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: 6
31
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   
There are two extremes here.

-One who believes every conspiracy theory out there. Or one who pushes conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory as truth.

And

-One who is so skeptical, that you could park a Flying Saucer in their yard, take aliens to their house for dinner, and the person would still insist that "swamp gas" ate dinner with them.

What has irritated me is those who like clockwork, work like mad to debunk and derail a thread, as if they were getting paid to do it. But, I guess that is an indication that you may be onto sensitive information.

There is nothing sane about being skeptical to the point of ridiculousness. And there is nothing sane about the other side either.

Troy




posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


I guess the thing that seems most unscientific and non-conducive to greater understanding is the blatant dogmatism displayed is so many posts. People who call themselves "skeptics" decry everything that has any unusual explanation or unknown explanation. By default, they come across as if mankind has all the answers and understands all things...which is just not true.

Also, the people who support a conspiracy or otherwise not-easily-explainable-thing also come across at times as if there is no other possibility besides the one they espouse.

I do, however, find that when a person puts forth something that would be considered esoteric or mysterious, they typically get derided by those skeptics, even though they put it forth in order to get an open-minded analysis. Yes, that is what I see little of here... open-minded analysis. People are so quick to use terms like "probably" and "most-likely" and yet, I would suggest that they have NOT done any kind of real statistical analysis, and yet they use those quantitative terms.

For example, they will say "Oh, that looks like a great UFO video, but I can't tell if it's fake or not... most likely fake though." My question is, WHY is it most likely fake? If one understands statistics, the odds of ANY video or picture being fake is exactly 1 out of 2, and the fact that any number of other videos or pictures are fake has absolutely NO bearing on the authenticity of any other video.

Also, sometimes certain members will attempt to debunk something by making erroneous logic statements or statements of fact based on incomplete closure. For example, "The FBI debunked that top secret document years ago, so all these others on the same website are MOST LIKELY fake also."

This previous case is a perfect example of simplistic thinking to the first order. Does denying ignorance mean that we are supposed to deny the long history of mankind's use of deception, subterfuge, and misinformation when it comes to governmental communication? Are we to assume that the MOST LIKELY scenario for any government communication is honesty, openness, and transparency? If you think so, then I ask you to prove that assertion by historical analysis. Prove that in more than 50% percent of the time (the meaning of MOST LIKELY), the government is honest, open, forthright, and transparent when it comes to issues that have any bearing on national security. If you can bring forth that evidence, then I will gladly bow to the side of accepting their word and doubting conspiracies as a probable reality.

Given the long history to the contrary, I would instead suggest that the MOST LIKELY fact is that governments lie, misdirect, misrepresent, deceive, withhold information, and employ every device of keeping the population ignorant, as much as they possibly can, for that is the very nature of politics and national security.


[edit on 4-1-2010 by downisreallyup]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:01 AM
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
"

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]


SD - allow me to give you a big sloppy kiss.

You've really come to the heart of the matter - or at least what I feel is an underlying problem: the number of cliches spouted that purport to signify awareness and understanding, but only succeed in underlining how intellectually constrained some people on ATS are!

Examples: *MSM (just the negative usage of the term here is abused by so many to assist their own credibility)

* Sheeple (a term abused in the name of coercing people to deny often conventional and proven wisdom)

* Debunker (an immotive term that has come to obscure the difference between it and healthy, intelligent, skepticism)

There are many more, but I'm sure you get the gist of my post - ie, that one of the big victims of ATS is rational., informed, thinking.

That is perhaps the ultimate irony of a group whose call to arms is "Deny Ignorance".

Cheers,
Matt



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:10 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.



Yes, you're right. The study of the of Sperm Whale fins has lead to a new sub-field of aerodynamics. Very exciting - if you're into aircraft design, fluid dynamics, etc..

Sorry, I got a bit excited and went off topic


Please continue...



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 

By default, they come across as if mankind has all the answers and understands all things...which is just not true.


I don't think any scientist worthy that badge would consider that man has all the answers. If man did, research would be superfluous.


Also, the people who support a conspiracy or otherwise not-easily-explainable-thing also come across at times as if there is no other possibility besides the one they espouse.


Some just NEED to believe as if it provides them some sort of control in their lives. They can psychologically stick it to those that they believe are in control.


I do, however, find that when a person puts forth something that would be considered esoteric or mysterious, they typically get derided by those skeptics, even though they put it forth in order to get an open-minded analysis. ...


I say don't discuss it at all if you're too squeamish! Take it all in, one of those sods might even have a good point for you to explore even if they presented it poorly.



If one understands statistics, the odds of ANY video or picture being fake is exactly 1 out of 2, and the fact that any number of other videos or pictures are fake has absolutely NO bearing on the authenticity of any other video.


I would think the objective probably of a random video being fake is the number of fake UFO vids divided by the number of UFO vids. If the majority of video are fake, debunkers will be right the majority of the time just be chance, if the majority are real, then the advocates will be right the majority of the time just by chance.

Personally, I haven't found anything very convincing as far as video...so far. Who knows what the future holds.


Also, sometimes certain members will attempt to debunk something by making erroneous logic statements or statements of fact based on incomplete closure. For example, "The FBI debunked that top secret document years ago, so all these others on the same website are MOST LIKELY fake also."


An association fallacy.


Does denying ignorance mean that we are supposed to deny the long history of mankind's use of deception, subterfuge, and misinformation when it comes to governmental communication?

...


Not at all. Those that are skeptical also do not ignore those traits of mankind. If fact, I'd say many are keenly aware of it, as well as mankind's propensity for self-deception. Deception isn't circumscribed by Constitutional law any more than said law currently limits the actions of government in practice.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
I love your reasoning here. It is of a philosophical nature, balanced and great within an ideal framework. But just to touch upon a specific:


Originally posted by downisreallyup
For example, they will say "Oh, that looks like a great UFO video, but I can't tell if it's fake or not... most likely fake though." My question is, WHY is it most likely fake? If one understands statistics, the odds of ANY video or picture being fake is exactly 1 out of 2, and the fact that any number of other videos or pictures are fake has absolutely NO bearing on the authenticity of any other video.


I'm most likely using the same super-computer that you are - my brain. Your use of previous experiences of governments to deceive, deflect and pretty much waste everyone's time is based on the concept that your evidence to justify this is correct. However sometimes things like the Freedom of Information laws get passed, acts to curb marketeers and other laws that have people's interests in mind spring into existence. Governments aren't always evil - just most of the time. This doesn't mean you should always trust government, it just means black and white thinking can't be used with a sceptical mind.

When I look at all the data related to UFO pictures, alien autopsies, channellers, aliens on Earth etc. Most of this stuff is easy to declare as hokum and after a while the investigation into it gets prioritised as low because a better use of my brains processing power can be spent on things that are unknown. If a genuine nugget of paranormal is detected in my filter, or in anyone who is sceptical's filter, then we will discuss it, look into it and find out as much as we can about it.

I'd much rather have a long and drawn out thread on the Norway spiral than on the Indigo people. Stories and pictures that are noteworthy are just that: Worthy of note and will be openly discussed by all. Another just joined, got photos, can't upload them yet will get back to you thread just wastes everyone's, including the hoaxer's, time and energy.

Anyways, I really did like your reasoning. It's a shame we don't have an ideal framework for it to be utilised within.

-m0r

EDIT: Speeling

[edit on 4/1/2010 by m0r1arty]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:18 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?


Whilst I agree, I have to say that with the exception of one obscure poster, who hasn't been around for half a year, I'm yet to find someone who out and out denies the ET hypothesis.

I'm not including you in this TO, but a lot of newer members are swayed/manipulated by some senior members to assume skeptics simply don't support the ET hypothesis. And nothing could be further from the truth.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by mckyle
 

G'day Mckyle

I think the age of the member can sometimes impact their approach to ATS.

If I'd been posting on here when I was 18, I'd probably have been pushing the unquestioning belief side of the argument, whilst telling everybody who disagreed with me to p... off & stop being sceptics, disinfo agents, etc...

Now that I'm a bit older, I can see it's a subject with "many shades of grey"

That makes me much more moderate.

.......& to balance this out.....

I know of some members who are in their teenage years who post in a brilliantly balanced & thoughtful manner & I know some oldies who are simply feral!

Cheers mate
Maybe...maybe not

(.....did you catch that.......shades of grey.....er ...greys....?)



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry


[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.


Agreed. I'm glad that this thread has been made so that many who feel completely stomped on by the air of skepticism can vent their issues. And I could not agree with the words that you stated any more than I already have.

Much appreciated.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   

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

G'day Mckyle

I think the age of the member can sometimes impact their approach to ATS.

If I'd been posting on here when I was 18, I'd probably have been pushing the unquestioning belief side of the argument, whilst telling everybody who disagreed with me to p... off & stop being sceptics, disinfo agents, etc...

Now that I'm a bit older, I can see it's a subject with "many shades of grey"

That makes me much more moderate.

.......& to balance this out.....

I know of some members who are in their teenage years who post in a brilliantly balanced & thoughtful manner & I know some oldies who are simply feral!

Cheers mate
Maybe...maybe not

(.....did you catch that.......shades of grey.....er ...greys....?)


You're dead right old mate: this is a melting pot in more ways than one.

I used to entertain the idea that the mass injection on knowledge brought about by the internet would represent a new epoch of intelligence and enlightenment - much like that espoused by Michio Kaku.

Now, I'm not so sure.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mckyle
I used to entertain the idea that the mass injection on knowledge brought about by the internet would represent a new epoch of intelligence and enlightenment - much like that espoused by Michio Kaku.

Now, I'm not so sure.


I rarely entertain one side of the blade now. If there's knowledge you can bet there is at least a balancing quantity of anti-knowledge, created purposefully in order to annihiliate its adversary.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by mckyle
I used to entertain the idea that the mass injection on knowledge brought about by the internet would represent a new epoch of intelligence and enlightenment - much like that espoused by Michio Kaku.

Now, I'm not so sure.


I rarely entertain one side of the blade now. If there's knowledge you can bet there is at least a balancing quantity of anti-knowledge, created purposefully in order to annihiliate its adversary.


G'day EnlightenUp

What a great term you used...

Anti-knowledge

Very good


Cheers
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


You speak ill of "pseudo science" like UFOlogy because it is "based on assumptions" yet you don't back that statement with facts and you "assume" like every other mainstream scientist that it is a "pseudo" science.

I have no problems with people debunking as I am a person who wants truth, not fantasies, but that's also what separates me from mainstream science--I want truth and I'm not afraid to explore subjects my 5 senses can't quantify. I'm not afraid of what I dint understand. I WANT to understand what I don't understand. Scientists fail to recognize that there are certain things that simply cannot be reproduced over and over at will, like psychic phenomena. They refuse to recognize this because they mistake the mundane to be all their is. Of course the mundane can be quantified and objectified, but not everything is mundane!

I'm tired of the pompous arrogance of left brained thinking. Everything in the universe works in harmony together in pairs, one to balance the other, and yet scientists scorn right brain interaction when in pursuit of "science". Paracelsus, Sir Francis Bacon, Da Vinci, all the great men who made real strides in science used both sides of their brain and thus made great leaps. Physics and metaphysics is a perfect marriage to be realized by those who dare.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


I think skepticism is important, but sometimes it is overkill on these forums.

For instance I can pretty much "debunk" anything by posting data that falls inline with my skeptic views. The data I provide can be reliable or unreliable, however the followers of the skepticism usually don't care. They would just take my word on it.

Where is the line between skepticism and scientific fanaticism? Scientific fact is always changing. So to believe in scientific findings 100% is very unwise.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
I think you make a good point pazcat, and I agree.

Mods, you do a great job under difficult circumstances, and I for one appreciate what you do here, but it would be great if we could "draw a line in the sand" a little sooner sometimes, in cases where there is clear evidence to support rational explanation.

In many cases I have seen here, despite overwhelming evidence that a sighting can have been due to something mundane, the thread is left open to collect ever more un-thought out theories and in some cases wild claims that are never backed up with any real proof, although it may appear that way to those who are perhaps a bit naive (although no one on here would ever admit to it).

In my humble opinion, the best solution would be to have a team of critical thinking individuals who's job it would be to vote on which cases merit staying open, and those that defy all logical explanation should be moved to a new form where only mods and the afore mentioned team are allowed to post/move threads.

That way, many would be spared the impression that all the activity and "unsolved" cases on this forum represent evidence that ET is visiting here, which is something that ATS should IMHO be careful to avoid doing at all costs, or else it can be argued that ATS is not doing all it can to "deny ignorance". That does not mean that ETs should not be discussed or talked about, but it would be easier for people to gauge or grasp the wider, and more importantly a more realistic picture.


Just to point out, as i did not mention it in my first post, i was in no way saying mods are doing a bad job, infact quite the opposite. I understand its a difficult job and each mod has a different point of view, some skeptic some not. I think your idea of a team to vote is a good idea aswell, and there needs to be a clearer line in the sand.
Sometimes all a thread would need is a more appropriate name change.
I think sometimes its easy to get frustrated when recognised evidence is provided and you get responses like 'well i dont belive anything (insert agency name here) says so its all lies' or'we once thought the world was flat too'. Both are not arguments and provide nothing to the conversation.
Tit for tat runs on both sides really.

Of course we can always make our own decisions based on the evidence provided by the users, but to many times that does not happen.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Oh dear another I love phage thread, it seems that phage is starting to get a nice following.

I personally do not trust any information point blankly, I take whatever information is given to me and then I research and look for myself and IMHO its what everyone should do.

The problem is people trust others without trusting themsleves up to a point that they start to idolise these people and put them on a pedastal isn't this the why our planet is in the state its in, is it not?



[edit on 4-1-2010 by franspeakfree]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


It is important to note that there are no set debunkers, conspiracy theorist etc. Many a time someone who is a debunker and a skeptic on one thread may be him/herself author of the thread or supporter of a different subject. Making that clear there can be no skeptics who disagree with everything.

I personally do not know the person you are talking about Phage, I may have come across him/her but pardon me I am not aware in general who he/she is and cannot remember which thread/post he/she may have responded too.

Secondly, it is rightly said the messenger should not be shot/ ridiculed and at the same time it is important to remember even the thread should not be shot/ ridiculed or derailed either. Many a times people opposing certain idea hide under the cloak of debunkers / skeptics and attack the author of the thread/ anyone responding in favor of the thread or subject. In such a time, the so called debunkers/ skeptics are not talking about the subject of the thread but instead focus on the messengers.

I believe no matter whether it is debunker or thread author both should bring along the best available sources, facts to back up their statements. The skeptics should bring along sourced notes, links, resources etc. to back up their statements too. Only then a constructive debate can be held.

Anyone attacking the messenger (be it author of thread/ supporter of subject/ skeptic of topic) should be immediately banned from posting on that thread again.

S&F OP.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Everyone has their opinion, and they are all welcome as long as everyone abides by the forum rules. I don't see Phage as a 'swamp gas' skeptic. Everyone knows that no one is correct all of the time, so we all must take everything with a grain of salt. A lot of people want to see an interplanetary vehicle and let that cloud their judgement, Phage tends to clear that up.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by banegame
 

Very well put.



Originally posted by stanlee
back to the topic at hand. With few exceptions,.... no.. people like phage, Jkrog08, Internos, DoomsdayRex, and the list goes on of the cynically sardonic ones.. (i love them all) they show evidence, and referendum to back their claims.


Very interesting that guy, internos. He doesn't seem to jump to conclusion too quickly, doesn't show animosity or disdain, and he doesn't assume too much. I don't meet that kind of person often, or perhaps I just don't encounter him often enough.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup
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.


Well stated downisreallyup. I have had differences with you in the past, but, I can say this...you really delivered on this one. Star from me, and I appreciate your post.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join