Einstein said:
" Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance"

So ppl. who condemn it, are just ignorant.

We seek answers for mysteries,puzzles the unknown, its all part of our makeup, to learn. I like to perform magic tricks, it is good to entertain, most like to fathom ,How is it done? if they guess right, do we say yep you are smart,or do we weave or confuse their guess so they are still confused.
Maybe the same techniques are used by skeptics, because if they didn,t believe in ufo,s or crop circles or symbolism or whatever, then WHY are they reading and replying to subjects that they don,t believe in? daft eh.
So maybe there is more to this than meets the eye, maybe the skeptics DO believe but like this info limited only to the few , the skeptics themselves, mike

When we are dealing with the unknown or unproven, all we can offer is suggestions, I am amazed at crop circles ,i know that many hoaxers have tried to convince others of their special quality to dupe the public with boards and string. If they are not made perfectly then they are man made as far as mechanically possible.
We have the technology to perform many marvelous things, for example you must have seen those solid glass cubes with a hologram shaped by a laser within?.
The same principal could be used with a laser to make crop circles from a satelite.
We want to believe in the unproven, I tend to be sceptical at times, this site brings together some of the specialists in their field, and no matter who you are, your membership is welcome as hopefully contributing to this site.mike

my point of view is: it's hard to believe that among so many stars in the universe, and probably most of them contains a solar with planets.. what's the possibility of having one living planet beside us?

---

---

we do not have the responsibility to find ET,enjoy our peacful life and enjoy the progress of searching ET.result is not important.

Originally posted by Jezus
The interesting psychological point is how people react to evidence.

No, it's how people react to all things, evidence included, but not limited to evidence.

Depending are how "fantastic" you view a concept it is easier to rationalize the evidence to fit some preconceived explanation.

The same things applies to the opposite reaction, when people use a "higher" (god, ETs, etc.) explanation to things just because they cannot understand what's happening.

The fact they cannot find an easy and mundade explanation doesn't mean that there isn't one, it means only that they cannot find it at the time.

In other words, even if you had a direct personal experience you might think it is more logical to assume it was an hallucination if you think the possibility of alien life is that unlikely.

I, personally, would not assume hallucination as a viable explanation unless I had some reason to think that it would be easier for me to have an hallucination, something I never had, although there are more evidences for the existence of hallucinations than to the existence on Earth of extraterrestrial beings.

This is exactly why evidence is subjective.

And that's one of the reasons physical evidence is so important, with it there is much less subjectivity.

Originally posted by secretnasaman
These are things they can not answer because a skeptic does not believe in UFOs, so there is no debate, no questions, no winning a debate with a debunker. They start and end with the premise that it is not true.They only exist to keep posting no! They have added a comedian in Bill NYE, as with the success of John Stewart, they need a lighter approach it seems!

This is the most moronic post I've seen.

Do you know what a skeptic is?

–noun
1.
a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

Your post is also hypocritical in the sense that, you claim ALL skeptics are simply "no no no" which is untrue and shortsighted, but your post as a whole shows that actually you're the one with completely uncompromising views not willing to see the side of "well maybe I'm not right" - and so you're the one that is in actual fact "starting and ending with the premise that it is true"

I get really bored of this forum sometimes, without skepticism the world would be a horrible place, yet people like you attack skeptics for QUESTIONING things they're unsure of, isn't that exactly what you did when you first started thinking about the whole UFO/GovernmentCoverup/ET subject? QUESTIONED what you were being told?

If not, and you blindly accepted what you read on this site or on youtube videos of ALIEN AUTOPSIES, then I beg you, don't post again.

Originally posted by ArMaP

In other words, even if you had a direct personal experience you might think it is more logical to assume it was an hallucination if you think the possibility of alien life is that unlikely.

I, personally, would not assume hallucination as a viable explanation unless I had some reason to think that it would be easier for me to have an hallucination, something I never had, although there are more evidences for the existence of hallucinations than to the existence on Earth of extraterrestrial beings.

The fact remains that if you consider the possibility of random unexplained hallucinations to be more plausible than the existence of extraterrestrials, literally ANY evidence can be dismissed and rationalized away.

Originally posted by ArMaP

This is exactly why evidence is subjective.

And that's one of the reasons physical evidence is so important, with it there is much less subjectivity.

The nature of the evidence has nothing to do with it.

If someone doesn't consider the existence of aliens to be possible than any evidence can be rationalized away.

Originally posted by Jezus
The fact remains that if you consider the possibility of random unexplained hallucinations to be more plausible than the existence of extraterrestrials, literally ANY evidence can be dismissed and rationalized away.

It depends.

There are some known conditions that create hallucinations, so if some of those conditions are present then it becomes a more plausible explanation than extraterrestrial presence on Earth.

But if those conditions are not present and there isn't any evidence of their presence at the time of the event, then hallucinations become as good as any other explanation.

Extraterrestrial presence on Earth (not as well documented as hallucinations) may also be an explanation, although always less likely to be the right explanation, like all other explanations for which we don't have strong evidences.

The nature of the evidence has nothing to do with it.

If someone doesn't consider the existence of aliens to be possible than any evidence can be rationalized away.

It does, when someone compares one witness testimony with a physical evidence, for example.

With witness testimony we don't have any physical evidence, only a description of what the witness witnessed, so we cannot go further than ask questions, and the witness becomes another obstacle between us and the knowledge of what really happened, because now we have a testimony that we don't know if it's true, if it's accurate, if it misses something that witness didn't noticed for some reason, etc.

Physical evidence is just that, you can pick up a piece of some strange metal, for example, and do some tests.

They will not tell us if it was really an extraterrestrial related event, but at least we know that the piece of metal is not lying, did not forgot about some of its properties, etc.

Obviously, if someone thinks that extraterrestrial life is impossible, they will never consider it as an option, but then they will get more problems explaining the piece of strange metal than the witness testimony.

Also, people like that are not sceptics, a sceptic must accept any possibility, including those that he/she does not know yet.

At least that's what I do.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Extraterrestrial presence on Earth (not as well documented as hallucinations) may also be an explanation, although always less likely to be the right explanation, like all other explanations for which we don't have strong evidences.

Well the idea that "we" don't have strong evidence is debatable itself but regardless, this seems like an odd statement to make without actually talking about a specific case...

"always less likely to be the right explanation" = Illogical

Originally posted by ArMaP
Physical evidence is just that, you can pick up a piece of some strange metal, for example, and do some tests.

Again, if you believe "random unexplained" hallucinations are more likely than the existence of aliens than ANY evidence can be rationalized away after the fact.

Even scientific analysis of physical evidence can be hallucinated.

This might seem ridiculous, but I'm not the one in denial trying to rationalize evidence to fit preconceived notions of a world without extraterrestrials....

Originally posted by ArMaP
Also, people like that are not sceptics, a sceptic must accept any possibility, including those that he/she does not know yet.

I agree with you here, many people who believe they are skeptical do not understand the word...

Originally posted by Jezus
Well the idea that "we" don't have strong evidence is debatable itself but regardless, this seems like an odd statement to make without actually talking about a specific case...

If we have strong evidence of extraterrestrial life present on Earth then that evidence exists with no need to talk about a specific case.

If you have any strong evidence of the presence of extraterrestrial life on Earth I would like to see it.

"always less likely to be the right explanation" = Illogical

Any explanation for which there is no supporting evidence is always less likely to be the right explanation than one for which there is strong evidence, I don't see how that can be illogical.

And don't forget that the fact that one explanation is less likely to be the right one for some event doesn't mean that it's not the right one, only that, without other data, it looks less likely.

Again, if you believe "random unexplained" hallucinations are more likely than the existence of aliens than ANY evidence can be rationalized away after the fact.

You keep talking about "random unexplained" hallucinations, it almost looks like I presented that as an explanation for something, so I will tell you that I don't remember any case for which I thought that a "random unexplained" hallucination was the most likely explanation.

Even scientific analysis of physical evidence can be hallucinated.

Any thing can be hallucinated, even this post.

This might seem ridiculous, but I'm not the one in denial trying to rationalize evidence to fit preconceived notions of a world without extraterrestrials....

Neither am I, although I am starting to think that you think I am.

Originally posted by ArMaP
If you have any strong evidence of the presence of extraterrestrial life on Earth I would like to see it

The evidence isn't new, we just see it differently.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Any explanation for which there is no supporting evidence is always less likely to be the right explanation than one for which there is strong evidence, I don't see how that can be illogical.

"no supporting evidence"

This obviously isn't the case for all situations.

Again, it is illogical because you aren't speaking about a specific case.

Originally posted by ArMaP
You keep talking about "random unexplained" hallucinations, it almost looks like I presented that as an explanation for something, so I will tell you that I don't remember any case for which I thought that a "random unexplained" hallucination was the most likely explanation.

My point is simply that if you attempt to rationalize evidence to fit a world where aliens aren't real you will always be able to.

Any evidence can be dismissed.

The "likely" explanation is extremely subjective.

Originally posted by Jezus
The evidence isn't new, we just see it differently.

Then, probably, that means that the evidence is not that strong.

"no supporting evidence"

This obviously isn't the case for all situations.

Again, it is illogical because you aren't speaking about a specific case.

We don't need a specific case to speak about supporting evidence of extraterrestrial life, that evidence either exists or not. It may be related to one specific case, but strong evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial life from one case is enough.

My point is simply that if you attempt to rationalize evidence to fit a world where aliens aren't real you will always be able to.

Evidence should be rationalized, but with no prejudices, either pro or against a specific explanation.

That's what happens when someone sees a video of a light in the night sky and says that it's clear evidence of extraterrestrial life. For that person, biased toward an extraterrestrial explanation of any event, the most likely explanation is the extraterrestrial one. That person will probably also dismiss mundane explanations, like the presence of an airport in the area and the fact that a light means just that, a light.

You have probably already seen some cases like this on ATS.

The same happens with the people that are biased against an extraterrestrial explanation, they will dismiss everything with the first idea that comes to their heads, even if it doesn't look anything like what they can see in the video, but, for that person, that is the most likely explanation, and he/she will dismiss any attempt of showing that the event doesn't look like their proposed explanation.

You have probably seen some of these on ATS also.

What I think should be done is to rationalize the event and the evidence (like we do everyday, in other situations), with no bias in any direction and with the thought that people are easily fooled by their senses, so we should always be prepared to change our opinions when presented with new data.

And what we always have is just a likely explanation, either right or wrong, close or far away from the truth, until we get unmistakeable evidence that one of those explanations (or even one nobody thought about) is the right one.