The Skeptics Dilemma

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Stop trying to lie and distort your way out of this.

Unfortunately, it seems that lies and distortion are on par for certain members, such as WitnessFromAfar, Polomontana/PlatosAllegory, and Malcram. However, we should not blame their short-comings on every believer.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Unfortunately, it seems that lies and distortion are on par for certain members, such as WitnessFromAfar, Polomontana/PlatosAllegory, and Malcram. However, we should not blame their short-comings on every believer.

LOL. You said you have me on ignore Saviour, which, if true, means you must have judged and commented with reference to the issue C.H.U.D. raised by only listening to him and not listening to my responses to him, as, according to you, you can't see my posts. This would mean that you ignored half of the evidence presented when making your judgement. But this would hardly be surprising, as you display the same biased, cherry picking attitude to the evidence of ET/UFO's when making your arguments about them. But as a confirmed pseudoskeptic, like C.H.U.D., I expect little more from you. Frankly, you two deserve each other.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by mmiichael

Yes, I read the list. One name I recognized immediately - Philip J. Corso... I assume Corso is representative of the people considered credible on the strength of their onetime employment in the military or some other credentialed profession. It looks to me as if out of hundreds of thousands of military personnel and other professions, the Disclosure Project was able to round up a few dozen what you call 'bad apples'... You'll find attention seekers, the foolishly gullible, and just plain whack jobs in any field.

Come on Mike, that's a completely illegitimate way of dealing with evidence. Need I say more? Your words kinda say it all for me.

I gave one example and your totally right one single case is anecdotal evidence.

But I used the example because it was someone I immediately had the background on.

Full context is that I'm told the lofty Disclosure Project has the participation of respected scientists, military personnel, astronauts, etc.

A quick check reveals one of the astronauts, Mitchell, distanced himself from the whole thing claiming misrepresentation. Then I read long time radio show host Fred Bell is listed as a scientist and engineer. Then I read how they claimed as their own research something by a Washington Post journalist. Then I read how they posted on their sire up to a few weeks ago a secret internal document from the Strategic Studies Institute,which talked about a staged alien invasion. It turns out to be a submitted piece of fiction and not generated by anyone connected to the Institute.

We don't know what the other listed esteemed scientists and military personnel have to say. I assume if they have some discomfort with their association with the project it hasn't come out.

But one can infer from the egregious examples given and Corso on their list, that this is not quite on the up and up.

In a life of reviewing UFO literature, I've seen many attempts to legitimize the investigations. And like this one, they all seem to fall apart at the seams.

60 years and 60,000 UFO hunters later. Where is the clear set of picture of an alien, a sliver of metal from a craft? Why is all the evidence and testimony inevitably dubious?

Pre-eminent UFO investigator, Jacques Vallee spent something like 25 years travelling the world interviewing contactees, abductions, landing sites, etc.
In his final books, one called "Revelations" he concludes there is something going on he can't explain. But he also politely communicates his summary opinion of the current UFO seeking community and their researches. Much delusion, many misinterpretations evidence, incorrect extrapolation of data, and many con artists.

The most serious and respected UFO investigator ever, is now a skeptic.

What can one say?


Mike F

I would be very worried, if there was clear evidence that we are the most intelligent species in the universe...and I say this for one simple reason. If we really are suppose to be so intelligent, then why are we are destroying the planet we live on... and how can we call ourselves so intelligent when it’s clear we have so many problems in our world?

I also wonder, why is it so easy for sceptics to get their heads around the fact we visit places like “Mars.” Surely if they don’t believe that another eternity can vistit us, then they must also have doubts regarding us visiting Mars.


[edit on 19-3-2009 by jackitin]

[edit on 19-3-2009 by jackitin]

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Unfortunately, it seems that lies and distortion are on par for certain members, such as WitnessFromAfar, Polomontana/PlatosAllegory, and Malcram. However, we should not blame their short-comings on every believer.

You are quite right of course. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. I've never held that against anybody (as long as they said it was a belief and did not tout it as scientific fact, otherwise I reserve the right to point out that it's not a fact), and I would not group all other believers in with this minority.

I hope that is not the impression I have given here or in the past.

Constructive criticism is always welcome

To give both sides at least a modicrum of credit *as opposed to the usual polarized bashing*:
1) It is possible there are aliens visiting Earth. We are in no position to say where the paths of technological advancement will take us and the abilities that will be allowable.
2) It seems logical that if a being has the ability to reach here it should be comparatively easy for them to hide said presence from us.
3)Some people seem to NEED to believe that they are here and will cling to anything they see as evidence supporting that stance.
4) As a mirror opposite *polar* to #3 some people seem to NEED to believe that they are not or don't even exist at all and will cling to anything they see as evidence supporting that stance.

And on another note OP, listing the other possibilities is not just something skeptics do to discredit, it's something anyone who truly grasps the concept of investigation will do because they know just because they have pet theories doesn't mean those theories are always correct.

Just my two cents. Thanks for reading ladies and gents.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
To give both sides at least a modicrum of credit *as opposed to the usual polarized bashing*:
1) It is possible there are aliens visiting Earth. We are in no position to say where the paths of technological advancement will take us and the abilities that will be allowable.
2) It seems logical that if a being has the ability to reach here it should be comparatively easy for them to hide said presence from us.
3)Some people seem to NEED to believe that they are here and will cling to anything they see as evidence supporting that stance.
4) As a mirror opposite *polar* to #3 some people seem to NEED to believe that they are not or don't even exist at all and will cling to anything they see as evidence supporting that stance.

And on another note OP, listing the other possibilities is not just something skeptics do to discredit, it's something anyone who truly grasps the concept of investigation will do because they know just because they have pet theories doesn't mean those theories are always correct.

That pretty well covers all bases. Thanks.

Humans being human, and with such an enormous selection of data combinations and scenarios to choose from, the one that is emotionally satisfying is the one that is embraced.

There are enough free floating factoids on any subject that can be assembled to draw the conclusion you like best. And there are usually thousands, even millions drawing the same conclusions to give you support and the impression you're on the right track.

It takes an extra level of self-awareness to realize when you have taken a wrong turn somewhere.


Anatole France put it this way:

"Even if a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."


Mike F

reply to post by Malcram


well i think thats a bit of a cop out. it tells me there is no 1 single piece of stand alone evidence to support the ETH.

we hear stories of craft doing these amazing manouvers. However im not aware of 1 single piece of footage showing a craft doing incredible manouvers. All the videos of lights in the sky show something moveing very normally. Its ashame.

perhaps we are being visited but they are so diffirent so alien maybe even from another universe or dimesion that we are unable to interact or communicate with them. It would seem they dont want to communicate with us and theres not alot we can do except wait until they change their minds.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
To give both sides at least a modicrum of credit *as opposed to the usual polarized bashing*:
4) As a mirror opposite *polar* to #3 some people seem to NEED to believe that they are not or don't even exist at all and will cling to anything they see as evidence supporting that stance.
[edit on 19-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Hi there,

I do not agree with #4, "we" do not NEED to BELIEVE that ETI did not make it to the Solar System, "we" lack empirical proof & facts & data that this could be the case. It is way different than a NEED to BELIEVE. In my case, it would rather be a NEED to KNOW.

Belief :

-Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something:
-Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

Off course, it does not mean that we are right, but that we trust scientists when they say that we don't have a clue yet, this is why we have to search for them thru the S3ETI* initiative to name one.

"We" just don't make this kind of assumptions, this subject is too important not to be taken seriously and in-depht.

Now and if you ask me, my definition of "ufology" could be : The great battle of egos. Most people involved are not trying to gather empirical facts & data but rather to impose their own beliefs and sometimes to even commercialize ($€) them sort of speak.

To reach some sort of conclusion, some of the people that really love this subject (ETI quest) are "skeptics" and I said it before, maybe it will be a "skeptic" that will come up with the empirical proof that we are being visited, why, because many are involved in this kind of research.

Most believers don't need a proof, they already BELIEVE they have it, so they won't really search for it, they just gather informations that confort them in their beliefs, it is a big bias when it comes to the scientific methods.

S3ETI : contactincontext.org...


Cheers,
Europa


[edit on 19-3-2009 by Europa733]

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Malcram

 

well i think thats a bit of a cop out. it tells me there is no 1 single piece of stand alone evidence to support the ETH.

we hear stories of craft doing these amazing manouvers. However im not aware of 1 single piece of footage showing a craft doing incredible manouvers. All the videos of lights in the sky show something moveing very normally. Its ashame.

perhaps we are being visited but they are so diffirent so alien maybe even from another universe or dimesion that we are unable to interact or communicate with them. It would seem they dont want to communicate with us and theres not alot we can do except wait until they change their minds.

Hi Mike. Do you want fries with your McFacts?

So what you are saying is that because you asked someone for "1 piece of evidence to convince", on a messageboard, during a discussion about the importance of using the scientific method to weigh the full range of evidence in order to reach a conclusion, and they refused to humour such a lackadaisical approach to the evidence, then this "tells [you] there is no 1 single piece of stand alone evidence to support the ETH"? LOL

As I said originally, the request was rather lazy and and a bit insincere, given the context of our discussion (not to mention off topic), and this is confirmed by your 'research' based conclusion here, solely consisting of - "you didn't tell me so therefore I know such evidence must not exist". As I said, this attitude is the investigative equivalent of 'speed dating'.

You and the scientific method clearly don't get on. LOL. If you are prepared to reach conclusions on such a incredibly tenuous basis then obviously you already have your mind closed to the evidence, so what is the point of engaging in the debate? Come on Yeti, do the research for yourself. It might surprise you! Anyway, you may get your wish in another thread more appropriate to your request as I know some members are thinking about putting something together that might better suit you.


[edit on 19-3-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Malcram

 

we hear stories of craft doing these amazing manouvers. However im not aware of 1 single piece of footage showing a craft doing incredible manouvers. All the videos of lights in the sky show something moveing very normally. Its ashame.

Hi there,

I agree with everything you said but, there's a but, I think I found IT, it took me over 3 years of documentary research thru the "opensky" camera networks Worldwide and yes, I did find a video capture taken with a video capture software & CCD cam that exhibits many "extraordinary" features. One of them is or could be "amazing maneuvers" but first I need to gather as much data as possible before I can send it so some specialists to have it analyzed.

I won't be able to show it to you guys because I do not want some ufologists to use it to promote their beliefs or adding it to their DVD.. Nablator has seen it, he can tell you that I am not lying and he agrees with me but we have to remember that analyzing it also means :

NOT overlooking mundane causes and/or alternative candidate explanations for it and if we can demonstrate that it :

• cannot be explained in a simpler way
• stem from a reliable source
• is properly documented

Then, we MAY have one high-quality (video) case to put in the "archives". It does not mean that it is ET but that UFOB* ( as defined by the USAF terminology) exist.
In this perticular video capture, the "object" in question exhibits and fullfill all the aspects & criterions of the definition cited below :

UFOB : Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOB) relates to any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object.

Source : www.cufon.org...


Cheers,
Europa


[edit on 19-3-2009 by Europa733]

reply to post by Malcram


Hi there,

I totally disagree with your entire message, your "speed dating" argument is just a way to escape a rather "simple" question you were asked. This rather shows that you CANNOT ANSWER it.

Please, stop bullsh..... us.

Cheers,
Europa



[edit on 19-3-2009 by Europa733]

reply to post by Malcram



ive probaly done more research into ufos than most people on this board. Dont assume anything about what i know and dont.

Originally posted by Europa733
Nablator has seen it, he can tell you that I am not lying and he agrees with me.

Yes, really awesome footage, exactly yeti101's incredible manoeuvre. I'm still looking for an explanation.

When will we be free to show and discuss it? What if the source never authorizes the publication? I understand he doesn't want this kind of publicity (Youtube, ufology websites...). But on the other hand he may be too shy or careful to ever release the video material and data to the public, knowing very well that such a sensitive subject could be interpreted as a publicity stunt for his company. I trust you to finally succeed in getting his support. A video without a credible source would lose most of its value.

edit to add:
As good as it is, it is not the smoking gun, or proof of ET visitation. I'm looking for information on microdrones that could display such an amazing flight pattern.

[edit on 2009-3-19 by nablator]

reply to post by Europa733


Too bad Europa you are speaking in generalised terms as a response to something that was not in generalized terms. I was not talking about all those that go under the label "skeptic" in this particular matter. My exact words were "some people" not "all skeptics" since that is exactly what I wished to say.
But I will say that you are speaking in "we" when assuming I was refering to all skeptics *generalization* terms is most telling. I believe mmichael most astutely summed up that part.

Oh, and incidently you left out a few things on your showing on definition:

Main Entry: know
Pronunciation: \ˈnō\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): knew \ˈnü also ˈnyü\ ; known \ˈnōn\ ; know·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cnāwan; akin to Old High German bichnāan to recognize, Latin gnoscere, noscere to come to know, Greek gignōskein
Date: before 12th century
transitive verb
1 a (1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of (3): to recognize the nature of : discern b (1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of
2 a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b: to have a practical understanding of
3 archaic : to have sexual intercourse with

SOURCE:www.merriam-webster.com...

I bolded and underlined the key part I wished to point out to you.

Main Entry: be·lief
Pronunciation: \bə-ˈlēf\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelēafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lēafa; akin to Old English lȳfan — more at believe
Date: 12th century
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed ; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

SOURCE:www.merriam-webster.com...

Please note the simularities. Knowing and believing are the same thing. We know nothing with certainity, though we obviously believe we do. Just others with certain agendas in other matters would have you believe otherwise.

Originally posted by Malcram


Hi Mike. Do you want fries with your McFacts?

So what you are saying is that because you asked someone for "1 piece of evidence to convince", on a messageboard, during a discussion about the importance of using the scientific method to weigh the full range of evidence in order to reach a conclusion, and they refused to humour such a lackadaisical approach to the evidence, then this "tells [you] there is no 1 single piece of stand alone evidence to support the ETH"? LOL

As I said originally, the request was rather lazy and and a bit insincere, given the context of our discussion (not to mention off topic), and this is confirmed by your 'research' based conclusion here, solely consisting of - "you didn't tell me so therefore I know such evidence must not exist". As I said, this attitude is the investigative equivalent of 'speed dating'.

You and the scientific method clearly don't get on. LOL. If you are prepared to reach conclusions on such a incredibly tenuous basis then obviously you already have your mind closed to the evidence, so what is the point of engaging in the debate? Come on Yeti, do the research for yourself. It might surprise you! Anyway, you may get your wish in another thread more appropriate to your request as I know some members are thinking about putting something together that might better suit you.

Malcram,

OK you caught me. But guilty with an explanation. I work very hard at my business these days, and steal time to follow threads on ATS that catch my eye. I don't read through every message and may lose general drift at times. My responses tend to be reactive - when I see something said that's out of place to me I jump in.

I keep up with UFO information as best I can. These days I rely on others I know well who follow the scene more closely. Much I put forward is a synthesis of my own and a their shared informed views.

So please forgive any inconsistencies and possibly out of context replies. It's more a matter of time available than any disrespect.


Mike F

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows



Hi there,

It is hard not to generalize, this is why I used the "We" but if you read carefully my message, I made it very clear why I did not agree with #4.

Now, we could "play" with words and their definition but it is not really taking us anywhere, is it ?

My point is very clear, we lack scientific data & facts & proofs that we are being visited, it is a constatation based on our scientific knowledge & observations, so yes you are right to some extent, "we" BELIEVE scientists..as opposed to "we" BELIEVE ufologists.

People who choose to be pro-ETH don't need empirical facts & data & proofs, they just cherry pick what they want then they call it evidence just as long as it fits into their "model theory".

60 years of ufology already demonstrated that this does not take us anywhere, we could have had the same discussion 60 years ago.

Cheers,
Europa

Originally posted by Europa733
reply to post by Malcram

 

Hi there,

I totally disagree with your entire message, your "speed dating" argument is just a way to escape a rather "simple" question you were asked. This rather shows that you CANNOT ANSWER it.

Please, stop bullsh..... us.
[edit on 19-3-2009 by Europa733]

Don't be daft Europa. He asked me what ONE piece of evidence I thought would convince someone. NOBODY should be convinced based on one piece of evidence. That's a ridiculous idea. And you think I should play along? Of course there is much excellent evidence, much of it has been referenced many times at ATS for those who can be bothered to look for it and follow the links, and I have opinions on which elements I think are the strongest evidence. But the request that was made was absurd and I wasn't willing to humour it.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by mmiichael

Malcram,

OK you caught me. But guilty with an explanation. I work very hard at my business these days, and steal time to follow threads on ATS that catch my eye. I don't read through every message and may lose general drift at times. My responses tend to be reactive - when I see something said that's out of place to me I jump in.

I keep up with UFO information as best I can. These days I rely on others I know well who follow the scene more closely. Much I put forward is a synthesis of my own and a their shared informed views.

So please forgive any inconsistencies and possibly out of context replies. It's more a matter of time available than any disrespect.


Mike F

No problem Mike, I didn't consider you disrespectful at all, and certainly not in comparison to some of the other responses I've had. It's a robust place, ATS, to say the least. LOL. I accept the verbal 'rough and tumble'. And unlike you, I probably have way too much free time on my hands in which to get involved in it.

Peace.

Malcram.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by nablator

Originally posted by Europa733
Nablator has seen it, he can tell you that I am not lying and he agrees with me.

edit to add:
As good as it is, it is not the smoking gun, or proof of ET visitation. I'm looking for information on microdrones that could display such an amazing flight pattern.

[edit on 2009-3-19 by nablator]

I agree 100% with your message.

O.T : Microdrones could be an interesting hypothesis to work on and use as a referential => flight domain comparison


Cheers,
Europa