posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:06 AM
I may be incorrect, but haven't ATS staff members in the past anonymously but credibly verified whistle blowers' and posters' credentials?
AstroEngineer, earlier in this thread a Moderator said that you had an urgent U2U. If you're unfamiliar with how to use ATS U2Us, look at the top of
the page where it says "U2Us" in red. Click on it, and read the message. Perhaps the ATS staff were reaching out to you? As I said, I may be
incorrect, but I BELIEVE I recall that in the past they have met with posters and then subsequently vouched for their credentials without compromising
their anonymity or personal security. You might consider taking this step if it is at all possible, as it will no doubt greatly satiate the
Which brings me to my second point. I sincerely intend no offense with what I'm about to say, but I feel that some posters in this thread may need to
be reminded what the scientific process and skepticism are really constituted by. You are free to have personal beliefs and opinions so long as you
describe them as such, including the personal beliefs and opinions that this OP is misleading you. However, if you want to call yourself a skeptic,
you must remember that skepticism requires refraining from asserting a fact without irrefutable proof, including the ostensible fact that something
is true, untrue, real, or a hoax.
You can say that in your opinion the available evidence does not constitute proof of something, but without proof that a lie or hoax is being
perpetrated, you cannot conclude, with intellectual honesty and integrity, that a hoax or lie is being perpetrated. To do so is not skeptical, and it
is not scientific. It is just the opposite extreme to blind belief. In lieu of any proof that we are being misled, the most a skeptic can say in this
instance is (and this is the basis of all skepticism and scientific thought,) "I don't know yet." In lieu of any absolute proof that this story is
true, we also cannot say "This is true." We can only, again, say, "I don't know yet."
Again, I sincerely intend no disrespect, offense, or insult toward anyone reading the above. I just perceive that perhaps there is no harm in
entertaining a possibility without embracing it, so long as there is no proof either way yet. It seems that there are vested emotions
and frustrations here that occlude that line of reasoning, and instead make it more attractive to adhere to outright belief or disbelief. That is
unfortunate in my opinion.