"Skeptical" Has Lost its Meaning

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 retracted 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.

As the nature of reality is transition through supposedly novel states; Would this not presuppose the need for skepticism to be an eternal state erasing the biases of positionality and constancy?

Absolutely. Stay skeptical.

history is all lies, anything they say is a lie, every word...

no skepticism needed, when you are looking at lies and alibis

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.

Problem is there is no record of claimed radar sighting

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.

Great read, OP! However, I kind of think skepticism just defines your position relative to the topic at hand.

In a two way conversation, can't I be skeptical of the official line I'm being told, while the other person is skeptical of my belief that I am being lied to?

Provocative thread!

Oh, yeah?

[link to www.nicap.org]

This is just one example out of many. Look into the RB-47 UFO sighting of 1957 for more multiple radar confirmation evidence.

[link to www.ufoevidence.org]

This has become the UFO radar evidence thread. Sorry. A certain non-skeptical inividual (above) set me off.

You are mixing individual accounts of sightings

Your flare comment was obviously about the so called Arizona lights.

There was much talk about radar sightings of a "huge craft"

There appears to be no such radar evidence.

There was also much talk when it became obvious that it was flares that there was a different earlier sighting documented with many pictures and videos but none of those have been located either.

Are you suggesting that there were LUU2 flares in 1960s?

What I was "obviously" doing was creating a gestalt of typical UFO sighting/Air Force response situations. The Arizona Lights incident was arguably the most well known incident involving illumination flares as a cover story. However, the Kokomo lights could just as well fit into this category.

[link to www.journalgazette.net]

[link to www.ufoinfo.com]

Thanks. But skepticism is merely a noun defining a person's propensity to question something beyond its face value. Someone cannot really be skeptical of your "belief." They could be skeptical of an opposing theory, however. But this would entail doing some thinking and research to uncover why said theory may not be valid.

What exactly was changed about kokomo?

"I got to the VP at the point, just west of Kokomo and looked north one last time. Above the field in between a couple of houses, two UFO's appeared together, much lower than before and much closer. I would say they were less than 100 yards away. This time, however, they had "tails." They had 4 to 5 yellow-orange colored 4-pointed star-shaped lights trailing behind each of them and they appeared to be dancing towards the highway."

Ever see an afterburner open after dark?

Why is the army story so incredible to you?

And why do you have a religious belief in UFOs?

Not arguing if there are or aren't but I am arguing that there is to date no credible tangible evidence of them being aliens

What exactly was changed about kokomo?

"I got to the VP at the point, just west of Kokomo and looked north one last time. Above the field in between a couple of houses, two UFO's appeared together, much lower than before and much closer. I would say they were less than 100 yards away. This time, however, they had "tails." They had 4 to 5 yellow-orange colored 4-pointed star-shaped lights trailing behind each of them and they appeared to be dancing towards the highway."

Ever see an afterburner open after dark?

Why is the army story so incredible to you?

And why do you have a religious belief in UFOs?

Not arguing if there are or aren't but I am arguing that there is to date no credible tangible evidence of them being aliens

Hey, OP. That was me posting from my mobile. I certainly didn't mean to come across as a non-skeptic, I mean I am on GLP, after all.

Your OP just got me to thinking about the differences in Skepticism, Skeptical and "being a skeptic", which I think you effectively nailed as euqating to a "debunker" (or maybe I did that after reading).

The word has been hijacked by all these History Channel, etc shows that introduce "bigfoot/ufo/haarp skeptics" who are always there to debunk, and the word itself is changing in the public's perception.

I 5*'d you initially, was just hoping for some discourse on the terms themselves and various connotations.

Okay, back to your UFO evidence :)

One cannot believe or disbelieve in UFO's. There are unidentifies objects that have been sighted and documented on radar for over 70 years (more before there were instruments to observe them). They exist. The Air Force has admitted this much. ATIC did a running study (officially) up to 1973 and has been proven to STILL investigate these phenomena. They are real. The question we should be asking is, "what are they?" I don't have an answer but I can say that the extraterrestrial or extra dimensional hypotheses are the most likely.

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.

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.