Why is the skeptics OPINION given any weight?

Originally posted by Brighter
Your favored explanation for this was that they were witnessing a missile test. But what kind of missile moves down and up, and then left to right and then suddenly stops right next to an airplane? I know that you want to say that the pilots somehow misperceived it, but that would have to be an absolutely incredible misperception.

Thank you for your specific engagement of points of my argument, which you clearly have carefully read and thought about. We can get into specifics on a focused thread later, but all I need to express here is gratitude and respect for your approach. AND for your own expressed appreciation of the value of such 'skeptical' views.

Your attitude seems to me to be hopeful evidence that constructive argumentation to thrash our way through this baffling phenomenon and MAYBE make progress in understanding its causes[s] is indeed possible. Thank you again and please stay in touch -- and when needed, in my face.

We don't HAVE to agree on interpretations, but if we agree on methodology, there's hope.

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Karl Wolf was one of the disclosure people. But what's your point, you think one guy is suspect that you picked out and I never mentioned so that makes the whole thing suspect? Not rational.

Rational and methodical. You specifically cite a collection of testimonials, and I respond with an example from the set YOU specified. You then seem upset that I actually LOOKED at your evidence in detail, instead of just mindlessly worshipping the whole MASS of it in some sort of gestalt-grok.

I note that you do not respond to a factual statement I made about a puzzling aspect of Wolf's testimony, that I suggest a TRUE invesigator would have noticed long ago -- but somehow, nobody did. EV-ER.

That comment was addressed less at Wolf himself, who now admits he could have misremembered the year, than against the legions of UFO buffs who, like you, cited that evidence as important without making the slightest, subatomic level of verification.

I'm sure various military hardware such as ICBMs etc have been mistaken for UFOs lots of times. SR-71, F-117, B-2, F-22, BGM-109 etc etc etc could all be mistaken easily by civilians.

There are incidents where no military or civilian hardware can account for the flight performance observed. There are numerous incidents involving jet fighters and craft performing far beyond our technical capabilities. These are not SLBMs, ICBMs or any other hardware in our arsenal.

But on what basis can anybody believe YOU have shown the ability to filter them out? Have you EVER done so, please name a specific case.

There will always be skeptics, as long as the term UNIDENTIFIED is attached to said object in question... one cannot expect people to not try and identify the unidentified. However, one fact remains; that very very few will dispute, that there are questionable objects at times in the sky. Trying to answer the question of what the particular object is is not unreasonable. To not question what it is even if one is a believer, isn't doing themselves any favors. In the same way when people stop questioning the foundations of religion or anything else for that matter...they become fanatical in their beliefs, and tend to turn into a dangerous and volatile person against anyone that believes any different.

The above can be true of skeptics as well as believers on any topic, the behavior can especially be seen on a forum such as ATS. It is wise of ATS to try and keep things civil and promote debate with their T&C adjustments. Trying to look at posts as that persons view point, and respect that they have every right to believe whatever they want, regardless of your belief or opinion...goes a long way towards tolerance and understanding their view point. Bearing that in mind even before logging in should be a priority.

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
There will always be skeptics, as long as the term UNIDENTIFIED is attached to said object in question... one cannot expect people to not try and identify the unidentified. However, one fact remains; that very very few will dispute, that there are questionable objects at times in the sky. Trying to answer the question of what the particular object is is not unreasonable. ....

Not so fast -- you've put you're finger on the crux of the philosophical differences here.

I'm ready to agree that there are reports for which we cannot find prosaic explanations.

You have concluded that this means the reports MUST be caused by extraordinary stimuli.

I do not conclude that. They indeed could be, there's no way to disprive that, but they don't HAVE to be.

We are surrounded in life by examples from multiple fields of experience where specific events cannot be explained: some murders, some missing persons, a few aircraft accidents, maybe a few gas pedal 'acceleration' cases, a handful of puzzling and unknown faces in group photographs from third grade, etc etc etc....

We don't feel compelled in THOSE cases to demand the existence of extraordinary forces or actors.

We realize that our knowledge of all prosaic possibilities is never complete. We cannot argue from elimination, a la Sherlock holmes, because we cannot ever be sure we have a complete list of the potential causes.

But we can agree that trying to understand investigative methodologies, and identifying perhaps hitherto unknown stimuli of ANY origin, is a useful exercise.

So we conduct research. And we keep our eyes and minds open.

Maybe if we converge on the right things to DO, we can let the attempts to define the "meaning" wait.

reply to post by JimOberg

My apologies if that's how my post came across to you. If I meant what you said I meant... "You have concluded that this means the reports MUST be caused by extraordinary stimuli." I would have stated such, I do not imply meaning with my posts I state my exact meaning.

I cannot however help, how reading my posts are comprehended; even though I try to state my meaning as clearly as I can. Please take my words at face value, if you would...reading into my post, thinking there is an implied meaning, other than what I stated...isn't exactly fair; It twists and mixes my words into a meaning that wasn't intended. Please ask me if you are unclear by what I meant; instead of drawing a conclusion, and putting words in my mouth. I will be very happy to clarify it for you.

Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
reply to post by JimOberg

 

My apologies if that's how my post came across to you. If I meant what you said I meant... "You have concluded that this means the reports MUST be caused by extraordinary stimuli." I would have stated such, I do not imply meaning with my posts I state my exact meaning.

I cannot however help, how reading my posts are comprehended; even though I try to state my meaning as clearly as I can. Please take my words at face value, if you would...reading into my post, thinking there is an implied meaning, other than what I stated...isn't exactly fair; It twists and mixes my words into a meaning that wasn't intended. Please ask me if you are unclear by what I meant; instead of drawing a conclusion, and putting words in my mouth. I will be very happy to clarify it for you.

Thanks in advance.

I am well rebuked, and will try harder to see the meaning. We have so much more in common than in differences.

reply to post by JimOberg


Sorry I just don't have the time or inclination to spend anymore time on this site. I have a background in military aviation and physics and I don't feel it's necessary to try to justify or convince anyone of anything. You can think whatever you want it just isn't my concern.

reply to post by JimTSpock

My apologies if you have grown disheartened, and wish to leave the forum. Perhaps, if I share my opinion, it will help?

I personally take an interest in all mysterious or unknown things in this world; I have spent at least 500 straight hours working on the unsolved Zodiac killers cryptograms...I had to take a break and focus on other things and hobbies because it was tipping the scales of balance in my life, which isn't healthy...it can be hard for people to recognize when they get too close to something and lose their objectivity.

When it comes to UFO's sure I have the same curiosity as most, the core of the Ancient Astronaut Theory makes a lot of sense, at the same time the theorists themselves do some very extraordinary reaching. But then again; an ancient cataclysm wiping out the great heights humans, once reached and had to abandon just to survive day to day after a cataclysm also makes a lot of sense. I honestly don't know, and I won't take a side because I honestly don't know. I'd rather it remain a mystery and keep it fun to speculate, like I did as a little kid watching In Search Of. I have the patience to wait and see, if the mystery is put to rest in my life time; that's one less, if not...then my friend I've enjoyed the ride; the particular unknown has given me my whole lifetime. You could say they were always there like an old friend.

Once you start constantly believing or constantly disbelieving, you destroy that special magic and start trying to destroy it for others as well, by getting them to see your side...when honestly the world does not yet know, if the whole world did know and agree then it would become fact, until then everyone has a right to debate their beliefs on the subject. What happens then when the mystery is solved? Off to a new mystery because that one isn't fun anymore.

Enjoy life man and keep the things magical in it as long as you can, why else are children so happy? Because their worlds are still full of magic and wonder. I appreciate the service you have given as military personnel for your country, and I am sure there are ATS members that would hate to see you go; as you have personal experience to share that is unique to you. But the choice is ultimately yours my friend...

reply to post by Clairacoustique

That response you quote was directed at member neoholographic, as can been seen here.

Why are you quoting me saying I wouldn't respond to a particular member and then linking to one of my posts directed at you on a completely different thread?

Did you just out yourself has having multiple accounts on ATS?

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Sorry I just don't have the time or inclination to spend anymore time on this site. I have a background in military aviation and physics and I don't feel it's necessary to try to justify or convince anyone of anything. You can think whatever you want it just isn't my concern.

Yours was a good run, buddy, best of luck to you down the road!