posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 10:50 AM
Ok, so i find myself writing on this board because i am getting increasingly frustrated by watching youtube videos who see a dot in the sky and scream
UFO, but who are seemingly deaf to the far more plausible explanations being presented.
I am a fairly open minded person. I argue intensly about things i have strong opinions over, but on some level i will always be ready to concede that
my opnions may have been misguided in the first place.
Someone earlier on this thread mentioned that Critics tend to be narrow minded, while belivers are openminded with multiple cases of evidence to back
them up. I must say my own experience lends to the complete opposite of this. What do you consider evidence to be? a Theory? or a working model of
something that can be recreated and tested (which is after all how our modern world has developed). Here is an example of a reply left on a youtube
video involving a possible UFO collision from a believer which is relatively representative of the sort of thing you read on forums:
"some people are pig ignorant aswell as brainwashed by the media.
your thinkinking in 3d and with human consciosness - afterall its all you
these craft dont travel linear (like the idiot paid off news repeater tries to -mplant on the mass') they travel via technologies and physics that we
are not aware of such as 'alcubierre drives' and 'wormholes' and 'inter dimensions' - people luaghing at this makes me ashamed to be human -
sheeple slaves enslaving humanity WAKE UP"
This is an example of where someone is taking theorys, untried and untested, and using them to back up his belief. Wormholes, interdimensions, as
well as "physics that we are not aware of" are all theorys. They have not been tested because at this time they cannot be tested. If i were to ask
a UFO believer any questions into how a faster than light drive works, they would say something along the lines of "it is inconcievable to our
current understanding of science" If this is true, how then can you possibly use it in an arguement? It is tantamount to me saying my microwave is
heating my cold chips because God is heating them for me. Religion works on a basis of seen effects are used to guess the cause, and it seems much
basis for UFO evidence. Yet how many UFOlogists are also devoutly religous? I imagine there are people reading this now enraged that i should even
suggest such a thing.
The reasons both believers and non believers conflict so much is that they see things from a fundamentally different point of view. One see's the
qualititave theory as proof, the other requires quantitative data as proof. Sadly theory alone cannot provide evidence. Does gravity exist? well if
you can create a test to measure and recreate an effect using it, then yes it does. Does an alien being not of this world exist? possbily, but until
you can recreate an effect (mutilating a cow, abducting from a specific area, genetic information gathered, or whatever) reliably from it you will
never have a skeptic's attention.