Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Just what is it about that UFO...?

Expand Messages
  • rubyhoney
    I was talking with someone this evening (I was setting up for my Hauntings show :) so of course we were talking about UFOs, ghosts, and Bigfoot. She
    Message 1 of 4 , Mar 3 10:23 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I was talking with someone this evening (I was setting up for my "Hauntings" show :) so of course we were talking about UFOs, ghosts, and Bigfoot. She mentioned that someone close to her doesn't believe in any of "that stuff" and she can't talk about it with him. That's fair in a way, but she said something about UFOs, he doesn't believe it. I didn't ask her for specifics, but that had me thinking about a pretty simplistic point, perhaps, but one that is the root of a lot of "debunkery" and "skeptoidism"...just what, exactly, is it about a UFO experience (encounter, sighting, etc.) the person in question doesn't "believe?"

      In this case, you have two people who seem to care for each other, I imagine there is trust, friendship, etc. So what is the person not believing here? That their loved one didn't see a UFO?

      That they made it up?

      That they were drunk or high?

      Psychotic?

      Honestly mistaken --- it was a secret military craft?

      Honestly mistaken -- it was Venus, or a plane, etc.?

      (That would still be a UFO, however.)

      The last reason is the least insulting, I suppose, although it assumes that the person can't tell Venus from a hole in the ground.

      The one previous to that is too, except again, it would still be a UFO. And, one doesn't KNOW that it's a gov. craft. Just as one doesn't know it is.

      Anyway, I was just thinking about that.

      Maybe the person who doubts is making the assumption all UFOs are piloted or controlled by off world aliens. Since (according to them) aliens can't possibly exist, no UFO was seen.

      ~ ruby

      ~""Now that's an alien!" ~ Johnny Depp in Ed Wood


      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster.
    • Christopher Crosdale
      Before we sucked into this conversation, let s clarify something, as it always seems to come up:    UFO will refer to  unidentified flying objects , and
      Message 2 of 4 , Mar 4 8:38 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Before we sucked into this conversation, let's clarify something, as it always seems to come up: 
         
        "UFO" will refer to "unidentified flying objects", and that is it.
        "ASVE" will refer to "alien spacecraft visiting Earth".   
         
        As a "debunker" (if that is what I am?), and I would make the bold assumption of speaking for other 'debunkers', I DON'T have any problem believing people see "UFOs".  Hell, even I would see them if I went out on about any night.  I could see lights in the sky, which I could not identify, which could be a plane or helicopter or satellite, or whatever, and it would a be a "UFO".
         
        However, I DON'T believe in ASVE.  It isn't that I don't except the possibility, but that I, and the people of Earth, as far as I know, have no tangible proof of ASVE. 
         
        This belief is based purely on assumption; which, you may say, is "just as bad as assuming that ASVE do exist".  But there is a difference.  From the stance of logic, I cannot prove a negative:  I cannot prove that 'something DOESN'T exist'.  One can only have an assumption that it doesn't.  However, one CAN prove that something DOES exist (proving a positive), by simply providing evidence for its existence.  As of yet, I have seen no evidence (tangible proof) that would push my decision in favor of ASVE; hence the reason I am called a "debunker".
         
        The topic you are mentioning here, I believe, is the relationship between those who assume ASVE do not exist, and those who do and feel they have valid "evidence" for their existence; namely, their own abduction experiences, sightings, research, heresy, etc....   The reason this debate has been going on for so long and, one of the reasons why people are so reluctant to believe in ASVE, is that the ratio of talk-to-proof is way to high.  If I had literally millions of people talking about something and I have thousands of contacts, then I should eventually have some tangible proof, right? 
         
        Around December 25th, a lot of people talk about Santa Claus.  Some actually hear reindeer hooves on the roof of their houses and testify that when they wake up their are presents left that weren't there when they went to bed (kids).  There are plenty of images and sightings of Santa Claus (at malls, etc.).  We have  general consensus of what he looks like.   Yet does Santa really exist?  I would dare you to prove that he DOESN'T exist (again, trying to prove a negative, which won't work).  If someone told me they saw Santa in the sky, and they seemed sincere, I would believe that THEY believed that they saw Santa, but I myself, looking at the evidence, would ASSUME that he didn't actually fly by, and that the report was most likely caused by other reasons, apart from Santa actually flying by.  Is that debunkery? In the same situation, would you be a debunker?
         
        Chris.
         
         
         
         
         
         -----Original Message-----
        From: rubyhoney [mailto:rubyhoney97402@...]
        Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 10:23 PM
        To: forteanphenomena_again@yahoogroups.com; bash_the_skeptoids@yahoogroups.com; debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com; mysterious_world_digest@yahoogroups.com; saucerrant@yahoogroups.com; mothmanandmibs@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [Debunking Debunkers] Just what is it about that UFO...?

        I was talking with someone this evening (I was setting up for my "Hauntings" show :) so of course we were talking about UFOs, ghosts, and Bigfoot. She mentioned that someone close to her doesn't believe in any of "that stuff" and she can't talk about it with him. That's fair in a way, but she said something about UFOs, he doesn't believe it. I didn't ask her for specifics, but that had me thinking about a pretty simplistic point, perhaps, but one that is the root of a lot of "debunkery" and "skeptoidism"...just what, exactly, is it about a UFO experience (encounter, sighting, etc.) the person in question doesn't "believe?"

        In this case, you have two people who seem to care for each other, I imagine there is trust, friendship, etc. So what is the person not believing here? That their loved one didn't see a UFO?

        That they made it up?

        That they were drunk or high?

        Psychotic?

        Honestly mistaken --- it was a secret military craft?

        Honestly mistaken -- it was Venus, or a plane, etc.?

        (That would still be a UFO, however.)

        The last reason is the least insulting, I suppose, although it assumes that the person can't tell Venus from a hole in the ground.

        The one previous to that is too, except again, it would still be a UFO. And, one doesn't KNOW that it's a gov. craft. Just as one doesn't know it is.

        Anyway, I was just thinking about that.

        Maybe the person who doubts is making the assumption all UFOs are piloted or controlled by off world aliens. Since (according to them) aliens can't possibly exist, no UFO was seen.

        ~ ruby

        ~""Now that's an alien!" ~ Johnny Depp in Ed Wood


        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.

        ---
        Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
        Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
        Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 2/28/2004


        ---
        Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
        Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
        Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 2/28/2004

      • Ruby Honey
        ... re: UFOs.But that leaves us with questions. The giant silent triangle above us that = appeared from nowhere and left at an incredible speed --- truly
        Message 3 of 4 , Mar 5 4:34 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Crosdale"
          <cacrosdale2002@y...> wrote:
          > Before we sucked into this conversation, let's clarify something, as it
          > always seems to come up: 
          >  
          > "UFO" will refer to "unidentified flying objects", and that is it.
          > "ASVE" will refer to "alien spacecraft visiting Earth".   

          No problem with that. As I posted, I asked about that assumption some make =

          re: UFOs.

          But that leaves us with questions. The giant silent triangle above us that =

          appeared "from nowhere" and left at an incredible speed --- truly awesome. =

          I've heard some scientists, engineers, etc. make the comment we don't have =

          the technology to make something like that. Maybe not. But maybe we do.
          And IF we do, then "they" aren't telling, obviously. Not yet anyway.

          1.So we're left with a few theories about what it was:
          2.ASVE, as you say.
          3.Something like "UTCVUE" (Ultra Terrestrial Craft Visiting Upper Earth) --=

          clumsy. Along the lines of Vallee, etc.
          4. Secret military craft of some kind

          In the context of the triangle, I think it's "us" --- but it does bring up =
          the fact
          these have been around for almost 30 years. That's a long time for
          experimental craft.

          Other UFOs have behaviors that are just too weird; still could be "us" gov.=

          craft, if so, it's pretty amazing we have something like that. Like the "st=
          ar"
          that decided it wasn't, and zoomed off at right angles before disappearing.=


          Then there's the very odd and large UFO that was "playing" with the airplan=
          e.
          I was watching a plane going by overhead, no big deal, just doing its plane=

          thing. Normal plane. Suddenly, this UFO comes from way behind, catches up
          with the plane within a few seconds, and when it got right up next to the
          plane, it moved almost right into it! It just ...swoosh, right into the sid=
          e of the
          plane, I thought, close but no cigar .. then it moved bacwards, in the dire=
          ction
          it came from, just as fast. (orange/yellow lights, it alternated, either on=
          e light
          that alternated, or it was two lights that blinked on and off.) I have no i=
          dea
          what that was all about. Could have been anything.

          What I'm getting at, is there is a whole host of things, some are IFOs, --i=
          t IS
          Venus, or ball lightening... other things might very well be military, othe=
          r
          things still could be, but they're awfully weird. Our gov. must have hundre=
          ds
          of strange things up there. That seems a little excessive.

          Regardless, it seems highly interesting at the least. A ho hum attitude is =

          always surprising to me.




          >  
          > As a "debunker" (if that is what I am?), and I would make the bold
          > assumption of speaking for other 'debunkers', I DON'T have any problem
          > believing people see "UFOs".  Hell, even I would see them if I went out o=
          n
          > about any night.  I could see lights in the sky, which I could not identi=
          fy,
          > which could be a plane or helicopter or satellite, or whatever, and it wo=
          uld
          > a be a "UFO".
          >  
          > However, I DON'T believe in ASVE.  It isn't that I don't except the
          > possibility, but that I, and the people of Earth, as far as I know, have =
          no
          > tangible proof of ASVE. 

          Well, you either believe in it, or don't, or remain open either way. If you=
          don't,
          then no amount of evidence or "tangible proof" will satisfy.
          >  
          > This belief is based purely on assumption; which, you may say, is "just a=
          s
          > bad as assuming that ASVE do exist".  But there is a difference.  From th=
          e
          > stance of logic, I cannot prove a negative:  I cannot prove that
          > 'something DOESN'T exist'.  One can only have an assumption that it
          > doesn't.  However, one CAN prove that something DOES exist (proving a
          > positive), by simply providing evidence for its existence.  As of yet, I
          > have seen no evidence (tangible proof) that would push my decision in
          favor
          > of ASVE; hence the reason I am called a "debunker".

          Do you call yourself a debunker or do others? Are you out to "debunk" UFOs?=

          Or are you open taking a wait and see approach, which would be what a
          skeptic does?

          Regarding one point about the proof factor: why would
          UFOs/aliens/Ultra-terrestrails, etc. have the kind of proof we decide is pr=
          oof?

          IF, as Keel, Valle, Hansen, so many others -- believe, that they're not "al=
          iens"
          from outer space but some sort of intelligent entity, they may be enjoying =

          playing with us and being intentionally deceptive and maddeningly elusive. =

          The Trickster is all about that.

          Of course, if you dismiss such possibilities then there's not much point in=

          going on.
          >  
          > The topic you are mentioning here, I believe, is the relationship between=

          > those who assume ASVE do not exist, and those who do and feel they have
          > valid "evidence" for their existence; namely, their own abduction
          > experiences, sightings, research, heresy, etc....   The reason this debat=
          e
          > has been going on for so long and, one of the reasons why people are so
          > reluctant to believe in ASVE, is that the ratio of talk-to-proof is way t=
          o
          > high.  If I had literally millions of people talking about something and =
          I
          > have thousands of contacts, then I should eventually have some tangible
          > proof, right? 

          See above re: '"tangible proof."
          >  
          > Around December 25th, a lot of people talk about Santa Claus.  Some
          actually
          > hear reindeer hooves on the roof of their houses and testify that when
          they
          > wake up their are presents left that weren't there when they went to bed
          > (kids).  There are plenty of images and sightings of Santa Claus (at mall=
          s,
          > etc.).  We have  general consensus of what he looks like.   Yet does Sant=
          a
          > really exist?  I would dare you to prove that he DOESN'T exist (again,
          > trying to prove a negative, which won't work).  If someone told me they
          saw
          > Santa in the sky, and they seemed sincere, I would believe that THEY
          > believed that they saw Santa, but I myself, looking at the evidence, woul=
          d
          > ASSUME that he didn't actually fly by, and that the report was most
          > likely caused by other reasons, apart from Santa actually flying by.  Is
          > that debunkery? In the same situation, would you be a debunker?

          I don't think that is a fair comparison.

          (it could be mass consciousness creating Santa, :)

          Seriously though, some researchers have theorized (including Dr. Carl Jung)=

          that UFOs are a reaction to our subconscious, or along that line of thinkin=
          g.


          UFOs are not the same; Santa pretty much is.
          UFOs occur all the time, any time, any season, day or night, all over the w=
          orld,
          regardless of one's faith, or lack of faith.
          Etc.

          My main point is that the subject of UFOs is far more complex and interesti=
          ng
          than just saying it's all lights in the sky, let's go home and have pie.

          ~ ruby



          >  
          > Chris.
          >  
          >  
          >  
          >  
          >  
          >  -----Original Message-----
          > From: rubyhoney [mailto:rubyhoney97402@y...]
          > Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 10:23 PM
          > To: forteanphenomena_again@yahoogroups.com;
          > bash_the_skeptoids@yahoogroups.com;
          debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com;
          > mysterious_world_digest@yahoogroups.com;
          saucerrant@yahoogroups.com;
          > mothmanandmibs@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [Debunking Debunkers] Just what is it about that UFO...?
          >
          >
          >
          > I was talking with someone this evening (I was setting up for my
          "Hauntings"
          > show :) so of course we were talking about UFOs, ghosts, and Bigfoot. She=

          > mentioned that someone close to her doesn't believe in any of "that stuff=
          "
          > and she can't talk about it with him. That's fair in a way, but she said
          > something about UFOs, he doesn't believe it. I didn't ask her for specifi=
          cs,
          > but that had me thinking about a pretty simplistic point, perhaps, but on=
          e
          > that is the root of a lot of "debunkery" and "skeptoidism"...just what,
          > exactly, is it about a UFO experience (encounter, sighting, etc.) the per=
          son
          > in question doesn't "believe?"
          >
          >
          >
          > In this case, you have two people who seem to care for each other, I
          imagine
          > there is trust, friendship, etc. So what is the person not believing here=
          ?
          > That their loved one didn't see a UFO?
          >
          > That they made it up?
          >
          > That they were drunk or high?
          >
          > Psychotic?
          >
          > Honestly mistaken --- it was a secret military craft?
          >
          > Honestly mistaken -- it was Venus, or a plane, etc.?
          >
          > (That would still be a UFO, however.)
          >
          > The last reason is the least insulting, I suppose, although it assumes th=
          at
          > the person can't tell Venus from a hole in the ground.
          >
          > The one previous to that is too, except again, it would still be a UFO. A=
          nd,
          > one doesn't KNOW that it's a gov. craft. Just as one doesn't know it is.
          >
          > Anyway, I was just thinking about that.
          >
          > Maybe the person who doubts is making the assumption all UFOs are
          piloted or
          > controlled by off world aliens. Since (according to them) aliens can't
          > possibly exist, no UFO was seen.
          >
          > ~ ruby
          >
          > ~""Now that's an alien!" ~ Johnny Depp in Ed Wood
          >
          >
          > _____
          >
          > Do you Yahoo!?
          > Yahoo! Search - HYPERLINK
          "http://search.yahoo.com/?fr=ad-mailsig-home"Find
          > what you're looking for faster.
          >
          > _____
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
          > HYPERLINK
          >
          "http://groups.yahoo.com/group/debunkingdebunkers/"http://groups.yahoo.c
          om/g
          > roup/debunkingdebunkers/
          >  
          > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > HYPERLINK
          >
          "mailto:debunkingdebunkers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsub
          scribe"d
          > ebunkingdebunkers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >  
          > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the HYPERLINK
          > "http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/"Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          >
          >
          >
          > ---
          > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
          > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
          > Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 2/28/2004
          >
          >
          >
          > ---
          > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
          > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
          > Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 2/28/2004
        • Christopher Crosdale
          [Chris]: To make things clearer: UFO will refer to unidentified flying objects , and that is it. ASVE will refer to alien spacecraft visiting Earth .
          Message 4 of 4 , Mar 5 10:57 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            [Chris]: To make things clearer: "UFO" will refer to "unidentified flying
            objects", and that is it.
            "ASVE" will refer to "alien spacecraft visiting Earth".

            [Ruby]; No problem with that. As I posted, I asked about that assumption
            some make re: UFOs.

            [Chris]: With UFOs, there can be nothing but assumptions. Otherwise they
            would be IFOs. You make a statement about your UFO sighting experience. I
            have no doubt that it is a "UFO experience". This is inherent in the terms:
            a flying object that is unidentified.

            [Ruby]: In the context of the triangle, I think it's "us" --- but it does
            bring up the fact these have been around for almost 30 years. That's a long
            time for experimental craft.

            [Chris]: Could be. It could also be an ASVE, or something else. You seem
            to be asking a question that sounds like this: "What would you identify an
            unidentified flying objects as?" My answer: "I don't know, otherwise they
            would be identified flying objects."

            You also seem to be asking the question: "Why don't you find these UFO
            sightings as fascinating as I do?" It isn't that they aren't entertaining
            and fun to thing about, but in terms of making a 'personal statement of
            perceived truth' on the matter, I haven't seen enough convincing evidence to
            push me to say that I believe "ASVEs exist".

            [Ruby]: Well, you either believe in it, or don't, or remain open either
            way. If you don't, then no amount of evidence or "tangible proof" will
            satisfy.

            [Chris]: basic philosophy of science/knowledge: You can never PROVE a
            hypothesis is true. You can only provide evidence for, or against, the null
            hypothesis (that it isn't true). For instance, I could have the hypothesis
            that "Alien spacecraft are visiting Earth". And I may BELIEVE that
            hypothesis is true; just as I would believe the hypothesis, "The Earth is
            spherical", is true. However, I can NEVER PROVE that either statement is
            true. There is ALWAYS the possibility for an alternate explanation, no
            matter how seemingly concrete or commonplace the assumption. There are a
            number of hypotheses which have such a high relative possibility of being
            actually true--for instance, my assumption about the spherical nature of the
            Earth. So much so, that we take them for granted and say that they are
            "truths". However, there remains the possibility, no matter how slight,
            that that hypothesis will be proven incorrect (nullified) in the future.

            This issue with UFOs and ASVEs is far from concrete or commonplace. But
            both hypotheses (belief in or against ASVE) are equally important in the
            final goal: to have a greater understanding of the universe. You are
            correct about people not being flexible enough to take in contradictory
            evidence (bad science). But this is occurring on both sides of the
            fence--believers and non-believers alike. And this process is a manor of
            "debunking" from both sides.

            [Ruby]: Do you call yourself a debunker or do others?

            [Chris]: Actually, I never use the term outside of this email list. It
            never comes up.

            [Ruby]: Are you out to "debunk" UFOs?

            [Chris]: Again, terminology: How do you debunk something which is unknown?
            "Debunking UFO's" is akin to a double-negative. "You are mistaken that you
            saw something which you cannot identify." It's silly.

            [Ruby]: Regarding one point about the proof factor: why would
            UFOs/aliens/Ultra-terrestrials, etc. have the kind of proof we decide is
            proof?

            [Chris]: You bring up a good question. As with all things natural, we would
            have to gain information through our senses, or extensions thereof
            (detection equipment), or by inferring an existence by observing (again
            through senses) an effect on material or energy in order to trigger those
            devices or sensors. Anything apart from this you would be asking something
            like "How do you know something isn't there if you don't see it?" It becomes
            silly and useless for humans, apart from philosophic pondering. If they
            offer no proof, we will never know.

            [Ruby]: IF, as Keel, Valle, Hansen, so many others -- believe, that they're
            not "aliens" from outer space but some sort of intelligent entity, they may
            be enjoying playing with us and being intentionally deceptive and
            maddeningly elusive. The Trickster is all about that.

            [Chris]: As Chris believes, maybe some humans love the idea of an
            intelligent entity, playing with us, and being intentionally deceptive and
            maddeningly elusive, more than idea that this isn't happening. If your
            familiar with "The Trickster" archetype, you would know that those qualities
            are projected, not necessarily inherent, in the things projected on.

            [Ruby] Of course, if you dismiss such possibilities then there's not much
            point in going on.

            [Chris] I don't feel that I dismiss possibilities unfairly. If the
            scientist--whether pro- or anti-ASVE--is doing their work, the evidence will
            speak for itself. The subject is surely interesting and, no matter what the
            situation, whether there are ASVEs or not, or just terrestrial UFO sources,
            the whole phenomena is pretty wild to think about.

            Later,
            Chris.



            ---
            Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
            Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
            Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 2/28/2004
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.