Gio Takahashi
07-24-2008, 12:46
It's not a headline news, more of an article discussing this so I wasn't exactly sure where to put this. I felt that it would be a good debate topic, so. carry on.
It?s a safe assumption to say that on any program about UFOs where there?s a "skeptoid" (UFO debunker) on, he/she will make a comment that goes something like this: "After more than sixty years of UFO research, all we have are thousands of grainy, blurry photographs of blobs in the sky." Then they go on about evidence -- how there isn?t any -- while merrily using the words "evidence" interchangeably with "proof."
(Another you can bet they?re going to use this too tactic is to disingenuously make the assumption that when discussing UFOs, everyone involved "really" means little green men from Mars, going so far as to state that that?s what the UFO researcher or witness "really means.")
The UFO debunker rarely refers to him/herself as a UFO debunker. They insist they?re skeptics. After all, CSI isn?t called Committee for Debunker Inquiry. But a true skeptic would have done their homework, and if they did their homework, they?d know that there are some excellent photographs that clearly show a UFO.
That?s evidence. No, it isn?t "proof" -- well now, wait a minute. It is proof. It?s proof of a UFO.
In context of this topic, I mean photographs that are still unexplained as to what they are (bird, balloon, etc.) and after numerous studies, have not been proven to have a mundane explanation, or, any explanation. A true UFO.
We all know there are hoaxed photos; images of hubcaps thrown up in the sky. We all know we can manipulate images on a computer and come up with all kinds of fakes. We all know that one person?s spherical floating orange UFO is a Chinese party lantern. And, we all know that there are plenty of photos and video and film of vague "things" including the grainy and blurry, as well as squiggly light blobs and streaks that could be anything. All those aside, there are plenty of images of UFOs that do not fit in the above categories. It?s time to for the debunkers and skeptoids to stop insisting that there are no good UFO photos.
The 1952 Trent photos are one example of a UFO photographed over fifty years ago that remains a mystery. There are others; for example, the Triangles that have been photographed or filmed by witnesses all over the world.
I?ll just go way out there and even say that the Gulf Breeze photos taken by Ed Walters haven?t been proven to be faked. Remember, there were other witnesses to those sightings. Controversy surrounded those photos, yes, and there was that whole scandal of finding plans for a fake UFO in Walter?s house when he moved out, which turned out to be a fake -- not the UFO photos.
Even the photos contactee George Adamski took, while a bit on the blurry side show UFOs. Blurry, grainy, sure, but not so out of focus or corrupted that any rational person can?t tell the obvious: they?re looking at a photograph of an unknown object. Which makes it a UFO.
And that?s the point here. Photos (and film, etc.) of UFOs: Unidentified Flying Objects. Even with some mild out of focus or "grainy" effects, it?s obvious to any rational person that the images are of things that are clearly very unusual.
The questions surrounding the UFO: were they, indeed, faked? Where do they come from? Who made them, how do they operate, who?s in them? have nothing to do with the fact that the object shown is an unknown. Which makes it a UFO.
There?s another reason why this lie put forth by skeptibunkies doesn?t work. No image of a UFO (or alien) is going to prove a thing.
The image itself may be proved to be genuine -- no evidence of faking, not in the least bit blurry, grainy, blobby or squiggly -- but what does it prove about UFOs? Nothing.
Just that they exist, which we already know. Duh. We?re still left with the questions of who, what, and why.
Let?s pretend CNN announces that there?s "authentic" footage of a landed UFO with some aliens standing around. How do we know it?s authentic? Because they said so? I hope we?re all beyond believing what we hear on the news as gospel. How do we know the whole thing wasn?t staged? We don?t. Some of us would believe it and take it for what it appears to be; others would demand more information, more evidence and data before accepting it as proof of extraterrestrial visitations.
Maintaining an either or stance concerning the UFO phenomena ensures no one has to go deeper into the UFO question. They?re either fakes, are they?re not. If they?re not, then what are they? UFOs. But since UFOs don?t exist, according to the debunker, since they?re all fakes. . .well, you can see where this is going.
UFOs are either from Mars or some place in space, or they?re not. Agreed. But the skeptibunkie likes to assume everyone means "flying saucers from outer space" -- the very idea which is ridiculous to them -- and so, no discussion need take place. (It?s possible UFOs are more than just one thing; some are from space, some are ours, some are something else even more astounding that ET.)
Putting aside the ET theory for now, where are UFOs from, what are they? Are they all military craft? If so, that?s still a pretty huge "wow!" that opens a lot of questions that demand answering, like: why are they flying over civilian areas, why are they in other countries restricted air space, why are civilians experiencing harm from these craft, and why isn?t our government held accountable, why don?t various government agencies know what to say to citizens when we call, why are they affecting our nuclear and military installations . . .
The skeptoid ignores these questions, and in fact, very often displays an astonishing naivet? and trust when it comes to our government.
This refrain that only blurry photos of UFOs exist from the debunker camp is just a distraction. It?s simply not the case.
http://uploads.neowin.net/forum/post-37120-1216908697.jpg
source (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/69191)
It?s a safe assumption to say that on any program about UFOs where there?s a "skeptoid" (UFO debunker) on, he/she will make a comment that goes something like this: "After more than sixty years of UFO research, all we have are thousands of grainy, blurry photographs of blobs in the sky." Then they go on about evidence -- how there isn?t any -- while merrily using the words "evidence" interchangeably with "proof."
(Another you can bet they?re going to use this too tactic is to disingenuously make the assumption that when discussing UFOs, everyone involved "really" means little green men from Mars, going so far as to state that that?s what the UFO researcher or witness "really means.")
The UFO debunker rarely refers to him/herself as a UFO debunker. They insist they?re skeptics. After all, CSI isn?t called Committee for Debunker Inquiry. But a true skeptic would have done their homework, and if they did their homework, they?d know that there are some excellent photographs that clearly show a UFO.
That?s evidence. No, it isn?t "proof" -- well now, wait a minute. It is proof. It?s proof of a UFO.
In context of this topic, I mean photographs that are still unexplained as to what they are (bird, balloon, etc.) and after numerous studies, have not been proven to have a mundane explanation, or, any explanation. A true UFO.
We all know there are hoaxed photos; images of hubcaps thrown up in the sky. We all know we can manipulate images on a computer and come up with all kinds of fakes. We all know that one person?s spherical floating orange UFO is a Chinese party lantern. And, we all know that there are plenty of photos and video and film of vague "things" including the grainy and blurry, as well as squiggly light blobs and streaks that could be anything. All those aside, there are plenty of images of UFOs that do not fit in the above categories. It?s time to for the debunkers and skeptoids to stop insisting that there are no good UFO photos.
The 1952 Trent photos are one example of a UFO photographed over fifty years ago that remains a mystery. There are others; for example, the Triangles that have been photographed or filmed by witnesses all over the world.
I?ll just go way out there and even say that the Gulf Breeze photos taken by Ed Walters haven?t been proven to be faked. Remember, there were other witnesses to those sightings. Controversy surrounded those photos, yes, and there was that whole scandal of finding plans for a fake UFO in Walter?s house when he moved out, which turned out to be a fake -- not the UFO photos.
Even the photos contactee George Adamski took, while a bit on the blurry side show UFOs. Blurry, grainy, sure, but not so out of focus or corrupted that any rational person can?t tell the obvious: they?re looking at a photograph of an unknown object. Which makes it a UFO.
And that?s the point here. Photos (and film, etc.) of UFOs: Unidentified Flying Objects. Even with some mild out of focus or "grainy" effects, it?s obvious to any rational person that the images are of things that are clearly very unusual.
The questions surrounding the UFO: were they, indeed, faked? Where do they come from? Who made them, how do they operate, who?s in them? have nothing to do with the fact that the object shown is an unknown. Which makes it a UFO.
There?s another reason why this lie put forth by skeptibunkies doesn?t work. No image of a UFO (or alien) is going to prove a thing.
The image itself may be proved to be genuine -- no evidence of faking, not in the least bit blurry, grainy, blobby or squiggly -- but what does it prove about UFOs? Nothing.
Just that they exist, which we already know. Duh. We?re still left with the questions of who, what, and why.
Let?s pretend CNN announces that there?s "authentic" footage of a landed UFO with some aliens standing around. How do we know it?s authentic? Because they said so? I hope we?re all beyond believing what we hear on the news as gospel. How do we know the whole thing wasn?t staged? We don?t. Some of us would believe it and take it for what it appears to be; others would demand more information, more evidence and data before accepting it as proof of extraterrestrial visitations.
Maintaining an either or stance concerning the UFO phenomena ensures no one has to go deeper into the UFO question. They?re either fakes, are they?re not. If they?re not, then what are they? UFOs. But since UFOs don?t exist, according to the debunker, since they?re all fakes. . .well, you can see where this is going.
UFOs are either from Mars or some place in space, or they?re not. Agreed. But the skeptibunkie likes to assume everyone means "flying saucers from outer space" -- the very idea which is ridiculous to them -- and so, no discussion need take place. (It?s possible UFOs are more than just one thing; some are from space, some are ours, some are something else even more astounding that ET.)
Putting aside the ET theory for now, where are UFOs from, what are they? Are they all military craft? If so, that?s still a pretty huge "wow!" that opens a lot of questions that demand answering, like: why are they flying over civilian areas, why are they in other countries restricted air space, why are civilians experiencing harm from these craft, and why isn?t our government held accountable, why don?t various government agencies know what to say to citizens when we call, why are they affecting our nuclear and military installations . . .
The skeptoid ignores these questions, and in fact, very often displays an astonishing naivet? and trust when it comes to our government.
This refrain that only blurry photos of UFOs exist from the debunker camp is just a distraction. It?s simply not the case.
http://uploads.neowin.net/forum/post-37120-1216908697.jpg
source (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/69191)