Research Discussion: The Explanation Of Skeptics (A Disturbing Trend - Skeptic/sp00ks Interfering With UFOlogy Newsgroups)

The Explanation Of Skeptics (A Disturbing Trend - Skeptic/sp00ks Interfering With UFOlogy Newsgroups)
Posts: 17

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
2009-11-15 12:01:03 EST
The Explanation Of Skeptics (A Disturbing Trend - Skeptic/sp00ks
interfering with UFOlogy Newsgroups)

From: Koleshak <IndNewsServKK@erols.com>
Tony Veca wrote:

I would like to thank Huber, Schwartz and Nelson for proving something
to
me. You are right the problem isn't that you can't prove a negative.
But you
definitely have a blind spot but not the one I always thought it was.
That
blind spot is called preconceived notions'. Your unwillingness to
consider
any evidence is proof enough that you don't really want to know the
truth.
Because if you knew the truth, you would have to change your
preconceived notions.

Thomas Kuhn, in his book 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' he
describes the reactions of scientists to new discoveries and hard it
is for
them to make changes in their basic beliefs.

Kuhn noticed that scientists would go to any lengths to deny the
validity of
new theories or the need to change their minds. He describes the
symptoms
associated with fundamental change:

1. Persistent denial
2. Refusal to consider evidence
3. Reluctance to criticize old ideas
4. Slander of new-thinking colleagues
5. Anger at having to give up cherished dogmas

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Notice how EXACTLY this fits the skeptic/spooks.

And the problem is that the skeptic/spooks are DESPERATELY TRYING TO
PROVE THE NEGATIVE, that is, that ETs don't exist and all the evidence
that they do exist doesn't exist. In any moderated forum they would
be expelled
immediately.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There was a show about the psychology of thieves recently. They said
that shoplifters will deny they stole anything even when they are
caught
with the goods in their hand bag, etc. They will even deny it if
there's a video of them stealing the goods. Apparently their denial
response is so severe that they go into a stupor of some type and
claim
that the character on the video is not really them. That is magic,
isn't it? That is what the official reports are like in cases like
LA.
- a total, farcical, and hideously evil lie. The diff is that a
common
thief is nobody, and is thrown in the hoozgow. The US Navy, OTOH, is
big and mighty and little folks look up to it and trust it and believe
in it. Therefore, any garbola that the Navy spews forth will be
eagerly
lapped up by the majority of people.

- grouchy

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
SKEPTICS AS "RELIGIOUS FANATICS" OF SECULAR HUMANISM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -

From: slk <slk@EVANSVILLE.NET>
Via: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

Irrationality, CSICOP, And UFOs

Trying to understand just why the thought of UFOs as extraterrestrial,
intelligently-controlled spacecraft provokes violent emotional and
illogical reactions is not an easy task. Largely, the issue appears to
depend on value-constructs that people believe and which drive the
evaluation of evidence.

Still, harmless convictions or not, one can only be baffled by
statements
that even the consideration of giving UFOs a fair scientific hearing
is, by
their definition, "irrational," supposedly going against all that
science
stands for [Sheaffer, 1981]. This antagonism, shared by various people
belonging to contemporary skeptical societies such as CSICOP, and
echoed by
authors like Robert Sheaffer, does not appear to make much sense upon
examining the few reasons behind it -- reasons which, in the end, have
very
little to do with a scientific approach.

To understand their conclusions, one must first comprehend the
ideology of
those who maintain such concepts. The only way to do so is to look at
CSICOP's origin and the belief systems of its members. As it turns
out, a
large number of its most vocal supporters are secular humanists. Which
is
not really a surprise, after all, the American Humanist Foundation
founded
CSICOP under their sponsorship. But, it is just this belief system
which is
the result of CSICOP's decaying credibility and rationality.

Although there are different forms of humanism, in general, it
indicates
belief in a philosphy based on interpreting the world in terms of
known
human values and experience, while emphasizing the intrinsic worth of
mankind. As it appears, various skeptics, such as Robert Sheaffer,
identify
themselves with this patriarchal, anthropocentric worldview, evident
from
their other interests and published ideas. The fundamental problem
with
this approach becomes clear when CSICOP tries to "explain" phenomena,
such
as UFOs, resulting in treading dangerously close to the fallacy of
reductionism -- the belief that all knowledge and experience must
ultimately reduce to common principles. This approach is typified by
much
of the skeptical literature, in which explanations for UFO incidents
frequently omit part of the problem domain -- "prosaic" explanations
accounting for only part of the evidence, while simply ignoring or
dismissing the rest.

One other aspect, vital to a society governed by patriarchal
humanistic
principles, is freedom from control. Fearing the possibility of losing
control of one's own actions by other humans, one can only imagine the
psychological resistance to a superior extraterrestrial intelligence,
which
would have total control over our actions at any time. So, instead of
trying to come to grips with the actual UFO problem, they deny the
possibility that UFO experiences are due to the actual presence of
extraterrestrial objects intruding our airspace, forcing them to
dismiss
the phenomenon altogether. Thus, UFO accounts are not debunked because
there's nothing to them but misidentifications and hoaxes, but because
such
reports disturb the anthropocentric humanist's view of the universe,
leading them to believe that people who discuss and report such
phenomena
must be "irrational." In essence, the validity of the ETH as a working
hypothesis is denied simply because is helps to prevent psychological
deterioration. This aspect of religious skepticism, denying the
validity of
individual experience if it violates certain dogma, illustrates how
much of
real skepticism has become like establishment religion. Both insist
that
only they know what is true. This is the most destructive of
religion's
many deliberate falsehoods, because it revokes the individual's power
to
judge for herself or himself what is or is not real.

More disturbing, however, is that such ideas and beliefs can and do
result
in crusades to restore "order, reason, and critical thinking."
Although
this might seem a worthy goal, skeptical societies such as CSICOP do
not
have the objectivity to accomplish such a task because of their own
humanistic ideas and beliefs. It is a specific brand of skepticism,
which
they fallaciously define as what they perceive to be a rational
scientific
approach. One finds that they are not so interested in investigating
or
getting to the truth of controversial issues. Instead, they "debunk,"
employing tactics similar to that of a prosecution attorney whose job
is to
prove to a jury that the individual on trial is guilty. Tactics such
as
these tend to perpetuate personally invested belief systems which tend
to
motivate one to focus solely on specific final conclusions - an
absolutely
disastrous approach to follow when attempting to perform an accurate
and
unbiased scientific investigation of a controversial subject.

In fact, their published ideas sound more like a hope that non-
conformists
can be brainwashed into Right Thinking. That is, reintroduced to
"reality"
... as they evaluate reality. This belief, like all beliefs, begins
with
the assumption that it is correct and complete; thus, any phenomena
which
cannot be pigeonholed into its tenets are, by definition, incorrect
and in
need of "cure." The most significant difference between science and
skepticism of this sort is that the former theoretically admits that
all of its knowledge
is tentative, while the latter declares that its knowledge is
conclusive.
And this constitutes one the most serious problems of contemporary
skepticism: the denial of the possibility that one's beliefs are in
error,
unless of course that possibility is brought forward by one of their
own, because to do so
would undermine their dominance in defining "reality."

Barry Karr calls it "nonsense" and "irrationalism"... and James Randi
just
calls it "flim-flam." The problem is the extremism of the statement
and the
fundamentalism from which they come. When one has too much invested in
this
belief to tolerate a challenge to its scope or authority, it ceases to
be
"skepticism," and becomes a belief structure. And unless one
recognizes
this dogma at the heart of "skeptical" societies like CSICOP, one will
only
keep redescribing the universe in terms of our own ignorance rather
than
discover anything of merit. Science and skepticism shouldn't be about
what
really is going on.

In the end, one should realize that anthropocentric humanists'
qualitative
standards for assessing evidence derive from, and are colored by,
their
self-interest and world view which most certainly includes defense
against
threats to one's carefully constructed, apparently consistent
intellectual
framework. Thus, the stridency of a given skeptic's demand for
extraordinary evidence is predicated not on an objective standard but
on
the degree to which the phenomenon in question threatens one's world
view
and self-interest. In short, what makes the extraterrestrial
hypothesis
extraordinary to some is not that it is undemonstrated but that it is
unacceptable.

And we all know it's not easy to show something exists when the person
to
whom this must be shown is wearing blinders, and refuses to take them
off
until you prove the existence of that which lies outside his narrow
field
of view.

by Jean van Gemert

References:
Sheaffer, Robert, "The UFO Verdict," Prometheus Books, 1981.
Skeptical Inquirer, Issue 1, Vol. 19, 1995.
Zimmerman, Michael, "Why Establishment Leaders Resist the Very Idea of
Superior
Non-human Intelligence," Fund for UFO Research, 1994.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Re A Disturbing Trend - Skeptic/sp00ks interfering with UFOlogy
Newsgroups
mungojery <mungojery@webtv.net> wrote on 9/20/000

I couldn't help but comment about the cattle mutilations that were
made fun of in a previous post.

I have no idea what is going on with these mutilations, but I can tell
you they are not the work of coyotes or other predators unless these
predators have access to a laser that can produce heat in excess of
4000 degrees.

My brother-in-law is Chief Deputy in Marshall County in North
Alabama. He also owns a quite large cattle farm in the rural part of
the county. He is one of the most down to earth people you could ever
meet. I believe it also says something for him that he was elected
overwhelmingly against all of his opponents in this large county in
Alabama.

One morning after a light snow as he was checking his herd of cattle
as he does every morning before going to work, he noticed one of his
heifers was not with the rest of his stock. He found her in the back
part of the stockyard, dead. drained of all blood. There were parts
of her that had been removed by a laser (we know this because they
were sent to a state law enforcement lab.)

When a predator kills an animal he does it by tearing and ripping the
flesh. The flesh on this animal looked as though it had been cleanly
cut and the lab said it had been exposed to a high temperature of
heat, such as a laser (although at the time this accrued the lightest
weight of laser that existed weighed 2000lbs.) Some of the cut looked
as though they had been made with a pinking sheer. The parts removed
were a section of the jaw and the rectum.

I remind you, these were not torn and ripped as a predator would have
done and according to the state lab had been exposed to a high rate of
heat such as a laser. Also, ALL BLOOD had been drained from the
heifer. This is the only time this happened at my brother-in-law's
farm, but did happen several nights later at a neighbor's farm.

I saw this with my own eyes--my brother-in-law-is not one to tell
tales and still is baffled at what occurred. Him being a law officer,
I put great faith in his story. He as spoken to several Texan
farmers whom have had the same thing happen on their farms. No one
seems to have an explanation for these weird happenings, but I assure
you it is not a PREDITOR draining all blood and removing parts with a
laser type heat. Now you explain this.


Hagar
2009-11-15 18:29:09 EST

"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <science@zzz.com> wrote in message
news:ea6d0362-3713-4ee8-972a-a84bf67ce1e4@g10g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> The Explanation Of Skeptics (A Disturbing Trend - Skeptic/sp00ks
> interfering with UFOlogy Newsgroups)
>
> From: Koleshak <IndNewsServKK@erols.com>
> Tony Veca wrote:
>
> 1. Persistent denial

The Easter Bunny is seen annually, as is Santa Claus ..
but do they really exist, LipFlapper ???

> 2. Refusal to consider evidence

Evidence of nob-photoshopped photographs required ..
none exist.

> 3. Reluctance to criticize old ideas

Old ideas or new ideas .. there are no Alien Flying Saucers.

> 4. Slander of new-thinking colleagues

Only when they hallucinate ...

> 5. Anger at having to give up cherished dogmas

I'd love to see a real AFO (Aleeun Flying Object), but, alas,
all that's been shown are questionable UFOs.


So, LipFlapper, until you can produce irrefutable evidence
of their existence, shut the fuck up.

Dismissed, K00K.



*_//!!_//!!*
2009-11-15 21:03:37 EST
On 15 Nov, 17:01, "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A."
<*.@zzz.com> wrote:
> The Explanation Of Skeptics (A Disturbing Trend - Skeptic/sp00ks
> interfering with UFOlogy Newsgroups)
>
> From: Koleshak <IndNewsSer...@erols.com>
>
> Tony Veca wrote:
>
> I would like to thank Huber, Schwartz and Nelson for proving something
> to
> me. You are right the problem isn't that you can't prove a negative.
> But you
> definitely have a blind spot but not the one I always thought it was.
> That
> blind spot is called preconceived notions'. Your unwillingness to
> consider
> any evidence is proof enough that you don't really want to know the
> truth.
> Because if you knew the truth, you would have to change your
> preconceived notions.
>
> Thomas Kuhn, in his book 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' he
> describes the reactions of scientists to new discoveries and hard it
> is for
> them to make changes in their basic beliefs.
>
> Kuhn noticed that scientists would go to any lengths to deny the
> validity of
> new theories or the need to change their minds.  He describes the
> symptoms
> associated with fundamental change:
>
>      1. Persistent denial
>      2. Refusal to consider evidence
>      3. Reluctance to criticize old ideas
>      4. Slander of new-thinking colleagues
>      5. Anger at having to give up cherished dogmas
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Notice how EXACTLY this fits the skeptic/spooks.
>
> And the problem is that the skeptic/spooks are DESPERATELY TRYING TO
> PROVE THE NEGATIVE, that is, that ETs don't exist and all the evidence
> that they do exist doesn't exist.  In any moderated forum they would
> be expelled
> immediately.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> There was a show about the psychology of thieves recently.  They said
> that shoplifters will deny they stole anything even when they are
> caught
> with the goods in their hand bag, etc.  They will even deny it if
> there's a video of them stealing the goods.  Apparently their denial
> response is so severe that they go into a stupor of some type and
> claim
> that the character on the video is not really them.  That is magic,
> isn't it?  That is what the official reports are like in cases like
> LA.
> - a total, farcical, and hideously evil lie.  The diff is that a
> common
> thief is nobody, and is thrown in the hoozgow.  The US Navy, OTOH, is
> big and mighty and little folks look up to it and trust it and believe
> in it.  Therefore, any garbola that the Navy spews forth will be
> eagerly
> lapped up by the majority of people.
>
>  - grouchy
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - -
> SKEPTICS AS "RELIGIOUS FANATICS" OF SECULAR HUMANISM
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - -
>
> From: slk <s...@EVANSVILLE.NET>
> Via: CURRENT-ENCOUNT...@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
>
> Irrationality, CSICOP, And UFOs
>
> Trying to understand just why the thought of UFOs as extraterrestrial,
> intelligently-controlled spacecraft provokes violent emotional and
> illogical reactions is not an easy task. Largely, the issue appears to
> depend on value-constructs that people believe and which drive the
> evaluation of evidence.
>
> Still, harmless convictions or not, one can only be baffled by
> statements
> that even the consideration of giving UFOs a fair scientific hearing
> is, by
> their definition, "irrational," supposedly going against all that
> science
> stands for [Sheaffer, 1981]. This antagonism, shared by various people
> belonging to contemporary skeptical societies such as CSICOP, and
> echoed by
> authors like Robert Sheaffer, does not appear to make much sense upon
> examining the few reasons behind it -- reasons which, in the end, have
> very
> little to do with a scientific approach.
>
> To understand their conclusions, one must first comprehend the
> ideology of
> those who maintain such concepts. The only way to do so is to look at
> CSICOP's origin and the belief systems of its members. As it turns
> out, a
> large number of its most vocal supporters are secular humanists. Which
> is
> not really a surprise, after all, the American Humanist Foundation
> founded
> CSICOP under their sponsorship. But, it is just this belief system
> which is
> the result of CSICOP's decaying credibility and rationality.
>
> Although there are different forms of humanism, in general, it
> indicates
> belief in a philosphy based on interpreting the world in terms of
> known
> human values and experience, while emphasizing the intrinsic worth of
> mankind. As it appears, various skeptics, such as Robert Sheaffer,
> identify
> themselves with this patriarchal, anthropocentric worldview, evident
> from
> their other interests and published ideas. The fundamental problem
> with
> this approach becomes clear when CSICOP tries to "explain" phenomena,
> such
> as UFOs, resulting in treading dangerously close to the fallacy of
> reductionism -- the belief that all  knowledge and experience must
> ultimately reduce to common principles. This approach is typified by
> much
> of the skeptical literature, in which explanations for UFO incidents
> frequently omit part of the problem domain -- "prosaic" explanations
> accounting for only part of the evidence, while simply ignoring or
> dismissing the rest.
>
> One other aspect, vital to a society governed by patriarchal
> humanistic
> principles, is freedom from control. Fearing the possibility of losing
> control of one's own actions by other humans, one can only imagine the
> psychological resistance to a superior extraterrestrial intelligence,
> which
> would have total control over our actions at any time. So, instead of
> trying to come to grips with the actual UFO problem, they deny the
> possibility that UFO experiences are due to the actual presence of
> extraterrestrial objects intruding our airspace, forcing them to
> dismiss
> the phenomenon altogether. Thus, UFO accounts are not debunked because
> there's nothing to them but misidentifications and hoaxes, but because
> such
> reports disturb the anthropocentric humanist's view of the universe,
> leading them to believe that people who discuss and report such
> phenomena
> must be "irrational." In essence, the validity of the ETH as a working
> hypothesis is denied simply because is helps to prevent psychological
> deterioration. This aspect of religious skepticism, denying the
> validity of
> individual experience if it violates certain dogma, illustrates how
> much of
> real skepticism has become like establishment religion. Both insist
> that
> only they know what is true. This is the most destructive of
> religion's
> many deliberate falsehoods, because it revokes the individual's power
> to
> judge for herself or himself what is or is not real.
>
> More disturbing, however, is that such ideas and beliefs can and do
> result
> in crusades to restore "order, reason, and critical thinking."
> Although
> this might seem a worthy goal, skeptical societies such as CSICOP do
> not
> have the objectivity to accomplish such a task because of their own
> humanistic ideas and beliefs. It is a specific brand of skepticism,
> which
> they fallaciously define as what they perceive to be a rational
> scientific
> approach. One finds that they are not so interested in investigating
> or
> getting to the truth of controversial issues. Instead, they "debunk,"
> employing tactics similar to that of a prosecution attorney whose job
> is to
> prove to a jury that the individual on trial is guilty. Tactics such
> as
> these tend to perpetuate personally invested belief systems which tend
> to
> motivate one to focus solely on specific final conclusions - an
> absolutely
> disastrous approach to follow when attempting to perform an accurate
> and
> unbiased scientific investigation of a controversial subject.
>
> In fact, their published ideas sound more like a hope that non-
> conformists
> can be brainwashed into Right Thinking. That is, reintroduced to
> "reality"
> ... as they evaluate reality. This belief, like all beliefs, begins
> with
> the assumption that it is correct and complete; thus, any phenomena
> which
> cannot be pigeonholed into its tenets are, by definition, incorrect
> and in
> need of "cure." The most significant difference between science and
> skepticism of this sort is that the former theoretically admits that
> all of its knowledge
> is tentative, while the latter declares that its knowledge is
> conclusive.
> And this constitutes one the most serious problems of contemporary
> skepticism: the denial of the possibility that one's beliefs are in
> error,
> unless of course that possibility is brought forward by one of their
> own, because to do so
> would undermine their dominance in defining "reality."
>
> Barry Karr calls it "nonsense" and "irrationalism"... and James Randi
> just
> calls it "flim-flam." The problem is the extremism of the statement
> and the
> fundamentalism from which they come. When one has too much invested in
> this
> belief to tolerate a challenge to its scope or authority, it ceases to
> be
> "skepticism," and becomes a belief structure. And unless one
> recognizes
> this dogma at the heart of "skeptical" societies like CSICOP, one will
> only
> keep redescribing the universe in terms of our own ignorance rather
> than
> discover anything of merit. Science and skepticism shouldn't be about
> what
> really is going on.
>
> In the end, one should realize that anthropocentric humanists'
> qualitative
> standards for assessing evidence derive from, and are colored by,
> their
> self-interest and world view which most certainly includes defense
> against
> threats to one's carefully constructed, apparently consistent
> intellectual
> framework. Thus, the stridency of a given skeptic's demand for
> extraordinary evidence is predicated not on an objective standard but
> on
> the degree to which the phenomenon in question threatens one's world
> view
> and self-interest. In short, what makes the extraterrestrial
> hypothesis
> extraordinary to some is not that it is undemonstrated but that it is
> unacceptable.
>
> And we all know it's not easy to show something exists when the person
> to
> whom this must be shown is wearing blinders, and refuses to take them
> off
> until you prove the existence of that which lies outside his narrow
> field
> of view.
>
> by Jean van Gemert
>
> References:
> Sheaffer, Robert, "The UFO Verdict," Prometheus Books, 1981.
> Skeptical ...
>
> read more »

*The Clues*

Target Region:

Texan Farmers

Target Entity:

Heifer - is a cow that has not borne a calf, or has borne only one
calf.

Target Tools:

Pinking Shears - Shears with a serrated blade, used to cut a zig-zag
edge in fabric to prevent it fraying.

Lasers are Technical Instruments not commonly owned or used by Jo
Public.

The Jaw is associated with Chewing or Eating (Bone)
The Rectum with Excrement and Methane (Soft Tissue)
The Blood with the Soul and Genetics/Life (Bodily Fluids)

Target Conclusion:

Whoever is involved in these animal mutilations 'are/were' Researching
the animal.

The Question:

Is it Terrestrial Research Smoke-Screening you into Believing it's
Extra-
Terrestrial as a Cover?

*Hallelujah*

*Amen*



Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
2009-11-16 03:06:12 EST
On Nov 15, 3:29 pm, "Hagar" <hs...@surewest.net> wrote:
> "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com> wrote in messagenews:ea6d0362-3713-4ee8-972a-a84bf67ce1e4@g10g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The Explanation Of Skeptics (A Disturbing Trend - Skeptic/sp00ks
> > interfering with UFOlogy Newsgroups)
>
> > From: Koleshak <IndNewsSer...@erols.com>
> > Tony Veca wrote:
>
> >     1. Persistent denial
>
> The Easter Bunny is seen annually, as is Santa Claus ..
> but do they really exist, LipFlapper ???
>
> >     2. Refusal to consider evidence
>
> Evidence of nob-photoshopped photographs required ..
> none exist.
>
> >     3. Reluctance to criticize old ideas
>
> Old ideas or new ideas .. there are no Alien Flying Saucers.
>
> >     4. Slander of new-thinking colleagues
>
> Only when they hallucinate ...
>
> >     5. Anger at having to give up cherished dogmas
>
> I'd love to see a real AFO (Aleeun Flying Object), but, alas,
> all that's been shown are questionable UFOs.
>
> So, LipFlapper, until you can produce irrefutable evidence
> of their existence, shut the fuck up.
>
> Dismissed, K00K.

Not only have we produced irrefutable evidence, it has been verified
by major scientific organizations.

Now it is time for ALL debunkers, kooks like Hagar, spOOks like
"H"eroin, and their ilk to give and surrender to the proper
authorities.

We have played nice for a long time, but NO MORE. Debunkers,
according to sources close to the Octagon®, are to be interrogated
Gitmo-style in old fashioned German-style camps!! And not a moment
too soon, I say. Debunkers are going all out now that the UFO cover-
up has officially ended. We must sequester these truth-terrorists as
soon as possible. I suggest we throw them into an armed camp and use
a neutron bomb to expunge them from THIS ISLAND EARTH!!! This is an
idea who time has come. Let us do it before it is TOO LATE and the
debunkers take over. That would be worse than hell's hell!!!

Sir ArtiØ®

Rex
2009-11-16 08:17:45 EST
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A. wrote:

>
> Not only have we produced irrefutable evidence, it has been verified
> by major scientific organizations.
Such as? NASA? SETI? The European Space Agency? Nature magazine?
National Geographic?
Oh sorry, I forgot, all these organizations did not join in therefore
they're also part of the Great Conspiracy of Debunkers(tm) to take over
Usenet!

-------------------------------------
I refuse to spend my life worrying about what I eat. There is
no pleasure worth foregoing just for an extra three years in a
geriatric ward.
-- John Mortimer
-------------------------------------

Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
2009-11-16 09:37:01 EST
On Nov 16, 5:17 am, Rex <rexdudeREMOVEANDREVERSEDOM...@liam.ur> wrote:
> Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A. wrote:
>
>
>
> > Not only have we produced irrefutable evidence, it has been verified
> > by major scientific organizations.
>
> Such as? NASA? SETI? The European Space Agency? Nature magazine?
> National Geographic?
> Oh sorry, I forgot, all these organizations did not join in therefore
> they're also part of the Great Conspiracy of Debunkers(tm) to take over
> Usenet!

Rex, usually I don't respond to useful idiots like yourself, but I
will make this brief statement. Your style of debunking is tired and
worthless, as you are tired and worthless. Anybody with an I.Q. above
50 (okay - that eliminates you and your kind) have researched and
verified the facts in respect to ETs and the larger reality,

Go back and stick your head in the mud, you will find your friends
there. Please leave applied science to the grown ups. Good luck, you
need it.

Sir Artiø - the debunkers BEST FRIEND!

P.S. Why do debunkers (such as "H"eroin and his cult) always think it
is clever by talking about the "guvmint" or some great conspiracy.
That only makes their credibility, which is already at an historical
all-time low, even lower. Debunkers - please give up now!!



HVAC
2009-11-16 10:01:51 EST

"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <science@zzz.com> wrote in message
news:17410917-00d7-43a0-963e-751a5402ea33@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Such as? NASA? SETI? The European Space Agency? Nature magazine?
> National Geographic?
> Oh sorry, I forgot, all these organizations did not join in therefore
> they're also part of the Great Conspiracy of Debunkers(tm) to take over
> Usenet!

Rex, usually I don't respond to useful idiots like yourself, but I
will make this brief statement. Your style of debunking is tired and
worthless, as you are tired and worthless. Anybody with an I.Q. above
50 (okay - that eliminates you and your kind) have researched and
verified the facts in respect to ETs and the larger reality,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi Sir Arti0!

I've been thinking a lot about what you've said and
I have come to deeply admire you and want to pitch
in to help your cause of ridding THIS ISLAND EARTH
of the evil debunkers.

How can I help?

Your newest, bestest buddy (and big toe) Harlow



H.
2009-11-16 13:10:30 EST

"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A."
<*e@zzz.com> wrote in message
news:4f680ef5-b9cd-4926-a402-cafae371f779@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 15, 3:29 pm, "Hagar" <hs...@surewest.net> wrote:
> "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A."
> <scie...@zzz.com> wrote in
> messagenews:ea6d0362-3713-4ee8-972a-a84bf67ce1e4@g10g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The Explanation Of Skeptics (A Disturbing Trend -
> > Skeptic/sp00ks
> > interfering with UFOlogy Newsgroups)
>
> > From: Koleshak <IndNewsSer...@erols.com>
> > Tony Veca wrote:
>
> > 1. Persistent denial
>
> The Easter Bunny is seen annually, as is Santa Claus
> ..
> but do they really exist, LipFlapper ???
>
> > 2. Refusal to consider evidence
>
> Evidence of nob-photoshopped photographs required ..
> none exist.
>
> > 3. Reluctance to criticize old ideas
>
> Old ideas or new ideas .. there are no Alien Flying
> Saucers.
>
> > 4. Slander of new-thinking colleagues
>
> Only when they hallucinate ...
>
> > 5. Anger at having to give up cherished dogmas
>
> I'd love to see a real AFO (Aleeun Flying Object),
> but, alas,
> all that's been shown are questionable UFOs.
>
> So, LipFlapper, until you can produce irrefutable
> evidence
> of their existence, shut the fuck up.
>
> Dismissed, K00K.

Not only have we produced irrefutable evidence, it has
been verified
by major scientific organizations.

Now it is time for ALL debunkers, kooks like Hagar,
spOOks like
"H"eroin, and their ilk to give and surrender to the
proper
authorities.

We have played nice for a long time, but NO MORE.
Debunkers,
according to sources close to the Octagon\ufffd, are to be
interrogated
Gitmo-style in old fashioned German-style camps!! And
not a moment
too soon, I say. Debunkers are going all out now that
the UFO cover-
up has officially ended. We must sequester these
truth-terrorists as
soon as possible. I suggest we throw them into an
armed camp and use
a neutron bomb to expunge them from THIS ISLAND
EARTH!!! This is an
idea who time has come. Let us do it before it is TOO
LATE and the
debunkers take over. That would be worse than hell's
hell!!!

Sir Arti\ufffd\ufffd
======================================
This KOOK is really nuts.
H.



H.
2009-11-16 13:12:31 EST

"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A."
<*e@zzz.com> wrote in message
news:17410917-00d7-43a0-963e-751a5402ea33@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 16, 5:17 am, Rex
<*.@liam.ur> wrote:
> Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A. wrote:
>
>
>
> > Not only have we produced irrefutable evidence, it
> > has been verified
> > by major scientific organizations.
>
> Such as? NASA? SETI? The European Space Agency?
> Nature magazine?
> National Geographic?
> Oh sorry, I forgot, all these organizations did not
> join in therefore
> they're also part of the Great Conspiracy of
> Debunkers(tm) to take over
> Usenet!

Rex, usually I don't respond to useful idiots like
yourself, but I
will make this brief statement. Your style of
debunking is tired and
worthless, as you are tired and worthless. Anybody
with an I.Q. above
50 (okay - that eliminates you and your kind) have
researched and
verified the facts in respect to ETs and the larger
reality,

Go back and stick your head in the mud, you will find
your friends
there. Please leave applied science to the grown ups.
Good luck, you
need it.

Sir Arti\ufffd - the debunkers BEST FRIEND!

P.S. Why do debunkers (such as "H"eroin and his cult)
always think it
is clever by talking about the "guvmint" or some great
conspiracy.
That only makes their credibility, which is already at
an historical
all-time low, even lower. Debunkers - please give up
now!!

===============================================
Methinks you better explain this rant.
H.




_//!! _//!!
2009-11-17 05:04:18 EST
"_//!! _//!!" <TheInvisibleAngel@freenews.netfront.net> wrote in message
news:hdu0cj$1ghf$1@adenine.netfront.net...
>
> "_//!! _//!!" <TheInvisibleAngel@freenews.netfront.net> wrote in message
> news:hdts53$1af3$1@adenine.netfront.net...
>>
>> "*_//!!_//!!*" <harpie1@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1c590b26-1192-4ec7-a3f9-cf077255a602@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>> On 15 Nov, 17:01, "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A."
>> <scie...@zzz.com> wrote:
>>> The Explanation Of Skeptics (A Disturbing Trend - Skeptic/sp00ks
>>> interfering with UFOlogy Newsgroups)
>>>
>>> From: Koleshak <IndNewsSer...@erols.com>
>>>
>>> Tony Veca wrote:
>>>
>>> I would like to thank Huber, Schwartz and Nelson for proving something
>>> to
>>> me. You are right the problem isn't that you can't prove a negative.
>>> But you
>>> definitely have a blind spot but not the one I always thought it was.
>>> That
>>> blind spot is called preconceived notions'. Your unwillingness to
>>> consider
>>> any evidence is proof enough that you don't really want to know the
>>> truth.
>>> Because if you knew the truth, you would have to change your
>>> preconceived notions.
>>>
>>> Thomas Kuhn, in his book 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' he
>>> describes the reactions of scientists to new discoveries and hard it
>>> is for
>>> them to make changes in their basic beliefs.
>>>
>>> Kuhn noticed that scientists would go to any lengths to deny the
>>> validity of
>>> new theories or the need to change their minds. He describes the
>>> symptoms
>>> associated with fundamental change:
>>>
>>> 1. Persistent denial
>>> 2. Refusal to consider evidence
>>> 3. Reluctance to criticize old ideas
>>> 4. Slander of new-thinking colleagues
>>> 5. Anger at having to give up cherished dogmas
>>>
>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> Notice how EXACTLY this fits the skeptic/spooks.
>>>
>>> And the problem is that the skeptic/spooks are DESPERATELY TRYING TO
>>> PROVE THE NEGATIVE, that is, that ETs don't exist and all the evidence
>>> that they do exist doesn't exist. In any moderated forum they would
>>> be expelled
>>> immediately.
>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> There was a show about the psychology of thieves recently. They said
>>> that shoplifters will deny they stole anything even when they are
>>> caught
>>> with the goods in their hand bag, etc. They will even deny it if
>>> there's a video of them stealing the goods. Apparently their denial
>>> response is so severe that they go into a stupor of some type and
>>> claim
>>> that the character on the video is not really them. That is magic,
>>> isn't it? That is what the official reports are like in cases like
>>> LA.
>>> - a total, farcical, and hideously evil lie. The diff is that a
>>> common
>>> thief is nobody, and is thrown in the hoozgow. The US Navy, OTOH, is
>>> big and mighty and little folks look up to it and trust it and believe
>>> in it. Therefore, any garbola that the Navy spews forth will be
>>> eagerly
>>> lapped up by the majority of people.
>>>
>>> - grouchy
>>>
>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> - - -
>>> SKEPTICS AS "RELIGIOUS FANATICS" OF SECULAR HUMANISM
>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> - - -
>>>
>>> From: slk <s...@EVANSVILLE.NET>
>>> Via: CURRENT-ENCOUNT...@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
>>>
>>> Irrationality, CSICOP, And UFOs
>>>
>>> Trying to understand just why the thought of UFOs as extraterrestrial,
>>> intelligently-controlled spacecraft provokes violent emotional and
>>> illogical reactions is not an easy task. Largely, the issue appears to
>>> depend on value-constructs that people believe and which drive the
>>> evaluation of evidence.
>>>
>>> Still, harmless convictions or not, one can only be baffled by
>>> statements
>>> that even the consideration of giving UFOs a fair scientific hearing
>>> is, by
>>> their definition, "irrational," supposedly going against all that
>>> science
>>> stands for [Sheaffer, 1981]. This antagonism, shared by various people
>>> belonging to contemporary skeptical societies such as CSICOP, and
>>> echoed by
>>> authors like Robert Sheaffer, does not appear to make much sense upon
>>> examining the few reasons behind it -- reasons which, in the end, have
>>> very
>>> little to do with a scientific approach.
>>>
>>> To understand their conclusions, one must first comprehend the
>>> ideology of
>>> those who maintain such concepts. The only way to do so is to look at
>>> CSICOP's origin and the belief systems of its members. As it turns
>>> out, a
>>> large number of its most vocal supporters are secular humanists. Which
>>> is
>>> not really a surprise, after all, the American Humanist Foundation
>>> founded
>>> CSICOP under their sponsorship. But, it is just this belief system
>>> which is
>>> the result of CSICOP's decaying credibility and rationality.
>>>
>>> Although there are different forms of humanism, in general, it
>>> indicates
>>> belief in a philosphy based on interpreting the world in terms of
>>> known
>>> human values and experience, while emphasizing the intrinsic worth of
>>> mankind. As it appears, various skeptics, such as Robert Sheaffer,
>>> identify
>>> themselves with this patriarchal, anthropocentric worldview, evident
>>> from
>>> their other interests and published ideas. The fundamental problem
>>> with
>>> this approach becomes clear when CSICOP tries to "explain" phenomena,
>>> such
>>> as UFOs, resulting in treading dangerously close to the fallacy of
>>> reductionism -- the belief that all knowledge and experience must
>>> ultimately reduce to common principles. This approach is typified by
>>> much
>>> of the skeptical literature, in which explanations for UFO incidents
>>> frequently omit part of the problem domain -- "prosaic" explanations
>>> accounting for only part of the evidence, while simply ignoring or
>>> dismissing the rest.
>>>
>>> One other aspect, vital to a society governed by patriarchal
>>> humanistic
>>> principles, is freedom from control. Fearing the possibility of losing
>>> control of one's own actions by other humans, one can only imagine the
>>> psychological resistance to a superior extraterrestrial intelligence,
>>> which
>>> would have total control over our actions at any time. So, instead of
>>> trying to come to grips with the actual UFO problem, they deny the
>>> possibility that UFO experiences are due to the actual presence of
>>> extraterrestrial objects intruding our airspace, forcing them to
>>> dismiss
>>> the phenomenon altogether. Thus, UFO accounts are not debunked because
>>> there's nothing to them but misidentifications and hoaxes, but because
>>> such
>>> reports disturb the anthropocentric humanist's view of the universe,
>>> leading them to believe that people who discuss and report such
>>> phenomena
>>> must be "irrational." In essence, the validity of the ETH as a working
>>> hypothesis is denied simply because is helps to prevent psychological
>>> deterioration. This aspect of religious skepticism, denying the
>>> validity of
>>> individual experience if it violates certain dogma, illustrates how
>>> much of
>>> real skepticism has become like establishment religion. Both insist
>>> that
>>> only they know what is true. This is the most destructive of
>>> religion's
>>> many deliberate falsehoods, because it revokes the individual's power
>>> to
>>> judge for herself or himself what is or is not real.
>>>
>>> More disturbing, however, is that such ideas and beliefs can and do
>>> result
>>> in crusades to restore "order, reason, and critical thinking."
>>> Although
>>> this might seem a worthy goal, skeptical societies such as CSICOP do
>>> not
>>> have the objectivity to accomplish such a task because of their own
>>> humanistic ideas and beliefs. It is a specific brand of skepticism,
>>> which
>>> they fallaciously define as what they perceive to be a rational
>>> scientific
>>> approach. One finds that they are not so interested in investigating
>>> or
>>> getting to the truth of controversial issues. Instead, they "debunk,"
>>> employing tactics similar to that of a prosecution attorney whose job
>>> is to
>>> prove to a jury that the individual on trial is guilty. Tactics such
>>> as
>>> these tend to perpetuate personally invested belief systems which tend
>>> to
>>> motivate one to focus solely on specific final conclusions - an
>>> absolutely
>>> disastrous approach to follow when attempting to perform an accurate
>>> and
>>> unbiased scientific investigation of a controversial subject.
>>>
>>> In fact, their published ideas sound more like a hope that non-
>>> conformists
>>> can be brainwashed into Right Thinking. That is, reintroduced to
>>> "reality"
>>> ... as they evaluate reality. This belief, like all beliefs, begins
>>> with
>>> the assumption that it is correct and complete; thus, any phenomena
>>> which
>>> cannot be pigeonholed into its tenets are, by definition, incorrect
>>> and in
>>> need of "cure." The most significant difference between science and
>>> skepticism of this sort is that the former theoretically admits that
>>> all of its knowledge
>>> is tentative, while the latter declares that its knowledge is
>>> conclusive.
>>> And this constitutes one the most serious problems of contemporary
>>> skepticism: the denial of the possibility that one's beliefs are in
>>> error,
>>> unless of course that possibility is brought forward by one of their
>>> own, because to do so
>>> would undermine their dominance in defining "reality."
>>>
>>> Barry Karr calls it "nonsense" and "irrationalism"... and James Randi
>>> just
>>> calls it "flim-flam." The problem is the extremism of the statement
>>> and the
>>> fundamentalism from which they come. When one has too much invested in
>>> this
>>> belief to tolerate a challenge to its scope or authority, it ceases to
>>> be
>>> "skepticism," and becomes a belief structure. And unless one
>>> recognizes
>>> this dogma at the heart of "skeptical" societies like CSICOP, one will
>>> only
>>> keep redescribing the universe in terms of our own ignorance rather
>>> than
>>> discover anything of merit. Science and skepticism shouldn't be about
>>> what
>>> really is going on.
>>>
>>> In the end, one should realize that anthropocentric humanists'
>>> qualitative
>>> standards for assessing evidence derive from, and are colored by,
>>> their
>>> self-interest and world view which most certainly includes defense
>>> against
>>> threats to one's carefully constructed, apparently consistent
>>> intellectual
>>> framework. Thus, the stridency of a given skeptic's demand for
>>> extraordinary evidence is predicated not on an objective standard but
>>> on
>>> the degree to which the phenomenon in question threatens one's world
>>> view
>>> and self-interest. In short, what makes the extraterrestrial
>>> hypothesis
>>> extraordinary to some is not that it is undemonstrated but that it is
>>> unacceptable.
>>>
>>> And we all know it's not easy to show something exists when the person
>>> to
>>> whom this must be shown is wearing blinders, and refuses to take them
>>> off
>>> until you prove the existence of that which lies outside his narrow
>>> field
>>> of view.
>>>
>>> by Jean van Gemert
>>>
>>> References:
>>> Sheaffer, Robert, "The UFO Verdict," Prometheus Books, 1981.
>>> Skeptical Inquirer, Issue 1, Vol. 19, 1995.
>>> Zimmerman, Michael, "Why Establishment Leaders Resist the Very Idea of
>>> Superior Non-human Intelligence," Fund for UFO Research, 1994.
- - - - - - - - - - -

>>>
>>> read more \ufffd

>> Spook Interferance Detected and Corrected!!! The missing part of Sir
>> Arthur's
>> article, to which I've replied, reinstated. See below.

Re A Disturbing Trend - Skeptic/sp00ks interfering with UFOlogy
Newsgroups
mungojery <mungojery@webtv.net> wrote on 9/20/000

I couldn't help but comment about the cattle mutilations that were
made fun of in a previous post.

I have no idea what is going on with these mutilations, but I can tell
you they are not the work of coyotes or other predators unless these
predators have access to a laser that can produce heat in excess of
4000 degrees.

My brother-in-law is Chief Deputy in Marshall County in North
Alabama. He also owns a quite large cattle farm in the rural part of
the county. He is one of the most down to earth people you could ever
meet. I believe it also says something for him that he was elected
overwhelmingly against all of his opponents in this large county in
Alabama.

One morning after a light snow as he was checking his herd of cattle
as he does every morning before going to work, he noticed one of his
heifers was not with the rest of his stock. He found her in the back
part of the stockyard, dead. drained of all blood. There were parts
of her that had been removed by a laser (we know this because they
were sent to a state law enforcement lab.)

When a predator kills an animal he does it by tearing and ripping the
flesh. The flesh on this animal looked as though it had been cleanly
cut and the lab said it had been exposed to a high temperature of
heat, such as a laser (although at the time this accrued the lightest
weight of laser that existed weighed 2000lbs.) Some of the cut looked
as though they had been made with a pinking sheer. The parts removed
were a section of the jaw and the rectum.

I remind you, these were not torn and ripped as a predator would have
done and according to the state lab had been exposed to a high rate of
heat such as a laser. Also, ALL BLOOD had been drained from the
heifer. This is the only time this happened at my brother-in-law's
farm, but did happen several nights later at a neighbor's farm.

I saw this with my own eyes--my brother-in-law-is not one to tell
tales and still is baffled at what occurred. Him being a law officer,
I put great faith in his story. He as spoken to several Texan
farmers whom have had the same thing happen on their farms. No one
seems to have an explanation for these weird happenings, but I assure
you it is not a PREDITOR draining all blood and removing parts with a
laser type heat. Now you explain this.

>>
>> *The Clues*
>>
>> Target Region:
>>
>> Texan Farmers
>>
>> Target Entity:
>>
>> Heifer - is a cow that has not borne a calf, or has borne only one
>> calf.
>>
>> Target Tools:
>>
>> Pinking Shears - Shears with a serrated blade, used to cut a zig-zag
>> edge in fabric to prevent it fraying (to make it look like the actions
>> of a wild animal?)
>>
>> Lasers are Technical Instruments not commonly owned or used by Jo
>> Public.
>>
>> The Jaw is associated with Chewing or Eating (Bone)
>> The Rectum with Excrement and Methane (Soft Tissue)
>> The Blood with the Soul and Genetics/Life (Bodily Fluids)
>>
>> Target Conclusion:
>>
>> Whoever is involved in these animal mutilations 'are/were' into Secret,
>> Undercover research of the animal or experimentation with the animal
>> parts/samples.
>>
>> The Question:
>>
>> Is it Secret Terrestrial Research Smoke-Screening you into Believing it's
>> Extra-Terrestrial as a Cover?
>>
>> IOW, whoever was involved in these animal mutilations didn't want 'The
>> Reasons' for the research of the animal samples or experimentations with
>> the animal samples Publically known (at the time).
>>
>> A Terrestrial Scientific Lab doing secret research? A no questions asked
>> approach of getting your bloody samples, so as not to alert the media and
>> or scientific community as to what they were up to or why?
>>
>> God only knows what was done with all the bloody samples collected from
>> the animal.
>>
>> To what purpose? Animal or Human?
>>
>> Is this the reason?
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4162016.stm
>>
>> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBP/is_12_46/ai_95791154/ - read
>> the second half of the reference article too.
>>
>> Nowadays cattle are purely raised just for that purpose, i.e. Cow
>> Hemoglobin. IOW, no more Clandestine Helicopter Sorties into
>> Farmers' fields in the dead of night to collect their Bleeding Samples
>> & Scaring locals, into thinking they're UFOs, and animals alike.
>>
>> *Hallelujah*
>>
>> *Amen*


Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron