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.

 

Im tired of the UFO skeptics

page: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by esteay812

i]reply to post by -Blackout-
 



Its a fantasy world that some hillbilly redneck from Tennessee believes and lives in...
What would be more frustrating? Telling someone that what they saw wasn't real or trying to tell someone that what you saw was real, only to have them tell you it wasn't or it wasn't what you 'thought' it was.


I think we all believe in UFOs, they are undeniable.

Here's my favorite UFO picture, I know it's not a hoax, it's not fake and it wasn't imagined, the Oldfields really saw it and photographed it:



And it did all our favorite things, made maneuvers that would kill a human pilot like a right angle turn, accelerated from zero to 20,000 miles an hour in 2 seconds, and it was all captured on film. But it wasn't what some people thought it was. Yes that's frustrating and disappointing but we have to get over it.

Nobody can deny many stories are true. Sure there are some hoaxes but I think they are in the minority. People really do see things, like this one, but this is one we were able to turn from a UFO into an IFO.

But if they are unidentified, they are unidentified. We can all take guesses about what they are.

By the way I'd like to dispel the notion that "skeptics" are skeptical about alien life or alien intelligence. Oh there may be a handful but the majority of skeptics believe in the likelihood of alien life as much as believers do so that's not the issue of contention that some people portray it to be in this debate. I think skeptics even believe it's possible these aliens can know physics we don't and might figure out a way to traverse vast interstellar distances to come to Earth, so that's also not the question.

The question is not CAN they come here but HAVE they come here? And the answer to that question has to be "We don't know".

The believers can't prove they have come here and the pseudoskeptics can't prove they haven't come here. So nobody knows.

But like Ziggystar I'm a former believer who has done some research and what I'm sick of is all the bias in much of the literature presented by UFOlogists, too often they only tell one side of the story and don't take a balanced view of all the evidence. Pseudoskeptics like Phil Klass on the opposite side aren't any better. I think looking at the evidence from all sides is something we should all strive to do regardless of what label we apply to ourselves, and in memory of jkrog08 we should all call ourselves "truth-seekers". I think that's the best label for all of us. We all share that common goal, to learn the truth.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]




posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
The ufo case has been informed on national tv- Cnn and all over the world. Newspapers even. Ufos exists. The world governments has informed on national tv that they have worked with an alien race for over 50 years now.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by -Blackout-

Im tired of the UFO skeptics.

But hey, these people are nut-jobs huh?

Nope! The believers are real nut jobs! I'm tired of them too!


[edit on 8-6-2010 by OrionHunterX]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier



Kudos, I agree with you!
But there are some purists out there that won't even budge. They are like a brick wall and any word you say will not make them believe even if you have evidence. Those types truly make me believe their spirit won't evolve past what it already knows.



YES and they can not be helped either. Pseudo-intellectual's are someone who pretends to seem smart and they lurk among skeptics just as nutters lurk within UFOligy. I can determine who is and who isn't as i have developed a thick hyde from years of wasted argument. Usually you can break them down to minimizing a legitimate case but they never admit they are wrong. The best i can do, you can do is provide factual information when making a claim. If they choose to ignore it and you press hard facts the other people in the discussion will see the true intent of said pseudo skeptic and help solidify you're point. I have had so many make outlandish claims like they worked at AREA 51 and there was nothing to see there yet... could not provide proof they worked there or could even give you simple answers like Military Rank ect.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by Unknown Soldier]


I hate the nutters as well. I sometimes wonder if they are skeptics trying to fool the masses. But there are some people who believe way too much. I mean just take a look at scientology.




posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Not sure if it's been said in these 3 pages, but there is a big difference between a skeptic and a debunker.

A skeptic goes into a case ready to go where the evidence leads him. In addition, a skeptic actively tries to see if there is evidence to the contrary. A skeptic may feel the evidence points to a non-extra-terrestrial source, but the decision is based on evidence.

Example: folks believing a Skyhook balloon was what Charles Mantell was chasing when his plane crashed, due to Skyhook sightings in the area, the description of the UFO, and the location of the event.

A debunker, on the other hand, ignores any evidence that doesn't support his preformed conclusion on the case. In many ways, a debunker is just like an absolute believer, but in reverse, where the believer ignores any evidence leading away from an ET explanation, the debunker ignores the evidence pointing to an ET source.

Example: claiming Betty and Barney Hill must have gotten the idea for their aliens' "wrap-around eyes" from a tv show, despite the evidence that neither were interested in this sort of entertainment. The same debunker also claims the alien description is based on an obscure Japanese sci-fi movie (one that the Hills would have had difficulty locating even if they were aficionados of such entertainment, which they weren't).



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Not sure if it's been said in these 3 pages, but there is a big difference between a skeptic and a debunker.

A skeptic goes into a case ready to go where the evidence leads him. In addition, a skeptic actively tries to see if there is evidence to the contrary. A skeptic may feel the evidence points to a non-extra-terrestrial source, but the decision is based on evidence.

A debunker, on the other hand, ignores any evidence that doesn't support his preformed conclusion on the case. In many ways, a debunker is just like an absolute believer, but in reverse, where the believer ignores any evidence leading away from an ET explanation, the debunker ignores the evidence pointing to an ET source.


Sorry but I really take issue with your definition of debunker:

www.merriam-webster.com...


Debunk: to expose the sham or falseness of


The definition of that word really doesn't include the attributes you are imparting to it.

The word that some have coined to describe what you call a debunker is "pseudoskeptic":

www.debunkingskeptics.com...


Skeptic: "One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons."

Pseudoskepticism (or pseudo-skepticism) is defined as thinking that claims to be Skeptical but is actually faith-based disbelief. Because real skepticism is a justifiable position, pseudoskepticism may also be defined as making pseudoscientific arguments in pursuit of a skeptical agenda.


They basically say the same thing about skeptics as you, but I think their use of the term "pseudoskeptic" or "pseudo-skeptic" is probably less contrary to the stated definition of a word like your use of the word debunker. So substitute the word "pseudoskeptic" where you said "debunker" and I'd agree with you.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   
I would have to say that I am a skeptic.

That is the reason that I stay out of the UFO Forums for the most part. It's not that I disbelieve that there could be intelligent life other than our own in this galaxy, it's that I find it hard to believe they would seek us out.

Take for example where the SOL system is located in the galaxy, it's in one of the outer spiral arms. Well, that doesn't make for very good odds in someone else finding us does it?

If you were looking for intelligent life, I personally would look more towards the center of the galaxy. There you would find more star systems, more planets that might occupy the "Habitable Zone" and therefore more chances that intelligent life could exist.

I also have a hard time believing that a government as inept as ours could possibly cover up something as important as alien life. As they say, two people can keep a secret, as long as one of them is dead.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
i blame govts why sceptics exist, ive seen military aircraft trying to chase or get close to ufos ive seen, so for sure they are hiding their finds from the taxpayers who pay their wages, if they told us wot they've seen and been witness to everyone would believe, so blame govts man, its yet again something we can blame them for.







 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join