It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A Question for the Skeptics

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 01:41 PM
One thing I have never understood about UFO skeptics, is why they do it? Why do you try to debunk UFO’s or aliens?

I certainly don't mean any disrespect, and I fully believe a good argument needs both sides.

But what motivates you to express your opinion of disbelief?

The reason I ask is, if I don't believe in something, I just simply don't believe in it.

Take for instance, I don't believe in Hell... you are not going to find me on religious websites arguing with people about it. I don't believe in ghost, again.. I'm not on ghost forums trying to prove them wrong.

My question to skeptics is "Why do you make an effort to debunk UFO's?" If we are all wrong, why do you care?

Honest, serious answers only here please.


[edit on 15-8-2005 by whipnet]

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 01:57 PM
You don't believe in hell? There's an audio recording of hell floating around on ATS somewhere. You should give it a listen. It's either hell or the audience at a Hanson concert.

I am not a skeptic by nature so I see it like you do except I don't mind skeptics. They have a right to their point of view. Assuming that everything we see is not real, skeptics serve a purpose to keep believers thinking logically. If you happen to believe in something and disagree with a skeptic, argue your case. My biggest pleasure is trying to get skeptics to see things my way. It's not easy but it is possible.


posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 02:07 PM
I wouldn't say I'm not a believer in UFOs, but I am definitely a skeptic. I, personally, attempt to debunk pretty much everything I read on this website in a quest to find the truth throughout the hoaxes. My "debunking" is simply asking the questions that come to mind as I read the post.

It's not an attempt to convince people that what they believe is wrong, but rather an attempt to find out if I, too, can believe based on the information presented.

Then there are also the posts by people explaining some profound discovery and we're supposed to take them at their word. A few ex-members come to mind and some current in this scenario. In those cases, I usually do show up to debunk for the sake of showing people that it is not true. I do not believe there is a shape shifting reptilian race that has taken over all the world's leadership, and when people say unequivocally that they are reptilians and they can see them, I have to question them. Especially if there's another agenda at work, like a person talking about how horrible Bush and Republicans are, then in another thread they talk about Bush and high ranking Republicans being aliens, and they can see them for what they are. In those situations, this site's motto kicks in in my mentality, and the reasoning behind my words is to help those readers who may not know better to deny ignorance.

So that's why I do it. I can't speak for my fellow skeptics, of course, because though we fall into the same category, it does not mean we think alike.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 02:11 PM
There are two camps here - debunkers and skeptics. A skeptic by nature is open to believe, we will just question the evidence to exhaust all possibilities. A debunker will not even recognize the evidence. I consider myself skeptical - I weigh the evidence and go with Occam's Razor.... I believe alien life is out there - odds are too great, but here playing games with us and not saying hello - well that's just not neighborly....

For example - we get lots of posts of "I got this UFO on my picture when I looked at it". Well, it may be an unidentified flying object but alien in origin - probably not. Lot's of out of focus birds and bugs can make the same image and are likely the case when the person then adds "I did not see it, it was just on the image".... Take into account lens info and we can pretty well rule out non-terrestrial visitors.

Researchers want all the details, camera type, aperture, shutter and focus info, type of lens, etc as that info make a difference. Just a pic is just a epic.... Now radar hits and other things makes one think a bit. Claims of abduction - just a claim without any evidence....

[edit on 15-8-2005 by UofCinLA]

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 02:18 PM

One thing I have never understood about UFO skeptics, is why they do it? Why do you try to debunk UFO’s or aliens?

As mentioned, there are debunkers, and there are skeptics.

Different motivations.

I'm not sure where I fall. I'm skeptical of most cases, but there are some that really make one think, and my own personal childhood sighting proves the point for me.

The problem is, there are a lot of quacks and attention-grabbers in the field, and they do SERIOUS damage to the perception of the field. It is in the hopes of ridding the field of such charlatans that many of us look first with a skeptical eye.

Occam's razor is a good point...usually the simplest answer really is the best one. Only when such answers truly fail the evidence, should we then start even looking at the fantastic.

But, there are many cases where this occurs, Roswell, Rendlesham, and the Hills for example.

I know, for myself, that we are being visited by beings not of this Earth. However, that doesn't make me believe every Meier, Adamski, and Yahweh that come along....

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 02:19 PM
When I was younger I took pride in being the consumate skeptic.
In retrospect I now see my cynacism was borne from arrogance and fear.

Being confronted with an experience that I cannot even begin to explain or understand changed my view of the cosmos drasticly.

My reason to try and debunk was to try and inflate my persona at the expense of others. Sad really.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 02:28 PM
As mentioned above, there is a big difference between being a Skeptic and being a Debunker. Michael Horn's repeat stint on Coast to Coast last night undr Art Bell was gratifying to me and other Meir believers.

While skeptics can't fall in line on it Meirs work. Especially when a Country is singled out as part of the world aggression problem,so skeptics run for the bat.

Debunker's as I have mentioned before, are non believers and still think if you see a 'space ship' your crazy. They are closed minded fools or under government influence, possibly on the payroll. What I'm still trying to conclude in my mind is now-a-days -why?


posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 02:37 PM
I am a believer in the UFO phenomenom but I welcome and appreciate any comments from both debunkers and skeptics on my own posts and those of everybody else I think without there input it would be very easy to get carried away and end up losing yourself in the thousands of sightings photo's and video's that are available only through there argument and point of veiw will the truth finally emerge. I consider myself to be fairly open minded and even though I may initially be convinced by a claim listening to what others have to say helps give you perspective and look at things with a more logical approach!

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 02:48 PM
In my defense as a skeptic, and not a debunker, PY had me fooled for a little while. That quickly changed as I looked deeper and deeper into him and his sightings, though. I do believe in UFOs. I couldn't not while remaining intellectually honest. However, as of yet I do not believe they are alien in origin. As of yet, I haven't been presented with good enough evidence to make me believe that.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 03:18 PM
Statistically, only one in five ( around 20 percent ) of UFO reports /sightings are "Unknowns".

So in order to get to the truth , you have to throw out about 4 out of 5 Reports/Sightings.

And then only some of those left , not all, are likely to be ExtraTerrestrial Vehicles.

I am also 100 percent sure that I have seen one, I don't believe in anything!

I am also very skeptical of "believers", but not skeptical of people who are convinced by evidence.

The best Ufologists are always going to be willing to debunk, that which is Bunk!

Edit: P.S. I hate it when people say they are "UFO Believers" , heck I even believe ( Know ) objects are not idenitfied at times too! That doesn't mean anything.

It does mean something if you say , " I believe some Unidentified Flying Objects are ExtraTerrestial Vehicles."

[edit on 15-8-2005 by lost_shaman]

[edit on 15-8-2005 by lost_shaman]

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 03:25 PM
You guys make a good point with the difference between a skeptic and a debunker, because I am a skeptic. I would say that my question is really for the debunkers in this case.


posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 03:33 PM

I think I'm guilty of being both.


Well, if someone makes a claim, it's not unreasonable to expect them to provide some kind of evidence to support that claim. If they can't, I'm probably very skeptical, and don't mind saying so. If I made a claim, I'd fully expect that if I didn't have any solid reasoning or evidence behind it, nobody would take it seriously. And quite rightly so!

If I've found evidence to counter their claim, then I'm inclined to post it. Why? Because, as you said, there are two sides to everything. If we're to try and understand anything, then we need to look at the evidence available on both sides.

Whether one batch of evidence is more or less convincing than another is where subjectivity and interpretation come into play.

Is that debunking? I'm not really sure, to be honest.

But if debunking is the act of providing evidence to disprove the initial claims, then I'm guilty as charged.

And, to be honest, not particularly sad about it

Denying ignorance is about judging all of the information that's available - not just the bits we want to see.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 03:42 PM
Good thread by the way. Seems to me there's nothing wrong with being a debunker or skeptic. However, I think when the UFO problem as whole is debunked 'cause of a lack of interest in researching the matter(s), and as others have done, try to tell "Believers" it bothers them, they know little I think about what seperates believing in the existance of UFOs/EBEs and "Believing" everything about UFOs/Ebes.


posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 04:32 PM
I don't mind skeptics at all. The ones who research into a case before giving their own opinions........ But the other type.... *shudders*

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 04:37 PM
UFO's and Aliens are not the only thing I am skeptical about

I would say the whole point of a conspiracy community would be to be skeptical, or else why would be even be here if we considered everything to be true?

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 07:06 PM
Even though your a skeptic you still have a great intrest in this subject, right?

Some people wouldn't even bother to look at piece of evidence........ Let alone try and come up with an explaination other than 'swamp gas'.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 07:27 PM
Dallas says:

Debunker's [sic] ... are closed minded fools or under government influence, possibly on the payroll.


I am a debunker about a lot of things. When I see someone make an assertion that is bunk, I expose it. That doesn't mean that I disbelieve everything; indeed, I think there're good arguments for the possiblility of extraterrestrial intelligences or interaction between the Old and New Worlds thousands of years ago.

But if someone starts talking about the Magical Shape-Shifting Lizards that live underground or the Ancient Hindu Strategic Air Command with its Nuclear War of millennia ago, I blow it off, because such silly arguments, when looked at with a skeptical eye, fall apart like an over-ripe cantaloupe.

And I expose such crapola because it cheapens the entire field of investigation of things which, although not proven to the mainstream's satisfaction, still have enough data to keep us questioning. It's the enraged paranoiacs who talk about such things with no evidence at all -- and compound their actions by calling people who believe otherwise as "fools" or "paid agents" -- who are undermining any serious investigation that some people here do ...

...and also end up looking like complete bozos.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 07:34 PM
When I see strange things in the sky (and nobody can deny there are strange things), the notion that they have come from another planet is the last thing I will consider. Heres why:

-The fact they are only seen on (or near) Earth.
-The distance they would have had to travel (and for what?).
-If the descriptions of the "Greys" are accurate, they suggest a primate and thus terrestrial origin.
-My own theory that life probably isnt as abundant throughout the galaxy as most prople believe.
-The sheer amount of hoaxes.

But thats just my opinion. It stinks, I know.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 07:42 PM
I hear yah and add: There are some here who put fancy words up without any facts and probably have little to no knowledge of the subject matter. It's their way of getting involved without adding anything important less debunking of a reality not wished to be understood by them. Egotistical.


posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 07:51 PM
I believe just enough to insure my skepticism. I am skeptical enough to insure some degree of rigor. I have seen enough weirdness to believe but not enough to prove. I have been patient for 25 years or so and I am content to wait for the GUC (Grand Unified Conspiracy) to reveal itself. Besides all this stuff is wondeful mental exercise and I'll just have to keep walkin' perimeter like everyone else.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in