My first serious review of the UFO literature was for a college English essay. Before this, I found the subject to be bizarre, cultish, and mostly nonsense. I had some interest, but any actual story was too far out for my worldview. Only after reading about 10 books for my essay writing - The Hynek UFO Report being the most significant of these – did the subject carry any real weight in my own thoughts. From my own experience, it is easy to ignore or ridicule the subject, if you have ignored the subject, but an informed opinion is another matter altogether.

Now, any two people may interpret the same information is different ways; this is an unavoidable consequence of being human. And to say that the subject of UFOs opens the floodgates for conflict is an understatement at least, but to say the subject is all hogwash is to demonstrate ignorance. On the other hand, if this comes as an informed opinion, there is only one explanation for this behavior that makes sense: Fear. This would explain quite a few paradoxical aspects of our beloved debunkers. Here are a few of these paradoxes.

If this subject is all nonsense, then why do so many people spend so much time and energy trying to disprove it. This is really strange since for one, the subject never can be disproved. This would violate basic logic. We can never prove that some elusive visitor is not here. Any good skeptic would know this so this begs the question: Why do they try so hard? Some might say they dedicate their time to help free the world of its nonsense notions? Nonsense! If they have half a clue about human nature they know this is not possible. Also, given that any good skeptic must know this, one must wonder why they don’t have something better to do? Of all the things that one might do with their time, why spend so much effort trying to show everyone else how silly they are – meanness, unfulfilled potential, failed dreams, boredom, dad or mom didn’t love them enough? Even if some reason like this exists, why attack the UFO crowd?

I have considered this question a bit, and it seems to me that the answer is fear. This is why the attacks are so misguided and personal. Note that the debunkers often try to debunk the messenger and not the message. This is one reason that I tend to stick with the study of government files as my focal point; this is the only source of UFO records that have some built in validation. But when faced even with intelligence reports that went to all of the highest levels of government including the White House, I have had debunkers ignore these official records as if they were from the National Enquirer. This leaves only one possible conclusion: the debunkers are rarely objective. This implies motive, or at least insincerity. What kind of motive? The preservation of their world view seems the only consistent explanation. What else could it be? What else would be so important that a person would donate so much time to a hopeless pursuit to disprove what they believe is nonsense, and which can never be disproved? Clearly our skeptics are quite uniquely bothered by this particular phenomenon. The reason is that deep down they realize just how important the subject might be.

Of course, as for our TV skeptics, it’s about the money.

Of course, we do still have to account for the insincere attackers: These are mostly people with personality disorders. They know that since UFOs are so elusive and controversial, the UFO buffs are easy targets. This allows them to be mean and lazy, which is usually all they really want.

To those who attack but have not studied the subject, I can understand your misguided malice. I once felt the same way about much this stuff.

I can't agree with you more. Your statements are both eloqant and thought out.
Yet I don't think you expressed the true fears:

1) the monster under the bed syndrome ( If you hide your eyes under the blanket ) the monster goes away.

2) the government knows whats best syndrome (these people dont even vote)

3) Look I'm normal syndrome ( like a chameolon will go with whatever the majority is saying as stated fact.)

4) The "I didn't do any research but know it's all bullcrap syndrome" Most prevelant form found)

You can lead a skunk to water but you can't make him stink!

Ivan

Most likely, my post on your other thread hit too close to home, and rather than using your pea brain to consider that you have been wasting the last 20 years of your life chasing rainbows, you instead start a thread attacking skeptics.

But instead of describing the skeptic, you successfully described the believer; in fact, you appear to be describing yourself, almost to a tee.

Perhaps this is your way of self-analysis, a way for you to take a good long hard look in the mirror, so to speak.

Kudos! I applaud your efforts. You’re well on the way to recovery.

And don’t feel too depressed about the time wasted – it’s always better late then never.

;)

incredibly weak old chap

this pathological debunkery is not restricted to ufology but to all notions that threaten to upset the prevailing paradigm. you are run of the mill, q. forever destinied to be a good little follower. kindly step aside and make way for ....progress!!

pathological skeptiscm (http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt)

ps: watch your ass. my alien buds have scheduled you for an anal probe;)

kudos! I applaud you. a sense of focus and respectability is what we gain by your efforts

Originally posted by (Q)
using your pea brain
;) [/B]

Q : If they had operations to enhance brain size 10 fold, you would still have plenty of room in Ivans pea!

Q came all the way over to Physics Forums [where I posted same] to take some more shots at me. This one must have really bothered Q! :D

Ivan,

You say that the motive of the debunker's is fear, and later suggest that what they are afraid of is having their world view upset.

Let's stipulate for the sake of argument that this is true. What's the problem? Who actively wecomes having their world view upset? (Not changed, mind you, upset.)

During the recent fires here in Southern Ca. the city of San Diego was smothered in thick smoke some of the days, so thick it literally blocked out the sun: it was slightly lighter than night out and there was no trace of the sun glowing through the smoke despite the fact you knew it was daylight.

I found this intensely depressing and was kind of quietly panicing to think that in one day sunny southern ca. could actually be turned into this. Everything was closed. On the two or three days it was this bad, before 10 AM, I degenerated into escapism: I just laid down and went to sleep untill it was late enough for the darkness to be appropriate, then felt comfortable enough to get out of bed.

I found out that in one day something can happen that just blocks out the sun in this sunniest of places.

So, my question is: what is wrong with someone wanting to preserve their world outlook? Or with fearing a shock to it?

(I don't actually believe this assessment of the motive of skeptics applies across the board, but if it applies at all to any it is worth discussing.)

Q came all the way over to Physics Forums [where I posted same] to take some more shots at me. This one must have really bothered Q!

Ivan is lying. I have copied/pasted my post here in order to show how people like Ivan are not interested in debate but are merely interested in others blindly agreeing. He accuses me of taking shots at him, which is exactly the kind of deception my post below is referring.

One has to wonder what other deceptions Ivan has made in order to make his point.

Thanks, Ivan – for helping me show others your true motives.

The stalemate is obvious. I can't prove anything beyond the evidence immediately available

Here’s where your logic fails miserably – there is no stalemate. The so-called evidence in which believers tend to find compelling is little more than testimonial hyperbole, which is far from the evidence required to even form a hypothesis.

the debunker can never prove a negative.

Debunkers are not interested in proving negatives. Debunkers have already successfully proven that believers have nothing to base their assertions aside from their own over-active imaginations. Of course, the believer ignores their own lack of validity and credibility.

why do some many debunkers act so hostile; and why do they try so hard?

Most likely, they are sick and tired of believers demanding funding for their fallacious projects - trying to find ET. As well, believers tend to mislead and deceive others with their ridiculous claims, thus having a negative effect on the perception of the scientific community. In short, believers do more damage to science than any good that might come about from their claims.

The hostility is well grounded.

If ET is here I would sure like to know it. I can see why so many people think this really is true

Quite frankly, I am dumb-founded by the amount of people willing to believe anything they are told. Most have little or no formal education and can’t even begin to fathom the problems associated with interstellar travel, yet are perfectly willing to accept the possibility that ET walks the Earth. The amount of UFOlogy crap on the internet only serves to feed their delusions.

It would be laughable if it weren’t so sadly tragic.

Ivan

You are a Mentor for the Skepticism and Debunking forum at PhysicsForums? :eek: :confused:

Something is seriously wrong with that.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
From my own experience, it is easy to ignore or ridicule the subject, if you have ignored the subject, but an informed opinion is another matter altogether.
Claiming that UFOs do not exist is silly. However, ridiculing researchers who claim to know what it is (without any proof) is fully acceptable :)

there is only one explanation for this behavior that makes sense: Fear.
Um... people debunk things for the same reason people research them. Why do we debunk claims of free energy, because we are 'afraid' of it? Nice try. "I for one would welcome our new ET overloads", but claims without logic or evidence are fairly silly and in the same realm as free energy.

We can never prove that some elusive visitor is not here. Any good skeptic would know this so this begs the question: Why do they try so hard?
Because we can easily prove that you don't have any evidence. You are arguing from a weak position if your only basis is "nah-na, you can't get me based on logic." I could just as easily say "everyone who sees a UFO is crazy", and you can't disprove me. That wouldn't stop you from trying though.

Some might say they dedicate their time to help free the world of its nonsense notions? Nonsense! If they have half a clue about human nature they know this is not possible.
Who cares about ridding the world of it. EVERY false idea still exists somewhere in the world... the point is to minimize it.

I have considered this question a bit, and it seems to me that the answer is fear. This is why the attacks are so misguided and personal.
This is also true of the UFO crowd. Remember a few months ago when I was agreeing with you, and you took it upon yourself to 'read between the lines' (where there was no message), and resorted to attacking me. This is not a matter of UFO debunkers, it's human nature to attack the opponent.

This is one reason that I tend to stick with the study of government files as my focal point; this is the only source of UFO records that have some built in validation.
Agreed, but you must agre that they are not gospel.

But when faced even with intelligence reports that went to all of the highest levels of government including the White House, I have had debunkers ignore these official records as if they were from the National Enquirer.
Granted, I haven't been paying attention to pseudo lately, but I haven't seen anything from the government that has said more the 'lights in the sky', 'we chased', 'they vanised', 'unidentified'. Great, that just proved that people don't know everything... but has not addressed what UFOs actually are.

Of course, we do still have to account for the insincere attackers: These are mostly people with personality disorders.
Personal attacks? I'm just imagining your response if Q said this :)

Personal attacks? I'm just imagining your response if Q said this

The post I copied above was from Physicsforums where Ivan is a Mentor. From this single post he has placed me ‘on notice.’ I’m not sure what he meant by that because he refuses to clarify, therefore I can only conclude he is abusing his power as a Mentor.

I’m assuming ‘on notice’ must be similar to ‘double-double probation.’ ;)

Got a link Q?

yah. i saw the post and cracked up at q's persistence.
yet......."notice"? was there one? lets not have any forum wars

Originally posted by spookz
incredibly weak old chap

this pathological debunkery is not restricted to ufology but to all notions that threaten to upset the prevailing paradigm. you are run of the mill, q. forever destinied to be a good little follower. kindly step aside and make way for ....progress!!

pathological skeptiscm (http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt)

ps: watch your ass. my alien buds have scheduled you for an anal probe;)

Have you considered that there is damn good reason that the "prevailing paradigm" is resistant to "crazy ideas"?

Have you seen Penn & Teller's "BULLSHIT!" regarding this topic?

Persol

Here ya go - note the title of the thread:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=10376&perpage=12&pagenumber=1

Hehe, he IS always hostile.

"you obviously need to learn much more about the subject before forming an opinion"
"Instead, what we typically find are people who are willing to commit a great deal of time debunking something they know virtually nothing about."
" There are good skeptics and bad skeptics. In my experience, most are not very reliable. They are usually trying to win; not to discover the truth."

I find it funny that your thread about how debunkers resort to personality attacks, resorts to personality attacks.

My point is, your post is doing exactly that which you are complaining about... and simply distracts the issue.

You guys need to lighten up. But I think money is the best motivator.

Originally posted by wesmorris
Have you considered that there is damn good reason that the "prevailing paradigm" is resistant to "crazy ideas"?

Have you seen Penn & Teller's "BULLSHIT!" regarding this topic?

no. do enlighten on the "damn good reason"

Episode 13:Environmental Hysteria:
Here Penn & Teller explore the truth behind fears about global warming, air quality, water quality, acid rain, species extinction, and take a look at Greenpeace's activities.

thoughts? you wanna take em on one by one? lemme have the truth. these fuckers have an issue with greenpeace (http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/features/)?

what i note is all you guys simply buy into the media spin of issues that actually merit concern. legitimate issues are dismissed because you guys lack the abilty to discern the subtle differences. just because stuff is blown out of proportion and exaggerated to milk it for all its worth in no way lessens the kernel of truth that made it a frikkin problem in the first place!

how the hell is postulating an et origin for ufo's a "crazy idea"?

You didn't answer my second question.

Oh, and I meant "damn good reasons". Pardon. You know, stability, confidence, momentum, blah blah. A lot of reasons regarding perception and masses and whatnot and more pertinent reasons like that the pardigm has generally been tested ad nauseum... peer reviewed to dust. Things that aren't part of it... aren't. They have to be viewed with great skepticism or blind stupidity will follow.

Further, paradigms are just kind of that way aren't they? It's not like there isn't plenty of fringe activity, it's just that for anything to be considered under the current paradigm it has to be presented in terms of the current paradigm such that it can be filtered through the minds of those that are not down with your assertions. Otherwise how can they get down with you?

sorry wes
no i havent but the theme is commonplace.

blind stupidity? envision something for me. the way i see it is...either it works or it doesnt. the fringe has always been around. i see no threat. et will become the new religion only after he shows himself. until then our current paradigm can handle a bit of crackpottery

yes! even those who think the sky might fall if you let your guard down ;)

*i like to anchor this (paradigms) to actual shit as i do not have this aptitude foe abstraction as you do. lemme think some shit up

Originally posted by Persol
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Claiming that UFOs do not exist is silly. However, ridiculing researchers who claim to know what it is (without any proof) is fully acceptable :)

Well, I would like to see an end to all of the ridicule on both sides, but that IS fantasy. I support the study of UFOs but I support no particular interpretation of the phenomenon; nor do I deny that reasons exist for all of the ET buffs beliefs. However, aside from the claim that something very unusual and highly energetic flies around the sky at times, I try very hard to remain neutral.

Um... people debunk things for the same reason people research them. Why do we debunk claims of free energy, because we are 'afraid' of it? Nice try. "I for one would welcome our new ET overloads", but claims without logic or evidence are fairly silly and in the same realm as free energy.

I see very little correlation to free energy devices and UFOs. There is no reason to consider any free energy machine that one can't turn on, inspect, and test. UFOs on the other hand are rare, typically brief in appearance, and not repeatable by nature. Also, the two subjects hardly compare in scope. What amazes me is not that we find debunkers, what amazes me is how many there are, and how much conviction they assert often with little knowledge of the subject. It becomes more like a religion. My motives are clear; I just want to know what they are. Why should I have to put up with people like Q for having this interest?

Because we can easily prove that you don't have any evidence. You are arguing from a weak position if your only basis is "nah-na, you can't get me based on logic." I could just as easily say "everyone who sees a UFO is crazy", and you can't disprove me. That wouldn't stop you from trying though.

There is plenty of evidence, but most debunkers are not willing to make the effort to learn. I post evidence and no one responds. The posts just roll on by.

I have posted the Iran document a number of times but no one responds.

Who cares about ridding the world of it. EVERY false idea still exists somewhere in the world... the point is to minimize it.

So, is the UFO culture growing larger or getting smaller? What is your goal? Are you making progress with the current approach? Of course I mean the debunking crowd in general, not just you. :D

This is also true of the UFO crowd. Remember a few months ago when I was agreeing with you, and you took it upon yourself to 'read between the lines' (where there was no message), and resorted to attacking me. This is not a matter of UFO debunkers, it's human nature to attack the opponent.

Yes, I did get a little defensive. We Ufologist put up with a lot of personal attacks; sometimes I get my hackles up.
[b]

Agreed, but you must agre that they are not gospel.

Agreed. With the volume of reports available, IMO it becomes impossible to completely dismiss the subject. Something unusual must be flying around from time to time. To me this conclusion seems unavoidable. I can sympathize with the ET crowd, but that is just too far of a stretch for me unless ET lands in my pasture or next to Tom Brokaw on the evening news.

Personal attacks? I'm just imagining your response if Q said this :)

I'm not passing judgment on Q. This may or may not apply; I don't know Qs motives or psychological profile. Actually, I've seen some posters at un-moderated sites that are much worse than Q. There was one guy at Deja - or the site once purchased as Deja - that would call you every name in the book as soon as you showed up.

Also, you know that skeptics and debunkers use language like "nuts" ," fanatics" etc, etc, etc, with reckless disregard for any respectful discourse. This is just, somehow, by whatever rationalization, OK. However, the debunkers are so greatly insulted when they get a little taste of their own medicine.

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Ivan,

You say that the motive of the debunker's is fear, and later suggest that what they are afraid of is having their world view upset.

Let's stipulate for the sake of argument that this is true. What's the problem? Who actively wecomes having their world view upset? (Not changed, mind you, upset.)

This is a good point. If the ETH were true, it would shake up my worldview pretty well I think. Still, SOP for the debunkers is to claim the objective high ground; I think this is not always, but sometimes fallacious. Many debunkers go away when faced with evidence they can't reasonably explain.

So, my question is: what is wrong with someone wanting to preserve their world outlook? Or with fearing a shock to it?

(I don't actually believe this assessment of the motive of skeptics applies across the board, but if it applies at all to any it is worth discussing.)

How many debunkers claim this as their motive? This is about honesty. Also, like I said over at PF, this is intended more for those who have an interest; though the objections are obviously expected. These are my personal observations. Since the motives of the UFO crowd are continually challenged, it only seems fair and worth mentioning that this works both ways.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
How many debunkers claim this as their motive? This is about honesty.
For obvious reasons none could admit this as a motive: were it true, it would dash their credibility. To conceal a motive of fear is not an issue of deceit versus honesty, either. To assert that it is means you are sure those debunkers motivated by fear are consciously aware of it. In fact, though, my experience is that people running on potentially embarrassing motives have them burried under layers of rationalization they themselves can't see through.

Again, I question the usefullness of saying anything about debunkers and skeptics in general. They are a mixed bag, just like any group of people you might apply a label to, and no characterization is going to cover all of them, or even most of them, well. Most of the debunkers I have seen on TV presenting their cases haven't struck me as objectionable people: they're not making ad hominem arguments, saying abusive or insulting things, or behaving agressively.

For your reading pleasure I will admit to often being motivated by fear in my skeptical dabblings, but it isn't the fear you think it is. I am leary of buying into compelling sounding claims of the extrordinary, getting exited about them, and then later finding out they were bogus. Like most humans, I very much dislike disapointment.

-Zooby

My motives as a skeptic, and occasional debunker, ... where to start.

Ah, other people's beliefs, then my personality traits, let's start there.

When you are young, people try and tell you things, and they don't always explain why they are telling you, or why they feel the need to, or why they believe what they are saying, or indeed, if they do actually believe it.

So, my first steps towards skepticism, was with religion. There were a few people I met when I was young, that tried to tell me about religion, and god, and Jesus. But, for some reason, I was one of those kids that always asked 'why', and I wanted an answer to that, and no answer was not satisfactory. 'Just 'cos' didn't cut it with me. Nobody who ever tried selling me God could answer any of my questions satifactorily, still can't. I recall a conversation I had with a neighbour, who was trying to sell me the creation story. As luck would have it, I'd just been given a book about dinosaurs, so I asked her about them. She said they had never existed, as they aren't listed in the bible. Well, I'd seen fossils (which is why I'd ended up with the book) so something didn't fit. Of course, as I got older, religion started to make far more sense. Is was about corrupt flawed people keeping control of other people using fear and paranoia. Well, I wasn't fearful, or prone to paranoia about my eternal soul, so I could see it for what it was. A business, looking out for itself.

And then I come across other people. New agers, who'll believe in just about anything, as long as they don't have to stop doing anything they enjoy doing.

Hippies. Enough said, already.

UFOlogists. Ah, and the come in so many types! From quite academic studious types, to complete flakes. The flakes are easy to discount. 'Ahuh, you were abducted, and told the secrets of the Universe, but you can't tell me, or the Universe will end.' etc. Same as religion really, a few sincere people, drowned out by vast majority of people who will believe in anything.

But you have studious types, who earnestly look at what is recorded. I looked too, as I found it passingly interesting, although my interest was more in the psychology of the believers.

Let's start with definitions. U.F.O.

Unidentified
Flying
Object

Right, I'm going to be strict here. Stealth aircraft are not 'Unidentified' Somebody knows what they are. They are more correctly 'secret'. Just because the observer doesn't know, doesn't matter. We can't educate all six billion of us to stop making mis-identifications, so we have to work around the observer somewhat. Terrestrial aircraft are built and flown by somebody, and they know what they are doing. If folks think this is the cause of UFO sightings, they should perhaps look for a better descriptive term, like 'plane spotter'.

Flying. No Venus. Not Mars. Not shooting stars. Not camera shake of a bright star, but something showing controlled flight. So a turn or two would be nice. A single blurry photograph does not show controlled flight, and how come we see so many single shots? I'd snap as many as I could, I'd get a series.

Object. Something which we can measure, hopefully. Not 'Projections of intelligence from a different vibration' or other Orgone related hippy BS. When we start with this stuff, we're opening up to all manner of theories, invisible pink Giraffes in space included. Let's not start, or we have to accept everything as being possible.

So, radar data, there is some, but as the earth is covered in radars, and not a single object takes off or lands without an aquaintance of mine getting an IR picture of it's engine and trail, we should be tripping over data, if it's there. So if it is there, there is a conspiracy. A huge one, many nations are in on it, and very few people squeal.

And wouldn't a good PR exerise for a US hating radical govt, be to publish radar data, and implicate the US in a coverup? Proving they are the great satan and not to be trusted?

Sifting through it all. Firstly, we have to accept that there is so much fakery, deception, and sheer lunacy, that the few honest people are really hard to find. It becomes a business, for many, selling 'the truth' to the faithful. Alien cults, for Pete's sake. Rael. The 'Higher Source' Heaven's Gate mob. Scientologists. That guy that sold UFO images on CD here, that eventually admitted he took photos of the sky, and then played with them in Photoshop until he saw things. Shameful.

So we have very little compelling data . Very few credible people, and a HUGE conspiracy theory.

Being a skeptic is the only place to be. I'll change my mind if I see compelling evidence. But just like the case for god, I haven't seen any yet. And, like evidence for god, I don't expect to be _sold_ such things.

Originally posted by phlogistician
Sifting through it all. Firstly, we have to accept that there is so much fakery, deception, and sheer lunacy, that the few honest people are really hard to find. It becomes a business, for many, selling 'the truth' to the faithful. Alien cults, for Pete's sake. Rael. The 'Higher Source' Heaven's Gate mob. Scientologists. That guy that sold UFO images on CD here, that eventually admitted he took photos of the sky, and then played with them in Photoshop until he saw things. Shameful.
In one of the Carlos Castenada books the character of Don Juan says to Carlos, "Just scratch the surface, and everyone believes in magic."

I was reminded of this a few years later when it came up in conversation that a friend, who was all business and no nonsence, revealed he felt he had had a psychic dream or two.

I've thought about this alot, and I believe the reason that just under the surface we all believe in "magic" (fill in the name of your "magic": UFOs, ghosts, telekinesis, etc) is that the fundamental perception of the world we form as children doesn't go away, it just gets overlaid with adult beliefs. The erroneous childhood beliefs stay, more dormant in some people than others.

Originally posted by spookz
sorry wes
no i havent but the theme is commonplace.

blind stupidity? envision something for me. the way i see it is...either it works or it doesnt. the fringe has always been around. i see no threat. et will become the new religion only after he shows himself. until then our current paradigm can handle a bit of crackpottery

yes! even those who think the sky might fall if you let your guard down ;)

*i like to anchor this (paradigms) to actual shit as i do not have this aptitude foe abstraction as you do. lemme think some shit up

Dude, the fringe is a necessity.. but that doesn't change the nature of the pardigm eh? I think the pardigm handles crackpottery quite well, as it should, with great skepticism.

Note that if crackpottery is true, then eventually the paradigm has no choice but to yield to it. IMO, that is beautiful.

You know I must be all fucked up. LOL. I have this propensity to think "everything is as it should be". Go figure eh?

Ivan Seeking:

You seem to want to legitimise the study of the UFO phenomenon. You complain when skeptics are dismissive towards your subject.

I would like to ask you what do you think we can gain from the kind of serious study you envisage? You yourself say that UFOs are one-off phenomena - unpredicatble and unrepeatable. Such phenomena cannot be a proper subject for any kind of scientific inquiry, since science, by its very nature, is the study of the repeatable and predictable. Science seeks to find regularities in the natural world. If UFOs are so unpredictable and variable, as you claim, there is no useful science which can be done on them.

It seems to me, therefore, that UFOs must be relegated to the realm of religion or other faith-based belief, since the only systematic way of studying them seems to be unavailable. There is simply nothing useful to study. Sure, we can go around stamp-collecting, as most UFO enthusiasts do. We can collect lots of fuzzy photos of apparent objects of different shapes. We can look for vague radar echos. We can collect instances of strange-looking depressions in the mud of isolated fields. But where does that get us? It might fill up our scrap books, but it doesn't advance human knowledge in any useful way.

Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you can explain for me why you consider the UFO issue to be so important.

I post evidence and no one responds. The posts just roll on by.

I have posted the Iran document a number of times but no one responds. (ivan seeking)

this is what i have noticed. i'll try again.

here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30988) is another that has been ignored. i'll add the belgium flap. shouldnt be that hard to debunk. an explantion for the phenomena should be offered. merely criticizing is not good enough

Originally posted by (Q)
When you're ready to talk about the real issues and the real science surrounding interstellar travel, let me know.

i will start a thread. the premise is simple. we know that sentient life is possible in the universe. (humans) we know of a habitable planet. (earth) we know of a spacefaring society in this universe. (humans)

i now postulate that it is probable that we are not alone, that there are other habitable planets
i further postulate that, given the ufo phenomena, we are being visited

let the debunkers come out in all their mad, dogmatic glory. i dare you!
it should be a cakewalk for you guys.

Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)

Originally posted by James R
It seems to me, therefore, that UFOs must be relegated to the realm of religion or other faith-based belief, since the only systematic way of studying them seems to be unavailable. There is simply nothing useful to study.

this is great! james cuts thru the bullshit like no other.

On July 19, 1952, both Washington National Airport and Andrews Air Force Base started getting a lot of returns on their radar screens, while at the same time lights in the sky were visible to the human eye. Andrews Air Force base was notified and two fighter jets were scrambled to intercept, but the objects disappeared by the time the F-94s arrived. (johnl) (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30988)

what are these guys thinking off? rather than analyse radar, dispatch jets to investigate, they really should have the priests come out and explain the anomalies. perhaps a definitive report during sunday mass!

good going james.:D

We can look for vague radar echos.

read it and weep! this just about sums up the pathological state of denial the pseudoskeptics labor under.

Originally posted by wesmorris
Note that if crackpottery is true, then eventually the paradigm has no choice but to yield to it. IMO, that is beautiful.

it is the procedure that is fucked up. the movement into the mainstream is marred with unecessary obstacles. your "peer reviewing to death". is a prime example. a legitimate procedure in the scientific method is being abused by a dogmatic establishment. i see no reason to tolerate this.

examples abound. the energy industry. i think we can move into a oil free economy right now! it is the current paradigm of the entrenched interests that is being forced down my throat. the same pseudo skeptical tactics used by ufo debunkers are employed by the industry against the alt energy crowd.

on and in it goes. instead of being dragged kicking and screaming into a new era of stuff, i'd rather they hang for treason

Originally posted by spookz
examples abound. the energy industry. i think we can move into a oil free economy right now!

That's why you're a dirty leftist idealog. :)

Hehe. I used to be one too.

Then I was educated. The IE program opened my eyes to realities I hadn't really contemplated prior to that experience. For instance, the amazing complicated bullshit it takes to make a simple shit like a ball-point pen. Pick up any object in the room you're in right now and study it. Do you have a freakin clue how it came to be? I mean, really have you thought about all the shit that goes into making sure there is gas for your car, or oil, or any of the related bullshit?

I'm not defending the oil industry, I'm trying to point out practical bullshit that the idealog seems to pave over with hap hap happy thoughts.

Uhm, spookz, my brother, have you considered the logistics of such a task? You don't switch energies overnight. SO many issues of note arise. A couple to consider might be:

The magnitude of sunk costs in the current energy industry and all the implicaitons thereof (which are staggeringly huge).

The infrastructure/distribution system required to collect, refine and distribute oil energy products.

The massive chunk of the economy that depends on oil money for stability, including banks, retailers, service companies, manufacturers... hell man I'll be most businesses AND individuals depend directly on the oil energy industry in ways they don't even realize. Don't forget about all the people who get their paychecks and thus support themselves and their families from it. This is all the way up and down the distribution system mentioned above.

Know what I mean?

Changes are imperative, but have to be implemented at a pace that leads to the smallest amount of disruption, because disruption leads to starvation.

The allocation of scarce resources man. Look into it.

Originally posted by spookz
it is the current paradigm of the entrenched interests that is being forced down my throat.


If you are a pussy enough to let the bullshit be shoved down your throat, you deserve it. Nobody says you have to buy what they're selling. Most people do because they aren't capable of leaving the fold and still maintaining a rational perspective.
Originally posted by spookz

the same pseudo skeptical tactics used by ufo debunkers are employed by the industry against the alt energy crowd.


that is just such a load of paranoid crap. all conscious elements of all things at all times are moving to maximize their percieved profit function. get your mind around that and you'll see that the fuckers have a right to try to put up as many barriers to market entry as possible, and you have a right to get around them to the best of your ability. such is the way. if alternative shit was so damn smooth, we'd be using it right now, that's all there really is to it. remember to take into consideration that to be smooth... you have to be able to get it where it's needed. otherwise it's just absent and mofos aint happy.
Originally posted by spookz
on and in it goes.


indeed.
Originally posted by spookz
instead of being dragged kicking and screaming into a new era of stuff, i'd rather they hang for treason

i can appreciate your zeal, but it is misplaced. you should be careful not to hang the man who feeds you, or someone you love.

you go off on a whacked tangent that is removed from what i speak off. what you say makes sense from a capitalist point of view. i approach it from the r&d angle. research is directed the current paradigm ala the industry status quo. those that have an independent bent are given short shrift. scientists are compromised by fat cheques to suppress or distort research.

Look into it.

you dare patronize me?

If you are a pussy enough to let the bullshit be shoved down your throat, you deserve it. Nobody says you have to buy what they're selling. Most people do because they aren't capable of leaving the fold and still maintaining a rational perspective.

why you miserable little shit. tell me how i can live a practical and efficient life adopting green technologies at this time without paying thru my ass? it is only when industry adopts these as routine and economies of scale make it possible to afford this stuff. until then i have to buy what they sell me. contrary to your fuckin opinion, i aint no long haired, wild eyed freak.

Uhm, spookz, my brother, have you considered the logistics of such a task? You don't switch energies overnight.

you fucking trolling my ass? scum! where did i say "overnight"

that is just such a load of paranoid crap.

lemme show you why it aint

*get past the leftist rhetoric moron

/you go off on a whacked tangent that is removed from what i speak off.

You gave an example. I showed why it was somewhat silly.

/what you say makes sense from a capitalist point of view.

just claiming it doesn't really help me understand why you think i'm on crack.

/i approach it from the r&d angle. research is directed the current paradigm ala the industry status quo.

research takes cash. you know how it works, why complain?

/those that have an independent bent are given short shrift.

*sigh*

Why do you think that is? Goddamn dude, you know if you can prove that your shit is straight someone will buy into it. The problem is actually doing that.

/scientists are compromised by fat cheques to suppress or distort research.

It's all part of the process. I agree that shit should be minimized, but how do you propose to control it? IMO, it has to work itself out on its own.

/you dare patronize me?

I guess. It just didn't seem like you were really thinking much when you said " i think we can move into a oil free economy right now!", so I gave you a damn speech as to why that wasn't very well thought out.

/why you miserable little shit.

miserable little shit? show some respect, ass. you know my comments are in earnest. they might not be applicable or useful, but that.. hey quit making me defend my intent asshole. I don't appreciate it and you shoudl fucking know better.

/tell me how i can live a practical and efficient life adopting green technologies at this time without paying thru my ass?

i don't see how that is pertinent. obviously, it is not economically feasible to blah blah through green blah blah or mofos would be all up in it.

/it is only when industry adopts these as routine and economies of scale make it possible to afford this stuff.

so you think your punk ass should just prescribe what industry should or shouldn't do? do you even understand the problem? can you demonstrate that you do? have you ever had to cost justify the procurement of new equipment spookz? i gaurentee that if it were financially gainful for industry to adopt "these" as you put it, they would be all over it. do you think they are stupid?

/until then i have to buy what they sell me.

:rolleyes: I think you're talking out your ass.

/contrary to your fuckin opinion, i aint no long haired, wild eyed freak.

whatever hippy. :D

hehe.

/you fucking trolling my ass? scum!

You know it's funny that the biggest fucking troll on this board would project that bullshit onto everyone he encounters. get this through your fucking skull - ass, i don't fucking troll.

/where did i say "overnight"

Sure seemed like this " i think we can move into a oil free economy right now!" implies overnight. further, if you don't mean over night, then you can be happy that the transition has already started, they are still in the phase of determining which will win out for the replacement though.

/lemme show you why it aint

/*get past the leftist rhetoric moron

You saying you're a leftist rhetoric moron?

Spookz, calling me a fucking moron or an idiot is really fucking well, idiotic and moronic. Cut the fucking bullshit asshole. I don't appreciate it.

You know it's funny that the biggest fucking troll on this board would project that bullshit onto everyone he encounters. get this through your fucking skull - ass, i don't fucking troll.

answer the fucking question. where did i say "overnight". "right now" only implies that we have the tech and it can be implemented

you imply i demand "overnight" changes, you fucking try to paint me as unreasonable and unrealistic. that is trolling.

i do not give a damn what you appreciate! comprende? if you cannot adopt a civil fucking tone with me, expect the same. do not fucking whine, boy!

/answer the fucking question. where did i say "overnight". "right now" only implies that we have the tech and it can be implemented.

I already answered the question. To me your "right now" implied we should just bail on everything we have, adopt something new and go with it. If you meant something different, you could have simply stated so and avoided accusing me of trolling and calling me a moron, bitch.

/you imply i demand "overnight" changes, you fucking try to paint me as unreasonable and unrealistic. that is trolling.

Fuck you. Your statement seemed that way to me. I did not attack your character, call you stupid, blah blah. I did give you shit about being a leftist, but I figured you smart enough to know I was just giving you hell you dirty hippy bastard.

/i do not give a damn what you appreciate!

Then you're an asshole.

/comprende?

Clear enough.

/if you cannot adopt a civil fucking tone with me, expect the same. do not fucking whine, boy!

Show me where I whined hypocrite. Show me where my tone was not civil asshole. You know you get what you give with me brother. I would expect more from you. You have to show respect to get it.

To me your "right now" implied we should just bail on everything we have, adopt something new and go with it.

excellent. your lack of respect and the fact you should know that nobody in their right mind could expect to "bail on everything". yet you assume that i do. you do not bother to give me the benefit of the doubt or ask for clarification. for chrissake! how would i get to goddamn work, if there aint no gas at the pump? no alternatives! and this scenario is what you would have me implementing overnight?

it is your lack of fucking respect is what brings this on

Show me where I whined hypocrite.

"Spookz, calling me a fucking moron or an idiot is really fucking well, idiotic and moronic. Cut the fucking bullshit asshole. I don't appreciate it."

Show me where my tone was not civil asshole.

"If you are a pussy enough to let the bullshit be shoved down your throat, you deserve it.

"that is just such a load of paranoid crap.

You know you get what you give with me brother.

my sentiments exactly. lets play

You have to show respect to get it.

my words as well. this could get interesting. since the head seem to be on hiatus or recuperating, you can sub

research takes cash. you know how it works, why complain?

what are you nuts? how it works? accept the status quo? be a good little worker?

Why do you think that is? Goddamn dude, you know if you can prove that your shit is straight someone will buy into it. The problem is actually doing that.

doing what? proving or buying? if i have to settle for a sub standard product simply because market forces dictate i have to

It's all part of the process. I agree that shit should be minimized, but how do you propose to control it? IMO, it has to work itself out on its own.

reform, oversight, regulations. there are tons of socialistic laws that look after the interests of the consumer. what country do you live in? microsoft? baby bells? blah?

I guess. It just didn't seem like you were really thinking much when you said " i think we can move into a oil free economy right now!", so I gave you a damn speech as to why that wasn't very well thought out.

no, you said.... "the allocation of scarce resources. look into it". what resources? oil? cash?

i don't see how that is pertinent. obviously, it is not economically feasible to blah blah through green blah blah or mofos would be all up in it.

why you shit, didnt you advise me to...["Nobody says you have to buy what they're selling." and you now claim it aint "pertinent"? troll!

so you think your punk ass should just prescribe what industry should or shouldn't do? do you even understand the problem? can you demonstrate that you do? have you ever had to cost justify the procurement of new equipment spookz? i gaurentee that if it were financially gainful for industry to adopt "these" as you put it, they would be all over it. do you think they are stupid?

yes! the govt regulates all industry that pertains to infrastructure. the govt represents me. i dictate! secondly. restructuring major industries is usually done under govt auspices with my money!

You know it's funny that the biggest fucking troll on this board

show me a deliberate troll. i dare you! show me malice/misrepresentation/deceit! i dare you!

the energy industry. i think we can move into a oil free economy right now! (spookz)

you must be hungry wes, to troll this thread on a sentence

/excellent. your lack of respect and the fact you should know that nobody in their right mind could expect to "bail on everything". yet you assume that i do.

whatever dude. i went with what I thought you said. you could have easily corrected me yet you chose to troll. *shrug*

/you do not bother to give me the benefit of the doubt or ask for clarification.

bah, it seemed obvious. to me "right now" is fucking "right now". don't blame me for your poor choice of words, correct me if I mistake your fucking meaning.

/for chrissake! how would i get to goddamn work, if there aint no gas at the pump? no alternatives!

my point is that alternatives for things so pervasive and needed are not simple. i'm guessing to change major fuel sources in a society like this is a minimum of 20 years given current stuff. yet you seem to summarize it as "i think we can move into a oil free economy right now!". any suggestions on which fuel? have to performed a long term feasibility study? how will it be complimented or dissed by emerging tech?

/and this scenario is what you would have me implementing overnight?

that's what it basically sounded like you were saying, yeah. hey I can't keep track of where you stashed your brain. hehe.

/it is your lack of fucking respect is what brings this on

it couldn't possibly be that you had a poor choice of words or a simple misunderstanding right? :rolleyes: you have still selectively avoided more poinyant issues to haggle about stupid bullshit. don't whine boy! :rolleyes: dude, your statement is still basically the same. come on then spooks, what energy source should industry start switching to? fuel cells are on the way you know, some businesses (though very few at this point, as it is still new tech) have already switched. are you going to go out and perform the risk analysis/cost benefit analysis of procuring equipment for all those compainies you think shoudl be hung as traitors? YOU are the punk who is lacking respect for the shit that is keeping you alive and comfy right now. Diss it if you want but I'm gonna splain to you why I think you're wrong for doing so.

you see spookz, i want to understand. about some things I think i DO understand. we could make this productive, but you want to troll eh? then you call me disrespectful?

/Show me where I whined hypocrite.

/"Spookz, calling me a fucking moron or an idiot is really fucking well, idiotic and moronic. Cut the fucking bullshit asshole. I don't appreciate it."

That is a statement of fact.

/Show me where my tone was not civil asshole.

/"If you are a pussy enough to let the bullshit be shoved down your throat, you deserve it.

That is a statement of fact.

/"that is just such a load of paranoid crap.

That is a statement of opinion, exactly what it seemed to me. If you don't think it is, explain yourself. How is that uncivil? It sounded like a damn load of paranoid crap. Shall we revisit? "the same pseudo skeptical tactics used by ufo debunkers are employed by the industry against the alt energy crowd." Yeah, it still seems like a load of paranoid crap. I already explained why.

Originally posted by spookz
the energy industry. i think we can move into a oil free economy right now! (spookz)

you must be hungry wes, to troll this thread on a sentence

you must be bored, to keep accusing me of trolling when you know better. go fight with someone who wants to fight. i want to talk and understand.

/what are you nuts? how it works? accept the status quo? be a good little worker?

Man where the hell is your brain? In order to research stuff, you need resources to do it. Cash, people, materials, facilities, etc. If you want that cash, you gotta convince someone that the investment is worthwhile unless you happen to have your own cash. Pretty fucking simple. It would be goddamn STUPID to waste cash on every damn crackpot dipshit's ideas.

/Why do you think that is? Goddamn dude, you know if you can prove that your shit is straight someone will buy into it. The problem is actually doing that.

/doing what? proving or buying?

Proving.

/if i have to settle for a sub standard product simply because market forces dictate i have to.

uh huh. you can spend cash for pretty much whatever you want, yet you want to pretend you can't? you can't blame substandard products on anyone but you. you don't like your toilet? go have one built just like you like it.

/reform, oversight, regulations. there are tons of socialistic laws that look after the interests of the consumer. what country do you live in? microsoft? baby bells? blah?

dude, that simply makes no sense to me. you think that MORE regulation is gonna lead to better research? what about fucking FREEDOM? what about the fact that if there is a profit in it, people are all over it and when there isn't or the risk is too high, people avoid it. that is how it works naturally. certain regulations are required so unethical crap doesn't go down, but besides that I really think regulating is a horrible idea because the system is too complex to deal with in that manner. you want a bunch of idiotics damn politicians determining what research gets done, etc? ack, that sounds horrific to me.

/no, you said.... "the allocation of scarce resources. look into it". what resources? oil? cash?

economics man. Studying the "allocation of scarce resources" is economics. note that scarce merely means "not infinite".

/why you shit, didnt you advise me to...["Nobody says you have to buy what they're selling." and you now claim it aint "pertinent"? troll!

miscommunication, ass. i just figure you can read my mind, WTF? by "buying what they're selling" I meant "believing what they're telling you". Where the hell is your slang dictionary?

/yes! the govt regulates all industry that pertains to infrastructure. the govt represents me. i dictate! secondly. restructuring major industries is usually done under govt auspices with my money!

trying to direct shit that you don't understand is unwise. politicians, you, blah blah. you try to tell me how to run my business, when it's my business to support the goddamn infrastructure and well, you're wrong. you don't know my business. you are a stinking idealog who THINKS they know what is right, but really you don't know shit except how YOU think things should be. you are playing an authoritative bullshit game that i don't like. you set overall regulations regarding ethics and blah blah and let the market work it out. it is the only way to find an efficient solution to matters of industry.

/You know it's funny that the biggest fucking troll on this board

/show me a deliberate troll. i dare you! show me malice/misrepresentation/deceit! i dare you! [/B]

dude, have you not admitted to trolling on a number of occasions? do you not haunt gendy and those you determine to be full of shit, follow them around the board and just talk whatever bullshit you can to attempt to pimp them off "your" board? if not then I stand corrected.

Shall we revisit? "the same pseudo skeptical tactics used by ufo debunkers are employed by the industry against the alt energy crowd." Yeah, it still seems like a load of paranoid crap. I already explained why.

Far from recognizing that urgency, the United States' official position seems to be to minimize the severity of global warming. This recalcitrance can be traced to a relentless disinformation campaign by the fossil-fuel lobby to dismiss or downplay the climate crisis. For years, coal and oil interests have funded a handful of scientists known as "greenhouse skeptics" who cast doubt on the implications and even existence of global warming. Enormous amounts of money spent by their corporate sponsors have amplified the skeptics' voices out of all proportion to their standing in the scientific community, giving them undue influence on legislators, policymakers, and the media.

But with the skeptics being marginalized by the increasingly united and alarming findings of mainstream science, industry PR campaigns have taken to exaggerating the economic impacts of cutting back on fossil fuels.

a modest proposal (http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200105/globalwarm_printable.asp)

your response jives quite well with their tactics....and you have a right to get around them to the best of your ability. (wesmorris)

excellent. i know the enemy and you are it! thanks for showing me your rule book

*i aint done boy. lemme dig documentation of actual malfeasance

/your response jives quite well with their tactics....[i]and you have a right to get around them to the best of your ability. (wesmorris)

spookz, you have to take your meds man. you're going to end up in the facility again.

dude, have you not admitted to trolling on a number of occasions? do you not haunt gendy and those you determine to be full of shit, follow them around the board and just talk whatever bullshit you can to attempt to pimp them off "your" board? if not then I stand corrected.

what did i ask you to do punk? show me! show me malice/misrepresentation/deceit! that is what defines a real troll. then show me the "bullshit"

where did i assert this is my board? show me! i said "my community"! lying piece of shit. back your play up! you now make serious allegations (misrepresentation). if you fail to do so, get your punk ass out too!

my self characterization is bought by only those who want to something to bash me with. like you wanna do.

the most i admit to is responding to posters on their terms! they act like assholes, so do i

do you not haunt gendy

interesting. i now play with her and yet you say "haunt". frikkin troll. you lie to make your point. you fucked up a fun thread with your garbage. all things will not pass!

Originally posted by spookz
dude, have you not admitted to trolling on a number of occasions? do you not haunt gendy and those you determine to be full of shit, follow them around the board and just talk whatever bullshit you can to attempt to pimp them off "your" board? if not then I stand corrected.

what did i ask you to do punk? show me! show me malice/misrepresentation/deceit! that is what defines a real troll. then show me the "bullshit"

where did i assert this is my board? show me! i said "my community"! lying piece of shit. back your play up! you now make serious allegations (misrepresentation). if you fail to do so, get your punk ass out too!

my self characterization is bought by only those who want to something to bash me with. like you wanna do.

the most i admit to is responding to posters on their terms! they act like assholes, so do i

do you not haunt gendy

interesting. i now play with her and yet you say "haunt". frikkin troll. you lie to make your point. you fucked up a fun thread with your garbage. all things will not pass!

Spookz, fuck you bitch. I am not your play toy. Bye.

no wes
fuck you!

:D

Originally posted by spookz
no wes
fuck you!

:D

are you a hot beesh? if so i think we can work this out.

address the response to the "paranoid crap" bitch!
shit gets worked out on my terms, not yours

Originally posted by spookz
address the response to the "paranoid crap" bitch!
shit gets worked out on my terms, not yours

LOL.

:D

you suck

Well, atleast send him over here when you're done with him

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
However, aside from the claim that something very unusual and highly energetic flies around the sky at times, I try very hard to remain neutral.
It's not even neccessarily that though. Most likely it is a group of reasons including: misidentified 'normal' objects, people seeing things, atmospheric conditions, hoaxes... They are the only 4 I can think of that are actually proven. The point is, the remainder are just as likely (if not more so) to be so form of atmospheric energy, which doesn't even involve energetic matter flying about. Hell, it needn't even be energetic.

I see very little correlation to free energy devices and UFOs. There is no reason to consider any free energy machine that one can't turn on, inspect, and test.
Likewise, there is no reason to consider a UFO which I can't turn on, inspect, and test. I am not drawing the correlation between UFOs and free energy, but a comparison between ET based UFOs and free energy.

UFOs on the other hand are rare, typically brief in appearance, and not repeatable by nature.
Just like free energy. It never seems to work when people are looking:)

My motives are clear; I just want to know what they are.
But how do you actually do that? You will NEVER be able to identify a cause, because all you can really do is guess, imagine, and knockout possibilities. Without creating or having whatever a UFO is, you can not test it, reproduce it, or anything vaguely relating to science. All that radar and the like tells us is that 'something' is there. It doesn't give us any hints as to what. As such, I think this line of research is interesting... but a dead end.

Why should I have to put up with people like Q for having this interest?
Viewing this from the outside, you both seem to step over the line at times (although Q more so). It's understandable, as we've all done it. Threads like this don't help your case any though.

There is plenty of evidence
Evidence of what? I have never seen enough information that provided anything except 'UFOs exist'. That doesn't do any good in identifying them.

I have posted the Iran document a number of times but no one responds.
If I recall correctly, it was fighter dispatched which were dirupted when they got to a certain range. Great, but it doesn't actually provide us with enough information to do anything with. It once again just says UFOs exist.

So, is the UFO culture growing larger or getting smaller?
Hehe, damn X-files :D

We Ufologist put up with a lot of personal attacks
agreed

Something unusual must be flying around from time to time. To me this conclusion seems unavoidable.
I think 'flying' may be a stretch, but it's a minor one.

I can sympathize with the ET crowd, but that is just too far of a stretch for me unless ET lands in my pasture or next to Tom Brokaw on the evening news.
Lol. Agreed. Glad to know you're not a kook.

Also, you know that skeptics and debunkers use language like "nuts" ," fanatics" etc, etc, etc, with reckless disregard for any respectful discourse. This is just, somehow, by whatever rationalization, OK.
Well, many of them are "nuts" ," fanatics" etc, etc, etc... so yes it is OK :) Look at MacM in the physics forum. I and MANY others have tried to explain basic physics to him over and over. He is most definetely a "fanatic" and his lack of reasoning skills makes him "nuts". The problem is that you have to give people a chance. It's fine to call someone a nut, but only if you have evidence to back it up.

In general, I think this thread is off base... and is no better than people trying to demonize someone who if interested in UFOs 'just because'. That said, I think we generaly agree that some of the debunking methods being used are offbase.

Originally posted by spookz
here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30988) is another that has been ignored. i'll add the belgium flap. shouldnt be that hard to debunk. an explantion for the phenomena should be offered. merely criticizing is not good enough
This particular incident, the White House one, has always intrigued me. The number of witnesses and the radar evidence is compelling. (Isn't there also film of this? Somehow I recall seeing an old black and white film of small dots of light moving around in the sky which then pans down to show they are located over the White House.)

In terms of what someone might choose for serious scrutiny, this story has the advantage of hundreds of witnesses, obvious government reaction, reports from pilots and the radar. It is much better than most. This one deserves to be looked at, not with the intention of throwing out speculation to explain it away but with the intention of trying to figure out what caused it.

Likewise, there is no reason to consider a UFO which I can't turn on, inspect, and test.

cold war
Likewise, there is no reason to consider a mig which I can't turn on, inspect, and test.
valid?

A man with decent hearing will hear the train and get off the tracks.
A man with poor hearing might eventually get a better look at the train but at what expense?

by persol
But how do you actually do that? You will NEVER be able to identify a cause, because all you can really do is guess, imagine, and knockout possibilities. Without creating or having whatever a UFO is, you can not test it, reproduce it, or anything vaguely relating to science.
===============================================

I feel much the same about theoretical physics. Where is the black
hole that is evaporating by Hawkin radiation? Reproduced any and
tested them? Got any of that dark energy sitting on a lab bench
anywhere? You know, the stuff that makes up most of the universe
and is causing an ever increasing rate of expansion of the universe.
The stuff with anti-gravity properties that the revered General Relativity says cannot exist. The stuff that was guessed to exist
to explain the OBSERVATION of superluminal galaxies. And of course,
the quasars aren't "really" superluminal, because that would violate
Special Relativity. Created any of that "stretched" vacuum in the lab?
I am not saying any of this is impossible, but like much theory in science, it is based on "educated guesses" formed from observation
and mathmatics, not from created material objects that can be tested.
Are UFO's any stranger than strings and M-Brane theory with what,
14 dimensions now?

Why is it that the debunkers always bring up the hoaxes, fruads, lights in the sky...ect... when debunking this topic.

Why do they never address the:

Washington incident of 1952?

Rendelsham Forest incident of 1980?

The Belgium incident in the mid 80's?

The Travis Walton incident in the mid 70's?

The Thomas Mantell incident in the mid 50's?

The Mexico flap in the late 80's with thousands of video's and 10's of thousands of eyewitnesses? This is one of the best IMO.

The photo's taken by the Brazilian naval officers?

The hundreds of CREDIBLE military/intelligence eyewitnesses who have come forward with their stories of 1st hand ET reports?


I really want to know. Why won't you address the real evidence?

Originally posted by VRob
I really want to know. Why won't you address the real evidence?

All that evidence is anticdotal. If you could produce physical evidence, the argument would be over. You apparently can't, or it would be over.. so what's to think about?

I'm not even saying we're not being visited or that there aren't aliens or creatures in the center of the earth or whatever... this is a matter of "where IS the real evidence", rather than why isn't it addressed.

Of course, I don't have access to secret government records and would urge them to be forthcoming regarding the matter, but it's somewhat hard to do when they won't acknowledge that there are records to give eh? *shrug*

Then of course you have to consider that the "experts" pushing this research are generally frauds from what I could tell. They strech their bullshit into seemingly plausible shit that suckers people in so that they buy their books.

So to me, having never been presented with actual evidence to the contrary, and noting that people are uhm... not particularly exacting about what they believe, that this shit is likely merely the product of a lot of random weirdness and a bunch of pimps tryign to cash in on it. So it's basically equivalent to the same shit that religious people do, with the weirdness and the pimping and the bizness. At least that's the way it seemed.

Hell I'm even somewhat of a buff on the topic. I'm down with Roswell and Area 51 and unsolved mysteries and all of those UFO specials and shit, I'm into it... however, as I've aged I've begun to more and more smell bullshit. Then Penn and Teller kind of clenched it for me with their show regarding the topic. I already smelled bullshit and the sniffed out the pile and put it on TV.

Originally posted by wesmorris
All that evidence is anticdotal. If you could produce physical evidence, the argument would be over. You apparently can't, or it would be over.. so what's to think about?

You are mistaking evidence for actual proof.

If there was Physical evidence available, then the question would be answered. However, there is plenty of 'Evidence'.

Evidence is something that can be used as an individual piece to get at the truth(proof). Because the current level of evidence hasn't yet given us the proverbial concrete proof, does not mean there is no evidence.

But, like most, you refused to even address the evidence I provided.

Originally posted by VRob
But, like most, you refused to even address the evidence I provided.

Each event is weird. I'm semi familiar with it. I could come up with wild assed explanations as to what might have happened maybe, but I doubt I'd make any sense.

You should consider that maybe that's why nobody addresses it. It's rare, can't be reproduced, can't be explained and is all from "stories people tell" with no hard evidence to back it up.

It's the same as the question of god in many senses, in that it's retarded to attempt to answer the questions without more evidence.. as in HARD EVIDENCE to work with.

I ask the same questions you do, but I have since stopped rushing to answer questions that at least at this point, can't be answered. Further, you can't answer it without hard evidence as it is merely heresay. So what, I should believe someone that they saw aliens because they say they saw aliens? I might depending on the someone, but I doubt it. Hell even if I saw them I would doubt it until I could get further evidence, because I'd think optical illusion or acting first, as it is more plausible that interstellar travel to an obscure planet full of barely intelligent recent apes.

So while sure, many completely deny the possibility, they are wrong. You are wrong if you endorse that "yes aliens ARE visiting earth". There is nothign wrong with suspecting stuff all you want. There is probably enough "evidence" to me as not to rule it out entirely, but I am mostly convinced at this point that it really isn't very plausible, as I don't think this species is necessarily interesting yet, nor do I know for sure that it is possible to traverse such great distances given the limitations on time and the relativity and the bizness.

Bah, whatever. Hey have fun wasting your cash at Mufon! ;)

VRob and others:

Why don't you start a thread on just one of the incidents you referred to, giving the details of the incident which makes you convinced that alien visitation occurred? Then, the skeptics can ask questions and comment on just that one incident, and see where it takes us.

Half of the problem here is that the discussion seldom gets into details. Instead, things go back and forth, with skeptics flatly denying the possible existence of alien visits, and believers simply naming supposed events as if everybody should know about them and come to the same conclusions.

So, I would like the believers to choose just one incident they find convincing, and we'll look at the evidence in a separate thread. Ok?

deal.

crackpots
i have in mind the belgium flap/iran/?
3 of the best? take it one by one in same thread or seperate? suggestions/links welcome.

*jamesr really is the coolest.

I'm not even saying we're not being visited or that there aren't aliens or creatures in the center of the earth or whatever... this is a matter of "where IS the real evidence", rather than why isn't it addressed.

This question of where the real evidence is always amazes me, and usually indicates one of two things:

1. A lack of knowledge of the evidence that exists, or

2. A knowledge of the evidence but an unwillingness to acknowledge it.

Having said that, I should repeat my position that I am not defending the ETH. Constant discussion of the ETH and the difficulties therein distract from the evidence for the UFO phenomenon that is quite intriguing. There are many, many incidents of military and civilian pilot encouters with what appeared to be objects, displaying movement not associated with natural phenomenon (such as turning, slowing, speeding, hovering). Often, multiple members of the flight crew had a chance to see the objects. Often, there were consistent descriptions with considerable specificity.

There is really quite a solid record of such events, and of considerable disarray and dishonesty in terms of the government's response to these incidents. A common criticism of UFO evidence, which I have seen in current posts on this board, is that the evidence consists of "stories people tell" and "a few grainy photographs". This is a mischaracterization of the evidence constructed specificially to support a position. As such, it is inherently unhelpful to the discussion.

What the evidence does suggest is that humanity is having interactions with something that by all appearances seems to be under intelligent control. I believe that is a defensible inference that arises from the evidence. Any other statements as to the core nature of the phenomenon are speculation.

I should point out that the quality of evidence in many UFO reports meets or exceeds evidence used now to sentence people to death. So when debunkers complain about the lack of evidence for UFOs, they are in fact ignoring it.

perfect!

I don't think the "intelligent control" part i completely defensible. All we know i that they cause interference when thing get to a certain range (like many other effects), and that they change direction fast avoiding collision (similar to natural phenomena)

I don't think the "intelligent control" part i completely defensible. All we know i that they cause interference when thing get to a certain range (like many other effects), and that they change direction fast avoiding collision (similar to natural phenomena)

Keep in mind that my position is that intelligent control is an inference that can be defended. I stand by that, since the behavior observed and reported is consistent with what we know as intelligent behavior.



they cause interference when thing get to a certain range (like many other effects),

I'm assuming you're getting a little tired? :o Yet I'm still not sure what you mean. Interference with what? Are you talking about the incidents of reported automobile engine stalls?

that they change direction fast avoiding collision (similar to natural phenomena)

Allow me to demonstrate some ignorance. What natural phenomena change direction at high speeds in flight in the atmosphere to avoid collision with planes?

EDIT - that should read "in an apparent effort to avoid a collision"

Originally posted by Ives
Yet I'm still not sure what you mean. Interference with what? Are you talking about the incidents of reported automobile engine stalls?Airplanes, missles, and yes, even cars. This has been stated by people of 'proof' of intelligence.

What natural phenomena change direction at high speeds in flight in the atmosphere to avoid collision with planes?
Ball lightning quickly changes direction to avoid charged pockets of air. Weather ballons will 'jump' out of the way of planes below the mach range. Dust will appear as a large object to a camera, and also 'jump' (randomly). The point is, just as we can't discount natural phenomena either. You would probably claim that intelligent control is likely because we don't understand what technologies are possible (it would have to be some unknown technology). Saying that, you can't discount the fact that we don't understand everything in nature.

This does not point toward intelligent control.

Does belief in UFOs cause Multiple Pseudonym Disorder? Or does Multiple Pseudonym Disorder cause belief in UFOs?

Maybe this forum should be more like the book of the month club.
This way we know everyone has read a little on the subject and might have a reasonable assessment of information available.

Pilots have reported UFO's joining in their missing man formations
(intelligence)

"Intelligence" I guess can be argued. But that would only be during discussions about debunkers.

Originally posted by fluid1959
Pilots have reported UFO's joining in their missing man formations
(intelligence) Source?

Note: Objects in the sky appearing to be in missing man formation is nothing special. Objects joining a human formation may be, depending on circumstances.

Case in point

spookz:

<i>i have in mind the belgium flap/iran/?</i>

Have you started a thread on this yet? Where can I find it?

nahh
gimme some time please. i want to gather all available evidence (on the net) so we dont start off half cocked and shit.

ivan
you have more resources and knowledge so feel free to bat here

More later; but for now:

Originally posted by Persol

But how do you actually do that? You will NEVER be able to identify a cause, because all you can really do is guess, imagine, and knockout possibilities. Without creating or having whatever a UFO is, you can not test it, reproduce it, or anything vaguely relating to science. All that radar and the like tells us is that 'something' is there. It doesn't give us any hints as to what. As such, I think this line of research is interesting... but a dead end.

tisk tisk,,,so negative! :D

Really though, to me this sounds just like: Its too hard so let's not try. Is this worth the effort? Therein lies the problem with discovery and fundamental research. We won't know until we figure it out.

Viewing this from the outside, you both seem to step over the line at times (although Q more so). It's understandable, as we've all done it.

Well, guilty. My only defense is that between here and PF, in over 2500 posts you will find my responses to Q are completely unique. The problem is, due to my many battles in the great un-moderated internet UFO wars of the 90's, I understood Q's posture after his or her second or third response. I reverted to my old trench warfare posture instictively. Then I kept giving Q "one more chance" for reasonable discourse; only to get sucker punched. From here on I will simply ignore Q.

Threads like this don't help your case any though

I know the premise of this thread may seem far fetched to many people. I submit that for most, this results from a lack of information. I consider myself to be a smart and reasonable person. I'm not the smartest or the most reasonable, but hopefully I stack up as above average. After a long [18 years], thoughtful, and honest review of the UFO evidence, I have gone through a number of evolutions in thought.

For me, the subject of UFOs is much like that of modern physics. At first the whole damn thing sounds like nonsense. Then one starts to realize that there must be something to it and just how strange this subject really is. One's worldview is fundmantally challenged - this is the scary part. This is where I think a lot of people get stuck. They see enough to convince them that if true, these reports would have to be ET, therefore they must be nonsense. This is the fear: It seems like there is no other way to explain this phenomenon and still adress the evidence in a reasonable and straightforward manner. It seems like the only way to escape ET is to deny the evidence; to a much greater extent that they would the same evidence if for prosaic events.At this point, we find that the debunking arguments can be downright ridiculous. This results from a core [worldview] objection based on a false premise. This is what I mean by fear.
This thread is not intended as a farse.

Ivan:

Didn't you start out by saying you weren't claiming UFOs are ETs? Now you're saying the conclusion is inevitable.

Originally posted by James R
Ivan:

Didn't you start out by saying you weren't claiming UFOs are ETs? Now you're saying the conclusion is inevitable.

I am definitely saying no such thing; that any particular conclusion is inevitable. Why do you think I am?

Because you said "It seems like the only way to escape ET is to deny the evidence..."

Originally posted by James R
Because you said "It seems like the only way to escape ET is to deny the evidence..."

Ah, I mean that this is what fuels many [IMO] unreasonably skeptical arguments. It seems that to many debunkers, to accept certain UFO evidence [be it good evidence or not] would be to accept the notion of ET visiting. Since ET can't be visiting, the debunker concludes, [ now comes the fallacy] the evidence must be bogus.

I see that many of the skeptics and debunkers on this board have said many times over that it's going way overboard to assume an ET hypothesis, or to even consider it.

However, during the early 50's of Project Sign, they did plenty of research on this very subject. Their conclusion:

The phenomena is very real, and some incidents cannot be written off as Mass delusions, weather conditions, or hoaxes.

The sightings appear to be of a type of flying vehicle that performs far above current technologies know.

That the most likely conclusion is that these vehicles come from outside our planet, and that they are under intelligent control. YES, this is what they concluded.

This conclusion was disapproved of by the authorities, and most of the individuals of the project were fired. The Project's name was later changed to Project Grudge, with the clear directive to come up with an alternative explanation for ALL reports. For the uninformed, this later became Project Blue Book.

My point is, when you say we're jumping to conclusion by using the ET hypothesis, you are in fact wrong. The evidence does merit this to be one of the more likely conclusions.

I will join you Spooks in providing a specific example. However, I might not be able to get to it today. We all still have to perform our work/family duties.

Stupid damn skeptics anyway!

Me, Elvis and Bigfoot are gonna go take a cruise on this loaner saucer, anyone down?

Wes,

Very typical response from a debunker.

The old Elvis joke..... can't stand up to the evidence, so just attack the subject in general.

Originally posted by VRob
Wes,

Very typical response from a debunker.

The old Elvis joke..... can't stand up to the evidence, so just attack the subject in general.

Come on, Elvis is cool man.

And yours is typical of retarded fanatic... what's your point?

I think you should relax.

If the aliens wanted to get you, don't you figure you'd already be got? I suppose not eh?

It's SO funny that you label me a "debunker"! I've finally made it to the other side.. woo hoo! LOL.

EDIT:

Oh and further, by labelling me as such, you're basically marginalizing me. In general, I just think it's pertinent to ask reasonable questions and approach this type of problem rationally. I have no investment either way. I actually think it would be pretty cool if there were aliens visiting earth. I'd be totally fascinated to check it out. Their gadgets must ROCK.

I do, however, require pretty strong evidence for such a far-fetched claim. I require myself to ask the hard questions of even my own perception. I now take under full consideration that NO EVIDENCE that I have ever seen has been any other than heresay. Knowing what I know about brains and such, I DO trust heresay in that "something strange probably happened" but I DO NOT TRUST IT in that "that something was extraterrestrial" as that is just the other person's impression of it and there is as of yet no evidence that supports that claim... rather, there is no rational conclusion I can draw from their impression of events other than something strange probably happened. That doesn't tell me a lot.

Further, that Penn and Teller thing I talked about before was GOOD man. Those dudes have their crap together and in 10 minutes debunked suspicions I'd had for years (mind you I didn't believe it, but you should see these LOSERS they interviewed, freakin PATHETIC).

who the fuck do you think you are fooling punk? your attitude says it all.
you are dogmatic and bordering on religious fervor. that is how you maintain the status quo

fucking no good, stinking piece of shit. if you aint got something positive to contribute, take a fucking hike! cackling idiot!

Originally posted by wesmorris
You know I must be all fucked up. LOL. I have this propensity to think "everything is as it should be". Go figure eh?

exactly. i expect nothing out of your sorry ass. begone turd

penn and fucking teller.... the new gods!

/who the fuck do you think you are fooling punk?

no one.

/your attitude says it all.

like?

/you are dogmatic and bordering on religious fervor. that is how you maintain the status quo

LOL.

/fucking no good, stinking piece of shit. if you aint got something positive to contribute, take a fucking hike! cackling idiot!

blow me dickweed.

Further, I have begun to suspect over the last few years that there are two major conspiracies happening regarding this issue:

a) the government wants to keep a lid on the hysteria idiots would inevitably cause.

b) a conspiracy to draw provacative conclusions from flimsy bullshit in order to propagate a mystery that results in a cash cow.

Originally posted by spookz
exactly. i expect nothing out of your sorry ass. begone turd

penn and fucking teller.... the new gods!

fucktard!

they're not gods, they're just sharp dudes.

EDIT:

Oh, and hey fucktard: Why are you still posting HERE? I thought you were busy gathering evidence to present in your "I'm gonna prove that aliens kidnapped my brain" thread.. whassup?

Did they keep it?

:m:

Originally posted by wesmorris
Why are you still posting HERE?

uhh
to rag on your filthy ass? you now think you can dictate my reality. when and where i can post? you make your delusions obvious to all to see!

love the attention tho!

Ivan lying:

Then I kept giving Q "one more chance" for reasonable discourse; only to get sucker punched. From here on I will simply ignore Q.

That is a lie. Over in PF you lied as well and I pointed out that lie. Greg confirmed you were insulting me in a PM he sent me.

You stated you had a degree in physics and then claimed you were unable to figure out a very simply problem. Another lie?

Are all of your statements lies? Is that the only way you feel you can “win” an argument?

You ignore me because you can’t answer my questions just like you can’t answer direct questions here from me or anyone else.

I consider myself to be a smart and reasonable person.

What you consider and what we consider are two different things. You’re inflated ego is getting the best of you.

we find that the debunking arguments can be downright ridiculous

If one firmly believes in ET visiting Earth, as you do, any argument against your belief system will appear ridiculous. The same logic applies in the religious forum.

Originally posted by spookz
uhh
to rag on your filthy ass?

*like beavis*

Oh yeah.

That's pretty cool.

*snort*

Oh, and my ass is not filthy goddamnit. I'm a 'professional', I can't stink or I'd get fired. :)

spare me you frikking life story boy!

Originally posted by spookz
spare me you frikking life story boy!

No. I'll spare you my ass from this point forward, but you will listen to my life story and pretend to be interested.

You have been warned.

Guys - you'll get this thread closed. Take it somewhere else.

and why the fuck are you bring your pf problems here?

Originally posted by spookz
and why the fuck are you bring your pf problems here?

what is a pf problem? who are you talking to?

Originally posted by wesmorris
In general, I just think it's pertinent to ask reasonable questions and approach this type of problem rationally

And you think posting crap like this....

"Me, Elvis and Bigfoot are gonna take a cruise on this loaner saucer. Anyone down?

Makes you sound rational??:rolleyes:

I posted numerous topics that you could attempt to pick apart in a REASONABLE manner if you had the ability. But, you resort to the old Elvis, Bigfoot jokes. I've seen your kind many times Wes. You sling crap at all the nonesense surrounding this subject. But, when you're confronted with things you can't debate, you resort to attacking the subject.

/Makes you sound rational??

No it makes me sound like a dude making elvis jokes at people with an emotional investment in their belief in aliens and such.

/I posted numerous topics that you could attempt to pick apart in a REASONABLE manner if you had the ability.

Seriously? I hadn't noticed. Please give me an example.

/But, you resort to the old Elvis, Bigfoot jokes.

As if that is some sort of horrific thing? Lighten up dickweed.

/I've seen your kind many times Wes.

YOU DON'T KNOW MY KIND. Your attempts to lump me into "a type" or "a debunker" only make you look desperately clingy to your presumption. Show that you can be skeptical of yourself and you gain much respect.

/You sling crap at all the nonesense surrounding this subject.

You are a fucking IDIOT if you consider me making an elvis joke "slinging crap at all the nonsense around this subject". I'm a joker. I make jokes. Fuck off if you don't like it.

/But, when you're confronted with things you can't debate, you resort to attacking the subject.

So you've just stereotyped me into your classical debunker eh?

Hmm... funny. Kind of like you stereotype any evidence that can't be explained into evidence of extra-terrestrial visitation? Nah. You probably don't do that right?

Oh, and I also appreciate how easy it is for you to ignore any comments that don't support your opinion of me as your classical debunker. Man, that's good denial you got going there brother. Care to share? I want to pretend I dont' have to pay my mortgage and I don't have quite the phychosis to pull it off... got a little to spare?

Originally posted by VRob
Why is it that the debunkers always bring up the hoaxes, fruads, lights in the sky...ect... when debunking this topic.

Why do they never address the:

Washington incident of 1952?

Rendelsham Forest incident of 1980?

The Belgium incident in the mid 80's?

The Travis Walton incident in the mid 70's?

The Thomas Mantell incident in the mid 50's?

The Mexico flap in the late 80's with thousands of video's and 10's of thousands of eyewitnesses? This is one of the best IMO.

The photo's taken by the Brazilian naval officers?

The hundreds of CREDIBLE military/intelligence eyewitnesses who have come forward with their stories of 1st hand ET reports?


I really want to know. Why won't you address the real evidence?

Here is my post with some topics for you to discuss in your reasonable manner Wes. Why don't you give it a shot.

A typical debunker/skeptic response is to make the Elvis, bigfoot comparisons to this subject. I've seen it many times. It's usually accompanied by an ignorant grin.

As far as me making assumptions about you, why don't you try that hat on for size. You've accused me of being a fanatic. Of not being critical of the evidence. Where have I shown evidence of this? You, on the other hand have shown with your most recent posts on this thread that you either don't know the subject very well, or have already made up your mind to dismiss all evidence. I presume it's a combination of both.

Originally posted by VRob
You, on the other hand have shown with your most recent posts on this thread that you either don't know the subject very well, or have already made up your mind to dismiss all evidence. I presume it's a combination of both.

But your post didn't have any details.

You just posted "this incident, that incident".

I'm familiar with Travis Walton's case.

I have no explanation.

I don't believe it was aliens.

I have no idea what happened to him. I'm pretty sure something happened to him, but what? I dunno. I wasn't there.

I would think it most plausible that his imagination was dicked with by psychologists and basically it became real, as an explanation for a random kidnapping, or a fuge(sp?) state or who knows what happened to that poor dude. It was obviously tramatic. Generally, the human mind has an incredible propensity to make input match some stuff that it thinks it should match based on its input. Blah blah, I dunno for sure, but it seem the most rational hypothesis is that he had a highly traumatic experience based on either a psychotic episode or kidnapping or something.

Note though, that I cannot explain it and freely admit it. To me though, syaing "aliens did it" is about the same as any random statement you could put there like "it was mighty mouse" or whatever. It's not that that it's impossible, just as far as can be PROVEN, highly improbable.

Why is that unreasonable?

Originally posted by wesmorris
Note though, that I cannot explain it and freely admit it. To me though, syaing "aliens did it" is about the same as any random statement you could put there like "it was mighty mouse" or whatever. It's not that that it's impossible, just as far as can be PROVEN, highly improbable.

Why is that unreasonable?

Wes,

That's not unreasonable. In fact, I've never stated or assumed anything about this topic. I just find it extremely credible, and needs to be put in the unknown pile along with other credible evidence.

I do think there might be some things about this incident that you're unaware of.

1. There were 5 other guys with Travis Walton at the time.

2. They have all given the same story as to what they saw. They saw a large craft hovering over their friend shinning a light on him. They then drove off in fear leaving their friend behind.

3. They have taken many lie detector test over the years and ALL 5 eyewitnesses (Aside from Travis Walton himself) have passed them all. Travis Walton doesn't remember much of his experience.

4. None of these guys has ever attempted to gain monetarily from this incident. They actually prefer to be left alone about it.

Now, abductions is really not my thing. In fact, outside of this one, and a few other interesting cases, I generally don't follow this information. I'm more into the whole Military/Intelligence aspect of the subject. But, this is one abduction incident that has witnesses.

Regarding your Elvis joke.... Many of us who've followed this subject over the years have been confronted with those who laugh at the notion of this subject being taken seriously. For those of us who do take it seriously, it gets a little old after awhile. I've heard them all.... the Elvis is with the Aliens, Heavens Gate, ect.... The kooks really give it a bad name. However, not all of us are kooks. I may have jumped the gun in labelling you, but you also did the same with labelling me a fanatic.

/I just find it extremely credible, and needs to be put in the unknown pile along with other credible evidence.

I'd agree with that in that I don't think they were necessarily deliberately trying to hoax anyone. Of course I can't be sure of that but I doubt it. I honestly don't think most of the "victims" or people who have had "encounters" are deliberately hoaxing stuff at all.

/I do think there might be some things about this incident that you're unaware of.

/1. There were 5 other guys with Travis Walton at the time.

I knew that. But it's my understanding that they were "in the area" rather than RIGHT with him. Even if he WERE picked up I don't think it's necessarily extra-terrestrial. I doubt the gov has that kind of tech, but if he really got picked up like that, somebody has the tech. It's neither here nor there though without hard evidence to support it.

/2. They have all given the same story as to what they saw. They saw a large craft hovering over their friend shinning a light on him. They then drove off in fear leaving their friend behind.

I thought that was the deal but I couldn't remember. Still, could have been a helicopter, who knows. Maybe they were on mescaline. Maybe it was someone experimenting with illusions. Hard to say. Could have been a third party hoax. That would keep it 'credible'.

/3. They have taken many lie detector test over the years and ALL 5 eyewitnesses (Aside from Travis Walton himself) have passed them all. Travis Walton doesn't remember much of his experience.

I knew that part for sure. Again, I doubt they are purposefully lying.

/4. None of these guys has ever attempted to gain monetarily from this incident. They actually prefer to be left alone about it.

I knew that. But publishers, well, and everyone in the chain of books/movies makers blah blah, everyone in the "industry" actually has a LOT to gain from their misfortune, as it is one of the most popular cases ever.

/Now, abductions is really not my thing. In fact, outside of this one, and a few other interesting cases, I generally don't follow this information. I'm more into the whole Military/Intelligence aspect of the subject. But, this is one abduction incident that has witnesses.

Certainly. It's somewhat interesting, I'm not saying that, it's just that I'd bet the reality of it is much more mundane than I'd prefer it to be.

/Regarding your Elvis joke.... Many of us who've followed this subject over the years have been confronted with those who laugh at the notion of this subject being taken seriously.

Well, I make the jokes because I'm a dork. Did you not read my signature? Hello? Hehe. Come on damnit.

/For those of us who do take it seriously, it gets a little old after awhile. I've heard them all.... the Elvis is with the Aliens, Heavens Gate, ect.... The kooks really give it a bad name.

If you're gonna be involved in this kind of shit, you think it's healthy for you to get offended at stupid elvis jokes? You can't take this shit too seriously or it will chew you up and spit you out. Further, you shouldn't judge a skeptic as a debunker just cuz of a damn elvis joke. You know how much shit I took on the playground for being a redhead? Hell man, you gotta learn to be able to laugh at yourself or you won't get a lot of credibilty with anyone.

/However, not all of us are kooks. I may have jumped the gun in labelling you, but you also did the same with labelling me a fanatic.

Maybe. I smell that you're taking it all way to seriously. IMO, that stinks of fanaticism a little.. but I now see you can be at minimum somewhat reasonable, and my suspicion of your fanaticism is somewhat decreased. I do still think though that you have to be able to joke about yourself as well as you'd joke about anyone else. Maybe you just don't have a dorky sense of humor like myself. If not, then we are bound to clash a bit simply by personality type.

Oh, and YOU might not be a kook, but if you can't see that the topic is at least a little kooky, then I'd suggest you step back and take a deep breath.

Originally posted by wesmorris
I smell that you're taking it all way to seriously. IMO, that stinks of fanaticism a little.. but I now see you can be at minimum somewhat reasonable, and my suspicion of your fanaticism is somewhat decreased. I do still think though that you have to be able to joke about yourself as well as you'd joke about anyone else. Maybe you just don't have a dorky sense of humor like myself. If not, then we are bound to clash a bit simply by personality type.

Wes,

I think I have a very good sense of humor. I've learned that you have to with this subject.

I'm a relative newcomer to this board, but I have been following this subject since I was a kid. I've been laughed at, snickered at, and I even had my ex bring the subject up in court. So, I've heard it all.

The reason I sometimes get irritated about the so-called Elvis jokes is this:

The biggest obsticle this subject faces is the Ridecule factor. Until this is lifted, it will continue to be treated as a fringe issue. It's almost professional suicide for a scientist, teacher, ect... to give this subject any credibility at all. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of scientist actually think it's worthy of considerably more reasearch, but they're scared to death to admit it.

The propaganda wagon has bee