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

I see a trend here. Everything that has to do with U.F.O.'s, Psi or the Paranormal is put into the prison of the unexplained. Why can't we explain or identify some U.F.O.'s and say there most likely craft flown by extraterrestrial beings?

There's mountains of evidence to support this conclusion. Let me say this again. The conclusion is SOME of these U.F.O.'s are mostly likely controlled by extraterrestrial beings.

Why can't I reach this conclusion based on the available evidence? Why do I have to put everything that skeptics disagree with into the black hole of the unexplained?

U.F.O.'s are called Unidentified Flying Objects. This doesn't mean we can't identify some of them based on the available evidence.

People have never seen parallel universes yet people have reached the conclusion based on the available evidence that parallel universes exist.

Hawking Radiation has never been detected yet people have come to the conclusion based on the available evidence that Hawking Radiation exists.

I can go on and on.

I have seen 3 U.F.O.'s and 2 were up close.

You have people like Hawking saying Aliens almost certainly exist and Kaku saying Aliens exist but people are quick to say but Aliens have never visited Earth. WHAT?????????

How can you say extraterrestrials exist but then limit the technology of an Alien civilization based on our current understanding of physics? That makes no sense. In ten years we may find another energy source or a new particle that can change our current understanding of physics. It's saying that every civilization in the universe has to be limited to our current understanding of physics. Again I say, WHAT??????????

I just talked to a Detective who was on the Police Force for over 30 years. He worked with a Psychic on several cases and he told me about one where they were stumped and the Psychic gave them the killers last name, told them what street he lives on and said he would have a goatee and long hair.

Guess what? The killer lived on the street the Psychic told them. Had the same last name the Psychic told them. He also had hair that went past his shoulders and a goatee.

Now, what am I supposed to do here? Take the word of a skeptic that had nothing to do with the case and believe that the Detective must be an idiot. Or should I listen to the Detective with over 30 years experience who worked these cases?

I believe Psychics exist but it has nothing to do with anything magical or supernatural. It most likely has to do with non locality and space-time.

At the end of the day, I'm supposed to just stick my head in the sand and say these things can't be explained and this is because the explanation doesn't agree with the skeptics belief system. So it could never be Psychic Ability exist, it always has to be Psychic Ability is unexplained or it's just a bunch of stupid cops who get bamboozled by old ladies.

Like I said, I think a lot of these things have explanations but their just kept in the unexplained prison because the explanation doesn't agree with the skeptics pre-existing belief.

reply to post by neoholographic

At the end of the day, I'm supposed to just stick my head in the sand and say these things can't be explained and this is because the explanation doesn't agree with the skeptics belief system.

No amount of proof will convince a skeptic.

Others have limits placed on their beliefs by other factors. Let me give you an example.

The rest of my family is strongly attached to the christian church. In that "belief system" they are told that all and I mean any and all manifestations of anything paranormal or extra "anything" is the Devil and evil and should be paid no mind. I have tried to talk to them about this stuck in the Middle Ages hook man made religion places upon their minds but to no avail.

Others are strictly materialistic and to them all this is immaterial or flights of fancy that makes no money or cents and so is frivolous and a waste of time.

Others are afraid to be labeled crazy.

Whats left?

You and your tales. Which I would love to read about if you feel like sharing. If you could point me to another thread…

reply to post by intrptr


That's a good point. You said:

No amount of proof will convince a skeptic.

The thing is, I never said I can prove extraterrestrial visitation has occurred. I said there's mountains of evidence that points to some of these U.F.O.'s as being occupied by an advanced civilization.

For instance, I believe the universe is multidimensional. I can't prove it but I can give you evidence that points in this direction and use can use this evidence to reach the conclusion that the universe is most likely multidimensional.

reply to post by neoholographic

People have never seen parallel universes yet people have reached the conclusion based on the available evidence that parallel universes exist.

Not really a conclusion, more of a hypothesis.

Supporters of one of the multiverse hypotheses include Stephen Hawking,[3] Steven Weinberg,[4] Brian Greene, and Max Tegmark. In contrast, critics such as David Gross,[5] Paul Steinhardt,[6] and Paul Davies have argued that the multiverse question is philosophical rather than scientific, or even that the multiverse hypothesis is harmful or pseudoscientific.

No different really than saying it is very, very, very likely that aliens exist somewhere, out there. It isn't confirmed though.

en.wikipedia.org...

Hawking Radiation has never been detected yet people have come to the conclusion based on the available evidence that Hawking Radiation exists.

Lots of math to support this prediction, similar to predicting alien life in the universe.

en.wikipedia.org...



All the evidence of arguing alien life is visiting us, falls under unidentified, because it hasn't been confirmed. Or identified...

reply to post by neoholographic

That's a good point. You said:

Except that it is an oxymoron as well as being redundant.
Proof is proof. There cannot be more or less proof.
If there were proof there would be no discussion.

neoholographic

The thing is, I never said I can prove extraterrestrial visitation has occurred. I said there's mountains of evidence that points to some of these U.F.O.'s as being occupied by an advanced civilization.

It did not read like that in the OP lol

There's mountains of evidence to support this conclusion. Let me say this again. The conclusion is SOME of these U.F.O.'s are mostly likely controlled by extraterrestrial beings.

For instance, I believe the universe is multidimensional. I can't prove it but I can give you evidence that points in this direction and use can use this evidence to reach the conclusion that the universe is most likely multidimensional.

Your theory is correct about multidimensional.

reply to post by boncho


You said:

All the evidence of arguing alien life is visiting us, falls under unidentified, because it hasn't been confirmed.

That doesn't make much sense because you're saying we can't reach a conclusion based on the available evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely. This occurs all the time.

Last night, Tegmark was saying that parallel universes exist because he believes that's the conclusion of the available evidence. Like I said, we do it all the time in all walks of life.

Why do we have to throw common sense out of the window when it comes to U.F.O.'s??

reply to post by neoholographic


I personally have seen a few U.F.O.'s in my time. Some of them performed manoeuvrings that left me dumbfounded. My own son and mother saw one above them so close that they could almost touch it - no noise, no heat, just floating. He even said that the whole earth around him was silent and still. Eerie!
Couple that with the fact there are literally billions of galaxies with billions of stars and even more planets one can only deduce that there has to be intelligent life capable of technology far advanced than our own, and some of that has visited here. Some of them probably still do even to this day. Also one only has to look around us at archaeological sites and literature to see probable evidence of their visitations and historical inputs.
I personally lean towards some U.F.O.s being other worldly beings, however if the day comes when I am proven wrong then I'll accept it. Until then I'll continue to believe.

reply to post by UltraverseMaximus


Sure it did.

A conclusion based on the available evidence. This isn't something new, it what we have been doing for years.

reply to post by neoholographic

Last night, Tegmark was saying that parallel universes exist because he believes that's the conclusion of the available evidence.

Tegmark. The guy that says everything is math?

My daughter used to believe that Santa Clause existed because of available evidence.
Her theory was wrong.

neoholographic
reply to post by UltraverseMaximus

 

Sure it did.

A conclusion based on the available evidence. This isn't something new, it what we have been doing for years.

You went from extra terrestrial to advanced civilisations. Do you think it is the same thing? I dont

LittleGreenAlien
reply to post by neoholographic

 

I personally have seen a few U.F.O.'s in my time. Some of them performed manoeuvrings that left me dumbfounded. My own son and mother saw one above them so close that they could almost touch it - no noise, no heat, just floating. He even said that the whole earth around him was silent and still. Eerie!
Couple that with the fact there are literally billions of galaxies with billions of stars and even more planets one can only deduce that there has to be intelligent life capable of technology far advanced than our own, and some of that has visited here. Some of them probably still do even to this day. Also one only has to look around us at archaeological sites and literature to see probable evidence of their visitations and historical inputs.
I personally lean towards some U.F.O.s being other worldly beings, however if the day comes when I am proven wrong then I'll accept it. Until then I'll continue to believe.

Great points!

Like I said, there's mountains of evidence to reach this conclusion. Will everyone reach the same conclusion? No, but there's more than enough evidence to reach the conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred. You couple that with people like Kaku, Hawkings and others saying Aliens exist then you can see how it's easy to reach this conclusion based on the available evidence.

It's hard to say Aliens exist but they haven't visited us. That's just basing the technology of an advanced civilization based on our current understanding of physics.

reply to post by neoholographic

That's just basing the technology of an advanced civilization based on our current understanding of physics.

That's part of it.
The other part is that there really isn't any evidence that UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin.

"What else could they be" doesn't really cut it.

neoholographic
reply to post by boncho

 

You said:

All the evidence of arguing alien life is visiting us, falls under unidentified, because it hasn't been confirmed.

That doesn't make much sense because you're saying we can't reach a conclusion based on the available evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely. This occurs all the time.

Last night, Tegmark was saying that parallel universes exist because he believes that's the conclusion of the available evidence. Like I said, we do it all the time in all walks of life.

Why do we have to throw common sense out of the window when it comes to U.F.O.'s??

You're not really making sense. Read what you just wrote and:

I can't prove it but I can give you evidence that points in this direction and use can use this evidence to reach the conclusion that the universe is most likely multidimensional.

You can believe aliens are visiting us all you want. No one is stopping you. It just isn't confirmed, nor is any conclusion made so far, 'proof'. Simple as that.

reply to post by Phage


There's plenty to base it on. Like I said, we have this thing called common sense that we use all the time. We can use our common sense to reach a conclusion as to what's most likely and what's less likely based on the available evidence.

Some UFO skeptics don't want you to use reason and logic. They just want to stick their heads in the sand and try to debunk to no avail.

reply to post by neoholographic

They just want to stick their heads in the sand and try to debunk to no avail.

And believers just want to wallow in bunk?
Some maybe. Others are more reasonable and admit that they don't really know.

reply to post by neoholographic

Like I said, there's mountains of evidence to reach this conclusion. Will everyone reach the same conclusion? No, but there's more than enough evidence to reach the conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred.

There's mountains of evidence to suggest every possible instance of supposed visitation is completely explainable as well, or at least, not confirmation of aliens visiting us.

You couple that with people like Kaku, Hawkings and others saying Aliens exist then you can see how it's easy to reach this conclusion based on the available evidence.

Anyone can say aliens likely exist. But that is based on a lot of different facts, like how big the universe is, how many habitable planets there are, etc. etc. (All this got a lot more attention after kepler.)

In any case, likely exist is not 'proof' as you are calling for. You are looking to make an definitive conclusion which is really an assumption off of a prediction. Keep going that route and you will be bending the knee at a church (or a in a cult) in no time.

reply to post by neoholographic


You also said:

I have seen 3 U.F.O.'s and 2 were up close.

You are a witness. Big difference between that and a "believer". Skeptics will call you "believer" regardless because they have no frame of reference (like an experience). They wouldn't need any "proof" after having witnessed such a thing.

They would know like you and I do. Don't fret the skeptic. Their need to prove there is no proof is baseless because they can't prove they don't exist either.

This argument falls on my deaf ears because the Universe is forever and its hard (for me) to accept there are no other more advanced civilizations than our own out there somewhere.

Especially if you have personally seen them or their craft.

reply to post by boncho


This shows that people throw out reason and logic. You said:

You can believe aliens are visiting us all you want. No one is stopping you. It just isn't confirmed, nor is any conclusion made so far, 'proof'. Simple as that.

Have you ever watched or participated in a debate?

Do you realize how many things get debated that are not confirmed or don't have proof. This is because people reach conclusions based on the available evidence then debate both sides. I was recently in a debate on the Holographic Universe. Some scientist like Leonard Susskind have reached the conclusion that the universe is a hologram based on the available evidence. This is something humans do.

When it comes to UFO's the skeptics want you to stop using simple reason and logic. If it was up to you, we would never have any debates because nobody could ever reach a conclusion based on the available evidence.

reply to post by intrptr

You are a witness. Big difference between that and a "believer". Skeptics will call you "believer" regardless because they have no frame of reference (like an experience). They wouldn't need any "proof" after having witnessed such a thing.

Not true. I've seen two UFOs that I can remember. Most likely airplanes but possibly alien invaders from dimension X. I am leaving them as "Not totally sure what they are".

To compare though, if an alien kidnapped me and played Dr. Doolittle with my derriere I would be shouting from the rooftops that aliens indeed exist and they are interested in our GI tracts.