Why the skeptics fear UFOs - AKA, The debunkers have something to hide

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Ivan Seeking, Dec 6, 2003.

  1. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Each event is weird. I'm semi familiar with it. I could come up with wild assed explanations as to what might have happened maybe, but I doubt I'd make any sense.

    You should consider that maybe that's why nobody addresses it. It's rare, can't be reproduced, can't be explained and is all from "stories people tell" with no hard evidence to back it up.

    It's the same as the question of god in many senses, in that it's retarded to attempt to answer the questions without more evidence.. as in HARD EVIDENCE to work with.

    I ask the same questions you do, but I have since stopped rushing to answer questions that at least at this point, can't be answered. Further, you can't answer it without hard evidence as it is merely heresay. So what, I should believe someone that they saw aliens because they say they saw aliens? I might depending on the someone, but I doubt it. Hell even if I saw them I would doubt it until I could get further evidence, because I'd think optical illusion or acting first, as it is more plausible that interstellar travel to an obscure planet full of barely intelligent recent apes.

    So while sure, many completely deny the possibility, they are wrong. You are wrong if you endorse that "yes aliens ARE visiting earth". There is nothign wrong with suspecting stuff all you want. There is probably enough "evidence" to me as not to rule it out entirely, but I am mostly convinced at this point that it really isn't very plausible, as I don't think this species is necessarily interesting yet, nor do I know for sure that it is possible to traverse such great distances given the limitations on time and the relativity and the bizness.

    Bah, whatever. Hey have fun wasting your cash at Mufon!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2003
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    VRob and others:

    Why don't you start a thread on just one of the incidents you referred to, giving the details of the incident which makes you convinced that alien visitation occurred? Then, the skeptics can ask questions and comment on just that one incident, and see where it takes us.

    Half of the problem here is that the discussion seldom gets into details. Instead, things go back and forth, with skeptics flatly denying the possible existence of alien visits, and believers simply naming supposed events as if everybody should know about them and come to the same conclusions.

    So, I would like the believers to choose just one incident they find convincing, and we'll look at the evidence in a separate thread. Ok?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    deal.

    crackpots
    i have in mind the belgium flap/iran/?
    3 of the best? take it one by one in same thread or seperate? suggestions/links welcome.

    *jamesr really is the coolest.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ives Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    88
    I'm not even saying we're not being visited or that there aren't aliens or creatures in the center of the earth or whatever... this is a matter of "where IS the real evidence", rather than why isn't it addressed.

    This question of where the real evidence is always amazes me, and usually indicates one of two things:

    1. A lack of knowledge of the evidence that exists, or

    2. A knowledge of the evidence but an unwillingness to acknowledge it.

    Having said that, I should repeat my position that I am not defending the ETH. Constant discussion of the ETH and the difficulties therein distract from the evidence for the UFO phenomenon that is quite intriguing. There are many, many incidents of military and civilian pilot encouters with what appeared to be objects, displaying movement not associated with natural phenomenon (such as turning, slowing, speeding, hovering). Often, multiple members of the flight crew had a chance to see the objects. Often, there were consistent descriptions with considerable specificity.

    There is really quite a solid record of such events, and of considerable disarray and dishonesty in terms of the government's response to these incidents. A common criticism of UFO evidence, which I have seen in current posts on this board, is that the evidence consists of "stories people tell" and "a few grainy photographs". This is a mischaracterization of the evidence constructed specificially to support a position. As such, it is inherently unhelpful to the discussion.

    What the evidence does suggest is that humanity is having interactions with something that by all appearances seems to be under intelligent control. I believe that is a defensible inference that arises from the evidence. Any other statements as to the core nature of the phenomenon are speculation.

    I should point out that the quality of evidence in many UFO reports meets or exceeds evidence used now to sentence people to death. So when debunkers complain about the lack of evidence for UFOs, they are in fact ignoring it.
     
  8. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    perfect!
     
  9. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    I don't think the "intelligent control" part i completely defensible. All we know i that they cause interference when thing get to a certain range (like many other effects), and that they change direction fast avoiding collision (similar to natural phenomena)
     
  10. Ives Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    88
    I don't think the "intelligent control" part i completely defensible. All we know i that they cause interference when thing get to a certain range (like many other effects), and that they change direction fast avoiding collision (similar to natural phenomena)

    Keep in mind that my position is that intelligent control is an inference that can be defended. I stand by that, since the behavior observed and reported is consistent with what we know as intelligent behavior.



    they cause interference when thing get to a certain range (like many other effects),

    I'm assuming you're getting a little tired?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yet I'm still not sure what you mean. Interference with what? Are you talking about the incidents of reported automobile engine stalls?

    that they change direction fast avoiding collision (similar to natural phenomena)

    Allow me to demonstrate some ignorance. What natural phenomena change direction at high speeds in flight in the atmosphere to avoid collision with planes?

    EDIT - that should read "in an apparent effort to avoid a collision"
     
  11. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Originally posted by Ives
    Yet I'm still not sure what you mean. Interference with what? Are you talking about the incidents of reported automobile engine stalls?Airplanes, missles, and yes, even cars. This has been stated by people of 'proof' of intelligence.

    What natural phenomena change direction at high speeds in flight in the atmosphere to avoid collision with planes?

    Ball lightning quickly changes direction to avoid charged pockets of air. Weather ballons will 'jump' out of the way of planes below the mach range. Dust will appear as a large object to a camera, and also 'jump' (randomly). The point is, just as we can't discount natural phenomena either. You would probably claim that intelligent control is likely because we don't understand what technologies are possible (it would have to be some unknown technology). Saying that, you can't discount the fact that we don't understand everything in nature.

    This does not point toward intelligent control.
     
  12. zoobyshoe Registered Member

    Messages:
    23
    Does belief in UFOs cause Multiple Pseudonym Disorder? Or does Multiple Pseudonym Disorder cause belief in UFOs?
     
  13. fluid1959 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    187
    Maybe this forum should be?

    Maybe this forum should be more like the book of the month club.
    This way we know everyone has read a little on the subject and might have a reasonable assessment of information available.

    Pilots have reported UFO's joining in their missing man formations
    (intelligence)

    "Intelligence" I guess can be argued. But that would only be during discussions about debunkers.
     
  14. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Re: Maybe this forum should be?

    Source?

    Note: Objects in the sky appearing to be in missing man formation is nothing special. Objects joining a human formation may be, depending on circumstances.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2003
  15. fluid1959 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    187
    Case in point
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    spookz:

    <i>i have in mind the belgium flap/iran/?</i>

    Have you started a thread on this yet? Where can I find it?
     
  17. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    nahh
    gimme some time please. i want to gather all available evidence (on the net) so we dont start off half cocked and shit.

    ivan
    you have more resources and knowledge so feel free to bat here
     
  18. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    957
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the skeptics fear UFOs, AKA The debunkers have something to hide

    More later; but for now:

    tisk tisk,,,so negative!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Really though, to me this sounds just like: Its too hard so let's not try. Is this worth the effort? Therein lies the problem with discovery and fundamental research. We won't know until we figure it out.

    Well, guilty. My only defense is that between here and PF, in over 2500 posts you will find my responses to Q are completely unique. The problem is, due to my many battles in the great un-moderated internet UFO wars of the 90's, I understood Q's posture after his or her second or third response. I reverted to my old trench warfare posture instictively. Then I kept giving Q "one more chance" for reasonable discourse; only to get sucker punched. From here on I will simply ignore Q.

    I know the premise of this thread may seem far fetched to many people. I submit that for most, this results from a lack of information. I consider myself to be a smart and reasonable person. I'm not the smartest or the most reasonable, but hopefully I stack up as above average. After a long [18 years], thoughtful, and honest review of the UFO evidence, I have gone through a number of evolutions in thought.

    For me, the subject of UFOs is much like that of modern physics. At first the whole damn thing sounds like nonsense. Then one starts to realize that there must be something to it and just how strange this subject really is. One's worldview is fundmantally challenged - this is the scary part. This is where I think a lot of people get stuck. They see enough to convince them that if true, these reports would have to be ET, therefore they must be nonsense. This is the fear: It seems like there is no other way to explain this phenomenon and still adress the evidence in a reasonable and straightforward manner. It seems like the only way to escape ET is to deny the evidence; to a much greater extent that they would the same evidence if for prosaic events.At this point, we find that the debunking arguments can be downright ridiculous. This results from a core [worldview] objection based on a false premise. This is what I mean by fear.
    This thread is not intended as a farse.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2003
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Ivan:

    Didn't you start out by saying you weren't claiming UFOs are ETs? Now you're saying the conclusion is inevitable.
     
  20. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    957
    I am definitely saying no such thing; that any particular conclusion is inevitable. Why do you think I am?
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Because you said "It seems like the only way to escape ET is to deny the evidence..."
     
  22. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    957
    Ah, I mean that this is what fuels many [IMO] unreasonably skeptical arguments. It seems that to many debunkers, to accept certain UFO evidence [be it good evidence or not] would be to accept the notion of ET visiting. Since ET can't be visiting, the debunker concludes, [ now comes the fallacy] the evidence must be bogus.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2003
  23. VRob Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    658
    I see that many of the skeptics and debunkers on this board have said many times over that it's going way overboard to assume an ET hypothesis, or to even consider it.

    However, during the early 50's of Project Sign, they did plenty of research on this very subject. Their conclusion:

    The phenomena is very real, and some incidents cannot be written off as Mass delusions, weather conditions, or hoaxes.

    The sightings appear to be of a type of flying vehicle that performs far above current technologies know.

    That the most likely conclusion is that these vehicles come from outside our planet, and that they are under intelligent control. YES, this is what they concluded.

    This conclusion was disapproved of by the authorities, and most of the individuals of the project were fired. The Project's name was later changed to Project Grudge, with the clear directive to come up with an alternative explanation for ALL reports. For the uninformed, this later became Project Blue Book.

    My point is, when you say we're jumping to conclusion by using the ET hypothesis, you are in fact wrong. The evidence does merit this to be one of the more likely conclusions.

    I will join you Spooks in providing a specific example. However, I might not be able to get to it today. We all still have to perform our work/family duties.
     

Share This Page