What are you?

[JerryScott]

I've been interested in the UFO topic and countless others since childhood,1960's. (Footnote:The UFO topic and related issues are interesting but not my sole study.)

And one thing I've been able to achieve is a great understanding of how people react to the UFO topic. And the big question has always been..

"What is it?"

And most people fall into four general categories being....and I stress general.

1. Serious believers (I communicate with my space brothers every other Tuesday)

2. Average believers(this would be your XX% of avg American's believe in...),

3. Skeptics (I wish there another word for skeptic,to easily confused with debunker)

4. Debunkers (don't show me any data my mind is made up).

I on the other hand am a...

5.True Observer

A true observer collect's and absorbs all data on a subject without injecting any belief system. Its all about pure data. No opinions are formed. The topic is your canvas.

A true observer never argues a point or position cause he has none. He only collects data. Hence he can be a boring conversationalist by just nodding occasionally in recognition of an opinion.

I would be real interested in knowing how others approach learning. Are you a believer,skeptic or debunker. Or who takes my approach as an Observer or a variation of it?

Thanks :)

[LotusExcelle]

Debunkers crave data as do skeptics.

[Tucson_Tim]

Debunkers crave data as do skeptics.

I agree. I'm sure that all the "debunkers' on this site would change their viewpoints immediately if there was any real evidence that UFOs are alien craft.

ETA: By your definitions I am a skeptic. If I was more knowledgeable, I might be a debunker.

[NorthGuy]

What's the point of gathering data unless you examine it and come to some conclusion even if the conclusion is that there is not enough data indicate that X is true?

[Swift]

3. Skeptics (I wish there another word for skeptic,to easily confused with debunker)

4. Debunkers (don't show me any data my mind is made up).

As others have said, I don't agree with your definition of debunker. I think skeptic and debunker are similar, it may mostly be how much they argue with "Serious Believers" ( I would probably use the term "True Believer").

I also think there is a category that is similar, but a little different than "True Observer". This is the "Wait and see" group, or maybe the "Agnostic" group. There is no evidence to believe that ETs are visiting us, but if they are willing to wait on more data.

And I think there are some categories between Serious Believer and Average Believer. There are the Serious Believers who think they aliens are talking with them (as you say). But there are other ones who don't go that far, but think, for example, that we've been visited (humans, not they themselves personally) and the Govement or the MIB is covering it all up.

[Fazor]

The term "Debunk" in an of itself implies using facts to disprove something:
(Dictionary.com)

to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated

Debunkers don't merely say "Nope, you're wrong. Don't bother with your 'evidence' you're wrong anyway." Specifically, debunkers respond to the individual claims of fact.

If anything, I'd create a separate category for Mules (as in, stubborn as a) that includes both sides, when the person refuses to listen or respond to claims and simply defaults to their already formed opinion.

[astrophotographer]

I disagree with your characterization of "debunkers". This is a typical UFO proponent label. I think it was Stanton Friedman who coined the phrase. Debunkers actually provide a service to UFO reports. They present potential explanations, which are not even considered by proponents or "investigators" of the UFO reports. Therefore, debunkers provide some sort of positive input to the discussion despite your labeling them with the "tar and feather" approach offerred by proponents. You can put me into the "debunker" category because I think there are reasonable explanations for UFO reports. I am also a skeptic because I don't believe that UFOs are anything extraordinary unless you can provide darn good evidence otherwise. I read everything I can about a case before I decide what I think is a most likely answer. If I can't produce a reasonable one, I usually figure there is not enough information and leave it as unidentified. That does not mean it is something extraordinary or exotic. It only means, I don't know and maybe something will show up to help explain it.

Now let's discuss your #5 "A true observer". According to you, you only collect data and have no opinion whatsoever. However, you immediately classified "debunkers" as people who have their minds made up and ignore the data. Therefore, you really are not a true observer because you have an opinion as to what "debunkers" are. As for the data, I love data and numbers. To me, the more data the better. Unfortunately, the "data" is highly subjective in almost all UFO reports. IMO, the more data you have the more likely the case will be solved. This was the case of the Arizona UFOs back in 1997. The 10PM event actually had plenty of real data with videos, locations, angles, etc. They definitely showed they were flares well south of Phoenix. This data was ignored by UFOlogists and still is today! The 8-8:30PM event also had plenty of data but it was not collected by the investigators correctly. Angular sizes, elevations, and speeds would have been great. Instead we got size estimates in yard, feets, miles, which nobody can estimate accurately with an unknown object in a dark sky. When one looks at the real data that was available, it appears that there is a likely explanation for that event as well. Again, it was ignored by those who wanted to perpetuate a mystery for their own gain.

Your "pure data" is not readily available when it comes to UFO reports. Take a look at the NUFORC database and read some of their reports:

http://www.nuforc.org/webreports.html

If you are a "true observer", you probably would reject many of these reports because of their subjective nature and lack of "data".

[Studioguy]

I'm a serious skeptic observer:

My Tuesday morning pow-wow with the alien elf in the flower bed told me I don't need any evidence and I should avoid forming opinions.

But seriously, would you really expect somebody to think that you're unbiased and sincere in your quest for "truth" when you consider that a "debunker" is completely closed to "evidence?" Do you really think I could use "more quotation marks?"

[NorthGuy]

I think a skeptic would say, "I need to see your evidence before I accept your conclusions." But a debunker would take a more active approach and say, "I've examined your evidence, and I think your conclusions are wrong because..."

[BertL]

Would a sceptic who thinks serious believers give a lot of false evidence and calls them out for it count as a sceptic or a debunker?

[Tucson_Tim]

What's the point of gathering data unless you examine it and come to some conclusion even if the conclusion is that there is not enough data indicate that X is true?

Good question. Being a "true observer" seems pointless.

[Gillianren]

I think a skeptic would say, "I need to see your evidence before I accept your conclusions." But a debunker would take a more active approach and say, "I've examined your evidence, and I think your conclusions are wrong because..."

That sounds about right to me, too. I'd love to know enough to be a debunker, but I only know enough to be a skeptic.

[Fazor]

I don't technically even count myself as a skeptic, but instead an interested observer of BAUT conversations.

Of course, you can't hang around here for long without developing a habit of arguing against stupid "science" when it crops up.

[astrophotographer]

I think a skeptic would say, "I need to see your evidence before I accept your conclusions." But a debunker would take a more active approach and say, "I've examined your evidence, and I think your conclusions are wrong because..."

I have to agree with that for the most part.

[astrophotographer]

We can probably add quite a few categories to this list:

1) Skeptical believer - wants to believe but won't because he is skeptical of the data and the reports. Allows his better judgement to interfere with a will to believe.

2) UFO proponent - Seriously believes the data indicates something extraordinary but won't come out and state it is ET. Only states that it might be ET or some other "intelligence".

3) ETH'er - Believes the UFO data is accurate and states it directly tells us that they are alien spaceships

4) Excited observer - All the data is unimportant. They want to believe they see alien spaceships, so when they see something in the sky they don't understand, they immediately tell everyone they saw an alien spaceship/UFO. When it is pointed out that it was something mundane (like Venus, the ISS, Iridium flare, etc.), they argue that they could not have been mistaken and you are calling them a liar.

5) UFO lecturer - Sells books about UFOs, lectures about UFOs, collects stories about UFOs and sells them. The better ones try and disguise it as a scientific endeavor. The more obvious ones just peddle DVDs. Anybody that disagrees with them has not looked at the facts and is a debunker.

[JerryScott]

OP here..thanks for all the responses. All very interesting. :)

I wish to clarify a few things.

My true observer classification is all about collecting data and information on a particular subject without a means to an end.

It can be a little difficult to wrap your head around the concept because your whole life you've "questioned the data". IOW my learning process is not to decide or determine if the subject matter is true or false but to "know" the subject. Doesn't matter if its Richard Feynman papers or The True History of Fairies and Pixies in Europe. Its all data. Read it..learn it...next.


What's the point of gathering data unless you examine it and come to some conclusion even if the conclusion is that there is not enough data indicate that X is true?

Good question.

Scientific research,forensics and similar professions all need to question the data. This is progress.

However when one takes information then run's it through a "believability filter," that information can then become and often is tailored to that individual in one of four ways. Four ways! (see op). Which for me is unacceptable. But I understand that some people need the emotional comfort of truth's or falsehoods. Centuries of conditioning here guy's. :)

I've read Phil's books. Great reads. In fact I read Neal Tyson's Death by Black Hole and Phil's Death from the Skies back to back. Cool books...

I read Tim Good's book Need to Know then Richard Dolan's UFO's and The National Security State. Again two fine books with lots of data.

Again I take it all as one. When Phil and Neal discuss the expansion of our Sun and our eventual demise I don't wonder or question..etc. When Tim Good or Rich Dolan discuss FOIA docs I don't dismiss or accept but gather and collect.

Hypothetical before I close out.....

Jim the "smart guy" goes to his local bookstore and buys Neil Tyson's Death by Black Hole. He rushes home and after a hearty meal of tuna fish on rye he begins reading. He eventually read's about these stellar monsters called Gamma Ray Burst's. "How can that be?" Jim gasp's. "So far away..how do they know? Who is this Neil guy with the funny middle name?. I can't believe it..he's wrong..no way..I'm done reading this trash. Never again will I read anything by him." Jim throws the book away then immediately run's to the washroom...tuna fish on rye?

Just having a little fun with Jim. And yea I know, before you guys pick apart my story.... yes Niel has sources,as do all the author's I mentioned here :)

thanks

"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new." AE

[A.DIM]

Is there a CT in here somewhere?

Perhaps this should be in LiS?

[Extracelestial]

I've been interested in the UFO topic and countless others since childhood,1960's. (Footnote:The UFO topic and related issues are interesting but not my sole study.)

And one thing I've been able to achieve is a great understanding of how people react to the UFO topic. And the big question has always been..

"What is it?"

And most people fall into four general categories being....and I stress general.

1. Serious believers (I communicate with my space brothers every other Tuesday)

2. Average believers(this would be your XX% of avg American's believe in...),

3. Skeptics (I wish there another word for skeptic,to easily confused with debunker)

4. Debunkers (don't show me any data my mind is made up).

I on the other hand am a...

5.True Observer

A true observer collect's and absorbs all data on a subject without injecting any belief system. Its all about pure data. No opinions are formed. The topic is your canvas.

A true observer never argues a point or position cause he has none. He only collects data. Hence he can be a boring conversationalist by just nodding occasionally in recognition of an opinion.

I would be real interested in knowing how others approach learning. Are you a believer,skeptic or debunker. Or who takes my approach as an Observer or a variation of it?

Thanks :)

Hello JerryScott - welcome to the board.
sorry to sound pedantic but I couldn't help but to think "this is but one category only!" when I read your post. The reason is that your categories do not differ (i.e. distinguish themselves) by some profound or elementary quality but only by the degree of one common quality. And this is the degree of belief in a given interpretation. I.e. that you're putting every "commenters" on a scale where they differ merely by weight and not by some other attribute such as colour or shape. This seems to be an arbitrary classification and I'd be interested why you've chosen this.
Apart from that I disagree on your definitions: debunkers are merely sceptics who take the pain in deconstructing actively superstition whereas a sceptic simply doesn't believe anything at first sight.
My approach to learning has been open; I hope. In my youth I was avidly making my own "research" in PSI, paranormal and UFOs but when neither materialised and the pro arguments began to sound repetitious and shallow I lost interest. I still belive that this huge universe may host more than one sentient race but the odds that they're constantly roaming our airspace are pretty slim.
So the easiest way to convince me is to present evidence that is not categorized "as never before seen footage on YouTube".
Extracelestial

[Tucson_Tim]

I still belive that this huge universe may host more than one sentient race but the odds that they're constantly roaming our airspace are pretty slim.


I believe the same.

I'd wager that most of the "debunkers" on this site feel the same way about the possibility of other intelligent life in the universe.

[R.A.F.]

My true observer classification is all about collecting data and information on a particular subject without a means to an end.

As has been pointed out by others, a seemingly pointless endeavour.


It can be a little difficult to wrap your head around the concept because your whole life you've "questioned the data". IOW my learning process is not to decide or determine if the subject matter is true or false but to "know" the subject.

What "learning process"?? If you don't have an opinion on the truth or falseness of any given subject, then just what have you learned??


I understand that some people need the emotional comfort of truth's or falsehoods. Centuries of conditioning here guy's.

There is a very real world "need to know" what is real and what is not. Lives literally depend on knowing what reality "is".

What that has to do with "emotional comfort", I have no idea.

[Swift]

<snip>
However when one takes information then run's it through a "believability filter," that information can then become and often is tailored to that individual in one of four ways. Four ways! (see op). Which for me is unacceptable. But I understand that some people need the emotional comfort of truth's or falsehoods. Centuries of conditioning here guy's. :)

Yes, but without some sort of filter or other mechanism, how do you weigh the relative worth of the different pieces of information?

Take a non-UFO example - I'm feeling sick and I have a list of symptoms. A doctor tells me I have a bacterial infection and I need an antibiotic. Some guy I bump into on the bus tells me I have bad karma and need to move the furniture around in my house. Do I give these two pieces of information equal weight? If not, how do I judge which one to follow? If three random people tell me its bad karma, does that mean the majority is right and the doctor is wrong?

Its not a question of emotional comfort, its a question as to how one makes decisions.

I'm reminded of the signature line of a BAUT member who I don't think is around much anymore: "An open mind is like an open window, without a good screen, a lot of bugs get in".

[Swift]

Is there a CT in here somewhere?

Perhaps this should be in LiS?
Ok, now I'm putting my moderator cap on...

A.DIM raises a valid point. I'm willing to let this brew here for a little longer, since we have often discussed UFO topics in CT. I can't speak for all other moderators.

JerryScott, it might be useful to know where you are going with this topic. Is this just a casual interest and a question you are interested in by itself? Or is this leading to some further discussion about UFOs? Is there an actual conspiracy somewhere in this?

[JerryScott]

My approach to learning has been open; I hope. In my youth I was avidly making my own "research" in PSI, paranormal and UFOs but when neither materialised and the pro arguments began to sound repetitious and shallow I lost interest. I still belive that this huge universe may host more than one sentient race but the odds that they're constantly roaming our airspace are pretty slim.l

Thanks Extracelestial. You make interesting points and I appreciate your opinions.

The believe word is used often. What does it really mean? Is is it just the easy way out? To believe or not believe.

You state.."I still believe that this huge universe may host more than one sentient race but the odds that they're constantly roaming our airspace are pretty slim" .

Now let me pick out key words or phrases that run counter to my learning paradigm.

believe,may,more than one,odds,pretty slim.

Your statement is based on a belief system albeit an educated one. However I respectfully ask how you have drawn this conclusion. :)

Now before I get ahead of myself I have nothing against people who believe in things. Is to know a better option than believing?

[Gillianren]

Again I take it all as one. When Phil and Neal discuss the expansion of our Sun and our eventual demise I don't wonder or question..etc. When Tim Good or Rich Dolan discuss FOIA docs I don't dismiss or accept but gather and collect.

So what's the point? You can go around collecting all kinds of garbage, but without using some kind of filter, it's all just garbage in your head unrelated to anything. It's when you start to assess and analyze that it becomes of any use to anybody. I can assure you that some information is more valid than others. Data points can be made up; do you consider those just as valid? If you do, what's the point of collecting the information in the first place?

[JerryScott]

Ok, now I'm putting my moderator cap on...

A.DIM raises a valid point. I'm willing to let this brew here for a little longer, since we have often discussed UFO topics in CT. I can't speak for all other moderators.

JerryScott, it might be useful to know where you are going with this topic. Is this just a casual interest and a question you are interested in by itself? Or is this leading to some further discussion about UFOs? Is there an actual conspiracy somewhere in this?

Actually it started as sort of an observation on how people react to say the UFO phenomenon and how they deal with information. To get the ball rolling I detailed my methods and such. Also listing in general terms various categories.

Clearly not conspiratorial. My bad. :)

At this point I'm just replying and such. I apologize for it not being topical.

[astrophotographer]

I read Tim Good's book Need to Know then Richard Dolan's UFO's and The National Security State. Again two fine books with lots of data.


Hmmmm......I am not so sure about these two books. I have read some of Good's other books (above top secret for one) and a lot of it looks interesting but upon further fact checking you find his "data" comes from a lot of dubious sources (people who claim to be something they are not). I have yet to read Dolan's book but from what I have seen of his other writings, I am one to suggest that his claims are probably inflated and biased towards his believe in a conspiracy. Both of these authors are conspiracy theorists regarding the US government and UFOs. A lot of speculation but no real "data" that can be substantiated. Feel free to elaborate what "data" in these books is so good to confirm that there is a conspiracy? I would be interested to hear what you consider good "data".

[Swift]

Actually it started as sort of an observation on how people react to say the UFO phenomenon and how they deal with information. To get the ball rolling I detailed my methods and such. Also listing in general terms various categories.

Clearly not conspiratorial. My bad. :)

At this point I'm just replying and such. I apologize for it not being topical.
No harm, no foul.

Since this seems to be more of a discussion on how people deal with information, I'm going to move the thread to Science and Technology, though depending on how things evolve, I may change that yet again.

Given that, this needs to not become a discussion of UFOs and conspiracies, or other non-mainstream ideas.

[R.A.F.]

...this needs to not become a discussion of UFOs and conspiracies, or other non-mainstream ideas.

So what becomes of Astrophotographer's last question?

[JerryScott]

So what's the point? You can go around collecting all kinds of garbage, but without using some kind of filter, it's all just garbage in your head unrelated to anything. It's when you start to assess and analyze that it becomes of any use to anybody. I can assure you that some information is more valid than others. Data points can be made up; do you consider those just as valid? If you do, what's the point of collecting the information in the first place?

Thanks Gilliam well put...

Of course your correct.

One mans garbage is another mans treasure or so they say. :)

This statement...."The Man in the Moon".

Is there a actual man on the moon. No of course not. You accept it I assume as a phrase,part off folklore,from a song etc..

Take this concept of accepting and apply it a 1000 fold. This is my approach.
It's a tad complex but there is an element of common sense to the madness :) But I gotta roll this is way off topic.

[JerryScott]

Hmmmm......I am not so sure about these two books. I have read some of Good's other books (above top secret for one) and a lot of it looks interesting but upon further fact checking you find his "data" comes from a lot of dubious sources (people who claim to be something they are not). I have yet to read Dolan's book but from what I have seen of his other writings, I am one to suggest that his claims are probably inflated and biased towards his believe in a conspiracy. Both of these authors are conspiracy theorists regarding the US government and UFOs. A lot of speculation but no real "data" that can be substantiated. Feel free to elaborate what "data" in these books is so good to confirm that there is a conspiracy? I would be interested to hear what you consider good "data".

thanks astro..well put.

I just liked the books. And they seem to be the "go to" books on the topic.

[Swift]

So what becomes of Astrophotographer's last question?
The books can be discussed, as can any "pieces of information" about UFOs or any other topics. The main outcome of the move is there is now no specific requirement that JerryScott defend his idea or answer all questions put to him. But it also means that he had better not start advocating that there is some conspiracy. I'm allowing this topic to broaden to a general discussion about skepticism and such (which is also why I didn't move it to Life in Space).

[Gillianren]

Thanks Gilliam well put...

Gillian, please.


Of course your correct.

One mans garbage is another mans treasure or so they say. :)

Okay, but you've said you're not going through the process of telling them apart.


This statement...."The Man in the Moon".

Is there a actual man on the moon. No of course not. You accept it I assume as a phrase,part off folklore,from a song etc..

Take this concept of accepting and apply it a 1000 fold. This is my approach.
It's a tad complex but there is an element of common sense to the madness :) But I gotta roll this is way off topic.

No, I think this is exactly on topic. You're criticizing the way other people process information, but you don't seem to bother processing it at all. (Though in criticizing our process, you are applying one of your own. So.) "The Man in the Moon" is an example of pareidolia. I know what creates the illusion. On the other hand, your method seems to accept the idea of a man in the Moon being just as valid as anything else. If I'm incorrect in this, please explain how you equate that with not placing different values with any kind of data.

[R.A.F.]

Thanks, Swift, for the clarification.

[R.A.F.]

your method seems to accept the idea of a man in the Moon being just as valid as anything else.

What's that "old" saying?... "When any idea is valid, all ideas are worthless."

...or something like that.

[JerryScott]

What "learning process"?? If you don't have an opinion on the truth or falseness of any given subject, then just what have you learned??

Thanks for the reply. Good points.

Ah yes the learning process.

I've recently have been dabbling in Botany. Among the books I picked up was one on Cacti(Cactus) in North America. At no point during my study did I draw an "opinion" on the subject matter. I felt the author did the leg-work necessary to put the book together and had some wonderful photo's to support his work.

Same holds for books or topics that may be controversial or expose a alternative hypothesis to a popular belief or theory.

Earth Sciences, particularly earthquake prediction can be interesting but some theories and methods can run counter to mainstream beliefs. Which is fine. But I want and need to know all aspects of the topic and I will not disavow anything because I "believe" it's not worthy.

[JerryScott]

Gillian, please.



Okay, but you've said you're not going through the process of telling them apart.



No, I think this is exactly on topic. You're criticizing the way other people process information, but you don't seem to bother processing it at all. (Though in criticizing our process, you are applying one of your own. So.) "The Man in the Moon" is an example of pareidolia. I know what creates the illusion. On the other hand, your method seems to accept the idea of a man in the Moon being just as valid as anything else. If I'm incorrect in this, please explain how you equate that with not placing different values with any kind of data.

Mod moved thead...not conspiratorial.

:) Hmmm processing information.

The Man in the Moon. Pareidolia love it. Matrixing yes

All things relating to the phrase Man in the Moon are in fact "true". I observed the phrase and knew it's meaning and application. Therefore it's true. I accept "The Man in the Moon" and will not and cannot dismiss it because I do in fact through study know it's meaning. I will not reject The Man in the Moon through social or academic pressure.

If a group or cult "believes" The Man in Moon is in fact from Mars this is true because this is their belief and I have learned said belief. I will not reject this do to social or academic pressures.

And now Santa Claus.....ahhh no. :)

This is my method at its very base.

[NorthGuy]

However when one takes information then run's it through a "believability filter," that information can then become and often is tailored to that individual in one of four ways

Could you explain the term "believability filter"? Is it anything like measurement and experimentation?

[R.A.F.]

If a group or cult "believes" The Man in Moon is in fact from Mars this is true because this is their belief and I have learned said belief. I will not reject this do to social or academic pressures.

So everything that is "believed" to be true is true.

It's not science, it's not learning...it's nothing.

This thread should be in off topic babbling as that is what it is.

[JerryScott]

Could you explain the term "believability filter"? Is it anything like measurement and experimentation?

Hi North.

No. But a good point/question nonetheless. :)

My term "believability filter" is the concept that an idea is judged worthy or not based on popular theory in said subject.

One example

Some concepts and idea's may not even reach the measurement and experimentation phase because they have failed the "believability filter" of those with the funding. Don't ask for examples for I know this happens quite often in industry and academia. And have experienced myself. You have an idea that you know will work but the boss doesn't believe in it.

These "believability filters" has been with us for eons and it's usually based on social, politics and inflated ego's.

Measurement and experimentation via peer review is the scientific method and that well is a good thing. Something you can see,evidence,proof. Not some wild off the top of your head through a "filter" belief.

[JerryScott]

So everything that is "believed" to be true is true.

It's not science, it's not learning...it's nothing.

This thread should be in off topic babbling as that is what it is.

You have over 7000 post's, You should be able to see the forest though the tree's.

Stay with me...:) Don't take the man in the moon thing literally it's just an example and kinda roll's off the tongue easy and I liked the song. :) Think of it as a math problem.

Problem:If a group or cult "believes" The Man in Moon is in fact from Mars this is true because this is their belief and I have learned said belief. I will not reject this do to social or academic pressures.

Answer( I would write this upside down if I could): A cult believes the Man in the Moon is actually from Mars. I know it to be true. The cult is real although their beliefs are questionable the cult actually exists.

Anyhoo..the whole spirit of this thread has been mercifully fragmented into unabashed minutia. My original intention was to inspire alternative thought or just new and fresh idea's. Instead I got thrashed trashed and moved about,

All in all I kept my head high and forged ahead but here it ends...pause for applause...it seems this forum is not for me so goodnight Mrs Calabash whereever you are. :whistle:

[flynjack1]

I think the problem is that most of us define "data" differently than the UFO crowd. When you get right down to it there are two issues, one caused by semantics and the other caused by complete lack of any real data. The fact is in the strictest sense UFO's do exist. People, some well trained and knowledgeable, have seen flying objects that they could not identify. The problem is that not knowing what was seen does not leave any evidence or data that can lead to a conclusion. Little green men do not follow because something was unexplained. The Phoenix lights are the perfect example....I, as a pilot, have been flying in close proximity to parachute flares in Arizona on many occasions (there are vast military ranges just to the southwest of Phoenix). When I heard the reports I knew immediately what had been seen because I had seen the same thing myself. The difference is I knew what I was seeing. The bottom line, pictures of lights in the sky does not consititute "data".

[Tucson_Tim]

Problem:If a group or cult "believes" The Man in Moon is in fact from Mars this is true because this is their belief and I have learned said belief. I will not reject this do to social or academic pressures.


I will reject it due to scientific evidence to the contrary.

[Torch2k]

I would like to request a new classification be added to the original list - Interested Observer, Mostly Bemused/Partly Bewildered

[Extracelestial]

Thanks Extracelestial. You make interesting points and I appreciate your opinions.

The believe word is used often. What does it really mean? Is is it just the easy way out? To believe or not believe.

You state.."I still believe that this huge universe may host more than one sentient race but the odds that they're constantly roaming our airspace are pretty slim" .

Now let me pick out key words or phrases that run counter to my learning paradigm.

believe,may,more than one,odds,pretty slim.

Your statement is based on a belief system albeit an educated one. However I respectfully ask how you have drawn this conclusion. :)

Now before I get ahead of myself I have nothing against people who believe in things. Is to know a better option than believing?

Hi JerryScott,
got me! I should read my own posts before submitting them.
You're right, my statement sounds like some kind of belief system however, not one adopted randomly but after some careful thinking.
Wherever one cares to look in nature there isn't but one thing existing only once - rocks, mountains, planets; you name it. Same applies to living "thingies". So I think (I use "believe" probably too much as I'm not a native English speaker and in German to say "I believe that...." is used synonymously to "I think") that one planet having developed life is less likely than the likelyhood that there are more inhabited planets.
What counts as "alive" or even "sentient" I don't want to dwell upon. Life may (again - I use this academic "tip toeing" because we have only one example) have different matricees it develops in and what we consider as intelligent might be only a very specific form of sentience.
And then there is the problem of time or being at the right place at the right time. The Universe might well be inhabited only by us. Not because we're blessed or the chosen ones, but simply because we happened to be the first ones. It might teem with life in forms and instances we haven't mustered to discern and they are simply bored by our puny conflicts. And it might well be that somewhere round the next Galactic bend is a civilization comparable to ours but we will know that, earliest, in about thousand years - time of signal travel you know.
Well, in a nutshell: I'd love to meet aliens and have some exchange but I'm pessimistic that this will happen in my life time.
Extracelestial

[farmerjumperdon]

IOW my learning process is not to decide or determine if the subject matter is true or false but to "know" the subject.

So you want to know things but not know whether they are true or false.

That's just plain outright double-speak nonsense.

[R.A.F.]

That's just plain outright double-speak nonsense.

Appearently when JerryScott found that no one here was "buying into" his nonsence he (not surprisingly) decided to leave.

[centsworth_II]

I've been interested in the UFO topic....

And most people fall into four general categories being....

1. Serious believers (I communicate with my space brothers every other Tuesday)

2. Average believers(this would be your XX% of avg American's believe in...),

3. Skeptics (I wish there another word for skeptic,to easily confused with debunker)

4. Debunkers (don't show me any data my mind is made up).
....

This list is based on the viewpoint of UFOs as extraterrestrial visitors. A better way to categorize positions on the subject would be:

[Trakar]

(...)
5) UFO lecturer - Sells books about UFOs, lectures about UFOs, collects stories about UFOs and sells them. The better ones try and disguise it as a scientific endeavor. The more obvious ones just peddle DVDs. Anybody that disagrees with them has not looked at the facts and is a debunker.

It is possible to be this while being a skeptic, or at the least, not being a true believer of any significance.

Perhaps its my own conspiracy paranoia, but I believe that the best UFOlogy hucksters are fully aware of the nature of what they are "selling." they've just found creative way to make a living and enjoy the feedback and interaction with their devotees.