"Skeptical" Has Lost its Meaning | |
Kai (VALIS) (OP) User ID: 21572327 United States 08/23/2013 03:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 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. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45621326 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. [link to en.wikipedia.org] "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." Yet you have offered no counterpoint...rather you have only utilized your own "weasel words." - The Spider Kid |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 45638141 Australia 08/23/2013 03:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 45621326 United States 08/23/2013 03:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 45621326 United States 08/23/2013 03:44 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 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. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45621326 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. [link to en.wikipedia.org] "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." Yet you have offered no counterpoint...rather you have only utilized your own "weasel words." 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. |
Kai (VALIS) (OP) User ID: 21572327 United States 08/23/2013 03:59 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Kai (VALIS) 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. [link to en.wikipedia.org] "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." Yet you have offered no counterpoint...rather you have only utilized your own "weasel words." 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. I have never made the assertion that they were extraterrestrial. What I did say was that it is likely that many UFO's (the more credible accounts) are extraterrestrial in source based on the overwhelming evidence of: a. Radar and video evidence corresponding to eyewitness testimony (in many cases military) detailing solid objects making what appear to be intelligently controlled maneuvers. b. Mountains of evidence from investigators (including men like Edward Ruppelt who worked for the Air Force) that point to large scale coverups which include testimony from personnel discussing crashed objects of unknown origin c. Literally thousands of reports from eye witnesses which detail both solid craft and entities with startling similarities case to case. These are far too often overlooked. d. Logical evidence...I.e. in a universe this size it is only likely that intelligent life has arisen elsewhere and that (when looked at on a large time scale) is going to be (somewhere) far more advanced than we are and will (at least occasionally) want a look at what's around. It is a probability which will inevitably become a reality. Are there things (like test craft, Fortean phenomena, and otherwise) that are mistakenly labeled "extraterrestrial?" Yes. But this does not deny that a great deal of what we deal with is, in fact, from another planet. - The Spider Kid |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 45621326 United States 08/23/2013 04:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45621326 [link to en.wikipedia.org] "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." Yet you have offered no counterpoint...rather you have only utilized your own "weasel words." 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. I have never made the assertion that they were extraterrestrial. What I did say was that it is likely that many UFO's (the more credible accounts) are extraterrestrial in source based on the overwhelming evidence of: a. Radar and video evidence corresponding to eyewitness testimony (in many cases military) detailing solid objects making what appear to be intelligently controlled maneuvers. b. Mountains of evidence from investigators (including men like Edward Ruppelt who worked for the Air Force) that point to large scale coverups which include testimony from personnel discussing crashed objects of unknown origin c. Literally thousands of reports from eye witnesses which detail both solid craft and entities with startling similarities case to case. These are far too often overlooked. d. Logical evidence...I.e. in a universe this size it is only likely that intelligent life has arisen elsewhere and that (when looked at on a large time scale) is going to be (somewhere) far more advanced than we are and will (at least occasionally) want a look at what's around. It is a probability which will inevitably become a reality. Are there things (like test craft, Fortean phenomena, and otherwise) that are mistakenly labeled "extraterrestrial?" Yes. But this does not deny that a great deal of what we deal with is, in fact, from another planet. Your entire post here is weasel As I have already stated the "radar evidence" is not there. Ruppelt after his life of UFO research came to the same conclusion that I hold now and never said anything about a coverup in his life. Eyewitness reports as you state support my post that people are seeing what they really wish were real and always point back to fiction movies. D is a rather pie in the sky assumption all by itself. There is a very good chance there is life elsewhere but not looking good for all the added on wishful thinking that goes with that old song |
Kai (VALIS) (OP) User ID: 25570375 United States 08/23/2013 04:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Kai (VALIS) Yet you have offered no counterpoint...rather you have only utilized your own "weasel words." 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. I have never made the assertion that they were extraterrestrial. What I did say was that it is likely that many UFO's (the more credible accounts) are extraterrestrial in source based on the overwhelming evidence of: a. Radar and video evidence corresponding to eyewitness testimony (in many cases military) detailing solid objects making what appear to be intelligently controlled maneuvers. b. Mountains of evidence from investigators (including men like Edward Ruppelt who worked for the Air Force) that point to large scale coverups which include testimony from personnel discussing crashed objects of unknown origin c. Literally thousands of reports from eye witnesses which detail both solid craft and entities with startling similarities case to case. These are far too often overlooked. d. Logical evidence...I.e. in a universe this size it is only likely that intelligent life has arisen elsewhere and that (when looked at on a large time scale) is going to be (somewhere) far more advanced than we are and will (at least occasionally) want a look at what's around. It is a probability which will inevitably become a reality. Are there things (like test craft, Fortean phenomena, and otherwise) that are mistakenly labeled "extraterrestrial?" Yes. But this does not deny that a great deal of what we deal with is, in fact, from another planet. Your entire post here is weasel As I have already stated the "radar evidence" is not there. Ruppelt after his life of UFO research came to the same conclusion that I hold now and never said anything about a coverup in his life. Eyewitness reports as you state support my post that people are seeing what they really wish were real and always point back to fiction movies. D is a rather pie in the sky assumption all by itself. There is a very good chance there is life elsewhere but not looking good for all the added on wishful thinking that goes with that old song You (yet again) have provided no counterpoint or evidence. You are merely "debunking." - The Spider Kid |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 45621326 United States 08/23/2013 04:18 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45621326 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. I have never made the assertion that they were extraterrestrial. What I did say was that it is likely that many UFO's (the more credible accounts) are extraterrestrial in source based on the overwhelming evidence of: a. Radar and video evidence corresponding to eyewitness testimony (in many cases military) detailing solid objects making what appear to be intelligently controlled maneuvers. b. Mountains of evidence from investigators (including men like Edward Ruppelt who worked for the Air Force) that point to large scale coverups which include testimony from personnel discussing crashed objects of unknown origin c. Literally thousands of reports from eye witnesses which detail both solid craft and entities with startling similarities case to case. These are far too often overlooked. d. Logical evidence...I.e. in a universe this size it is only likely that intelligent life has arisen elsewhere and that (when looked at on a large time scale) is going to be (somewhere) far more advanced than we are and will (at least occasionally) want a look at what's around. It is a probability which will inevitably become a reality. Are there things (like test craft, Fortean phenomena, and otherwise) that are mistakenly labeled "extraterrestrial?" Yes. But this does not deny that a great deal of what we deal with is, in fact, from another planet. Your entire post here is weasel As I have already stated the "radar evidence" is not there. Ruppelt after his life of UFO research came to the same conclusion that I hold now and never said anything about a coverup in his life. Eyewitness reports as you state support my post that people are seeing what they really wish were real and always point back to fiction movies. D is a rather pie in the sky assumption all by itself. There is a very good chance there is life elsewhere but not looking good for all the added on wishful thinking that goes with that old song You (yet again) have provided no counterpoint or evidence. You are merely "debunking." Nope I am being skeptical of your premise because your very statement is false and you continue to prove it every time you post. Your offered evidence is not unbiased fact.....the yotube is a complete fabrication Have you even read Ruppelts book? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 45621326 United States 08/23/2013 04:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | BTW Ruppelt was a debunker not unlike myself and that was the reason Keyhoe and he did not get along at all Keyhoe added more spin and bunkum to the field than anyone else during his hey day I dare say he was the beginning of the current church of the alien woo woos |
Kai (VALIS) (OP) User ID: 25570375 United States 08/23/2013 04:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | BTW Ruppelt was a debunker not unlike myself and that was the reason Keyhoe and he did not get along at all Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45621326 Keyhoe added more spin and bunkum to the field than anyone else during his hey day I dare say he was the beginning of the current church of the alien woo woos Ruppelt was actually gotten to at a certain point and THEN became part of the debunking problem. This is well documented. And yes...I have read his book. Say what you want about aliens and UFO's but the man was definitely onto a serious program for withholding information. - The Spider Kid |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 45621326 United States 08/23/2013 04:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | BTW Ruppelt was a debunker not unlike myself and that was the reason Keyhoe and he did not get along at all Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45621326 Keyhoe added more spin and bunkum to the field than anyone else during his hey day I dare say he was the beginning of the current church of the alien woo woos Ruppelt was actually gotten to at a certain point and THEN became part of the debunking problem. This is well documented. And yes...I have read his book. Say what you want about aliens and UFO's but the man was definitely onto a serious program for withholding information. He was nothing of the kind. He viewed the contactee movement the same way I do to this day. Please show your evidence that he was "gotten to" He got fed up with bullshit and bunkum being heaped upon evidence just like I did. |
Kai (VALIS) (OP) User ID: 25570375 United States 08/23/2013 04:46 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | BTW Ruppelt was a debunker not unlike myself and that was the reason Keyhoe and he did not get along at all Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45621326 Keyhoe added more spin and bunkum to the field than anyone else during his hey day I dare say he was the beginning of the current church of the alien woo woos Ruppelt was actually gotten to at a certain point and THEN became part of the debunking problem. This is well documented. And yes...I have read his book. Say what you want about aliens and UFO's but the man was definitely onto a serious program for withholding information. He was nothing of the kind. He viewed the contactee movement the same way I do to this day. Please show your evidence that he was "gotten to" He got fed up with bullshit and bunkum being heaped upon evidence just like I did. You've read Richard Dolan's books? - The Spider Kid |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 45621326 United States 08/23/2013 04:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | BTW Ruppelt was a debunker not unlike myself and that was the reason Keyhoe and he did not get along at all Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45621326 Keyhoe added more spin and bunkum to the field than anyone else during his hey day I dare say he was the beginning of the current church of the alien woo woos Ruppelt was actually gotten to at a certain point and THEN became part of the debunking problem. This is well documented. And yes...I have read his book. Say what you want about aliens and UFO's but the man was definitely onto a serious program for withholding information. He was nothing of the kind. He viewed the contactee movement the same way I do to this day. Please show your evidence that he was "gotten to" He got fed up with bullshit and bunkum being heaped upon evidence just like I did. You've read Richard Dolan's books? I read his first so why would I waste the time reading any more? He is well known as a bunkum peddling attention whore who profits quite well from his sensationalism. He uses the classic known BS from such UFO "greats" as Richard Hoagland and Alfred Webre. He is equally credible with Steven Greer IE not at all. |
Kai (VALIS) (OP) User ID: 25570375 United States 08/23/2013 04:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Kai (VALIS) Ruppelt was actually gotten to at a certain point and THEN became part of the debunking problem. This is well documented. And yes...I have read his book. Say what you want about aliens and UFO's but the man was definitely onto a serious program for withholding information. He was nothing of the kind. He viewed the contactee movement the same way I do to this day. Please show your evidence that he was "gotten to" He got fed up with bullshit and bunkum being heaped upon evidence just like I did. You've read Richard Dolan's books? I read his first so why would I waste the time reading any more? He is well known as a bunkum peddling attention whore who profits quite well from his sensationalism. He uses the classic known BS from such UFO "greats" as Richard Hoagland and Alfred Webre. He is equally credible with Steven Greer IE not at all. It is clear we are at a standstill. No use attempting to go further. - The Spider Kid |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 45621326 United States 08/23/2013 05:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 45621326 United States 08/23/2013 05:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Kai (VALIS) (OP) User ID: 25570375 United States 08/23/2013 06:00 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 45621326 United States 08/23/2013 06:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Kai (VALIS) (OP) User ID: 25570375 United States 08/23/2013 06:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 45621326 United States 08/23/2013 06:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Kai (VALIS) (OP) User ID: 25570375 United States 08/23/2013 06:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 45621326 United States 08/23/2013 06:53 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Kai (VALIS) (OP) User ID: 25570375 United States 08/23/2013 06:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 45621326 United States 08/23/2013 06:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Kai (VALIS) (OP) User ID: 25570375 United States 08/23/2013 07:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 45647665 United States 08/23/2013 07:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I had Dan Burrisch convinced that alien bodies all autopsied them selves. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45621326 Told him it was built into their DNA so that there would be a failure record. I will call Friedman and inform him. You call Klass. I'm on it Soon as I get my latest sworn statement notarized at mailboxesRus |
Kai (VALIS) (OP) User ID: 25570375 United States 08/23/2013 07:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I had Dan Burrisch convinced that alien bodies all autopsied them selves. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45621326 Told him it was built into their DNA so that there would be a failure record. I will call Friedman and inform him. You call Klass. I'm on it Soon as I get my latest sworn statement notarized at mailboxesRus Bet ya "1,000 bucks" the UFO's intervene. ;) - The Spider Kid |
Soma/Comatose User ID: 32963937 United States 08/23/2013 07:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 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. Quoting: Kai (VALIS) Ummmm.... I dunno, I'm kinda skeptical about this thread.... ''Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country.'' —President George W. Bush, Sept. 6, 2004 |
Kai (VALIS) (OP) User ID: 25570375 United States 08/23/2013 08:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 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. Quoting: Kai (VALIS) Ummmm.... I dunno, I'm kinda skeptical about this thread.... I used to be indecisive. Now I'm not so sure. - The Spider Kid |