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.

 

Don't shoot the messenger!

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
The one comment I can add to this already well-discussed topic is this:

I sometimes find myself a little disheartened when I see an otherwise interesting thread begin with the words "I can't wait to see what Phage has to say about this..."

Just recently there was a thread showing a comet moving across the sun and there was a bright light just to the right of the blocked out sun. Someone on the thread said "Ask Phage about the white spot right of the sun." When I saw that, I thought "Surely there must be other people on here who can figure that out. Is Phage the only smart person on this forum? Doesn't anyone else know anything about astronomy? If so, perhaps the forum should be renamed to BelowPhage.com


But, then to my super pleasure, '___'omino found that it was Venus, providing ample proof as well. So, will anyone in the future say "Ask '___'omino about that particular astronomical anomaly?" I doubt it.

So, it would be nice if there was a recognized panel of experts at least. While I have found that Phage does provide good information at times, I have also seen many others who do just as well, and I've also seen where Phage is mistaken at times, jumping to the first logical conclusion that presents itself, which is not always the right answer.

So, as far as "shooting the messenger" I really don't think that questioning someone's supposed "logical conclusion" is "shooting" anything. If their argument is compelling, it will stand on it's own.

For example, Phage presented information on the rocket shot by the Russian government, and everyone assumed that the Norway spiral was CAUSED by the rocket. This sounded plausible until others came forth and presented detailed analysis of the rocket trajectory, speed, distance, and expansion of the spiral, showing that something fishy was going on.

So, does the presence of a ROCKET disprove that the spiral was NOT ALSO something else? Is it impossible for there to be a ROCKET shot in the air at the same time so it could be used as a cover?

It is my opinion that whenever anyone presents an argument that appears to disprove something, the conversation should still continue, and the final verdict should be delayed, as long as there are still other possible explanations that include the new information.




posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
First off thanks to everyone for their responses in this thread. From the ones that existed whilst this reply was being composed they show a wide set of articulate opinions and I enjoyed reading them immensely.

On to the matter at hand regarding 'The messenger'.

Generally exchanges of rich information between two points which have the same set of protocols are extremely useful. However with all the variables which make up the membership of ATS there are many differing values; language, cultural bias, religion, beliefs etc. which all can cause miscommunication and requires us to reflect and take action for the better.

Let me break that down again in a slightly different way.

2 things that are the same, next to each other and capable of communicating can pass information between themselves with an incredibly high chance of retaining 100% of what was expressed and comprehending 100% of that message's intention. The further away from each other they are the more work they will have to put in to retain that high level of understanding each other. If that information stops being transmitted or understood at 100% slight deviations will enter into each of these nodes now no longer making them identical. If more and more of these nodes enter the network the chances for further signal quality degradation increases exponentially and new standards have to come into existence to correct the transmissions. Hence this thread.

Lemme rehash a little differently.

The membership of ATS is composed of individuals who have their own unique identities. Identity is a complex concept but primarily is who we think we are at any given moment. Identities evolve, devolve and constantly change. One essential part of identity is community. We have things we are part of be it work, family, sports, hobbies and everything else we do which makes up the communities we belong to. Our identity is a tapestry of our personal culture and uses communities it belongs to to fulfil it's need to belong and as a badge for what it thinks it represents at any given time.

Communities are funny things. There are certain rules communities follow. In-language, which promotes bonding, is used as a tool as only a select few know what the terms mean. Whilst we each have a mother tongue which promotes the geographical community we belong to there are other smaller communities which use their own particular terms 'WTF am I typing? TL;dr, g2g, brb!1' is an example of the internet communities in-language. Some ATS in-language may be the terms OVNI, Indigo, tin-foil, Phage. Knowing these terms make you a more valuable member of the community and likely to succeed within that community.

Dress is a popular tool within communities too; football team colours, flags, fashions, almost everything you wear promotes how you wish to be seen. Which communities are represented on you depends on the context of who you are with and for what purpose. Perhaps suit for a job interview and your favourite band's t-shirt for going to a party. On ATS we use avatars and signatures to explain who we are on every post we make. This allows for us to be unique within our community but also starts to show the duality of community too. Which side of the fence do you stand on. Are you a 'Trekkie' or a 'Trekker'?, 'Marvel' or 'DC'?, 'Pro-Obama' or 'Pro-Clinton'?. Group dynamics state that there is always those who will fill the spectrum between this polarity. Here at UFOs and Aliens on ATS we have two poles 'sceptic' and 'believer'.

But before we start an all out in-war let's look perhaps the most important element of being in a community: Who we are not!

We are not 'The sheeple'. We do not believe all main stream media (MSM for you lingo lovers amongst us). We do not accept that everything is known. Those who accept that which we do not are our enemies. The enemies of reason. The enemies of truth.

We deny ignorance. We are ATS!

Now before you all go off charging into the battlefield take time to reflect upon this. There are many more facets to community and we adhere to them all (Well we don't have any songs yet - but we all know the theme to the X-Files eh?). Communities always jostle and change. There is no status quo. Communities also self police - what is acceptable and what is not. This takes us to the moderation team who while being part of our community, are a community within a community - a group with power too.

Do the moderation team as a whole do a great job? From my point of view they do sterling work. Are there incidences where things go awry and hegemonic forces come in to help maintain the balance of power? Yes, it is inevitable in every community - it's part of the process. I've been blackballed by a throng of them and banned for 6 months. The appeals process appeared to fall on deaf ears. However with enough patience and determination changes came into effect. The team adapted and my views were welcomed into the community again - albeit with a mention that I'd better behave
The prodigal son was returned!

So there we have it. ATS is a community like any other. We are divided and we are together. We have communities within communities and those all help make up our identity. Sometimes our ego (or rather id but who's punctilious these days) gets the better of us, sometimes it doesn't. The balance will shift as it always does and we will all reassess our place within that new society.

As for Phage, well every community needs a figure head or a champion. It seems like some of the sceptical members of our community have adopted him as theirs. Again it's perfectly natural in any community. Alex Collier is a figurehead for others. Carl Sagan would be my personal figurehead within this community.

Again thank for all your replies they have been riveting. For those of you still with us in this gargantuan post of mine - thanks for reading and sorry I couldn't have been more succinct with my point.

Hope you are all well.

-m0r



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Lord and Savior

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


Oh my...someone has a crush on Phage. Forgive my sarcasm (Truly), but this has gotten ridiculous. Apparently there are many members here who feel the same way that you do and together, you all share a common goal in your starry eyed view of your savior. However, many of the other "free thinkers" on this forum are worried about a cult mentality being formed from the people who depend on Phage to do their thinking for them. Its the MSM mentality all over again. I guess its true, there are far more followers than there are leaders and the weak always gravitate towards someone who can show them the "light." Turn your head and cough...okay, we're finished here.

Don't get me wrong, its not Phage's fault that you guys gravitate towards someone that you feel is superior to yourselves, but, its just a little creepy that your thoughts, actions, and opinions are dependent on the workings of one particular member. So now, it seems, one of his "followers" have actually made a thread dedicated to him. You guys have lost what is left of your highly dependent minds.



[edit on 3-1-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]



If I could give you 100 stars I would. Thank you for saying what I was about to anyway.

I think what disturbs me is how many people in this world are all too willing to give away their power to someone else who offers an answer to their question. It is almost like a cult, or a cult following. Now you can get on here and say you don't worship this particular member or that particular member but when all you have to contribute to a thread is I can't wait to hear what ____ says about this one" or "Let's all wait until ___ gets here before we come to any conclusions" that's the same as worship to me.

Whatever happened to people who think for themselves? It honestly is scary to me how many followers there are in this world which should explain why we as a whole are in the mess that we are in.

I think people are frightened and feel that they are not worthy to formulate an opinion and stick to it even in the face of all mighty ____.

Any douchebag can google an article from an official mainstream website.
Can anyone honestly tell me which of the members on ATS who inspire a cult following generates their conclusions based on independant research???

I am waiting..... tick tock.


No problem my friend. I think ATS has become a new method for leaders and follower to re-coalesce in a different atmosphere than what the MSM provides. However, there's a certain danger to how this phenomenon progresses, and given that we are responding to this thread, its become more prevalent than we had expected before.

Thanks for being a free thinker and stepping outside of the nonsense that has been spewed relentlessly...even on forums that supposedly separates themselves from the MSM such as this.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by The Lord and Savior
 


What you said is also typical of a "blind follower" since you read a couple of posts, and subscribed to it... it's now "fact"??

What do you know about me?

I actually also hate to see other blindly follow, and that includes others who blindly follow Phage without thinking for themselves.

Because someone like Phage says it, does not make it true, but it's usually a good starting point to go looking for the truth. That's all.

Can we please leave Phage out of this from now on, and argue about the points, not specific people?

If that does not answer your concerns, then I don't know what else will, but you have my stance on the matter and pursuing this line only serves to derail this thread, so I don't see why you would want to continue unless your intentions are to derail this thread?

In the mean time, I need some sleep. I'll be happy to address any *other* points when I return, but I will not respond to any more veiled personal attacks.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 


Please don't turn this thread into a thread about Phage. That was not my intention, and I'm sorry that I mentioned any names now. I was only using him as an example since most here know him.

Actually, although I respect Phage for his extensive knowledge and the way he conducts himself here, he is not the object of my desires that you so colorfully make him out to be.

Phage is human like the rest of us, and I am certainly not one to put him on a pedastool, but he does deserve credit where credit is due. Crush... Not by a long ways.

I also don't like the fact that people (yourself included) accuse others of being "Phage followers", but I've come to expect that from people that seem to have difficulty thinking for themselves, and I think most people out there can see through your attempts to try and derail a thread by attacking the person rather than the argument.


Well, I think you've recognized who actually turned this thread into a thread about Phage. This was not my doing, it was yours. This is problematic because of the very name that you decided to choose. In all honesty, in the end...and this is not an insult to you, but, its in poor taste that a member of ATS has become the focus of our conversation and something that has been brewing for quite some time.

I'm sorry that you think I am accusing of others becoming Phage followers, however, the focus of this thread is now AS SUCH. This is the point of the thread, and, I am following within its parameters. I didn't make the rules, I'm abiding by them.

Phage is a good contributor to ATS. However, I've seen many of his lackeys start situations and then create problems in threads that would have not otherwise existed without the followers that vehemently, and intentionally, created problems for Phage to finish. I myself have put Phage in check in a few situations, but, these problems would not have existed if his cronies had not created the problems in the first place. I will also be the first to say, that Phage has also corrected me in a few situations as well, so, it has gone both ways.

Don't be led by your noses. Start researching for yourself.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

[edit on 4-1-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup

I sometimes find myself a little disheartened when I see an otherwise interesting thread begin with the words "I can't wait to see what Phage has to say about this..."


Agreed ... just as I can see how it can be disheartening to see someone say "no doubt [insert member name] will be by here soon to tell us it's Venus or swamp gas
"

Those who either defer their thinking to someone else OR dogmatically disbelieve any evidence not consistent with their belief system embrace ignorance equally.

Ultimately however the poster is simply irrelevant ... all that matters is the post.


[edit on 3 Jan 2010 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


The people that bash Phage and others like him are simply insecure.

Revealing the truth is what this is all about and those that can't handle the truth, will forever belittle and degrade those that expose it.

Disagreement is the first step towards enlightenment.

Semper


I poke fun at Sir Phage once in awhile. I just tend to do that sort of thing. Nonetheless I repect his input and tend to be in agreement nearly 100% of the time. Sometimes he quips, however accurately, more than he explains his views in detail. Of course, he might actually have explained those things for the billionth time and is a bit jaded by neverending ignoramus delugicon.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.


Hello fellow ATSers,

It always saddens me when I see members here posting factual info that is relevant to a particular thread, and that sheds light on a case in question, but often times leads to the poster of said info being attacked for "debunking" or "spreading disinfo".


Having been one of those that have tried to shed light and have been attacked for my non-popular but factual POV, I appreciate your thread. The problem is simple to understand. The majority of ATS members, at least in the Aliens and UFOs forum, are normal believers who accept most claims at face value. And, of course, there are a few that do not. Those that do not are outnumbered! Those that have protected themselves with a bubble of belief do not like to have their bubbles burst by what to them is contradictory evidence. It is easier to believe fantasy than the boring truth.

[quoteHow has this nonsensical situation arisen?


Popular mythology. As an example, take Roswell. There was a period of time - almost 3 decades, beginning shortly after Roswell quieted down because the claims for a UFO crash petered out, when no one thought about it. Then, out of the blue, Roswell became a hot topic. People, with their disdain and mistrust of a government run amuck, accepted what was fed to them by popular authors such as Stanton Friedman who smelled a milk cow and ran with it. Books about Roswell started to come out of the woodwork and their contents became the new "reality" even though the truth had been left far behind and only serious researchers such as Robert Todd made an effort to present the truth but no one was buying it 'cause too many "respectable" individuals were claiming to know the truth which is what the government haters believed was true: crashed UFOs, alien bodies, reverse engineering, etc.

But some individuals here on ATS didn't buy the bs and tried to set the members straight by pointing them to the real sources so that they could see how the Roswell miasma was clouding their judgement. Nobody wanted a clear mind. Those that did not were accused of "debunking" unsuccessfully and/or spreading "disinfo." The same can be said for the MJ12, Crystal Skulls, Aliens, 2012 fiasco, Disclosure, etc. Anything that smacks of foolishness is accepted blindy and god help you if you offer counter arguments based on common sense and logic.


If someone spots a hoax (or misidentification), posts the relevant info to prove that something is a hoax, and stops more people from falling for a hoax, how is that a bad thing?


The truth is usually a letdown. Once you remove the fake/hoax trappings you are left with what to some is not as impressive as what has been presented to keep the fantasy going. The truth is what we all should strive for. But some just don't want to be bothered because they may think life is boring enough and when the excitement of a good tale is removed it just then becomes another day.


I've seen people on here bashing skeptics like Phage for helping to clarify the facts, and quite frankly I've had enough of this nonsense.


Phage is not the only one who is attacked for providing clear thinking. Anyone doing so may get even worse treatment because some may not want to speak their mind to Phage and will cushion it.


Without people like Phage, ATS would be swamped with hoaxes, mis-identifications, and unchecked pseudo-scientific garbage. Is that what people here really want?


Actually, ATS is swamped with hoaxes, mis-identifications, and unchecked pseudo-scientific garbage courtesy of YouTube and the members bring the stuff in like Christmas presents and want to impress others not realizing that their efforts backfire on them.

ATS is successful for if the membership wasn't composed mostly of believers ATS wouldn't exist. Not only the Aliens and UFOs forum but all forums that depend on hokum to exist. Admin would never think of starting a forum strictly for the clear headed as the membership would not make the effort viable.


What I see here on ATS, day in, day out, is people being attacked for using logic and fact.


As long as we are not actually crucified, an old wimpy cliche says it best: sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me. But in order to survive on Aliens and UFOs forum one has to be a duck and let the water flow off our backs. All in the effort to improve faulty thinking.


If you can't use logic and facts, what else is there, and why is it such a surprise to believers that UFOs are not taken seriously by the mainstream when most of what we call UFOlogy today is based on assumption and pseudo-science?


Watch the History Channel for your answer. A large percentage of what is shown is questionable but there is no one to reach to set them straight and even if you could contact someone it's too late, the video is in the can and scheduled to be shown. The History Channel cannot be accused of using logic and facts. Members of the Aliens and UFOs forum are no different.

Once in a while we are surprised by a good thread, or a good video, or good photos and those few instances is what makes coming back after a cold shower worth it.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Well, I think you've recognized who actually turned this thread into a thread about Phage. This was not my doing, it was yours. This is problematic because of the very name that you decided to choose. In all honesty, in the end...and this is not an insult to you, but, its in poor taste that a member of ATS has become the focus of our conversation and something that has been brewing for quite some time.

I'm sorry that you think I am accusing of others becoming Phage followers, however, the focus of this thread is now AS SUCH. This is the point of the thread, and, I am following within its parameters. I didn't make the rules, I'm abiding by them.

Phage is a good contributor to ATS. However, I've seen many of his lackeys start situations and then create problems in threads that would have not otherwise existed without the followers that vehemently, and intentionally, created problems for Phage to finish. I myself have put Phage in check in many situations, but, these problems would not have existed if his cronies had not created the problems in the first place. I will also be the first to say, that Phage has also corrected me in a few situations as well, so, it has gone both ways.

Don't be led by your noses. Start researching for yourself.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]


There is another individual who I will not name that has been put on a platform and that pissed me off because I could see by his responses that not a lot of time of thought was given in his answers. One poster requested almost like a pleading child the individual's response to the thread topic. The poster wanted the individual's thoughts on the matter. What he got was a quote from NASA! A stupid one at that.

When I start a thread or I make a comment about the thread topic I want replies that emerged after careful consideration and commons sense. Alas, those replies are rare.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Well, this certainly is a interesting irony isn't it?

A thread that was suppose to be about NOT attacking members who contribute, actually becomes one and it invokes more than one esteemed member, a newbie and a mod?

Stunning.

I think what is to be learned here is that people just need to chill out. Stop hitting the reply button and typing so damn fast. Take some time.

Think critically.

Posting is an art form as much as essay writing is. It requires tact and an understanding of conversation. This is a discussion, not a whose wrong and whose right and whose craziest and whose not website.

We are here to deny ignorance, and unfortunetly I see the most popular kind here all the time. And I get it, were on the net, it's easy to look at it in another light than having people sitting at your dinning room table.

However, this does not mean you need to treat them with any less respect for the actions of others. Those who go to esteemed members such as Phage and ask for his opinion and then don't click on the pretty blue lettering when he does aren't helping. And until you do, and somehow show that what this person is saying is BS, then you should just shut your mouth.

At least contribute something to the conversation other than just a blatant disagreement without providing supporting evidence. I've only been here a year, some members have gained my respect and I have gained the respect of them in return, but I would never expect them to take my word for anything when it comes to facts and truths.

We have so very little of them.

But Please.

Don't shoot the messenger
.

~Keeper



[edit on 1/3/2010 by tothetenthpower]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by downisreallyup

I sometimes find myself a little disheartened when I see an otherwise interesting thread begin with the words "I can't wait to see what Phage has to say about this..."


Agreed ... just as I can see how it can be disheartening to see someone say "no doubt [insert member name] will be by here soon to tell us it's Venus or swamp gas
"


I tend to understand why he's saying what he's saying even if he provides no detailed explanation. I paid attention in science and physics. Some skeptics can explain all day and not make any sense, having more of an attitude of simply tearing the OP a new one and being a "devils advocate" or just having the attitude of a troll. Phage just tends to make sense and cuts through the crap.

If one is the type that only wants the most wild, most improbable, most rebellious-against-the-status-quo-for-its-own-sake explanation, I guess it is disheartening and sometimes conducive to hostility to hear your long-held, torturously constructed-with-mental-sweat-and-toil fantasy torn asunder with reason.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Phage just tends to make sense and cuts through the crap.


Couldn't agree more ... knowledge and brevity are two of of my favorite virtues.


[edit on 4 Jan 2010 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
I don't have a problem with skeptics and critics, I pay attention to what they have to say but I find that too many are not properly researching and are only quoting some mainstream media source.

As far as I am aware, most of the maistream media have their own agenda and do hide the truth when it suits them or their masters.
Also I dislike the pompous, holier than thou, attitude of some skeptics. In our Universe, anything is possible really. I have a deeply skeptic mind, but many things can't be always explained with current science.

Mathematically and scientifically, bees cannot fly
scienceray.com...
Yet they do. Mathematically, I can prove that in a race between a turtle and a rabbit, if the turtle has a small lead, the rabbit will never catch up with the turtle.

Skeptics need to look at every possibilities and accept the fact that there are many things science cannot explain, that the media is trying hard to cover up the truth and that sky anomalies aren't all chinese lanterns.


[edit on 4-1-2010 by TheOracle]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle
Mathematically and scientifically, bees cannot fly
scienceray.com...
Yet they do. Mathematically, I can prove that in a race between a turtle and a rabbit, if the turtle has a small lead, the rabbit will never catch up with the turtle.


As soon as one gets out of the grip of the idea that bees don't fly like airplanes and have intelligence build into them, then it isn't so hard to consider. I recall re-use of shed vortices of circulation being important in increasing wing lift.

Weird article jumping from bees' too-small wings into antigravity bees, oil companies and suppressed flying cars.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by TheOracle
Mathematically and scientifically, bees cannot fly
scienceray.com...
Yet they do. Mathematically, I can prove that in a race between a turtle and a rabbit, if the turtle has a small lead, the rabbit will never catch up with the turtle.


As soon as one gets out of the grip of the idea that bees don't fly like airplanes and have intelligence build into them, then it isn't so hard to consider. I recall re-use of shed vortices of circulation being important in increasing wing lift.

Weird article jumping from bees' too-small wings into antigravity bees, oil companies and suppressed flying cars.



Indeed that is my point, we need to think outside the box. Why automaticaly dismiss a potential extraterrestrial intelligence for example?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   
♪ Not to put to fine a point on it...♪


Originally posted by TheOracle
Mathematically and scientifically, bees cannot fly
scienceray.com...
Yet they do.


Yet we have an award winning paper on how they do which is working on methods to create micro machines that fly to detect gas leaks and reach places otherwise unreachable (and more unsavoury things I'm sure).

It was all down to wing stroke amplitude and wingbeat frequency. Feel free to watch a prototype model based from their research below.


As for your link; The irony of the analogy of unprovable flying car that runs on honey as the basis for knocking scepticism with flying bees wasn't lost on me. Thanks for sharing!


♫ Who watches over you ♫

-m0r



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by mckyle
 


Did you know Charlie Sheen's wife is a reptilian?

Good god....what's the poor guy going to do?

Do you think Phage can help?


Seeing her flick her tongue raised my suspicions - as did her swallowing the rat whole. No one in their right minds swallows a rat whole.


I don't think even Phage can help Charlie. The damage was well and truly done when he did the dancing on the bike scene in Hotshots 2. Him becoming an investigative reporter was the icing on the cake.




[edit on 4-1-2010 by mckyle]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Lord and Savior

Can anyone honestly tell me which of the members on ATS who inspire a cult following generates their conclusions based on independant research???

I am waiting..... tick tock.


I can.

Everything I make up comes straight out of my own head.




posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by m0r1arty
♪ Not to put to fine a point on it...♪


Originally posted by TheOracle
Mathematically and scientifically, bees cannot fly
scienceray.com...
Yet they do.


Yet we have an award winning paper on how they do which is working on methods to create micro machines that fly to detect gas leaks and reach places otherwise unreachable (and more unsavoury things I'm sure).

It was all down to wing stroke amplitude and wingbeat frequency. Feel free to watch a prototype model based from their research below.


As for your link; The irony of the analogy of unprovable flying car that runs on honey as the basis for knocking scepticism with flying bees wasn't lost on me. Thanks for sharing!


♫ Who watches over you ♫

-m0r


Thanks for the link
Very interesting. Down the line, science will be able to answer all our questions and resolve most our problems, that I am sure.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle
Indeed that is my point, we need to think outside the box. Why automaticaly dismiss a potential extraterrestrial intelligence for example?


To start with, I don't think any engineer admitted to anything more than not unstanding the dynamics of bee flight, because its more complicated than simple fixed-wing flight. They didn't declare it impossible in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Those that misinterpreted the claim, which is actually somewhat self-deprecating and sarcastic, took it to be a statement of impossibility, thus creating an urban legend.

I also haven't noticed all consciencious skeptics such as Phage (or whoever) to be outright dismissing the idea of alien life. They just wish to cover more ordinary territory first, admit simply "I don't KNOW" and "It's a huge universe, so probability favors it". It's not the same as an automatic dismissal.

If I see something odd in the sky, I really aim to do whatever I can to see if it is something truely strange or not. I'd rather exercise discernment than fool myself.

Some very well may have seen something truely unexplainable in terms of a sighting. I wish I could have shared the events with them in real time.

What you are talking about sounds very much like when I described things that I see in my visual field being dismissed as floaters or whatever seemingly under the assumption that I and others interested in spirtual matters are too daft and careless to have ruled out those possibilities beforehand. Time and time again, decalarations of "I didn't read the posts, but here is the answer." That brand of skepticism seems to serve the poster as an ostentatous pedantry over and above a geniune interest in discovery.

[edit on 1/4/2010 by EnlightenUp]



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join