Why is nobody willing to say, "I don't know?"

reply to post by petrus4


But with some UFO cases we do know. Some can be pinned down with a good degree of accuracy to things like Chinese lanterns or military flares or bugs (as is the case with the so called Rod UFOs).

I'm with you on the fact that sometimes we need to admit that we just don't know and I have often done just that. I myself saw a UFO a few years ago and will readily admit I don't know what it was. That doesn't stop me from applying healthy skepticism to other cases and looking for down-to-earth explanations of other sightings. We shouldn't arrogantly assert that we do know but at the same time we can't be afraid to look for answers or admit when we find them.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by InnerPeace2012

 

So that puts us back to saying "It could be this (or that)." Which is what the discussions are about. Simply saying "I don't know." is pointless. A waste of bytes.

You can say this and that, but ultimately, you and I don't know for certain what it is, which was my point, unless proven otherwise.

Like I said earlier, some people cannot say "I don't know", which is, they tend to explain it away with the most plausible explanations, but again, that does not explain it 100%, is what I was getting at, until proven as fact.


PS:

In fact, explaining it in text is a waste of bytes, then just saying 'I don't know'.

Peace

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by InnerPeace2012

 

So that puts us back to saying "It could be this (or that)." Which is what the discussions are about. Simply saying "I don't know." is pointless. A waste of bytes.

So being honest is a waste of time/bytes to you?

Even if i'm not sure what it is witch most people don't because if they did it would not be a UFO now would it?
You rather have me being a hardhead and say "No, it's a ........... i sure of it!" eventho i'm not?

People can still say "I don't know, BUT i THINK it might be a .........." See this is where we use that anoying word 'but' because we don't know yet we do have a idea what it might be, witch makes us resort to thinking and doing research.

So please don't say that saying "I don't know" is a waiste of time/bytes whatever you call it. It's clearly not, people are being honest and saying they don't know but might have a idea of what it is. If people just do what you incline, it will not be a 'discussion' but a yes or no batte or a i am right, no i am right non-sense thread.

You sound like a smart guy and people here 'admire' you, this is very clear in the short time i'm here. So you surely know that being honest is OK, and still leaves room for discussion. Because if i'm in a discussion with you and i don't know what it was and you do, then i will LEARN from you what it is see the evidence of it and be CONVINCED of what it is.

Same can go for you, your just a person so you can't possibly know everything, and it's not a shame to say "I don't know" because then your open to learn, otherwise your just thickheaded and not willing to give in.

reply to post by Required01

You missed the point.

If I don't know what something is. If I don't have any ideas about what something is or may be, what's the point of saying "I don't know?" What does that contribute to the discussion?

I'm asked things in real life conversations all the time. Things I don't know the answer to. I say "I don't know" and the conversation doesn't get much further than that. So yes, in a forum like this, especially where "one line posts" are frowned upon, saying "I don't know" is a pointless waste of everyone's time.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Required01

 

You missed the point.

If I don't know what something is. If I don't have any ideas about what something is or may be, what's the point of saying "I don't know?" What does that contribute to the discussion?

I'm asked things in real life conversations all the time. Things I don't know the answer to. I say "I don't know" and the conversation doesn't get much further than that. So yes, in a forum like this, especially where "one line posts" are frowned upon, saying "I don't know" is a pointless waste of everyone's time.

edit on 8/23/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Well if you took the time to read my post more carefully, you would clearly see i mentioned the BUT didn't I?

I don't know, BUT .........................................
...................................................................

See what i mean now? I'm still saying i don't know yet i give my thoughts on what it might be. So it's a post longer that one line, and i contribute my thoughts to the conversation. People vairy in toughts a lot, so the more 'opinions' of what it 'might' be can sketch a nice outcome. People saying 'It's this' or 'It's that' without them being sure does not contribute to any discussion other then false information.

LOL, please explain the 99.999999% of cases then, and ofcourse you need PROOF to do so! Your interpretation of what it is does not "explain" it, only evidence of what it is does.

Go through the Aliens and Ufo threads on here, most of them have been debunked in one way or another.
They remain in the forum because generally, if someone comes up with a logical explanation with evidence and information that backs it up they are ran out of the thread by the die hard believers.

Ive given up on numerous threads because of this. I know what it is, i can prove what it is but i cant be bothered arguing with 10 or so people about it. I get called a troll, a #stirrer, a dis info agent....the usual bs. Why would i bother wasting any more time on them? If people will follow blindly thats their problem

Heres a short example from one such thread

Them: "FACT: I couldn't have confused them for landing lights unless they were facing, and traveling towards me"

Me: "Southwest Georgia Regional Airport is to your south west, its plausible that a plane WAS coming to land there. So it WOULD have been facing you."

Then come the trolling comments, "you dont live here" blah blah blah.


Show me one shred of evidence that can be backed up and proven without a doubt FOR aliens visiting us.?

I don't know. UFO's are the same as God. I don't know and I don't even spend time thinking about it. The day I see God or an alien, that day, I'm gonna believe. Until then, I DON'T KNOW and I'm not afraid to say it.

reply to post by Required01

Everything I say is my opinion (unless I say otherwise). If I think it's something I'll say what I think it is. Sometimes I'll say "It looks like", or "I think", but often I don't. What difference does it make? It's all my opinion anyway (unless I say otherwise).

IMHO (irony intended), I don't even have to say "I think" or "in my opinion". In fact it irritates me when people do so. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. Saying "I don't know, but..." is nothing but a cop out from someone not willing to commit. It's like the headlines that say "INDISPUTABLE PROOF?" What the hell does that mean?

Now, if someone says "It's this", and I have reason to say, "No, it can't be that", I'll do so and if I have evidence (other than my opinion) to back it up I'll provide it. But it's pointless to say "No, it can't be that but I don't know what it is."

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy

LOL, please explain the 99.999999% of cases then, and ofcourse you need PROOF to do so! Your interpretation of what it is does not "explain" it, only evidence of what it is does.

Go through the Aliens and Ufo threads on here, most of them have been debunked in one way or another.
They remain in the forum because generally, if someone comes up with a logical explanation with evidence and information that backs it up they are ran out of the thread by the die hard believers.

Ive given up on numerous threads because of this. I know what it is, i can prove what it is but i cant be bothered arguing with 10 or so people about it. I get called a troll, a #stirrer, a dis info agent....the usual bs. Why would i bother wasting any more time on them? If people will follow blindly thats their problem

Heres a short example from one such thread

Them: "FACT: I couldn't have confused them for landing lights unless they were facing, and traveling towards me"

Me: "Southwest Georgia Regional Airport is to your south west, its plausible that a plane WAS coming to land there. So it WOULD have been facing you."

Then come the trolling comments, "you dont live here" blah blah blah.


Show me one shred of evidence that can be backed up and proven without a doubt FOR aliens visiting us.?

Why sould i show you evidence of ALIEN life? Is this not a UFO thread? You make a classic error that everyone does, directly linking aliens to UFO's, just because the media spins it that way. Please look at the definition of UFO, nowhere is there the word alien in it.

And yes but if people ALWAYS agree with you and accept YOUR theory, this would not be a discussion forum now would it?

People that tell you your 'worng' when you give a 'plausble' explanaition, are like is said before thickheaded and already made up there mind that these where 'aliens'. So you coming here with a down to earth answer does not suit them. This is why i say people need to say 'I don't know' even the OP. Because that guy probably made a post about a UFO and asking if someone had an answer right? Yet he already made up his mind before posting that it was 'alien' and only want's confirmation and not someone telling them it's landing lights.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Required01

 

Everything I say is my opinion (unless I say otherwise). If I think it's something I'll say what I think it is. Sometimes I'll say "It looks like", or "I think", but often I don't. What difference does it make? It's all my opinion anyway (unless I say otherwise).

IMHO (irony intended), I don't even have to say "I think" or "in my opinion". In fact it irritates me when people do so. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. Saying "I don't know, but..." is nothing but a cop out from someone not willing to commit. It's like the headlines that say "INDISPUTABLE PROOF?" What the hell does that mean?

Now, if someone says "It's this", and I have reason to say, "No, it can't be that", I'll do so and if I have evidence (other than my opinion) to back it up I'll provide it. But it's pointless to say "No, it can't be that but I don't know what it is."

edit on 8/23/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

80 out of a 100 posts you make, you give out links and sources to your 'claims'. If you only give your 'opinion' then why are there links needed? Do you document your opinions somewhere on a blog you link to? To me when you link to sources you 'know' the answer. Othwewise there is no need to link to anything right?

I read a lot of your posts, and you come over as a 'know it all' and 'i am right' person to me and many others. And i made this on reading roughly 75 of your posts in various subjects. So you stating your 'always' giving your opinion 'unless' stated otherwise is not a valid statement.

I know that 'google' is your friend, any good researcher should use it out of many tools to do research. But it clearly shows that when you 'find' something, you automaticly precieve it as the truth when posting it and you continue about it for a lot of relpies to come.

Every person is different, but don't make claims that aren't valid.

reply to post by Required01

80 out of a 100 posts you make, you give out links and sources to your 'claims'. If you only give your 'opinion' then why are there links needed?

As I said:

Everything I say is my opinion (unless I say otherwise).

That "unless I say otherwise" is where the links come in. My opinions are a synthesis of sources. My knowledge (and yours) does not come from a vacuum. The links show some of my sources. It's up to the reader to decide whether or not the links are valid and relevant. At times a direct quote can express something better than I can (or can be used as evidence), in those cases it is required that the source be provided. The 'net is not my only source but it is obviously the most convenient way, in this medium, to show from whence my opinions arise.

So you stating your 'always' giving your opinion 'unless' stated otherwise is not a valid statement.

If I don't provide another source what else other than my opinion is it?

But it clearly shows that when you 'find' something, you automaticly precieve it as the truth when posting it and you continue about it for a lot of relpies to come.

Not automatically. I compare it to my general knowledge base. I compare the arguments from the "other side" to that same knowledge base. I come to my own conclusions about which may be more or less valid. I present my conclusions (my opinions) about the material, both sides of the material.

Every person is different, but don't make claims that aren't valid.

So argue my claims, my opinions. Show me why my claims aren't valid. But don't argue my attitude, don't argue how I come over. My attitude is not the topic, no matter how much some people want to make it be.

I read a lot of your posts, and you come over as a 'know it all' and 'i am right' person to me and many others.

Must be a boring night if we're to spend hours arguing over semantics. Wish i could have the time i wasted reading this thread back...

Throw out all the "lights in the sky" stuff. There's plenty more good cases to research, and we still don't know...but not for lack of investigation...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Required01

 

80 out of a 100 posts you make, you give out links and sources to your 'claims'. If you only give your 'opinion' then why are there links needed?

As I said:

Everything I say is my opinion (unless I say otherwise).

That "unless I say otherwise" is where the links come in. My opinions are a synthesis of sources. My knowledge (and yours) does not come from a vacuum. The links show some of my sources. It's up to the reader to decide whether or not the links are valid and relevant. At times a direct quote can express something better than I can (or can be used as evidence), in those cases it is required that the source be provided. The 'net is not my only source but it is obviously the most convenient way, in this medium, to show from whence my opinions arise.

So you stating your 'always' giving your opinion 'unless' stated otherwise is not a valid statement.

If I don't provide another source what else other than my opinion is it?

But it clearly shows that when you 'find' something, you automaticly precieve it as the truth when posting it and you continue about it for a lot of relpies to come.

Not automatically. I compare it to my general knowledge base. I compare the arguments from the "other side" to that same knowledge base. I come to my own conclusions about which may be more or less valid. I present my conclusions (my opinions) about the material, both sides of the material.

Every person is different, but don't make claims that aren't valid.

So argue my claims, my opinions. Show me why my claims aren't valid. But don't argue my attitude, don't argue how I come over. My attitude is not the topic, no matter how much some people want to make it be.

I read a lot of your posts, and you come over as a 'know it all' and 'i am right' person to me and many others.

edit on 8/23/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Not only your claims and your opinions shape your outcome, your attitude and the way you 'come over' is a part of that. Like i said, if you present yourself different with the same "information" you will come over differently and it will be a somewhat more pleasant read. Reading to what appears to be cocky and knowit all posts is a very annoying read, while the information in it is valid.

So IF i agrue about a person i agrue about the total package, not the parts of it. It would be the same as looking at a UFO video and discussing a bright flashing light, but not the tower underneath it.

You yourself stated you look at it from both and all sides, i am doing the same.

reply to post by petrus4
The discussion has to happen to get to 'I don't know.' For example, a video of a cluster of slowly moving lights is presented as a UFO fleet over PA. Newer members say 'It's ET.' Others say, 'This is proof. Disclosure is coming.' Another says 'YT videos are ignorant.'

Someone then identifies the lights as aircraft in a holding pattern. Someone else posts another video by that uploader and we have a hoax, a location and an explanation.

Too often, some will stick with 'I don't know' after all that happens and their reasons are sometimes nothing to do with the video at all.

'I don't know' applies to between 1-15% of UFO sightings reports so for 85%+ of the rest...'I don't know' isn't an option. For the videos, I doubt it's even a fraction of a per cent.

For that debatable small % of sightings that remain unknown, 'I don't know' is a starting point to ask questions and rule things out. On top of that, I've learned a hell of a lot on ATS from members who either claim to know and don't or claim to know and do.

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by petrus4

 

I dont say i dont know because i ALWAYS research.

Normally its something mundane....like the thread ive just came from where someone has filmed a tower crane at night from a few miles away on a camera phone.

After some digging, and 10 mins of looking through the internet it is almost certainly a tower crane.

99.999999999% of UFO's can be explained, but you have to want to know the answers. Some will take a video on face value...i dont, and there are plenty of other people who dont.

If i dont know i go out of may way to know......i wont go to UFO sites and compare there, i start off with earthly things...like planes, choppers, bugs etc. A lot of videos can be debunked/cleared up through using this method

Amen for common sense.
It would be nice if more people on ATS would follow your ethos

DUH

I've been repeating hundreds of times I'm personally in between, neither believing everything, nor ignoring everything but with more inclined to think they are true. Somewhere in 60% believing 40% not while others are 80% to 20% or 100% to 0.

P.S it's not 99.999999999% can be debunked, more like 70-80%... really there are a lot more than one case. And since experts could not identifiy them I doubt you are more of an expert to say.

reply to post by Required01
This happens way more than it used to do. Phage has always gone off facts. His facts are there to be questioned and challenged. He refers to established science and that is also there to be challenged,

The thing is, he's nearly always right with his facts or people don't have the level of subject knowledge to debate him. So they grow to dislike his 'attitude' and want the facts sugar-coated or presented nicely. If you notice, he posts two or three liners with a link. Somehow, some members read a lot of attitude into that.

In 3 years, the guy has gotten steadily more hassle from the newer members and it's stirred up by some older members. Every member who thinks 'science lies' has come to see Phage as representing 'science' and comes along to give science a kicking. If he doesn't respond well to the steady dribble of snide comments and gets snappy...is it any wonder?

I'm a guy who likes fair play and tends to avoid attacking members or their attitudes. Sometimes I will go for the attitude, but like Phage, it could be an outcome of frustration. The point I'm making is that for a long while now, it's obvious to me that Phage gets a lot of animosity targeted at him. It's personal and hostile. It should stop.

@ Kandinsky while attacking the believers, the same could be said about skeptics. To them everything is a lie. balloon, aircraft, chinese lanterns - see do flares and lanterns glow like those in the first place?, everyone is a lier, everyone is writing books or telling stories to get popular, famous, you're going over the edge here. If a single story no matter how obvious it is, was just that single story or case, of course who would believe it. But in so many cases you can't say there isn't anything and all is Aurora Borealis, natural phenomenon and things like that