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

originally posted by: Harte
It is an extremely common ploy by true believers to attack strawmen when they can't logically connect their claims to reality. You see this all the time. A skeptic chimes in and then a believer will reply with some hogwash asserting the skeptic doesn't believe that extraterrestrial life is possible.

Case in point:

originally posted by: Klassified
I find it interesting that we're so divided as a species on this type of thing. Some of us look to the stars, and have no problem believing life could have developed, risen, thrived, and went extinct many times before we came along....

Others NEED us to be the only life that has ever existed in the universe.

link

Harte

a reply to: neoholographic

Definition of Evidence:

noun
noun: evidence

1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

A blurry photo is not evidence.
A video of lights in the sky is not evidence.
A homemade video of an "alien" is not evidence.
A blog post is not evidence.
A theory is not evidence.
A YouTube video repeating and supporting your ideas is not evidence.

Even if we accept that there are craft flying in the skies which we cannot identify (and I think most sane people would agree that there are), there is far more reason to believe that these are man made, rather than any indication of alien visitation.

There are facts supporting this too, such a witness statements and evidence relating to the development of such craft during WW2. We know, for example, that the Nazis developed some kind of flying craft or phenomena known as Foo Fighters. We also know that they developed the V rockets. We also know that they were working on numerous other incredible scientific breakthroughs when it comes to flight. We also know that numerous people reported rocket launches and strange missiles landing in various areas after the war - common theory being that either the Nazis were destroying technology before it could be discovered (remote research facilities still operating after the end of the war, in isolation) or that these weapons were being tested by Russian occupiers of Germany having seized German tech.

We also know that the US and Russia both gained a lot of scientific benefit from the collapse of the Third Reich. We know that various countries controlled various areas of Germany, where plans for such developments would have been held, and where research facilities would have been seized.

We also know that the US brought back more than 1000 Nazi scientists and engineers - without them America would probably not have reached the Moon. These men were working on weaponry for the Nazi regime, America would have gained a hell of a lot of military capability from those scientists and engineers.

If we are to form opinions based on all available information and what we know, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest there is any alien involvement here, and a hell of a lot of evidence to suggest these craft are man made.

a reply to: Harte

I'm sorry man, the numbers I originally published here were for main sequence stars, as opposed to ALL stars.

However, that notwithstanding...

ESA's Hipparcos was the first space mission dedicated to measuring the positions, distances, motions, brightness and colors of stars - for astrometry, as the experts call it.

Launched in August 1989 by an Ariane-4 rocket, Hipparcos was a pioneering space experiment dedicated to the precise measurement of the positions, parallaxes and proper motions of the stars.

-- science.nasa.gov...

You probably don't understand "SQL" so I'll translate...you can find a database type to confirm...

There is another dataset known as "XHIP" the extended Hipparcos catalog.

First to get the number of stars in the catalog...

Select count(*) from xhip

result: 117955

Now I know that Hipp is not a very complete catalog, but it is still representative of reality. Further, the reason there are so few stars in Hipparcos is primarily because Hipparcos does not catalog very small stars...

So, while we should be using something like 2MASS (2 micron all sky survey), I will simply state that 2MASS is a very large dataset...and I simply have not imported it into my development system...though I will import it into the observatory...

So 117,955 stars represent the stars as viewed from Earth less the pebbles and small, insignificant stars...

This is the query you need to see...

select count(*) from xhipp where sptype like '%F%' or sptype like '%G%' or sptype like '%K%'

This will select all stars where the sptype (spectral type) contains wither an 'f', 'g', or 'k'...

result: 81868

Shall we do a wee bit of math?

81868 / 117995 = 0.693826 or ... 69.38% of all stars in Hipparcos are either "F", "G", or "K" class stars. Of course the reality is that once you add all the burned out shells of old, dead stars, the stars that never quite made it, etc. those values change, but, the stars you will be adding to this are all far too small, far too cold to develop complex life.

Further, the only stars that we can even consider in this discussion are all main sequence stars. Any star not in main sequence is either still in the "birth" process, or is in the "dying" process...both can take 100's of millions of years.

Now, you should immediately note that none of this is taken from your WIKI, and stand solely upon accepted and used astrometric data.

When considering main sequence stars the "number" I quoted earlier stand quite firmly...

Something I know you haven't done; apply the standard statistical "bell curve" to the notion of life around stars...
We don't have a lower limit specified, but we do have an upper limit. And that is the length of time the Star "lives"...that period of time in which it can sustain some sort of life, and not actively try to devour it...That period is the star's "main sequence"

The hotter and brighter a star is , the shorter it's life span, so that by the time we get to class "A" stars (like Sirius) they are rather short lived...on the order of 100's of millions of years...Sirius "B" for instance, a white dwarf, is on the order of 400 million years old. It is quite dead...

So we set our limit at something around "F0" this gives us a lower limit around "K9" or perhaps "M0". Now, please understand this should only apply to the more complex life forms...you know anything that is multi-celled...

The count of stars that are within this narrow limit are pretty much like I've already related...and the percentage of stars that lie within our "bell curve" are 23.55% of all stars contained within the Milky way...It would be these stars that ET would check out first when looking for life...just like Earth science is doing right now...

So it seems that Earth with all it problems would be rather high on the discovery/exploration list...and NOT some "back water" planet that nobody notices. In reality Earth and Sol would stand out like a sore thumb in the cosmos as a place to look for advanced complex life...

Again...all of this is based on Hipparcos data, and not the conjecture contained within a wiki...

a reply to: Rocker2013

The man made theory about U.F.O.'s makes no sense.

First, U.F.O.'s have been around since the time of the ancients.

Secondly, you act like Nazi's are men of magic that could do anything. So 1000 Nazi scientist are responsible for all U.F.O. accounts across the globe? That doesn't pass the smell test.

First, these Scientist would be limited to what they can do simply based on Moore's Law. When people act like the Govt. has every technology in the world, they don't understand how Science works. Could they be a few steps ahead when it comes to technology before the public? Yes they could but there's no way they're responsible for every U.F.O. sighting, close encounter or alien abduction throughout the world. That's just silly.

You said:

A video of lights in the sky is not evidence.

Sure it is when it's attached to an eyewitness that's credible. I will listen to the eyewitness over the pseudoskeptic that has an obvious agenda to blindly deny everything.

This applies to the rest of the things you said. Why should you dictate what's evidence and what's not evidence? What are your credentials to dictate this?

Your post proves my point beautifully. The only way the skeptic can make these irrational blanket statements is if they treat all evidence as equally non evidence and again, this just lacks common sense.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
Definition of Evidence:
noun
noun: evidence

1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

A blurry photo is not evidence.
A video of lights in the sky is not evidence.
....

You quote the definition and then misapply it, as if there are no shades of gray (like contrary or contradictory evidence) hidden within.

Some event happens. What caused it? There could be evidence suggesting A is the cause, as well as evidence suggesting B or C or D is the cause. We don't say that there's "no evidence" of B. Evidence is not binary, yes or no, but is something that accumulates incrementally.

Even if we accept that there are craft flying in the skies which we cannot identify (and I think most sane people would agree that there are), there is far more reason to believe that these are man made....

That reasoning is circular. You see it all the time when discussing UFOs. ("What's more likely, an airplane or aliens from another planet?!?!") Well, we don't know. We can't assign probabilities, because we're not sure how common true UFOs are. You can't use the assumption to answer the question.

If it's true that 95% of UFO reports have conventional explanations, that does not mean that it's 95% likely that the O'Hare case, for instance, has a conventional explanation. (I picked O'Hare because a new thread about that UFO was just started here.)

There are facts supporting this too, such a witness statements and evidence relating to the development of such craft during WW2.

You just used the word "evidence" as I described it above, which to most people is the correct way. But you used it in a way which is contrary to your own written definition, and contrary to the way you used the term when saying X, Y, and Z are not evidence of UFOs. Why?

... We also know that the US and Russia both gained a lot of scientific benefit from the collapse of the Third Reich.... We also know that the US brought back more than 1000 Nazi scientists and engineers.... If we are to form opinions based on all available information and what we know, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest there is any alien involvement here, and a hell of a lot of evidence to suggest these craft are man made.

Again, your definition of the word "evidence" seems to change based on what you're applying it to. UFOs apparently get their own, highly restricted definition.

Also, in general, when a person suggests that all UFOs could be due to man-made technology, that person's understanding of flight and aviation concepts becomes immediately suspect. Everything man has flown has been the result of chemical thrust and/or aerodynamic lift, i.e., burning dead things and shooting their residue really fast out the back, or making air flow faster around one side of a surface than the other.

Again, an interesting thread about the O'Hare UFO was just started here.

To argue that the craft described there could be human technology is... well, a very, very big stretch. You're basically asserting that mankind has discovered another way to make things fly. Anti-gravity or something like that. And like an affirmative defense in law, the burden of proof there lies with you. I'm all but positive you can't meet it.

Bottom line: there is plenty of evidence that true UFOs are flying around our skies. You can argue that certain thresholds of evidence haven't been met, but it's simply incorrect to say there's "no evidence" of it. If there were none, we wouldn't even be discussing it.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

TextI absolutely agree. However, I also believe that one should refrain from jumping to the most far-flung, improbable conclusion (ie. extraterrestrials) without absolute proof of such. That is where I disagree with many of the posters here.

But what makes it "far-flung" and "improbable"? According to what is that that case? Even if there are more conventional scenarios such as, advanced man-made technology, that should not discount others. There may well be enough evidence, at this point, that the non-human option is indeed an option.

a reply to: redtic

The problem for YOU in particular, is that YOU have not seen evidence.
Therefore YOU feel that YOUR judgements in this matter are .........what?

YOU do not know anything through personal experience. YOU do not accept anyone elses' experiences. YOU have made a determination through what logical process?

None.
But you have an opinion which YOU value and need to express.

We who have had direct knowledge of this form of weirdness, find YOU and the folks who feel that absolute skepticism running through their brains about this subject, find Y'ALL to be laughable.
It's not a kind laugh.

I do NOT know that aliens are the cause for UFOs. I DO know that UFOs exist. Aliens are as good a cause as a secret society, renegade government agencies, Atlanteans or other undiscovered beings.

I admit to ignorance but I do not use MY ignorance to guide me except as to where to look next.
Try that and honestly wait to be able to contribute something before you burden us with 'factoids, opinions, beliefs and feelings' generated from the ether.

I for one tend to lead to the idea of Man made object over extra terrestrial most times. I'm not one who doesn't believe in the idea of extra terrestrial. I just don't see why they would come here to a place/race that can't agree most things. We say we want to make the world better but that's not happening at any good rate as we devour our mother Earth. The reason I have hard times believing the stories of abductees is that it sounds so much like military drills and orders. And inducing people with drugs or brain waves to alter their thoughts to think it was aliens.

IMO the true aliens are to smart to be wasting their time on insignificant beings like us. Along with they got the tech to scramble your vids or cams from miles away. And on the statistics mentioned before me they'd maybe do a drive by and go "oh my lord, look what they've done to this planet. It's a pity and a waste. Let's go to the next stop

originally posted by: KuzKuz
IMO the true aliens are to smart to be wasting their time on insignificant beings like us. Along with they got the tech to scramble your vids or cams from miles away. And on the statistics mentioned before me they'd maybe do a drive by and go "oh my lord, look what they've done to this planet. It's a pity and a waste. Let's go to the next stop

Yeah, insignificant!!!

Terrestrial Humans are an advanced sentient space-faring species and culture. You tell me what is insignificant about that!!!

"Oh look; they did the very same thing to their planet as we did!"; probabilistically; this is what ET has to say about what Humans have done to Earth...By the way; you haven't harmed Earth yet...only yourselves.

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

That reasoning is circular. You see it all the time when discussing UFOs. ("What's more likely, an airplane or aliens from another planet?!?!") Well, we don't know. We can't assign probabilities, because we're not sure how common true UFOs are.

What is a "true UFO"? You seem to get some of the problem with attempting to identify something that is "Unidentified" but do you have another level of unidentified? Truly Unidentified? And we can assign probabilities to unknown things based on what we know about.

Always fascinating how bad the sceptics needs to bash down the people that have their weird experiences ..

The looks i get when i tell some people that i think! can handle it..haha

-the disc that flew over my head real slow! gliding over our back yard, it was so close but to small to fit a person etc..etc.. and so silent...!

I even sketched it with all these details, "good imagination you have there son..." haha ... :/

Its understandable that those with their illusion intact to a certain age can't open the perspective , even the curiosity of space and life in general are distracted with # now in this modern day of age..

i honestly feel sad for them i wish we could share with each other without people feeling the need to debunk in a trash talk event.. just because they feel left out of this wonderful mystic world i guess.

I can promise everyone that by opening your mind just to more possibilities! actually gives you more experiences you could ever dream about.

But shutting your head down to a narrow path could harm you down the road.

in the end its just stories to ponder on, and i love good stories! and it makes me think that people debunking/bashing and trash talking all of this nonstop when they see a chance! never had the time to read any kind of books in general?

or never tried to read .. cause most of the times its clearly most of them never read the OP! just skimmed after trigger words or not... and its sad.

Questions gives more questions not debunking that just gives us this awkward silence!? and the need to tell them they need to cool off with their strong opinions they clearly think is facts.

a reply to: neoholographic

Are you going to clarify your 'theoretical physics' question so that it makes grammatical sense and can be answered?

Or are you going to remain silent -- and silently admit that you are no scientist, and that your claim was nothing but a self-aggrandizing fiction?

Just googled a few likely-sounding phrases and mashed them together, didn't you? Tried to make idiots out of the members who don't know enough science to call you out, didn't you?

Fie. For shame.

a reply to: Animula

So, tell us: what makes you think that the mini-UFO that flew over your backyard was from outer space? Did it have Betelgeusian licence plates?

a reply to: neoholographic

ATS isn't friendly to UFO discussion anymore. Hasn't been for quite some time. It is, however, a great place to study the disinformation campaign though.

Accepting this, you will find it best to move that type of discussion elsewhere.

As I said earlier, people really need to consider other hypotheses concerning the UFO enigma. As pointed out by our skeptical friends, the idea of humanoids developing elsewhere in the universe is highly unlikely. Any form of alien life would be radically different from us. This is why I postulate the concept that whatever pilots the UFOs, their reported humanoid form (if such accounts are accurate) suggests a more... terrestrial origin.

Two books come to mind, one is Ivan T. Sanderson's Invisible Residents and the other is Mac Tonnie's The Cryptoterrestrials. Also comes to mind the voluminous work of Jacques Vallee. Consider the possibility that these creatures are merely an offshoot of humanity (their large eyes suggesting a subterranean development?) that are very few in number, possibly endangered that have managed to keep their existence largely secret and masquerade as alien beings. In the past they were called faerie, but today with its dwindling forests and sophisticated knowledge of the universe, they have latched onto the cultural sci-fi zeitgeist to hide behind. After all, this would explain why their medical technology is crude and primitive compared to modern standards--something that an advanced, alien civilization from beyond the stars would have moved well beyond. Their only ace in the hole is their aerial technology which so far remains beyond our scope.

Nevertheless, it could all be just a grand deception to protect their limited population from being wiped out completely by its younger and more violent sibling species, Homo sapiens.

Well, that's my own hypothesis. There's other possibilities as well.

Maybe they're time travelers from our post-Apocalyptic future?

Some Q-like entity that likes to play pranks on our perceptions?

Something else?

It doesn't have to be creatures from another planet.

a reply to: Kojiro

Some Q-like entity that likes to play pranks on our perceptions?

Trelane grew up and changed it's name to Q.
ET for sure.

originally posted by: yourignoranceisbliss
a reply to: neoholographic

ATS isn't friendly to UFO discussion anymore. Hasn't been for quite some time. It is, however, a great place to study the disinformation campaign though.

Accepting this, you will find it best to move that type of discussion elsewhere.

Never a truer word spoken. It's not UFOLGY that has died, it is ATS and it's UFO forum which decided to die, with help from ATS's moderator, owners and the usual suspects who regurgitated their skepticism over and over and over. The Rinse Repeat Brigade.

I have gave up posting threads in this forum since they decided to unfairly move over a few of my threads to the hoax bin, when they had no evidence on the contrary. A first of many decisions they got wrong.

originally posted by: timequake
But what makes it "far-flung" and "improbable"?

The fact that nearly 10,000 years of recorded history and our most advanced, current technologies have failed thus far to provide us with a single bit of verifiable evidence.

Life almost certainly exists elsewhere in the universe; I don't think anybody disputes that. But there is absolutely no reason to believe that said life is intelligent, is humanoid, has the technology to travel between star systems, and is visiting Earth. It's equally likely that the UFOs that are seen are actually just Santa Claus taking his sleigh out for a little spin.

a reply to: Astyanax

Betelgeusian licence plates?

Are you here to have fun?

Outer space? what? no i saw it in my backyard.. lol what i thought back then when i was 7 maybe... i dont know?! what would you have thought? My young mind was head rushing ! i wanted to bring it down with a broom and take a look inside. confirm # and so on...

I'm getting that "look" from you haha

So sad... continue on

a reply to: neoholographic

You are making it too complicated.

The key is to understand people are generally stupid