The Skeptic FAQ

reply to post by blackcube


Calm it kermit
Did I say that?
Ok, let's take a comic as example, Batman, a man, a bat, man is a human being so the artist did not invent that, a bat is an animal, so the artist did not invent that either, what he did invent is Batman, but from two thing's that were already available to him.
So my point was how do cave painting's show what looks like advanced being's in space suit's, if back in that time they had never seen anything like that before.

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
Book store??
lol
Not good enough.

I am afraid you missed the point.

You may find your own imagination is lacking but the shelves are lined with books full of things that do not exist.

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
Ok, let's take a comic as example, Batman, a man, a bat, man is a human being so the artist did not invent that, a bat is an animal, so the artist did not invent that either, what he did invent is Batman, but from two thing's that were already available to him.

That is a rather poor example and I am afraid you are making a straw man argument.

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
So my point was how do cave painting's show what looks like advanced being's in space suit's, if back in that time they had never seen anything like that before.

Show one that actually looks like a space-suit, not one that has to be "interpreted" as a space-suit.

reply to post by WingedBull


No, no my friend, what you think the rest of us dont read.
It is you who has missed my point.
You know what im talking about when I said that.

Ok let's do something, draw for me something that has never been seen or heard before.
And then give me 1 month to research, I gurantee you, that you picture will have come from something already known, I will find it and post the evidence that it was done before your's.
Like the comic book example.
Batman, Superman, Hulk, Spiderman etc have all been taken from thing's that are available to us.
So when I say, bookstore, not good enough, that's exactly what I mean.

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
So my point was how do cave painting's show what looks like advanced being's in space suit's, if back in that time they had never seen anything like that before.

Using your logic: Well, you accepted the concept that it was a space suit. From where did you get the confirmation it was a space suit from start? Why not a fellow tribe mate using a "fantasy" costume (just check the anthropology studies about indigenous culture and you see the use of costume being used at their religious ceremony or in the day by day outfits) Why it must be a astronaut outfit?

reply to post by blackcube


I never confirmed anything, lolol
It's you people jumping the gun, read what I said.

Here's a site that show's you quite a few cave painting's have a look.

www.crystalinks.com...

You might think they are not space suits, aliens or flying saucer's, and I might think that they are. That doesnt make a difference.
I only mentioned that, that's all.

I didnt know id touch a nerve here.

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
Ok let's do something, draw for me something that has never been seen or heard before.

As I am not an artist and my level of skill could be rivaled by any three-year-old, I am afraid I would not be able to draw anything with any sort of coherence.

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
So when I say, bookstore, not good enough, that's exactly what I mean.

As would be your cave-painting; you may think, in your biased observation that is purposefully looking such things, that is vaguely looks like a man in a space-suit, when in reality it may just be a tribal shaman wearing the costume of his office or it is a religious painting of a spirit or god. I am not entirely sure what you are trying to argue here.

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
And then give me 1 month to research, I gurantee you, that you picture will have come from something already known, I will find it and post the evidence that it was done before your's.

Perhaps you should put that effort and energy into researching these anthropology away from Ufology to find out what these cultures may have actually believed, instead of relying on uneducated UFO researchers who may have no idea what they are talking about.

reply to post by WingedBull


Such as...

Results of material found by Bob White that was witnessed being dropped from a UFO.

Physicist Chris Ellis, who is and expert in solid state physics, aluminum alloys, and superconductors stated that test results showed the object recovered by Mr. White is an alloy of unknown origin. In his expert opinion the alloy was manufactured for a specific purpose. Research scientist David Lamb stated that the artifact showed a unique "amporphus peak" and is a polychristilline semi conductor. To his knowledge this type of material is not found anywhere on earth! He futher stated that the artifact is a quasi-crystal of a very complex stucture. This technology is only in its early stages on earth in the form of nanotechnology which was science fiction in 1985 when this object was recovered.

Roswell Debris

Russell VernonClark is a young scientist currently employed as an Environmental Health and Safety Specialist in the Chemistry Department at UCSD. He received his Ph.D. in chemistry in 1993. He claims expertise in processes of inorganic analysis including Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectroscopy (ICP/MS), the process he used to test the alleged Roswell sample. His C.V. lists publication of eight scientific papers since 1993. Dr. VernonClark said that tests run by himself, and a separate set of tests run by other scientists at another institution, confirmed that isotopic ratios of several constituent elements in the sample object were very far different from expected terrestrial values. On this basis, he said, he was obliged to conclude the object could not have occurred on earth.

Back Engineered Material From Crashed UFO Debri...

Morphing Project Program Manager lets slip that the smart materials they are working on could be back engineered! We were staggered at the remarks on Langleys AFB website made by Anna McGowan, program manager for the Morphing Project at NASA's Langley Research Center (which is a part of this project, but not the main company). She says: "Among the exotic "smart" materials being developed by the Morphing Project, shape-memory alloys are relatively ordinary. Imagine seeing a bullet shot through a sheet of material, only to have the material instantly "heal" behind the bullet! Remember, this is not science fiction. Self-healing materials actually exist, and LaRC scientists are working to unravel their secrets. "What we did at NASA-Langley was basically dissect that material to answer the question, 'how does it do that?'" McGowan said. "By doing so, we can actually get down to computational modeling of these materials at the molecular level. Once we understand the material's behavior at that level, then we can create designer 'smart' materials," she added. LaRC is also developing customized variations of piezoelectric materials. These substances link electric voltage to motion. If you contort a piezoelectric material a voltage is generated. Conversely, if you apply a voltage, the material will contort. The above statement seems odd to us. Why would you strip down technology to see how it works if you had built it in the first place? Or does this mean that NASA-Langley did not make the material, but are in fact back-engineering it?

reply to post by Dr Cosma


I think what Wingedbull was trying to explain was that we have imagination that allows us to come up with ideas that haven't been considered before, including things such as the cave paintings you're talking about. Those paintings could represent nearly anything, considering we can't just ask the painters what they were intending. Were they spacemen, or were they depictions of ancient gods, or monsters, or some other sort of depiction of the unknown that humans are always anthropomorphizing through paintings, literature, and other means of passing down information.

There have been many, many new ideas created by people, and the ideas have to be depicted somehow. Claiming that every single idea is based on something real means that everything that can be considered in a person's mind is real, including thoughts such as "My deceased father broke into my house and stole my frying pan." I came up with it, so it must have occurred, right?

Very well said sir! I completely agree... your analysis is spot on. This land of fantasy and make believe that you refer to is a result of people not being able to except mundane explanations for sightings. Instead they grasp at straws and come to wild conclusions based on little to no evidence.

Keep up the good work. SnF

Via Dr Cosma
Cave Paintings and various other Ancient Artwork/Recollections: These bits are always compelling for the exact reason they're not as useful as currently available testing methods: We can't ask the originators what they actually meant when they created it.

A painting on a wall is open to wide areas of interpretation if there is nobody around to explain exactly what the intended message was. Is that a man in a spacesuit, or a depiction of an ancient god? Are they one and the same? Or is it actually just a depiction of the painter's neighbor Ug doing a dance with a ring of vines around his head? There's no way to tell.

The fact that these items look like spacemen to us is because we're conditioned to recognize that particular shape as a person in a spacesuit (or a flying disk, or a grey alien) due to the saturation of our society in those images. There are many instances of societal conditioning confirming that what we see is only due to what we understand about our world. (As a for instance, consider this optical illusion, which may or may not have racy images depending on your conditioning: Dolphin Illusion (May not be work safe))

(I can't edit the OP. If any mods are watching this thread, Is there any way to keep it updated?)

Originally posted by WeRpeons
Such as...

You are proving the point I made...

Originally posted by WeRpeons
Physicist Chris Ellis, who is and expert in solid state physics, aluminum alloys, and superconductors stated that test results showed the object recovered by Mr. White is an alloy of unknown origin. In his expert opinion the alloy was manufactured for a specific purpose. Research scientist David Lamb stated that the artifact showed a unique "amporphus peak" and is a polychristilline semi conductor. To his knowledge this type of material is not found anywhere on earth! He futher stated that the artifact is a quasi-crystal of a very complex stucture. This technology is only in its early stages on earth in the form of nanotechnology which was science fiction in 1985 when this object was recovered.

Did they say this? Are these a direct quote of their findings? Have their findings been submitted for peer review? Where is the report of their findings so that others may study them?

Dr. VernonClark said that tests run by himself, and a separate set of tests run by other scientists at another institution...

Here we see what I referenced in the post you are replying to, referencing unnamed scientists at unnamed institutions. As for Dr. Clark's findings, I have the same questions I did for Mr. Ellis' findings.

Back Engineered Material From Crashed UFO Debri...

Originally posted by WeRpeons
The above statement seems odd to us. Why would you strip down technology to see how it works if you had built it in the first place? Or does this mean that NASA-Langley did not make the material, but are in fact back-engineering it?

I don't know enough about the above subject or the sciences behind it to comment on any specifics; but I suspect whomever wrote the above probably shares my level of expertise. They seem to be grasping at straws.

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by Kali74
Great post OP, a good reminder on what the true definition of skeptic is, a good reminder that it doesn't include ridiculing anyone that doesn't agree with you and a good reminder that it is not in opposition of anything but an invitation to discuss why or why not.

There are several logical errors and fallacies in the opening post. In fact, he/she is sometimes inconsistent. If this is what passes for "skepticism" I'll pass.

Quite frankly, and this goes for believers and non-believers alike, I think the problem runs more deep. At least some education in the sciences or arts at university level would prevent a lot of nonsense being written. How many on this board hold a bachelors, masters or PhD degree? I think very few.

I have two bachelor degrees and a masters and I think the OP's is one of the soundest positions I have seen on ATS. There are a lot of garbage on this site, this thread is not one of them (in my humble opinion). Overall, you are correct though, the lack of quality research on here is troublesome. Finding a suspect video on youtube is not doing research!

reply to post by EsSeeEye

Good post. S&F.

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
I don’t believe there is a mass cover-up of evidence (for the same reason I don’t yet accept that there are aliens visiting the Earth, lack of real evidence and an overabundance of fabricated stories). However, if I were wrong and there were a mass cover-up by people who are so powerful that they could silence the literally thousands upon thousands of people that would have to be knowledgeable of the truth, then what could we do? We’d be at their whim.

Seems bleak, I know. Mostly, I don’t think that’s the case because people just can’t keep those types of things secret for that long. We’re looking at decades upon decades of secrecy, spanning generations of people doing the job of keeping those things secret. I don’t think that we should scapegoat the fact that we’re missing evidence onto yet another likely fictional entity to cover for the fact that we just don’t have enough evidence to clearly prove the ET Hypothesis a reality.

This is the only part where I differ from you in any major way. We know there has been a cover up of some description. However, that doesn't mean that it has all been a cover up about aliens. Some of it may be but there is so much garbage out there it is a nightmare to separate all the different strands of evidence.

The other thing that I would like to point out is that there has been an incredible amount of testimony that there are aliens visiting Earth, including testimony that people have met them and seen them in association with flying craft. Testimony that people have seen bodies. Testimony that 'saucers have been captured. Lots of related material too.

Yes, testimony is never going to amount to scientific proof. You are correct to say that. But it is stretching the imagination to say that every bit of that testimony is either hallucination, fabrication etc. If only one of those testimonies are true, then there has to be some scientific explanation for it.

My bone of contention with some (not all) so called sceptics is this: If you are so interested in this topic then why not look for that scientific explanation yourself instead of just hanging around debunking? In other words do a bit of original research.

Of course when some interesting data is produced it should be scrutinised by those of us who are truly sceptical of new ideas. But there is something going on and it demands an explanation. The answer might be complicated (it isn't all aliens that's for sure) or it may be simple (there are, perhaps, aliens in all this muddy water somewhere). But surely more of your sceptical enquiry should be directed to finding new evidence and not just debunking.

I hope I am not going to get slammed for that, but I think I have a point. Anyone agree?

reply to post by WingedBull


Ok let's forget about drawing a pic, dont worry I cant draw either
I was just trying to prove a point that's all.
Let's just say that it's a misunderstanding.
Im not here to argue that youre wrong and im wright, I just find the cave painting's to be more interesting when it comes to possible alien evidence as opposed to most of the youtube flashing light's, balloons or migrating geese vid's.
What youre saying is totally plausible and probably in most cases correct.
However some painting's are quite strange to me.
That is my opinion.

reply to post by EsSeeEye


I didnt say that everything we think of has alreay been thought of, what I said if you go back and have a look, is that it's not that easy.
Apart of that, I agree with what youre saying, I think about this also when I look at the painting's, shaman etc
But these thing's are what I find most interesting when it comes to ET research.

It's definitely healthy to ask for evidence but I think the skeptical approach you outline will only take you so far when applied to this phenomena.

Asking for physical evidence is great when you're studying the natural world such as s new strain of virus, mammal or meteorological event. In cases like this the subject being studied is generally passive towards being studied.

However, once we start hypothesising that the phenomena may be the result of an intelligence at least on par with our own then you must make allowance for the fact that any 'evidence' you find may have been manipulated by the very phenomenon you are trying to study.

How do you prove the existence of something that doesn't want it's existence proved and is much smarter than you?

Could it be that we are like fish in a tank debating on what the net is that sometimes appears in our world only to disappear as if by magic, when we have no concept of the world outside our tank, or even that we are in a tank or swim in water?

reply to post by WeRpeons


I'm convinced that the Bob White object is nothing but a foundry electrode. Someone even tried to sell on of these electrodes on ATS last year, claiming it was a UFO artifact.

Bob White object.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3e698e145077.jpg[/atsimg]

Foundry electrode.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ea650db941de.jpg[/atsimg]

[HOAX!] UFO artifact for sale.

Nice post OP. I agree with pretty much everything you've said, except this....

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
Why don’t skeptics just be quiet and let people believe what they believe?
So when I see a discussion spiraling downward into pure fantasy and faith, I feel that I need to interject and steer it back toward reality.

I'm quite skeptical of the whole ufo genre, but I find that a lot of the skeptics out there don't only steer conversations back toward reality; instead, they fill their posts with ridicule and condescension. I'm not saying it's you who's doing that EsSeeEye, others on here definitely do though. I mean, it's one thing to say to someone who posted a video of a blurry light in the sky, "well, it kind of looks like a normal plane", but I've noticed a lot of people on here take it much further and seem to get pleasure in trying to make an idiot out of the person who thinks it's a ufo. Really, if someone thinks it's a ufo, is it going to affect you in any way by not agreeing with what they believe they're seeing ? I'm not saying skeptics who want their say should but out, presenting a quality diagnosis of a situation is great (because that's what skepticism is all about, right ?), but sometimes trying to convince someone to see your reality isn't an appropriate thing to do. From what I've seen on ATS so far, most skeptics here are more like the fun police.

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
Let's just say that it's a misunderstanding.

Agreed my friend. Agreed.

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
However some painting's are quite strange to me.

As it should be; we are talking about cultures thousands of years removed from anything we know. While human, they are every bit alien as well, in the truest sense of the word.