A Methodical and Objective Approach!?

I have thought about this subject of whether or not there are aliens visiting us for quite a while. There are UFO's for sure, by definition, things that we just cannot indentify from our knowledge of available technology. I have suggested numerous times that these UFO's are our own technologies at work/play. Many of you disagree completely...either way, your views are respected by me, I hope you respect mine as also. But, what about a method of trying to figure it out in some more detail?? I suggest a slow, deliberate, methodical, deductive, maybe practical look into the phenomena in general!?

Many of you, Gazrok, Doc Velocity, Well, Drexon, Canada_EH, to name only a few..have added many great thoughts and responses to the possiblities from both standpoints. Can we start a thread hear to express why you believe in the evidence that you do? Not an arguement thread at all, think of it as a sort of back and forth methodical debate that will educate everybody involved (and lurkers). At ATS, we have the motto, "Deny Ignorance" and we all want to learn more..at least I do. We seem to have a very deep pool of intelligent thinkers who can often get frustrated with the thread killers, so how about keeping this thread on topic as much as possible and taking it in a very detailed and non-personal approach??

Sorry, about the length of the introduction, I just want to be as clear and open minded as possible. Thanks for your time, consideration, and replies...

Again, the purpose of this thread is to dicuss wether or not and why you think there may be aliens visiting us!

Peace, Mondogiwa

[edit on 24-3-2007 by Mondogiwa]

I guess if my opinion counts also. If you look at the "history" of UFO's, it is almost impossible to deny that they are both ours and theirs. The Germans seem to have been experimenting with advanced technology, very advanced, and "flying saucers". With that said, look at the universe we live in. It is impossible to say that there is no other life out there but ours. If the universe is so infinite, well as it seems, or is still expanding, that means that the possibilities of anything happening will happen. Even if it is a billion to one, the universe is infinite so infinity allows all possibilities. It is also possible that what we are seeing, or what people see could actually be interdimensional as well, and not just, extraterrestrial. One other thing, I can't explain some of the things I and friends have witnessed personally.

edit = added letter

[edit on 24-3-2007 by souls]

Originally posted by Mondogiwa
But, what about a method of trying to figure it out in some more detail?? I suggest a slow, deliberate, methodical, deductive, maybe practical look into the phenomena in general!?

1. There may be aliens.
2. They may be here.

1+2 -> There may be aliens here.

There you go!

I hate myself. I.. I really do sometimes. You'd think that after you've seen two UFOs, fairly up close, both displaying other worldly technology, you'd be a 'believer' for life, no? Well, it just so happens that I'm such a believer in possibilities, that I acknowledge the fact that my sightings could've been hallucinations.

So yeah, call me a biased fence sitter. I acknowledge that something Is going on, and that the probabilities well allow for the most popular theory of alien visitation to be true, but at the same time I just can't commit to it. I guess it's for a good cause though. It keeps you less biased and less prone to jump to conclusions... or at least so I'd like to think. My argumentation in the Chile UFO thread were all about me not seeing how the so called kite could do such perfect movements over and over again, and not because I wanted it to be an alien craft like apc believed. For me it comes down to what you can make out, and what level of evidence, proof it shows. It really tore me up inside when TallyUFO said the UFO he filmed made the typical 'turn on a dime', 90 degree type maneuvers just Before he started filming.

So there you go, my beliefs in all their unclarity.

The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:


Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
Quantify, wherever possible.
If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
"Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
Additional issues are
Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from "authority".
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.
Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

I know because I have been there and done that, just to lazy to make my own tee-shirt.

It's real, they are here and we have gotten technology from them, as them there Grey's say we are just evolving to slowly.

We call them extraterrestrials but maybe the government thinks they are covering themselves when they say they don't know extraterrestrails.... and they could be right. Our government knows the ones that are here so they would be terrestrial beings to them.

Words can work for you or against you, I think we all know that.

I think I just gave meself a headache as you can tell I ain't good with words.

Originally posted by Drexon
I hate myself. I.. I really do sometimes.

You'd think that after you've seen two UFOs, fairly up close, both displaying other worldly technology, you'd be a 'believer' for life, no? Well, it just so happens that I'm such a believer in possibilities, that I acknowledge the fact that my sightings could've been hallucinations.

Hallucinations or not, you'll get to see something one day where you'll say there you go, no doubt. Just yesterday my friend saw two of those red orbs stuck together just outside his house. Just keep looking at the sky!