jeremy.vaeni@gmail.com wrote:

Hi, Rick. Here's a question for you:

Well, let me hear your story, then I absolutely promise you I'll have
an answer for you.

I once saw this craft with my mother and sister somewhere along the New
Hampshire/Vermont border.  [story snipped]

OK.

Assume for a moment that I'm not lying.

I'm willing to do that as one of several options, of course, as I
believe any reasonable person would.  I'm also willing to accept the
possibility that you aren't lying, even though I know:

a) how easy it is for people to lie about things no one can prove, and
b) how many people *do* lie about things they can't prove

Also - why, just because I'm a skeptic, and proud to be so, would *you*
assume that *I* assume everyone who claims to see UFOs is a liar?  If
we're gonna talk about this, you're going to have to lose the
Wholeflaffer-esque paranoia.

Contrary to the psychotic accusations of some, true skeptics aren't
cynics.  We're interested in one thing - the truth, which is
unattainable if you either believe or disbelieve without evidence.
THAT is the skeptic's creed, it's right.

What was it that we saw?

I don't know!  How the hell could I possibly know?  Even if I do assume
you aren't lying, I could only guess.  That's the only reasonable
answer a skeptic - i.e., a rational and intellectually responsible
person - could give you.  It might be from Lockheed.  It might be from
Alpha Centauri.  All I have is your story, and it's not nearly enough
to draw a responsible conclusion as to what it was.

What a reasonable skeptic would do now is narrow it down to
possibilities, and there are many here, including something of
extra-terrestrial origin.

It wasn't swamp gas.

I've always been amazed when this comes up as a counter-claim.  It's as
dopey as calling all sightings BS.  I wouldn't ever suggest this.
People who do aren't skeptics - they're idiots.  It's easy to see why
believers feel patronized when this is offered as a counter-claims.

It wasn't a mistaken planet. It wasn't a comet.

What sane person would claim it was?  You didn't hear that from me.

It wasn't a plane or a helicopter.

OK - here we differ.  Why wasn't it?  I don't know why it couldn't have
been, whether it was or not.  To me, it's one of many valid options.

Since you haven't told me anything about yourself other than that you
saw something once, I can't make any assumptions about your background
in aerospace engineering or other advanced engineering or sciences.  So
tell me: are you in fact qualified to make that assessment, by virtue
of an advanced degree and/or many many years doing research in the
field?  Just so you know: "it wasn't like any helicopter *I* ever saw"
does NOT qualify you as an authority.

It wasn't our imaginations.

Again, I'm will to add that to the list of possibilities.

My initial reaction to it was that it looked like a giant toy or had
to be some sort of lit flourescent ad or something.

And my reaction to things I don't understand is this: "it's something I
don't understand, and therefore at this time I'm not qualified by
virtue of my current knowledge to make a reasonable assessment."  That
is, by definition, is what "something I don't understand" means.  Any
assessment you make is going to be unreliable until you have more
facts.  True skeptics assume a absolutely true only the truths they can
verify.  Sometimes, it means telling people there's not enough
evidence.  Such is the price of intellect - sometimes, we have to do
more, and belief is never enough no matter how badly we want something
to be true.

Skepticism is healthy and necessary, but blind cynicism is just
narcissism in disguise.

OK - so don't assume someone who's a skeptic is a cynic, even someone
like me who loves being a skeptic and will never be anything else and
thinks everyone should be.  So far, if you've done that, that's your
bad.

Don't fall into the trap of having a belief
system that says "This stuff is a load of crap" because that's every
bit as invalid as the "true believer's" take.

Oh I promise, I won't.  I never have.  Now you do the same, OK?
Hopefully, you already are.

Both are belief systems
based on nothing more than what makes you feel comfortable.

Which doesn't make them equal by any means.  There's a feel-good notion
that "all ideas are equally valid."  That's a kind, sweet, and humane
notion.  It's also complete bullshit.

Like everyopne else with an opinion he cares enough about to voice
publically, I do think my ideas are superior to many people's ideas,
and my ideas do make me feel comfortable.  I can justify my comfort
though by proving irrefutably that I research everything I study
scrupulously.  I don't disbelieve things I can't prove; I just don't
accept them as necessarily true.  That's not the same thing.

There are also people whose ideas I often respect more than my own.  I
recognize with whom my beliefs can use a booster shot.  That's why I'm
so comfortable with my beliefs - they're based on an unwavering desire
to know the truth and nothing else.  Unlike the people I posted this
article to criticize, I don't assume any crackpot concurrence with my
ideas is validation.  Unlike them, I'm willing to abandon my beliefs
when the evidence overwhelms them (or the repeated lack of evidence
doesn't support them).

Of course I have the luxury of saying this to you because I'm not
lying.

AND because I wasn't there, and because I don't know you or your fellow
witnesses, and because you offer nothing but your testimony as
evidence, I have to consider you lying as an option!  Hopefully you
understand that.  If you're a reasonable person, you do.  I would
expect it from you if I told you something you didn't witness and I
offered you no evidence other than my testimony.

Because I recognize the possibility that you could be lying as an
option doesn't mean I'm accusing you, or that it's my prefered option.
But it is an option, and if you're going to play the science game, you
have no choice but to consider anything that's not impossible as a
option until it's given a trial.  That is skepticism - again, contrary
to the beliefs of those who simply want to promote an idea rather than
do the hard work of validating it.

My whole point of this origina post was this: belief is easy.
Therefore, it must always be challenged.  Of course I recognize the
perspective that cynicism is equally easy.  That's why I'm not a cynic
- I'm a skeptic.

We really did see that craft. If we didn't, who knows?

And since I didn't, and because you offer me nothing else to think
about, I can only conclude this: there are many, many, possible answers
to your original question, that question being "what did we see"?
Hopefully you understand why that *must* be true to someone else.  Even
within you own sphere of knowledge, assuming you did have the sighting
you claim, many options are possible.  Hopefully, you understand that
too.

 I might be taking your side.

Hopefully, you understand what *that* means too.  I'm not calling you a
liar any more than I'm accepting what you claim you saw was of
extra-terrestrial origin.  I AM saying that both things are equally
possible without knowing anything else, along with many other equally
possible things.

OK - now do you know where I'm coming from?

Rick
www.ricksongs.com