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 2
HeyWhatsUpWithAirlineFood

Why do people automatically believe

53 posts in this topic

People who interpret their stories have tainted the information beyond usefulness. You are never going to get a straight story from someone who has seen an "Alien", a "UFO" on the other hand might be something worth listening to.

Indeed mighty Wizzard of OZ. THe Truth is all in the Puddin !

And we all know you cant have your puddin If you dont Eat your Meat ! :clap:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why dont u belive in alien abduction.it does happen just ak travis walton him and his friends passed the lie dectort tests.

eb9c6166261ffbd596806fb41b80dc45.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed mighty Wizzard of OZ. THe Truth is all in the Puddin !

And we all know you cant have your puddin If you dont Eat your Meat ! :clap:

You! Yes! You behind the bikesheds! Stand still, laddie!", how can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But how can the rest of us KNOW what is real and what is not.... This is why we need science. We need REAL evidence. It is more rewarding .

I need to KNOW..... not just BELIEVE.

Some of us don't need science to make up our minds for us. Evidence and witnesses are routinely discounted by debunkers to the point where they sound like religious fanatics. Both groups share the same kind of hostility to people, who don't share their views, too. Their animosity is another mystery that needs to be solved.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who interpret their stories have tainted the information beyond usefulness. You are never going to get a straight story from someone who has seen an "Alien", a "UFO" on the other hand might be something worth listening to.

A real skeptic never says "never". They go where the evidence takes them. They know that there are both chaff and wheat to be found in claims of the paranormal. They don't believe that all claims are comprised of the same substance. :-)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A real skeptic never says "never". They go where the evidence takes them. They know that there are both chaff and wheat to be found in claims of the paranormal. They don't believe that all claims are comprised of the same substance. :-)

I do not feel that is accurate, I am a real skeptic, and despite what you feel, I can confidently say

You are never going to grow wings and fly

you are never going to walk naked on the sun

you are never going to swim naked in open space

in fact the list could go indefinitely. And someone who has interpreted what they have seen is incapable of returning the event back to it's basics. They already know what they saw. To suggest otherwise is a waste of time.

There is being thorough, and then there is just wasting time. I feel wisdom lies in being able to differentiate the two.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead people are now Photoshopping fake UFO photos, the Patterson footage is still the "best" evidence of Bigfoot, and ESP has been almost entirely debunked. Overall people are much more skeptical and cynical about these things now. I say things have improved.

ok, for a start: i totally agree it's a good thing that people are becoming more skeptical and don't eat gullibly every fairytale out

of the hands of a Billy Meier, or that guy with a bigfoot in his freezer, or whoever.....

BUT: the possibility of easily creating Photoshop or CGI hoaxes nowadays does not necessarily contribute to that attitude. Quite contrary, if there should be the "real thing" hidden somewhere between the piles of cr***y fake videos/photos, it will be even harder to detect. And this forum alone is proof enough that even the blurriest picture of a lamp reflecting in a window WILL find somebody to hail it as the real deal and definite proof of alien invasion. To make it short, i just can't see an improvement in that....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUT: the possibility of easily creating Photoshop or CGI hoaxes nowadays does not necessarily contribute to that attitude.

I think it has. In the past most people didn't know what was involved in hoaxing a UFO photo. Many people thought that if the negatives hadn't been "tampered with" then these were photographs of genuine flying saucers. Of course there are dozens of ways to hoax a UFO on film (tampering with a negative is the clumsiest way) but these techniques weren't known to the general public. You only have to look at the huge following Ed Walters got from his obviously double-exposed UFO photos to see how gullible people were just twenty years ago.

Now we have ten year olds who can find an image of a UFO on the Internet, cut it, and paste into into a digital photo. In fact thanks to inexpensive digital photography, the techniques of photography are much better understood by people now.

Quite contrary, if there should be the "real thing" hidden somewhere between the piles of cr***y fake videos/photos, it will be even harder to detect.

It won't be hidden. It will stand out. There are some excellent UFO photos that don't appear to be hoaxes and remained unexplained.

The problem with photos is that they're just photos. They can't tell a story by themselves.

And this forum alone is proof enough that even the blurriest picture of a lamp reflecting in a window WILL find somebody to hail it as the real deal and definite proof of alien invasion. To make it short, i just can't see an improvement in that....

Who cares what "somebody" believes? You won't find reputable people saying it's proof.

Back in the 70's we had books, movies and network television specials all telling us that there were without a doubt flying saucers zipping through our skies and the government was covering it all up. After Watergate, who could say what other dirty secrets the government was keeping from us?

In the late 90's there was a push back in the media as many revered cases turned out to be hoaxes. Ed Walters was the first big case that made a lot of new skeptics. When the infamous Alien Autopsy footage arrived out of nowhere in 1995, instead of unconditional acceptance it received unprecedented skepticism. Wait, could someone have hoaxed an entire autopsy? It seemed impossible especially after the highly rated FOX special declared it authentic yet thanks to the Internet reputable people in the movie industry showed the flaws in the special effects and reputable coroners showed how the autopsy was done wrong.

After months went by without a single film frame of the autopsy being examined and the backstory becoming fishier and fishier, the opinion of the media changed. FOX aired another highly rated special on it, this time entirely skeptical. That's when a lot of people realized that they had been had. It was clear that technology now allowed some nobody to hoax fifty year old footage well enough to fool television networks and millions of people and make a ton of money. They even made a movie on how it had been faked. As long as everyone made money, no one would end up in court.

The networks had gotten burned and after that they have mostly ignored UFO reports and left them to cable shows and tabloid news. They've also been much better at reporting general science news after Dan Rather began CBS Nightly News with a report that our energy problems had finally been solved by the discovery of "cold fusion" which would change the world forever.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you confuse belief with people who really just sit on the fence and still want to give respect to the teller, with people who do not dubiously feel the great need to tear people down and diminish the tellers dignity, and with people do not seek to ridicule them like so vast many trolls on this forum. I mean, the ridicule on this forum has turned into sport. And I call those who ridicule trolls.

I am confused now. Which kind of person are you?

BTW there is new UFO book out: http://www.ozufo.net/new-ozufo-store.html

Anyone could make up an alien abduction story with a compelling, spine-chiller hook, then wrap it all around something that deals with peoples' primal fears of the unknown and end up with a massive lie about something that didn't happen, and swear by their life on it being true.

And people would believe them. Based only on their verbal testimony.

Sadly.

The point is, trying to have a friendly debate with someone who believes in crap like that is almost impossible, because let's face it, even though someone's story of a UFO sighting or whatever might scare you, or shock you, or make you feel stunned subconsciously, it doesn't necessarily mean that story actually dealt with a sighting of an alien machine.

Existential fallacies aren't good for you.

Edited by regeneratia
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why do people automatically believe?"

Because they have boring lives.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not feel that is accurate, I am a real skeptic, and despite what you feel, I can confidently say

You are never going to grow wings and fly

you are never going to walk naked on the sun

you are never going to swim naked in open space

in fact the list could go indefinitely. And someone who has interpreted what they have seen is incapable of returning the event back to it's basics. They already know what they saw. To suggest otherwise is a waste of time.

There is being thorough, and then there is just wasting time. I feel wisdom lies in being able to differentiate the two.

There's where you're wrong. I have walked naked on the sun. It was quite hot and painful. I don't recommend it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true. On the other hand, why do some people feel the need to dismiss and dispute all stories that take them out of their comfort zones? Not all witnesses are dishonest, and not all witnesses are mistaken. Some accounts are valid.

You know, I don't think so. In some areas all witnesses are either deluded in some way or making money. Also, it has nothing to do with one's comfort zone, but with one's credibility zone. I believe all sorts of things that I wish were not true (wars, diseases, death), but I don't believe these stories.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's where you're wrong. I have walked naked on the sun. It was quite hot and painful. I don't recommend it.

Worst%252Btroll%252BI%252Bve%252Bseen%252Bin%252Ba%252Bwhile%252B_75b433786b334ae67bc15fc0d2a60009.gif

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are never going to grow wings and fly

you are never going to walk naked on the sun

you are never going to swim naked in open space

I did all of those things in my mind just now, because you know what I wasn't limited by? My imagination.

See you on the Sun. I'll be the naked guy with the wings.

I'll also have one sock on, just in case there are other naked people with wings with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I don't think so. In some areas all witnesses are either deluded in some way or making money. Also, it has nothing to do with one's comfort zone, but with one's credibility zone. I believe all sorts of things that I wish were not true (wars, diseases, death), but I don't believe these stories.

That is your right. The key words in your post are "in some areas". I agree with you there, but not all witnesses are deluded or dishonest. The Phoenix Lights case comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people automatically believe people? Simple, as long as you sound like you know what you're talking about and have good word choice, you can have people believing almost anything.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did all of those things in my mind just now, because you know what I wasn't limited by? My imagination.

See you on the Sun. I'll be the naked guy with the wings.

I'll also have one sock on, just in case there are other naked people with wings with me.

No worries, you go there in your imagination, in the real world, I'll have a cold frosty beer, lets see how comes out the most fulfilled!

And thanks for proving my point! :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

trying to have a friendly debate with someone who believes in crap like that is almost impossible

It's almost impossible for you to have a friendly conversation with people who have different beliefs from yours because you regard other beliefs as "crap."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people automatically believe people? Simple, as long as you sound like you know what you're talking about and have good word choice, you can have people believing almost anything.

In his book, TOP SECRET/MAJIC, Stanton Friedman discusses his early UFO lectures:

"As I gave more lectures, I found that I enjoyed speaking, and that people believed me no matter what I said. After all, I was a nuclear physicist for Westinghouse…"

Edited by psyche101
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it has. In the past most people didn't know what was involved in hoaxing a UFO photo. Many people thought that if the negatives hadn't been "tampered with" then these were photographs of genuine flying saucers. Of course there are dozens of ways to hoax a UFO on film (tampering with a negative is the clumsiest way) but these techniques weren't known to the general public. You only have to look at the huge following Ed Walters got from his obviously double-exposed UFO photos to see how gullible people were just twenty years ago.

Now we have ten year olds who can find an image of a UFO on the Internet, cut it, and paste into into a digital photo. In fact thanks to inexpensive digital photography, the techniques of photography are much better understood by people now.

Ok, i see. But as much as i appreciate as well that people understand photographic technology better and don't believe that "this box stole my soul" anymore, i am still not convinced that this helps much in sorting fraud from actual proof (if there is such a thing). Just BECAUSE it is easier to fake pictures, we are being flooded by crappy manipulations, and yet some of them are debated as the "best evidence ever". I am a graphic designer and i know a little bit about picture manipulation myself, but sometimes i have absolutely no clue to tell wether something is authentic or a stupid joke.

This gives me an attitude of being sceptical toward ANYTHING i am shown, because i have no clue anymore if i can accept any photograph at all for proof, unless it was handed to me directly from a flying saucer.

Is that what you mean? If yes, we can damn right agree.... ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A person telling me he has seen a UFO flying over, I can give the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because a UFO is just exactly that, something which is not identified by the witness.

A person telling me, he saw aliens / ET flying over, I will ask to present irrefutable evidence and proof. Why? I happen to think that UFO and alien are not the same. It's not because we see a UFO, that said UFO is per definition aliens or something similar. So far the existence of aliens advanced enough to even get here still remains to be proven.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the problem with my daughter and the two-headed bicyclist. I love and believe my daughter and know she never lies without an agenda, and here I can see no possible agenda. Still, I don't believe her.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just BECAUSE it is easier to fake pictures, we are being flooded by crappy manipulations, and yet some of them are debated as the "best evidence ever".

Yes, by idiots. Ignore them.

I am a graphic designer and i know a little bit about picture manipulation myself, but sometimes i have absolutely no clue to tell wether something is authentic or a stupid joke.

You mean they never taught you about light and shadow and color temperature and reflection and resolution? You mean you wouldn't know how to manipulate an image so it would fit into another image? If not then just listen to the people who do know about those things.

Most fakes screw up in one of these categories. Take the first batch of California Drone photos. The drone was too bright for something in the overhead sky. It was unrealistically lit showing no shadow areas. Worst of all, it was sharper than anything else in the photo which is the mark of a cut-and-paste job. It was clearly a fake. The hoaxer recognized this mistake and subsequent hoax photos were much better with excellent shadowing and realistic illumination. But that didn't change that the originals were obvious fakes and the rest were just improved fakes.

Yes, the California Drone hoax was accepted by a small band of fools who disregarded the flaws in the early photos, embraced the much improved later photos, and now ignore all proof that everything about the photos was a bunch of lies. I wouldn't be surprised if they pray to these invisible drones which they are convinced are flying over our cities every day. But you don't have to.

This gives me an attitude of being sceptical toward ANYTHING i am shown, because i have no clue anymore if i can accept any photograph at all for proof, unless it was handed to me directly from a flying saucer.

Of course you should be skeptical. Yes, the best hoaxes will be impossible to prove are hoax but unless the photos are tied to physical evidence, they're not worth much. We have sixty years of photos of flying saucers and we still don't have any physical evidence that they exist.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thread. I suppose one thing that needs to be defined is what constitutes evidence that would be unanimously accepted? Not an easy answer, I imagine?

As has been said many times before, photos, testimonies, etc. are not acceptable as evidence in this day and age.

I too, search for this evidence, but often find myself sitting back and thinking: "Hang on, when will I actually know that I've found what I'm looking for?!"

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 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.