Astronaut recalls encounter with a UFO

[seeder]

Skeptics will always be skeptics. Was that not clear ? The point being, you can not debate with a skeptic due to their narrow mindedness, It is either their way or it's rubbish.

Skeptics are narrow-minded? Man you got that the wrong way around.

quote:

"Skepticism or scepticism (see spelling differences) is generally any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere".

Lets apply skepticism to the OP claims, (or any other topic too). A story gets posted, the believers get wedgies and trembles with sheer excitement at the story. The skeptic takes an interest in the same story...but wants another opinion. And will then do a bit of surfing to find possible explanations. Simple.

rather than being an easily led and easily satisfied believer, the skeptic REALLY WANTS TO KNOW also, but has a few more processes to go thru before accepting something, on face value, (and on the bloody internet)

Just like if one doctor told you you needed your leg amputated, youd want some more opinions Id expect. At the very least most people would look up their condition for themselves, rather than just accepting the loss of a leg

[Kludge808]

Skeptics will always be skeptics. (Hence the vid and those who still believe we never walked on the moon.) Was that not clear ? The point being, you can not debate with a skeptic due to their one track mindedness, It is either their way or it's rubbish.

That in itself is an exceptionally narrow point of view. That said, why are you here? It's readily apparent that there's a large population of those who disagree with your POV - ie, skeptics - so only being interested in those with whom you feel you can discuss* assorted subjects, which would be other True Believers, is going to make you a very lonely person.

* not debate since that implies opposing points of view which you've stated you don't want

This isn't a woo-woo site. You're going to be challenged every step of the way. If you can't handle that ... well, too bad.

[sinewave]

Skeptics will always be skeptics. (Hence the vid and those who still believe we never walked on the moon.) Was that not clear ? The point being, you can not debate with a skeptic due to their narrow mindedness, It is either their way or it's rubbish. Astronauts claim they have seen things they can not explain, and arm chair skeptics come out of the wood work debunking them with their theories, and rational explanations, all from the comfort of their living rooms. For me I have to go with those who do this stuff for a living, and if they say its something odd, then I have to believe it is. "NOT" to say that these claims should not be looked at and challenged, but I think it should be done with an open mind. Let's be real, we are in space, so why couldn't some one, or something else be as well ?

I'm sorry but you clearly don't understand what a skeptic is. Let me explain. On one side you have the believers. Those, who for whatever reason NEED for a thing to be true. And that thing will be true regardless of the facts or lack thereof. Belief is usually rooted in some religious dogma and therefore immutable but there are other kinds including but not limited to those who feel the Cubs will one day win the World Series. On the other side there are the cynics. Cynics deny things without any real understanding of the facts. They are just like believers but in the opposite direction. They need for a thing to not be true. Neither one of these mindsets are particularly useful and have never really advanced mankind in any way.

Believers tend to see skeptics as cynics merely because they ask hard questions and don't readily share in the belief. Cynics simply say no. Skeptics use logic and reason to analyse things before accepting them as fact. Undisciplined zeal and cynicism rarely if ever, produce anything of value. Left unchecked, they are nearly always a formula for disaster. It is only by careful consideration of the facts and by studiously avoiding knee-jerk responses designed to protect dearly held beliefs that we progress.

Edited March 6, 2014 by sinewave

[Forever Cursed]

There is a difference between skeptical, and being a skeptic. And I am sorry if I do not fit into the " Follower" frame of mind. I'd rather think for my self, then to allow the group to do that for me, based on the same old antiquated, draconian arguments. You say that you are linier in your line of thinking and yet resort to circular tactic's ?

[Forever Cursed]

I'm sorry but you clearly don't understand what a skeptic is. Let me explain. On one side you have the believers. Those, who for whatever reason NEED for a thing to be true. And that thing will be true regardless of the facts or lack thereof. Belief is usually rooted in some religious dogma and therefore immutable but there are other kinds including but not limited to those who feel the Cubs will one day win the World Series. On the other side there are the cynics. Cynics deny things without any real understanding of the facts. They are just like believers but in the opposite direction. They need for a thing to not be true. Neither one of these mindsets are particularly useful and have never really advanced mankind in any way.

Believers tend to see skeptics as cynics merely because they ask hard questions and don't readily share in the belief. Cynics simply say no. Skeptics use logic and reason to analyse things before accepting them as fact. Undisciplined zeal and cynicism rarely if ever, produce anything of value. Left unchecked, they are nearly always a formula for disaster. It is only by careful consideration of the facts and by studiously avoiding knee-jerk responses designed to protect dearly held beliefs that we progress.

Skeptical is good, things should be challenged and just not believed. But "TRUE" skeptics are very narrow minded individuals seeing themselves and man as the center of the universe.

skep·tic (US) or Brit scep·tic /ˈskɛptɪk/ noun

plural skep·tics

[count] : a person who questions or doubts something (such as a claim or statement)

▪ Skeptics have pointed out flaws in the researchers' methods. ▪ You can believe in ghosts if you like, but I'm still a skeptic. : a person who often questions or doubts things ▪ He is a skeptic and a cynic.

skep·ti·cal

adjective \-ti-kəl\

: having or expressing doubt about something (such as a claim or statement)

Edited March 6, 2014 by Forever Cursed

[Kludge808]

Belief is usually rooted in some religious dogma and therefore immutable but there are other kinds including but not limited to those who feel the Cubs will one day win the World Series.

They will! No, really, it'll happen. We just might not live long enough to see it. :-D

[mystery fan]

Well I suppose I can turn to the Wisdom of Randi here.

Not sure if you have seen him expose the matchbox trick? Some fellow claimed he could make a matchbox raise at one and whilst balancing on the back of his hand, just using psychic powers. Apparently, he had a while bunch of scientists baffled. One of them rang Randi and said "Randi, better have your million dollars ready, I think this guy has cracked it!"

Randi came down to the lab, had a loo, and went OK.

He put a matchbox on the back of his hand, and amazingly, he managed to repeat the "magic".

He explained to the "scientists" that what he did was open the matchbox to demonstrate to everyone it was just an ordinary matchbox with ordinary matches in it. When he placed it on the back of his hand is when he closed the matchbox, and as he closed it, he pulled in a small fold of skin. As one opens and closes or tenses ones hand, that skin contracts, causing the matchbox to rise, as if magically.

Understandably, the million dollars stayed with Randi.

You know what Randi said? He said:

I am not saying the paranormal does not exist, and I am not even saying this fellow does not have some sort of power that can lift that matchbox, but seeming as I can do it quite simply, do you not find that a more satisfying and likely answer? You be the judge.

In this instance, I'd say the same thing about Jim's conclusion.

Nice story

It's not that I don't believe this guy's story, as much as it is not having enough real solid proof. Usually having more than one credible witness is a good start. Multiple observers always lend credibility to any story such as this one. Given the amount of people who have claimed to see UFOs and had them turn out to be misidentifications are impossible to number. Legit UFO sightings do happen and NASA people are great witnesses but without anything to back this story up, a story is all we really have.

Edited March 6, 2014 by mystery fan

[Merc14]

There is a difference between skeptical, and being a skeptic. And I am sorry if I do not fit into the " Follower" frame of mind. I'd rather think for my self, then to allow the group to do that for me, based on the same old antiquated, draconian arguments. You say that you are linier in your line of thinking and yet resort to circular tactic's ?

You aren't thinking for yourself, you are buying into a fable promulgated by a cynical group of angry people, with very little knowledge of what they speak and a willingness to believe the unbelievable and call themsleves liberated for doing so. When confronted with the cold, hard facts about their "proof" they react with drivel like your above post that makes the believer out to be the honorable one who is willing to look outside the box and the debunker a sad person that can't see the forest for the trees. Here is a hint, there is no honor in being duped by charlatans and frauds, especially when the facts are put right in front of you and you look away with your fingers in your ears mumbling la la la la la. What is honorable is recognizing the error you made, admitting it and having enough gumption to dissuade the poor folks still mired in the ridiculous fable.

[seeder]

Putting it even more simply, in this particular case. We have a tale of an astronaut sighting. A tale that is different depending which source you read. As I pointed out in my first post on this thread, I used the very words "And in another version of the story, it states he saw boats"

Now surely anyone who wants to believe, will try verify the story, before leaping to defend it? We all know the astronaut saw 'something' while in space, the difference is tho, in the stories that provide the actual answer to what he saw.

Furthermore, we have our Jim Oberg and his valued inputs, the only member here who actually worked for NASA.

[sinewave]

Skeptical is good, things should be challenged and just not believed. But "TRUE" skeptics are very narrow minded individuals seeing themselves and man as the center of the universe.

skep·tic (US) or Brit scep·tic /ˈskɛptɪk/ noun

plural skep·tics

[count] : a person who questions or doubts something (such as a claim or statement)

▪ Skeptics have pointed out flaws in the researchers' methods. ▪ You can believe in ghosts if you like, but I'm still a skeptic. : a person who often questions or doubts things ▪ He is a skeptic and a cynic.

skep·ti·cal

adjective \-ti-kəl\

: having or expressing doubt about something (such as a claim or statement)

Wrong. Skeptics are open to all hypotheses and weight them according to the available evidence. Believers are open to a select group or more commonly just a single hypothesis. Who is open-minded now?

For discussions here, skeptic is used in the scientific sense where assertions are challenged.

Edited March 6, 2014 by sinewave

[Forever Cursed]

So if one case is wrong, then all of the sightings made by astronauts must be as well ? As for this particular case, the evidence is compelling that what he actually may have seen were boats, but what of Armstrong's accounts ? For me the question isn't if one case can be debunked or even 95% of them, it's the 5% I'm talking about.

[sinewave]

So if one case is wrong, then all of the sightings made by astronauts must be as well ? As for this particular case, the evidence is compelling that what he actually may have seen were boats, but what of Armstrong's accounts ? For me the question isn't if one case can be debunked or even 95% of them, it's the 5% I'm talking about.

No but if all of the evidence is anecdotal there is not much of a case to be made. That is pretty much where we are right now.

[seeder]

So if one case is wrong, then all of the sightings made by astronauts must be as well ? As for this particular case, the evidence is compelling that what he actually may have seen were boats, but what of Armstrong's accounts ? For me the question isn't if one case can be debunked or even 95% of them, it's the 5% I'm talking about.

Once again, who is your trustworthy source, and why haven't you sought to find out more info? Like by using the search function here on his name. And remember, woo woo sites literally mirror each other, so yes, you can find hundreds of sources saying the same story, still doesn't make it true tho, does it?

[Forever Cursed]

Once again, who is your trustworthy source, and why haven't you sought to find out more info? Like by using the search function here on his name. And remember, woo woo sites literally mirror each other, so yes, you can find hundreds of sources saying the same story, still doesn't make it true tho, does it?

If I am looking for a drunk I go to a bar, if I want to see a tree I go to a forest, if UFO's then I go there. You go to the place that has what you are looking for. Simply because they believe in Alien life does not mean they are wrong. For me I have believed since 73. But I suppose had things not occurred the way they had, I may not believe either. Like Big Foot, I have never seen one, but it would not surprise me if they discovered some new obscure primate living in the mountains of the U.S. but I won't be holding my breath. But if I had seen one. Well then for me there would be no doubt.

[sinewave]

If I am looking for a drunk I go to a bar, if I want to see a tree I go to a forest, if UFO's then I go there. You go to the place that has what you are looking for. Simply because they believe in Alien life does not mean they are wrong. For me I have believed since 73. But I suppose had things not occurred the way they had, I may not believe either. Like Big Foot, I have never seen one, but it would not surprise me if they discovered some new obscure primate living in the mountains of the U.S. but I won't be holding my breath. But if I had seen one. Well then for me there would be no doubt.

No one is saying they are wrong. They just have not shown they are right.

[Forever Cursed]

Well maybe some day that will change, but if it does, I do not believe it will be because the Govt. "WANTS" to be forthcoming .

[seeder]

Well maybe some day that will change, but if it does, I do not believe it will be because the Govt. "WANTS" to be forthcoming .

Which govt is that exactly? many countries have space programs

[Kludge808]

Which govt is that exactly? many countries have space programs

That would be the shadow government which is the driving force for the New World Order under orders from the Alien Overlords. I thought I explained all that in another thread.

[sinewave]

Well maybe some day that will change, but if it does, I do not believe it will be because the Govt. "WANTS" to be forthcoming .

Oh please.... The US government can barely get out of its own way half the time much less keep such a secret for over 6 decades with countless personnel changes. Every person who knows a secret exponentially increases the chances of that secret being disclosed. It would be nearly impossible for that many people over that much time to maintain the integrity of the secret.

[SolarPlexus]

Oh please.... The US government can barely get out of its own way half the time much less keep such a secret for over 6 decades with countless personnel changes. Every person who knows a secret exponentially increases the chances of that secret being disclosed. It would be nearly impossible for that many people over that much time to maintain the integrity of the secret.

Except that its not a secret. Unless youre not well enough informed on the matter.

[JimOberg]

So if one case is wrong, then all of the sightings made by astronauts must be as well ? As for this particular case, the evidence is compelling that what he actually may have seen were boats, but what of Armstrong's accounts ? For me the question isn't if one case can be debunked or even 95% of them, it's the 5% I'm talking about.

I'm not familiar with ANY "Armstrong account", although there are plenty of "an unnamed professor heard it from a friend about a whispered conversation in a dark corridor" accounts. Is that where you think you'll find your "5%" of trustworthy testimony?

We just take them one at a time.

[Kludge808]

I'm not familiar with ANY "Armstrong account", although there are plenty of "an unnamed professor heard it from a friend about a whispered conversation in a dark corridor" accounts. Is that where you think you'll find your "5%" of trustworthy testimony?

That's almost as good as my "guy who lives here in the vets' residence whose brother's married to the daughter of an AF General whose driver was once stationed at Nellis."

[Forever Cursed]

Who said the Govt. was good at lying ? Way to many of their people have whistle blown on them. Generals, colonels, the list gets longer all the time. Eventually it will all come out. Until then we will just have to agree to disagree, seeing as how neither side can prove their point.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Forever Cursed

[sinewave]

Who said the Govt. was good at lying ? Way to many of their people have whistle blown on them. Generals, colonels, the list gets longer all the time. Eventually it will all come out. Until then we will just have to agree to disagree, seeing as how neither side can prove their point.

That's assuming there is a point to prove.

[sinewave]

Except that its not a secret. Unless youre not well enough informed on the matter.

Did I miss a memo? The last I checked there was no credible evidence of ET visitation.