To the ufo "true believers": Why is your bar set so low?

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Hey DeadSeraph: I've spoken with you before on the boards, usually on my dipping my big toe into the religion forum, questioning in pretty sophomoric attempts at threads thereabouts. But you always entertain my sophomoric attempts at threads there gently, so….I'm hoping for similar treatment here.

But I require more proof of it coming here, than grainy sunspots, or easily explainable nasa footage. I have yet to see smoking gun evidence. Naturally, I will seek out logical answers before I jump to the conclusion that something is a UFO.

Yes, and so do I. And so should all of us. Why is the bar, then, as you put it, in us believers set so low? Why do we so easily believe?
Well, you have hit upon it with just that statement above. We don't really, so easily, believe. It isn't that. It's that most of us experiencers (those without proof, so I'm told, the vernacular categorizes us in that way) and abductees, and UFO documented cases with evidence, all have a similar thing in common, I think, at least. That thing is usually that we've had our experiences, and believe our own perceptions and memories of them. But the greater part of those, we lack proof of, even those who have documented cases with evidence, because that evidence is surely the lesser part of the experience, the greater part remaining undocumented, but remembered, nevertheless.

There is a quirk about experiences, in that they will come at us and to us when we can't usually (or don't have the tools at hand to document) document for evidentiary benefit. So we believe and know, but lack the necessary accompanying information to convince anyone else unless they, too, were there.

And so we star and post away, hoping to back up another person who is like us with our memories and knowledge of the truth, whether it's proven satisfactorily to anyone else or not.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I don't have a low standard. I have a cautious perspective on Ufology. I filter out the junk from the treasure. But, I need some form of evidence like all claims of the extraordinary.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I think many of these individuals are probably anti-religion (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), yet religious in their own beliefs.

I think that's probably right , organised religion has rules to follow and relates to events in the distant past whereas the religion of Ufology allows you to believe what you want and relates to the here and now.
Project Camelot and the GFL are the most overt in my opinion with their love and light spiritual take on the subject but just like all sham religions it's mostly about the money and personal gratification.

a reply to: tetra50

Hi tetra. I guess I would sum it up by saying that you are welcome to believe whatever you like. This thread isn't necessarily an attack on anyone who believes in aliens or abductions, or UFO's, really.

It's more so a question of why some people are so willing to lend their weight to something that is clearly unconfirmed, simply on the basis of their own previous beliefs.

For instance, as I stated earlier, I have my own beliefs in certain things that could be considered "fringe" subjects. I believe in God, yet I don't think every single piece of toast with the image of Jesus on it is a divine revelation. Similarly, I believe in the paranormal, yet I don't assume every ghost video on the internet is real, just because it confirms my own own beliefs in the paranormal.

I respect your experiences, and anyone elses. Sometimes weird things happen. I have certainly experienced strange events in my own life.

But why should we assume every weird thing on youtube is a "UFO"?

As I stated earlier in response to a good question on the nature of what constitutes a "UFO", If we are going to adhere to the literal interpretation of such a term, then why are some people more interested in spreading their own beliefs than they are in identifying what that "unidentified flying object" might be?

Why is it that the mundane explanation offends some people?

a reply to: DeadSeraph
Have you entertained the notion, Seraph, that those people are there to inversely adversely affect the whole UFO question? I think this might be the best answer to what you pose.

a reply to: skunkape23

The more you disbelieve in nonhuman intelligence, the more of a shock it is going to be when and if you do see it.

Completely disagree, my skepticism has allowed me to be prepared for when I see something I can't identify

As can be seen in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Very rarely do I see full on believers have the composure to get the vital information needed to assist with identifying what they saw.

A photo or video is ok, but gives absolutely no context.

How much time do you spend watching the night sky in secluded areas?
There is something there.

At any opportunity I can, that's how I mamnaged to spot what I saw above.

I think the best proof is an individual's experience.

Even when you take away helicopters, planes, lanterns, meteors etc etc. There's too many unexplainable sightings whether they are captured on video/picture or not.

I'm not going to talk about my experience seeing "one" because I feel it would do no good here. People want pictures/video and i can't provide it. All you can do is realise I have no reason to lie, nor do many other people who see "things"

A lot of pictures are explainable or edited. And although video is better it's still often inconclusive. What you can take is the amount of sightings. And as i said before,take away all the sightings that can be explained - there's still a LOT that can't be.

To me, that's the best evidence we have right now.

originally posted by: tetra50
a reply to: DeadSeraph
Have you entertained the notion, Seraph, that those people are there to inversely adversely affect the whole UFO question? I think this might be the best answer to what you pose.

I hadn't in relation to my question. But I don't think that really answers the OP. Take a look at this thread, for instance:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, the OP in this thread has a title which suggests this is a "space ship" that is using it's thrusters to get away from the gravity of the moon. Lots of stars, lots of flags. Where is the desire to figure out what this object actually is? Any such desire seems to be met with little interest. Is it a "human space ship"? That idea didn't seem to be met with nearly the same enthusiasm.

Why is it that some assume the object in question is an alien space craft before exhausting all other possibilities?

a reply to: DeadSeraph

It's my belief that there are many who post on UFO related forums who are not sincere. Their goal seems to be to devalue the discussion to the point where nothing can be taken seriously because everything gets buried under a mountain of nonsense.

originally posted by: duaneology
a reply to: DeadSeraph

It's my belief that there are many who post on UFO related forums who are not sincere. Their goal seems to be to devalue the discussion to the point where nothing can be taken seriously because everything gets buried under a mountain of nonsense.

really don't mean to sound like a jerk...but can someone show me the parts that CAN be taken seriously?

I've believed in the paranormal my whole life. Since approximately 8 years old. I believed in "ghosts" or "spirits" or "demons" or whatever you want to call them. I have my reasons for that.

As I got older and started to want answers for my experience, I came across the UFO/Aliens topics many times. The similarities between what I believed and UFO/Alien stories were very apparent. I started connecting dots, and now I'm more apt to believe in UFO/Alien stories/theories/videos than I am "ghosts". The logic behind UFOs/Aliens existing is far greater to me than "ghosts".

I am very skeptical about everything I see/hear, but I will not write everything off immediately. Quite the opposite. I accept it as fact at first, then try to disprove it to myself. I accept it as fact first and foremost because it is not a subject that anyone can claim to be an expert on in truth, as the entire concept is in the title "Unidentified". Therefore, since no legitimate information can be had as fact...I choose to accept what I cannot explain to be truth until I am able to personally debunk it in my own mind. Who am I to say that their story or video is false, when I myself cannot prove my own experiences with other people? I know my experience is a truth. I was there. I saw what I saw. BUT, if I were ever to tell my story (which I haven't), people most likely wouldn't believe me, which would most likely be very frustrating. So, I choose to believe people until I come up with a logical explanation as to why they are not to be believed or why they are mistaken.

My 2 cents.

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Neil Armstrong was the first person on the moon.

Neil A.

Now say that backwards.

Conspiracy.

If I say it backward from the way I normally say it forward, it sounds like I'm saying "A-luh-EEN"

...So I'm not sure what you are getting at.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

You are right, of course. Just because they wish it to be so and want to.
regards,
tetra

We also have to take into account the amount of people who Star & Flag threads before they even read the content, usually because it's a thread in which their interests are peaked.

Ufology will always have a negative affect on ATS's mind because people want solid undeniable proof, but their isn't any 'solid proof'. The subject in my opinion is just a theory waiting to be confirmed.

originally posted by: skunkape23
The more you disbelieve in nonhuman intelligence, the more of a shock it is going to be when and if you do see it.
How much time do you spend watching the night sky in secluded areas?
There is something there.

Lots of us on here spend lots of time looking at the night sky and not with camera phones or cheap video cameras we have a thread about it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Strange don't you think that with members in all time zones round the world with good quality equipment and more importantly the knowledge on how to use it correctly unlike most youtube posters that we don't produce some evidence, there does have to be something out there it's a numbers thing but it doesn't mean they visit or have visited here

a reply to: gortex

I agree that "belief" and "confirmation bias" are very much like seeds that grow and root and multiply until everything one sees is fed into that forest of "belief."

Skepticism, in its true form, is simply an unwillingness to believe without proof or concrete evidence. Now, who defines what "proof" is, what evidence is acceptable, and how high that bar is, becomes another discussion entirely!

But skepticism can also mask "belief" as well, and I think there is great danger in not seeing this side of it. On this side, "belief" is that everything UFO is a load of crap - or 99.99% crap - or everything put up as evidence by a certain individual is crap, and maybe even that ET is a figment of psychologically damaged or predatory minds. (Perhaps I'm framing that too grimly, but its for illustration purposes...)

As I have said before - "believers" and "debunkers" are two sides of the same "belief" oriented coin.

What happens then is an argumentative dichotomy of "believers" (pro and con) go at each other, and it does come off like two fanatically religious folks snarkily attacking each other, and those that lean most closely to the poles of this dichotomy get caught up in the ensuing battles or labeled as if they are somehow on one side or another. It gets turned into the "believers v debunkers" death-match, without the majority of posters wanting it to, in my opinion. This doesn't always happen in a wholly destructive way to a thread, but there is some truth to this on a majority of UFO forum threads, methinks.

We are so used to "picking sides" and creating "teams" of "for versus against" that we may not even see this happening, or how our own participation gets framed into the battle, and how we may unconsciously choose sides.

So I would caution you on your second point, then, gortex. While there is truth in it, there is also the danger of taking it too far in the other direction, and then the truth might just slide away, unrecognized.

See, from my perspective, while some of the "high priests" may make bone-headed mistakes or have bad data to fuel their own confirmation bias and "belief" - if one throws the entire individual into the Hoax Bin of our minds, we start to miss some of the dots they might provide that can lead to connection to other dots from more respected sources. If we trash them, we won't see these connections. They may not be worthy of "High Priest status" by any stretch of the imagination, and they may put out some laugh-worthy "proofs," but to toss it all aside then into the midden heap may mean you junk a few pearls...

If one is a "believer" of the High Priest, ultimately their humanity will disappoint and disaffect. So the tendency to react violently to being "misled" and hoodwinked taints the entirety of the experience to the point of total rejection of everything that High Priest brought to the table. This is understandable.

If one examines each bit of evidence on its own, trashing some, keeping others that have elements (or potential elements) of the unexplained, it is my experience that more dots will connect. That is my position, anyway. I can always be wrong.



I've learned, however, that it is a dangerous thing to NOT simply trash certain personalities out of hand here at ATS, because you will in turn be trashed, labeled, defined, tagged and bagged. I end up keeping a few pearls/potential pearls to myself.

In sum - confirmation bias on either side of the dichotomy inhibits the search for truth. For myself, I open each thread with fresh eyes and, as I learn more, I'm able to discern possible mundane solutions or hoaxing more efficiently. I am always willing to learn, especially from others here with greater experience and who have skills I don't have that they bring to the table. I too get jaded with the plethora of Youtube videos that are "bugs, blurds, balloons, lanterns, planes, reflections, etc." Yet each one I look at, I make sure I'm starting at "undecided" before I click the link, just in case...



I also hold my own UFO experience in the balance of whatever I look at, knowing that there IS "truth out there," somewhere, that waits to be found...

much respect,

AB

a reply to: AboveBoard

Some awesome points here. If you read my sig, you will find a thread there where I condemn "pseudo skepticism". Confirmation bias tends to be something that is friend to both the pseudo skeptic and even the blind believer, each of which is already prepared to see what they want to see.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Me AB ? , I'm just a lost dog , someone took my favorite squeaky toy away and life just hasn't been the same since.

a reply to: gortex

AWwwww. Well, then. May one land in your back yard sometime soon, gortex! I would hate for you to be without your favorite squeaky toy!!

I swear - it IS out there somewhere...keep digging...



peace,
AB

PS - I wasn't trying to pick on you, my friend, but you provided such an awesome soap-box for me to stand on and pontificate...lol!

I think there are some generalizations in the OP. There are so called believers and hardcore skeptics, who seem to deny everything no matter what, and everything in between. There's a broad range of opinions and views not just the 'believer' and 'skeptic'.

Lots of dodgy youtube garbage which is far from convincing but also lots of interesting cases where some skeptic's explanations are extremely silly.