Why does the U.F.O. skeptic treat all all evidence as equally not evidence?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TzarChasm

What???

Of course they're very much in the science phase, who claimed we will be on ships going at warp drive tomorrow?? That makes ZERO SENSE.

there is a big difference between working out the kinks in a prototype and figuring out how, hypothetically, who the hell you could get to fund this crazy idea that is basically a drawing and a couple of equations scribbled on a napkin. the former is what you are trying to make it sound like, the latter is what is actually happening.

originally posted by: EnPassant

There are craft in the sky and they are associated with intelligent beings. Whether these beings are alien is harder to prove or argue for but there is certainly an intelligence here.

But isn't it also an assumption to suggest they are a craft, and then to assume they are also associated with intelligence being in some way?

I think the vast majority of Skeptics suggest that they could be aliens but it is not proven as an absolute, and believers see it only as an absolute...


Also whether true or not a huge amount of this phenomena has been socially created and what may be real and socially create has been blended together.

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: neoholographic
Part of the problem with sceptics and debunkers is that they take a view of ufology as a whole, in the same way they would view a single case; it's anecdotal.

But there is a qualitative difference between a single case - no matter how strong - and the entire phenomena that has emerged. The phenomena, as a whole, affords a different approach than would be taken with a single case.

For example, there are themes that have emerged from different sources. Themes such as the description of the greys, stalling car engines, the strange staring procedure the greys do with people, and so on. It is on this level that the phenomena should be addressed; how the picture builds up in terms of similarities, themes, and patterns.

Also, an important question sceptics should ask is If it is not aliens/interdimensional beings, then what is it? I have looked at this question and I am convinced that there is no alternative hypothesis. The alternative explanations simply don't hold together.

There are craft in the sky and they are associated with intelligent beings. Whether these beings are alien is harder to prove or argue for but there is certainly an intelligence here.

Good points.

The point is these U.F.O.'s are unidentified because the most like explanation is blindly rejected. There's no reason for these U.F.O.'s to remain unidentified unless they're controlled by intelligent beings.

If you factor in the most likely explanation then you will no longer have U.F.O.'s because most of these cases will be explained.

When you replace the most likely explanation with "It can be anything" then you will never explain them and they will remain unidentified.

a reply to: neoholographic

The point is these U.F.O.'s are unidentified because the most like explanation is blindly rejected.

another problem is that a lot of people like to take one sole piece of evidence and say it obviously leads to this, which clear means that, and it logically follows that this thing is really that thing and that could only be because of this and next thing you know, a whole pile of theories with no way of testing them. lots and lots and lots of assumptions in other words. eyewitness accounts. no physical evidence besides tracks. no actual vehicle or recording of an inhabitant from one. lots of circumstantial and hearsay and oral accounts. this is evidence, yes, but evidence of what? some weird crap is going on. other than that, WE DONT KNOW. and pretending we do really hurts the case you are making here. yes, it deserves investigation. but an HONEST one.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TzarChasm

What???

Of course they're very much in the science phase, who claimed we will be on ships going at warp drive tomorrow?? That makes ZERO SENSE.

there is a big difference between working out the kinks in a prototype and figuring out how, hypothetically, who the hell you could get to fund this crazy idea that is basically a drawing and a couple of equations scribbled on a napkin. the former is what you are trying to make it sound like, the latter is what is actually happening.

You sound ridiculous and this is just a slap in the face of Scientist working on this problem. For you to try to reduce it to equations on a napkin shows you don't have a clue what the equations mean or about the science behind them.

Just because you have a blind belief about U.F.O.'s doesn't mean you have to belittle scientific work that you know nothing about.

Do these papers look like a few equations on a napkin?

www.earthtech.org...

ntrs.nasa.gov...

www.universetoday.com...

members.shaw.ca...

I hate it when people try to belittle Science that have no understanding of the work these Scientist have accumulated. You do this because of your blind belief and it's silly to try and reduce this growing area of research to a few equations on a napkin.

a reply to: neoholographic

the "alcubierre drive" huh? funny enough, wikipedia has something to say about that:

In 2012, a NASA laboratory announced that they have constructed an interferometer that they claim will detect the spatial distortions produced by the expanding and contracting spacetime of the Alcubierre metric. The work has been described in Warp Field Mechanics 101, a NASA paper by Harold Sonny White. Alcubierre has expressed skepticism about the experiment, saying "from my understanding there is no way it can be done, probably not for centuries if at all".

In 2013, The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) a federally funded research and development center and NASA field center published results of a 19.6-second warp field from early Alcubierre-drive tests under vacuum conditions. Results have been reported as "inconclusive".

sounds like you might be getting ahead of yourself here.

and please refrain from commenting on my person specifically, i am not the topic here and i dont appreciate being insulted by people who clearly dont know what they are talking about. but thats for future reference, because im done with this act in the circus. you dont even have to respond to this post.

deuces.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Again, just nonsense.

This is how SCIENCE WORKS

That's how SCIENCE WORKS. You're not going to have warp drive tomorrow and it could be centuries away, never or 40 to 50 years away. The point is you don't know and that's why I posted the papers with research into different ways it can be done.

So to reduce it to a few equations on a napkin is ASININE.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm not making it personal I'm just pointing out how silly it is to try and reduce Scientific research to a few equations on a napkin when you don't understand what those equations mean.

You said it:

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: EnPassant
There are craft in the sky and they are associated with intelligent beings. Whether these beings are alien is harder to prove or argue for but there is certainly an intelligence here.

But isn't it also an assumption to suggest they are a craft, and then to assume they are also associated with intelligence being in some way?
I think the vast majority of Skeptics suggest that they could be aliens but it is not proven as an absolute, and believers see it only as an absolute...
Also whether true or not a huge amount of this phenomena has been socially created and what may be real and socially create has been blended together.

I think it is more than an assumption. There is a lot of evidence that suggests they are intelligently controlled craft. Social influence is likely to be minimal because if social influence - such as scfi movies - was that potent people would be seeing Spock, vampires, Dracula etc, so tv does not really influence what people are seeing.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: neoholographic
Part of the problem with sceptics and debunkers is that they take a view of ufology as a whole, in the same way they would view a single case; it's anecdotal.
But there is a qualitative difference between a single case - no matter how strong - and the entire phenomena that has emerged. The phenomena, as a whole, affords a different approach than would be taken with a single case.
For example, there are themes that have emerged from different sources. Themes such as the description of the greys, stalling car engines, the strange staring procedure the greys do with people, and so on. It is on this level that the phenomena should be addressed; how the picture builds up in terms of similarities, themes, and patterns.
Also, an important question sceptics should ask is If it is not aliens/interdimensional beings, then what is it? I have looked at this question and I am convinced that there is no alternative hypothesis. The alternative explanations simply don't hold together.
There are craft in the sky and they are associated with intelligent beings. Whether these beings are alien is harder to prove or argue for but there is certainly an intelligence here.

Good points.
The point is these U.F.O.'s are unidentified because the most like explanation is blindly rejected. There's no reason for these U.F.O.'s to remain unidentified unless they're controlled by intelligent beings.
If you factor in the most likely explanation then you will no longer have U.F.O.'s because most of these cases will be explained.
When you replace the most likely explanation with "It can be anything" then you will never explain them and they will remain unidentified.

I have come to believe, more or less, that things are what they seem to be because that is what they are. People are seeing something very close to the reality of what is there. What they see are craft that are occupied by beings that are not human. This view does not account for all the anomalies in the phenomena but it is the one that works best for me.

originally posted by: EnPassant

I think it is more than an assumption. There is a lot of evidence that suggests they are intelligently controlled craft. Social influence is likely to be minimal because if social influence - such as scfi movies - was that potent people would be seeing Spock, vampires, Dracula etc, so tv does not really influence what people are seeing.

So how do you explain the fact that 60 years ago we were talking about simple flying saucers and today they are complex machines if not influenced by a social evolution of the phenomena?

a reply to: neoholographic

Science is everything. Learn that.

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
a reply to: neoholographic
Science is everything. Learn that.

What about art, literature, religion, everyday experience that cannot be easily framed in scientific terms? It is not clear that science will answer everything.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Then people assume that also means billions of chances for aliens....

Actually, it does... the more planets the more chances there are...it's kind of like buying many lottery tickets...better chance of winning something.

True but does add a discriminator to the equation of advance life, unless you suggest that 80% or better of all exoplanets are within this range? If lets say 30% are within this range that kind of removes a large number that would not likely be able to evolve advance lifeforms.

Ahhh...actually...I'll give you that 80% for complex (advanced) life up to, but not including intelligent life like Humans...for Human style life I'll only give you 22%.

And, no...the Moon is not an absolute requirement for stability...only for the stability that is currently enjoyed. Without the Moon Earths orbit, etc. would still be stable, though vastly different.

How do you go all the way to suggest "complete with advanced sentient probably space faring life." that is a rather big jump don't you think? Evolution has a lot of dead ends due to bad traits and we still haven't even proved if too much intelligence is a bad trait or not.

How do I go all the way to suggest that? By taking into account the age of the star/planet. The Zetas Reticuli are a kind of strange pair. They kind of have two ages; When considering a star's age the motion is used, this is usually confirmed by an analysis of the star's color. In the case of the Zetas Reticuli, one method indicates 6+ billion years, the other method indicates only 3+ billion. The average of these is about the age of Earth...thus they are old enough to support an advanced sentient space-faring civilization...perhaps a bit ore advanced than Earth.

In any case we need about 5000 to 6000 degrees and some longevity to the star.

Yeah...pretty much...

As predators go humans are kind of slow and weak, can't say evolution got that part right. We almost went extinct as all other genus homos did.

Actually; as predators go...Humans have bee the Apex predator on Earth for a long time...no other animal hunts what-ever it pleases...(when was the last time your heard of a pack of Wolves hunting elephant?)

My point in all this is if you remove any one of my requirements the chance for evolution to have time to take simple life into complex life is greatly reduced.

And the reality is that; just because the probability is changed...even what we may characterize as a "vast" change is virtually nothing to the universe

Other planets have exactly the same probabilities as Earth, and given enough time, they will evolve remarkable things...also, many other planets in near by space (within 100ly) are far older than Earth...so the probability for them to have something "more" than what Earth has is actually rather good.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
a reply to: Harte

Come on Harte, we all know you believe in little green men.

But honestly, same question to you that I proposed to Phage. Out of the countless stories offered, do any of them point to something inexplicable? Not ET's mind you but just some serious unexplained woo woo.

If so, what? Not being facetious.

True or not, anecdotal evidence by its very nature in not repeatable and is thus not subject to the scientific method.

The fact is, perception is a real problem and that fact is often ignored by those with an urge to believe.

As to your specific question, not that I know of but I am by no means knowledgeable in this area. I just hang out in this section of the forum when it's slow over in the Ancient and Lost Civilizations section.

As a practitioner of critical thinking, I try to find fault with everything I read. That makes me look even more skeptical than I privately am, but it always leads to good conclusions. With UFOs, there is simply no evidence that these things (whatever they are) come from some other planet (or reality.) As far as I can tell, the most authoritative statement that one can make on the matter is that they are unexplained (or unidentified) lights in the sky.

originally posted by: RosinitiateIt would be interesting to see a thread where some of ATS's best "skeptics" (using the term lightly as it pertains to OP) sit down and discuss this topic without being "derailed" by "believers" just to see where it goes but with a fence sitter as a moderator to keep it from hitting a brick wall, you know....swamp gas lol.

This very thread opens with a strawman argument where skepticism is concerned - what with the claim that "all skeptics" treat "evidence" as if it weren't evidence. It is an extremely common ploy by true believers to attack strawmen when they can't logically connect their claims to reality. You see this all the time. A skeptic chimes in and then a believer will reply with some hogwash asserting the skeptic doesn't believe that extraterrestrial life is possible. Here in this thread it is established in the OP that skeptics are doing something faulty by not accepting ALL anecdotal evidence as "real" evidence. Other forms include asking a skeptic why he even posts in a thread, calling a skeptic a "paid disinfo agent," etc.

IMO, it seems obvious that skeptics are more interested in a topic than the true believers are, given that the skeptic takes the time to apply principles of reason and logic to a claim while the believer merely reads it and digests it - fitting it immediately into their fantasy world view.

I've said more than I meant to. Suffice it to say that no such thread as you suggest will ever happen on any forum because of butt-hurt believers.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
If you're up for it, my very first thread is about my "UFO" experience. What's your take on that?

As you might infer from reading the above, I don't believe it. And I haven't even read it!

Harte

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: EnPassant
I think it is more than an assumption. There is a lot of evidence that suggests they are intelligently controlled craft. Social influence is likely to be minimal because if social influence - such as scfi movies - was that potent people would be seeing Spock, vampires, Dracula etc, so tv does not really influence what people are seeing.

So how do you explain the fact that 60 years ago we were talking about simple flying saucers and today they are complex machines if not influenced by a social evolution of the phenomena?

I thought you were talking about cultural influences - tv affecting how people perceive things and images of flying saucers influencing people's perception and so on. Yes, things have evolved a bit. It is still not clear if they are regular physical craft or 'transmogrifications of matter' as Keel called them. But we still have craft with beings in them which is how it was perceived from the start.

On one hand we have the nuts-and-bolts view; flying saucers from another physical planet. On the other we have something more subtle; interdimensional beings. I don't like the term 'interdimensional' as it seems a bit redundant in the sense that it is the same as the traditional idea of spirits. If they are spirits then it seems we have a spiritual (interdimensional) realm; a spiritual world which these beings inhabit.

There have been thousands of books written about this spiritual realm and it is apparently inhabited by all kinds of beings; elementals, divas, saints, angels, pixies, familiars, demons etc.

The question now becomes Are some of these beings alien? Are they from another spiritual world? Are there native spirits and alien spirits? Given the descriptions of some of these beings it seems that some are alien. They seem different to the usual descriptions of spirits who seem native to this world.

a reply to: neoholographic

A scientific investigation into UFO's and non earth lifeforms is elusive in nature apparently. In this absence of evidence you get conjecture and opinion. Add to that people's appetite to learn that we are not alone and you have TV shows, movies, lectures, live events, etc. that feed that market.

That said, there does seem to be evidence out there to support the existence of other planets and possible lifeforms. But, the state of infighting within the UFO community (critics and proponents) slow down our research into the sightings we have here on earth (if indeed they are legitimate sightings).

If there are other lifeforms visiting us, I imagine they are wary of making contact since we act very immature as a species.

From my observation most skeptics have all ready made up their minds and think there is zero possibility of alien visitation. So they disregard all the evidence , while there is enough data historically proving otherwise. They are only engaging the subject to project disbelief.

There is a variety of reasons why many skeptics and debunkers think this way mainly due to indoctorination. Sometimes out of fear alone. This is a disservice to research. We must approach the subject with critical thinking while being receptive to the data. When they disregard the data and shrug it off with silly explanation like flying light houses , swamp gas , venus ect they have nothing to contribute. To them a trained observer such as pilots do not know the difference from venus and another air craft.

I know it can be irritating and annoying dealing with those types but it comes with the territory.

Just read the whole thread S+F...I'm starting to wonder if it could be scientifically possible to explain why we are the only life in the Universe given the Big Bang Theory. Considering the building blocks for life that later formed human beings and advanced technology all started from the Big Bang 14 billion years ago tells me there are going to be more human beings and advanced technology all over the Universe.

Given the difficulties in finding other life thus far by scientific community, I am willing to wager that if other intelligent life found us, they would be highly interested! I'm also willing to make another leap that finding Earth might be an extremely rare find and all life on Earth could be a science experiment by ET.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Logarock

That's right, everyone who disagrees with you has got to be working for the government.

Actually, that's just the thin edge of the wedge. The truth is, everybody except the UFO true believers is working for the government. The whole world is secretly conspiring to hide the truth from a few thousand UFO cultists.

My thanks to the OP for such an entertaining thread. Flag (but no star)!

Well you mentioned it or said it like that.....let me tell you that I have heard people threatened by government officials, officers, whatever they where to shut the f*ck up about what they saw or they would lose their job, their kids, their home and their wife. I heard this with my own ears and watched the jackasses mouth move as he spoke the words as I was about 12ft away.