics, Tifozi has a problem with pseudoskeptics. From your own reply on this page to Pathos, I can see that you share this sentiment as well.

Sorry for the confusion, I hope this clears up the misunderstanding...

-WFA

If I did misread the thread's intentions. I apologize for the mess up as well.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Pathos]

reply to post by kleverone


It's pointless to try to explain the many 1000's of ways pschcologically, technologically, and most importantly purposefully.

I can try to enlighten you a little.

First of all, how would an Alien species from let's say, sigh... Another Galaxy, another World come to be here in Earth's vicinity? It would be highly unlikely that we would actually witness this or make any direct "live" contact with an Extraterrestrial species. Simply put, the distance is just too vast. Now this isn't to say that it would not be possible for an object to travel through space for long distances, what the problem would be is this.

A) Alien race detects this solar system, and notices things interesting to them, maybe life, maybe gases that life emits, maybe they need a world with the same climate and location from the Sun as our planet, let's just say from our knowledge of life, that would mean something to us in a competitive form, would have to be able to tolerate our climate. Simply, you probably won't see a Rockman living on a lava world 1 million miles from the Sun, and building any technology as far as physical life as we know and understand it seems to happen.

So they would have to have a lifespan.

B) The problem, lets assume that to have technology you have to be able to work together intelligently with your fellow Aliens, to develop and build things, "advanced things". This leads to the reasoning that in a society, there would have to be emotion, families, contemplation about existence, rules, laws, dreams, goals... Herein lies the "Why leave home issue"

Even with the most powerful technology, let's say the ability to manipulate the laws of physics as we know it, there would still be the problem of distance...

If I leave my home world, from some other galaxy, I'd never be able to return home, WHY? Because as i get farther and farther away from my home, everything ages around me while I travel... I'd become a "Time Traveller" basically. The only problem is that Time is manipulated for ME and my CREW, not anything else outside our Light Speed or Wormhole traversing Spaceship...

By the time I got from point A) to point B) there would be no telling what I would find on either end. Point A) Hopefully would not be destroyed or develop some super technology, in those 500 lightyears, and Point B) Would not resemble anything I would remember, or anyone I knew. I would be in limbo with my crew and would end up outside any reality that we would have known. Essentially "pushed" out of relevance, by our "Trip to Earth".

Science would be meaningless.
Because there would be no one to send the information to.
In 500 light years would the Alien homeworld even care anymore?
Would the data even matter?

So what would even be the point?

Exactly, there would be no point to attempt travelling around away from your homeworld. Other than in your own Solar System to use the resources there.

Remember Einstein said "time is relative to the observer". This is perfectly correct.

There's that damn Distance again...

So the only reason we would ever see any Aliens here, would be probably because they had to leave their own world, due to some failure, not through exploration and not by noticing us from afar.

So my point is that we more than likely have not encountered and Alien race as of yet, because if we did, we would be encountering THE ENTIRE, Alien race, not just a flying saucer or two...

There would be no other reasons for an encounter other than what I just stated.

Because distance even though they may posses some uber scientific space travelling technology, still affects everyone and everything outside of that technological bubble...

That's thinking outside the box, but the only problem is that we are on the inside of it... Us humans and whatever else could be out there...

The problems would always lie with the Space Travellers, because the universe around them would always be changing... There is just no way to "freeze time" so Alien Species can Meet Human Species and co-exist and make contact.

This just will never happen unfortunately.

Now we may someday receive signals from deep space, and may someday be able to transmit into deep space, but that would be the only contact we could have, through messages. Even then, the messages would take so long to transmit back and forth, they would probably consist of "We are here, we have technology" "Here is a history of our civilization".

reply to post by Pathos


Pathos, your on the right track. You should read my point.

It dismisses UFO's altogether, because there would be no reason for them to be here.

We can surely see things in the sky that we may not be able to identify, but then you have to go with the logic of probability...

What's more probable? The unknown object is something common, that we just can't identify? Or a Alien spacecraft from another galaxy come to visit Earth... heh

Until a UFO shows up and Zaps an Airliner, or Lands and Gets out. Or buzzes low over a populated area we'll have to stick to the most reasonable ideas.

Space Junk, Meteor, Aircraft, Top Secret Aircraft, Atmospheric phenomena.... Etc...

heh

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by Skeptical Ed

 

Read the tittle of this thread.

There is my answer.

Which is: "I'm pretty tired of skeptics who are unable to think outside the box."

Skeptics are not inside the box because hat's where all of the bs is located. We come in from outside and examine what is inside and if it shows faulty logic or common sense or reason, we think we can offer a better case because being outside means we are mentally superior.

With respect Ed, I don't think you've read this entire thread.

On multiple pages within this thread, the distinction between true skeptics and pseudoskeptics has been demonstrated.

The title of the thread, which Tifozi quoted to you, is meant to have the emphasis placed upon the 'who can't think outside the box' part of the line.

I consider myself a skeptic, who follows the available evidence where-ever it leads. So does OzWeatherman (see either page 1 or 2 of this thread, I forget which). This conversation has been had many times in this thread earlier, and Tifozi is clearly on the 'true skeptic' side of the fence. I think that your argument comes from a miscommunication. Tifozi has no problem with true skeptics, Tifozi has a problem with pseudoskeptics. From your own reply on this page to Pathos, I can see that you share this sentiment as well.

Sorry for the confusion, I hope this clears up the misunderstanding...

-WFA

I appreciate the way you phrased that. And, of course, you and Tifozi are correct about pseudo-skeptics. Same thing for pseudo-atheists. I'll have to watch it in the future when I read to make sure I digest everything before I get involved.

I am a true skeptic in that, normally, I keep an open mind and do not accept readily and without questioning any claim put forth. This tends to aggravate a lot of posters here who do not like to have their claims or beliefs questioned and expect what they say to be accepted blindly.

Again, thanks for pointing out my erroneous assumption of the thread's title.


[edit on 21-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]

reply to post by pteridine


"No one knows the sources of the UFO's; aliens, reverse engineered alien technology, or advanced human technology. All are possibilities and all are not exclusive."


Heh, do you realize you just stated that something exists where there has been no concrete proof of the fact you claim?

Instead you might try thinking with a more rational mind. There is a big difference between an open mind, and an irrational mind.

An open minded individual would be "open" to the "possibility" of Alien life existing, but an open mined individual would "not" state that in "fact" there are Aliens and Ufos and we just don't know the sources of them...

For instance. I personally believe that there is a possibility that there are other life forms existing on another planet. Look at Humans, we are proof that advanced life can exist, and in fact we are proof that worlds can sustain and support life and allow it to develop technology to actually leave a planet.

[edit on 9/21/2009 by Brainiac]

Originally posted by Brainiac
reply to post by pteridine

 

"No one knows the sources of the UFO's; aliens, reverse engineered alien technology, or advanced human technology. All are possibilities and all are not exclusive."


Heh, do you realize you just stated that something exists where there has been no concrete proof of the fact you claim?

Instead you might try thinking with a more rational mind. There is a big difference between an open mind, and an irrational mind.

An open minded individual would be "open" to the "possibility" of Alien life existing, but an open mined individual would "not" state that in "fact" there are Aliens and Ufos and we just don't know the sources of them...

For instance. I personally believe that there is a possibility that there are other life forms existing on another planet. Look at Humans, we are proof that advanced life can exist, and in fact we are proof that worlds can sustain and support life and allow it to develop technology to actually leave a planet.

[edit on 9/21/2009 by Brainiac]

This is the heart of the problem, denying the reality of UFOs. It's gone beyond hearsay reports, the evidence is in the number of individuals who have witnessed non-human aerial phenomena. I've had 5 or 6 solid sightings and I videotaped one. No one, not anymore, is going to tell me that UFOs are not real. Aside from witness testimony, which I'm aware is meaningless without evidence but numbers do have a certain weight, there are the millions of photos/emulsion films/videos of things that no one on earth can claim ownership to.

All we are able to make are heavy metal things that once they lose power just plummet to earth killing almost all aboard. I do not accept any claim (without evidence, of course) that our or any government has any UFOs in storage and that they are back-engineering, etc. Nothing that is made by humans reflects any knowledge other than what's been developed through hard work.

I do not state that there are aliens, although we have to take into consideration what or who is piloting these exotic aerial craft and it sure as hell ain't humans!

I'm an open-minded individual AND I've had sighting of non-human craft! So there.

Originally posted by kleverone
I really do not have the patience for so called experts who go on television and arrogantly describe how there is now way that aliens could travel throughout space simply because the fuel required to do say would be way more than the craft could carry!

WTF?


Is it because we are insanely arrogant or insanely stupid.

Your annoyance, annoys me.. why? Because you wax on about ignorance and disgust with skeptics while you must be displaying skepticism in some part of your life just like the rest of us do.

What annoys me the most is people who pick a particular subject closest to them and then use that as their fulcrum.

Do you believe in bigfoot?
Uri Geler's "ability" to bend spoons?
UFO's?
Colonies on Mars?
911 Truth?
NWO?
Crop Circles?
Nessie or Lockness?
Stigmata?
Unicorns?
Civilizations on Mars?
NASA Cover Ups?
Chupacabra?
Angels and Demons?
GOD?

EVERYONE IS A SKEPTIC ABOUT SOMETHING

See, everyone has things they believe and disbelieve, YOU are not an exception. One mans foolish pursuit is another mans inside joke. You cannot possibly believe is all things man has conjured up in his imagination, so you must pick and choose and by doing so you are lending some things credibility and some thing not.. based on what?

Based on what you know and the opinions you have formed.. exactly what the "experts" are doing (except they have the education to back it up) so what are you really mad at? That these "experts" (who are actually physicists, while you are not) get to be on TV telling everyone about their opinions?

Is it jealousy? Seriously, think about it. What do you think is ridiculous? Unicorns or Bigfoot? Would you not take the opportunity to tell someone why their belief in Unicorns is rubbish?


So you believe in UFO's? So? Now you can judge those who don't subscribe to it?

Are you equally annoyed at the people who are skeptical about Bigfoot and go on TV and talk about how we would have found one by now, or there is no way one could be real?

Do you post Lock Ness threads miffed about skeptics who dare to challenge Nessie?

Do you go into NWO threads are call skeptic's "agents"?

Or do you believe it is YOUR belief that is best, the "one" truth, the only one deserved?

This is what annoys me, people who assign more weight to their belief and post on ATS (read: whine) about skeptics, like somehow all skeptics are out to get them to tear down their belief.. you take it personal while ignore all the others.. you are not special, regardless of what your mother or 1st grade teacher taught you, we are all the same.

WITHOUT SKEPTICS THIS WORLD WOULD TURN TO CRAP IN 15 MINUTES.

I happen to think that there are !OF COURSE! millions of other intelligent species out there, (billions of stars per galaxy * billions of galaxies = lots of life) but based on our current knowledge of science. they have no way to get here. (Your quantum comment is absurd BTW)

By your logic, and applying YOUR logic, then Unicorns can be real. How can we be so insanely arrogant or insanely stupid? I mean we don't know there aren't interdimensional rifts that allow these creatures to walk the earth at leisure.

A line has to be drawn somewhere... that line should start and end with our current understanding of nature and the physical limitations of such.

If we find evidence of something that would allow travel between the stars that wouldn't take more mass than we could carry or thousands of lifetimes we can then re-evaluate, but until then.. it's the best we got and I'd rather have someone on TV telling everyone what we DO know.. than some pie-in-the-sky dreamer telling us what isn't physically possible. (to our current knowledge)

Originally posted by gormly
So you believe in UFO's? So? Now you can judge those who don't subscribe to it?

If you follow closely and see what the skeptics/debunkers have to offer, you see it's isn't much. They pick their spots and shy away from the best evidence. I'll make that judgment any day of the week.

reply to post by Brainiac


UFO's are unidentified flying objects. They certainly exist, as many flying objects are unidentified by their observers. If you read my post, I said that one person's UFO may be another's IFO. There are many credible witnesses to craft that are unconventional in shape and performance and their origins are not known. Certainly they fit the definition of UFO's.
There is a possibility that all such objects are advanced human technology. The discs flying over DC in the late 40's could have been US technology exposed to keep the public aroused for political reasons. The WW2 Foo fighters could have been Nazi technology. Airship sightings in the 1890's could have been dirigibles.

reply to post by kleverone


Stop venting and learn from your experience. Simply stop discussing. It's pointless. That's what is holding people back finding the truth. Only you ALONE can be led to the truth. Just observe. Not only is that much easier and totally stressless for you ... it's the only way to reach your goal. If you are ready you will get what you are looking for.

reply to post by Brainiac
I agree.

Quick exercise for everyone. If you want to think 'outside of the box', walk out into the middle of a large field. Make sure there are large bulky clouds, which seem like massive obstructions. While looking at the clouds casually, notice the proportion of them in relation to others. Also observe the distance between the bottoms and tops of the clouds. Observe the light relationships, which range from sunlight to dark. After you analyzed the clouds closely, allow your eye to change the shape of the blue sky into a dome. Now, look at the cloud again.

If you are able to see the clouds hanging within a snow globe shape, you will be taking your first steps in being more perceptive. You will soon realize that it is impossible for anyone standing on the ground to 'definitively' say they saw a 'alien made UFO'. Its impossible.

Cell-phone cameras cannot capture clear images beyond a few feet. Camcorders cannot capture clear images beyond a few miles. Even though you can own the most advanced video technology available to the public, it cannot get a clear shot at an object that is more than three miles away. You can see an object as a spot in the sky; however, you will never-ever be able to capture an airplane beyond three miles in detail.

Between the Earth's surface and the ISS space station, there is approximately 199 to 215 miles of atmosphere.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Pathos]

From my vantage point Skeptics are not Ufologists nor are Debunkers.

They might tell you they are but they are not.

The history of Skeptics and Debunkers is show me the proof .

So they have no responsibility to seek it themselves its always on the experiencers and believers to do that work for them.

In the early days of Ufology was about beliving in life elsewhere and investigating stories that were being reported to the Air Force,local Police etc.

Skeptics would always in later years try to explain away events of people that were reported .

Roswell for example Skeptics and Debunkers will tell you that a Flying Saucer never crashed and it was as the official report stated Crash Test Dummies or maybe weather balloons.

That story by the way regarding Roswell was changed by the Air Force at least 4 times the last being Crash Test Dummies.

Belivers do not just believe ,but when they experience something real they know it .

Some even take time to report the experience to a local UFO group to investigate.

Not everything can be explained away which many Skeptics and Debunkers do .

They might be interested in UFology but they are not Ufologists.

Good discussion .

Blessings and Peace,
CmdrAleon

Originally posted by kleverone
There is a difference between skeptic and objective thinker.

Never a truer word said.

Originally posted by fls13
If you follow closely and see what the skeptics/debunkers have to offer, you see it's isn't much. They pick their spots and shy away from the best evidence.

Yes,I´ve noticed that as well.

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

Originally posted by kleverone
As I sit here and debate whether or not I should even write this thread, (a baby that could wake at any moment, or the sheer frustration of stupidity) I obviously decide to go ahead, to much chagrin. I really do not have the patience for so called experts who go on television and arrogantly describe how there is now way that aliens could travel throughout space simply because the fuel required to do say would be way more than the craft could carry!

WTF?

At what point did your brain tell you that we are the epitome of advancement?

When did you come to terms with the fact that there is now way anyone could possibly have a better understanding of physics then us? Of possibly a whole set of physics all-together? (Quantum Physics tells us this this possible).

Is it because we are insanely arrogant or insanely stupid.

I know I am preaching to the choir but I needed to vent.

Carry on

I am on the opposite side of the spectrum. I am tired of believers who assume alien visitation w/o a shred of real proof. They have helped turn this into a new religion instead of a true search for the truth. While the possibility of aliens coming here is there it does not mean that is what's happening. Let's be 100% honest here. There is zero evidence of alien visitation. What drives me even more crazy is when I tell my 3 UFO sightings the blind believers assume I believe as they do. That the things I have seen were of alien origin. It's laughable. They always say things like "It COULDN'T be our technology!" When I ask them how do they know they never have any real answers. It's just a feeling they have. It's crazy. Stop focusing on the countless possibilities and focus on the evidence. None of which says aliens are here. Personal stories do not count as evidence. Everyone has a story. Everyone knows enough to put together a convincing story. We can't trust phots and video since most things can be faked. I know since I do 3D modeling, animation, and compositing CG elements into live action video.

[edit on 9/21/2009 by norman619]

reply to post by Skeptical Ed


In a see of madness, a sane man named Skeptical Ed emerges...

Thanks Ed for that reply. And know that I meant no offense at all, and I absolutely wondrously thank you for your actual skepticism, and your outlook (which accords to the Scientific Method) expressed in your posts here at ATS.

Welcome to my friends list I'm glad to have you here working with us to deny ingnorance

You might find the BOLA case of interest (linked in my sig line) or the Kecksburg Event (currently on the Main Page for the UFOs/Aliens forum).

I would welcome your comments in either investigation!

-WFA

How are they skeptics?

It seems like they are the ones who conform with "science".

Wouldn't then the "believers" be the skeptics?

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by kleverone

 

Could you imagine a world without skeptics? It'd be hellish, people would be running around believing in all sorts of wild things. Grown men would be leaving offerings to the Easter Bunny believing it real, sailors would still be afraid to fall off the flat Earth, superstition and ignorance would rule the day.

Most good skeptics are willing to believe if the item in question is proven or shown to be theoretically within the realm of possibility (under the rules of the Universe as we understand them so far). Some of them, like you said, are arrogant and seem pompous, these I like to call Psuedo-Skeptics, the so-called professional debunkers (like Joe Nickell) who scoff at believers and will explain away anything and everything with a wave of their hand or will resort to tearing down the credibility of the witnesses no matter how expert the witness (I've seen military UFO witnesses on CNN get called liars

)

But in truth we need skeptics, if everyone agreed on everything, especially without proof, the world would be a much weirder place...

What's happen if everyone is Skeptics?

Originally posted by Pathos
Cell-phone cameras cannot capture clear images beyond a few feet. Camcorders cannot capture clear images beyond a few miles. Even though you can own the most advanced video technology available to the public, it cannot get a clear shot at an object that is more than three miles away. You can see an object as a spot in the sky; however, you will never-ever be able to capture an airplane beyond three miles in detail.

Pathos my friend, while I agree in general with the point you are trying to make, I felt compelled to correct you on the minor details, like never say never, as in "you will never-ever be able to capture an airplane beyond three miles in detail". How about a qualifier like "most people will never do that"?


www.airliners.net...(F)/1526441/L/

Flying over Abruzzo during sunset. Photo taken with a telescope. 3000 mm focal length. The plane was about 15 - 20 km away.

While it says it's only 15-20km away, for some reason, it looks farther???

Actually I think this has to qualify as one of the most amazing photos ever taken, most people will never achieve this kind of result.

But if everyone would just go out and get a 3000mm focal length telescope lens (and a tripod, it won't work without that), we just might get some decent UFO photos! The problem is they're not very cheap or portable.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]