Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 02:56 AM
link   

neoholographic
reply to post by Phage
 


Again, this is a trivial way to look at a debate. It's not just debating opinions. It's debating conclusions that were reached based on evidence.


Are we talking a hard science conclusion, or something more like you see in sociology? Cause none of us really consider that "evidence".




posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You said:


I don't really remember that. I haven't seen much of that debate on ATS. Can you provide some examples?


If you want to act like people weren't debating the existence of Aliens on ATS then that's fine. If you want to stick your head in the sand and say this was never debated, again that's fine with me. Before the exoplanets and Hawking and Kaku reaching their conclusions the existence of Aliens was debated a lot on ATS.

You said:


People want to assign amazing abilities to aliens because of our understanding of physics. That doesn't make much sense to me.


This is just common sense. Nobody is talking about anything supernatural. If we make it to 100 years from now, there will be technologies that we don't have today. Like I said, it's just common sense.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:03 AM
link   

UltraverseMaximus
reply to post by intrptr
 


But but but....you saw it on earth. Not from here you say

I said "not of this earth". Not a product of man?

Maybe I should say… what do you say? I don't actually know what it was. Thats obvious to me. I think thats why they call them UFO's.

Just that I have not seen anything like it before or since. Its not any one thing about it that convinced me it was otherworldly but when you add up all its attributes:

impossible hue of blue and red
impossible speed
totally silent
sudden angular change of direction at that impossible speed (no radius of turn)

As well at the last it disappeared into the only cloud in the sky at the extreme southern end of the bay. In other words it shot into a cloud but did not come out the other side.

All of us were slack jawed. So compelled by it we returned three nights in a row but it didn't return. We all argued so much about it it actually ruined a good friendship. We drifted apart after that and we had been buddies in hi school and into our early twenties.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Nope, it's my opinion that the evidence is strong enough to reach the conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred. It's your opinion that the evidence isn't strong enough to reach that conclusion.

Not to quibble, but this is what you said:

That's my point. Maybe there's not enough evidence for you to reach a conclusion but there's more than enough evidence for me to reach this conclusion.



How did you reach this conclusion? It was based on the available evidence.
Not really. The only evidence we have that there is intelligent life anywhere is right here on Earth, the genus homo. No evidence of intelligent life anywhere else.

I do not base my conclusion about extraterrestrial intelligence on any evidence, I base it on probability. Probability is not evidence. My conclusion is pure speculation.
edit on 3/14/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 




If you want to act like people weren't debating the existence of Aliens on ATS then that's fine. If you want to stick your head in the sand and say this was never debated, again that's fine with me.

Just asking for examples. You said this:

I remember when I first came to ATS, the debate was whether Aliens exist.
Now, I'm sure it's been mentioned but I don't really recall there being much, if any debate about it. Certainly not the debate.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



This is just common sense. Nobody is talking about anything supernatural. If we make it to 100 years from now, there will be technologies that we don't have today. Like I said, it's just common sense.


Actually, the Romans had a bunch of stuff we have today, and they were pretty advanced in a lot of things. Then the world took a little tumble backwards. No telling if the next war and subsequent attempt at world domination won't leave us with oppressive rulers that don't like learning 'bout stuff.

It only take one generation to forget.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


And one asteroid or comet to take care of all of it.
edit on 3/14/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 



Like I said, we always reach conclusions based on the available evidence. We couldn't have a lot of debates if people didn't reach conclusions based on the available evidence.

Except I agree with others who hold that actual evidence is different than peoples stories. There isn't much actual physical evidence. There are a lot of tales. In a court of law thats called hearsay testimony and does not carry the same weight as direct physical evidence.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


LOL, why do skeptics try so hard to avoid the word evidence when it comes to Ufology??

You said:


Not really. The only evidence we have that there is intelligent life anywhere is right here on Earth, the genus homo. I do not base my conclusion about extraterrestrial evidence on any evidence, just on probability. Probability is not evidence. My conclusion is pure speculation.


Probability based on what evidence LOL??

The evidence of exoplanets?

The evidence of stars?

The evidence of galaxies?

Probability has to be based on evidence. It's not probable if there isn't any underlying evidence. Of course you will deny the evidence of exoplanets or extremophiles have anything to do with your conclusion. Like I said. I don't know why skeptics are so scared to use the word evidence LOL.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:11 AM
link   

intrptr

UltraverseMaximus
reply to post by intrptr
 


But but but....you saw it on earth. Not from here you say

I said "not of this earth". Not a product of man?

Maybe I should say… what do you say? I don't actually know what it was. Thats obvious to me. I think thats why they call them UFO's.

Just that I have not seen anything like it before or since. Its not any one thing about it that convinced me it was otherworldly but when you add up all its attributes:

impossible hue of blue and red
impossible speed
totally silent
sudden angular change of direction at that impossible speed (no radius of turn)

As well at the last it disappeared into the only cloud in the sky at the extreme southern end of the bay. In other words it shot into a cloud but did not come out the other side.

All of us were slack jawed. So compelled by it we returned three nights in a row but it didn't return. We all argued so much about it it actually ruined a good friendship. We drifted apart after that and we had been buddies in hi school and into our early twenties.


I am not debating what you saw but try to keep an open mind. People write humans of as dumb apes, but we are not. We have time travel, we have anti gravity and we have mapped the human brain.
Funny thing is the brain is exactly like a computer in how it receive and interprets information.
Could it be aliens? Well what if you saw an organic robot, what would you call it? I call them Loui

Where do they come from? The future/the past its all the same just different degrees of slavery and ignorance towards life.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 




Probability has to be based on evidence.

No. Probability is based on numbers.
No matter how many exoplanets there are, it is not evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence. It's evidence that there are a lot of exoplanets.
No matter how extreme the extremophiles we find on Earth, it is not evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence. It is evidence that life on Earth can live under extreme conditions.

That there are a great number of exoplanets increases the probability that there is life, even intelligent life, elsewhere. It is not evidence of intelligent life.
edit on 3/14/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Of course it is.

This is why Hawking and Kaku talked about the amount of planets and galaxies.

Again, you're acting like you don't understand what it means to come to a conclusion based on the available evidence. Humans do it all the time. Sadly, skeptics get amnesia of simple logic when it comes to ufology.

You can look at exoplanets and the amount of stars and galaxies in the universe and reach a conclusion that extraterrestrials most likely exist.

Again, this is just basic common sense.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 




You can look at exoplanets and the amount of stars and galaxies in the universe and reach a conclusion that extraterrestrials most likely exist.

Yes. And I have done so.
But there is no evidence that this is the case. It is speculation based on probability, not evidence.
Ask Kaku, ask Hawking if there is any evidence. You'll get the same answer from them.
edit on 3/14/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


LOL, of course it's based on evidence.

If there wasn't any evidence of all of these exoplanets and galaxies there wouldn't be any increased probability. This is why after these exoplanets were discovered, Hawking and Kaku came out with their conclusions based on the EVIDENCE.

Why are you so scared of the word evidence when it comes to ufology? That doesn't make any sense to me.
edit on 14-3-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by UltraverseMaximus
 



Did you see who or what was inside the craft? Did you speak with the occupants first hand?

No on both. I call it a craft because it was in the air and moving but I didn't see any shape or outlines. It was essentially a blue light with two little red lights, one fore and one aft.

The hue of colors was indescribable, not bright like the sun, just very compelling (maybe like neon). The "blue" part was more oblong instead of round. It didn't glitter or flash or change except for its aspect as it passed directly in front of us from left to right. We were on a mountain ridge and it was about at our altitude bisecting the valley floor from one end to the other where it suddenly changed direction upward and disappeared into a cloud.

The whole event lasted but a few seconds. I have no actual basis for that guesstimate, time stands still when you are confronted with the unknown?

Anyway, thanks for prodding my memory, I am remembering other things about it and that night when I concentrate and try describe it.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by UltraverseMaximus
 



We have time travel, we have anti gravity…


Ummm…. not to sure about that.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Your just going around in circles now. Like a dog chasing its own tail, because it already got hit by a car.

Where are these aliens then? Since in your mind there is evidence, what are they doing?
Perhaps if you lay out a claim that supports this evidence you have, that is not I read it here or these people said this or I saw something freaky I don't really have a clue about, then there could be a discussion.

As it stands you look like a troll of persistent nature. The evidence I have supports this. Would you like to know more?



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:29 AM
link   

intrptr
reply to post by UltraverseMaximus
 



We have time travel, we have anti gravity…


Ummm…. not to sure about that.

Its ok. You don't need to be sure of it for it to exist.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:45 AM
link   

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?


It's unexplained because there is not enough scientific evidence to tell us what they are and how they work etc.
"Actual UFOs" cannot be identified. This is why they they unidentified flying objects. We cant say they are "MOST LIKELY" craft flown by extraterrestrial beings because there is not enough solid evidence to prove that. Is it "POSSIBLE" - Yes. "MOST LIKELY" - No. I'd choose different words IMO.


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.

There's not mountains of evidence.
Again, "MOST LIKELY" - No. "POSSIBLY" - Yes.
"The conclusion is SOME of these UFOS are POSSIBLY controlled by extraterrestrial beings."
Yeah, that looks slightly more accurate

Although I would personally minus the word conclusion. Since there technically is not enough evidence to "conclude" anything.


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?

You can and you don't "have to" do anything. You're entitled to think what you want like everyone else obviously.
But at the end of the day none of us really "KNOW" anything. We can speculate. And lean a little more one way than the other based on what we might "think." But to "KNOW" is something entirely different. And until we know for sure (we don't) It's safe to put these things in the unexplained category, at least for now.


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.

Yes, actually it "does" mean we cannot identify some ofthem based on available evidence.
Actual UFOs cannot be identified based on anything. This is why they are called UFOs. Flying objects which are called UFOS which are not "Actual UFOs" are called "whoops I made a mistake" "or whoops I am an idiot" and are put into the "NON-Legitimate UFO files...." In which they were never Actual "UFOS" to begin with.


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

There is no available evidence.
People can conclude their existence if they want but at the end of the day It's merely opinion or heresay. Skeptics can lean more one way or the other at times, but skeptics tend not to write anything in stone.

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 am unsure if you're asking for advice or if this is a rhetorical question.
If you want advice I would highly suggest to keep your ears and mind open to BOTH sides, and keep your eyes and ears open to anything else you may come across on the topic and try to learn more based on that; to fill in gaps, to provide information, to put the pieces of the puzzle together using "your own" intellectual capabilities mixed with information you gather and thoughts you may think on that information.
IMO I'd never choose to take just one persons word and make it my own .


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.

And of course as always you're entitled to the option to believe that.
But on the other hand I'd again switch "MOST LIKELY" to "POSSIBLY" since there is no proof.
But since you "BELIEVE" it I guess you don't need proof, because "BELIEVING" something is similar to a "BELIEF" in a religion. Don't need proof just a strong inclination to choose those words instead of saying "I'm not sure" or "POSSIBLY."
A belief in and of itself is not fueled from proof.


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.


You can believe it wholeheartedly exists. Nobody is stopping you.
There just exist other people who would tend to choose to not make that conclusion final UNTIL there is something that makes them think "I know this for sure."


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 preexisting belief.

Skeptics don't have a "preexisting belief" they don't technically "believe" anything, hence why they are called skeptics. They are "skeptical." As said above, skeptics can, at times, lean more one way than the other, but skeptics do not write anything in stone.
edit on 3/14/2014 by unb3k44n7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Here's a good article on the new Cosmos series.

It's the one with Neil Degrasse Tyson. Goes into great length about problems in some of the information they were disseminating. Also, most importantly, the difference of fact and assumption, or prediction.


Any time a scientist begins a sentence with “Many of us suspect,” it is codespeak for “we sit around and discuss it at the bar.”

There’s nothing wrong with that. Should you get the chance to join them at that bar, please avail yourself of the opportunity, because there are few occupations where the participants are as funny and engaging as scientists. But “many of us suspect” is a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority, and that makes for terrible science, as Sagan noted often.

...

Any time a scientist begins a sentence with “Many of us suspect,” it is codespeak for “we sit around and discuss it at the bar.”

There’s nothing wrong with that. Should you get the chance to join them at that bar, please avail yourself of the opportunity, because there are few occupations where the participants are as funny and engaging as scientists. But “many of us suspect” is a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority, and that makes for terrible science, as Sagan noted often.

...

In fact, anthropic beliefs are quite old, and it was Copernicus who really began to undo them, though he did not realize it at the time. Ironically, by invoking the multiverse Tyson harkens us back to a time when the anthropic principle was rampant and disputing it was heresy, just before the telescope changed everything. Tyson believes in the multiverse with the same lack of evidence religious authorities had in favor of an Earth-centric universe in 17th-century Italy.






new topics




 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join