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

When you get people looking up to people like James Randi, looking at him like a saviour , you know something is not right here.

The debunking groups have turned to a new age religion in itself. These people pay money to ho to these skeptic conferences, just to heat people laugh and joke about paranormal cases!

What does that tell you?

a reply to: Jonjonj

Easy-peasy

a reply to: tanka418

Ufology, as you put it, most certainly IS testable!

Any suggestions on how to do that?

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
my point stands and discussing other members violates T&C, if you really wish to discuss it (which I doubt) U2U me.

Harte was discussing what I had said, not me personally, and either way, I have no problems with it.

a reply to: neoholographic

The U in UFO stands for 'Unidentified' and some people forget that.

If we knew the origins of these 'craft' then we would calling them APFO's (Advanced project flying objects) or ETFO's (extraterrestrial flying objects) or even DDFO's (Domestic Drones Flying Overhead)

Just because a light in the sky is Unidentified doesn't mean it is alien in origin.

a reply to: DJW001

You said:

Don't forget "dark energy" and String Theory. No physicist thinks that any of the things on this list are necessarily true, because there is no evidence in support of them;

That's just false. Physicist come to conclusions on these things all the time and they think these things are true. Leonard Susskind has come to the the conclusion that the Holographic Principle is correct based on the available evidence.

Max Tegmark has come to the conclusion that the multiverse exists and he thinks this is the case based on the available evidence.

Stephen Hawking thinks Hawking radiation is correct based on the available evidence.

Before the Higgs Boson was discovered, many Physicist reached the conclusion that the Higgs exist based on the available evidence.

This occurs all the time in Science in every field of study.

The same think can occur with the evidence in Ufology. There's enough evidence to reach a conclusion as to what's the most likely explanation for the aerial phenomena called U.F.O.'s based on the available evidence and it's ASININE to treat every piece of evidence associated with this subject as equally no evidence.

It's ASININE to treat every eyewitness account as equally unreliable and that's my point.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
When you get people looking up to people like James Randi, looking at him like a saviour , you know something is not right here.

The debunking groups have turned to a new age religion in itself. These people pay money to ho to these skeptic conferences, just to heat people laugh and joke about paranormal cases!

What does that tell you?

EXACTLY!1

It's a belief system and has nothing to do with evaluating the available evidence with any common sense.

a reply to: neoholographic

I think the problem is, while there are a lot of very convincing incidents, involving police, pilots, military personel and even some mass sightings, there are also a huge amount of totally bogus sightings and hoaxes. Unfortunately people tend to lump them all together. I do believe in the phenomena, as I personally saw a "UFO" that was less than 100 feet from me in 1967, a lavender, rotating egg shaped object about 20 feet in diameter, that made no sound, and flew slowly over the parking lot i was riding my bike in, in broad daylight, the whole sighting lasted less than a minute. It WAS a UFO. Was it an alien spacecraft? I dont know. All I know is I saw something unidentified. But because I dont really know what it was, I would never speculate and say it was an alien craft. And I have no proof that I even saw it. This is not enough for some people.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: tanka418

Ufology, as you put it, most certainly IS testable!

Any suggestions on how to do that?

It appears that you want "general terms", so; general terms it is; use science

Or better yet; "math or what ever they do".

Or almost anything else that doesn't involve willful ignorance...In other words; don't use skeptic/ debunker methods; use real science.

a reply to: neoholographic

As a Theoretical Physicist, it get's under my skin the way people use this term whenever they want to look like they're being scientific.

To paraphrase Sideshow Bob "the is no Nobel prize for theoretical Ufology"

Like I said, the U in UFO stands for Unidentified, but some automatically assume that UFO's are Extraterrestrial in nature and there is no evidence to suggest that is the case. If you take it a face value, a light in the sky is just a light in light in the sky until proven otherwise. I've had my own experience with high strangeness and I believed that it could've been the result of something that I do not understand, but I could've been wrong.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: neoholographic

The U in UFO stands for 'Unidentified' and some people forget that.

If we knew the origins of these 'craft' then we would calling them APFO's (Advanced project flying objects) or ETFO's (extraterrestrial flying objects) or even DDFO's (Domestic Drones Flying Overhead)

Just because a light in the sky is Unidentified doesn't mean it is alien in origin.

It stands for Unidentified that doesn't mean you can't weigh the evidence as to what's the most like explanation for these things.

Why are U.F.O.'s still Unidentified?

After all these years and the VOLUMINOUS records of accounts, why do we still have all of these unidentified flying objects in our sky that we can't identify?

We can discover exoplanets, do research on comets and meteors, send satellites to the asteroid belt and more yet these things remain unidentified?

Why?

The reason this is the case is because the best explanation for the VOLUMINOUS RECORD associated with Ufology points to extraterrestrial visitation and intelligent control of these U.F.O.'s.

When a Pilot has one of these U.F.O.'s locked on radar and then it maneuvers in a way that the Pilot has never seen before and it just vanishes, what's the most likely explanation?

When a U.F.O. appears at a nuclear facility and everything malfunctions, what's the most likely explanation?

When you have close encounters and alien abductions involving these U.F.O.'s, what's the most likely explanation?

The only way you can deny the obvious is to stick your head in the sand and say it could be anything. Saying it could be anything isn't evidence of anything. So when you take the most likely explanation for the aerial phenomena of U.F.O.'s and you give more weight to the non answer that it could be anything then U.F.O.'s will remain unidentified until people take their heads out of the sand and accept the most likely explanation or the most likely explanation gives us no choice but to accept it.

a reply to: neoholographic


DJW001:

Don't forget "dark energy" and String Theory. No physicist thinks that any of the things on this list are necessarily true, because there is no evidence in support of them.

You:

That's just false. Physicist come to conclusions on these things all the time and they think these things are true.

A theoretical physicist like yourself would be well aware of Ed Wittens efforts to unify the many string theories into M theory and that includes the heterotic string and Sugra.

originally posted by: neoholographic
We can discover exoplanets, do research on comets and meteors, send satellites to the asteroid belt and more yet these things remain unidentified?

Did you know that it is actually rather easy to detect an exoplanet. Seriously...it is rather ease, and doesn't require a lot of expensive equipment...just time.

Why?

Afraid I have to reiterate: "scientists have no balls!" They are overly concerned with status and career rather than finding of truth.

The reason this is the case is because the best explanation for the VOLUMINOUS RECORD associated with Ufology points to extraterrestrial visitation and intelligent control of these U.F.O.'s.

When a Pilot has one of these U.F.O.'s locked on radar and then it maneuvers in a way that the Pilot has never seen before and it just vanishes, what's the most likely explanation?

When a U.F.O. appears at a nuclear facility and everything malfunctions, what's the most likely explanation?

When you have close encounters and alien abductions involving these U.F.O.'s, what's the most likely explanation?

The only way you can deny the obvious is to stick your head in the sand and say it could be anything. Saying it could be anything isn't evidence of anything. So when you take the most likely explanation for the aerial phenomena of U.F.O.'s and you give more weight to the non answer that it could be anything then U.F.O.'s will remain unidentified until people take their heads out of the sand and accept the most likely explanation or the most likely explanation gives us no choice but to accept it.

Do you know what scientists call; "the most likely explanation?"
They actually have more than one term, depending on the state of research...

In the beginning they will call it "Hypothesis"...this allows them to further define, and develop tests, and predictions. If all that begins t "work out" they may elevate the idea to: "Theory"...meaning they have collected a body of consistent data that begins to explain what the hell they were looking at in the first place.

What we get to see in reality is science paying absolutely no attention, and a bunch of people with little to no scientific education or training beyond high school trying to do their job for them. And while some of us actually do have the education and training, our voice is frequently drown out by the cries and heckling of those who are afraid to observe.

Hence the whole affair goes no where. AND, what could be the most significant event in Terrestrial Human history, goes in realized.

originally posted by: neoholographic
All evidence is equally no evidence and that just shows that many of them are guided by belief not common sense. Like you said, in the end this is what they do. Bury their heads in the sand and deny and give all evidence equal weight as no evidence and unreliable.

It is not the evidence we ignore, it is the leap of faith claims that the evidence is aliens. I have always asked...Why aliens, why not angels or fairies? All have about the same amount of proof...

a reply to: tanka418

This is just wrong.

Scientist reach conclusions based on the available evidence all the time. In many cases they have to because the technology may not be available to test their theory even though the underlying accumulation of evidence supports their theory.

There's a VOLUMINOUS RECORD OF EVIDENCE in Ufology and this evidence like most evidence points to a most likely explanation if you just use common sense. We weigh the evidence as to what's most likely based on the available evidence all of the time.

With Ufology, people will often say "It could be anything" even though the evidence points to a most likely explanation. So of course these things remain unidentified.

Also, exoplanets prove my point. If it was so easy, why weren't we discovering exoplanets 100 years ago? Why didn't we start discovering exoplanets when Scientist first hypothesized that there were other planets outside of our solar system?

We didn't do it because we didn't have the technology.

At the end of the day, "It could be anything" isn't evidence of anything. Why should I give more weight to it could be anything over the explanation of extraterrestrial visitation when extraterrestrial visitation is the most likely explanation?

The only reason U.F.O.'s are unidentified is because people blindly reject the most likely explanation. These U.F.O.'s have been in our sky's for years and the record is VOLUMINOUS yet these things are still unidentified???

That makes no sense.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: neoholographic
All evidence is equally no evidence and that just shows that many of them are guided by belief not common sense. Like you said, in the end this is what they do. Bury their heads in the sand and deny and give all evidence equal weight as no evidence and unreliable.

It is not the evidence we ignore, it is the leap of faith claims that the evidence is aliens. I have always asked...Why aliens, why not angels or fairies? All have about the same amount of proof...

This statement makes no sense in light of current Scientific understanding.

You have Scientist saying Aliens almost certainly exist. In fact, the person considered one of the most brilliant minds of our time(Hawking) said IT'S ALMOST CERTAIN that Aliens exist. He said this based on the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

He didn't say fairies or angels almost certainly exist. So when you're looking at the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE extraterrestrial visitation is the most likely explanation.

The reason U.F.O.'s remain unidentified is because of the blind rejection of the most likely explanation. When you remove common sense of course you can say,"It could be anything" in face of the evidence that points to a most likely explanation.

originally posted by: neoholographic

What's the most likely explanation?

Where you error is that your core belief is that aliens are real and so what should be at best an assumption or speculation about an event is actually considered real fact.

1. Life in general is throughout the universe, space fairing humanoid aliens is a human concept.
2. The universe is vast, and we are in it, so there is most likely other intelligent life out there too, but remember the universe is vast, so what creates the situation for other intelligent life also creates the situation where there is extreme distance between these intelligent life forms is at a point they will never meet.
3. Advance life is most likely not so common. When you look at all the factors that that go into how advance life can evolve on earth it is truly amazing. Add high intelligence to the mix and it seems earth did it once in 4.5 billion years, and we will not even talk about opposable thumbs too...hehe
4. There is no set pattern for life, so on another planet the chances of a humanoid life form is most likely astronomical, but it seems all aliens are humanoid like..Hmmm If earth didn't reset advance life 650 million years ago we would most likely see much more diversity here too.

originally posted by: neoholographic
You have Scientist saying Aliens almost certainly exist. In fact, the person considered one of the most brilliant minds of our time(Hawking) said IT'S ALMOST CERTAIN that Aliens exist. He said this based on the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

Here is the question of the day... What is the single evidence that intelligent aliens are out there...There is just one...

Answer: Humans, we are proof, but that is it.

Hawking also said....so might as well not just cherry pick... That IF we are ever visited by aliens it would not go well for us, so according to Hawking, since we are still here then we have not been visited yet...

a reply to: neoholographic

That's kind of my point...we have more than enough viable, high confidence data to begin to form hypothesis, and begin testing those hypothesis. Yet, most simply wish to stand around and deny reality.

By the way; 100 years ago...large exoplanets could have been detected with the available technology...however, they didn't know how to apply what they had...And, here's a funny thing, they probably did, but thought the star was "variable" and sort of dismissed it at that.

And even better...IF you had suggested that the variable star was actually the host to a planet, and the planet was the source of the variability...you would be received about as well as UFO/ET experiencers are today. With all due ridicule...

originally posted by: neoholographic

The reason U.F.O.'s remain unidentified is because of the blind rejection of the most likely explanation. When you remove common sense of course you can say,"It could be anything" in face of the evidence that points to a most likely explanation.

You are a believer, we get it, so stop using the acronym incorrectly, or maybe the acronym should be removed from the English language since we have proved they are aliens.