Debunking the notion that those who believe official government denials are "skeptics"

The UFO and alien discussion, at least in internet forums such as this one, often mirror partisan political debate in significant ways. One is the use of positioning; of both yourself and the opposition. To use euphemisms and labeling to establish your view in a more favorable light, and to paint the other side as less legitimate.

Quite often in this debate I hear one side identify themselves as skeptics. The people who deny alien contact often call themselves skeptics. There are forums devoted to skeptics, and a quick visit to one of them will confirm that the self-identified "skeptic" most often rejects the idea that alien contact has occurred, and embraces wholeheartedly the official proclamations of denial.

Those who accept the notion of alien contact being true, have basically ceded the high ground on this, seldom challenging their opponents on their claims of the skeptical position.

Why we let this fallacy continue is beyond me, it's time we called them to the carpet on this one.

Here is the definition of Skeptic:

"noun 1. a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions."

So wait a minute...How can the people who believe 70 years of official government denials, denials from mainstream celebrity scientists, mainstream news organizations, intelligence agencies, and academia, how can these people honestly claim to be skeptics?

They can't. Not legitimately, anyway.

They believe every denial from official sources, no matter how far-fetched and unworkable. That isn't a skeptic. Quite the opposite. That's a devotee. Or more accurately, that's a believer.

They believe the official story that the alien bodies at Roswell were crash test dummies, they ate it up with a spoon and asked for more. And they went on believing it long after it was established as fact that Roswell took place six years before the government used test dummies. Some still believe it. Where is the skepticism?

They believe every official government denial no matter how ludicrous, in lock-step with the official story, every step of the way.

The Phoenix craft? Just planes in formation? Okay!

Rendlesham? Just lights from a distant church? Okay!

The flying saucer at O'Hare airport? Just a weather event? Okay!

Stephansville? Top secret high tech? Okay!

When it comes to UFOs and aliens, these people never met an official story they didn't like.

Are these people Skeptics? Not by any standard.

No, the true skeptics are those that doubt the official accepted opinion. Those who hold to the position that alien contact has occurred and is occurring? They are the true skeptics.

Those who believe the eyewitnesses and the abductees, despite their being marginalized and ridiculed by official sources and in the mainstream press? They are the true skeptics.

It's time for supporters of alien contact to reclaim the title "Skeptic", don't you think?

So then what will we call those that actually believe every official denial? Hmm. How about believer.

I find it a bit fun that you say that there are forums devoted to "skeptics".
The people on this site seem to be a bit of a minority who in some way have skipped a few years of life and built their own reality based on assumptions and a somewhat unhealthy dose of paranoia towards.. well, anything and anyone.

That being said, of course there are sites "devoted" to what you call "skepticism" as there are people interested in this phenomena of people believing the craziest of things without proof. Such as UFOs, religion and, dare I say it, "Illuminati". I think you may have misunderstood the reason why those sites exist. It's pure fun / hobby to try to make some sense out of ridiculous claims.

There being extra terrestrials is not ridiculous. I think most sane people think that there should be other sources of what we call "life" in the universe. That does however not equal to that they would be here. Partly because we've never seen any, and partly because we so much of the universe today that visiting is physically next to impossible, not to mention doing so without being noticed.

originally posted by: Nevertheless
That does however not equal to that they would be here. Partly because we've never seen any, and partly because we so much of the universe today that visiting is physically next to impossible, not to mention doing so without being noticed.

Those are accepted opinions.

SKEPTIC

noun 1. a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.

A Skeptic has NO answers.

originally posted by: Nevertheless
I find it a bit fun that you say that there are forums devoted to "skeptics".

Not sure why you find that to be "a bit fun", but yes, there are several skeptics forums. Enjoy them if you are so inclined.

There being extra terrestrials is not ridiculous. I think most sane people think that there should be other sources of what we call "life" in the universe. That does however not equal to that they would be here. Partly because we've never seen any,

Who is "we"? You mean you? A lot of people have seen them, for over half a century now.

not to mention doing so without being noticed.

Um, we noticed. That's why we are talking about it.

If you really feel that people who believe in UFO contact are skeptics, feel free to try and co-op the word.

I would suggest using it as an adjective though... (not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations)

Yeah plus people are terrorfied of aliens. Lets just let them have their toaster and their news paper well they live in the box that is modern society.

Does it really matter what they think? Basically aliens people are crying wolf. And the opposition is downplaying it because 1. they feel that somehow first contact will be a * World changing Event that everyone on T.V will see like president shaking hands with a grey like this movie*



Well in reality. First contact is nothing like this. Sure world changing i guess to some degree. It's more like. You tell people. No one really talks about it. Keyword detection software homes in on social media posts to find you, talking about a very real E.T contact stuation. Your computers become bugged and you are now tracked by multipule intelligence agentcies for intel. Congradulations, You just became an employee of the Human- Alien information interaction program without even knowing it! And the best part is you're not being paid. But your homeline phone will click several times. And at any point in time they may feel the need to shut off your PC or your phone with an Error code that forces a reset and memory dump.

You carry on your life telling people about your experience, Well at the same time being tracked and catalogued like many other potencial * E.T intermeteriaries) Well at the same time being debunked by *Shill* types that are already lurking on the social media well rarly anyways. I don't think anyone is being payed to discredit E.T here. I just think its all personal oppinion. There simply isn't enough people on these types of sites to judge a real statistic here. This is a small minority and some people come to these places just to argue about E.T because they hate seeing it and honestly think E.T are fake lol. Like the universe is fake but were the only real ones?

Anyways yeah. E.T contact. Not exactly what the masses would want. But, logically. Contact is made through connected individuals and observed at a distance. Information sent on the web or network is copied just like everything else but instead is sent to a specific folder agents can look up. Incase well. a mass abduction scenario happens they can point a finger to someone at least lol. I believe a lot of the people claiming to be E.T witnesses are fake, but some of them that are real could be considered legit threats. Expecially if information of authenticity is confirme... I'v had E.T *First Contact* if there was even a first contact? If humans were created by E.T how would seeing them again be first contact? Isn't contact of the first kind like a craft or UFO or something? Pretty sure contact of the 3rd kind is seeing a humanoid so wouldn't we be asking for 3rd Contact? Like we are totally getting first contact..


Infact we are getting lots of confirmed first contact. They are called UFOs. Or crafts of unknown origin. If people are asking to see creatures, they will need to be more specific and ask for 3rd contact.

originally posted by: Elton
If you really feel that people who believe in UFO contact are skeptics, feel free to try and co-op the word.

I would suggest using it as an adjective though... (not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations)

he didn't mean that.. A skeptic would not be on either side of believers. Those who believe aliens have never come here, and those that believe they have.. A skeptic is in neither camp.

One side has co oped the the word already. He's only trying to explain how it's an incorrect use of the word.

originally posted by: KnightLight

originally posted by: Nevertheless
That does however not equal to that they would be here. Partly because we've never seen any, and partly because we so much of the universe today that visiting is physically next to impossible, not to mention doing so without being noticed.

Those are accepted opinions.

SKEPTIC

noun 1. a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.

A Skeptic has NO answers.

This is the problem with "you people". You trot out a definition saying a skeptic is someone who is inclined to QUESTION or doubt an accepted opinion, and then say if you accept the opinion AFTER questioning it then you can no longer be a skeptic.

Except, that is 100% false. Completely untrue. Someone who looks at all the evidence and says there is ZERO evidence of alien visitation, and various "sightings" can be explained, is still a skeptic. They questioned the accepted opinion, which is what a skeptic does. Just because the pro-visitation crowd can not offer a single shred of evidence (or even logic) to back up their position does not make the people who recognize the visitation group's folly are not skeptics.

Only someone who does not look at the evidence is a believer.

This belongs more in the rant forum, and either way, it's simply false.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What's a believer that has had experiences? neither a denier or a believer but an experiencer?

I guess i can't really speak for the believer and disbeliver crowd. My experiences were a while a go now and i am begining to forget what it feels like to be confused.

If you really feel that people who believe in UFO contact are skeptics, feel free to try and co-op the word.

Thanks for your post, Elton. But I think you probably meant "co-opt".

I do have a vague memory of what it was like to wonder tho if they were here.

it was quite a strong longing actually, and consumed my thoughts. Now, i am at ease of that question and it feels like the burden of wanting to know has been lifted.

It is a great feeling, i hope you are able to fully enjoy the same one day.

originally posted by: Nevertheless


My reply to Nevertheless:
I think you just proved the OP's point with your reply.

You used instances of "we" as if speaking for a majority of the population to bolster a preconceived belief.
You downplayed known evidence or proof by claiming there isn't any when nobody can truthfully say that unless they are omnipotent. (What one person knows and has seen, doesn't mean everyone has to know it for it to be true).

I see quite a few methods in your reply that are used in marketing and also used in military counterintelligence, but I'm not saying you did it knowingly or purposely since these things have already saturated our culture.

The OP from my viewpoint is simply showing how presentations are made, and how the debunker, or the skeptic uses them in ways that can be shown to not have honest merit in them at all times.

The OP touches on the key element in how to bring down the house of cards by simply looking at the sociological structures of presentation, and how debunkers highlight their positions trying not to show bias. Bias of any kind is common in marketing things including information and misinformation and it can be seen everywhere.

I see it more often when reading well known skeptics (debunkers) replies to sightings in how they bolster their positions using biased strategies that sound convincing, but revealing bias by the methods used to force that idea upon their audience in many different ways. And those ways are more often made to make people who saw an event as paranormal or anomalous, look foolish and not observing scientific foundations even when they do.

In many instances the debunkers have been right about cases where something mundane was thought to be unexplained, and was found to be something misidentified. But they use those to ridicule those that mistakenly believed it to be anomalous and then try to cover other reports with that same blanket, often referring back to the last time someone made a mistake in identification and using it for mockery.

edit on 1-2-2015 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What's a believer that has had experiences? neither a denier or a believer but an experiencer?

I guess i can't really speak for the believer and disbeliver crowd. My experiences were a while a go now and i am begining to forget what it feels like to be confused.

I appreciate your position, AnuTyr. Once you know first-hand that alien contact is true, the debate is over. It's easy to lose patience with people who won't accept your experience.

a reply to: debonkers

Yeah, but now I think we should form a skeptical COOP...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Except, that is 100% false. Completely untrue. Someone who looks at all the evidence and says there is ZERO evidence of alien visitation, and various "sightings" can be explained, is still a skeptic.

That's not true. A skeptic doesn't come to any conclusions, and when they do they are no longer a skeptic. Now they believe an accepted opinion.

You have trouble with words. People are not words. A scientist who used science, and goes beyond that skope and thinks what could this mean? Now they are a philosopher. People are not one word. And People cease being skeptics when they have an answer. Call them something else. Scientific rationalists maybe, but not skeptics at this point.

Skepticism is Doubt.. Not belief or knowledge or truth.. It's doubt..

originally posted by: KnightLight

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Except, that is 100% false. Completely untrue. Someone who looks at all the evidence and says there is ZERO evidence of alien visitation, and various "sightings" can be explained, is still a skeptic.

That's not true. A skeptic doesn't come to any conclusions, and when they do they are no longer a skeptic. Now they believe an accepted opinion.

False. A believer is someone who does not question. Someone who has questioned is a skeptic. It is actually impossible to NOT come to a conclusion. So your definition of skeptic prevents a skeptic from existing even.

Not to mention the actual definition of skeptic YOU provided is on my side, not yours.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: KnightLight

originally posted by: Nevertheless
That does however not equal to that they would be here. Partly because we've never seen any, and partly because we so much of the universe today that visiting is physically next to impossible, not to mention doing so without being noticed.

Those are accepted opinions.

SKEPTIC

noun 1. a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.

A Skeptic has NO answers.

This is the problem with "you people". You trot out a definition saying a skeptic is someone who is inclined to QUESTION or doubt an accepted opinion, and then say if you accept the opinion AFTER questioning it then you can no longer be a skeptic.

Except, that is 100% false. Completely untrue. Someone who looks at all the evidence and says there is ZERO evidence of alien visitation, and various "sightings" can be explained, is still a skeptic. They questioned the accepted opinion, which is what a skeptic does. Just because the pro-visitation crowd can not offer a single shred of evidence (or even logic) to back up their position does not make the people who recognize the visitation group's folly are not skeptics.

Only someone who does not look at the evidence is a believer.

This belongs more in the rant forum, and either way, it's simply false.

I agree with you that your post belongs more in the rant forum.

originally posted by: Elton
a reply to: debonkers

Yeah, but now I think we should form a skeptical COOP...

LOL!

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: KnightLight

originally posted by: Nevertheless
That does however not equal to that they would be here. Partly because we've never seen any, and partly because we so much of the universe today that visiting is physically next to impossible, not to mention doing so without being noticed.

Those are accepted opinions.

SKEPTIC

noun 1. a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.

A Skeptic has NO answers.

This is the problem with "you people". You trot out a definition saying a skeptic is someone who is inclined to QUESTION or doubt an accepted opinion, and then say if you accept the opinion AFTER questioning it then you can no longer be a skeptic.

Except, that is 100% false. Completely untrue. Someone who looks at all the evidence and says there is ZERO evidence of alien visitation, and various "sightings" can be explained, is still a skeptic. They questioned the accepted opinion, which is what a skeptic does. Just because the pro-visitation crowd can not offer a single shred of evidence (or even logic) to back up their position does not make the people who recognize the visitation group's folly are not skeptics.

Only someone who does not look at the evidence is a believer.

This belongs more in the rant forum, and either way, it's simply false.

I agree with you that your post belongs more in the rant forum.

Why, you don't like a little bit of logic to get in the way of your beliefs?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

False. A believer is someone who does not question. Someone who has questioned is a skeptic. It is actually impossible to NOT come to a conclusion. So your definition of skeptic prevents a skeptic from existing even.

Not to mention the actual definition of skeptic YOU provided is on my side, not yours.

A believer is someone who believes whether they had questions or not..

Belief:

an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

^^It has no condition on how you got to a belief.. You have lost the true meaning of words, by using them wrong.

Skepticism or scepticism (see spelling differences) is generally any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts,[1] or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.[2]

And why do you think it's impossible to not come to a conclusion??

And once you have a conclusion call it knowledge or facts or belief.. And a skeptic would be skeptical of your conclusion..

I don't know whether aliens have come here for instance. I don't know why you don't get the meaning of the word.. I don't have to come to conclusions about those things.. You are speaking at your own inability to have questions and search for answers without settling on either side.
I'm actually a skeptic when it comes to aliens.. An actual skeptic.. I don't believe anyone who says they know they are not here or know they are here.. I havn't come to a conclusion..