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

reply to post by Imtor
I'd rather not be thought as believer or skeptic because both terms carry a lot of baggage. ATS has some rubbish examples of both who are certain in everything.

The core cases that haven't been explained remain 'I don't know' but that doesn't stop us trying to work out an answer that seems to fit.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
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.

Maybe you didn't read my post, or misunderstood it.

The information Phage presents is mostly 'valid', yet the way he 'presents' it is on a 'i know it all' 'cocky' attitude. Witch is really annoying to read because it makes him seem 'more' then other people witch he is not. He has a lot of knowledge that most people can have to if they devote a bit more time into it. Googling a topic and then present a few sources that came up with your take on it is something anyone can do.

Like i said his information, links and sources are in most cases valid and a 'likely' answer, yet if he would present it in a more 'less-formal' loose way, it would be a lot better to read and he will automaticly gain respect. Talking in those 'intellectual' ways is condicending and not needed on a 'conspiracy' forum. Just reugal down to earth common English is more then enough, + makes it way more readable and fun to people that don't have English as a native language.

reply to post by Required01
I understood your post perfectly and even read it.

Here it is again in case you misunderstood what you had written...

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.

You're criticising him and not his evidence. My point to you was that people spend too much time criticising him and not his evidence. For the past year, it's become a sport to make personal comments at, and about, the guy.

This was addressed to you, but actually refers more to the forums in general. As I pointed out, he gets personal criticism every day and if he gets abrasive, that gets criticised too.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Required01

 

I understood your post perfectly and even read it.

Here it is again in case you misunderstood what you had written...

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.

You're criticising him and not his evidence. My point to you was that people spend too much time criticising him and not his evidence. For the past year, it's become a sport to make personal comments at, and about, the guy.

This was addressed to you, but actually refers more to the forums in general. As I pointed out, he gets personal criticism every day and if he gets abrasive, that gets criticised too.

If he get's 'criticism every day, you don't think it might have a valid side to it? And that my points made (not critisicm but more a point of thought) are somewhat valid since he (personally) gets criticism everyday?

Just saying.

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.

And that is when your belief comes into play. You see something, refuse to say i don't know what it is, and then we get the stupid explanations. Humans can be very arragont and ignorant, and the subject is full of these people, who i always put in the same boat, believer or de-bunker.

There is nothing wrong with seeing something and saying "i don't know what the hell that is" But like i said, belief is very powerful, even people who believe they are being scientific, they are not!

reply to post by petrus4


You end the OP by saying the obvious:

"We truly do not know what is behind this."

But on your meandering way to the obvious, you tell us that you accept unknown lights in the sky. Period. You don't spell it out, but beyond those bits of evidence, you fail in your acceptance in critical thinking of the larger story that those "lights in the sky" represent.

So that pegs you as a skeptic under cover. You dismiss and ignore the literally tons of far more detailed accounts of when those lights in the sky came down and do to the planet, people, equipment (photo/electric) etc.

If you are a scientist, fine. Do your business of science and set up the necessary equipment to prove or disprove your point. --Wait! Did you know that was done in Colorade back in about 1960 or so? No, I suspect not. You are another newcomer to the scene and simply can't be bothered about UFO history (such as it is).

Hear this: The only failure we have in this area of limited knowledge is from Science (capital letter) and in government not providing us with the answers that they collected half a century ago. Have you read for example about the gun camera results that were gather early on in the UFO epidemic? No? Official sources told us that such were being done (as a matter of course in military intelligence gathering). What were the results? How about the long ignored air force report, "The Estimate of the Situation?" It was an official air force intelligence report that was not just off the top of a few disident officer's heads, but the smoking gun that did everything but produce a smoking hulk of a crashed flying saucer. ('Course, that already had been done a few years earlier and successfully covered up from even the writers of that report!)

Of late, there has been an increasing amount of threads that sprout forth with simple views about the UFO phenomena that totally, totally, ignore the history of the subject. Are we seeing these because of willful ignorance of the topic by innocent souls or is this retrograde knowledge of UFO lore part of an agenda from agencies that know exactly what they are about?

Intentional or lazy ignorance, we are seeing more and more a view expressed that wants a more philosophical approuch to the UFO subject without being encumbered by the decades of physical data that has long existed. We are being asked to take a step back from entities being witnessed on the ground and in our bedrooms to accept a more refined, less detailed hypothetical approach. (--You didn't see a UFO in your back yard last night, but hear us talk about life on Titan and earth-like planets out there.) Such an approach can only be successful via a revisionist campaign that ignores the eye-witness accounts and dwells on general details that only vaguely suggest that something is out there somewhere, but definitely not here.

.................................................

I urge those that are interested in the subject of UFOs to frequent secondhand book stores and to collect the old classics before they disappear one way or another. Look specifically for: The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects by Edward J. Ruppelt, 1956,
"Flying Saucers--Serious Business by Frank Edwards, 1966,
Incident at Exeter... by John G. Fuller, 1966,
Flying Saucers: Top Secret by Major Donald E. Keyhoe, 1960,
Univited Visitors by Ivan T. Sanderson, 1967,
Passport to Magonia by Jacques Vallee,
and dozens of others. Yes, there are trash among the not, but they are readily apparent.

The UFO supporters lost bud Hopkins this last week. Hopkins has been severly criticized for being an unprofessional in his approach to what he brought forth. --So where are the professionals that yet today do not take the phenomena seriously? The old guard is fast disappearing and the revisionist are moving forward to present their brand of UFO history that even what some of us know of the more troubling aspects of the phenomena. without a doubt, Orwell's novel 1984 has offered a novel twist on "public relations" for TPTB.

"

I've just realised something else, about the possible reason why some people like the extraterrestrial interpretation.

When someone here said that 99.99999% of UFO sightings are readily explainable as natural phenomena, I actually caught myself feeling disappointed.

Why? I think because I like mysteries, because they're interesting and exciting. Someone having seen landing lights or a crane is boring. I also find the existence of extraterrestrial life an exciting idea, as well.

So it makes me think that if I can feel like that, maybe some other people do, too. Maybe some of them don't want there to be a natural or rational explanation for UFOs, because the alien idea, or even it just being a mystery, is a lot more appealing to them.

Originally posted by Aliensun
But on your meandering way to the obvious, you tell us that you accept unknown lights in the sky. Period. You don't spell it out, but beyond those bits of evidence, you fail in your acceptance in critical thinking of the larger story that those "lights in the sky" represent.

So that pegs you as a skeptic under cover. You dismiss and ignore the literally tons of far more detailed accounts of when those lights in the sky came down and do to the planet, people, equipment (photo/electric) etc.

You are correct. I *am* a skeptic. However, I don't define "skepticism," in my own case as meaning that I always insist on a non-extraterrestrial explanation for everything. My own definition of skepticism, is a refusal to associate any particular interpretation or explanation with a given thing, when I don't believe that I have evidence to support that interpretation.

It's interesting that you bring up abductions. For probably ten years, I myself was actually having nightmares about the Greys, that were also particularly vivid; to the point where I am now currently nocturnal in lifestyle. That occurred mainly because it got to the point where I was literally afraid of going to sleep before the sun came up.

So you'd probably expect me to be among the most ardent of UFO believers; and truthfully, I *do* believe in the abduction phenomenon.

However, (and this is extremely important) I do not associate a single explanation, with every single case that I read or hear about. In other words, just because I believe that abduction is possible, or does occur, that does not mean that I'm going to make a blanket assumption that every single light anyone sees in the sky, ever, is automatically an extraterrestrial spacecraft. Different cases are exactly that; different, and require a completely new analysis every time.

If you are a scientist, fine. Do your business of science and set up the necessary equipment to prove or disprove your point. --Wait! Did you know that was done in Colorade back in about 1960 or so? No, I suspect not. You are another newcomer to the scene and simply can't be bothered about UFO history (such as it is).

I'm really detecting some hostility here, based on some pre-made assumptions. If you want to be hostile towards me, that's your perogative; but I wasn't aware that I'd said anything that really warranted it. I am aware that there are some debunkers out there who arbitrarily dismiss everything associated with UFOs as rubbish; I don't like that attitude myself, and I don't hold it.

How about the long ignored air force report, "The Estimate of the Situation?" It was an official air force intelligence report that was not just off the top of a few disident officer's heads, but the smoking gun that did everything but produce a smoking hulk of a crashed flying saucer.

I'd love to read this. Do you possibly have a link to it somewhere?

I urge those that are interested in the subject of UFOs to frequent secondhand book stores and to collect the old classics before they disappear one way or another. Look specifically for: The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects by Edward J. Ruppelt, 1956,
"Flying Saucers--Serious Business by Frank Edwards, 1966,
Incident at Exeter... by John G. Fuller, 1966,
Flying Saucers: Top Secret by Major Donald E. Keyhoe, 1960,
Univited Visitors by Ivan T. Sanderson, 1967,
Passport to Magonia by Jacques Vallee,
and dozens of others. Yes, there are trash among the not, but they are readily apparent.

Thank you for posting this book list. I think I remember having seen the name of Keyhoe in particular somewhere.

Oh I definitely don't know and I have never been afraid to say it. One of the main points to do with the subject of UFOs is that mainstream scientists are afraid to study this very real phenomenon due to stigma attached to it. The nature of UFOs and their potential implications are more than some people can handle for several reasons. Some people can not accept the possibility that superior beings may be visiting our planet due to religious reasons. Many people are biased against considering such a possibility because it frightens them like little children. Whatever the reason, the main point should be, as Leslie Kean explains in her book 'UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record', there is something that should be taken seriously here and looked at - but it;s not.

reply to post by petrus4
Regarding abductions, a guy called Stuart Appelle wrote a great paper on the subject that, in my view, remains the best synthesis of all the explanations out there. Ultimately, he concluded that no one has the answer and that it deserved further study.... THE ABDUCTION EXPERIENCE: A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THEORY AND EVIDENCE.

The 'Estimate' mentioned by Alien Sun is borderline mythical as the only known copies were destroyed...according to the legend. Mike Swords has written about it Sign and the Estimate of the Situation!

It'd be great if it turned up although I'm not sure I see it as being so much different to the other reports (Grudge, Sign, BB, Condon etc) that ruled out ET craft. For example, if Sign released two reports based on identical evidence and with opposing conclusions...which one would be more valuable? To me, it would be like those who choose to believe Fyfe Symington's 'I saw a UFO' claims as true and his 'I didn't see a UFO' claim as false. Cherrypicking?

The books, apart from Sanderson's, are all available online if you type the name and add pdf to the search terms. I agree with the selection; they're good books and maybe a couple of Hynek's too.

I love the skeptics..... they engage my mind. Regardless of what you believe or what a person does or does not know, everyone has their own opinion or perspective. I know what I know.....do you??

I say "I don't know", 'cause I don't. I don't REALLY know anything.

I've had close sightings in full daylight with other strangers witnessing it with me, I have had "abduction" type experiences for years, in which other family members were involved and described the same events I remembered.
The "aliens" fed me a lot of stories, about their activities, about future events for earth...... and yet
I DON'T KNOW what that was all about! I could have been hypnotized, drugged, brainwashed, psychotic, having spiritual visions which were all symbolic figments of my subconscious, saw a secret military aircraft.........

There are so many other possibilities I cannot trust my own senses or memories.
What gets me is those who say something "can" be explained a certain way,
so it "has been" explained that way! ....

That is the weakest logic possible.

I sometimes wonder if that doesn't just mean they have very limited minds, creatively, or if they are simply very afraid of acknowledging the ever-constant factor of unknown in almost everything for us.

They percieve that we are conscious of a couple possibilities, so it has to be one or the other, and a judgement must be made regardless of lack of definitive evidence?
So..... if the explanation is neither one nor the other of those "knowns", then we are wrong to choose either, and will have even more trouble discovering the truth (because we're either following the wrong track or have closed the files).

Men have often, in the past, observed a phenomenon, and imagined it's explanation based upon the knowledge they had at that time, and came up with some false conclusions. They were the "most likely" explanations according to what they knew then. How arrogant to continually believe that science and knowledge is now at it's "end"- we now know all there is to know- despite finding out repeatedly throughout history that once again, there was more afterall!

Admitting "I don't know" leaves a space open to perception of truth later.

reply to post by petrus4






I don't know. (that will get me in trouble with the mods because it is too short of a post but in few more words it will be on the second line and then it will be OK) Ha. Made it.

reply to post by Phage

What's the point? "I don't know." Why bother. Doesn't seem to leave much room for discussion, does it?

While I agree with your sentiments 100%, I'd like to think the point the OP was trying to make isn't clear.

Stop assuming would be the key. Stop assuming, because it's strange (to you) that it's obviously an alien ship. Stop assuming, because it's clear (to you) that it is merely Chinese lanterns.

The problem I have is, extra-terrestrial should be the last possibly answer. Science requires you to rule out the easy stuff, and if you are left with something at the end, it might indeed be that. Jumping right to aliens, UFO = ALIENS~!! doesn't do a damn thing but waste everyone's time.

The fact is, right now, we have ZERO scientifically backed evidence to support the notion of alien visitation on earth. I don't care what YOU have seen, I don't care what some anonymous former military general says. We have zero proof.

therefore, to actually investigate, we must look at the plausible explanations first.

This is why I think it's fine for the skeptics to jump right to earthly scenarios, according to what we know now, that is the logical solution to explore first. But we mustn't ignore the ET possibility, we just have to honestly weight the options and see which makes more sense.

Jumping right to intelligently controlled alien craft is actually worse than hoaxing in my opinion.

reply to post by petrus4


It must suck for the people that take the footage of things to have people say that its a hoax/cgi etc when the photographer was actually there and getting a much clearer view of whatever they filmed.
Put yourself in thier shoes. Your in your backyard at night alone, You see something like say bigfoot. It is clearly not fake and you think 'Wow, I better get some footage so people believe me'. So you get the footage and post it and then have everyone tell you its fake. It must really suck.
No one ever questions 'normal' footage of warzones and other things (a flock of birds, etc)
I think alot of the 'I want to know' people actually do not want to know.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
While I agree with your sentiments 100%, I'd like to think the point the OP was trying to make isn't clear.

Stop assuming would be the key. Stop assuming, because it's strange (to you) that it's obviously an alien ship. Stop assuming, because it's clear (to you) that it is merely Chinese lanterns.

That was exactly my point. Too often, if someone sees some weird light in the sky, "alien spacecraft," is the first thought that comes into their mind. I'm not saying aliens aren't possibly here at all; but if they were really here *that* much, I don't believe it could be kept under wraps as well as it supposedly has been.

The problem I have is, extra-terrestrial should be the last possibly answer. Science requires you to rule out the easy stuff, and if you are left with something at the end, it might indeed be that. Jumping right to aliens, UFO = ALIENS~!! doesn't do a damn thing but waste everyone's time.

Again, exactly the point. The term "Unidentified Flying Object," means exactly that. Unidentified. It doesn't mean the Greys, and it doesn't mean swamp gas either. It means unidentified.

The fact is, right now, we have ZERO scientifically backed evidence to support the notion of alien visitation on earth. I don't care what YOU have seen, I don't care what some anonymous former military general says. We have zero proof.

Again, agreed.

What I dont like is that alot of people here on ATS think that they have to say " yes or no" to thread, never "perhaps" or "I dont know" perhaps its like a pissing contest and/or we just like to feel like all knowing gods

I think

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
Stop assuming would be the key. Stop assuming, because it's strange (to you) that it's obviously an alien ship. Stop assuming, because it's clear (to you) that it is merely Chinese lanterns.

The problem I have is, extra-terrestrial should be the last possibly answer. Science requires you to rule out the easy stuff, and if you are left with something at the end, it might indeed be that. Jumping right to aliens, UFO = ALIENS~!! doesn't do a damn thing but waste everyone's time.

Sorry to point this out but I think you are contradicting yourself here.

To rule out the easy stuff before moving on is what I assume is what you seem to be saying. So if a video looks like lanterns and the objects behave like lanterns using your logic we can't rule out lanterns. In the absence of any evidence that the video is not of lanterns we must assume it is lanterns. Surely you can see that sometimes we are right to assume lanterns?

Surely the mantra of this site ATS should in fact be.....

I DONT KNOW.......but I want to find out

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Regarding abductions, a guy called Stuart Appelle wrote a great paper on the subject that, in my view, remains the best synthesis of all the explanations out there. Ultimately, he concluded that no one has the answer and that it deserved further study.... THE ABDUCTION EXPERIENCE: A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THEORY AND EVIDENCE.

Good call.

Anyone seriously interested in the abduction phenomenon would be doing themselves a favour reading Appelle's paper. His balanced look at the competing hypotheses is top quality. In terms of publicly available data he is absolutely right.

There is the intriguing possibility that somebody may know more. Some alleged abduction victims may have been secretly monitored by certain agencies in the US. That some of the goings on described in abduction cases may be accounted for by a monitoring agency seems plausible to me. Maybe surveillance of that type has shed light on the phenomenon and someone does know facts we aren't privy to? Just a thought...

In answer to the OP, of course we don't know a lot of the time. Sometimes we think we do know, sometimes not. However, Phage is exactly right to say that there's no point just saying, "I don't know," every time. Imaging a thread 400 posts long where 395 or them just said, "I don't know!"