QUOTE (morrison1976 @ Feb 23 2008, 08:20 PM) 
I don't think none of you have answered my questions. We all know that we need 100% evidence that ET is here, we can agree on that. The ufo cases that are unexplained is because there is no explanation, not because of lack of some sort of evidence. To say ufo's is like a religon is a bit over the top, considering there is plenty of evidence that some ufo's defy explanation. My problem is, and still has not been answered is the skeptics who put stupid explanations to cases, just because they don't want to leave it as unexplained. De-bunking is a belief system too, and not good for the subject. Its easy to study a case where 10 people saw a ufo hover, as clear as day, then shooting of at amazing spends, to turn around and say it was venus, or some other stupid explanation. Most of the time, they will totally disregard what the witnesess saw, and come up with there own conclusion that is an insult to the witnesess. Thats why you will never get these people turn around and say, i need proof that you saw this. That is ok, but they feel the need to try and explain it with stupid explanations that have nothing to do with what the witneses saw. Believers want to believe that et is here, some believe everything. De-bunkers will refuse to believe any case, some will put forward some stupid explanations with the "scientific" work behind it. Both are belief systems, and both are not good for the subject.
Anyone who believes that all ufo cases are either hoaxes, liers, money makers etc, clearly don't know anything about the subject.
Anyone who believes that all ufo cases are either hoaxes, liers, money makers etc, clearly don't know anything about the subject.
"The idea of benign or hostile super beings from other planets visiting the earth [is clearly] an emotional idea. There are two sorts of self-deception here: either accepting the idea of extraterrestrial visitation in the face of very meager evidence because we want it to be true; or rejecting such an idea out of hand, in the absence of sufficient evidence, because we don't want it to be true. Each of these extremes is a serious impediment to the study of UFOs."-Sagan, 1969
"discussions of the UFO issue have remained narrowly polarized between advocates and adversaries of a single theory, namely the extraterrestrial hypothesis ... this fixation on the ETH has narrowed and impoverished the debate, precluding an examination of other possible theories for the phenomenon."-Sturrock, 1999
""The Truth". The all time favorite catch phrase that every fanatic and UFO con artist has over-used. Of course, finding out what is going on is important and no one should belittle the truth. Then again, no one should be throwing around "the truth" to sell their scams either - which happens all too often with UFOs. Nothing like bankrolling "the truth"..."-UFO watchdog.com UFO Hall of Shame 4- Link
Which is my stance. The only thing that comes out of explaining UFOs as the vehicles of ETBEs (without actual physical proof) is belief. And belief polarizes our species. You only need to look to our collective history to see that millions (possibly even billions) have died in the quest to prove whose belief is the greatest of all.
Which is also one of the issues with UFOlogy as a belief. There are those too willing to believe and those who will never believe. And in between, there's the rest of us. Unfortunately there's no clear definitions for who is what.
The source escapes me, but I saw an excellent proposal elewhere to have a clear distinction in the (metaphorically speaking) UFOlogist's handbook between skeptic and debunker, since most believers tend to blur into the skeptical range of belief.
The definition they proposed for debunker was something along the lines of a person whose argument is thinly veiled behind flimsy 'psuedo-scientific' explanations, but is essentially an argument designed to attack the person (witness or believer). Thus the term debunker can be applied at either extreme. Though I think the proposed term for a believer debunker was 'Fanatic'.
Not all skeptics are debunkers. I think most of us are quite content to leave something as unexplainable by our current collective knowledge.
Which is the problem with ET. We have no more knowledge of ET than we do of the gods of modern and ancient religions.
So when we are presented with something that we are told to interpret as a vehicle piloted by an otherworldly being, we need that extraordinary proof. And if there's no proof, at least a decent attempt at falsifiable theory (to show that swamp gas, celestial bodies, the Aurora Borialis et all have been considered eliminated). Otherwise you're just peddling belief and opening the door for the debunkers (at both ends of the scale), and the discourse becomes a brawl where both sides endevour to beat each other into submission.
Now onto my personal issue with your statement about people who equate money-making to UFO cases clearly don't know anything about the subject.
This is another problem that springs up in belief systems. There is always someone whose out to make a buck. And with belief, it always comes at the expense of the truth.
Most witnesses will tell their stories for free, so why is the 'researcher' entitled to sell it to the rest of us? Is it that by putting a price on it that people are willing to pay, it makes them more willing to accept the truthfulness of the narrative?
Or is it that the researcher cares less about the truth, and more about when his next meal will be?
In either case, it's the witness who's the one who has to deal with the public attention (both good and bad), while the researcher moves on to his next publishing deal. I don't think any researcher has ever shared the spoils of his endevours with his witnesses...
Its plain and simple exploitation. And thats my issue with the money making side of it, that it exploits people (witnesses and believers) and makes the 'truth' something that you have to buy into.
