SKEPTICS.Dont just sit and say no.

reply to post by gallifreyan medic


Yes, its a very interesting topic. Sunday is nice, just passing away the day, going to for a nice dinner with the wife later, in the meantime just enjoying the discussions and ideas here. Good thread.

Is it really a good thread? It's been done dozens of times before in slightly different variations. The outcome is always the same, which is no outcome.

Just goes round and round in circles.


Anyway, please continue.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Thanks for the seal of approval, im sure we will continue this most enjoyable discussion.

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
This is my first thread so I thought I would jump straight in with a challenge.

To all the skeptics out there,I ask for you to do a couple of simple tests.
It would help you to know abit more of why there isnt the evidence YOU would want but may also make you a little less eager to just jump in with a NO.
Its the start of the weekend so over the weekend here is what I challenge you to do.

1.If you have a clear night,go and look at the stars.Get to know the sky abit better.

2.Observe the flight paths of planes and helicopters.Noticing the height,distance etc.

3.With either a video cam or cell phone cam,tape plane etc from different angles and distances.

4.Analyze what you have recorded and then compare with some footage you may have seen on video sites.

5.If you do see something still be skeptical but think about first before dismissing.

Even if you're not a skeptic maybe you could do this aswell.It would be interesting on what your experience was.
And before its asked YES i am going out over the weekend with my partner to do some looking up.We do quite often.Being in love and under the stars together is off the subject so will finish here.

I look forward to your replies.Im not a big debater so dont expect one but I will be polite and respond as best to all as I can.Apologese now if I dont.Just let me know.
Im off out with my daughter so wont be replying until later this evening.

Hope everyone has a good weekend.

Hi

I have done everything you said! I seen a plane fly throw the sky!

I am an open minded person looking for Proof of the existance of life out in the Universe! By all mean possible!

Is there life out in the Universe? Whos knows? Mabays i Mabays naw!

reply to post by Chadwickus


It does seem to go round and round and has done for many years in forums and in normal conversations.
Leaving believers who havent seen and the mis-identifying believers and fraudsters aside.
What is it that still makes a skeptic not believe and by pass common sense which should have a person think,Okay this was witnessed by many or by high standing people,with no motive for doing.As a fellow human being I can accept this.The same as if they did say they saw a plane.You would have know doubt with that so why not the same know doubt?
There has been many witness accounts over the years that should even by using mathematics prove the odds that even if a quater of 1 percent of sightings seen were UFO's.
Im not being precise but im sure you can see what I am trying to say.

reply to post by gallifreyan medic


Yeah I can understand where you're coming from but even if 50% of the unexplainable sightings are alien craft, you till gotta ask questions, like why are they here? where do they go when they're not flashing all their lights at us? Why do they have lights if they don't want to be spotted? If they do want to be spotted why are they being so coy about it?

Can you see where I'm coming from now?

It's all good to say they're here, but then ask why are they here.

If you really want the truth you gotta question everything you hear, and listen to every opinion.

And even then we may never get the truth.

That's pretty much my feeling on it and it's not going to change anytime soon I feel.

Although not direct to me, I think I should give my opinion about it.

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
What is it that still makes a skeptic not believe and by pass common sense which should have a person think,Okay this was witnessed by many or by high standing people,with no motive for doing.

I believe that people saw something (in most cases, I have seen some few false sightings described, but they were discovered as such in a little time), my problem is accepting an interpretation over other possible interpretations.

For example, many cases of UFOs that were not noticed at the time a photo was taken but noticed when looking at the photo are birds or insects that passed in front of the camera at the time the photos was being taken, and in the cases I see that there are enough signs of it being a bird or insect I think that is the best bet to what it was, not because I deny the possibility of the existence of unknown objects in the atmosphere (and I do not deny that possibility, among others) but because I know that there are birds and insects, and if it looks like one of those I think it most probably was (unless it was an alien spaceship disguised as a bird or insect ).

And while I may give more credit to a report from a pilot describing a sighting with probable distance, altitude and speed (because he is accustomed to those mental calculations), I do not have (or does the witness has) any way of knowing what is the source of an unknown object, so, while I accept the the fact that something was seen I need more information to make even an assumption of its origin, and that is what I do not believe, that it is possible to know what those unknown things are with the available data.

reply to post by Chadwickus



All things in time, all things in place, all things as they are, as they were, as they will be. If you want to set a dream in concrete, then expect it to sink the the waters of truth.

Why do governments and militaries keep secrets? Why arent they open, why dont they announce their military and geo political plans to the world?

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
Having read through the whole thread and analyzing what you have written.It is clear of what your position is and of what you are trying to get from me.An argument not a debate.

I am sorry you feel that way. All I was asking for was clarification, so that we may come to an understanding; I do not feel I missed anything, which is why I asked what you feel I did. I also wanted clarification on your accusation that I had an ulterior motive; my own motive was to try to get us way from the pointless exercise of debating personality instead of evidence. There was no other motive.

I am not surprised by this response though.

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
Leaving believers who havent seen and the mis-identifying believers and fraudsters aside, what is it that still makes a skeptic not believe and bypass common sense which should have a person think,"Okay, this was witnessed by many or by high standing people, with no motive for doing. As a fellow human being I can accept this."

It is not that the Unconvinced believe witnesses did not see what they claim to have seen. That would be both ridiculous, arrogant, and condescending. What we take issue with is the interpretation of those events. Nor would common-sense dictate that we accept the interpretation extraterrestrials drive the phenomenon, necessarily. Common sense is like water, it flows a course set by the evidence. Thus, common sense would dictate that yes, we do accept they saw something. However, it would not dictate we accept the interpretation.

And an appeal to authority as you have (in a way) is a tricky thing. The authorities are still human, and thus as vulnerable to lies, delusion and mistakes as the rest of us (That is not to say your people in high standing are subject to any of that...). What matters most is if they are making a cogent argument. Cogent arguments trump credibility in every case.

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
The same as if they did say they saw a plane.You would have know doubt with that so why not the same know doubt?

Because airplanes are part of our everday world, and extraterrestrial spacecraft are not. We know that airplanes exist, we don't know (regardless of our beliefs) that extraterrestrials visit the Earth. Being that we do not have the same frame-of-reference, we require a different level of evidence.

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
There has been many witness accounts over the years that should even by using mathematics prove the odds that even if a quater of 1 percent of sightings seen were UFO's.

That depends on what you mean by UFOs. If you mean in the true, strict sense of the acronym, I would say the percentage would be higher. Many of these events may have mundane explanations, but a lack of evidence to draw a definitive conclusion regulates it to the realm of unexplained. But if you mean extraterrestrial, while it is very possible some UFOs are, but it would be impossible to put a percentage on it due to the nature of the phenomenon and our ignorance of it.

reply to post by TSOM87


Its good to hear that you have taken the time to go out and do.You did only see a plane but who knows on another occasion what you may see.The more you see of what you know of,the more you know when its something you dont (UFO Military or ET).

reply to post by Chadwickus


As to why they are here is an open book and could be for many reasons.
I am open to any of the reasons as I see things as how we are and how we as humans do.Aggressive war like race aside.
I dont think they are that bothered if we see them or not at this time.

reply to post by ArMaP


There was a time when any average Joe had reported seeing something,the skeptics would dismiss it and say if it came from military people or of other high positions.Then we would take it seriously.
Well that has happened over the last 15 years and now the skeptics have moved the goal posts.

reply to post by gallifreyan medic


This sceptic accepts all data, although I may give more weight to data presented by people used to work with that type of data.

reply to post by ArMaP


I hope the data we all would like,presents itself in our life time.
Government wise I think the pressure on the lid is now at its maximum.

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
There was a time when any average Joe had reported seeing something,the skeptics would dismiss it and say if it came from military people or of other high positions.Then we would take it seriously.
Well that has happened over the last 15 years and now the skeptics have moved the goal posts.

The goalposts have not been moved. Rather, we recognize this testimony as a zero-sum game. While the witnesses seem credible, there is nothing outside of their story to prove or disprove their claim. While no doubt compelling, the claims get us no closer to (or further from) the truth.

And you have a competition of authority. One one hand, you have the military and government officials you cite. On the other, you have those that say there is no cover-up and so forth. When appealing to authority, which do you believe?

Something else relevent to this thread is the ex-skeptic.
I am without doubt that there is the "Never in a million years" skeptic that is now of the other way of thinking.

Curiosity asks.What is a skeptics view of them?
Also what is an ex-skeptics view of someone who still is?

reply to post by gallifreyan medic


My view of an ex-sceptic is one of two possibilities.

1 - He/she found some data that he/she considered enough to prove or disprove something (but in that case he/she should share that data).

2 - He/she was not a real sceptic, he/she was an unbeliever that turned into a believer.

The problem with possibility 1 is that the data a sceptic may find good enough may not be considered good enough for other sceptics (the degree of scepticism is a personal thing), the problem with possibility 2 is that it also applies to possibility 1, a real sceptic is always sceptic, even of what he/she witnesses, some things are just considered more closer to the truth than others, with the possibility of being wrong always present.

And yes, that is my position, although I am convinced that the world that surrounds me is real I am also convinced that my brain may be just interpreting things in a way that makes me believe that things are one way when they are another, I just think that the first possibility is much stronger than the second, but I also consider the second a possibility.

I know that it may sound strange, but that is the way I am.

PS: I think I have never met (either in real life or on-line) an ex-sceptic, so I am curious about the possible answers.

reply to post by ArMaP


I brought that last comment in as I am an ex-sceptic.Not an ex non believer but an ex-skeptic.
Nothing did ever convince me,be it photos,videos or witness testimony.
To me it was science fiction and that was only in books,tv and movies not in reality.Case closed.
Or so I thought.
Until I did see what I did see.
My brain and my senses were working overtime in saying no it wasnt what it was.
But it was and with a swear word or two my life was changed.The rest of my life was changed.
Having been there I can understand how skeptics are.But I do now realize,with a little less tightness in their thinking.Then the evidence they seek(Not the landing on the white house lawn please,That is one of the biggest cop outs.I know,I thought it) is out there.

Originally posted by ArMaP
I would like to point that we should not confuse sceptics with deniers or with people that ignore what is presented to them, a real sceptic should accept any information that is presented and should not make a stand in favour of any side before having enough evidence for that, and when he/she reaches that position he/she should explain why he/she thinks that that conclusion is the right one (or more accurately, the most close to the right one).

A real sceptic does not say "no", once more, what we are talking about here is not sceptics, is what some people (from both sides, believers and unbelievers) think about sceptics.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. There is a lot of loose talk on ATS about sceptics, believers etc but everyone has their own definition.

Here's how I would like to see the terms defined (borrowing SaviorComplex's idea of 'Convinced' and 'Unconvinced'). I've done a set diagram to make it clearer.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1eac9cf87a91.gif[/atsimg]

As you can see it's possible for sceptics to be either unconvinced or convinced although I used a dashed line for the convinced area as the true sceptic is never 100% convinced about anything. They must always allow for the possibility that future data will overturn their view or that there may be an unspotted flaw in their reasoning.

(I would place myself in this dotted area with regards to the UFO phenomenon).