What I am questioning foremost is the thought process behind today's skepticism when we know that there is an undeniable mission to suppress or invalidate anything unexplainable. It has become second nature in fact. Your whole life has been filled with information which casts doubt on the existence or indeed possibility of anything besides ourselves.
Why would something unexplainable need to be suppressed? Unexplianable means it's impossible to come to a conclusion. The matter remains unexplained. Most of the skeptics I know have no problem admitting when something is inconclusive. Offering possible explanations is no different than offering up the idea of UFO's. Favoring the most plausible explanation, that is the explanation which makes the fewest new assumptions, is proper logic unless and until new information comes to light. What is not proper is to say this inexplicable thing is explained by aliens.
It is no secret that as soon as anything weird happens there is a government agency trying to explain things away in a trivial way, why is that? Ever think of that? You claim that MUFON is as reputable as can be yet I provide a link to an Organization of people who are former members of MUFON who have first hand experience of being in the movement and have come to realize it has been infiltrated by disinformation experts, to the point they feel the need to regroup and create a new MUFON. They must be racists as well?
So the people who disinform make no secret about it? They infiltrate UFO groups, spread lies and suppress information but it's no secret to anybody? If they are too incompetent to hide their presents then why would they be any more competent when it comes to disinformation? I hear about weird stuff happening all the time yet I rarely hear a government organization stepping in to explain it. Even in this case, what agency is taking down the videos or suppressing them? The video you posted has been up since Feb 2011. What government group has debunked it?
I could easily turn the argument around. I could say that there is hard evidence that these videos were faked but that evidence is being suppressed by the powerful UFO groups which have infiltrated government and academic establishments.
I showed with links how the morality of Popular Mechanics is dubious because of it's owners who just happen to be high ranking ex CIA. Why is that not good enough for you to apply that same doubt or question you wax lyrical about?? They even go so far as to try and do a headline piece that validated the twin towers dropping from fire and nothing else, how do you expect them to have any semblance of credibility after that.
Because it is a non-sequitor. Ad Hominem attacks mean nothing to me, I am interested in the logic and evidence. I am also aware that conspiracy theory logic
always manages to take evidence against the theory and turn it into evidence for the theory, via the conspiracy. IOW if people are offering worldly explanations, it only shows how desperate they are to cover it up. If popular mechanics offers plausible theories which do not agree with the conspiracy, then they must be part of it themselves! That is the very definition of unfalsifiable.
We cannot argue over the fact that there are people tasked especially to spread disinfo, what I am most skeptical about though is how the average man is subdued via mass media to think their way, and I'm sorry to say it but when your only source of information you choose to link is via mainstream media outlets like ABC or the Discovery channel then I am naturally going to be suspicious of your thought process and who you choose to align yourself with.
Critical thinking in the media is virtually non-existent. The media jumps at any chance to sensationalize a story. Show me the news story about strange lights that doesn't favor an extraterritorial explanation. Show me the ghost hunter who says an EM anomaly is just a coincidence. The spin for any sort of ghost, ufo, bigfoot, ect video in the news is that it might be real. The media always likes to say that scientists are baffled, shocked and amazed. The media promotes alternative medicine, psychic children, haunted houses, demonic possession, belief in God... all with no semblance of integrity and only the slightest nod to any skeptical opinion. Sylvia Brown and other mediums make their way on to talk shows weekly and are allowed to pretend to talk to people's dead relatives. When is the last time a skeptical guest was invited to Oprah or Montel? In movies and tv shows, skeptics and scientists are often portrayed as the bumbling non-believer who gets it in the end. Even agent Scully was written as the fool scientists who couldn't see the forest for the trees. From 'in search of' to 'unsolved mysteries' to 'sightings' to the dozens and dozens of paranormal shows on tv today, skepticism has never been popular and is rarely promoted. The overwhelming message from Hollywood is that believing in something hard enough makes it true, that faith is a virtue and something to be proud of, that something is out there!
I also cast doubt on what we today call rationality which seems to have replaced critical thinking with a quick unthoughtful explanation of everything because that would require more time than we are willing to allocate. Where's my Jersey shore....
I've never seen Jersey Shore. Skepticism is a tool of investigation, and careful investigation often dispels mystery. No investigation has ever uncovered magic, aliens, ghosts, ect. There has never been any phenomena which went from 'unexplained' to 'explained' without the benefit of science. And of course skepticism is a built in tool of science.
Regarding the link you provide of the dome of the rock....in the viewer responses you have almost entirely a position that the article is inaccurate and does not disprove anything, what does that say about general consensus regarding the article and the people who took the time to express their opinions? I suspect you found the article in a quick search, read the first paragraph and decided it was good enough to support your point of view.
Where as I took the time to read the whole thing including the viewership responses.
Are you suggesting argument from popularity is valid? I listen to credentials, not opinions of anonymous internet commenters. I thought the article revealed some interesting points, points which would suggest a wordily explanation. For example, the light from the object seems bright yet does not reflect off the dome. Either this is a mistake and evidence of tampering, or else these aliens possess some sort of light that breaks the rules of physics. It is possible aliens might have done that, but it is not more plausible than hoax. Occam's razor and all.
My agenda is to find the truth about such matters, I am not interested in propping up a fallacy which includes the faking of ufos and aliens, how does that benefit the average man on the street?
By the way you will notice that I take the time to address all of the points you raise because I am interested in the debate for the sake of getting more insight, however I notice that you seem only to respond with a generalized response. If this is about who is right or wrong then why should we bother.
If you think I am the type to shy away from an argument then you haven't read many of my posts. However I don't see what insight you can gain from me if you have already accepted a global propaganda ghost in the machine. I am not biased. I will accept alien visitation as an explanation if the evidence is there. But when we have competing explanations for any given phenomena which equally explain the evidence we are smart to favor the one which assumes the least. When something is unexplained, it is irresponsible to call it anything other than unexplained.
