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.


Believers and Skeptics Please Read

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 27 2013 @ 06:14 PM
I applaud everyone's efforts.

There, I wanted to get that out of the way first. Also, I am not sure that this belongs here, or in the rant forum. So if necessary mods, please move.

What I want to address here are the resources available at ATS. Just in membership. We "UFO buffs" have a wealth of info at our fingertips, if we just were to use it. All too often I open these threads and see nothing but bickering. Name calling. Poor arguments. Etc.

The UFO forum is what brought me to this site years ago.

When I first got here, I was one of the hardest "believers" out there. Yet, after spending time here, I learned A LOT. Namely, I learned that 95% of UFO cases are bunk. You can argue with that if you like, but it is a waste of your efforts. So in that vein, I would emplore people to LISTEN to the skeptics when they criticize your threads. It has been my experience here that, believe it or not, most everyone on these forums has a GENUINE INTEREST in the field. The difference between believers and skeptics, 95% of the time (
) is that the skeptics here are right.

From forum moderators, to subject matter experts, to prolific thread authors, to prolific posters, this forum has an INSANE amount of quality members who KNOW THEIR STUFF in this field.
Please, for the love of Pete, listen to them.

The bickering and the name calling is uncalled for. And I realize that I myself fall victim to this "I know this to be true" mentality all too often and lash out at folks for having a differing opinion. But it is something that I am working towards correcting, and I hope that a number of others can do as well.

The point is that we need to work TOGETHER.

I would like to use Phage as an example that comes to mind. (I haven't seen Phage in awhile. Is he ok?)

Everyone loves to have on Phage. But you know what people? When something comes up that he isn't immediately familiar with, do you know what he does? He SCOURS the web looking for the answer.
All too often, believers do not do this. Nor any research for that matter. I have seen this. I have fallen victim to this as early as yesterday in which I claimed (rudely in fact) that a quote from the Mahabarhata was legit when it in fact WAS NOT.

It is a learning process.

In closing, I would like to ask people to consider other's arguments and behave like scientists. I know that is a lot to ask, but that is the only way that this field will ever advance from its current state of ... well, however you wanna label it.

Thanks for reading.

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 06:29 PM
Phage is not real. He does not scour the internet. He is the internet.
It's the only explaination for his vast knowledge.

I agree !
Listening to those that have knowledge and skill you dont is crucial in ones development.

Wandering off topic.
I would like to add that alot of people are sat around waiting for some type of disclosure.
Waiting for someone else to validate your beliefs is a waste of time, it wont happen.
Use that time to learn and understand more about the subject and maybe even other areas of interest.

edit on 27-5-2013 by LordDerpingtonSmythe because: format

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 06:38 PM
reply to post by LordDerpingtonSmythe

Nope. I have seen Phage in action. Not personally mind you, but through U2U. I actually felt priveledged that he asked for my help with something.

The point is, these people are genuine, folks. It is not all disinfo, like many believe. The difference is that some folks just have differing levels of expertise and can give guidance where other folks are ignorant.

And this is a very critical piece of info. Because this field is extremely varied. In one case a psychologist can be just as crucial to potential evidence as an astro physicist can be in another.

The point is to use LOGIC and consider carefully the remarks of your detractors. We need to up the bar of UFOlogy, because it has fallen a LOT lately.

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 06:44 PM
Every have one of those posts you want to reply to but have nothing useful to say so can't really reply but want to reply but can't reply because- ....

It's another 'lets get along' thread buuuuuuuuuuut these are hugely important. I clap wildly like a sea otter person for your personal growth and courage to admit and discuss it in public. So very few people are prepared to post in public that they were wrong about something.

Please, enjoy this large cookie that I have constructed for you. It tastes of delicious and chamomile.

P.S ... am fairly certain that Phage is actually an etch-o-sketch. Just sayin'
edit on 27-5-2013 by Pinke because: PS

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 06:48 PM
reply to post by Pinke

It is far more than a "lets get along" thread.
It is a genuine concern.

But thanks for the cookie.

I have often felt in the past that the "believers" really are running off members here. People who's insights are INVALUABLE to the field.

I could bring up examples, but I don't wanna. I felt bad enough mentioning Phage.

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 06:51 PM
reply to post by JayinAR

I agree with your OP, and your point, as a whole. It's good practice to genuinely listen to those who have a differing opinion from your own. But...

It works both ways. Both sides of a debate must listen to the other, and consider ideas beyond their personal bias, if they are to work together to form any kind of synthesis from the evidence, or the hypothesis posited.

Chemtrail threads are a good example of this. Too often, there's more posturing than considering the possibilities beyond personal convictions. It becomes a black and white argument, instead of considering the gray areas between.

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:00 PM
reply to post by Klassified

At this point it is prudent to clarify the difference between a skeptic and a debunker. Haha

When you see a UFO thread that is legit, you do not see skeptics...because they are stumped.
Debunkers generally offer nothing to any debate other than cheerleadership.

Funny thing is that in the UFO arena believers will then use the fact that skeptics are NOT in a thread against the skeptics and speculate that these same skeptics are disinfo agents because they aren't contributing to legit threads.

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:04 PM
reply to post by JayinAR

Agreed. ATS has plenty of debunkers, very few true skeptics.

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:08 PM

Originally posted by JayinAR

The point is to use LOGIC and consider carefully the remarks of your detractors. We need to up the bar of UFOlogy, because it has fallen a LOT lately.

UFOlogy by it's very nature is bound to polarize attitudes.

I tried to use logic to determine what happened during my "high strangeness" events but logic doesn't work with paranormal or metaphysical phenomenon; which is what I think the UFO mystery falls under.

Criticism of my "events" is expected because if I heard my stories from someone else; I would probably call BS.
And when already marginalized as a "people like you" in the political forums; bring it...I can take it!!!
Involving oneself in mystery and alternate reality opens you up to ridicule. These are not subjects that the sensitive folks should be involved in. These subjects are threatening to those that cling to conservative ideologies and cosmologies and they will lash out to protect their comfort zone.
edit on 27-5-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:10 PM
reply to post by Klassified


The entire purpose of this thread is to present a legitimate concern.
I will be the first person to tell you aliens are real and that they visit this planet.

I maintain this always. In my view the volume of evidence combined with my own personal experience is more than enough to convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt. But...

People need to learn to accept their personal proof while also accepting the skepticism that comes with ANY bold claim.

This is how human learning works.

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:17 PM
reply to post by JayinAR

Well said and having tangled with Phage once or twice, I can say he does bring an interesting dimension to the table every time

Another thing that struck me with this thread, when I joined ATS (for the UFO/Alien material primarily) I wasn't a believer, not in aliens anyway, I certainly believed in UFOs but the thought of "little green men"? No.

With this subject, there are many highs and lows and twists in turns involved with peoples beliefs, for example now I would tend to say that I believe we have been visited by aliens at least once, I also however accept that I could be wrong (having no proof of this) and therefore listen to others reasoning.

My belief is a hunch based on evidence within the UFO field. I'm sure others may completely believe in the alien phenomenon, just as well as others who think it's a lie. ATS has a wide and varied range of people and for the most part the debate is civilized and enjoyable. To me, if the debate resorts to name calling, it's just highlighting how uninformed the culprits are, ATS is much better with informed people.

Additionally, I'm sure everyone in this forum would love the truth sometime, I just hope that when it breaks (whatever it may be), it's right here on beloved ATS.

edit on 27-5-2013 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:18 PM
reply to post by olaru12

Agreed on all fronts.

But that's what I am getting at... We need to push through the polarizing aspect and instead INSIST on solidarity. The believers have a crap ton of evidence they can hang their hats on if they would just find it and use it as the foundation of their arguments!
If they do that, the debunkers have to find something else to cheer from the sidelines.

That way the believers and skeptics are free to work together.

Lots of folks already understand all this...but there are many who do not.

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 08:26 PM
One might get the impression in this context that the terms skeptic and debunker are being misinterpreted on a scale that might call for a new term for one who treats bad cases like tumors and works to "resect" them to prevent their bad influence on the interpretation of the good cases. I guess the common expression is "separating the wheat from the chaff."

Promoting bad cases saves tax dollars, since less has to be spent on spreading disinfo. But it only hinders the goals ufologists claim to pursue (although some detractors claim ufologists only seek money).

Actually, I commented yesterday on a thread started by the OP to discuss the content of a crop circle that had not been confirmed to be real (no bent nodes confirmed), and his response was not in keeping with the spirit of quality control I tried to convey in the rant above.

Good quality helps the pro-saucer side and the neutral camp. Bad quality of pro-saucer arguments helps the anti-saucer side.

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 08:35 PM
reply to post by xpoq47

The crop circle thread you commented on, and I responded to, stands on its own merits. In that thread I sought to establish an alternate form of provenance for the label of a "genuine" crop circle. I said exactly as much in my response.

What exactly are you implying here?

ETA: heck, I reckon anyone can see the exchange for themselves right here.
edit on 27-5-2013 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 08:42 PM
reply to post by xpoq47

I do not shy away from my words.

ETA: I would further add that the thread you speak of is four years old. Back then, at least at the time I wrote that thread, the crop circle debate was at a fever pitch here on the boards. Now, if you wanna call my thread poor quality, I BEG you to address that on the very thread you commented on.


I would love to see the thread fully resurected again. Maybe then we can push it forward even farther. But as it is, you are simply sniping at me.

Cheerleading, as it were.

But thanks again.
edit on 27-5-2013 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:18 PM
reply to post by JayinAR

My comment was on your reply yesterday.

Without documentation that a particular crop circle is real, who wants to hear or read about its content? Node status first. If that passes muster, okay, have fun. Otherwise you're treating the scoffers to free laughing gas.

That's the standard I'm setting for a thread on any particular crop circle, and it's in the spirit of what you say in this thread but not your comment of yesterday in that thread. Let's raise the bar for quality and not let it sag.

edit on 27-5-2013 by xpoq47 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:22 PM
reply to post by xpoq47

I am glad you have set that standard.
If you ever wanna discuss my thread, there it is. I will be glad to discuss it all night if you wish.

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 10:29 PM
funny you should say that about phage....

...i once considered that if the internet ever gained sentiency, a projection like phage would be a possible result.

The best part is the John Lithgow thing he has going on. Lithgow is a favorite actor of mine.
edit on 27-5-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 10:34 PM
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

John Lithgow is my favorite television actor.

Amongst the faves anyhow. Sorta like nest friends. You got a few you don't feel right placing above the other.

posted on May, 28 2013 @ 03:31 AM
We already have this thread

and this thread

We don't need another thread. What we need now is for the mods to start issuing bans for the repeat offenders around here, and there are a few.

<<   2 >>

log in