Why Do People Believe in UFOs?: A Discovery News Trash Piece

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

Let me give you a hypothetical situation: Let's say an object in the sky flies in, makes a 90 degree turn, comes to a complete stop and takes off at a high rate of speed. In your mind, is it at all possible that what was seen could be an un-maned, remotely controlled, human-made object? Something created by these underground "black project" operations that are brought up by people like yourself. If you do think it's a possibility, explain why the extraterrestrial possibility would be a more plausible explanation?

Don't mis-characterize my position with such an absurd hypothetical, trying to paint my view-point as reaching out to extremes it simply doesn't. You've pulled that same disingenuous move in other threads too. Do you think Feynman, from your avatar, would endorse such intellectual chicanery? He was not big on that kind of B.S., as you must know.....

To answer your question, OF COURSE something human-made would have to be seriously considered here in 2012. Where have I stated otherwise? I've said clearly, several times, that I think a very small percentage of UFOs over the history of the phenomenon are best explained by the ETH... all the while recognizing that it is of course not proven. It's simply a working hypothesis, or "more likely than not" approach. And yes, modern technology complicates the analysis of any new or recent sighting in several ways. (The improvements in human aviation tech, especially of smaller vehicles, and the improving software which allows for easy hoaxing.)

On the other hand, if we modify your hypothetical a bit and say it's 1950, not 2012, then my professional experience in aviation-related fields kicks in and says "no way could anything man-made do what's being described there." I wonder if you realize how huge of a leap it would be in human aviation technology were we to build a substantially sized machine which could dart around like a hummingbird -- hover, then zip to a new place, stop in an instant, hover some more, zip to a new place, stop in an instant, etc..... Show me any evidence you have that we can build anything close to that even now, let alone 65 years ago. Any. To me it seems that those who consider the man-made craft hypothesis to have always been seriously viable are not even aware of what actually makes an airplane or helicopter fly.

Also, do you understand the difference between proof and evidence? This is the second time you've seemed to confuse them. It's a little silly to keep pointing out the obvious -- that no explanation is proven -- when there are very few serious people around here who would argue otherwise.

Finally, like Druscilla, you should remember that the entirety of the UFO phenomenon is not that which exists here on ATS. She has freely admitted in the recent "Top Ten Books" thread that she owns not a single UFO book. It's entertainment for her. Great. But if ignorant of UFO history, how seriously should a person's opinions be taken? I have my suspicions that you, too, are not so familiar with UFO history. And note that I'm not simply assuming you're not; there's decent evidence in support of that. Including your above hypothetical.

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
Let me give you a hypothetical situation: Let's say an object in the sky flies in, makes a 90 degree turn, comes to a complete stop and takes off at a high rate of speed. In your mind, is it at all possible that what was seen could be an un-maned, remotely controlled, human-made object?

This is not an opinion, explanation or a realistic possibility. So save your "so you think a man made UFO could......" responses. Purely a hypothetical question for TeaAndStrumpets to get a better understanding of his commitment level to an ET UFO connection .

By the way, I saw your request that I not delve into man-made aviation tech, Ectoplasm. Do you not think it's a little odd to pose a hypothetical to me whose central issue regards man-made aviation tech, but then request that I not address the limits of man-made aviation tech? Most high-school debate team members recognize that rhetorical tactic for what it is.

So what you really just said to me was this: "Do you think it's possible that man-made technology could be responsible for this type of movement? And in answering that, don't you dare highlight my ignorance regarding man-made aviation tech, or my lack of appreciation for the full spectrum of UFO history."

Sorry, but you don't get to define the parameters of my answer to a fundamentally flawed hypothetical. This is not a court-room. However, note that despite your childish rhetorical tactics, I did answer your hypothetical directly and truthfully.

If you'd truly like to get a better idea of from where my opinions on the UFO matter spring, Ectoplasm, then read the following. (And keep in mind that before I encountered such writings, I was a die-hard skeptic. But an uninformed skeptic.)
--The Condon Report
--The Blue Book Special Reports, especially #14
--The writings of Dr. J. Allen Hynek
--The writings of Dr. James McDonald
--The substance of the late-60's U.S. Congressional "Symposium on UFOs"
--Dr. Peter Sturrock's studies and findings from the 70s through 90s
--Ruppelt's classic "Report on UFOs"
--Sagan and Page's "UFOs: A Scientific Debate"
--To a slightly lesser extent (due to some reservations as to motivation), David R. Saunders' book "UFOs? Yes", addressing the inner-workings of the Colorado Project / Condon Report

I compare the above to the many skeptical writings I've also read -- Davies, Sagan, Klass, Menzel, etc. -- and find that the skeptical points of view are not nearly as persuasive or data-driven.

So I suppose my "commitment level to an ET UFO connection", as you call it, would be similar to what you'd find in the first category above. The ETH is, at worst, a hypothesis which can not reasonably be dismissed, and at best a hypothesis that represents the "least implausible" explanation for a tiny percentage of UFO sightings. (James McDonald's phrase.)

i find it odd that people have a hard time entertaining something so mathematically and scientifically probable as extraterrestrial beings visiting us.

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


Hold on to your horses there chief. Your first response was what I was looking for. Your second one, however, is peppered with resentment at the apparent idea that I have some kind of motive to try to "trick" you into admitting this or that or whatever it is. My hypothetical is a simple, to the point question. Thats it. No nefarious motives behind it at all. I'll ignore a majority of that response and respond to your first.

It seems to be a general tactic here by the believers at ATS to accuse anyone posting an opposing view of UFOs as... "just aren't informed of the subject and the amount of evidence". As if, personally, I come here completely ignorant of any knowledge of UFO cases throughout the 70 years of claims and partially base my opinions on the UFO phenomenon and postings on ATS. That's ridiculous. I'm not some wet-behind-the-ears kid posting to rile or "troll" the forum. I've spent many years, probably more than many here have been alive, fascinated, taking in any info regarding UFOs. Way before the advent of the internet. Now, I haven't read the books you listed and if I read every book out there giving a scientific perspective of ET powered UFOs, do you think my mind would change? Is there anything more to these perspectives other than assumptions? As in proof that these ARE aliens? If there is, please give me the title of the book. My beliefs aren't based on other peoples opinions.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

On the other hand, if we modify your hypothetical a bit and say it's 1950, not 2012, then my professional experience in aviation-related fields kicks in and says "no way could anything man-made do what's being described there." I wonder if you realize how huge of a leap it would be in human aviation technology were we to build a substantially sized machine which could dart around like a hummingbird -- hover, then zip to a new place, stop in an instant, hover some more, zip to a new place, stop in an instant, etc..... Show me any evidence you have that we can build anything close to that even now, let alone 65 years ago. Any. To me it seems that those who consider the man-made craft hypothesis to have always been seriously viable are not even aware of what actually makes an airplane or helicopter fly.

You do realize to say that extraterrestrial beings from another world visit us either piloting or controlling these UFOs is an even bigger leap, correct? Herein lies one point of my hypothetical. Basic, childish, high school, juvenile or whatever label you want to slap on it If 5 UFO claims are genuinely 100% unexplainable, the possibility of human involvement still out weighs the ET one. No, I can't prove that it's human made. No, I can't prove it's some strange earthly phenomenon, Nor can you prove its alien. I do admit, as I have in other posts, there is a possibility of intelligent alien life. For me to say it's NOT possible, would be an ignorant approach. However, for my own satisfaction, there's no grounded proof of it on earth. Therefore, the passion that possesses you to strive and talk in the possibility of, falls short with me.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Also, do you understand the difference between proof and evidence? This is the second time you've seemed to confuse them. It's a little silly to keep pointing out the obvious -- that no explanation is proven -- when there are very few serious people around here who would argue otherwise.

This "schooling" on the definition proof and evidence seems to be a big thing in your arsenal. Yet, you continue to make these arguments of "evidence" seemingly as if they are proof. ...And I believe you have me confused with another member. I don't recall having an exchange with you about proof and evidence. In fact, I have no clue to your reference point in this post to one of evidence and proof.

As far as Richard Feynman... He had a unique interpretation of things, so who knows what his approach to an ET UFO connection in the context of overly committed believers on a message board, would be. He did respond in a lecture what he thought about UFOs, he said: "It's much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the result of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence rather than the unknown rational characteristics of extraterrestrial intelligence." While I respect both his, Carl Sagan, along with others, opinion and mine happens to fall in line with theirs, my own belief would not be swayed just by the statement of either of those men on a belief of ET-UFO involvement, without proof. The same thing can be said for J Allen Hynek. He was much more knowledgeable than either of us in this respect, yet, saying he thinks UFOs are intelligently controlled alien craft, doesn't make the argument sway any more to the side of fact.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

By the way, I saw your request that I not delve into man-made aviation tech, Ectoplasm. Do you not think it's a little odd to pose a hypothetical to me whose central issue regards man-made aviation tech, but then request that I not address the limits of man-made aviation tech? Most high-school debate team members recognize that rhetorical tactic for what it is.

That comment wasn't directed at you. It was to the members here that might send my comment on another tangent.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

What a mess. This post of Druscilla's is logically inconsistent (edited down to show how so), and to me sounds an awful lot like something I've seen all too often in UFO threads: a denier trying hard to avoid criticism by seeming to admit to UFO unknowns and to the ET possibility, all while barely concealing his or her true disdain for the topic and borderline contempt for those who might call themselves witnesses. That very attitude is evident in this user's other posts (and it would be pretty easy to compile a list of quotes evincing such), and is given away here by this:

Let's analyze. How can a person admit that we "do indeed have some odd incidents", admit that "the UFOs could very well be aliens", and then label a so-called 'belief' in the ET-UFO possibility something "fantastic, even in spite of and contrary to all sensible evidence"? Does that make sense? No. Would not only a few strong True UFO cases invalidate the charge that such 'beliefs' are "fantastic"? Of course they would... even if the remaining 99.9% of all sightings could be shown to be misidentifications or hoaxes. And there are (at a minimum) several dozen very strong True UFO cases. Cases which, no, we must admit, are not proof of aliens... but, given the basically undeniable characteristics of this small percentage of UFOs (physical, nuts and bolts objects, seemingly intelligent, which easily outmaneuver our finest aircraft), who could possibly offer a reasonable alternative to the extraterrestrial hypothesis that is not at least as "fantastic" and world-altering as it is?

Anyone who says there is "no evidence" for extraterrestrial-based UFOs, as Druscilla has above -- ("we have zero real evidence for such"; "we don't have any evidence to really support this") -- is in severe denial, and has almost definitely not read the primary UFO materials. And this lapse should be pointed out. Consistently. Because there is reasonably strong evidence suggestive of the extraterrestrial explanation, where that is actually the least implausible of all alternatives. To not rebut this charge of "no evidence", every time it's made, is to help pave the pathway to ridicule of so-called 'belief' in UFOs.

That's why I come down hard on the Druscilla-type "skeptics." I'm surely not endearing myself to anyone with such aggressive posts, but keep in mind, again, that it's the above type of attitude -- the "no evidence" charge, followed by thinly-veiled (or not) ridicule -- which perpetuates the very attitude that allows articles like this one, in Discovery Science(!), to even be printed and taken seriously.

If we want "science" articles like the one that's the subject of this thread to lack any legitimacy at all, then turn the ridicule around and hit these kinds of skeptics (the deniers) with what they hate most: real data. Because there's plenty of evidence in the most credible UFO science -- Special Report 14, the Colorado Study, Hynek's and McDonald's files -- to actually justify the ridicule of the other side, that of extreme denial. To shut up the deniers dressed n skeptic clothing, simply ask (for example) if they feel the Condon Report was objective and unbiased science... and then watch 'em scatter, since there's no reasonable answer a skeptic can give to such a question. Yes or no or anything in between can be used equally to make some very forceful points.

hear hear! having seen plenty of ufos myself, the reason i believe in them is because i trust my eyes. my aviation background tells me what should be up there, however my eyes have convinced me that there are things in and above "our" airspace that have no basis in earthly physics. simple as.

i don't have mental health problems. i have eyes.
i don't need to medicate. again, eyes.
i don't drink alcohol. yep, the eyes have it again.

therefore ufos DO exist, they are exactly that. unidentified flying objects.

it's logical to assume that as THEY exist, so do the entities that built or fly them.

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

You do realize to say that extraterrestrial beings from another world visit us either piloting or controlling these UFOs is an even bigger leap, correct?

Is it really a bigger leap?

In order to look at this issue objectively, you have to first entirely eradicate from your mind any cultural biases or prejudices regarding the fictitiousness of an intelligence greater than that of humans visiting or on this planet.

Now assume that these craft are black projects run by our government.

This would mean that our government is flying, on a more or less regular basis, its most top secret anti-gravity (!) craft over residential areas, pacing and following airliners, and often doing this in broad daylight. It would imply that our government has had fully functional prototypes, for at least over 70 years, of anti-gravity craft. Judging from the observed behavior of these craft, they appear to be able to move in and out of Earth's atmosphere, and it's not such a great leap to assume that they can travel vast distances through space with ease. In other words, a trip to Mars would be a joke. Now, given that all of this seems highly unlikely - what would be another viable explanation? These things are clearly under intelligent control, and all of the evidence very strongly indicates that they are not 'ours'. But if they're not ours, and they're under intelligent control, then whose are they? And remember, these craft are seen moving freely in and out of water, as though they are enmeshed in their own artificial environment. Does this sound like human technology to you?

Now assume that these craft are controlled by non-human intelligences.

They are often seen over and in public residential areas. A non-human intelligence would not only not care about their technology being seen by the public, but they seem to be in residential areas for the very purpose of studying humans. These craft are also seen to be pacing or hovering around airliners, helicopters or military aircraft. Their behavior strongly suggests that they are actually studying how our technology works. Their apparent disinterest in doing so out in the open also suggests that they simply don't care about their technology being seen out in the open. These craft are also seen hovering over highly protected military bases. This also suggests that they are studying our capabilities, and such overt behavior is also in line with a superior intelligence that knows that it is superior. It is certainly not in any way the behavior of a black project.

Now which explanation seems more plausible? At the very least, the human explanation has got to sound absurd. I mean, why would humans be flying anti-gravity UFOs next to an airliner, or next to a military helicopter? To study these bizarre airplanes and helicopters? It makes far more sense that UFOs are seen pacing our aircraft in order to study them and their capabilities. And why would humans be flying UFOs in residential areas? To get a better look at some new real estate?

When you look at this from a purely objective standpoint, all of these behavioral patterns suggest that humans are not controlling these UFOs, and at the same time, all of these behavioral patterns are consistent with the idea that they are being controlled by a non-human intelligence.

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
... It seems to be a general tactic here by the believers at ATS to accuse anyone posting an opposing view of UFOs as... "just aren't informed of the subject and the amount of evidence".... As if, personally, I come here completely ignorant of any knowledge .... Now, I haven't read the books you listed and if I read every book out there giving a scientific perspective of ET powered UFOs, do you think my mind would change?

Any person who has not read the sources I listed above, some of which are the most important sources on the topic (itself a pretty non-controversial statement)... well, yes, I would absolutely consider that person to be ignorant of the UFO topic. Not in the condescending sense, but in the true sense, i.e., not seeing the full spectrum of information. Those sources are largely the only 'real' science that's been done on UFOs (at least in the U.S.). The majority of them are by those people most informed on the subject, and many scientists with real credentials and real reputations at stake. Were you to read those sources I listed, I don't know, maybe you'd change your mind, maybe not, but if you're as reasonable as you sometimes sound, then at a minimum I'd bet that you'd not be so dismissive and so quick to label the ETH as "ridiculous." On the other hand, I admit, I can easily understand how a dismissive attitude could ensnare most anyone who was seeing the entire topic only through the lens of ATS or ATS-type / conspiracy sources.

You do realize to say that extraterrestrial beings from another world visit us either piloting or controlling these UFOs is an even bigger leap, correct?

No, I don't! And "bigger leap" than what? I simply don't agree with your assumptions as to the improbability of ET migration, monitoring, etc., and in fact view them as a little out-dated. The ETH is not that big of a leap at all, realistically. (For many people, it is psychologically, no doubt.) But given the recent exponential growth in technological advancement on this planet, I'd find it more surprising were we not somehow being surveilled. Interestingly, mainstream science is starting to more openly endorse the view that ET intelligence should or could have been here by now (which, by the way, destroys the central tenet of much of the skepticism). See the following scholarly articles for examples:
-- "On the likelihood of non-terrestrial artifacts in the Solar System", by Drs. J. Haqq-Misraa, and R. Kumar Kopparapuc.
-- "Detection Technique for Artificially-Illuminated Objects in the Outer Solar System and Beyond", by Drs. A. Loeb and E.L. Turner.
-- "Searching For Alien Artifacts on the Moon", by Drs. Paul Davies and R.V. Wagner. (Sorry, but I can't find a free version of the pdf. I don't want to encourage copyright violations, but I suspect it could pretty easily be found with a simple google search....)

Herein lies one point of my hypothetical. Basic, childish, high school, juvenile or whatever label you want to slap on it

If 5 UFO claims are genuinely 100% unexplainable, the possibility of human involvement still out weighs the ET one.

I agree that principle would apply to objects which remain "unidentified" simply because there's not enough good data. But your claim above does not apply to cases which are actually "genuinely unexplainable." You really should read at least some of the sources I listed. It would then become clear that those scientists who've studied the topic most rigorously usually preserved the 'UFO' label (even as Condon attempted to define it differently) for cases that, to a high degree of probability, remained "genuinely unexplainable" NOT because of a lack of information, but instead because of some amazing characteristic(s) of the sighted object.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding often seen in those who've not examined the primary sources. See above.

And you should probably decide whether you label the ETH as simply "outweighed", as you say just above... or as "ridiculous", as you say here. ("The ridiculous claims to me actually lie in the believers claim as UFO's being extraterrestrial. That's more of a ridiculous statement than swamp gas.")

Your conclusion, if the latter, is based on assumptions we have no right to make. Beyond the fact that you're assuming the answer to the very question here under examination (which is circular logic, or true "begging the question"), your assumptions are also contradicted by 1) the most recent science as to the probability of galactic colonization, and 2) by the assumptions fundamental to the Fermi Paradox itself. (Assumptions which, ironically, are accepted without much question even by scientists who ridicule the UFO phenomenon.)

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


Great posts, T&S, especially that last one. I'd like to add this to your list of relevant lit on the topic:

Inflation Theory Implications for Extraterrestrial Visitation

Abstract:

It has recently been argued that anthropic reasoning applied to inflation theory reinforces the prediction that we should find ourselves part of a large, galaxy-sized civilisation, thus strengthening Fermi’s paradox concerning “Where are they?” Furthermore, superstring and M-brane theory allow for the possibility of parallel
universes, some of which in principle could be habitable. In addition, discussion of such exotic transport
concepts as “traversable wormholes” now appears in the rigorous physics literature. As a result, the “We are
alone” solution to Fermi’s paradox, based on the constraints of earlier 20th century viewpoints, appears today
to be inconsistent with new developments in our best current physics and astrophysics theories. Therefore we
reexamine and reevaluate the present assumption that extraterrestrials or their probes are not in the vicinity of
Earth, and argue instead that some evidence of their presence might be found in certain high-quality UFO
reports. This study follows up on previous arguments that (1) interstellar travel for advanced civilizations is not
a priori ruled out by physical principles and therefore may be practicable, and (2) such advanced civilisations
may value the search for knowledge from uncontaminated species more than direct, interspecies communication,
thereby accounting for apparent covertness regarding their presence.

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


If someone begins as a skeptic, then reads every book you have mentioned and changes their belief based mainly or partially on others opinions, that's fine. If they take all of the UFO cases, read through every word of the witnesses, listen to any recorded testimony, look at any photos or video, then need validation from authors or scientists that the maneuvers performed cant be done by any known human technology, that the UFO/human answer is not a logical one, or whatever scientific deduction is needed to help conclude in their mind these are probably aliens, that's fine also. But, I don't subscribe to that type of methodology. If my personal belief changes, it's going to take more than reading books or articles, scientific or not, with the authors BELIEF. Close-minded, ignorant of evidence, uneducated in the subject or whatever adjectives you want to toss my way, it's still that simple.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

And you should probably decide whether you label the ETH as simply "outweighed", as you say just above... or as "ridiculous", as you say here. ("The ridiculous claims to me actually lie in the believers claim as UFO's being extraterrestrial. That's more of a ridiculous statement than swamp gas.")

The comparison of swamp gas to aliens as "ridiculous" is stating that, to me, to write off or explain an unidentified object in the sky as either of those answers, is.... ridiculous in that example. Swamp gas being in the context of the generic answer given during the 60's(?) to UFOs. Both are possible, but not likely. Swamp gas is an actual phenomanon, ET piloted craft has not been proven to be. Hence, the "more of a ridiculous statement" in that particular post. --Is this some kind of search to try to find me stumbling over or confusing my beliefs, as if I'm making things up as I go along or actually have no basis in my beliefs? I see that too, as another in your arsenal.

reply to post by Druscilla


Have you ever met an abductee and had them relay their story to you, right to your face? It can be pretty convincing especially if it's someone you trust and has nothing to gain whatsoever from their story - in fact many have more to lose by coming out. I am one of those people - I have seen a silver disc at close range with a friend in the mountains of Colorado and then approx. one year later I was abducted on a camping trip in Northern California and I was conscious for it all and I did not have to be hypnotized to remember. Before either of these incidents I could have given two shts about UFO's or aliens - now I have no choice.

No this is not typical but it does happen and since it happened to me I have discovered enough evidence and stark eyewitness testimony to let me know that this is a real phenomenon and not just a mass hysteria - do you know how many professional, charismatic and extremely intelligent people have been abducted? All everyone likes to do when this subject is proposed is to bring up the kooks and fakes - but then again it is called disinformation for a reason.

Originally posted by wylekat

Originally posted by randomname
well, when the blob of light starts moving around the sky, defying the laws of gravity and is videotaped by average people with no incentive to lie, i wouldn't call that predisposition.

It's more fun when the blob of light gets within power line distance, turns on the cabin light, and leaves no DOUBT as to what it is....!

Hahaha - exactly! When this happens your done for as they say.

Here is a real scientist who did real research..Jacques Vallee


There is indeed a 'real' UFO phenomenon besides the junk that occupies our tables. One needs to read all of his books particularly the 'revelations'. PDFs are available too.

Originally posted by Orkojoker
I couldn't let this one go by without at least a couple comments, and I'm interested to hear how others on this forum view the story.

While technically not untrue, the tone of the piece is definitely one-sided.

I do see one flaw in his narrative. He keeps referencing "belief in UFO's". That people have witnessed flying objects they cannot identify is a fact, and requires no belief. Belief comes into play only after speculation about the identity of said objects. He even prefaces the NatGeo study figures with "The survey did not specifically equate UFOs with flying saucers or little green men, however.", and yet continues as if such a connection were implicit. Intellectual dishonesty and clear bias.

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
If someone begins as a skeptic, then reads every book you have mentioned and changes their belief based mainly or partially on others opinions, that's fine.

But labeling the sources I mentioned (like the Condon Report and Blue Book Special Reports) as simply "others' opinions" is a little odd. It allows for dismissal of them before examination, which would of course be improper.

From the above, and the remainder of this same post of yours, it seems to me that the inference you're hoping others will latch onto is that any source containing any amount of "opinion" or human judgment can safely be ignored... or at least that a person cannot rightfully be called 'ignorant' or 'uninformed' for not having considered such a source. But have you contemplated the real-world implications of consistently applying such an information filter? It wouldn't be very hard to create a few hypotheticals showing its almost complete unviability in the modern world.

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
If they take all of the UFO cases, read through every word of the witnesses, listen to any recorded testimony, look at any photos or video, then need validation from authors or scientists that the maneuvers performed cant be done by any known human technology, that the UFO/human answer is not a logical one, or whatever scientific deduction is needed to help conclude in their mind these are probably aliens, that's fine also. But, I don't subscribe to that type of methodology.

That's a little extreme. You seem to keep wanting to assign bias or flawed methodology or reliance on "others' opinions" to any person who has fairly examined the evidence but disagrees with you. And there is no "validation" or scientific deduction "needed to help conclude" that human engineering cannot create what witnesses who are, to a high degree of probability, basically unimpeachable, have described; that fact is just obvious to anyone who knows the details and history of flight.

I do wonder -- and this is said with all due respect -- why you seem to have such reservations about believing that rational people can look objectively at the evidence and conclude that the ETH is simply the most plausible explanation?

Is it because you really do think 'they' just could not get here from there? I'm not sure what else besides such an assumption would lead one to believe that the ETH is "ridiculous." Because even conceding that 'they' could get here, but being perplexed over why, should elevate a person beyond the need to ridicule.

I don't usually have a problem with those who hold intelligent and informed views which happen to disagree with mine. It's the ridicule of the entire UFO topic and the unreasonable dismissal of all witness testimony (even when buttressed by concrete data, such as radar) that tends to activate 'pugnacity mode' in me. For personal reasons, I guess. (Let's just say that there's no doubt that ridicule can kill... sometimes literally.)

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
If my personal belief changes, it's going to take more than reading books or articles, scientific or not, with the authors BELIEF. Close-minded, ignorant of evidence, uneducated in the subject or whatever adjectives you want to toss my way, it's still that simple.

Interesting. So let me ask you, if it's not information and data, then what in the world WOULD cause a shift in your belief? (And if you address nothing else in my post, I hope you'll have the courtesy to respond to that one question. I did respond honestly to your one earlier hypothetical....)

Also, if you're not so familiar with the most serious and reliable data that exists -- again, found in some of the sources I listed, which I highly doubt is a controversial statement -- then what is your current belief (that the ETH is "ridiculous") based upon?

I find it fascinating that you refer to informed and objective opinions which disagree with yours as "beliefs", yet your own views, which you admit are somewhat uninformed, should for some reason be taken as superior and more logical? I don't understand that. There really is such a thing as a core of writings on the UFO topic that no reasonably informed person can go without reading. The Condon Report, at a minimum. (Hey, you might actually like it! Condon's opinion is actually not far from yours.)

Originally posted by Orkojoker
Great posts, T&S, especially that last one. I'd like to add this to your list of relevant lit on the topic:

Inflation Theory Implications for Extraterrestrial Visitation

Thanks Orko. You can always be counted on to provide relevant and interesting sources. (And again, love those youtube videos of yours. I hope more people will take a look at them.)

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
But labeling the sources I mentioned (like the Condon Report and Blue Book Special Reports) as simply "others' opinions" is a little odd. It allows for dismissal of them before examination, which would of course be improper.

I agree with you, it would be improper if I were to ignore or dismiss actual cases and come to a conclusion without reading them. That's not what I'm saying. I don't just dismiss UFO cases. I don't write off the witnesses to these cases as being crazy or lying. I believe people have seen things they can't explain. My comments about "other opinions" were to the books or articles analyzing or giving personal opinions about the UFO phenomena. Reading Dr. XX astrophysicist, astronomer, professor- analyzing or dissection of one, or twenty cases, coming to a conclusion that it can't be from this world, won't change my mind. He's giving us his opinion. A PHD in a particular science, doesn't translate opinions to facts.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
Interesting. So let me ask you, if it's not information and data, then what in the world WOULD cause a shift in your belief? (And if you address nothing else in my post, I hope you'll have the courtesy to respond to that one question. I did respond honestly to your one earlier hypothetical....)

Sure. Any type of solid physical evidence. Physical evidence that has been thoroughly and skeptically examined and proven not to be from earth and related to an intelligent alien species. A piece of a crashed spacecraft, an alien body, a piece of an alien body, some type of object from within an alien spacecraft, etc. Something tangible and real. These are all objects claimed to be in the possession of the US military. After the apparent centuries "they" have visited us, there also has to be solid physical evidence somewhere besides the above mentioned. The ease in the ability to find this "something", should be relatively simple taking into factor the claims that don't end at the level of the sky, they go into thousands of claims of landings, abductions, implants etc. One would think of the years of this, there would be something tangible. Something that stands up to scientific scrutiny.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

I do wonder -- and this is said with all due respect -- why you seem to have such reservations about believing that rational people can look objectively at the evidence and conclude that the ETH is simply the most plausible explanation?

Is it because you really do think 'they' just could not get here from there? I'm not sure what else besides such an assumption would lead one to believe that the ETH is "ridiculous." Because even conceding that 'they' could get here, but being perplexed over why, should elevate a person beyond the need to ridicule.

I'm not conceding that they could get here. I'd have to believe that "they" actually exist, first. I DON'T concede they exist, but only the POSSIBILITY that they do.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

I don't usually have a problem with those who hold intelligent and informed views which happen to disagree with mine. It's the ridicule of the entire UFO topic and the unreasonable dismissal of all witness testimony (even when buttressed by concrete data, such as radar) that tends to activate 'pugnacity mode' in me. For personal reasons, I guess. (Let's just say that there's no doubt that ridicule can kill... sometimes literally.)

Also, if you're not so familiar with the most serious and reliable data that exists -- again, found in some of the sources I listed, which I highly doubt is a controversial statement -- then what is your current belief (that the ETH is "ridiculous") based upon?

You continue to repeat for me to read these books, but don't lead me to a solid, verifiable, tangible object case. You also continue to make the mistake of accusing me of ignoring the "facts". When all along, I've acknowledged your fact that there are eyewitnesses, radar, photos, videos, "expert" conclusions. Again, I am familar with probably ALL of the notable cases over the last 70 years. I'm also familar with many other cases. This "familarity" is actually reading the cases, reading the testimony, seeing videos of testimony, any pictures involved, or any videos of the object(s) You seem to interrput me stating my knowledge, as just as a running idea of the cases. That's not correct. Now, if you ask me to explain the movements of an object that makes 90 degree turns and flies off at at incredible speeds, I can't. If I ask you to give me solid proof, that these object are directly related to an intelligent alien species, you can't. At least you can't to my satisfaction. You can take your understanding of the topic and logically conclude it's highly probable that these are aliens. I take my understanding and can't logically bridge that gap until I am 100% convinced of alien beings. This also goes into the fact of my belief of how likely intelligent life is out there. But, I've posted it before and not going to ramble off about that now.

I'm curious to know how deeply and how far your beliefs go. Do you believe in the abductions, UFO connection to crop circles, UFOS and cow mutilations, Bob Lazar's S4 claim, Roswell, John Lear and moon bases, Betty and Barney Hill, the "Starchild" skull and things of that sort? This isn't a condescending question, but a serious one. Once you give a highly plausible conclusion to alien craft coming here, it bleeds into every other alien claim. It begins to make plausible, anything alien, including the crop circle communication claim, for example. Which to me, IS ridiculous. At what point in the ET-UFO picture, does a claim become ridiculous or implausible to you? Or does it at all? Again, not asking in a condescending way.

This is true for the majority of UFO sightings. However, there are certainly some interesting ones that can't be explained this way .

reply to post by Ectoplasm8


Here are two questions we can discuss:

1. "Are UFOs a product of extraterrestrial or non-human intelligence?"

2. "What are UFOs?"

The second one may lead to the first one, but for the sake of simplicity we should start with "What are UFOs?". Well, we don't know what they are, but if we look at the reported characteristics within a significant subset of the "unknowns", we can describe UFOs before we begin to inquire into their nature and origin. Here's what we have:

Appearance -
symmetrical
disk-shaped
metallic or light-reflecting

Behavior
silence
hovering
practically instantaneous direction change
practically instantaneous transition from hovering to high speed
practically instantaneous transition from high speed to hovering
pacing of aircraft

There have been many, many reliable reports that all fit the above descriptions. A logical next step is to think of objects or phenomena that we know of which exhibit these characteristics. If we can't think of any, the next step might be to consider phenomena or objects that we don't know exist, but which we have reason to think might theoretically exist. Theoretically, there could be civilizations far in advance of our own in the universe that have mastered interstellar - or even intergalactic - travel. So there's that possibility, and it's one of which we have no way of objectively gauging the probability. All surmises in this regard are limited by our current state of knowledge, the objective extent, accuracy and completeness of which we are also unable to determine.

Whether we choose to embrace this possibility or to brush it off, it could conceivably explain the reported phenomena. It's clear that nothing we know of can adequately explain what people have been reporting in this small subset of cases.

Originally posted by kronos11
reply to post by Druscilla

 

Have you ever met an abductee and had them relay their story to you, right to your face? It can be pretty convincing especially if it's someone you trust and has nothing to gain whatsoever from their story - in fact many have more to lose by coming out. I am one of those people - I have seen a silver disc at close range with a friend in the mountains of Colorado and then approx. one year later I was abducted on a camping trip in Northern California and I was conscious for it all and I did not have to be hypnotized to remember. Before either of these incidents I could have given two shts about UFO's or aliens - now I have no choice.

No this is not typical but it does happen and since it happened to me I have discovered enough evidence and stark eyewitness testimony to let me know that this is a real phenomenon and not just a mass hysteria - do you know how many professional, charismatic and extremely intelligent people have been abducted? All everyone likes to do when this subject is proposed is to bring up the kooks and fakes - but then again it is called disinformation for a reason.

Yes, I've met many claimants of abduction, conducted interviews, and have even shared a flat with one.
Every single case I've personally encountered can, and could be attributed to internal psychological conditions/processes/disorders.

The flatmate never once physically left the house the two times she claimed abduction during our time sharing a flat, and at no time were there any intruders, nor did I detect anything myself.

I had WiFi nanny cams as a DIY security system in the flat at the time, and they never showed anything that would indicate any physical transgressions or tampering.
The roommate never knew about the nanny cams, some of which I made myself because as a matter of security, most security is usually compromised by someone that knows about the security systems.

Flatmate had psychological issues, which over time became more and more apparent as is the case with most people that have such issues where immediate impressions can be stellar, but over time, the tics and anomalous behaviors become glaringly obvious, especially if you share a flat with someone over a couple semesters.

The flat-mate was pretty high functioning, but, I challenge anyone to attend a few MUFON meetings in any local area to enjoy the menagerie of classical symptomatic expression on display.
The showing in attendants at such meetings doesn't tend to inspire confidence in the over all capability of MUFON as an 'investigative' organization, and that's putting it nicely.

Suffice to say, things didn't work out, and I made better accommodation arrangements after those two semesters.

Regarding your own experiences, I challenge you to wear a GPS monitoring device at all times; something like a watch or bracelet that you wear bathing, sleeping, 24/7
If GPS can track you zooming through the sky at 50,000kph, then, you may have a solid claim that stands up beyond anecdotal stories.
No matter your apparent honesty, anecdotal tales do very little to advance study of whatever this phenomenon is.
IF there is indeed a physical phenomenon occurring, then, by all means, be smart about it and bring back something that will stand up in the light of skepticism.