Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
JamesThomas

Beleive It Or Not, A Sceptic Is Someone Who:

112 posts in this topic

What happened? Semantics happened. Popular culture, by way of the X-Files and Richard Dawkins, transformed skepticism into a belief system. Because of the context in which we're usually exposed to the term (people are, for example, more often described as 'skeptical' of the existence of UFOs than, say, the merits of the two-party political system), 'skeptic' has come to mean someone opposed to more outlandish or esoteric ideas, rather than ideas in general.

The official 9/11 story is also outlandish, and many people are 'skeptical' it is legit.

Certainly, a skeptic is not one who accepts the government account of 9/11, as there are so many unanswered questions.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The official 9/11 story is also outlandish, and many people are 'skeptical' it is legit.

Certainly, a skeptic is not one who accepts the government account of 9/11, as there are so many unanswered questions.

Who is skeptical that the well executed, engineering analysis of the 9-11 occurrances are "legit"?

And what is so outlandish about a sterile, systematic engineering evaluation...save that it's not understood by non-engineering people, like those who tend to put forth nonsensical ideas?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the dictionary a sceptic (skeptic) is:

1. a person who habitually doubts the authenticity of accepted beliefs

2. a person who mistrusts people, ideas, etc, in general

What the hell happened?!!!

Now days a skeptic is a *snip* who parrots the mainstream of media and closed-minded science.

And the person who doubts authority is now a "Conspiracy Theorist".

What's going on?

"close-minded science" is a ridiculous statement and if it made more contextual sense it would be an oxymoron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all basically boils down to this.....it really does .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A true 'skeptic' questions the 'accepted' account, the mainstream viewpoint. A skeptic challenges the status quo.

This is a classic construct. A "true skeptic".

I'm afraid that means, "A habitual skeptic".

]A false skeptic supports the 'accepted' account without question, and then challenges the true skeptics.

It's a deliberate, planned hijacking of the term. imo.

They are disinfo/misinfo agents, feeding government propaganda.

An amazing, but weak effort.

By "false Skeptic", you're actually referring to intelligent, knowledgeable people who can see the validity of the "accepted" account (i.e., a real, engineering analysis, conducted by panels ).

Your "true sleptic" refers to one person:

The person filled with a lack of knowledge, with a mistrust of any official authority, and with a complete lack of anything to back up their declarations. The CT, or HB, in otherwords...a person like you, turb.

It's just rather amazing an effort, although it had to fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wouldn't refer to myself as a skeptic, but i am skeptical.

it's not that i negate the idea of ghosts or psychics or ufo abductions - or what have you - i have not made my mind up on any of those things.

it's the tales i hear and hoaxed pics and videos i see that i'm skeptical of.

if these things exist, and in some cases i hope they do, bring it. stop with all the lies and bullcrap. that's where my skepticism lies.

i have been asked why i bother to come to these forums, and my anwer is simply this:

at some point through all the lies and crap i hope to learn of something truly extra ordinary or truly extra terrestrial or truly paranormal or truly miraculous.

and while i'm here i can learn other useful things along the way, such as information about pyramids, stonehenge, and other ancient places

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wouldn't refer to myself as a skeptic, but i am skeptical.

it's not that i negate the idea of ghosts or psychics or ufo abductions - or what have you - i have not made my mind up on any of those things.

it's the tales i hear and hoaxed pics and videos i see that i'm skeptical of.

if these things exist, and in some cases i hope they do, bring it. stop with all the lies and bullcrap. that's where my skepticism lies.

i have been asked why i bother to come to these forums, and my anwer is simply this:

at some point through all the lies and crap i hope to learn of something truly extra ordinary or truly extra terrestrial or truly paranormal or truly miraculous.

and while i'm here i can learn other useful things along the way, such as information about pyramids, stonehenge, and other ancient places

Fair enough, JGirl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a classic construct. A "true skeptic".

I'm afraid that means, "A habitual skeptic".

An amazing, but weak effort.

By "false Skeptic", you're actually referring to intelligent, knowledgeable people who can see the validity of the "accepted" account (i.e., a real, engineering analysis, conducted by panels ).

Your "true sleptic" refers to one person:

The person filled with a lack of knowledge, with a mistrust of any official authority, and with a complete lack of anything to back up their declarations. The CT, or HB, in otherwords...a person like you, turb.

It's just rather amazing an effort, although it had to fail.

The official 9/11 story is built on "a lack of knowledge", with a complete trust of any official authority, and especially a lack of anything to back it up!!

There are so many examples, such as..

- no Pentagon videos ever shown. Do you think a true skeptic would simply accept this? Not a chance. So who do you think has a "lack of knowledge" here? Who do you think lacks evidence for their claims? No true skeptic would believe this nonsense.

- all the Ground Zero evidence that they quickly shipped off to Asia. You think a skeptic happily accepts such a farce? No way. A skeptic wants to see the evidence. A skeptic wants to know why it was shipped away without a care.

- a true skeptic wants to know why Bush claimed - on two separate occasions - that he saw the first tower being hit by a plane on TV when it was never seen live.

Those who blindly accept all that sort of bs are simply not true skeptics, They are just a bunch of phonies who call themselves 'skeptics'. As if that alone makes it so.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its always about the majority. :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: > :blink::wacko::cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- all the Ground Zero evidence that they quickly shipped off to Asia. You think a skeptic happily accepts such a farce? No way. A skeptic wants to see the evidence. A skeptic wants to know why it was shipped away without a care.

If the debris contained any incriminating evidence, what would be the advantage of giving it to a foreign power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the debris contained any incriminating evidence, what would be the advantage of giving it to a foreign power?

Good heavens man, the advantage would be the removal and destruction of evidence. That's a no brainer, and that is precisely what happened, both at WTC, the Pentagon and Shanksville.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good heavens man, the advantage would be the removal and destruction of evidence. That's a no brainer, and that is precisely what happened, both at WTC, the Pentagon and Shanksville.

The 9/11 conspiracist were responsible for distorting the facts on evidence, not the U.S. government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Destruction of evidence is what the government is all about. That is not a profound statement, and even the movie Argo shows that dynamic in action, as the employees at the US Embassy in Tehran were busy beavers destroying evidence as the hordes came over the fence.

I understand the process, and consider it good under certain conditions. The point is that claiming the government does not destroy evidence is an absurd claim.

And the destruction of evidence and utter compromise of the crime scene at WTC was blatant and observed and commented on by many.

No evidence, no crime, is the operative philosophy. That's how the government works, I'm sad to report, and it's been demonstrated many times over many years.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good heavens man, the advantage would be the removal and destruction of evidence.

Destruction of evidence is one thing, giving the evidence to a foreign power is another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the destruction of evidence and utter compromise of the crime scene at WTC was blatant and observed and commented on by many.

No evidence, no crime, is the operative philosophy. That's how the government works, I'm sad to report, and it's been demonstrated many times over many years.

To back up your claim, where's your evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually skeptics can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to politics. They've been so heavily propagandized, they believe anything they hear. Of course, you could make the same argument against believers as well. Have to find the middle ground and consider all sources, eventually the truth will be realized.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually skeptics can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to politics. They've been so heavily propagandized, they believe anything they hear. Of course, you could make the same argument against believers as well. Have to find the middle ground and consider all sources, eventually the truth will be realized.

So then, you have to skeptical of the skeptics on both sides of the issue?

*my head hurts*

Edited by Likely Guy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually skeptics can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to politics. They've been so heavily propagandized, they believe anything they hear.

Your second sentence contradicts your first, a skeptic by definition does not 'believe anything they hear'. I think we need to judge who and who isn't a 'skeptic' not just by how they refer to themselves, but by whether we actually see them put skepticism into practice. Which is not to say the skepticism is perfect, you can go too far of course, just like as you acknowledged 'believers' can. But skepticism has an extra benefit in that it purposely attempts to account for biases, fallacies, and critical thinking failures to which everyone is naturally prone (which is not to be confused with 'to which everyone is prone to the same extent').

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Destruction of evidence is one thing, giving the evidence to a foreign power is another.

Taking evidence away from the scene of the crime is itself a crime, and as many times the context is lost thereby, can be tantamount to destruction of the evidence.

You're trying to back pedal from an obviously INCORRECT earlier statement. It's very tough indeed to even attempt to defend a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that Sandra Bullock lol? :lol:

no just some internet chick wearing a cat for a hat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think it goes like this

the gullible

the heartfelt believers

the fence sitters

the skeptical

the debunkers

at UM we have an abundance of all of these types, but the debunkers are often mistaken for skeptics and the heartfelt believers are often accused of being gullible (usually by the debunkers)

i sit between fence sitter and skeptic usually.

ok if none of that made sense, sorry. it did when i typed it lol

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking evidence away from the scene of the crime is itself a crime, and as many times the context is lost thereby, can be tantamount to destruction of the evidence.

You're trying to back pedal from an obviously INCORRECT earlier statement. It's very tough indeed to even attempt to defend a lie.

The website references you have been using are well known for spreading lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking evidence away from the scene of the crime is itself a crime, and as many times the context is lost thereby, can be tantamount to destruction of the evidence.

You're trying to back pedal from an obviously INCORRECT earlier statement. It's very tough indeed to even attempt to defend a lie.

I am not back-pedalling from a statement, or defending anything. I asked a question of Turbs. I have not had an answer from either him or you.

This is my last try at getting you to understand my point: Given that the steel from ground zero contained incriminating evidence, why should it be shipped to a foreign country rather than melted down in the US?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the steel from ground zero contained incriminating evidence, why should it be shipped to a foreign country rather than melted down in the US?

Very good point! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The website references you have been using are well known for spreading lies.

No wonder you're familiar with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.