Skeptics: How Do You So Easily Dismiss Testimonies From Astronauts About UFO's?

JimOberg
I'll look forward to you stepping up to defend me when the inevitable 'paid liar' charge comes down against me. Can I count on you?

Tucket
I think I'll pass on checking out your website. Shame on you, Agent of dis info .

I guess you can't..

reply to post by JimOberg


Ok I will check out the other thread but will warn you that I am not one for "inconsistences" that are really not germane to the larger body of testimony. They most often amount to nothing that would indicate fabrication of the whole.

I went back and took a hard look at some things I was certain about still after many years had passed concerning some eye witness testimony and memory. I found that I was wrong about some hard held understanding of distance and location relative to landmarks. None of these new understanding or the fact that I had been wrong about relative position had any bearing on what had happened or what was witnessed.

reply to post by JimOberg

the question centers on factors that can cause a narrative to drift off original stimuli. That's the scary part -- it does often happen, as can be documented, and people's confidence they can detect it by 'expression and tone', is seriously self-deceptive and misleading

One aspect of this type thing that I have been curious about is how we recall things and form memories. It can be subtle or very dramatic. I like to encourage people to read this article by Oliver Sacks which may put some perspective on the various stories that are told by credible people. You can, in fact, account for a wide range of false stories without the need for the person to be a liar. Now with this being said, I in no way am saying that this would be an explaination for any statement. There is just no way to prove it. I would suggest that Cooper would be a good candidate for such a thing.

Sacks article

Daniel Schacter has written extensively on distortions of memory and the “source confusions” that go with them, and in his book Searching for Memory recounts a well-known story about Ronald Reagan:

In the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan repeatedly told a heartbreaking story of a World War II bomber pilot who ordered his crew to bail out after his plane had been seriously damaged by an enemy hit. His young belly gunner was wounded so seriously that he was unable to evacuate the bomber. Reagan could barely hold back his tears as he uttered the pilot’s heroic response: “Never mind. We’ll ride it down together.” The press soon realized that this story was an almost exact duplicate of a scene in the 1944 film A Wing and a Prayer. Reagan had apparently retained the facts but forgotten their source.

Reagan was a vigorous sixty-nine-year-old at the time, was to be president for eight years, and only developed unmistakable dementia in the 1990s. But he had been given to acting and make-believe throughout his life, and he had displayed a vein of romantic fantasy and histrionism since he was young. Reagan was not simulating emotion when he recounted this story—his story, his reality, as he believed it to be—and had he taken a lie detector test (functional brain imaging had not yet been invented at the time), there would have been none of the telltale reactions that go with conscious falsehood.

solongandgoodnight

Gordon Cooper never saw the Edwards "saucer" land. The story is told as if he had. He misidentified a weather balloon earlier in his career for a "saucer". Only upon closer inspection, he realized what it really was. This shows the "trained observer" can be confused as any other citizen.

reply to post by Ectoplasm8

 

Cooper also had another sighting that was not a weather balloon. Weather balloon do not fly at high altitudes and speeds.

Cooper indeed reported such an encounter, about 25 years after it supposedly occurred.

What do you suppose the rest of his fellow pilots at that base reported, when asked?

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Testimony from astronauts such as these is probably some of the best evidence for the existence of extra-terrestrial ufos,

Why? because they are passing on what they heard from others or what the seen as pilots?


Turn it around with the moon landing hoax and these astronauts are brainwashed and telling a story they have been brainwashed to believe.

Why is an astronaut saying he has seen something unidentified mean its alien and not what they simply said, its unidentified to them.

How does one leap from an astronaut saying I dont know what it was to interpret that as saying it was ET man?

reply to post by AmberLeaf

It seems many people have just gone mad on here over the last year, that, or the majority of users are now teenagers or people with little or no real life experience. Sad times

You see the same pattern as I have,

I wouldn't say majority but a fair percentage would suffice to what you and I see on these boards of late.

Instead of facing off disputatious internet sites, how about talking about how interested parties could check out such stories? These stories are all over the internet, no doubt. But that alone doesn't make them believable.

So what would? What characteristic of a stand-alone story would add to its credibility, or detract?

Similarity to other stories might.

Testimony of other witnesses, or documents, might.

The story tellers track record might, or might not.

Discussion?

AmberLeaf

br0ker
reply to post by AmberLeaf

 

Excuse me?? Did you just make up some nonsense about these people being paid for these "interviews"?

You speak like a true sceptic and disbeliever, and you make up BS like one as well.

WOW....lost your glasses?

No, read again...i said they are liars and have benefited financially from lying...books, interviews...none of these are free.

You think they do interviews, and write books for free??

You sir are just one of many deluded people on this site.

and the name calling has begun

-rrr

reply to post by Arnie123

Because I have personally seen skeptics turn believers through their own experience.

How an experience can easily manipulate ones mind is something believers need to look into.


This sentence I quote is rather vague if looked at on its own without knowing we are discussing aliens and UFOs.

You personally have seen a person skeptical of aliens (no one is skeptical of UFOs, only peoples interpretations of their sightings is what one is skeptical of) and then they had an experience to believe in aliens, what was that experience that made them believe aliens are piloting craft and are here?

It must of been something like an encounter of the 3rd or 4th kind to be convinced what they think they are seeing is alien and not of this planet.

But I have come to learn that some SKEPTICS, such as this amber loon, can't be shown anything, regardless. Its like some internal hate, "all my friends have seen them! how come I haven't? WELL HMPF!! THEY ARE JUST IMAGINING IT..." A flying saucer could land right on their front porch and an EBE would walk out and knock on Amberleafs door, amber will answer it, with a can of fosters flat beer, unwashed wife beater and stained undies, look right at the EBE an the saucer then say, "now! C here! wat kinds of stuf u sellan 2day?!1" Some people cannot, will not be swayed. I like these kinds of people, they are useful in other fields, like extremist groups and what not. --

And whats above is at the opposite side of the spectrum when a believer loose their marbles and needs to use a insulting analogy to describe another poster because they have a differing opinion.

Well done, do you always expose yourself as such in public places such as this?

lately as of last year, there seems to be a new camp forming, blinded skeptics. They just come into the thread and say, "OMGZ!!11 tats nOt tru!!11 u craZy!111 dUMmy." without even being open minded.

How can a skeptic be blind?

A believer can be blind because they will not ask questions and follow the herd, so how can a skeptic be blind when a skeptic is on a search for truth?

How is a believer in the ET not blind when all they do is see a Youtube video and share it here asking for opinions and as soon as some sort of logical explanations are given they get on the defensive stance and call every and any researcher a skeptic in way to mean they are disbelievers?

If there is one truth ET fans need to know its the ones that have skeptical views are more of a believer in the truth by seeking to prove not just speculate.

I didn't join to fight with skeptics, I joined to develop ways to understand what these things are.

So you're a skeptic like the rest of us looking for answers to many unanswered questions.

Why would you want fight with yourself?

reply to post by Tucket

Shame on you,

No,

shame on you as ATS is about learning and denying ignorance.

Are you afraid to learn something new,

JIm"s site is a must for any believer or skeptic in the subject.

Believe whats there at your own peril, however most if not all is verifiable else where at other educational institutions that anyone can go check and research themselves.

reply to post by Tucket

I formed my belief in ufos years ago so nothing is going to change it now.

Its good to be strong headed and stubborn at times,

Its just that what I will quote next sound funny after reading what I quoted above

I do consider myself open minded.

So your open mind is closed and cannot be changed in other words?

reply to post by inquisitive1977

There are MANY cases of highly studied cases that everyone agrees there is no currently understood explanation for and they remain unidentified.

Many or few?


Its only a small percentage of cases like 5% or less that have been studied by professionals and left as unidentified.

reply to post by solongandgoodnight

it truly is frustrating when you've seen something incredible with your own eyes (especially the high rate of speed) and people say, "Yeah........you're an idiot."

That is simply rude and uncalled for if it ever was said to anyone.

However I see the question of how was speed and other things determined to make such conclusions asked many times by so called skeptics with a reply either completely disregarding whats asked and a defensive post about not believing, why is that, why cant either say how they determined or it was a simple guess and could be way of instead of getting defensive when a simple question to help others understand and see if the claims being made have anything to back them with.

reply to post by solongandgoodnight



You have to understand that many of these so called "sceptics" have already made up their minds. They just don't believe, period. And no matter how much of an evidence you think you are presenting, that won't change. And they will interpret anything to their favor if needed.

Look at it this way:
- Spend time with people that have open minds.
- Talk to people that listen to you.
- And don't waste time trying to convince anyone. Because it is a waste of time.

Life is too shot, spend your hours with people who listen.

Chazam
reply to post by solongandgoodnight

 

You have to understand that many of these so called "sceptics" have already made up their minds. They just don't believe, period. .....

How can you say that about the disputes over astronaut stories, the subject of this thread?

As far as I can tell, it's the skeptics who have done all of the original investigations.

It's the closed-minded 'believers' who proclaim, "He said it, I believe him, case closed" again and again and again.

Counterexamples to disprove my assertion??

reply to post by JimOberg


My word was "many", not "all".

But:

People tend to confuse being rational with having preconceived ideas. And being open to new things, with being gullible. Every strange stone isn't created by ancient aliens, and everything isn't smudge on the camera lens. The truth can often be found somewhere in between.

AmberLeaf...... If i had been to space i too would have called ice a UFO...wrote a book, and lived off the lie. These men are liars, much like the "generals" that talk about aliens visiting us, same agenda though.

Here's the problem with many skeptics...

Arrogance, condescending attitudes, hyperbole, and making claims as outlandish as any true believer with no
corroboration or evidence of investigation.

Not a great way to win converts or convince anyone of your opinion.

Personally, I'm open to any and all possibilities but the quickest way for me to discredit anyone is when they exhibit know-it-all arrogance and name calling.

reply to post by InhaleExhale


I definitely agree that we are talking about a small percentage of reported cases that remain unidentified, however a small percentage of a large number still can be considered many.

Most cases do have completely normal explanations though and because such a high percentage is explainable it seems people tend to completely write off other cases.

Although again, back on the specific topic, when we are talking about eye witness accounts alone they just cannot be proven. Some people will tend to be more believable, such as Astronauts, but they are still interesting stories only.

These assumptions that anyone that would otherwise be considered credable would only making things up to make money somehow are crazy. Amazingly some people refuse to accept possibilities and attack with complete ignorance. A true skeptic is not a bad thing though, they will not ignore any possible evidence they just insist on proof before making their minds up. UFOs being some kind of Alien life visiting us is something that is completely unprovable at the moment.

With each new scientific discovery the chance that life is far more prevalent throughout the universe than previously believed seems to keep increasing. I choose to believe it is possible, maybe even likely, that we are being observed by some other form of life with capabilities far beyond ours. With our current understanding of physics it would seem to be highly unlikely for other life to visit us, although we would be talking about a species anywhere from thousands of years more advanced to millions of years if not more. What we think we understand now will most likely change drastically in the future.

inquisitive1977
Some people will tend to be more believable, such as Astronauts, but they are still interesting stories only.

Actually, on checking, many of the most famous stories and quotes attributed to astronauts turn out to be bogus, and the astronaut's own credibility is irrelevant to counterfeit statements falsely attributed to him/her.

That's what an investigation is for. And that's maybe why so many of the promoters of these story want to do everything to KEEP their target audience from investigating.

olaru12

Here's the problem with many skeptics...

Arrogance, condescending attitudes, hyperbole, and making claims as outlandish as any true believer with no
corroboration or evidence of investigation.

Not a great way to win converts or convince anyone of your opinion.

Personally, I'm open to any and all possibilities but the quickest way for me to discredit anyone is when they exhibit know-it-all arrogance and name calling.

I agree that some tact and diplomacy is needed, but that often isn't enough to convince people whose heads are already full of nonsense about space flight, astronomy, and other requisite foundations of understanding some of the apparently puzzling events. Since spaceflight was my lifetime career, I do have experience-tested operational knowledge, and I try to find ways to bridge this gap into the minds of people who have 'learned' about space from Hollywood, video games, and TV shows. Sadly, I've found that the less one does know about real spaceflight -- and that level can be quantified -- the more eager are people for extraordinary interpretations of such stories. It's why I wrote my "99 FAQs About Space UFO Videos" on my home page.