Imagine A UFO Skeptic

Originally posted by Hawkwind.You're perception of sceptics is unbelievably closed minded and this kind of thread is like a disease here at A.T.S.

Sort your head out.

My perception is based on experience, and a good memory.

Originally posted by Hawkwind.You're perception of sceptics is unbelievably closed minded and this kind of thread is like a disease here at A.T.S.

Sort your head out.

So your conclusion is that I'm closed minded, and you imply I'm mentally ill, based on my OP? This is your professional opinion as a skeptic?

reply to post by WingedBull


Turn it around. Skeptics will offer any explanation, no matter how unlikely, to try to conform things to the uniformitarian view, that everything is moribund. It's curious to try to fit everything within the bounds of what science claims to know. Especially when there are so many things science does not know. How a permanent magnet attracts iron, for instance.

Originally posted by grizzle2

Originally posted by Hawkwind.You're perception of sceptics is unbelievably closed minded and this kind of thread is like a disease here at A.T.S.

Sort your head out.

So your conclusion is that I'm closed minded, and you imply I'm mentally ill, based on my OP? This is your professional opinion as a skeptic?

Where do you get the "imply [you're] mentally ill" part from his post?

In general, I agree that many "blind believers" can be as equally as closed minded as the "bull-headed skeptic". People who lump all skeptics into one big pile are being as close minded as skeptics who write off all alien visitation believers as wackos.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Where do you get the "imply [you're] mentally ill" part from his post?

What would "sort yourt head out" imply, since you already stated without implication that I am closed-minded?

Phillip Klass is a very poor example of a true skeptic. He was a bitter non believer... there is a distinct difference.

Originally posted by Lost_Mind
Phillip Klass is a very poor example of a true skeptic. He was a bitter non believer... there is a distinct difference.

He was reasonable enough, until he realized the abductees were going to remain calm, cool, collected, and address each of his points in a reasonable manner. Then he flipped out. We've all seen the skeptics on television substituting ridicule for facts, giggling, etc. I'm not just talking about UFOs, by the way. Anything outside of what mainstream scientific authority deems to be reality is treated in this manner. Not sometimes, not occasionally, but most always.
It's a social engineering tool. As the UN says, (slight paraphrase, maybe) "Reality is best defined by those the authorities characterize as experts". Not exactly my thoughts on the subject.

Bzzzzzzzzzzz.......

Are we on? Are we on?

reply to post by grizzle2


As a skeptic I never saw Klass as "reasonable". He was a man with his mind made up already and that is not what a skeptic is. I will probably go to my grave not knowing (notice I didn't say believing) the truths about what I and others have seen but could not explain. I could get lazy and allow imagination and speculation corrupt what I think, but I refuse to let it do so. My desire to know the truth beyond doubt, which requires powerful, undeniable and non speculative evidence is much more powerful than making an answer, any answer fit what I and others have seen.

Originally posted by grizzle2

Originally posted by Hawkwind.You're perception of sceptics is unbelievably closed minded and this kind of thread is like a disease here at A.T.S.

Sort your head out.

So your conclusion is that I'm closed minded, and you imply I'm mentally ill, based on my OP? This is your professional opinion as a skeptic?

Just to clear that up. I said that your 'perception' of sceptics was closed minded, not that you were, although it's interesting that you took it that way. By saying 'sort your head out' I meant get a balanced view of sceptics instead of the extreme one you have right now, not that you are mentally ill. Nice of you to think of my opinion worthy enough to qualify for the title of 'professional'

I was believer before I found ATS. After reeding hundreds of posts written by believers my faith in UFO existence wavers like an old boozer on the bike.

Originally posted by WingedBull
Open-mindedness...

Though I doubt you will actually consider anything in the video. Instead, you will continue to argue how much skeptics suck. But even if skeptics are as terrible as you believe, it doesn't make alien visitation any more (or less) real.

edit on 15-4-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)

I would hope more people watch this video, rather than ignoring it completely (as seems to be the case, please give me evidence to change my mind).

The way it appears to me is skeptics are taking the brunt of the frustration people have with having no clear answer to the ET/UFO hypothesis after so many years. It's become much easier to turn the argument from "Are there aliens visiting?" to "Skeptics don't believe, the jerks."

However, notice that the debate isn't even about aliens anymore? How is this sort of discussion helping when it comes to discovering the truth behind the phenomenon?

Maybe I missed something. Perhaps someone could point me to the evidence in this thread that proposes and backs up claims of intelligent alien life visiting Earth? Or is this just another attempt to scapegoat a mass of people who have differing levels of acceptability to current evidence of said aliens?

Even if every skeptic that's being bashed in this thread were to leave Earth tomorrow, you would be no closer to finding the truth behind the UFO phenomenon.

UFO Believer as an Umpire:

Batter: UMP what was the call?

Umpire: No call!

Pitcher: What do you mean no call?! It's bottom of the ninth 2 outs 2 strikes, what was the call on that last pitch?

Umpire: That sir, was a spatial time vortex, ball did not pass over the plate because it entered and exited a wormhole....

Batter: Uh, no Ump, I think you just blinked your eyes....

Originally posted by grizzle2
Yes, a presumption of infallibility, I have found that to be a quality of various skeptics.

No, not a presumption of infallibility but a function of the air-traffic-controller's tools; knowing that the radar tracks flights with flight information on the screen, there would be no reason for the skeptic in such a situation to think the blips on the radar (as suggested in the scenario offered in the OP) are anything other than planes.

Originally posted by grizzle2
"YOU'RE A G**-D***** LIAR!" - UFO skeptic Philip Klass, yelling at an abductee on television

Phil Klass is long dead. I understand why you bring him up, though. It is much easier to attack someone in the grave than it is to listen to and have a conversation with a living person who disagrees with you.

Originally posted by WingedBull
Phil Klass is long dead. I understand why you bring him up, though. It is much easier to attack someone in the grave than it is to listen to and have a conversation with a living person who disagrees with you.

Only because his performance made an impression. Has nothing to do with him being dead.

Originally posted by WingedBull
No, not a presumption of infallibility but a function of the air-traffic-controller's tools; knowing that the radar tracks flights with flight information on the screen, there would be no reason for the skeptic in such a situation to think the blips on the radar (as suggested in the scenario offered in the OP) are anything other than planes.

Sigh. I can see the point was lost on you.

Originally posted by grizzle2
Turn it around

Turn what around?

Originally posted by grizzle2
Skeptics will offer any explanation, no matter how unlikely

Skeptics will not offer any explanation. They will offer what can be concluded based on evidence, even if that evidence points to something that is "unlikely", which in this case, you would define as something you do not want to accept. Something is not "unlikely" if the evidence supports it.

Originally posted by grizzle2
Has nothing to do with him being dead.

It has everything to do with him being dead; it is easier to attack a straw-man than to have a conversation.

Originally posted by WingedBullThough I doubt you will actually consider anything in the video. Instead, you will continue to argue how much skeptics suck. But even if skeptics are as terrible as you believe, it doesn't make alien visitation any more (or less) real.

edit on 15-4-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)

The content of the video can be extrapolated from the static image that shows up before you watch it. Skeptic: "I don't believe in ghosts." Non-skeptic: "You hate God." I see.

Originally posted by grizzle2
Sigh. I can see the point was lost on you.

I get your point but it is not based on any sort of reality but rather the caricature in your head of what skeptics are.