Question for the avid believers on these forums

Why when a thread gets posted that features a pic or video, its alright for believers to say ''this is proof'', ''try to debunk this'', ''definitely swamp gas rite'', ''this cant be man made'', etc

, but its completely wrong for the more skeptical posters to say it may be something conventional.

I just dont get why its alright to assume & comment the pic/vid in question is out of the ordinary but its wrong to say something is Chinese lanterns. That person gets ridiculed for saying this.

Ive seen many threads where believers may jump on a thread & say this cant be such & such, only for the thread to be that in question or debunked all together. And this cycle often continues. Thats out to say all the skeptical comments are correct but in all fairness, those comments are more plausible.

Tell me your thoughts comment below if you agree or if something bugs you thats related to this forum's discussios

Originally posted by danaBLAF
That person gets ridiculed for saying this.

Personally, I've never felt ridiculed for pointing out the obvious!

The trouble is, some people are so desperate to see something, all common sense goes out the window.

Originally posted by danaBLAF
Why when a thread gets posted that features a pic or video, its alright for believers to say ''this is proof'', ''try to debunk this'', ''definitely swamp gas rite'', ''this cant be man made'', etc

, but its completely wrong for the more skeptical posters to say it may be something conventional.

I just dont get why its alright to assume & comment the pic/vid in question is out of the ordinary but its wrong to say something is Chinese lanterns. That person gets ridiculed for saying this.

Ive seen many threads where believers may jump on a thread & say this cant be such & such, only for the thread to be that in question or debunked all together. And this cycle often continues. Thats out to say all the skeptical comments are correct but in all fairness, those comments are more plausible.

Tell me your thoughts comment below if you agree or if something bugs you thats related to this forum's discussios

It's an attempt to shift the burden of proof from the person making the claim to the person refuting the claim.

When someone shows an image or video or other evidence of UFO/angels/ghosts/leprechauns, they ought to include their own attempts to 'debunk' their theory, but instead they usually immediately jump to "prove it's NOT!"

This is an attempt to skip past a huge chunk of the scientific method and usually stems from a preconceived bias toward what they are claiming. It's irrational and illogical, it's emotional. Then when you try to point it out you are a "troll!!!" or have a "closed mind."

No, those of us who are willing to accept evidence and change our belief structure have "open" minds. Those of us who want to believe so badly that we'll accept any far-fetched hypothesis or claim of evidence are the ones who see narrowly. Think about it.

It's a classic tactic used by any hardcore believer, in any realm.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus

Originally posted by danaBLAF
Why when a thread gets posted that features a pic or video, its alright for believers to say ''this is proof'', ''try to debunk this'', ''definitely swamp gas rite'', ''this cant be man made'', etc

, but its completely wrong for the more skeptical posters to say it may be something conventional.

I just dont get why its alright to assume & comment the pic/vid in question is out of the ordinary but its wrong to say something is Chinese lanterns. That person gets ridiculed for saying this.

Ive seen many threads where believers may jump on a thread & say this cant be such & such, only for the thread to be that in question or debunked all together. And this cycle often continues. Thats out to say all the skeptical comments are correct but in all fairness, those comments are more plausible.

Tell me your thoughts comment below if you agree or if something bugs you thats related to this forum's discussios

It's an attempt to shift the burden of proof from the person making the claim to the person refuting the claim.

When someone shows an image or video or other evidence of UFO/angels/ghosts/leprechauns, they ought to include their own attempts to 'debunk' their theory, but instead they usually immediately jump to "prove it's NOT!"

This is an attempt to skip past a huge chunk of the scientific method and usually stems from a preconceived bias toward what they are claiming. It's irrational and illogical, it's emotional. Then when you try to point it out you are a "troll!!!" or have a "closed mind."

No, those of us who are willing to accept evidence and change our belief structure have "open" minds. Those of us who want to believe so badly that we'll accept any far-fetched hypothesis or claim of evidence are the ones who see narrowly. Think about it.

It's a classic tactic used by any hardcore believer, in any realm.

edit on 21-7-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)

Yes Ive noticed this aswell, hard not to because it happens often.

Your on a internet conspiracy DISCUSSION website. Its good to hear from every perspective and its good to have opposition to those perspectives in order to narrow down possibility's. If some one opposes your idea then try to defend it with EVIDENCE to narrow down the possibility's. Dont get angry, its just a processes. A good one that has found many truths.

ATS is just an internet game.
How many time you see insightful posts or threads completely ignored just because theres no "game" to be played.

I am a 100% believer in aliens and not EVERYTHING in a photo is et piloted. Don't show me a photo of a light or blob or a blurred pic and tell me it's a UFO, and automatically expect me to believe. 99% of the things out there can be explained by convental means, it's the 1% that grabs me....

reply to post by danaBLAF


I have honestly been ridiculed more often for saying that it WAS a UFO/ET etc. Different people say different things I guess. Don't let it stop you.

Not forgetting the pointless thread muddying in the form of tedious wall-of-words personal anecdotes and accounts unrelated to the specific O.P subject, rendering any objective examination a waste of interweb breath.

Honestly. It's like farts in an elevator. Folk step off early.

Originally posted by BagBing

Originally posted by danaBLAF
That person gets ridiculed for saying this.

The trouble is, some people are so desperate to see something, all common sense goes out the window.

Exactly. You can look through so many threads here. And see when someone 'debunks' or should i say uses common sense he gets abused and called a number of names.

I always enjoy asking people to try not to make a triangle out of 3 points. The only way its done is when its a straight line.

reply to post by Bixxi3


Indeed... one of my absolute favourites is "there were three lights, and they made a triangle - proof of aliens".

That and the assumption thats someone who shows something to be false is somehow bad - "DEBUNKER"!

The answer is neither agument is good enough.

Its not just avid beleivers that defend footage you know, its proven in a few studies that beleivers tend to be more logical thinkers and skeptics more biased. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

No I sharnt do the research for you, utilise your brain.

From the tone of your post I take it your skeptical? And biased?

Too add a bit more content, because I don't generally like to add pointless unhelfull posts...

I have caught 2 UFOs on camera, and I can assure you they are unidentified,

One was a large translucent orb being trailed by jets, the other a football sized silver orb above tree at the back of my house. I actually witnessed the silver orb observing my home a week prior to that, also, those orb sightings were one year after I saw a black flying saucer in broad daylight out side my house in 2010.

I have no proof of the saucer, you'll have to take my word for it, I do however have piks of the orbs,

I uploaded the silver one to ATS and do you want to know what the best responce I got said? "Its a bird"

A round silver bird.

Must be a new species that hasn't been catalogued yet



The point of me telling you that?

When most people are faced with something truly unidentified objects they may not be able to think rationally and come up with something completely stoopid. That's how skeptics think. There's evidence to support that they process infomation incorrectly.

When I saw "my* saucer, I was convinced it was a photo untill I bobbed my head up and down to see the background move.

Even my mind thought irrationally for second.

Stop hating the believers, tis the skeptics that are blind

Originally posted by Sinny
Its not just avid beleivers that defend footage you know, its proven in a few studies that beleivers tend to be more logical thinkers and skeptics more biased. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

No I sharnt do the research for you, utilise your brain.

Is that becuase no research exists?

reply to post by BagBing


Arrr clever clogs.

No. Its because I'm posting Via mobile, so I can't be bothered to help you find links and relevent papers, and it was only a few days ago I shared this infomation with a chap on another thread, and quite frankly, you lot need to stop talking of things of which you know nothing about.

Not meant to be nasty by the way, just frank.

Originally posted by danaBLAF
Why when a thread gets posted that features a pic or video, its alright for believers to say ''this is proof'', ''try to debunk this'', ''definitely swamp gas rite'', ''this cant be man made'', etc

, but its completely wrong for the more skeptical posters to say it may be something conventional.

I just dont get why its alright to assume & comment the pic/vid in question is out of the ordinary but its wrong to say something is Chinese lanterns. That person gets ridiculed for saying this.

Ive seen many threads where believers may jump on a thread & say this cant be such & such, only for the thread to be that in question or debunked all together. And this cycle often continues. Thats out to say all the skeptical comments are correct but in all fairness, those comments are more plausible.

Tell me your thoughts comment below if you agree or if something bugs you thats related to this forum's discussios

It seems to be flipped many times. Believers go to a post believing it could be real, so try to prove it's not. Non-believers like myself go into a post believing it's not real, so try to prove it is. I think the logic is flawed with an "open mind" in assuming that anything could be a UFO. You can use Project Bluebook as an example of that. Most things that were said to be unidentifiable, turned out to be indentified. Therefore, most things aren't "UFOs" and the subject of UFOs has to be approached from a grounded explanation first. Many people here don't do that.

reply to post by danaBLAF


The answer, my friend, is that BOTH approaches are dead-wrong. Believers cry "PROOF!" at a lens flare then scream if you point it out, and the skeptics call anything like decent evidence "HOAX! You can tell cause it looks so good".

No, don't "believe" or "disbelieve". Just look at the evidence. Most of it is inconclusive (except for the provably hoaxed). Don't look for proof, look for evidence. Another good rule of thumb is to become familiar with the phrase "is consistent with". As in, "Your explanation is consistent with the evidence, but so is mine. Here's why I think mine is more likely." Regardless of which side of the fence you come from, that approach can be much more useful than just saying "But my way is OBVIOUSLY the correct story! It was [aliens | geomagnetically induced delusions]! Duh!"

Don't pick an interpretation and defend it, pick and interpretation and try to pick away at it! Always be trying to prove yourself wrong. As the man said, it is not ignorance that is dangerous, but rather, the illusion of knowledge. This is all the more important in the context of such an ill-defined, inconsistent, non-repeatable phenomenon as the weird crap that happens in the sky.

Personally, my bet right now is that, yeah, some of the stuff up there are craft controlled by non-human intelligences. But I wouldn't make a _big_ bet.

Originally posted by Sinny
I uploaded the silver one to ATS and do you want to know what the best responce I got said? "Its a bird"

A round silver bird.

Must be a new species that hasn't been catalogued yet

Where is the pic? It's not obvious from the titles of the threads you have posted. Would you please post the link to your "bird" picture? Thanks.

reply to post by Sinny


Throw an old dog a bone and I will help you out. Do you recall the thread title you posted it to?

reply to post by Sinny

Its not just avid beleivers that defend footage you know, its proven in a few studies that beleivers tend to be more logical thinkers and skeptics more biased. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

No I sharnt do the research for you, utilise your brain.

I've looked a bit and can't find anything that wasn't conducted by a paranormal research organization or a church. I must not be capable of utilizing my brain. Can you please point me in the right direction?

I uploaded the silver one to ATS and do you want to know what the best responce I got said? "Its a bird"

A round silver bird.

Must be a new species that hasn't been catalogued yet

You've written a lot of threads. When you're not on your mobile can you please post links to your studies and to these images?

Stop hating the believers, tis the skeptics that are blind

No one is hating - it's just that none of us have seen any evidence whatsoever that what you are claiming is the truth. Personally, if you can show me something other than a blurry image of a possible geometric shape I would be willing to reconsider my position. I am constantly looking into and watching UFO footage and I haven't personally seen anything that made me think "HOLY CRAP THATS DEFINITELY ALIENZ!"


I did find an interesting article while searching for your 'studies' that showed skeptics were stupid..

skeptoid.com...

Argument from a "skeptic" that both sides are flawed, but the skeptic is more often correct in their assumptions.

Pretty good question. S&F
I think people tend to see what they want to believe. I guess it all depends on the individual's situational awareness.

For example: