Are U.F.O.'s really unexplained or unidentified?

reply to post by unb3k44n7


Thanks for posting that. It is really informative on word choice to avoid flaming and allow fluid communication.

intrptr
Their need to prove there is no proof is baseless because they can't prove they don't exist either.

Yeah... that's a popular fallacy around these parts.

reply to post by draknoir2

From the fallacy link you brought:

The negative proof fallacy is where one assumes something is true if it cannot be proven false. It can also happen when one assumes that something is false if it cannot be proven true.

Just so I got which side of your toast is up…

Are you saying that my story is fallacy because I can't "prove it"?

Or I should just shut up because I can't prove it?

Of course you need to remember I have the proof that I need for me regardless of what anyone else thinks-- my experience of the event. But I can't present you with any hard evidence of it. Maybe one day they will succeed in downloading portions of our memory for others to review.

YouTube memory of intrptrs UFO experience (number 1).

Then I can say, "There you guys… See ?!!"

Sorry, maybe its too early and I should go back to bed…

intrptr
reply to post by draknoir2

 

From the fallacy link you brought:

The negative proof fallacy is where one assumes something is true if it cannot be proven false. It can also happen when one assumes that something is false if it cannot be proven true.

Just so I got which side of your toast is up…

Are you saying that my story is fallacy because I can't "prove it"?

Or I should just shut up because I can't prove it?

Of course you need to remember I have the proof that I need for me regardless of what anyone else thinks-- my experience of the event. But I can't present you with any hard evidence of it. Maybe one day they will succeed in downloading portions of our memory for others to review.

YouTube memory of intrptrs UFO experience (number 1).

Then I can say, "There you guys… See ?!!"

Sorry, maybe its too early and I should go back to bed…

I'm saying the false equivalency you've drawn between proving a positive and the inability to prove a negative is a common logical fallacy employed in this forum.

Never said you should shut up.

reply to post by draknoir2


Okay, you're right the shut up part was a little off.

Thanks, I still don't get the double plus ungood logic…

To me it sounds like you just said everyone should shut up.

reply to post by boncho


Sorry I missed your post in the flurry. Thanks for that viewpoint. You pretty much nailed how it feels. I was restless sleeping last night.

All I kept tossing and turning in my mind was,

But its true!
But you have no proof.

It really happened!
No proof…

How can I convince you?
Proof…

Ones integrity is steadily eroded this way. I have no reason to lie. I am trying to brighten the horizon with my experience. But people just play the jury in court. Its fine if you bring already proven stuff, just don't bring anything else to the court of science minded people, they live in the same bubble that religious types dodo.

intrptr

Ones integrity is steadily eroded this way. I have no reason to lie.

Understandable, but you must also understand that absent reasonable proof the general public has no reason to believe you. That's just the way it is.

reply to post by draknoir2


Understood. Thanks for being patient with me.

I get that the general public sees no proof. You must understand as well that the general public hasn't seen these things. In their main stream, indoctrinated, generality, these are fairy tales.

Maybe you could entertain for a moment that this is by design. By the Paradigm. The earth powers that be want our noses to the grindstone for their benefit.

There is an underlying base reason (IMO) why they (we) continue to teach our children about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. I might also add Leprechauns and Superman. Our minds blank and our eyes glaze over at Christmas, Easter and every damn Sunday (in the Main Extreme).

Its not the "Aleeens" that are secretive, it is the damn government. "Logic" and the reenforcement of it is used in this case to insure our minds don't wander to far off the "general path".

The world is flat, here there be dragons….

reply to post by unb3k44n7


Right off the bat you start with a paragraph that makes no sense.

It's unexplained because there is not enough scientific evidence to tell us what they are and how they work etc.
"Actual UFOs" cannot be identified. This is why they they unidentified flying objects. We cant say they are "MOST LIKELY" craft flown by extraterrestrial beings because there is not enough solid evidence to prove that. Is it "POSSIBLE" - Yes. "MOST LIKELY" - No. I'd choose different words IMO.

"Solid evidence" is something that's subjective to you. You may not think there's any solid evidence but others may strongly disagree. There's more than enough evidence to reach a conclusion as to what's most likely vs. what's less likely. We do it all the time in all walks of life.

Juries in a trial could never reach a verdict if they didn't reach a conclusion as to what's most likeLY or what's less likely beyond any reasonable doubt.

Detectives reach a conclusion as to what's most likely and what's less likely based on the available evidence and then they investigate.

We do it all the time in science. We have to because we don't have the technology to test certain things. For example, the Higgs Boson has been debated for years before the LHC. Scientist came to a conclusion based on the available evidence and some debated that we would find the Higgs Boson while others said it wouldn't happen.

You said Parallel Universes is just hearsay. Again, this is just a lie. It's not just hearsay. There's evidence to support the conclusion that parallel universes exist. For instance, if you accept the Many Worlds Interpretation and you don't think collapse of the wave function occurs. There's a lot of math that points to this and some look at things like the recent data from Planck Satellite.

The point is, people are reaching conclusions based on available evidence. Not wishful thinking, not hearsay but "solid evidence" that they can look over and then say based on the available evidence this is what's most likely and this is probably less likely based on the evidence.

There's MOUNTAINS of evidence to look over and evaluate what's most likely or what's less likely the case with U.F.O.'s. Again, I say:

1. My own experience.

2. Alien Abductions

www.ufocasebook.com...

3. Close Encounters (these are of the 3rd kind)

www.ufoevidence.org...

4. Trace Evidence

www.ufoevidence.org...

5. The fact that Hawking, Kaku, Mitchell and many others have reached the conclusion that Aliens exist based on things like exoplanets and extremophiles. I can't limit the technology of an Alien Civilization based on our current understanding of Physics.

This is just a small portion of some of the evidence.

This is science. This is what we do all the time. If we didn't we couldn't debate the issues like quantum gravity, string theory, M-theory, the holographic principle, parallel universes and more. You reach a conclusion based on the available evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely then both sides are debated.

For instance, there's a lot of evidence that points to a universe with more than 4 dimensions. The things is we don't have the technology to confirm or deny this yet and this will be one of the things that's tested when the LHC is back up. Well, scientist don't just stick their heads in the sand and say we can't reach a conclusion as to what's most likely or what's less likely. They debate these issues all the time and some have come to a conclusion that we must live in a world with more than 5 dimensions in order to make certain observations or scientific theories work.

There's no reason why you can't reach a conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred and some of these UFO's have an extraterrestrial origin based on the available evidence. The problem is most people dismiss evidence in favor of a personal belief. If you stick your head in the sand and ignore abduction cases, trace evidence, close encounters, video, pictures and more of course you can live in denial because you're just dismissing evidence not based on any logic or reason but a pre-existing belief about the subject.

There's growing evidence that we're extraterrestrials based on Panspermia. Some have reached the conclusion that Panspermis has occurred and some support Abiogenesis. So you have a debate on this issue BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE REACHED A CONCLUSION AS TO WHAT'S MOST LIKELY AND WHAT'S LESS LIKELY BASED ON THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

reply to post by neoholographic

Right off the bat you start with a paragraph that makes no sense.

K.

neoholographic


"Solid evidence" is something that's subjective to you. You may not think there's any solid evidence but others may strongly disagree.

Solid evidence is objective, not subjective.


Possibly this is the source of your confusion.

reply to post by draknoir2


Of course it is subjective in many cases.

For instance, I recently watched a debate on the Multiverse. Once scientist saw solid evidence that we lived in some sort of multiverse. The other scientist didn't see it that way and they saw evidence for a Cyclical universe instead of a multiverse. Both presenting evidence they thought was solid to support their conclusion.

Like I said, this occurs all the time in science and other walks of life.

draknoir2

neoholographic


"Solid evidence" is something that's subjective to you. You may not think there's any solid evidence but others may strongly disagree.

Solid evidence is objective, not subjective.


Possibly this is the source of your confusion.

Can just say there is no point trying to install any rationale or logic in this thread. The OP has decided and that is that.
Everything has been answered over and over as best that can be explained in language.
Two possibilities exist now...

1. Aliens bro
2. Keep hoping for aliens bro

reply to post by UltraverseMaximus


This whole thread is about reason and logic.

Sadly, some skeptics don't use reason and logic when it comes to ufology. Logic is thrown out.

Again, in science and and in other walks of life we use the available evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

If I can reach conclusions based on the available evidence with Parallel universes, a holographic universe or Hawking Radiation, why can't I use it with the mountains of evidence in ufology?

Sadly, many UFO skeptics are scared to even say there's evidence. It gets this bad. People are so insecure in their own position they can't even admit that people intelligently look at the available EVIDENCE and reach a conclusion as to what's most likely and what's less likely like we do all of the time.

neoholographic
reply to post by UltraverseMaximus

 

This whole thread is about reason and logic.

Sadly, some skeptics don't use reason and logic when it comes to ufology. Logic is thrown out.

You seem to have a Tourettes-like tick where you keep repeating the two words with which you are least familiar.

I've noticed it in other threads. Either get a new catch phrase or learn the actual meaning of it.

reply to post by draknoir2


What??

I keep repeating it because the skeptics on this thread avoid what I'm saying like it's the plague.

For instance, why can't I reach a conclusion based on what's most likely vs what's less likely based on the available evidence. We simply do this all the time. You may reach a different conclusion based on EVIDENCE.

The fact that many skeptics are scared of the word EVIDENCE when it comes to these areas is telling.

In most debates I take part in people use EVIDENCE to debate a proposition. They use evidence to reach a conclusion as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

What's so controversial by stating something so simple that we do everyday.

reply to post by neoholographic


what??

Nothing you said makes any sense.

which is very typical of confused people.

Your arguments all come down to how YOU define words.

in the last thread, you used identity and describe interchangeably.

now conclusion and opinion.

How do you define "evidence"? My opinion is that there is no evidence of ET. The evidence that you point to, in my opinion, represents evidence of a social phenomenon. Why do you have a problem with other people that have different opinions then yours? You start off expressing how everyone can have their own opinions but blast everyone who expresses their opinions. Why?

Personally, I think it is perfectly fine to believe, speculate or imagine ET is here. It is also fine to believe in other earthly explanations. I think everyone agrees that there is some unknown phenomenon. If its "unknown" how can it be evidence of something that is unknown?

Why do you disagree?

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


You said:

If its "unknown" how can it be evidence of something that is unknown?

Of course there's evidence. Saying something is unknown doesn't mean you can't evaluate the EVIDENCE as to what's most likely vs what's less likely.

This is science and just basic common sense. Why are some skeptics so scared of the word evidence. For instance, quantum gravity is unknown but scientist come to conclusions as to what quantum gravity is most likely to look like if it's discovered. Some scientist reach a conclusion that it will not be discovered.

Parallel universes are unknown but that doesn't stop scientist from reaching conclusions about how they will look.

UFO's are unidentified flying objects that doesn't mean you can't look at the available evidence and reach a conclusion as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

Here's a debate with Atheist and Scientist Lawrence Krauss. Now, I disagree with a lot of what Krauss says but he makes a statement in this debate that's very true to science.

He says as a Scientist, I can only talk about what's likely and what's not likely. How can he determine this? It's based on the available evidence. This is something we do all the time. The debate was Does Science Refute God and on a side note, Dinesh D'Souza handed him his hat in the debate but check out starting at 1:03. Krauss says as a Scientist I can say is this likely or not likely.

Again, it's not about BELIEF in extraterrestrial visitation. In science it's about what's the most likely explanation or unlikely explanation based on the available evidence and often two sides comes to different conclusions based on the evidence and you have good debates.



Again, coming to a conclusion as to what's likely vs what's less likely based on the available evidence happens all the time.

For some reason some UFO skeptics have a problem with the word EVIDENCE in these areas and that's because of blind belief.

reply to post by neoholographic

As expected, you are not really answering the questions. You are just squabbling over the definition of a word and labeling people that disagree with you. At any rate, the discussion is pointless. My opinion,belief, conclusion, feeling is that there is no evidence of ET because I understand things differently. Get over it.

Hi, I'm new here. I'm fairly sure my post doesn't belong in this thread, but the stickies I've found haven't been updated for a few years and are locked for comments. I'm looking for good, fairly recent documentaries on UFOs and ETs if anyone can please steer me in the right direction? Google searches throw up all manner of junk and it's quite arduous to sift through :/ Sorry if this is in the wrong place, but this seems the most relevant thread to go to, without necro-ing old threads that are already covered by old stickies.

Thanks, SlowNail