http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskeptic

I am reading an entry in the Wikipedia (awesome site) about Pathological skeptiscm. I went there after going to the "Skeptics dictionary" and could not believe such a book exist's. Science is getting (and probably has been) torn into so many different camps. Here's a quote from Max Placnk;

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents [...] What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised with the idea from the beginning.

Then those innovation's don't seem quite so amazing anymore eh? This reminds me of when I went to (hell) badastronomy.com and started engaging the angry PATHOLOGICAL skeptics there to admit to remain true to science they would have to remain agnostic in their belief's toward the existance and visitation of E.T.I. Almost everyone one of them rejected that idea. They all put (as though they would know) limit's on the ability of intelligent life to get to Earth.

Making grand claims about the abilities of E.T.I. given that we know nothing about them, is the ultimate form of pseudoscience.

Yet - I was banned for trying to convince (Can you convince a pathological skeptic?) that a pathological skeptic could exist. HE LITTERALLY DENIED THAT SUCH A PERSON COULD EXIST!

Needless to say, that debate was useless. I hope those people get help, and likewise they wish I could get help, the only difference is I mean it. They generally think we are pathetic and a stain on science.

Oh how I love pathological skeptics! :)

The pathological skeptic is not nearly as harmful as the "woo woo", though, wouldn't you say?

The pathological skeptic is not nearly as harmful as the "woo woo", though, wouldn't you say?

I rather think the term 'pathological skeptic' was invented by woowoos, and is therefore, spurious. It's woowoo propaganda. So yes, woowoos are more harmful.

I think pathological skeptics exist. They are skeptical that we went to the moon; that the Holocaust occurred; that government can be trusted; that medicines are more important than natural remedies; that nuclear power is beneficial; etc.

These are people who call themselves skeptical, but fail to actually use critical thinking and reason. They doubt without knowing why or bothering to work out the science in a given situation.

But the 'pathological skeptic' term that the 'woo-woos' like to toss around is much like 'pseudo-skeptic:' it doesn't apply when they use it. They simply like the pejorative nature of the term. It's just a way to get even with the actual skeptics of their wild claims who keep asking the impossible of them: evidence.

I rather think the term 'pathological skeptic' was invented by woowoos, and is therefore, spurious. It's woowoo propaganda. So yes, woowoos are more harmful.

Well that was pathological bullshit. Hey, who made up the term woo-woo? Could that have been a pathological skeptic's PROPAGANDA? Hypocrite?

See, Phlogistician - it is your pathological skeptiscm which actually makes you want to turn the very phrase (of pathological skeptiscm) around into something to attack "woo-woo's" Since you reject the very idea of pathological skeptiscm I will assume that you feel it applies to you and take it personally.

Which I have seen before, but only help reveals that you are a skeptic first (desperate to win the war on the wierd) and a scientist (or follow the principles of science) second in your attempt to win this war.

You have only proven my point.

The pathological skeptic is not nearly as harmful as the "woo woo", though, wouldn't you say?

Both sides have a pathological mindset which does not allow them to moderate.

The woo-woo as they are called would be the people who listen to Coast To Coast AM and believe almost everything on there, without actually studying it.

Pseudoscience is used by a woo-woo, but the problem is, many pathological skeptics use pseudoscience to win debates against these woo-woo's. I could use a more true definition of such a person, besides woo-woo. The term woo-woo actually implies nothing, but an insult.

I think pathological skeptics exist. They are skeptical that we went to the moon; that the Holocaust occurred; that government can be trusted; that medicines are more important than natural remedies; that nuclear power is beneficial; etc.

Yes, now that's a good point. Because who are typically thought of as woo-woo's can be pathological skeptical when it comes to accepting certain things. Such as 9-11.. It illustrates that pathological skeptiscm is not merely confined to those who read the "skeptics dictionary", but to everyone who stand vehemently skeptical of something, regardless of (and before they look at) the evidence.

These are people who call themselves skeptical, but fail to actually use critical thinking and reason. They doubt without knowing why or bothering to work out the science in a given situation.

Yep.

But the 'pathological skeptic' term that the 'woo-woos' like to toss around is much like 'pseudo-skeptic:' it doesn't apply when they use it. They simply like the pejorative nature of the term. It's just a way to get even with the actual skeptics of their wild claims who keep asking the impossible of them: evidence.

You are using very broad judgements to describe how "all woo-woo's" use the term pseudo-skeptic. The term pseudo-skeptic is the same as pathological skeptic. Wikipedia merged the term. Also, the term woo-woo was actually created because of the perjorative nature of the term. Other than that it has no meaning that I know of.

It's often the way skeptics deal with woo-woo's. Anything to prove them "Wrong" even though they can't prove a negative. In the world of the pathological skeptic - you can.

Skinwalker there's no doubt you have had bad experiences with woo-woo's and I have had bad experiences with pathological skeptiscm. So I do think our experiences will poisen our understanding of the different kinds of bad-science.

However I do feel that the new skeptiscm we see that was made to counteract woo-woo's does nothing but offer the same kind of pseudoscience they first sought to fight.

look i understand your fear about your so-called woo woos. i also very distrust, fo example, revealed religions...what we got? a person who claims to be in contact with an invisible entity who then is suppsed to have transmitted laws and info about reality thru te middle --usually man. thi si how patriarchal rligious belief came to be isn't it?

also in modern age we have New Age, again includng individuals who supposedly 'channl' inoformation from invisible enties, and much of what is transmitted seems really dogy, and dangerous, and HAS been VERY dangerous indeed. AS HAS te effects of materialistic science!

so where do we go from there? we dont just dismiss ALL unexplainable phenomena because of this danger....for as i am arguing, the tota; adherence to materialistic ideology is itself having a truly terrible effect on community and Nature

Why do you think i keep bringin about mythologyminto the mix? preecisley because it is a record of humns exploration of consciusness. you cannot apporach what we're talkin about witout exploring tis field

this is because materalistic science has GROWn out of noth 'magical' syatems like Alchemy, etc and patriarchal refveald religions. so we need to be constantly aware of the roots of what we are exploring about

The main point is that according to pathological skeptics who attack woo-woo's, this term "pathological skeptiscm" do not exist.

However if they were adherring to true science - they would know that such a person very well does and can exist. Their pathological mindset, unfortunately disallows them to see this. Making them partake in the very pseudoscience they supposedly hate. :bugeye:

Scientist's not caught up in this woo-woo versus skeptic's war can see this and don't understand either side. :m:

The main point is that according to pathological skeptics who attack woo-woo's, this term "pathological skeptiscm" do not exist.

However if they were adherring to true science - they would know that such a person very well does and can exist. Their pathological mindset, unfortunately disallows them to see this. Making them partake in the very pseudoscience they supposedly hate. :bugeye:

Scientist's not caught up in this woo-woo versus skeptic's war can see this and don't understand either side. :m:

Yeah, the ironic thing is tat they--the materialistic scientists (mscientists)--believe in te measure of reality, including behaviour as evidence, yet their own shit they dont seem to know. and they think we do same. ie., refuse to meaure....!...yet we ARE cause we is lookin at the situation.

i also have sentlinks to these threads where an explanation of pseudoskeptic or your term etc is explained adequately, yet they fial to dig it..........as u say, othe scientists not workin in those limits know it, but i suppose then they are said to be woo woos...?

Well that was pathological bullshit.

Get spewing that bile! Please explain why my post was 'pathological', and support your argument!

Hey, who made up the term woo-woo?

I don't know, it is just the accepted term for someone who believes pseudoscientific theories are fact without any evidence. Does it matter who invented the term?

Could that have been a pathological skeptic's PROPAGANDA?

Well, I agree with Skinwalker, and the term 'pathological skepticism' seems
more apt when levelled at woowoos, in the areas he stated. So, maybe!

Hypocrite? Pathologcial Skeptics being Woowoos, would make the term hypocritical, yes. Well done. Is that a bullet hole in your foot?

See, Phlogistician - it is your pathological skeptiscm

So now I'm a 'pathological skeptic'? That's just a label you try and use to demean people who disagree with you, when you know you can't prove your arguments, and are too scared to admit your theories are unsupported. I learned science, and I have no pathological traits, so trying to label me is just another baseless assertion, and that's all you guys can do.

which actually makes you want to turn the very phrase (of pathological skeptiscm) around into something to attack "woo-woo's"

No, what it is, is that you woowoos see the term woowoo as derogatory, and want a similar phrase to throw back. Even when it's pointed out to you that 'pathological skepticism' fits the woowoo mindset more than that of a scientist or true skeptic, you still refuse to admit it.

Since you reject the very idea of pathological skeptiscm I will assume that you feel it applies to you and take it personally.

Now, that is really a stretch. If I denied I was a pink giraffe (which I am not) would you assume I was? Rather pathetic attempt to hang a label on me, and it demonstrates how desperate you are.

Which I have seen before, but only help reveals that you are a skeptic first ... and a scientist ... second

That's how science works! Scientists must be skeptical first, so they don't bias or affect the results of their work. If they work towards a foregone conclusion, guess what happens? False positives are attained, and flaws ignored.

You have only proven my point.

What was your point? That 'pathological skeptics' are scientists, or that I am one?

i also have sentlinks to these threads where an explanation of pseudoskeptic or your term etc is explained adequately, yet they fial to dig it..........as u say, othe scientists not workin in those limits know it, but i suppose then they are said to be woo woos...?Yes that wikipedia one did describe you as well duendy.

Sure there may be pathological skeptics and pseudoskeptics but the name seems to be thrown around alot to people who are just being skeptical.


From wikipedia "The term is susceptible to misuse as an expression of opprobrium, and is sometimes used against anyone skeptical of the user's favorite idea."

Yes that wikipedia one did describe you as well duendy.

me)))))))bottom line is you lot cant take crit but love to dish it out

Sure there may be pathological skeptics and pseudoskeptics but the name seems to be thrown around alot to people who are just being skeptical.

me((((((((you'll assume tat we are moprons who are blind to your moves. we aint.......we see shit yo deny


From wikipedia "The term is susceptible to misuse as an expression of opprobrium, and is sometimes used against anyone skeptical of the user's favorite idea."

let me explain it agin. it is someone who is a fundamental materialist. whose default poistion is 'if yer cant measure it it aint real'
as i've said in anothertread? in a way i value you insistence of measureing. for we know only too well when dodgy beliefs are accepted they bring all kinds of evils. true. BUT so does materilistic assumption too! like Nature is dead etc.............
we therefoore need to be very carfeul then how we examine all about all this. for example, does one equate a familiy who claim to have had n abduction experince wit some New Ager who claims to channel an entitiy who claims there is a 'White Brotherhood'...etc?.............your insistenceof objectivity actually suppresses your fullness of being , and tis dogma affects all others' potentiial for such experience

Someone PLEASE! Tell me why I am here right now! Tell me why any matter or energy existed for the "Big Bang" to occur in the first place! Can you do this?

I am not sorry to say, but you lack this knowledge. So sorry.

*#$%$#%*

Apparently, KNOWLEDGE STOPS wherever certain HUMANS say it does. How do humans dictate the origin of ALL MATTER?

Someone PLEASE! Tell me why I am here right now! Tell me why any matter or energy existed for the "Big Bang" to occur in the first place! Can you do this?

I am not sorry to say, but you lack this knowledge. So sorry.
'OK OK! (running out of the shower all drippin).......
first, you pre-sume there WAS A 'big bang'. actually this 'fact' is being questioned by some SCIENTISTS......so. ISbig bang a myth?? can we be sure it's not?
as for your question of whay are you/we here, and how come matter energy exists at ALL.
this is why it is interesting to consider that it is NOT JUST matter-energy, but matter-energy AND consciousness. that if we understandmatter-energy is conscious/sentient, then we realize it is naturally CREATIVE....eternally so

skeptical media whores can easily be diagnosed to be pathological. for instance, skinwalker's santa thread [deleted]

to what depths of depravity must one must sink to in order to debunk sweet little innocent children's dreams?
how awful is it that a harmless little tradition must come under fire from this fanatic?
i mean, presenting it in a amusing manner should really fool no one as to what is really going on

and what about phlog and his believers and woo woos and crackpots and what not?
that little pseudoskeptic will troll the most innocuous discussions with the above mentioned bait

these people are not scientists, just little punks in college
they are self appointed guardians of a really perverted view of science and have the gall to lecture real scientists....the kind that wins nobels and shit...... on how and what to think.

ja
pathetic and pathological

Well that was pathological bullshit. Hey, who made up the term woo-woo? Could that have been a pathological skeptic's PROPAGANDA? Hypocrite?

Here are some quick-ref definitions:

Woo-woo: someone who draws attention to wild claims of the paranormal or metaphysical in the way a train whistle draws attention to a train approaching a crossing. "Woo-woo" is the sound of the whistle, but in the case of the pseudoscience claimant, the train hasn't even left the station.

Skepticism refers to the thoughtful and reflective inquiry, particularly with regard to wild claims and speculations. Skeptic comes from the Greek "skeptikos," which translates to "thoughtful." The latin scepticus means "thoughtful" or "reflective." Skepticism, therefore, is not about being close minded, it's about being open minded.

Also, "thinking out of the box" is fine. It's called brainstorming. In such modes, everything is a valid thought. But at the end of the day, when the thoughts are collected, only the ones that are testable can be kept. The rest must, necessarily, be discarded. This is the nature of the hypothesis.

Pathological: the quality of being diseased or dysfunctional

So, therefore, "pathological skeptic" would imply one who is dysfunctional with skepticism; unable to be thoughtful or reflective.

It would appear that this applies quite well to the type of skeptic I mentioned above, which are actually "woo-woos," blowing their train whistles in the "look at me" fashion with wild claims that NASA never went to the moon etc. Colorful language and profanity are the hallmark of the woo-woo as well. UFOTheatre came in here back in 2003 and he was a classic case. He had at least two sockpuppets, trying to sell CDs of faked UFO movies, and by the end of the threads he was using all sorts of profanity and direct ad hom remarks.

Not to mention, the woo-woo typically feels a personal injustice when his pet-"theory" is criticized and equates it to direct ad hominem attack, justifying his juvenile attacks of profanity and insults in return. The typical response is the one learned by every elementary school child: "he started it."

*Of course, not everyone who thinks that science doesn’t tell all would think it’s reasonable to believe, as Gibson does, that one can program crystals with thought energy. But Gibson says there is ample evidence—both scientific and subjective—that crystals can help in healing and transformation. “You can say it’s woo-woo,” she says with a laugh. “But it works. I go with what works.” (Carol M. Ostrom, Seattle Times, June 20 1986)

*Woo-woo (or sometimes, simply woo) is used within parts of the skeptical community in referring to

1. extraordinary beliefs for which it is felt there is insufficient extraordinary evidence, and
2. people who hold those beliefs.

Sometimes used as an adjective ("My brother has a lot of woo-woo beliefs"), other times as a noun ("That message board is full of woo-woos"), it is almost always used as a term of derision.

Origin

The origin of the term is unclear.

One theory is that it comes from the "woo-ooo" sound made by a Theramin, the electronic instrument often used in old horror films to emphasize that something strange or mysterious was happening (such as the appearance of a ghost or alien). Another theory is that the term woo-woo comes from the theme song of Rod Serlings's The Twilight Zone.

Controversy

Since the term is almost always used derisively, it is not surprising that some people find it unnecessarily offensive, particularly when applied to them or their own beliefs.

Although more neutral terms such as "believer" are less emotionally-charged, the brevity and (to some) humor of the term "woo-woo" has earned it a popularity, particularly within online skeptical communities such as the JREF Forum. This usage may be criticized as an ad hominem argument, or as tending to dismiss a person or topic on strangeness alone, rather than addressing the issue.

skeptics are not scientists. most do not have an serious academic background. they are merely hanging on to the coattails of those that do real research and make actual contributions to society

no sirree

they make up for their lack of intellect by engaging the addlebrained in a transparent ploy to look smarter than they actually are. these fucks usually hang out in pseudoscience forums yakking about what science is not but can rarely ever say what it is.

it is those that fail in real science and succeed instead, in pseudoscience, that are able to refer to the pathetic highlights of their achievements...... namely the debunking of crackpots such as ufotheatre

sad

Woo-woo: someone who draws attention to wild claims of the paranormal or metaphysical

retarted definition. skin does not know that it then begs the question as to who it is then that draws attention to a simple claim about a paranomal or metaphysical event.

skin always qualifies with "wild" and other superlatives of the same vein in blind ignorance of the fact that they are all are pretty much, a very subjective and personal opinion. unbeknowest [deleted], what is "wild" usually has a way of turning out to be quite commonplace.

In modern times, the meaning of the word metaphysics has become confused by popular significations that are really unrelated to metaphysics or ontology per se, viz. esotericism and occultism. Esotericism and occultism, in their many forms, are not so much concerned with inquiries into first principles or the nature of being, though they do tend to proceed on the metaphysical assumption that all being is "one".

[deleted]

a problem with ontologies?
boggles the mind
[deleted]

But at the end of the day, when the thoughts are collected, only the ones that are testable can be kept. The rest must, necessarily, be discarded. This is the nature of the hypothesis.

[personal insult deleted]

Skinwalker,
I believe that someone who tells another person that they only think that an alternative supplement made their symptoms disappear would qualify as being skeptical to the point of dysfunction.
"Pathological Skeptic" wear the title with pride; you most certainly earned it.

Get spewing that bile! Please explain why my post was 'pathological', and support your argument!



I don't know, it is just the accepted term for someone who believes pseudoscientific theories are fact without any evidence. Does it matter who invented the term?



Well, I agree with Skinwalker, and the term 'pathological skepticism' seems
more apt when levelled at woowoos, in the areas he stated. So, maybe!

Pathologcial Skeptics being Woowoos, would make the term hypocritical, yes. Well done. Is that a bullet hole in your foot?



So now I'm a 'pathological skeptic'? That's just a label you try and use to demean people who disagree with you, when you know you can't prove your arguments, and are too scared to admit your theories are unsupported. I learned science, and I have no pathological traits, so trying to label me is just another baseless assertion, and that's all you guys can do.



No, what it is, is that you woowoos see the term woowoo as derogatory, and want a similar phrase to throw back. Even when it's pointed out to you that 'pathological skepticism' fits the woowoo mindset more than that of a scientist or true skeptic, you still refuse to admit it.



Now, that is really a stretch. If I denied I was a pink giraffe (which I am not) would you assume I was? Rather pathetic attempt to hang a label on me, and it demonstrates how desperate you are.



That's how science works! Scientists must be skeptical first, so they don't bias or affect the results of their work. If they work towards a foregone conclusion, guess what happens? False positives are attained, and flaws ignored.



What was your point? That 'pathological skeptics' are scientists, or that I am one?

My point is that you thought I was referring to you when I posted about pathological skeptiscm. That is what got your panties in a wad. Don't fear though, many do that - and then blame me for their own assumptions.

Also, the term Pathological skeptiscm is no more "propaganda" than the term woo-woo. Weather you are one of them or not is up to you, but I can only take it that you did not like the term because you thought it applied to you.

It's like in school when someone would say; "She's such a prostitute" and the same girl always turned and says; "Who you callin a prostitute"?!

But, you did a good job trying to spin this around. I can see through your debunkery. :D

Skinwalker,
I believe that someone who tells another person that they only think that an alternative supplement made their symptoms disappear would qualify as being skeptical to the point of dysfunction.

I'm assuming you are referring to me. I do recall some similar comment. But I tell you this, I am swayed by evidence. I'm completely willing to revise my position should someone show evidence that said "supplement" is consistently beneficial in the manner to which it is claimed. This means empirical testing. Show me the evidence, I'll change my position. There are many natural remedies for health related problems that are legitimately demonstrated to be effective. Most aren't as effective as medicines that are refined to be more specific, but I'd be hard pressed to find a viable solution to my natural drug of choice: coffee.

"Pathological Skeptic" wear the title with pride; you most certainly earned it.

I'd like to see you qualify that assertion. Merely making a derisive comment because you disagreed with something I said doesn't demonstrate it. If you really want to get even, show the evidence and hold me to my word that I'll revise my position to agree with you. What, by the way, would it take to get you to agree with me?

My point is that you thought I was referring to you when I posted about pathological skeptiscm. That is what got your panties in a wad. Don't fear though, many do that - and then blame me for their own assumptions.

That is a lie! Re-read the thread, liar! My first post was a response to JamesR, discussing which is more harmful, woowoos or 'pathological skeptics', it was not a reply to your opening post. YOU then engaged me by quoting my post to JamesR, and accused me DIRECTLY of being a pathological skeptic.

Also, the term Pathological skeptiscm is no more "propaganda" than the term woo-woo. Weather you are one of them or not is up to you, but I can only take it that you did not like the term because you thought it applied to you.

Short memory hey woowoo? You accused me of it DIRECTLY. It was not guilt my association on my part, you said;

See, Phlogistician - it is your pathological skeptiscm

So I didn't think it applied to me, you accused me of it.

It's like in school when someone would say; "She's such a prostitute" and the same girl always turned and says; "Who you callin a prostitute"?!

No it's not, you said, in reply to my post, after quoting me;

Well that was pathological bullshit.

You didn't just throw the phrase in the air, and see who responded, it was aimed directly at me.

But, you did a good job trying to spin this around. I can see through your debunkery. :D

It seems you can't even remember the chain of events in the thread, let alone see through anything! Typical woowoo behavior though, stating something as fact, when the evidence shows the opposite! Well done, is that another bullet hole in your foot?

'OK OK! (running out of the shower all drippin).......
first, you pre-sume there WAS A 'big bang'. actually this 'fact' is being questioned by some SCIENTISTS......so. ISbig bang a myth?? can we be sure it's not?
as for your question of whay are you/we here, and how come matter energy exists at ALL.
this is why it is interesting to consider that it is NOT JUST matter-energy, but matter-energy AND consciousness. that if we understandmatter-energy is conscious/sentient, then we realize it is naturally CREATIVE....eternally so


Merely used that as an example. I'm aware it is not set in stone.

me)))))))bottom line is you lot cant take crit but love to dish it outYes believers take criticism very well...


me((((((((you'll assume tat we are moprons who are blind to your moves. we aint.......No I do not think believers are morons. Some very smart people can be deluded. Perhaps we are all deluded to some extent.

we see shit yo deny You are seeing what you want to see. It makes your life more exciting.

let me explain it agin. it is someone who is a fundamental materialist. whose default poistion is 'if yer cant measure it it aint real'
as i've said in anothertread? in a way i value you insistence of measureing. for we know only too well when dodgy beliefs are accepted they bring all kinds of evils. true. BUT so does materilistic assumption too! like Nature is dead etc.............

we therefoore need to be very carfeul then how we examine all about all this. for example, does one equate a familiy who claim to have had n abduction experince wit some New Ager who claims to channel an entitiy who claims there is a 'White Brotherhood'...etc?.............your insistenceof objectivity actually suppresses your fullness of being , and tis dogma affects all others' potentiial for such experienceThis isn't really a response to my post but I am used to that. Anyway it also seems that you refer to anyone who uses scientific method as a fundamentalist materialist or a pseudoskeptic.

Here are some quick-ref definitions:

Woo-woo: someone who draws attention to wild claims of the paranormal or metaphysical in the way a train whistle draws attention to a train approaching a crossing. "Woo-woo" is the sound of the whistle, but in the case of the pseudoscience claimant, the train hasn't even left the station.

Skepticism refers to the thoughtful and reflective inquiry, particularly with regard to wild claims and speculations. Skeptic comes from the Greek "skeptikos," which translates to "thoughtful." The latin scepticus means "thoughtful" or "reflective." Skepticism, therefore, is not about being close minded, it's about being open minded.

I'll grant you that the Woo-woo is far worse, even for his own point-of-view, than a true skeptic is. I've visited this site on and off over the past few years, and the woo-woo's drive me away faster than the skeptics.

But there are also many Debunkers with an agenda here, who try and call themselves skeptics. Skinwalker, and Phlogistican are two that immediately come to mind. These people don't desire to examine the evidence. They have already written their conclusions, and find any evidence contrary to that conclusion to be smashed down immediately. Ah yes.... the true scientists that they are.. :rolleyes:

But there are also many Debunkers with an agenda here, who try and call themselves skeptics. Skinwalker, and Phlogistican are two that immediately come to mind.

I can't speak for phlog, but I call myself nothing. I'm skeptical of many things, but have no agenda except truth. I feel the need to speak out when people make claims that have no basis in fact or evidence to support them.

These people don't desire to examine the evidence. They have already written their conclusions, and find any evidence contrary to that conclusion to be smashed down immediately. Ah yes.... the true scientists that they are.. :rolleyes:

I think I'll disagree with you here and issue a challenge. Produce any clear evidence that I've ignored or not otherwise refuted successfully as invalid. I'm more than willing to revise my position on any topic that finds its way in the pseudoscience/parapsychology subforums with evidence. Indeed, my position on things like ESP, ETI, etc. is that they are possible. I simply don't accept that some things said about these topics are factual since they either aren't testable or lack evidence.

What's interesting -even fascinating- is the response that the so-called "woo-woos" give to those that disagree with them and ask logical questions like "what evidence do you have." Responses like, "you're a pseudoskeptic" because you don't believe what I believe. What nonsense.

But there are also many Debunkers with an agenda here, who try and call themselves skeptics. Skinwalker, and Phlogistican are two that immediately come to mind.

What's at the top of my agenda? Let's take a look. Oh yes, it says

'extraordinary claims at least require some some evidence.'

Given the size of the Universe, I think it's quite likely the Universe is well populated with other life forms besides ourselves, and a proportion of these will be intelligent.

Given the size of the Universe, I don't think it's feasible that any species have travelled across it, certainly not in such great numbers as reported, to abduct and probe people, conspire with our governments, or breed with that 'Rael' guy.

So people are definitely misguided, or plain lying about it. The question then, is who, and how many? Is it 99% lies? 100% lies? What intrigues me, is that believers won't sift out obvious dross so they can look for nuggets of information.

I'd love to meet an alien. I think it would be fantastic to know we are not alone. It would be superb to learn about another planet, and share our knowledge. Sadly, I see nothing that makes it look as if this has, or will ever happen. I won't accept, not be satisfied with fakery to placate myself.

Given the size of the Universe, I don't think it's feasible that any species have travelled across it,

Then you must feel we have reached a pinnacle in our propulsion methods. I still find it confusing how supposedly intelligent individuals continue to put our technological limitations on another race that may be millions of years more advanced than us. Sure, I understand that the idea that we can only use what we know here, but even WE are examining alternative methods of propulsion.


So people are definitely misguided, or plain lying about it. The question then, is who, and how many? Is it 99% lies? 100% lies? What intrigues me, is that believers won't sift out obvious dross so they can look for nuggets of information.

Oh, I've sifted through the lies, and I'm very well aware of the damage it does to this subject. However, I'm not naive enough to assume one(or 10,000) deception eliminates ALL the evidence.

Another thing I've observed with you, and others like yourself, are you don't attack the intrieging evidence. You go after the Woo-woo's. While the still inconclusive evidence exists. Bentwaters, Mexico City, Washington DC(1952), Iranian Air Force fighter, Belgium Air Force report, ect.... along with the thousands of highly credible eyewitness testimonial. There is no single item that stands out as the smoking gun with this subject, but the sheer volume of evidence screams out that there is something very real happening here. But many like yourself will not accept anything short of proof. And if we had the proof, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Right On!!

What's fascinating is the belief itself along with the mechanisms for the belief. Each of the cases you mention above have more mundane and prosaic explanations that are far more probable, and in most cases demonstrably so. "Volume of evidence" is meaningless when the evidence isn't repeatable or verifiable. What there *is* evidence for is the fallibility of the human perception of events that are extraordinary.

What's fascinating is the belief itself

me))))))yes i keps seeing this term bandies about, usually in your opposite dircton at 'us'. we are your'believers' aren't we? if not 'woo woo' or 'crackpot' or 'whacko' etc etc, we also get labeled 'believer'......

along with the mechanisms for the belief.

me))))))))by 'mechanisms' what do you mean? brain chemistry? try be more clear what you mean

Each of the cases you mention above have more mundane and prosaic explanations that are far more probable, and in most cases demonstrably so.

me)))as said by whom? and 'far more PROBABLE for whome?? people such as yourself who push a materialistic agenda like CsiCOP for example. known also to rather focus on debunking indivudala etc rathe than actuall address actual evidence including their own materialistic agenda

"Volume of evidence" is meaningless when the evidence isn't repeatable or verifiable.

me)))yeah, cause QUANTITY and conveyor-belt scenarios are the criteria for your 'evidence'. IF someone has a very uniquE ABDUCTION EXPERIENCE IT is UNIQUE ISN'T IT. TO I MAY SHARE CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS LIKE LOSS OF TIME ETC. so say some family reports an abduction experience....which has happened. what do you say to them? please. tell me step by step how you would go about invistigating ther claim?

What there *is* evidence for is the fallibility of the human perception of events that are extraordinary.
yes your BIGGIE get-out-clause is that! you can always rely on tis old chestnut where you hafe the audactity an LACK of real science to patronizingly say to people they dont KNOW what they experience.
and you say this whn you dont even KHOW the 'evidence' for what consciousness IS. ie., you rae on about this in the 'know' when actually, totally blind!

What's fascinating is the belief itself along with the mechanisms for the belief. Each of the cases you mention above have more mundane and prosaic explanations that are far more probable, and in most cases demonstrably so. "Volume of evidence" is meaningless when the evidence isn't repeatable or verifiable. What there *is* evidence for is the fallibility of the human perception of events that are extraordinary.

I rest my case.

Duendy, you've yet to demonstrate that anyone hafe (sic) a lack of 'real science' nor have you demonstrated that you even truly understand the scientific process. I fail to see what qualifies you to comment on others with regard to science or to comment on science itself.

Beyond that, I rely on that "old chestnut" because it happens to be demonstrably true. As to your "'evidence' for consciousness red herring... I'm plainly ignoring it because I don't like your typical red herring/strawman tactics. Make a thread if you truly want answers or actual discussion.

Oh, and -as usual- I'm not bothered with reading all the poorly formated replies within the quotes. If you haven't the time or energy to properly format, obviously they aren't important.

I rest my case.

And what was you case, precisely? Just curious. Just asking questions here.

What's fascinating is the belief itself along with the mechanisms for the belief. Each of the cases you mention above have more mundane and prosaic explanations that are far more probable, and in most cases demonstrably so.

challenge skinwalker on this. what explanations are offered. ask for links

i have never seen the pseudos tackle anything harder that a blurry photo of a speck in the sky

challenge skinwalker on this. what explanations are offered. ask for links

i have never seen the pseudos tackle anything harder that a blurry photo of a speck in the sky

I've been down this road before with him, and many others. They simply will not acknowledge the Belgium incident, or the Bentwaters incident(watch him bring up the lighthouse excuse :rolleyes: ).

Simply put, they aren't interested in examining the evidence. They want to proof placed in their laps.

Here, I'll show you.....

Skinwalker: How about the Belgium incident Skinwalker, or the Bentwaters. Why don't you tackle one of those. Give us the mundane explanation.

challenge skinwalker on this. what explanations are offered. ask for links

i have never seen the pseudos tackle anything harder that a blurry photo of a speck in the sky
hahaha. eyah, i know. and this is what dis-inspired me to carry on braekin my arse making a transcript of the ducmentary i previously mentioned. cause as i see it. these believers in the materialistic ideology here just do NOTHING but sit on their precious fat arses sputin 'Show meee zee evidence'/ jus that. comfort zone or WHATTT?

I've been down this road before with him, and many others. They simply will not acknowledge the Belgium incident, or the Bentwaters incident(watch him bring up the lighthouse excuse :rolleyes: ).

Simply put, they aren't interested in examining the evidence. They want to proof placed in their laps.

Here, I'll show you.....

Skinwalker: How about the Belgium incident Skinwalker, or the Bentwaters. Why don't you tackle one of those. Give us the mundane explanation.

I'm not familier with either. Of course, I've seen them mentioned in boards like this one, but not being one that buys woo-woo literature at the local Barnes & Noble (Atlantis Rising, UFO magazines, etc.), I don't know the data associated with the cases. Perhaps you'd care to start a thread (or link to one already begun on sciforums) and present the data for review and comment.

hahaha. eyah, i know. and this is what dis-inspired me to carry on braekin my arse making a transcript of the ducmentary i previously mentioned. cause as i see it. these believers in the materialistic ideology here just do NOTHING but sit on their precious fat arses sputin 'Show meee zee evidence'/ jus that. comfort zone or WHATTT?

Either the evidence exists or it doesn't. Why accept a speculation to be factual without evidence? What mode of critical thought allows fantasy to replace reality in any valid way beyond the temporary enjoyment of watching a movie or enjoying a good work of fiction?

Is this what gustav wanted you to challenge me on? That makes little sense.

I'm not familier with either. Of course, I've seen them mentioned in boards like this one, but not being one that buys woo-woo literature at the local Barnes & Noble (Atlantis Rising, UFO magazines, etc.), I don't know the data associated with the cases.

And this is why I stated 'I rest my case'.

You already concluded that the two cases I asked you to comment on are 'Woo-Woo literature'. You mock these incidents simply because they might be associated with a subject you've already assumed is hogwash, without having the slightest idea what they're about.

This is exactly what a pathological skeptic would do. Do you not see this? :rolleyes:

Is being a pathological skeptic worse than being a woo-woo?

Is being a pathological skeptic worse than being a woo-woo?

No, not necessarily. As I stated earlier, or in another thread, the Woo-woo's do more damage to this subject that the pathological skeptic.

The Woo-woo's need to stop posting rediculous info as if it's the smoking gun. And the pathological skeptic needs to realize that not everyone interested in this subject is a Woo-woo, and that not every incident is based on pure fantasy.

There is a mountain of evidence directly related to this subject. Unfortunately, there's also a mountain range of fraud, and deceit also associated with it. It's very difficult to seperate the facts, from the fantasy.

And this is why I stated 'I rest my case'.

You already concluded that the two cases I asked you to comment on are 'Woo-Woo literature'. You mock these incidents simply because they might be associated with a subject you've already assumed is hogwash, without having the slightest idea what they're about.

This is exactly what a pathological skeptic would do. Do you not see this? :rolleyes:


You're absolutely right. Please accept my apologies. What literature might I find these cases in to review and then return to discuss? The Journal Science? Scientific American?

The potential for damage is greater from the pathological skeptic because they want people to disown their own experiences in favor of the limited view of the pathological skeptic. The concept that if it can not be reproduced in a laboratory it did not happen denies reality. Miracle healings defy the norm and can not be reproduced on demand but the are reality that as yet is unexplained but documentable. Which is of course why I find them fascinating and of course figuring out how to produce them might come in handy someday.

Miracle healings have not been shown to have happened. "Pathological skeptics" have been demonstrated not to exist except with regard to the "woo-woo" skeptical of proven claims.

Then you must feel we have reached a pinnacle in our propulsion methods.

Far from it, but we have two problems here. One, distance, and to cover great distances, we need great speed. Great speed needs a lot of energy to get the object in motion, and again, lots to slow it. We can only travel at great speed where it is safe, ie, where there is very little dust and gas, as at speed, these would cause a lot of friction/damage. (Mr Anonymous and I had a discussion about this in another thread).

So far all we have are reaction engines. That's it. We can make different kinds, but that is it.

I still find it confusing how supposedly intelligent individuals continue to put our technological limitations on another race that may be millions of years more advanced than us.

Relativity would pose them the exact same problems as us. If they have conquered these limitations, they are far, far in advance of our technology, and then the supposed 'facts' of alien visitation and abduction just don't fit. They need to abduct humans to study us? They don't have decent remote sensing? They can't decode our DNA and study us from that? They anally probe people? They can't aneasthetise people adequately? They keep abducting the same person, over and over, as if they can learn more from them? Surely, their understanding of biology would be as advanced as their physics, and none of these things would be necessary to such an advanced race.

So believers impose technological restrictions on aliens too! They think aliens need invasive techniques, when we are trying to do that as little as possible using MRIs and keyhole surgery!

Sure, I understand that the idea that we can only use what we know here, but even WE are examining alternative methods of propulsion.

Propulsion isn't the answer, only warping space makes space travel really feasible. Even if you can travel quite quickly, (at a fraction of C using a propulsion system) it will take decades to get anywhere, lots of energy to get there, and when you get there, there might not be a life bearing planet. Assuming aliens are investigating the entire galaxy, how come they come to earth so often? Surely, they are sending probes to every star (100 billion ish) to look for life. That's a lot of probes. So for these guys to be coming as often as reported to earth, they must be local, have signalled back to home, to send more probes, or be able to just pop here on a whim, quickly. If they can do the latter, I really doubt they can't hide from radar, crash in the Desert, or mutilate cows. The facts just don't fit. The supposed evidence for aliens is convolved from disparate sources, into something that just doesn't fly.

Oh, I've sifted through the lies, and I'm very well aware of the damage it does to this subject. However, I'm not naive enough to assume one(or 10,000) deception eliminates ALL the evidence.

I agree, but when you have believers still clinging to things that have been proven false, it damages the field, and lessnes respectability, and most scientists won't go near the subject. A certain amount of house cleaning is needed, and believers need to start debunking, to be taken seriously.

Another thing I've observed with you, and others like yourself, are you don't attack the intrieging evidence. You go after the Woo-woo's.

I challenge people's beliefs, be they religious, or pseudoscientific. Many people believe without any evidence. I have an issue with that, yes.

the sheer volume of evidence screams out that there is something very real happening here.

No, this is where we really do disagree. There are lots of Christians and lots of Jews on the planet. Lots of volume, let's say. One side say Jesus was the messiah, other side don't agree. Volume on both sides, and disagreement. Volume means very little. If it did, you'd have to be a Buddhist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu etc all at the same time, and every schizm of each!

But many like yourself will not accept anything short of proof. And if we had the proof, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I'd settle for some good evidence right now. Proof would be great, evidence would be nice.

Simply put, they aren't interested in examining the evidence. They want to proof placed in their laps.

Here, I'll show you.....

Skinwalker: How about the Belgium incident Skinwalker, or the Bentwaters. Why don't you tackle one of those. Give us the mundane explanation.

Hello old man, sorry to butt in, know the questions put to Skin but he's obviously not biting and you've peaked m'curiosity.

Not having a go, just asking - lets say for absolute fact both the Belgium Incident and the RAF Brentwaters case were indeed the consequence of extraterrestrial visitation exclusively - no if's, no but's, no doing the King Tut Strut....

What exactly does that actually tell us?

it tells us that "both the Belgium Incident and the RAF Brentwaters case were indeed the consequence of extraterrestrial visitation" (Mr Anonymous)

Spontaneous healing has been documented many times in medical records.
Only a pathological skeptic would deny this reality.

it tells us that "both the Belgium Incident and the RAF Brentwaters case were indeed the consequence of extraterrestrial visitation" (Mr Anonymous)

:)... Precisely so!

It tells actually nothing whatsoever - it tell us nothing at all about who our alien friends are, where they are from, what they are doing here. It tells us completely bugger all about how our alien friends went about getting here. It tells us nothing about what they were up to when they were here, or where they went to when they buggered off again afterwards.

All it tells is is that there are aliens.

One could have flicked a coin to arrive at that same conclusion and have had a 50% chance of being correct, and as far as the matter of intelligent life existing outside the confines of this solar system - not a one of these so-called Pathological or Pseudo Sceptics has in practice actually been arrogant enough to state with impunity "No, no such thing is possible," or words to that effect.

In short, simply knowing that extraterrestrials occasionally pop by informs us only that there are aliens out there to do it - about the rest....?

quite
there is, however, another ballgame going on.
how do we cope? what new strategies do we adopt? does nasa get an unlimited budget? blah? and blah?

how do we [cope? what new strategies do we adopt? doesinasa get an unlimited budget?blah? and blah?

Deucedly good question that - I've never been able to fathom quite why it would be advantageous for a Government to actually cover-up the existence of such a thing as visiting ET's - there's no profit in it, only expense.

No such animal as a cheap conspiracy. It's all outgoings and for an indefinite term.

Perhaps, back in the 50's, when a person could be condemned anti-American simply for being just a little bit gay - not being actually American (nor indeed Human) at all in the first place, not exactly a prospect one can expect anyone to run up the flag-pole and get anyone to salute in a hurry I'm sure....

But from the mid 70's on, everyones Spielberged out on the notion of rapturous extraterrestrial contact - NASA got a lot of appropriations by congress not associated with hard edged science like the requisite follow-ups the space shuttle programme needed, but softer edged stuff like the foundation of SETI, re-evaluation programmes furthering investigation into the notion of life being possible on Mars - there was spending where the average Senator could happily face the folks back home because the folks back home we're actively queueing round the block shelling out perfectly good dollar to see what could be anticipated as being the "follow-through" of where such interest eventually lies in wide screen and glorious living Technicolour.

10 years back, one little faux pas on the part of a NASA geologist had Bill Clinton on the podium speaking presidentially about the auspicious times we were living in and what is to follow, all because someone merely thought one bit of meteorite contained evidence of millions year dead fossilised life in it - the appropriations necessary for all both current and the next 20 years to comes worth of funding for Mars related exploration NASA acquired wholly on the back of that one simple mistake.

The political will to invest was that great.

Were an actual Contact scenario formally announced - about the only panic that would ensue would be the ungodly stampede that would occur on Wall Street as the world and his dog snapped up options everything even peripherally space-tech related.

There'd be deaths, obviously. Tragedies, I imagine, each in their own respect. Slower, older Stock Brokers trampled underfoot by the younger, fitter ones, fleeter of foot. But this is just natures way of thinning the herd...

I don't know about unlimited NASA Funding, but I doubt they'd have to actually ask very hard for very much for a good long while afterwards, that much'd be a given... ;)

nice
it is not actual aliens that are required but mere rumors of some.
hah! so we have gone down this road several times!


There'd be deaths, obviously. Tragedies, I imagine, each in their own respect. Slower, older Stock Brokers trampled underfoot by the younger, fitter ones, fleeter of foot. But this is just natures way of thinning the herd...

:D

Well, Like Martin Luther King, I too have a dream..... ;)

But, yeah. Nicely and concisely put, we need our take on aliens - quite where the devil these poor actual aliens fit into any of it...

Well, the only ones that could tell you that for a fact would be them.

Have a good evening old man, 2 in the am this side of the pond and my missus is going to moider me quite without the excuse of it being the am full stop if I don't shut this thing down for the night.

Have fun, gotta run.

A ;)

Spontaneous healing has been documented many times in medical records.
Only a pathological skeptic would deny this reality.

I'm completely willing to accept their "reality." Simply cite the source.

Spontaneous healing has been documented many times in medical records.
Only a pathological skeptic would deny this reality.

I believe you, because when I cut myself fixing up my house, I stop bleeding in a very short time, and my body heals itself over time. What is there to be skeptical about in the bodies natural process of healing? The healing, is by definition, 'spontaneous' because I do not have to initiate it, it does that itself.

Well, Like Martin Luther King, I too have a dream..... ;)

ahh perhaps you misunderstood

"hah! so we have gone down this road several times!" was in reference to earthers and their periodic space fads (which you mention....spielberg and clinton)

I believe you, because when I cut myself fixing up my house, I stop bleeding in a very short time, and my body heals itself over time. What is there to be skeptical about in the bodies natural process of healing? The healing, is by definition, 'spontaneous' because I do not have to initiate it, it does that itself.


On an old (I believe defunct) television show called Unsolved Mysteries, there was a story of a young woman who very suddenly came down with an extremely rare condition that causes intense pain throughout the nervous system. Basically your whole body is in pain, and even being on the maximum dosage of morphine, she was still uncomfortable.

This was a very rare disorder, and according to what the doctors and the literature had told the mother of this young woman, the chances of any type of recovery were extremely low, almost unheard of.

The mother recounts that she had gotten a very strong impression, like the notion had been implanted in her mind, that in her words "they were going to see a miracle." She had this very strong feeling that there was going to be a complete recovery, and that it was going to be more or less divine in nature, basically a religious miracle.

I think she had somehow organized a large prayer circle of sorts, and though I forget all the details, the "miracle" did happen, and the girl recovered spontaneously.

The cause of that particular condition (I do not remember its name) are unknown, and a spontaneous recovery of that nature would most definitely be considered statistically miraculous. Unless by some slim chance she had been misdiagnosed, but what other condition would cause those symptoms and disappear without being known, I personally couldn't say.
Maybe it was just a coincidence that the mother had the premonition that a miracle would occur?

I believe candy was referring to instances like this, where the odds of any type of recovery are extremely slim, not cutting your finger and witnessing the "miracles" of blood clotting and wound healing!

On an old (I believe defunct) television show called Unsolved Mysteries,

Woah, must be true if it was featured on a sensationalist TV show!


I believe candy was referring to instances like this, where the odds of any type of recovery are extremely slim, not cutting your finger and witnessing the "miracles" of blood clotting and wound healing!

Instances like what? Fabrication and hearsay?

ahh perhaps you misunderstood

"hah! so we have gone down this road several times!" was in reference to earthers and their periodic space fads (which you mention....spielberg and clinton)

Ah, that'd probably be where the "2 in the am" would be coming into the rest of it - late, not reading properly. My bad.

I have known people who have had unexplained healings. Knowing real people who have had experiences is more real to me than any book ever could be. I understand that the televangilist Pat Robertson has a book coming out this month that does document a number of "miracle healings" so if you must read about something to believe it you can check out the book and it's references. Since I do not need to read about it to know it is true I will not be reading the book so would someone let me know if it is any good.

Woah, must be true if it was featured on a sensationalist TV show!

Are you even FAMILIAR with that particular show?
Sensationalist? SURE you're familiar with it???

I used to watch that show all the time. 1 hour of unsolved mysteries, including the paranormal. MOST of these mysteries were unsolved crimes, murders, disappearances/kidnappings, and people's searches for lost loved ones/separated family members or friends. Most were very down-to-earth mysteries. The show generally featured no more than one case per show that would have any paranormal aspect to it. The rest were "mundane".

From what I understand of the show just from watching it, and the people they interviewed (it was syndicated on a major television network for years), they did pretty good research, and from the amount of years it ran, I never heard anyone accuse it of fabricating anything.
They helped solve quite a number of hitherto unsolved crimes, and helped people get in touch with their lost friends and family, due to their call-in service for anonymous tips. When they showed re-runs, they would sometimes give an update if a particular case had been solved.

Why would you call that sensational?

Instances like what? Fabrication and hearsay?

Are you making a sensational claim that they ALL must be fabrication or hearsay? Is this a fact that you can prove?

I just presented that story as an example of the type of "miraculous" healing Candy was probably referring to. I didn't exactly imply that the miracle had to be supernatural or paranormal.

I have known people who have had unexplained healings. Knowing real people who have had experiences is more real to me than any book ever could be. I understand that the televangilist Pat Robertson has a book coming out this month that does document a number of "miracle healings" so if you must read about something to believe it you can check out the book and it's references. Since I do not need to read about it to know it is true I will not be reading the book so would someone let me know if it is any good.

The very fact that Pat Robertson wrote it would ensure that myself, and a number of other people probably won't be reading it! Robertson is less than appealing.

I'm sure there are numerous other books written by persons who are not as offensive, and are probably better as well. ;)

One theory is that it comes from the "woo-ooo" sound made by a Theramin, the electronic instrument often used in old horror films to emphasize that something strange or mysterious was happening (such as the appearance of a ghost or alien).

Funny instrument! Pretty antiquated, too, as far as electronic instruments.

Ever heard of the Telharmonium? Huge old electronic keyboard instrument from over a hundred years ago. Kind of interesting. Especially since it had a microtonal keyboard (36 keys per octave).

http://www.obsolete.com/120_years/machines/telharmonium/

Giambattista, It's all pearls before swine. I'd love to tell you about a personal experience of a similar nature, but I'm not going to leave myself open to the miracle of consistent scorn, parading as informed opinion on this forum. Let me know if you'd like to know more and I'll pm you. You are searching for truth among the ego driven. The lost souls seek sustenance by sucking hope, joy, and the miracle of discovery, out of the living body of dynamic science. They know nothing of the real "spirit" of science, much less the science of the spirit. Their heads are so far up their own asses they use special braille computers for the willfully blind.

Giambattista, It's all pearls before swine. I'd love to tell you about a personal experience of a similar nature, but I'm not going to leave myself open to the miracle of consistent scorn, parading as informed opinion on this forum. Let me know if you'd like to know more and I'll pm you. You are searching for truth among the ego driven. The lost souls seek sustenance by sucking hope, joy, and the miracle of discovery, out of the living body of dynamic science. They know nothing of the real "spirit" of science, much less the science of the spirit. Their heads are so far up their own asses they use special braille computers for the willfully blind.

= you know it doesn't bear scrutiny, and despite being involved, couldn't summon enough evidence to convince anybody.

Are you even familiar with Unsolved Mysteries?

Or did you condemn its corpse without even a proper burial?

Giambattista, It's all pearls before swine. I'd love to tell you about a personal experience of a similar nature, but I'm not going to leave myself open to the miracle of consistent scorn, parading as informed opinion on this forum. Let me know if you'd like to know more and I'll pm you. You are searching for truth among the ego driven. The lost souls seek sustenance by sucking hope, joy, and the miracle of discovery, out of the living body of dynamic science. They know nothing of the real "spirit" of science, much less the science of the spirit. Their heads are so far up their own asses they use special braille computers for the willfully blind.

I would say... hmmm. Yes, in certain ways, you are absolutely right. Some people say "Guilty, until proven innocent!"

By all means, PM me, and tell me your personal experience. I can't guarantee I'll be a 100% taker, but you'll find more sympathy from me than you will from the likes of Phlogistician, or his kind!

Forum-Skeptics would make terrible scientists, real science requires little leaps of faith and a great deal of intuition before compelling evidence or data is actually arrived at. That is something these people are loath to do, although to be fair they are useful at propping up pre-existing 'facts' and theories, not much else though.

Forum-Skeptics would make terrible scientists, real science requires little leaps of faith and a great deal of intuition before compelling evidence or data is actually arrived at. That is something these people are loath to do, although to be fair they are useful at propping up pre-existing 'facts' and theories, not much else though.

Yes. Imagination to come up with the theory, but then you have to scientifically prove it.

I would say... hmmm. Yes, in certain ways, you are absolutely right. Some people say "Guilty, until proven innocent!"

By all means, PM me, and tell me your personal experience. I can't guarantee I'll be a 100% taker, but you'll find more sympathy from me than you will from the likes of Phlogistician, or his kind!

I sent my story to you in PM form. Please let me know if you recieved it. I'm not looking for sympathy, in this regard. You were to be contacted

I sent my story to you in PM form. Please let me know if you recieved it. I'm not looking for sympathy, in this regard. You were to be contacted

Hey! I'll give sympathy where it is due! Like I said, I am much better at dispensing such gifts than that OTHER person you were talking to.

That said, I got your message, and I am going to read it just a little bit later. Don't you worry!

could i read it, agitprop?

could i read it, agitprop?

Where do you stand on the paranormal and religious misticism? I'd have to get a sense of where you're at, or I wouldn't bother. If you're an open minded skeptic, that's okay.

Hello. I read your letter.

Certainly bizarre, if it is indeed true. I'd have to know you better if I was to place 100% faith in your story, though!

I've had similar instances occur, but not as weird as that, exactly!

Hello. I read your letter.

Certainly bizarre, if it is indeed true. I'd have to know you better if I was to place 100% faith in your story, though!

I've had similar instances occur, but not as weird as that, exactly!

That is exactly what I would think if someone told or wrote me something like that. I dismiss a lot of spiritual rambling figuring it's the result of wishful thinking combined with over-interpretation or coincidence. So that's good, Giambattista. You truly are a skeptic, but an open minded one. Cool. I don't know why I sent it to you, particularly. Strange. Just following a hunch, I guess.

I don't know why I sent it to you, particularly. Strange. Just following a hunch, I guess.

Actually, I think it was because I said that you could/should! But if I have spiritual importance, supposedly, then more power to me! I mean, to US! :D

If this actually happened as you say it did, then no amount of ranting by any "well-meaning" skeptic will turn you away from your belief. Their words, in a sense, will be those of an irrational amateur, exactly the opposite of what they would claim to be.

Hmmmm....

If this actually happened as you say it did, then no amount of ranting by any "well-meaning" skeptic will turn you away from your belief. Their words, in a sense, will be those of an irrational amateur, exactly the opposite of what they would claim to be.

Hmmmm....

Every person runs other's experiences through their own filtering systems. If a person's bottom line is one of scientific materialism, then I am by definition, crazy or fantasy based or quaint. I won't try to change their minds.

There could be any number of reasons people are attracted to this way of thinking. And the scientific materialist debunkers act as a braking mechanism to balance off the fantasy prone and the hellish order they may impose on the world if their utopian visions weren't held in check.

I initially proposed to send you this information because I sense that you can conceive it may have happened as I described it, but am not encouraging you to be anything but skeptical.

Forum-Skeptics would make terrible scientists, real science requires little leaps of faith and a great deal of intuition before compelling evidence or data is actually arrived at. That is something these people are loath to do, although to be fair they are useful at propping up pre-existing 'facts' and theories, not much else though.

Well stated, and helps articulate the danger of pathological skeptiscm seen on these types of boards. ;)

(Edit - and sorry I have not been in on this discussion, I did not know it had gone this far. :m:)

I am not a scientist, as many of you know, but there has been something I have been trying to prove for a while now.

At the heart of the UFO/ETI cases lies an assumption that our military and NASA have it in their policy to hide certain information regarding ETI for reasons pertaining to our national security.

I have ALWAYS wanted to see if I could prove such a thing. Not just hypothesis, but prove that NASA and our Military are under strict security requirements when it comes to any evidence of ETI or the suggestion of their existance.

If you can PROVE that, then the request for "physical proof" becomes futile.

The only reason that there might be any forms of control over such information being made public IF anything did happen is purely because of the number of nutjobs out there that could turn what ever occurs into a symbolism in their religion, which in turn could cause people to commit suicide in mass numbers, start religious wars, or pretty much undermine any powers of state that the officials hold (namely commonly refered to mass hysteria and rioting.)

Since it's suggested that governments don't want their civilisations crumbing over one night based upon such delusional thinkers, it only goes to suggest that no information would be presented directly to the public without a longterm slow process of gradually letting the information slip out.

This suggests that all you impatient UFO buffs should realise even if their is evidence, there is very good reason for it not being made public, and very good reason not to force publication if there is anything. (Which I heartily believe their isnt)

No, btimsah, it doesn't. Just because they are under orders to hide "things" oes not mean that there are "things". It may just be a precautionary measure. If such an order existed.

Apparently, KNOWLEDGE STOPS wherever certain HUMANS say it does. How do humans dictate the origin of ALL MATTER?
"Knowledge stops wherever certain humans say it does." Indeed, that is the very mantra of the Intelligent Design promoters. "This is inexplicable!" they cry, and try to insert God as a "result" into a scientific paper.

Fortunately, real science rejects such artificial boundaries to Humanity's exploration of the infinitude of knowledge. We may not yet have arrived at the answer to your previous question ("Where did all the matter for the Big Bang come from?"), but we will continue to investigate, theorise, experiment and promote those hypotheses that match closest to the truth, and ultimately give us the power to shape our destiny.

At the heart of the UFO/ETI cases lies an assumption that our military and NASA have it in their policy to hide certain information regarding ETI for reasons pertaining to our national security....

If you can PROVE that, then the request for "physical proof" becomes futile.

No, not really, we've done this one before. NASA and mechanised military organisations with the capability to communicate, co-operate, react. and control, are fairly recent.

So what about all the visitations that should have occurred before the govts of the world were in a position to stifle the news?

Surely, such things would then have been common knowledge.

I now think that the public have such tools as to be able to disseminate any information publicly too, despite any attempts by any organisation to quash such communcation.

So the ability to control was perhaps only during a brief period where govts had a technological advantage over the populace, say, WW11 to the 70's. Of course, that period included the cold war, and that rather destroys the co-operation required to stifle such an internationally huge story.

So, even if you could prove an attempt by govts to stifle, I really don't think such an attempt would have worked.

"Knowledge stops wherever certain humans say it does." Indeed, that is the very mantra of the Intelligent Design promoters.


Indeed, that statement holds just a shred of truth. Both of them do.

By the way, congratulations! You're the only one I've seen who responded to that rather drunken statement of mine. :p

Fortunately, real science rejects such artificial boundaries to Humanity's exploration of the infinitude of knowledge.

Yes, I've heard rumors.

Get spewing that bile! Please explain why my post was 'pathological', and support your argument!



I don't know, it is just the accepted term for someone who believes pseudoscientific theories are fact without any evidence. Does it matter who invented the term?



Well, I agree with Skinwalker, and the term 'pathological skepticism' seems
more apt when levelled at woowoos, in the areas he stated. So, maybe!

Pathologcial Skeptics being Woowoos, would make the term hypocritical, yes. Well done. Is that a bullet hole in your foot?



So now I'm a 'pathological skeptic'? That's just a label you try and use to demean people who disagree with you, when you know you can't prove your arguments, and are too scared to admit your theories are unsupported. I learned science, and I have no pathological traits, so trying to label me is just another baseless assertion, and that's all you guys can do.



No, what it is, is that you woowoos see the term woowoo as derogatory, and want a similar phrase to throw back. Even when it's pointed out to you that 'pathological skepticism' fits the woowoo mindset more than that of a scientist or true skeptic, you still refuse to admit it.



Now, that is really a stretch. If I denied I was a pink giraffe (which I am not) would you assume I was? Rather pathetic attempt to hang a label on me, and it demonstrates how desperate you are.



That's how science works! Scientists must be skeptical first, so they don't bias or affect the results of their work. If they work towards a foregone conclusion, guess what happens? False positives are attained, and flaws ignored.



What was your point? That 'pathological skeptics' are scientists, or that I am one?



you called me a woowoo i think i didnt know the defenition of the word untill now,


and im curious as to what stuff i believe in that has no evidence?,


i dont actually believe in anything atall if you want to know and get technical,

and are you not a hypocrite and contradict yourself right there,

you believe in time, gravity, black holes, and the big bang,


so are you a fellow woowoo because those are theorys, or is there a diff between non proven science, and non proven theories? i cant make out the difference,


and for a guy who thinks its all poppycock, you do spend an awfull lot of your time replying to psudoscience threads dont you?, if its such nonesense ignore it then like an adult, you should stick within the science threads because you obviously shouldent lower yourself to such woowoo poppycock now should you.

so why such a big interest with telling people its poppycock over and over like a broken record, you thinks its BS some others dont, whats the problem? justg ignore people, you are obviously interested in telling people its BS, but for such a man of science why dont you trouble your head with more real pressing issues, like how to improve science and go make some contributions towards it on scoforums maybe, instead of spreading hate and insults?


:) do you know how to be polite by the way man it looks like some what of an issue or problem you cant seem to solve, or want to solve.

peace :).

Empty, you haven't got what it takes to square up to me, that much has been proven over and over.

So let it drop, you'll only embarrass yourself again.

phlogistician

If the best you can do is a personal attack againist Empty instead of logically refuting his statements the only place you have won is in your own mind.

He has already logically refuted their arguments far too many times before, and cannot be bothered to do it again when he will merely be brushed aside and told he is brainwashed, or soemting equally w00-w00

If he has logically refuted others statements it has not been in this thread.

My reply is in reference to the examples you used in describing a hypo-skeptic. To deny that man went to the moon and that the Holocaust occurred are extremes. The next three are not and tend to just express an opinion. They are hotly debated topics among mainstream thinkers. The denial of the moon landing and Holocaust are not. These deniers are rare and receive way too much publicity. Even these examples are much unalike. The moon landing was a much more concrete event. The Holocaust is a term that comes with ambiguities. Does the Holocaust apply only to the six million Jews slaughtered or does it included the 25 million Russians killed on the Eastern front?

you believe in time, gravity, black holes, and the big bang,


so are you a fellow woowoo because those are theorys, or is there a diff between non proven science, and non proven theories? i cant make out the difference,


You've said some silly things before, in my opinion, but this isn't quite one of those. ;)

It's scary in here.

If he has logically refuted others statements it has not been in this thread.

No, not in this thread. I didn't say that he had refuted stupid baseless theories in this thread. Try others.

Empty, you haven't got what it takes to square up to me, ........

and therein lieth the pathology.. :D

No, not in this thread. I didn't say that he had refuted stupid baseless theories in this thread. Try others.

What are these stupid baseless theories, if I may ask?

The Happeh theory, the moon-landing-hoax (ok, thats not quite as stupid and baseless as the happeh theory, but is still worong IMO) and garry denkes theory.

I'm only familiar with the moon-landing hoax.

I'm not familiar with Gary Denke's theory: I AM the Gary Denke theory!

What are these stupid baseless theories, if I may ask?

Arent they all stupid just because they are baseless? And they are baseless. Everything discussed in here is without a shred of scientific evidence. Oh, there's plenty of "evidence" but it's evidence only a fool would accept. No rigor, no peer review, no repeatability of observations, no controls. In fact any piece of "evidence" ever submitted for scientific evaluation has been shown to be clearly a hoax, ordinary earthly matter, or someones overcredulous imagination having its way with them.

*the theories being referred to by superluminal are not specified

*hamster's characterization...."stupid baseless theories" are blindly accepted by superluminal

*he alludes to some nebulous and undefined "evidence" and then goes on to rant about...."No rigor, no peer review, no repeatability of observations, no controls."..

*lastly, whatever phenomena he is talking about has, in every instance of its occurrence, been proven to be a hoax

did i get em all?
ja?
good

now superluminal
i ask that you drop the ambiguities and get specific. i demand references and links that support your verbiage. get rigorous

your peer review is now in session
andale

Excellent!

First lets make a list of the "theories" I was referring to:

- UFO's (i.e. alien spacecraft) as anything other than hoax, misidentification, or delusion.

- Alien abductions as specified above.

- Crop circles

- "We never went to the moon" hoaxes.

- Telepathy, precognition, telekenesis, and any other "phenomenon of the mind".

- Ancient astronauts.

- Atlantis

- Perpetual motion machines or anything that "demonstrates" a violation of known physical law.

- Antigravity

- FTL travel/communications

- Faith healing

- Ghosts, spectres, spirits of any kind

- God, gods, deities, angels, jesus, demons, hell, heaven, and the like.

Have I missed any? Please include your favorite delusion if I have...

Thanks.

i do not get it
but lets muddle thru this mess anyway

try this statement for size........crop circles actually exist.
it is hardly a delusion or theory.

Crop circles caused by space alien UFO's. To clarify.

i do not get it

You asked me to put up or shut up right? So, I listed some "theories" to discuss. What don't you get? Were you thinking of something else?


but lets muddle thru this mess anyway

try this statement for size........crop circles actually exist.
it is hardly a delusion or theory.

Duh. Sorry, I meant what Communist Hampster said.

"God, gods, deities, angels, jesus, demons, hell, heaven, and the like." caused by.......? ufo's?

superluminal

lets establish a background for you thru some questions

*probability of extrasolar planets habitable by carbon based life forms?
*probability of sentience in said forms?
*probability of advanced spacefaring civ? (relative to us)

can some or all of these, be computed?
i would like you to take into account that an actual example of the above exists in the form of earth, its inhabitants and thier endeavors aka the basis for the above postulates

if unlikely, explain our uniqueness factor

- UFO's (i.e. alien spacecraft) as anything other than hoax, misidentification, or delusion.

- Ancient astronauts.

the differentiation is mainly temporal since "alien spacecraft" would imply a pilot aka "astronaut", ancient or otherwise

agree?

"Spontaneous healing" is the label that the medical establishment puts on healing that is not caused by conventional medical treatments. A majority of the cases of "spontaneous healing" are associated with faith healing; some are related to alternative medicine. The results associated with "spontaneous healing" are real as evidenced by medical records. The how of "spontaneous healing" is still unexplained.

superluminal

lets establish a background for you thru some questions

*probability of extrasolar planets habitable by carbon based life forms?
*probability of sentience in said forms?
*probability of advanced spacefaring civ? (relative to us)

can some or all of these, be computed?
i would like you to take into account that an actual example of the above exists in the form of earth, its inhabitants and thier endeavors aka the basis for the above postulates

if unlikely, explain our uniqueness factor

I dispute none of your probability statements above. None of those were in my list.
1) Almost certain.
2) Also, almost certain but far less common
3) Also, almost certain but even less common than general sentience.

Is an advanced spacefaring civilization the explanation for UFO's? Based on the absolute lack of evidence, no. Absolutely not.

the differentiation is mainly temporal since "alien spacecraft" would imply a pilot aka "astronaut", ancient or otherwise

agree?

Sure. Ancient as in "the aliens built the pyramids" and other nonsense.

"God, gods, deities, angels, jesus, demons, hell, heaven, and the like." caused by.......? ufo's?

No. Different nonsensical subject altogether.

"Spontaneous healing" is the label that the medical establishment puts on healing that is not caused by conventional medical treatments. A majority of the cases of "spontaneous healing" are associated with faith healing; some are related to alternative medicine. The results associated with "spontaneous healing" are real as evidenced by medical records. The how of "spontaneous healing" is still unexplained.

Show us the citation to the medical literature that acknowledges spontaneous healing that has no probable explanation. The body does have the ability to fight disease and can heal. There's nothing "spontaneous" about this. There is not one documented case of "faith healing" that shows the patient made any sort of healing in connection with christian witch doctors, etc. There are, however, many documented cases of so-called "faith healings," and "alternative" treatments that have murdered people.

To put it bluntly: spontaneous healing and alternative medicine is bullshit and it kills people. Nearly all of them ignorant believers.

No, not really, we've done this one before. NASA and mechanised military organisations with the capability to communicate, co-operate, react. and control, are fairly recent.

So what about all the visitations that should have occurred before the govts of the world were in a position to stifle the news?

Surely, such things would then have been common knowledge.

I now think that the public have such tools as to be able to disseminate any information publicly too, despite any attempts by any organisation to quash such communcation.

So the ability to control was perhaps only during a brief period where govts had a technological advantage over the populace, say, WW11 to the 70's. Of course, that period included the cold war, and that rather destroys the co-operation required to stifle such an internationally huge story.

So, even if you could prove an attempt by govts to stifle, I really don't think such an attempt would have worked.

Phlogistician, I see what your saying but that's only one side of the issue - a one-sided debunkery attempt.

When I said I wanted to prove such a thing, I suppose the better word would be too investigate it's potential to be true. I cannot (you cannot either) investigate such a thing, if I debunk it before I even start.

The best way to investigate such a thing would be to consider all angles and possibilities from the start and then see where the evidence leads.

You appear to feel that such an investigation would be a waste of time - not because of your own investigation or study - but because of mere proclamation.

That's not to say I disagree with everything you said, but that merely there are alternate explanation's to everything you've asked but apperently have never once thought of them. I think that is unfair too true science or investigation.

This issue is WAY to complicated and unsolved to be making grand proclamation's any way or the other at this point.

I dispute none of your probability statements above. None of those were in my list.
1) Almost certain.
2) Also, almost certain but far less common
3) Also, almost certain but even less common than general sentience.

Is an advanced spacefaring civilization the explanation for UFO's? Based on the absolute lack of evidence, no. Absolutely not.

This all comes down to probabability. If you view the probability of life forms visiting us as high you will see ETI as a resonable explanation for some UFO's.

As little as we know about our own solar system we are in no position to make grand proclamation's one way or another yet. We can make grand proclamation's, but doing so and then citing a "Lack of evidence" as the reason for our proclamation's seems to me, to be rather stupid.

You appear to feel that such an investigation would be a waste of time - not because of your own investigation or study - but because of mere proclamation.




Mere proclamation.

You once, in response to one of my posts, said that Stanton Friedman would be proud!

This reminds me of something he said on that website you linked to:

Debunkers seem to employ four major rules:


What the public doesn't know, we certainly won't tell them. The largest official USAF UFO study isn't even mentioned in twelve anti-UFO books, though every one of those books' authors was aware of it.


Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.


If one can't attack the data, attack the people. It is easier.


Do one's research by proclamation rather than investigation. It is much easier, and nobody will know the difference anyway.

Now, I'm sensitive to more skeptical ufologists and their qualms with persons like Mr. Friedman. He is not a man without controversy. But many of the things he said were very sensible.

Does anyone get tired of hearing proclamations, rather than investigations?

Attacking the people? Woo Woo. That about says it for personal, "ad hominem" attacks.

Who was it, Phlogistician? Woo Woos are all underachievers, attention-seeking morons, etc, etc.

From an article by a rather skeptical Susan Blackmore (Skeptical Inquirer):

Another theory is that abductees are mentally ill. This receives little or no support from the literature. Bloecher, Clamar, and Hopkins (1985) found above-average intelligence and no signs of serious pathology among nine abductees, and Parnell (1988) found no evidence of psychopathology among 225 individuals who reported having seen a UFO (although not having been abducted). Most recently, Spanos et al. (1993) compared forty-nine UFO reporters with two control groups and found they were no less intelligent, no more fantasy prone, and no more hypnotizable than the controls. Nor did they show more signs of psychopathology. They did, however, believe more strongly in alien visitations, suggesting that such beliefs allow people to shape ambiguous information, diffuse physical sensations, and vivid imaginings into realistic alien encounters.

Temporal lobe lability has also been implicated. People with relatively labile temporal lobes are more prone to fantasy, and more likely to report mystical and out-of-body experiences, visions, and psychic experiences (Persinger and Makarec 1987). However, Spanos et al. found no difference in a temporal lobe lability scale between their UFO reporters and control groups. Cox (1995) compared a group of twelve British abductees with both a matched control group and a student control group and, again, found no differences on the temporal lobe lability scale. Like Spanos's subjects, the abductees were more often believers in alien visitations than were the controls.

They did, however, believe more strongly in alien visitations, suggesting that such beliefs allow people to shape ambiguous information, diffuse physical sensations, and vivid imaginings into realistic alien encounters.

The question then, is do people who have sightings of UFOs have their beliefs influenced by their sightings? Is this enough to say that they are fantasy prone Woo-Woos that make up their stories for purposes of gaining attention?

These personal attacks on people don't necessarily invalidate their claims.

Both the UFO AND the abduction phenomenon needs to be addressed case by case. You can't say "I've proved one or two cases to be false, so I've PROVED THEM ALL!" Or is that how science works?

Recently, one of the preeminent theoretical physicists, Michio Kaku, said:

"Some people slam the door on the question of other civilizations visiting the Earth because distances are so far away. I say, 'Not so fast.' "

"When you look at this handful, handful of cases that cannot be easily dismissed. This is worthy. This is worthy of a scientific investigation. Maybe there's nothing there. However, on the off chance that there is something there, that could change the course of human history. So I say, ' Let the investigation begin.' "

I dispute none of your probability statements above. None of those were in my list.
1) Almost certain.
2) Also, almost certain but far less common
3) Also, almost certain but even less common than general sentience.

Is an advanced spacefaring civilization the explanation for UFO's? Based on the absolute lack of evidence, no. Absolutely not.

nice
i like your certainty. lets now role play

While flying over Lake Michigan in 1981, TWA Captain Phil Schultz saw a "large, round, silver metal object" with dark portholes equally spaced around the circumference, which "descended into the atmosphere from above," according to his hand-written report. Schultz and his first officer braced themselves for a mid-air collision; the object suddenly made a high speed turn and departed.

Veteran Japan Airlines 747 Captain Kenju Terauchi reported a spectacular, prolonged encounter over Alaska in 1986. "Most unexpectedly two space ships stopped in front of our face, shooting off lights," he said. "The inside cockpit shined brightly and I felt warm in the face." Despite the FAA determination that he and his crew were stable, competent and professional, he was grounded for speaking out.

In 1997, a Swissair Boeing 747 over Long Island just missed a glowing white, cylindrical object speeding towards the plane. According to a FAA Civil Aviation Security Office memorandum, Pilot Philip Bobet said that "if the object was any lower, it may have hit the right wing." (link (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc3.htm) link (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=11710) link (http://www.ufo.freewire.co.uk/cleared.htm))

let us assume that these reports are factual. (if you cannot, explain why)
put yourself in any of these pilot's shoes and attempt an explanation of the phenomena. is there a possibility that in any one of your working hypothesis, you would include an et origin for the ufo? if not, why? keep in mind too, your high degree of confidence in the probability equations previously mentioned.

thanks

No. Different nonsensical subject altogether.

which is exactly my point.. the only commonality is a wholly subjective characterization. you would think a scientific approach would not allow emotional considerations to taint or bias, an investigation into a "different subject," ja?

a few examples of pathological skepticism....

santa claus gambit This trick consists of lumping moderate claims or propositions together with extreme ones. If you suggest, for example, that Sasquatch can't be completely ruled out from the available evidence,the skeptic will then facetiously suggest that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny can't be "completely" ruled out either.

debunkery-by-association: Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example.

what do you think?

let us assume that these reports are factual. (if you cannot, explain why)

Let's just assume, like good skeptics, that these reports are BULLSH*T!

Okay, seriously, let me guess...

Pilots aren't trained observers.
Even SCIENTISTS can be fooled! How much more easily are pilots fooled, then?
It was probably an experimental craft with which they were unfamiliar, and so they misidentified it as something "out of this world!"
Were they intoxicated?
Do they lie often? Are they cheating on their wives?
Can I actually talk to these pilots?
Can you get them on the phone for me so I know if they're real or not?
Someone probably fabricated these stories to further the Woo Woo agenda.

Are these plausible or likely explanations???
Hear that buzzing? The HIVE IS ACTIVE!!! :eek: EEK!

Just a little sarcasm, to spice things up!

Sure. Ancient as in "the aliens built the pyramids" and other nonsense.

you would be well served if you desist from reading tabloids and allowing the crackpots to define the terms and content of debate. i mean....moon hoax?

jesus fucking wept aka nigger puhlease!

This issue is WAY to complicated and unsolved to be making grand proclamation's any way or the other at this point.

you are being too hard on phlog.

this reminds me of a quote by marx....
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!"

:D

This all comes down to probabability. If you view the probability of life forms visiting us as high you will see ETI as a resonable explanation for some UFO's.

As little as we know about our own solar system we are in no position to make grand proclamation's one way or another yet. We can make grand proclamation's, but doing so and then citing a "Lack of evidence" as the reason for our proclamation's seems to me, to be rather stupid.

So, lack of evidence leads others to make "grand proclamations" that UFO's are aliens? Now that's stupid. Look, people see things. They think "oh, that's odd" Why would they jump to the conclusion that aliens are about? Especially when there are so many phenomena that occurr in the sky? Simply because they can't think of a more prosaic explanation right away?

My point is, why make any proclamation at all? There's no compelling evidence that UFO's are alien spacecraft. There's tons of evidence for hoaxes, sincere misidentification, hallucinations, and actual brain dysfunction.

So I will ammend my "proclamation". Claiming UFO's are alien spacecraft is silly based on the current state of evidence. There.

nice
i like your certainty. lets now role play

While flying over Lake Michigan in 1981, TWA Captain Phil Schultz saw a "large, round, silver metal object" with dark portholes equally spaced around the circumference, which "descended into the atmosphere from above," according to his hand-written report. Schultz and his first officer braced themselves for a mid-air collision; the object suddenly made a high speed turn and departed.

Veteran Japan Airlines 747 Captain Kenju Terauchi reported a spectacular, prolonged encounter over Alaska in 1986. "Most unexpectedly two space ships stopped in front of our face, shooting off lights," he said. "The inside cockpit shined brightly and I felt warm in the face." Despite the FAA determination that he and his crew were stable, competent and professional, he was grounded for speaking out.

In 1997, a Swissair Boeing 747 over Long Island just missed a glowing white, cylindrical object speeding towards the plane. According to a FAA Civil Aviation Security Office memorandum, Pilot Philip Bobet said that "if the object was any lower, it may have hit the right wing." (link (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc3.htm) link (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=11710) link (http://www.ufo.freewire.co.uk/cleared.htm))

let us assume that these reports are fa