It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Skeptics Dilemma

page: 29
16
<< 26  27  28    30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
Besides, I have looked at the "battle of LA" case. I agree that it was most likely a solid object piloted by an intelligent being. Nothing about the case, however, implies where that craft or being came from.

Wow. What convinced you of solidity and intelligence? I'm utterly unconvinced by the evidence (new analysis of old photographs for instance).




posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
In general we do not doubt that we landed on the moon, but we have no evidence other than a rather dodgy looking moon landing clip and the testimony by scientists at NASA.

Dodgy??? There is not ONE video clip. There are tons of evidence showing how the US space program landed men on the Moon, and the entire history of these achievements is documented.


Likewise, using the same standard, there are dozens of scientists from organizations like NASA that give us testimony on the ET origins of UFO's.

Ridiculous comparison between NASA and UFO organizations. The evidence presented is not at all at the same level.


You can withthold judgement until the cows come home, but at some point you are going to have to make a judgement. That's life, we have to make judgements even on incomplete data.

No we don't. No one will point a gun at you asking you to choose between hypothesis about UFOs.


Likewise, whatever evidence you get for UFOs, you have to to account for with a consistent hypothesis to explain that data. If that means the ETI hypothesis, then you use that.

Yes, but the ETH is not consistent with the evidence. That's the whole problem.


Yes of course, but such inference can only tell us what something is not. A UFO the size of several footbal fields, travelling at impossible speeds, doing abrupt turns is clearly not a human craft.

It can also be argued that it is clearly not a physical craft.


The hovering noiselessly lights are called USO's.

Really? What does the 'S' stand for? Static? I thought it was submarine.


It does not make a case less likely if they are defying our laws of physics, because our laws of physics are not complete and thus an advanced alien race defying it would be expected. It is reasonable to infer that they are using exotic propulsion systems.

Yes, but it's also reasonable to call such baseless speculation wishful thinking.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
It does not make a case less likely if they are defying our laws of physics, because our laws of physics are not complete and thus an advanced alien race defying it would be expected. It is reasonable to infer that they are using exotic propulsion systems.

Reading this again, I don't think it's just a matter of a more advanced propulsion system (technology). A much more advanced science is needed to overcome the theoretic difficulties of interstellar travel. I was very much buying into scientific theories about extra dimensions and shortcuts through parallel universe until I realized they are just speculations, not experimentally tested at all.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Europa733
Remember my list you guys...

Europa733 : "But on the other side, if anyone hade some empirical evidence of ET visitations, we wouldn't be on this thread "babysitting" our dear believers."

Malcram : "That's naive. You have such trust in the honesty of the 'establishment'."

* Claiming that a conspiracy of scientists or government officials exists which is hiding the truth about the believer's discoveries, or other invented complaints about scientific objectivity.


That's either very careless or very dishonest Europa. Where in the above did I claim a conspiracy? I did not. Neither did you mention it. And where in the above did I make an "invented complaint"? Completely false. I simply pointed out that your attitude towards the scientific establishment was naively devout. I later specifically pointed out that, while possible, neither conspiracy nor 'dumbness' was needed to explain the scientific community's endemic failure with regard to a fair and honest investigation of the ET/UFO evidence. And with regard to the claims I did make about the scientific community later in the post, I can prove every single one with examples, and you well know them to be true.



Malcram : "The purveyor of hearsay the Skeptics UFO Newletter may not be peer reviewed but the journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration, which published the Trans-en-Provence reports, is."

* Invocation of authority rather than evidence


Highly duplicitous. YOU made the claim that "Ufology is not a science, it does not get peer reviewed, that's all." YOU made the 'invocation to authority' by attempting to claim that it's evidence was not 'peer reviewed' and so is not relevant, as did Phage. I answered YOUR "invocation of authority" by pointing out that the very case you attempt to dismiss with hearsay WAS published in a legitimate peer reviewed scientific journal, one of YOUR supposed requirements.



Now regarding TEP and the SSE, you guys are going to have a hard time to find any mainstream & well recognized "Scientific journal" that either talks about TEP or that give credit to the SSE.


Make up your mind. For most of the thread, as again here, YOU and others made endless "invocations of authority", claiming that the evidence must appear within the 'mainstream' scientific establishment according to strict criteria in order to be admissible. As soon as someone points out that such evidence - which was asked for - exists, you accuse THEM of "invocation of authority". Unbelievably hypocritical.



The SSE is what is called a "fringe science or borderline association" specialized in things like Ufos and the paranormal, this is in no case mainstream science. Ask scientists to check & verify yourself. (if they even know about it)


LOL. I completely disagree with your assessment, and hot on the heels of falsely accusing someone else of "invocation of authority" you again immediately use that tactic yourself in an attempt to discredit the SSE.



So, ok if you guys think that I am a pseudo-skeptic, I don't really care but some of you guys really fit the description in the link provided below and you demonstrated it and keep demonstrating it on almost every page of this thread.


With regard to pseudo-skepticism, you do yourself no favours in this latest post, that's for sure. All you demonstrated in it was a dishonest and hypocritical debating style which I find disappointing as I had not seen you argue quite in this low manner so far, although many others of your 'comrades' have.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Hi Malcram,

When you say : "That's naive. You have such trust in the honesty of the 'establishment'."

You are :

* Claiming that a conspiracy of scientists or government officials exists which is hiding the truth about the believer's discoveries, or other invented complaints about scientific objectivity.

Wether you want it or not, that's all. It's funny how you are talking about honesty when you are not being honest yourself.

You just got caught in the net, but you refuse to admit it, therefore, I do not
see any reason to continue this "discussion" with you since I think that you are being dishonest.

You can fool some people but not all of them.

Oh and by the way, ufology will become a science when it will be teached in College, I don't see that happening at all. ( Master or Phd in ufology
)

Cheers anyway,
Europa


[edit on 23-3-2009 by Europa733]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Europa733
Hi Malcram,

When you say : "That's naive. You have such trust in the honesty of the 'establishment'."

You are :

* Claiming that a conspiracy of scientists or government officials exists which is hiding the truth about the believer's discoveries, or other invented complaints about scientific objectivity.


Really? Then I suggest you keep practicing your mind-reading techniques are they are badly off target in this case. It's amazing that you can draw "conspiracy of scientists or government officials exists" from the word "honesty", but who am I to question your paranormal abilities? And you don't mention the second part of my post, which directly refutes your claims about the first.

BTW, since YOU have raised the issue, it is a cast iron fact that a "conspiracy of scientists or government officials exists" and that it directly impacts on the UFO debate. Skeptics spend half their time explaining away UFO sightings with 'government black projects' which we have absolute proof existed and still exist. So even if I had made that claim - which I did not - it would have been correct to say that significant elements of the scientific community conspire to keep secrets from the public and that the rest of the scientific community is as ignorant as the public about their secrets. That's not an "invented complaint" it's a cold, hard, fact. But, you raised this issue, not I.

I'm afraid you just got caught B.S.'ing. But anything to shift the focus from your "invocation of authority" hypocrisy eh? Which I note you are using again in your last post. You really are seriously in thrall to the PTB aren't you?


[edit on 23-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
These are all really good points. This is a good thread; kudos to the OP.

The problem is one of awareness, really. I believe that anything could be possible in this gigantic universe we live in. Skeptics are essentially trying to find comfort in the most logical, explainable reasons why certain things happen. In other words, I think it's a defense mechanism. They may not even realize it themselves, but some people could not handle the truth.

That's why this website is called "above top secret" in my eyes. This site contains information that cannot afford to be secret. I'll put this into a historical context.

I do not know the whole story, but I believe it was an American scientist who leaked the secrets of the atom bomb to the soviets. Now think if that technology had stayed in the hands of only one nation. It's the same kind of idea here, but on these sites things are so extraordinary that most people would not believe anything that is written here. And that's how it should stay.

So that's my reason why skeptics are skeptics. Their minds are defending them from knowledge that they simply could not handle.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mysterium918
So that's my reason why skeptics are skeptics. Their minds are defending them from knowledge that they simply could not handle.

Hey. Don't generalize. Some may be like this:


Or this:


My favorite skeptics are of the "bring them on" persuasion.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Hello ziggystar! .. nice to hear from you my friend, it's been a while.


Originally posted by ziggystar60
I don't find it odd at all. After being a member here for a little over a year, I have also become more of a skeptic.

This is not surprising, considering how many skeptics there are on ATS.. I find more skeptics here than purported believers. And that is something I find strange, to say the least.


When you participate in a forum like this, you get to dig much deeper into different conspiracy theories than people who get most of their information from the main stream media and tabloids.

Yes, you are correct. And everyone is skeptical by nature, most people here neglect what the mainstream says, or take information from them with a grain of salt -per say.


And if you are open minded enough to consider ALL the information made available, to look at things from as many different perspectives as possible instead of just clinging stubbornly to your pet CT

The same could be applied to skeptics. Why don't they open their minds to the possibilities?.. why do they so stubbornly attempt to explain away everything?.. how is it that someone who likes/prefers to keep the possibilities open; is somehow the one referred to as 'closed-minded'?


you will in time understand that many things have perfectly natural and logical explanations. Not all, but many.

This is true, and nobody said that there aren't any logical explanations behind some things, not all. But sometimes, I see some of the most ridiculous explanations thrown about on this forum. And when one tries to contend those explanations, they will almost certainly get the closed-minded treatment.


I also think it is very unfair the way many "skeptics" are being bashed by some of the "believers".

Likewise, I find it unfair the way many skeptics around here bash the 'believers'.. and from what I've seen, this type of situation happens more often than a believer bashing a skeptic. Also keep in mind, that this is supposed to be a site that is mostly for 'believers' and conspiracy-theorists.


My experience is that most of the skeptics bring valuable and very sensible information to the table, they very often go the extra mile to give you an explanation for things, and they provide sources, images and facts to back up their statements.

And everyone can appreciate the efforts of Phage for example. Because he is a civil and respectful poster... if only all skeptics were like Phage.


Sadly, some of the believers have another approach. When a skeptic enters a thread with information that contradicts their conspiracy theory, they just stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and start ranting at the skeptic instead of adressing the information itself. They end up cluttering the threads with personal attacks and accusations instead of trying to learn something to get to the REAL truth about things.

This doesn't happen too often, and it usually happens when you get the pseudoskeptics entering a thread deliberately picking a fight with believers. A defensive response soon ensues.

REAL truth? .. you see this is something I find quite disturbing... what makes the truth of a 'skeptic' any more REAL than the truth of a believer? .. nothing really.. only that skeptics will use the more mainstream websites to support their case.. but when a believer offers something out of the mainstream.. it usually get's dismissed on the spot.

[edit on 23/3/09 by Majorion]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 




Also keep in mind, that this is supposed to be a site that is mostly for 'believers' and conspiracy-theorists.


Hm, I can't remember anyone telling me I had to be a believer to sign up here..?

And can you imagine how BORING this place would be without people from both sides of the "fence"? Yawn... At least for me it is the discussions, the opportunity to see things from different angles, that makes it worthwhile to spend time here.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystar60
Hm, I can't remember anyone telling me I had to be a believer to sign up here..?

Nobody has said that. What I meant, is that this site is mostly for people who have already delved deep into the world of conspiracy-theories, and would like to continue to discuss these issues, without being grilled by every person claiming to be a "skeptic". Would you prefer to see ATS be turned into 'bad astronomy' or 'csicop' for example?

Look what at says at the top of this page;


Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of the existence of extraterrestrials and the related conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com\'s tradition of supporting the examination of the \"extraterrestrial phenomenon\" on the related conspiracy theories, cover-ups, and scandals.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


And the key words are:

the examination of the \"extraterrestrial phenomenon\" on the related conspiracy theories, cover-ups, and scandals.

Because without discussion, without all the relevant and available facts put on the table, no real examination is possible, in my opinion.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mysterium918
...
The problem is one of awareness, really. I believe that anything could be possible in this gigantic universe we live in. Skeptics are essentially trying to find comfort in the most logical, explainable reasons why certain things happen. In other words, I think it's a defense mechanism. They may not even realize it themselves, but some people could not handle the truth.
...


I can only speak for myself, naturally, but one of one of the things that drives my scepticism is an awareness of how difficult it is to prove something. Most things things we accept as true can be checked. There is a range of checking. There's things I can check myself. For instance if I wanted to check Pythagoras theorem there are proofs I can follow myself. Equally, I have a left-over academic log-in, and for simpler (e.g. simple enough/well written enough for an idiot non-expert like me to check) scientific papers I can check myself. By following the references, checking out follow-up papers, seeing rebuttals etc. I think I can get a good grasp of how I should view an arguments validity. The same is true of financial things like inflation indices or APR interest calculations – I have in the past requested the relevant data and checked for myself.

With more complex things, most stuff, I have to take other people's word for it. But it's not quite as simple as that, because if, as a species, we had a rubbish ontological strategy we'd all own magic beans and be waiting for the man from Nigeria to send us our cash. We all assign various levels of reliability to various sources of information. Sometimes that can be wrong because what one person considers reliable may be considered unreliable by others. I think the only way to be sure is to approach any source of information with scepticism until multiple people have examined it, and have gone had the same critical appraisal (are they experts?, what are their biases? what are their sources? does it check out? etc.).

It's just as difficult to disprove something. I don't, outside of a narrow range of things, tend to think about things as true or false, or possible or impossible. But as likely to be true or unlikely to be true, and everything in between.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystar60
And the key words are:

the examination of the \"extraterrestrial phenomenon\" on the related conspiracy theories, cover-ups, and scandals.

Because without discussion, without all the relevant and available facts put on the table, no real examination is possible, in my opinion.

I agree, but let's try to define what ATS mean by 'examination' in this statement. I think that they mean; examining a particular conspiracy theory from a more pro-angle.. or.. examining the conspiratorial aspects of a specific subject.

Notice at the end, it says; conspiracy theories, cover-ups, and scandals..

Many members here deny there being a conspiracy, or a cover-up in the first place.. And as the statement goes; it is the tradition of ATS to focus on these things, and if someone wants to refute, then they should be mindful of this tradition..



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
I think that they mean; examining a particular conspiracy theory from a more pro-angle.. or.. examining the conspiratorial aspects of a specific subject.


I hardly think the ATS motto "Deny Ignorance" means that the subjects here at ATS are to be discussed from a more "pro-angle", as you say.

What would be the point of that? The members can say what the want, they can discuss anything as long as their statements are "pro" different conspiracy theories?

That would be very, very far from denying ignorance. In fact it would be just the opposite.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Dodgy??? There is not ONE video clip. There are tons of evidence showing how the US space program landed men on the Moon, and the entire history of these achievements is documented.


Right, but you still have to believe it is real. There are tons of evidence showing UFO's.


Ridiculous comparison between NASA and UFO organizations. The evidence presented is not at all at the same level.


It's not ridiculous at all. The person was claiming that people from NASA have evidence, and he can trust it. Likewise, there are people from NASA who claim the existence of aliens. So either one considers them trustworthy or not trustworthy, you can't have both.


No we don't. No one will point a gun at you asking you to choose between hypothesis about UFOs.


Then you've got not reason to be here. The skeptic's job is to investigate the UFO claims and then explain it using a hypothesis. If he/she's not doing that, they are not skeptics, just doubters.


Yes, but the ETH is not consistent with the evidence. That's the whole problem.


It depends on the case. Some cases cannot be explained without the ETH.


It can also be argued that it is clearly not a physical craft.


Then you would have to explain a non-physical craft that is several football fields long, that travels at super fast speeds and makes abrupt turns.

I have also seen cases where the the UFO is described as metallic with the all the aforementioned characteristics. That clearly is a physical object.


Yes, but it's also reasonable to call such baseless speculation wishful thinking.


Nope, actually there is no wishful thinking here. It is a very simple inference. If a UFO which is a description of an actual physical craft is performing actions beyond human craft, then the clear inference one can make from this is that they are using a different kind of propulsion system to human craft. If they were using the same propulsion system they would be behaving just like human craft.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystar60
The members can say what the want, they can discuss anything as long as their statements are "pro" different conspiracy theories?

No, you seem to have misunderstood me.

It is obvious, that anyone can say anything they want here, whether it is 'pro' or 'anti' conspiracy theory. What I am saying is that the discussion will tend to lean in favor of the pro.. so when someone enters in disagreement (as is usually the case, every time) they should be mindful of this, and refrain from calling others closed-minded believers, and initiating unnecessary personal attacks.

Frankly, I think that there are some members here, who couldn't care less for the topics on ATS, and would rather go under the title of a 'skeptic', just so they could pick their next fight in any given thread. This is what I am contending here, these people are pseudo-skeptics or bogus skeptics, they are not real skeptics.

So let me clarify again; if someone wishes to express their opinion, there is nothing wrong with that, they are absolutely free to do so.. whether it is pro or anti. But they should not expect everyone to accept their word as "fact" or "gospel" simply because for example they would quote and use mainstream websites in support of their opinion.

Also, I will quote myself again from my last post;


Originally posted by Majorion
and if someone wants to refute, then they should be mindful of this tradition..


[edit on 23/3/09 by Majorion]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Reading this again, I don't think it's just a matter of a more advanced propulsion system (technology). A much more advanced science is needed to overcome the theoretic difficulties of interstellar travel. I was very much buying into scientific theories about extra dimensions and shortcuts through parallel universe until I realized they are just speculations, not experimentally tested at all.


Yeah, but I never said they are using shortcuts through dimensions and extra dimensions or what have you. I said that as our laws of physics are not complete, it would be expected that a more advanced race would defy them.

We cannot generalise our understanding of the laws of physics to an advanced alien race. So any objection that UFO's are deying the laws of our physics so cannot be true are invalid.


Just a response to the Battle in LA UFO sighting. Here is one kind of UFO case where the only explanation one can use to explain all the data is the ETH hypothesis. Let us briefly look at the data:

Mass sighting of a UFO of tremendous size, emitting an orange glow, hovering over LA in 1941.
Intercepted by figher planes and fired at by artilliery for about 1 hour 30 min, the bullets richochet of this UFO, and actually hit people, even injuring and killing some.
Surrounded by search lights from all directions
Photographs that show the said UFO surrounded by search lights appearing in newspaper clipping the next day
After about 1 hour 30 min, the craft begins to move away and disappears into the horizon, never to be seen again.

If one accepts all the data, how does one explain this case without using the ETH hypothesis? Take a shot.

Here is a video of an original radio transcript at time it was happening:

www.youtube.com...]

[edit on 23-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
"UFO's cannot be human


I have no problem with the idea that many UFOs are "not human." Although some of them probably are military craft on which data has not yet been released to the public. It's the leap from "not human" to extraterrestrial that I have trouble with. "Not human" leaves us with many options besides "from another planet." Yet, "from another planet" seems to be the only option you want to look at.


That's life, we have to make judgements even on incomplete data.


Sometimes, we most certainly do. When someone's life is in danger, or we are required to make a decision due to some external pressure. However, in the case of UFOs, there is no such pressure. There's no reason to HAVE to make a decision now. What will waiting for more evidence hurt?


your absolutist skeptic position


Not me. Are you sure you're addressing who you think you are? I had a UFO sighting as a child, and I don't think humans have the technology to do what that one did, yet. However, that doesn't automatically equate to "extraterrestrial" in my opinion. That's one of the possibilities, yes, but not the only one or necessarily the best one.


in terms of major cases which ufologists study those are the most common characteristics.


I suggest you review the "major cases." Roswell, Socorro, Kecksburg, Rendlesham, Varginha, Bentwaters, the Valentich (sp?) case .. As I recall, none of them feature an object the size of "several football fields." Here's a thread that might be helpful.


The hovering noiselessly lights are called USO's.


No. Objects in the SKY are called UFOs whether they move or not. Objects seen underwater are called USOs (the S stands for submerged). There's a nice thread about USOs here.


It is reasonable to infer that they are using exotic propulsion systems.


That's called imagination. We can't reasonably infer knowledge about something we haven't discovered yet. Furthermore, the idea that we are so "primitive" and that we haven't yet learned very much about anything is a product of FICTION, primarily science fiction.


Even if one case exists in the entire history of ufology which cannot be explained without ETH, then it is sufficient evidence.


No, it isn't. There are exceptions to every rule, and one case does not a hypothesis make. Mike the Wonder Chicken was a Wyandotte rooster that lived for 18 months after his head had been cut off. Does this mean that all chickens, or most chickens, can live after their heads have been removed? Nope.


However, you are muliplying quantites unnecessarily


No, I'm not. I'm considering all reasonable possibilities. You choose to interpret the evidence with a bias for your "pet" theory, ETH, and manage to find all other possibilities to be less likely.


time travellers, underwater civilisations, parallel universes are only theoretical possiblities and do not form a part of our current understanding of the universe.


Excuse me, but FTL travel and life on other planets are also only theoretical possibilities and not part of our current understanding of the universe. We can theorize mathematically that there is probably life on other planets somewhere, but it's still just a mathematical theory and we haven't yet actually found any such life.


any kind of witness tesimony will have variation, even on reporting something as mundane as a car accident, that there will be variations.


Quite true. However, there's quite a difference between two witnesses disagreeing on the driver's hair color, or two witnesses disagreeing about whether said Sasquatch smelled more like a skunk or like rotten eggs, and the immense variation in UFO reports. After a car accident, witnesses won't report everything from a Beetle to a HumVee limousine being the car that caused the accident, and that is the scale of variation we see in UFO reports.


So any objection that UFO's are deying the laws of our physics so cannot be true are invalid.


That may be true. However, isn't it just as logical and reasonable to think that a UFO may be something other than a physical craft and therefore it is NOT defying the laws of physics as we understand them?


Just a response to the Battle in LA UFO sighting. ...If one accepts all the data, how does one explain this case without using the ETH hypothesis? Take a shot.


I already did, and you rejected them all because you find them to be less 'reasonable' than your ETH.

We already know that intelligent life has evolved on Earth. We don't know for a fact that intelligent life has evolved anywhere else. I, therefore, find it to be less of a scientific "stretch" to conclude that intelligent life evolved on Earth in two different forms than to conclude that it evolved somewhere else and that they have conquered all the problems associated with interstellar travel, AND then they come here to abduct humans for medical examinations, buzz power plants and airplanes, form crop circles, and chop up inoffensive cattle. Furthermore, in order to accept this as the hypothesis one must also accept that more than one race presumably from more than one other planet, exists and is doing this, due to the immense differences in reports of what ETs and their craft look and act like.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heike

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
"UFO's cannot be human


I have no problem with the idea that many UFOs are "not human." Although some of them probably are military craft on which data has not yet been released to the public. It's the leap from "not human" to extraterrestrial that I have trouble with. "Not human" leaves us with many options besides "from another planet." Yet, "from another planet" seems to be the only option you want to look at.


This seems to the crux of your whole debate with me, so I will focus on that and ignore the minor points .


That's called imagination. We can't reasonably infer knowledge about something we haven't discovered yet. Furthermore, the idea that we are so "primitive" and that we haven't yet learned very much about anything is a product of FICTION, primarily science fiction.


The idea of a physical aircraft is not unknown to us. Correct?
The idea that our physical aircraft are only capable of a limited set of speeds and motions is not unknow to us right.? Correct? Therefore, if we have evidence a physical aircraft that defies our speeds and motions, one can only conclude that it is NOT our aircraf. The next inference is it must be using a different kind of technology.

In other words we are inferring from available evidence, we are not inferring from evidence that is not available. Moreover, I don't think you understand what inference is. One uses inference to make conclusions about unknown things from known thing. Nobody has seen any atom, but one can infer atoms exist from available evidence.


No, it isn't. There are exceptions to every rule, and one case does not a hypothesis make. Mike the Wonder Chicken was a Wyandotte rooster that lived for 18 months after his head had been cut off. Does this mean that all chickens, or most chickens, can live after their heads have been removed? Nope.


Nope, but you clearly are missing the point. If we can show that one UFO case is a genuine case of ET, then that is enough to say that ET UFO's exist. You don't need anymore cases. One is enough.


No, I'm not. I'm considering all reasonable possibilities. You choose to interpret the evidence with a bias for your "pet" theory, ETH, and manage to find all other possibilities to be less likely.

Excuse me, but FTL travel and life on other planets are also only theoretical possibilities and not part of our current understanding of the universe. We can theorize mathematically that there is probably life on other planets somewhere, but it's still just a mathematical theory and we haven't yet actually found any such life.


You miss the point again. Did I claim that ET is using FTL? No. All that we can infer based on the presence of non-human physical UFO's, that a non-human intelligence is operating them. This opens up various possibilities:

Time travellers, extradimensiona beings, underground civilisations, underwater civilisations and finally ET beings.

We then have to come up with a most likely explanation. Time travellers? But how do we know it is possible? Extradimensional beings, how do we know there are other dimensions? Undeground and underwater civilisations, how do we know they are there. Finally, when we consider ET beings, we know that life in the universe is a fact(Earth is one instance of it) and as there are trillions of planets throughout the universe like Earth, we have no reason to believe that life cannot be elsewhere. So given our available evidence the only explanation that is most likely is ET for UFO's which are physical and display non-human intelligence.

I am not saying that no UFO's are time travellers, dimensional travellers, underwater and underground intelligences, that possibility is always open, but all these alternative hypothesis is an unnecessary multiplication of quantities. I am afraid, as I argued initially, you are using a slippery slope fallacy here. It is invalid, sorry.


Quite true. However, there's quite a difference between two witnesses disagreeing on the driver's hair color, or two witnesses disagreeing about whether said Sasquatch smelled more like a skunk or like rotten eggs, and the immense variation in UFO reports. After a car accident, witnesses won't report everything from a Beetle to a HumVee limousine being the car that caused the accident, and that is the scale of variation we see in UFO reports.


The immense variation is because most UFO reports are not UFO reports at all. As I said before, I am not interested in most UFO reports, I am only interested in genuine unexplained UFOs which can only be explained consistently and without quantity multiplication with ETH.



That may be true. However, isn't it just as logical and reasonable to think that a UFO may be something other than a physical craft and therefore it is NOT defying the laws of physics as we understand them?


In some cases, yes. However in cases where the description is of a physical object(often metallic) which registers on radar reports, sometimes even leaving trace evidence, then one would would have to logically conclude it is a phyical craft defying our laws of physics.

The laws of physics as we understand them are only based on observations and certain models. An object cannot peform abrupt turns at supersonic speeds because our observations show us that the g-forces generated would crush the object and its occupants. What our observations do not show us is the cause behind the generation of g-gorces. Now, recent experiments have shown us that it actually possible to reduce g-effects up to 80%, in other words new observations are being made on the anterior causes of g itself.

Similarily for FTL. In the case of FTL the objection is not empirical, but mathmatical. The theory of relativity shows us that as an object reaches the speed of light its mass becomes infinite, which means it would be impossible to reach the speed of light. What we don't know however what is the antecedent cause that causes this mass-effect to take plac. New observations on that could lead to means of neutralizing the mass effects.

So physics is always observation-dependent. New observations of antecedent causes will allow one to find ways around current limitations. Thus no limitation as predicated by any physical model is ever absolute.


I already did, and you rejected them all because you find them to be less 'reasonable' than your ETH.


It is less reasonable because you are multiplying quantities unnecessarily.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 26  27  28    30 >>

log in

join