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.

 

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

page: 3
35
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
The problem I have is not just with skeptics, its with searchers who havent found the ET's .
Not only are skeptics ( I mean the beligerant cuss ones, not the sensible rational scientificaly aware ones) unable to look outside thier knowlege base, but even the scientists and shed dwellers who believe ! They look at mars and the moon and venus and jupiter and all the planetary bodies in the freakin system and say "Awwww DAMNIT ! Wheres all the INTELLIGENT life ???" .
Who the hell made humans the arbiters of what constitutes intelligent life? Whos to say we would RECOGNISE a lifeform born of a world with completely different mix of chemicals as its main atmosphere? For all we know, every rock on mars might have brain waves. For all we know gas clouds in the atmosphere of Jupiter might be geniuses!
The key thing to remember with all parties in this debate is , we are only human, and many humans NEED a box from which to think ... I dont ... but Im classifiably insane.




posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


I've had similar thoughts.

Giant assumptions... aliens are water/carbon based, have DNA, are humanoid, Bipedal, and think like we do. That describes the vast minority of life on just this planet [one species in millions upon millions].

It seems that people are looking for smarter, more technologically advanced versions of themselves, not just intelligent life.

Finding a microbe or a self replicating silicon based organism would be amazing. Finding the intellectual equal to my dog would be incredible. But sadly even the great apes, and cetaceans don't make the cut. Talk about the inability to think outside of the box.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by kleverone
 


what " box " ?????????????

to be blunt - i ussually wince when people order me to ` think outside the box ` - and immediatlty counter demand ` what box `



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
So what is it on the "outside"? Whatever stuff people make up?

Personally I prefer thinking inside a bigger box. Thinking "outside the box" when it comes to UFO pretty much mean whacky science fiction and fantasies with zero connection to the real world to me.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
You can get as mad at them as you want, but it is not the skeptics that have made this subject so laughable that it can't be taken seriously by the people that need to in order for the truth to come out.




Bullseye.

People who think 'too much' outside the box damage the U.F.O community infinitely more than those who would cast an objective eye over proceedings.

I'm ready to believe but why should I if I don't believe there is sufficient proof that aliens have travelled here? I've said many times that 99% of sceptics who are interested in U.F.O.'s will acknowledge that there has to be life elswhere in the universe but there's nothing to say we've been visited by it, nothing concrete at least. I'm not prepared to believe in something as groundbreaking as alien life visiting earth on faith alone, why should I and why should I have to defend myself if I don't? Every week there's a thread on here with the aim of trying to make sceptics look like narrow minded fools, it's a misconception that sceptics are closed minded.

Bear in mind there are sceptics who's minds are closed to the point where they won't believe in even the tiniest possibility of the fantastic but these are an extreme minority and it's these ones who give real sceptics a bad name.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
"Always pay attention to someone who say's he seeks for the truth, never pay attention to someone who claims he had found it"

Jordan Maxwell

Nothing wrong in being skeptic, however it is very wrong to swallow everything you hear, no one knows the truth, that's why we are doing this.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
If one is truly skeptical, they cannot claim that there is "no way" something could occur unless they possess unequivocal proof. Evidence alone is not proof, either.

Pseudo-skeptics make assertions without proof, using professed skepticism as a means to bolster their personal belief or conclusions, however if they lack proof, then they are not being truly skeptical.

Skeptics cannot assert without proof, or they are being the opposite of skeptical; they are placing their belief in something that lacks irrefutable proof.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
You can get as mad at them as you want, but it is not the skeptics that have made this subject so laughable that it can't be taken seriously by the people that need to in order for the truth to come out.


First and foremost IgnoreTheFacts, you are very right on one level. There are 'believers' out there who do the UFO research community a great dis-service.

However, I believe that this thread was started in response to a 'skeptic' also doing a great dis-service to the UFO research community.

I'm going to use the example of Seth Shostak here (not necessarily Kleverone's source of frustration, but one of my own...)

When Seth goes on National TV and Radio programs, and says that UFO research is ridiculous and that in no way other than Radio astronomy will we ever find proof of intelligence out there...

Well that makes the UFO research community look bad.

It makes the UFO research community look laughable.

In fact, for anyone with an open mind and a basic understanding of the amount of real estate out there in space, it makes Shostak look foolish too.

I'm pretty sure that's the kind of thing Kleverone was referring to in this thread.

Not to say your point isn't valid, there are certainly those like Jaime Maussan who make UFO researchers look foolish as well.

I just want to be fair, and make sure it's pointed out that this activity comes from both sides of the fence, and it isn't healthy for our community for it to come from either side...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by merka
 


Well that would be silly , and obviously if you respect your fellow thinkers , then you would never assume thats what thinking outside the box means. All Im advocating is a mode of thought which denys the entire human arrogance problem by saying , anything is possible therefore investigate EVERYTHING , and discard NOTHING untill all that can be known , has been discovered.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hawkwind.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
You can get as mad at them as you want, but it is not the skeptics that have made this subject so laughable that it can't be taken seriously by the people that need to in order for the truth to come out.




Bullseye.

People who think 'too much' outside the box damage the U.F.O community infinitely more than those who would cast an objective eye over proceedings.

I'm ready to believe but why should I if I don't believe there is sufficient proof that aliens have travelled here? I've said many times that 99% of sceptics who are interested in U.F.O.'s will acknowledge that there has to be life elswhere in the universe but there's nothing to say we've been visited by it, nothing concrete at least. I'm not prepared to believe in something as groundbreaking as alien life visiting earth on faith alone, why should I and why should I have to defend myself if I don't? Every week there's a thread on here with the aim of trying to make sceptics look like narrow minded fools, it's a misconception that sceptics are closed minded.

Bear in mind there are sceptics who's minds are closed to the point where they won't believe in even the tiniest possibility of the fantastic but these are an extreme minority and it's these ones who give real sceptics a bad name.


Mate with all due respect.... you do yourself no favours with your signature.
That is a dead give away that you are from the wrong side of the Skeptic train tracks so to speak. I mean James Randi's Million Dollar Psychic challenge? Why would you be proud of that and put it in your signature?

James Randi is an absolute fraud and a con man. He is a professional skeptic.... who has made a living out of telling people they are wrong... without so much as even the slightest bit of evidence to back up his claims... prefering to rely on "theories" that his followers like yourself slurp up.

His "Million Dollar Challenge" is the most unscientific test you could ever possibly imagine and is ridiculed within the science fraternity for its lack of science. Of course that should come as no great surprise given James Randi has absolutely NO scientific credentials whatsoever. His degrees are in English. He is a magician who uses his magic to con people at his shows and is using it now to con his skeptic followers into following his little religion.

And to top it off James Randi was heavily involved in CSICOP (Committee for Scientific Inquiry of Claims of the Paranormal) when they concoted a fraud within the scientific community by deliberately falsifyfing their results of their experiment of the Mars Effect.... because they wanted to debunk it. Dennis Rawlins who was a co-founder of CSICOP resigned and blew the lid on Randi and his other skeptic debunker cronies.

And what was Randi's answer when quizzed about this covered up inquiry?

James Randi - "There's an accusation going around that CSICOP tried to cover it up. If you can call ignoring the thing and hoping it would go away a cover up, then perhaps they're right. But I don't call it a cover up at all."

Gee... what a surprise he doesn't think it was a cover up.... so what do you call it then when someone deliberately lies and fakes scientific data to push your debunkers agenda and then hope nobody will notice and it will go away? What a wonderful Paranormal Skeptic investigator James Randi is.... is he an investigator or a debunker? Is that what all of Science does? Ignores evidence which doesn't fit their agenda they are trying to push and makes up scientific data to prove something doesn't exist? No that's what DEBUNKERS do.

And the fact you idolise this clown in your signature with one of the most disgraceful unscientific DEBUNKER tests...... and then sit there and tell me you are an open minded skeptic. HAHAHA. Even Randi himself said the Million Dollar Challenge is there to give Skeptic Debunkers (like you obviously) ammunition to attack Psychics with. He is not interested in the truth.... never has been and never will be. Obviously neither are you.


[edit on 16-9-2009 by Total Package]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Something tells me you are supposed to take these rants to the 'rant' forum on bts!


As for there being other species it is not proven either way... i, for one would like to see visually an Alien Grey or Reptoid which have been the focus of Alien discussion of late....

Put one of these on TV for everyone to see then i will believe....



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

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

Hmmm... I can see your conundrum. I also have a problem with people who cannot see out side of the box.

I have some questions though:

(1) If there was absolute proof that aliens have visited Earth, why have we not had physical "public" contact with such species?

(2) Since the paradigm behind UFOs gives aliens the capability to paralyze people, why haven't they paralyzed everyone on the planet?

(3) In order for an alien to master space travel, they would have to be very advanced technologically. Other words, they have the compatibility to avoid almost everything man has currently created. What is stopping them from taking over the planet? Why would they not use cloaking technology to avoid detection?

(4) Since aliens are said to have telepathy, why are they not trying to control people mentally?

(5) Why does 99.5% of the evidence of UFOs come in the form of bouncing-shacking spots of light, which can be easily translated into anything through subjective interpretation?

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos

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

Hmmm... I can see your conundrum. I also have a problem with people who cannot see out side of the box.

I have some questions though:

(1) If there was absolute proof that aliens have visited Earth, why have we not had physical "public" contact with such species?


What do you call abductions? What do you call implants found in abductees? Is that not physical? Unless you mean why haven't they landed on the lawn of the whitehouse and said "Hi We are from another planet" which of course is ridiculous thinking.


Originally posted by Pathos

(2) Since the paradigm behind UFOs gives aliens the capability to paralyze people, why haven't they paralyzed everyone on the planet?


Why would they? Give me 1 good reason why they would paralyze everyone on the planet? To take us over? I would have though it's blatantly obvious they could do it if they want.


Originally posted by Pathos

(3) In order for an alien to master space travel, they would have to be very advanced technologically. Other words, they have the compatibility to avoid almost everything man has currently created. What is stopping them from taking over the planet? Why would they not use cloaking technology to avoid detection?


Again as above.... why presume they would want to take over the planet? They may be spiritually alot more advanced than us and see the planet as a living breathing organism.

As for the cloaking technology.... I've seen UFO's on UV that cannot be seen with the eye.... this is cloaking. Why don't they use it all the time? Well.... we have been building automobiles for over 100 years... but we still have cars that break down.... you would think with the technological advances we have had we could have built a car by now that wouldn't break down. Why would life on other planets be infallible? Just because they are technically more advanced does not mean they are infallible. Perhaps they cannot use the cloaking for periods because that requires more energy... maybe they need the energy at the moment for other parts of the craft to work. There are 1000 reasons why.... none of which we understand.... it doesn't mean it's not real tho.


Originally posted by Pathos
(4) Since aliens are said to have telepathy, why are they not trying to control people through mind control?


As someone who has done a fair bit of psychic work I can tell you the vast majority of Alien contacts are done telepathically.


Originally posted by Pathos
(5) Why does 99.5% of the evidence of UFOs come in the form of bouncing-shacking spots of without any detail?


Tell me... if you explode a massive chunk of dirt in a mine.... and sift through all of the rocks and pebbles.... and 99.5 of it is just rocks and pebbles and 0.5% of it has diamonds.... do you throw away the diamonds and say "Nothing here lets move along"?

Most of the questions you have asked are the questions of a skeptic looking at why the glass is half empty.... and just completely ignoring what is there because you are so busy trying to justify all the stuff you don't understand with your "logical" mind.

It is typical skeptic thinking.... and something I see all the time in the Psychic Skeptic Community.... instead of concentrating on the evidence that is there that is unexplainable.... they concentrate on the other 'logical explanation' evidence and focus so heavily on that so that they can say "This is why it's not real." Project Bluebook was made especially for the skeptics in mind.... lets give them something that proves nothing and they will ride it all the way to the bank.


[edit on 16-9-2009 by Total Package]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Total Package
 




You're right about the sig, I'll remove it.



[edit on 16-9-2009 by Hawkwind.]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
(1) If there was absolute proof that aliens have visited Earth, why have we not had physical "public" contact with such species?


The Brookings Report of the 1970s will provide you with a good theory on the answer to this question...


Originally posted by Pathos
(2) Since the paradigm behind UFOs gives aliens the capability to paralyze people, why haven't they paralyzed everyone on the planet?

(3) In order for an alien to master space travel, they would have to be very advanced technologically. Other words, they have the compatibility to avoid almost everything man has currently created. What is stopping them from taking over the planet? Why would they not use cloaking technology to avoid detection?

(4) Since aliens are said to have telepathy, why are they not trying to control people mentally?


These questions deal with Aliens seeking to somehow 'control' humans on Earth. I'm not sure where that premise would have come from (Sci fi maybe?). For a species to have developed space travel, one would assume some bit of decorum has also evolved in that timespan, no? Control is a very human mindset, one I'm not sure an Alien species would necessarily share...


Originally posted by Pathos
(5) Why does 99.5% of the evidence of UFOs come in the form of bouncing-shacking spots of light, which can be easily translated into anything through subjective interpretation?

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Pathos]


That's what is available out there on the net...

I wouldn't call it 99.5% of the evidence though, I'd call it 99.5% of the available data set.

The evidence lies in the .5% of those cases that are still unexplained.

My question to you Pathos, is why would someone claiming to be a skeptic, interested in UFOs have a problem coming over to the BOLA thread (linked in my signature) and having a look through some of the .5% of actual evidence that does exist?

When faced with a case like that, many skeptics simply are unwilling to apply Occam's razor.

It's a reasonable frustration that some of us are experiencing, watching good thinkers refuse to become great thinkers...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hawkwind.
reply to post by Total Package
 




You're right about the sig, I'll remove it.


Sorry if I came across pissed... but seriously if I saw James Randi in the street I'd punch his lights out... such is my disdain for what that prick has done to the investigation of paranormal. Then I have to sit there and listen to him telling me I am a fraud and cold read people to prey on them. The bloke is a wanker of the highest order.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos

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

Hmmm... I can see your conundrum. I also have a problem with people who cannot see out side of the box.

I have some questions though:

(1) If there was absolute proof that aliens have visited Earth, why have we not had physical "public" contact with such species?

(2) Since the paradigm behind UFOs gives aliens the capability to paralyze people, why haven't they paralyzed everyone on the planet?

(3) In order for an alien to master space travel, they would have to be very advanced technologically. Other words, they have the compatibility to avoid almost everything man has currently created. What is stopping them from taking over the planet? Why would they not use cloaking technology to avoid detection?

(4) Since aliens are said to have telepathy, why are they not trying to control people mentally?

(5) Why does 99.5% of the evidence of UFOs come in the form of bouncing-shacking spots of light, which can be easily translated into anything through subjective interpretation?

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Pathos]


Hello!

Those are some great questions and they deserve to be answered squarely and evidentially. Although I cannot give you anything irrefutable (I wish), I can hopefully satisfy some of your questioning at an acceptable and certainly understandable level at least to the point of solidying the idea of something extraordinary going on. Here is a link to Skyfloating's current thread. Quite nice actually as a lot of the posters, including myself have dug up lots of physical evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. Enjoy!

UFO's leave physical traces


Cheers,

Erik

P.S. Bare in mind that so far nobody on this thread has been foolish enough to make any statements resounding of absolutes or definitives as there certainly are none thus far other than something quite simply is going on.

[edit on 22/SeppmWed, 16 Sep 2009 12:27:31 -0500/08 by redwoodjedi]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Seems this is a good summary of the whole UFOlogy thing...

Shows how serious researchers are





Post will self destruct in 9... 8... 7...


Not knowing what exactly your intent was here to take one of my photographs and post it with the comment of " this is a good summary of the whole UFOlogy thing..", I'll just go ahead and add my two cents.

I believe that there is not only a need for critical thinkers in this genre, but I also think that it's 'healthy' to have a sense of humor on the same subject. In the past 25+ years of my amateur efforts of seeking the truth I've found that the most intelligent and astute researchers/seekers all have a sense of humor about this subject. It's necessary to be able to laugh not only at ourselves but at some of the ridiculous claims made by many without a shred of evidence simply because "they want to believe". Now obviously there will be some that have no sense of humor at all and they are the ones I try to steer away from because they generally are wound up so tight that their rubber band could snap at any time. These are the ones that tend to have blinders on and will repeat themselves (blue) after someone has clearly shown empirical evidence to them that their theory or video or whatever is empirically wrong or flawed. We need the skeptics and debunkers to make sure "we check ourselves and dot the i's" before presenting some form of evidence. They keep us honest so that we "have" to be on top of our game when we step forward with the data were submitting and back it up with credible reports, witnesses, footage and hopefully other evidence to back our claims. Anyone that is willing to accept perhaps lets say a YouTube video solely as evidence of 'something unusual' should not be here at AboveTopSecret.com yelling at the top of their lungs that they've found the Holy Grail.. or creating threads like "C'mon Skeptics, Debunk this". If one can not use common sense and occams razor without their own feelings getting in the way is of no use to me personally in my quest for truth and knowledge.

By the way back to humor, anyone that can poke fun at themselves and yet still be open to the possibilities in UFOlogy is "all right in my book".

Post will self destruct in 9... 8... 7...

[edit on 9/16/2009 by JohnnyAnonymous]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Total Package

Originally posted by Hawkwind.
reply to post by Total Package
 




You're right about the sig, I'll remove it.


Sorry if I came across pissed... but seriously if I saw James Randi in the street I'd punch his lights out... such is my disdain for what that prick has done to the investigation of paranormal. Then I have to sit there and listen to him telling me I am a fraud and cold read people to prey on them. The bloke is a wanker of the highest order.



It's okay. All I knew was that he gave a million dollar challenge to prove what is so far unprovable, I never really knew anything else about him until you explained some of the tactics he uses. Two sides to every story I suppose.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hawkwind.

Originally posted by Total Package
Sorry if I came across pissed... but seriously if I saw James Randi in the street I'd punch his lights out... such is my disdain for what that prick has done to the investigation of paranormal. Then I have to sit there and listen to him telling me I am a fraud and cold read people to prey on them. The bloke is a wanker of the highest order.



It's okay. All I knew was that he gave a million dollar challenge to prove what is so far unprovable, I never really knew anything else about him until you explained some of the tactics he uses. Two sides to every story I suppose.


When ya get a chance have a read of this.... it's pretty interesting and shows you what the Million Dollar Challenge really is... and why it's almost impossible for anyone to win it. He also has put in so many clauses that it would cost you a small fortune just to even take the test! and even if you are successful you have signed your rights away as far as making it public.

This article is called "The myth of the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge" and is written by a real actual scientist.

www.dailygrail.com...


[edit on 16-9-2009 by Total Package]



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join