Godlike Productions - Reply to Thread

Users Online Now: 1,701 (Who's On?)	Visitors Today: 213,820
Pageviews Today: 285,883	Threads Today: 102	Posts Today: 1,129
02:23 AM

REPLY TO THREAD

Subject "Skeptical" Has Lost its Meaning

User Name

Font color: Font:

In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.

[quote:Anonymous Coward 45621326:MV8yMzI5NzgzXzM5NzUyNzc3X0RGODMyRTk4]
[quote:Kai (VALIS):MV8yMzI5NzgzXzM5NzUyNTcxXzM1NjQ1RkMz]
[quote:Anonymous Coward 45621326:MV8yMzI5NzgzXzM5NzUyNTI2X0Q2NzczRTI1]
[quote:Kai (VALIS):MV8yMzI5NzgzXzM5NzUyMjM3X0JEMjQyOTc3]
[quote:Anonymous Coward 45621326:MV8yMzI5NzgzXzM5NzUyMDM5XzU5MThEMDFF]
You are carrying on a conversation with someone who was a researcher for years until the fruitcakes started showing up and making UFOs a religion and circus.
[/quote]

I am aware of the differences between objects and so-called aerial phenomena.  And you are mistaken.  There is loads of valid research.  Look into James McDonald, Donald Keyhoe, Edward Ruppelt, etc....look into the history of national security and how it evolved almost solely because of the need for restriction of information regarding UFO's.  Enough military and intelligence employees with enough credentials (along with scientists like McDonald) have offered mountains of evidence.  I will agree with you on one point: we currently are faced with an almost total lack of legitimate research.  But this seems to be the direct result of the military/industrial complex along with debunking programs like the Condon Report.
[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._McDonald

"This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed."

""Weasel words" are statements which appear to assert something but subtly imply something different, opposite, or stronger in the way they are made. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority with no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.[6] However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the neutral point of view. Equally, editorial irony and damning with faint praise have no place in Wikipedia articles."
[/quote]

Yet you have offered no counterpoint...rather you have only utilized your own "weasel words."
[/quote]

Au contraire

The wiki piece stands on it's own to show that it is you who weasels.

I just filled you in but you are still failing as a skeptic because of your wanting UFOs to be something they aren't or at least attempting to use evidence as fact and proof of something that they are not proof of.

Why is it so important to you?

It doesn't matter to me if they are ETs or they aren't

If they are "real" in that respect great......if they aren't that's fine too.
[/quote]

Original Message The term "skeptic" refers to someone who continuously questions the nature of reality and the validity of suppositions put forth by, not just authorities, but anyone making claims as to the "inherent" nature of things. Somewhere along the way, the word's definition seems to have changed to mean: referring to a person or party who accepts "established" facts in the face of questions. This is literally the opposite of being skeptical. It is not skepticism that leads one to doubt the reality of a UFO sighting based on the fact that the United States Air Force explains it away by claiming the witnesses viewed LUU2 illumination flares. It is skepticism that leads one to question why said flares did not descend as flares should. It is skepticism that leads one to ask the question, "Why did the Air Force state that they had no idea what was going on and then retract their statement the following day?" It is skepticism that brings one's attention to the multiple radar confirmations of what appears to be an enormous craft in the air where the "flares" were spotted. It is the true skeptic who wonders why no one has paid attention to the blatant lapses in logic on the part of the explainer. We (the so-called "conspiracy theorists) are the true skeptics.

Pictures (click to insert)





\| Next Page >>