PsuedoSkeptic UFO template

[jakesteele]

One of the things that CSIOPtics (nice way of saying psuedo-skeptic) do is to sodomize Occam's Razor to death. They brandish it like a Viking broadsword in an attempt to smite down their opponents. While OC is a great and valuable tool, it is also a double-edged blade. When I am debating with them I will facetiously poke fun at them by saying the other blade of OC is called Occam's Beard, which states: The simplest solution is not always the best. I find that when it comes to UFOs in particular, the greatest abuse occurs. They have a cookie cutter template that they apply to many thousands of reported sightings. Below is my version of the template. If anybody can add to it, I would appreciate it.

1. Lie
2. hallucination
3. government secret aircraft
4. weather balloons
5. flares (the new weather balloons)
6. atmospheric phenomenon
7. ball lightning
8. swamp gas
9. meteors
10.mass hallucination
11.mass hoax conspiracy
12.flock of birds


That's as far as my list goes, and I find it ludicrous that a small handful of people are saying that every sighting, past, present or future, falls into one of these categories.

Please add if you've got a few more.

[soldiergirl]

I have a template of alien UFO belevers. They all believe that any unidentifid flying object is alien from outer space.

[Eteponge]

[soldiergirl]

Epi,

hmmm maybe you didn't quite understand what my post was about. It was in response to the skeptic cookie cutter post. Was merely pointing out that quacks automatically assume it must be alien albeit it could be it isn't necessarily so and definately not each case of a UFO. many cases are also built on peoples untruths such as Bob Lazer. There are tons of possibilities but a previous poster pointed out a cookie cutter smart ass remark to which i simply returned the dose of medicine. No more and no less, although I'm sure Nutty Professor can find more in my post. He has one heck of a big imagination to match that belly of his.

[Eteponge]

[soldiergirl]

See thats what bothers me about people like scecop. They link these absurd articles of people like bob lazer and say ooo isn't this proof. He is a big time military contractor who worked at area 51. Guess what? I can make up the same story. All it takes is a little bit of rational thought and logic and sometimes some research to know its a lie. Bob Lazers case doesn't even require research for the average person who knows what Top Secret, NDA, OPSEC, SAEDA are. In essence people lke Scecop, professor and highondrugs is like arguing with a 5 year old that santa doesnt exist. My personal beliefs are this. I think natural selection, survival of he fittest and evolution as a whole doesnt work anymore cause as a society we have made this world too safe with warning labels ad naseum, safety briefings, and all that other nonsense that a person with mediocre intelligence already knows which has allowed the morons of this world to skate through life and avoid evolution. Although a few still get darwin awards every year which is classic.

[jakesteele]

Just to update my list and throw in a couple of things:

True skeptics and debunkers are two very different animals:

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics. Properly, a skeptic is a nonbeliever, a person who refuses to jump to conclusions based on inconclusive evidence.

A pseudo-skeptic, on the other hand, is a person with an priori belief that a certain idea is wrong and it’s just a matter of figuring out how to debunk it. It’s a foregone conclusion before they even begin to investigate.

Below is a list of explanations given by debunkers to explain UFO sightings. For the sake of brevity I have listed the main categories of explanations. Underneath each capitol letter you will find a number of variations on the theme. For the fleshed out version, go to the following link.

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/ifo_list.htm

A. MATERIAL OBJECTS
B. IMMATERIAL OBJECTS
C. ASTRONOMICAL
D. PHYSIOLOGICAL
E PSYCHOLOGICAL
F COMBINATIONS AND SPECIAL EFFECTS
G PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORDS
H RADAR
I HOAXES

My personal favorites that are embedded in the list include the following. I’m having them bronzed so I can prominently display them on my mantle.
*paper and other debris
*leaves
*insects
swarms
*moths
*seeds
milkweed, etc.
*feathers
*tumbleweeds
*spider webs
*matches
*smoker lighting pipe
*cigarettes tossed away
*ghost of the Brocken (I don’t know what that is, but it sounds way cool. Kind of like one of those low budget movies you see on The SyFy channel)

The problem I have with debunkers is they try to put ALL sightings under one of these categories. When asked if they think that all sightings since the dawn of mankind up to the present and into the future short of an actual landing are mundane in nature you begin to get evasive answers that do not address the question straight on. This question is designed to be a what is called a "boxed ended canyon" type question. There are only a few answers to this question, all of which are anathema to a debunker. If they answer yes, that becomes an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary proof, which, of course, they can't provide. They definitely don't want to go there unless they say, "in my opinion". which then puts them in the realm of any other Tom, Dick or Harry on the street; as good or bad as anyone else. If they answer no, maybe, I don't know, that opens the door to the possibility that their might be something else other than what they use as explanations. That doesn't mean that the sightings are necessarily alien, it just means that their is something out that that is a mystery that could be a whole lot of things.

Now, of course, when pressed to the wall they will invariably pull the "Unicorn Gambit™" which is just a smartass way of saying 'no' while trying to maintain the appearance of objectivity.

[ciscop]

i was into ufo´s when i was a teenager
then i went to see a talk of jaime maussan and falled sleep
it was boring.. and his evidence was nothing but spots in the sky.. nothing remarkable
in the age of youtube and since we all have camera phones, i would expect better videos
this hasnt happened..

one little thing..
i remember when i was in canada
that i saw a kid´s show ... ¨mystery detectives¨or something like that
where kids debunked or resolved mysteries.. one of those
was in mexico.. they came to mexico and talked to maussan who show them ¨his evidence video¨
the kid then went and took a helicopter flight and found the source of the lighting in the sky.. it turns out it was an oil refinery in the golf on mexico
it looked just like the one in the video and it was in the same spot...
man.. a kid debunked that ufologist in less than 10 minutes of television.

not saying all ufo sightings are like that
but i am saying some of those investigators like maussan.. really doesnt care about researching, they only present the videos ¨to let the people decide¨.. BS!