I`ve found it! what makes a ufo skeptic!

reply to post by rabbigoldstein


Thing is, there is no black and white here...there are many different "flavors" of "skeptic"...

My personal ideas:

SKEPTIC OF ALIENS IN GENERAL - We are alone in the Universe, and that's that (these tend to be more of the monotheistic religious types, but not always).

SKEPTIC OF ALIENS VISITING US - This is the biggest camp I think...it's likely aliens exist, with all the possible worlds out there, but so far, that it's unlikely they are visiting.

DEBUNKER SKEPTIC - Not only are aliens not visiting us, but there is a logical explanation for EVERY sighting, etc., and if something COULD be an explanation...until proven otherwise, that IS the explanation.

SKEPTICAL BELIEVER - Believes aliens have visited, but that most claims are either misidentifications or hoaxes, unless there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. This is my personal camp, and probably the second-biggest group.

OPTIMISTIC BELIEVER - Most UFO/Alien accounts are legit, but acknowledges the real loonies.

ARDENT BELIEVER - Nearly all UFO/Alien accounts are legit, balloons are really fleets of UFOs, etc., etc. Luckily, a very small group, but get a lot of press for being really wacked out.

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

the big problem with the RB-47 is we dont have any data.

Not really true. Condon's resources are still available.

* Condon files. Condon Committee interview transcripts -- Roy Craig with Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase (October 19, 1967) and with Majors James McCoid and Frank McClure (undated, circa November 1967); miscellaneous correspondence; unpublished papers of Edward U. Condon (... files of American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania).

There's the data about the radar antenna from GE:

* General Electric Company. "Report on Pattern Measurements for AN/CPS-6 and AN/CPS-6B Vertical Radar Antenna," April 1950.

USAF data about the pulse detection system:

U.S. Air Force. "Electrical Pulse Analyzer IP-233/ALA-5." Handbook Operating Instructions Tech. Order 12P3-2ALA5-1, May 15, 1953, revised April 7, 1971a.
—. "Direction Finder Group AN/ALA-6." Handbook Operating Instructions Tech. Order 12P3-2ALA6-1, May 1, 1954, revised April 7, 1971b.

There's the US sponsored Condon Report itself:

* Gillmor, Daniel S., ed. Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects. New York: Bantam Books, 1969 [see pages 56-58,136-39,175,260-66,750,877-93].

* Thayer, Gordon David. "RB-47 Radar/Visual Sighting." In Ronald D. Story, ed. The Encyclopedia of UFOs, 297-98. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1980.

* Saunders, David R., and R. Roger Harkins. UFOs? Yes! Where the Condon Committee Went Wrong. New York: World Publishing Company, 1968 [see pages 126-27,231-32].

There's the details surrounding the Klass' investigation:

* Herb, Gert. "A Rebuttal to Philip J. Klass's Analysis of the RB-47 Incident of July 17, 1957." CUFOS Bulletin (Summer 1977): 3-10.

* Klass, Philip J. The RB-47 UFO Case -- A New Explanation. Washington, DC: The Author, December 30, 1971.
—. UFOs Explained. New York: Random House, 1974.

Then there's senior atmospheric physicist Dr. J. McDonald's research,

* McDonald, James E. A Very Creditable Effort? Tucson, AZ: The Author, 1969.
—. "UFO Encounter I: Sample Case Selected by the UFO Subcommittee of the AIAA." Astronautics and Aeronautics 9,7 (July 1971):66-70.
—."Science in Default: Twenty-two Years of Inadquate UFO Investigations." In Carl Sagan and Thornton Page, eds. UFOs -- A Scientific Debate, 52-122. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1972

* McDonald papers. James E. McDonald's typed and handwritten notes of telephone interviews with Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase (January 30, February 1, 1969), Maj. Frank B. McClure (February 1, 1969), Maj. Walter A. Tuchscherer (February 2, 1969), Maj. John J. Provenzano (February 2, 1969), Maj. Thomas H. Hanley, Jr. (February 2, 1969), Maj. James H. McCoid (February 2, 1969); miscellaneous notes (February 19, 1969-January 4, 1971), unpublished papers (courtesy Betsy McDonald, J. Richard Greenwell, Coral E. Lorenzon; collection now at University of Arizona, Tucson). [*Maj. Sparks, no relation to Brad Sparks, was an advisor on electronic warfare consulted by McDonald, not a crew member of the RB-47 flight in 1957.]

There's Sparks published paper in Astronautics and Aeronautics,

* Sparks, Brad. "UFO Details." Astronautics and Aeronautics, 9,12 (December 1971):4.

And I can keep going ...

* Steinmetz, Ken, ed. Science and the UFO: A Supplement to the Proceedings of the Third National Amateur Astronomers Convention. Denver, CO: National Amateur Astronomers, August 22, 1969.

reply to post by Xtraeme


everything you posted means almost nothing in terms of evidence of this incident. Data from the plane or data from the ground is the minimum we need. Everything else is interpretation. Even then its impossible to rule out faulty equipment or "tricked" sensors due to any other factor like atmosphere conditions. Thats getting beyond the first stage though. No data kills it. To science this case means nothing.

reply to post by yeti101


You do realize Condon had part of the data-set right? Hence ref'ing his files. Do you honestly think the USAF funded a several year study on nothing more than testimony? Please read the actual source material rather than putting forward what you imagine to be the facts.

reply to post by Xtraeme


its not interesting for me becuase the data cant be scrutinized today. We've learnt alot of radar and other technology in the past 50 years. Would a fresh look at the data today help us at all? i dont know but we cant find out becuase we dont have it. The case is unexplained and we cant progress it.

The basic problem with all of this is the tendency to think that time is a linear thing, when it's been shown over and over that it's not. However, we're animals that live in some kind of existence, and we view time as linear. We have a hard time even comprehending that time can be constantly going both "forward" and "backward." So we tend to try to shoehorn a notion of instantaneous creation into a model that just doesn't fit. We can't visualize a God or a Big Bang that expands outward into the past and future.

We also don't really understand how our consciousness interacts with and creates reality.

The thing that makes a UFO skeptic (someone who doesn't believe UFOs are extraterrestrial craft) is a complete and utter lack of evidence that suggests they are ET craft. Sure, there are things that are unidentified, but there has never been a single good piece of evidence gathered or presented that proves they're ET craft. We like to jump to conclusions, of course, claiming that such and such a UFO, "is obviously not of this Earth," when in reality, we don't know that for sure, and we aren't aware of -- and may not even be capable of understanding -- all the other possibilities besides ET.

That's what makes a UFO skeptic. Lots of evidence of something , but no good proof of anything. And a lot of annoying people who claim they know the truth, when they obviously just can't.

Originally posted by rabbigoldstein
Bingo! i said! its exactly the same thing with the alien topic. Theres some people out there, that even when provided with very credible eyewitness testament (which in a court of law, and the case of the holocaust/nuremberg trials) eyewitnesses were one of the major factors, yet in the ufo case, its not good enough, people will still not believe.

I don't think it's so simple. For example, while I firmly believe there is intelligent space-faring cultures out in the vast galaxy, I'm very skeptical any would bother visiting us. Technically I'm a UFO (specific to objects of extraterrestrial origin) skeptic, but believe in the possibility.

In my long experience paying attention to the UFO field, "pure skeptics" are actually among the minority of those who disbelieve in extraterrestrial origin for unidentified objects in the sky. There are:

1) Religious disbelievers: These are people who, for various reasons specific to their religion, reject the notion that humanity is not the only source of "intelligence" in the universe.

2) Spiritual deniers: While at first glance, it might seem this group "believes" in UFOs, in reality, they attribute mystical origins to unknown objects in the sky. For the most part, the mystical origins do not include off-world beings.

3) Pragmatic nonbeliever: These are the people that feel all sightings are by "UFO Nutters" living in trailer parks (as a generalization), and reject all UFO activity as explainable terrestrial events.

4) Mischievous skeptic: These are the online "tolls" whose categorization may be difficult to place, but derive personal entertainment from poking fun at anyone with a sighting online.

5) Supporting skeptic: These are the people who more vigorously "test" the limits of sightings with detailed questions and analysis in an effort to identify hoaxes and/or what was actually seen. People in this group will be generally aligned in favor of UFOlogy, but have grown weary of balloons and aircraft on approach being labeled as ET UFOs, as well as the plethora of hoaxes.

As you can see, the mix of those you might label a "skeptic" is rather varied.

We need skeptics, lots of them, otherwise how will we determine which sightings are valid or not?

Originally posted by Gazrok
Thing is, there is no black and white here...there are many different "flavors" of "skeptic"...

I'm not quite sure where I fit in.

* Understand that there are unidentified things flying around, and that every witness can't be mistaken or lying.
* Think it's possible we might be the only living things in the Universe, until proven otherwise.
* Thinks some UFOs might be ET craft, but only if we prove ET exists.
* Thinks other UFOs might be something else, including something completely outside our ability to fully understand.
* Patient enough to wait and see, without drawing any firm conclusions based on insufficient proof.

Your whole OP could apply to anything on this forum. Ghosts, UFO's, Bigfoot, Fairy's, Pixies BEKS, etc etc

To find out why some people don't believe in UFO's (Or more correctly don't believe that UFO's are aliens in space ships) then pick one of those things that you DONT believe in and examine why you don't believe in it, then you will have the answer as to why some people don't believe in ufo's being aliens

Originally posted by Xtraeme
So ... "does any of this stuff invalidate his presentation on self-deception?" Yes, in that he lumps all unknown observations in to the category of misidentification or psychosis.

edit on 1-12-2010 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)

Perhaps so. Though... wait a minute. Where are the aliens and their space ships? They seem to be nowhere, unless we form a suspicion that the government knows all about it and successfully keeps it a secret. A conspiracy, of course, unable to be proven yet validating our belief. A self-deception if you will.

Any UFO (and the "U" standing for "unidentified") should remain as such, yet all too often it is inherently "identified" as having an alien, otherworldly source without sufficient justification or evidence. This is misidentification and self-deception in the purest sense. Until we have some little green men and their rocket ships I'm afraid there is no rational basis for believing that the lights in the sky one cannot identify can be chalked up to things so far unproven to exist.

reply to post by rabbigoldstein

Why? because its out of their reality.. they simply can not comprehend why if aliens exist, are they not physically here now, why is the only things released to the public blurry footage and the usual youtube garbage.

Until they think out of that reality, and it probably would take something like an abduction, or an alien taking them to their planet, they really will not be able to think otherwise.

The human brain is hardwired to a certain way of thinking, and unless something major happens to alter it, nothing will change it.

The funny thing I find about our civilization's mindset is how we use emotions to qualify things that make zero sense. For example, there is a huge cultural following (in our civilization) for a being called "God." Now God created the universe so by definition God is "beyond our universe." Yet people are convinced that such a being "loves each and every one of us" on some personal like level. They are convinced he watches over us like Santa Claus to see if we are naughty or nice.

Yet, when confronted with the fact that aliens could be millions of years older than us and potentially hostile, people just laugh. They argue that if such advanced aliens exist, why would they pay much attention to our "puny little species." In other words, humans develop natural mental defenses so they can have their cake and eat it too.

Believe me, the majority of UFO skeptics will find flaws in everything. The vast majority of the flaws they spew with regards to UFOs are based on their emotional instability and not true logic or reason.

Originally posted by Scramjet76
Believe me, the majority of UFO skeptics will find flaws in everything. The vast majority of the flaws they spew with regards to UFOs are based on their emotional instability and not true logic or reason.

edit on 2-12-2010 by Scramjet76 because: (no reason given)

I find just the opposite. In fact, it's quite logical and reasonable to reject that unidentified blinky lights are really alien spacecraft on the sheer lack of evidence favoring such as assertion. Conversely, it is the UFO's-are-aliens believers that rely all too often on emotional appeals for lack of evidence.

reply to post by Blue Shift


Category I left out.

OPEN-MINDED SKEPTIC - Hasn't seen enough to convince them aliens are real and/or visiting Earth, but not closed to the possibility of it...but need to see much more convincing evidence than that which has already been presented....i.e. show me the body or the craft.

Any UFO (and the "U" standing for "unidentified") should remain as such, yet all too often it is inherently "identified" as having an alien, otherworldly source without sufficient justification or evidence. This is misidentification and self-deception in the purest sense.

When you have an "unidentified" it's a requirement to rule things out. This involves a person forming a position that the person first labels as a possibility and then involves finding a way to falsify it. You're conflating position with identification.

Originally posted by Xtraeme
So ... "does any of this stuff invalidate his presentation on self-deception?" Yes, in that he lumps all unknown observations in to the category of misidentification or psychosis.

Until we have some little green men and their rocket ships I'm afraid there is no rational basis for believing that the lights in the sky one cannot identify can be chalked up to things so far unproven to exist.

And you're not just conflating positions with identification, you're conflating unidentifieds as alien space crafts.

Half of miscommunication is semantic or dialectical. I think you'd benefit from reading this thread.

Where are the aliens and their space ships? They seem to be nowhere, unless we form a suspicion that the government knows all about it and successfully keeps it a secret. A conspiracy, of course, unable to be proven yet validating our belief. A self-deception if you will.

You're making an assumption that doesn't include the full hypothesis set. Another possible explanation is "grand foul-up." The United States government is notoriously stupid and inefficient.

In this case self-deception would seem to be squarely in the court of the person who can't think more broadly to include other possibilities (a form of bias reinforcement or, perhaps, group think if you will).

Originally posted by Xtraeme
When you have an "unidentified" it's a requirement to rule things out.

When you have an "unidentified" you've already ruled things out and arrived at a conclusion.

You're making an assumption that doesn't include the full hypothesis set. Another possible explanation is "grand foul-up." The United States government is notoriously stupid and inefficient.

How does that explain anything about an unidentified object?

In this case self-deception would seem to be squarely in the court of the person who can't think more broadly to include other possibilities (a form of bias reinforcement or, perhaps, group think if you will).

edit on 2-12-2010 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)

Which possibilities? The go-to assumption of any blinky lights, especially on this site, is aliens in spacecraft. This is why I have "conflated" the meaning. Nobody gets enthusiastic over mundane explanations such as known aircraft, satellites, delusions, mirages, etc. And I have no reason to be skeptical over rational explanations. This thread is about UFO skepticism, isn't it?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Xtraeme
When you have an "unidentified" it's a requirement to rule things out.

When you have an "unidentified" you've already ruled things out and arrived at a conclusion.

Not being able to identify something doesn't assume the person has already ruled out other possibilities. For instance if I show you a picture of fuzzy noise, you may be able to identify a pattern in it. The process in this case is reversed. You're looking for an identification.

If I show you a photograph of a dog. There is no ruling out pattern because it's immediately evident what it is. An unidentified is by default something that is hard to identify. This doesn't imply the person has meticulously ruled out all possibilities.

To give an example rewatch Shermer's video where he "primes the pump" and shows the outline of a dalmatian. Part of the point was to highlight the interpretative process and question "is the pattern the real one?" That's why he shows the cup with the two individuals who appear to be bound in coitus when it's actually a grouping of dolphins.

When a person can't immediately label something often times its due to a lack of information. Not due to an extensive or even partial ruling out process, involving falsification.

Where are the aliens and their space ships? They seem to be nowhere, unless we form a suspicion that the government knows all about it and successfully keeps it a secret. A conspiracy, of course, unable to be proven yet validating our belief. A self-deception if you will.

You're making an assumption that doesn't include the full hypothesis set. Another possible explanation is "grand foul-up." The United States government is notoriously stupid and inefficient.

How does that explain anything about an unidentified object?

It was in response to your claim that we're looking at "conspiracy cover-up." By the quickness of your reply it would seem you didn't bother to read the link to see its relevance to what you were asserting.

In this case self-deception would seem to be squarely in the court of the person who can't think more broadly to include other possibilities (a form of bias reinforcement or, perhaps, group think if you will).

Which possibilities?

The one I just pointed out, "grand foul-up."

The go-to assumption of any blinky lights, especially on this site, is aliens in spacecraft. This is why I have "conflated" the meaning. Nobody gets enthusiastic over mundane explanations such as known aircraft, satellites, delusions, mirages, etc. And I have no reason to be skeptical over rational explanations. This thread is about UFO skepticism, isn't it?

"The go-to assumption...," ah yes group think. That was the point of my observation, yes? That people get trapped in a type of thinking. This goes for believers as much as it does skeptics. Expanded definitions often allow us to think of things in a way that we haven't previously.

Originally posted by Xtraeme
When a person can't immediately label something often times its due to a lack of information.

By the time, say, a UFO video gets here it has been scrutinized multiple times by many people and is subject to further analysis here. We're not talking about immediacy. We're talking about an inherent lack of information so glaring that "unidentified" remains the conclusion.

It was in response to your claim that we're looking at "conspiracy cover-up." By the quickness of your reply it would seem you didn't bother to read the link to see its relevance to what you were asserting.

I saw a blacked out page.

"The go-to assumption...," ah yes group think. That was the point of my observation, yes? That people get trapped in a type of thinking. This goes for believers as much as it does skeptics. Expanded definitions often allow us to think of things in a way that we haven't previously.

edit on 2-12-2010 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)

What expanded definition and what other possibilities? I assume you can only be implying a government cover up? So we get a blinky light video, then a government report about it that is largely blacked out.... so with TWO things we can't identify we can make an accurate assessment to something's identity? I'm sorry, but this furthers my skepticism. I require direct, tangible evidence of something, not allusions to a conclusion based on a lack thereof.

Maybe the blinky lights were aliens. Show them to me. Maybe the blinky lights were something nobody has ever conceived of. Show it to me. Let's test it and verify it as real. Until then I remain skeptical of all the conjecture that accompanies someone's experience with unidentified lights in the sky.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

In fact, it's quite logical and reasonable to reject that unidentified blinky lights are really alien spacecraft on the sheer lack of evidence favoring such as assertion.

I'm not talking about blinking lights. I'm talking about real hard evidence like the 1976 Tehran UFO encounter. I'm talking about JAL 1628. I'm talking about real UFOs.

But mostly, as a believer, I don't mean to chastise everyone who demands 21st century proof. I'm a huge fan of Michio Kaku. He built an atom smasher when he was 17. That's real science. But does Kaku actually believe that UFOs constitute the proof needed for alien visitation? No.



Notice how he says Leslie Kean's new book is "as close to the smoking gun as you are going to get." But when pressed on 100% proof, Kaku a man of science, must say no. Without a piece of the craft, computer chip, dna, etc, they just can't put the nail in the coffin yet.

But did anywhere in this video do you see Kaku scoffing at the notion of UFOs as aliens? No. Why? Because he hasn't allowed his braniac ego to say "that's impossible because I can't understand it." This is why Michio Kaku is a great scientist. Not just because he co-founded string field theory. Not just because he's been getting (scientifically) published since 1969. Because he has the courage to admit that given the data we have available to us today, it is very likely that we aren't the only game in town. Similarly, given the age of our pond, it is very likely that there are bigger fish out there..

reply to post by rabbigoldstein

The Big Bang Theory does not say that something (the universe) came from nothing. Instead it says that in the beginning there was a singularity (imagine all matter and energy of the known universe compressed into a tiny speck, like the head of a needle). Then this singularity exploded and created the Big Bang and subsequently over billions of years the whole universe.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Xtraeme
When a person can't immediately label something often times its due to a lack of information.

By the time, say, a UFO video gets here it has been scrutinized multiple times by many people and is subject to further analysis here. We're not talking about immediacy. We're talking about an inherent lack of information so glaring that "unidentified" remains the conclusion.

These are cases I'd classify as "not measurable" since the data is so poor as to be worthless. This includes a great number of youtube videos and other anecdotal observations by a lone individual.

What expanded definition and what other possibilities?

As far as the expanded definition, see here. Regarding the full hypothesis set, it's huge and includes numerous things outside of ETH. Unfortunately my webserver is offline at the moment, but here's a very brief overview.

I assume you can only be implying a government cover up?

No, I largely dismiss government cover-up (though there may be situational cover-ups which doesn't imply global institutional cover-up). Please read the link provided before ("grand foul-up") to see my position on this.

So we get a blinky light video, then a government report about it that is largely blacked out.... so with TWO things we can't identify we can make an accurate assessment to something's identity? I'm sorry, but this furthers my skepticism. I require direct, tangible evidence of something, not allusions to a conclusion based on a lack thereof.

The FOIA case referenced in the thread was tertiary to my point. However if you're interested it was a visual/radar observation between a civilian ground controller (the AARTCC operator signed an affidavit for the FAA -- radar data is still available), a military ROCC operator who noted primary returns indicating "a flight size of two," and on-board weather radar of the civilian 747 cargo plane that picked up the object (the three man flight-crew recounted the oddness of the event -- pilot of 29 years, flight engineer, and copilot). Even the FAA chief of accidents and investigations John Callahan has gone on the record to say he was told by the FAA administrator, Admiral Engen, to hand the data off to Reagan's scientific team. This was no "blinky light video."

But this was all secondary to my point. In the thread I was arguing that the great bulk of UFO data is already out in the public domain. I even go on to advocate that the majority of the data is redacted due to methods and sources. Where I diverge from most people is that rather than seeing this as the government being entirely on the level, instead I see it as evidence of government ineptitude or in the words of Dr. J. Allen Hynek, "it can't be therefore it isn't."

Even though your question didn't have much to do with the above linked article or what I was arguing, I'll try to address it nevertheless, "... with TWO things we can't identify we can make an accurate assessment to something's identity?" As you go through the ruling out process you can figure out what it isn't and then ask, "What's left?" If you do that with any sense of honesty or integrity you'll find out very quickly there's something odd about these specific cases, and it sure doesn't smell like government TS test flights.