Originally posted by Indigo_Child
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.

I see what you mean, that's the kind of reasoning that convinced me, until I studied the evidence and logic in depth, and became much more careful as a result. Let me point the differences between my and your understanding. While your demonstration looks correct at first glance, actually there is not a single part of it I can agree with. I'll try to explain why.

First part: they're not ours.
You are assuming UFO sighting reports correctly and accurately describe a physical reality. This is wrong in almost all cases, because subjective eyewitness reports is all we have in most cases. In a few cases there may be some impressive speeds recorded with reasonable accuracy (MUFON's report about the UFOs in Stephensville for example, even though I'm not a radar expert and cannot comment). How do you deduce they are not ours? Do you have access to Black Projects? Are you certain that no disinformation campaign exists to prepare for a mass fake UFO invasion as some ATS members claim?

Second part: a different technology
We can't put a UFO on a workbench and take it apart to see what makes it tick. We can only speculate about plausible physical phenomena like glowing plasma, or fantasies like anti-gravity. A possibility that no one ever mentions is that none of the usual hypothesis are correct. The complete lack of knowledge does not even justify the assumption that they are craft piloted by sentient creatures. They could be automated probes, or critters, or ... I could list a dozen sci-fi ideas. As every simple explanation fails to explain their inherent randomness and absurdity, they may be physical manifestation in our reality of something impossible to imagine. It is highly likely IMO that UFOs are shadows in Plato's cave.

In short:
1. Failure to critically assess evidence.
2. Failure of logic. What you call an inference is actually an hypothesis that you don't even try to validate.
3. Failure of imagination.

b]First part: they're not ours.
You are assuming UFO sighting reports correctly and accurately describe a physical reality. This is wrong in almost all cases, because subjective eyewitness reports is all we have in most cases. In a few cases there may be some impressive speeds recorded with reasonable accuracy (MUFON's report about the UFOs in Stephensville for example, even though I'm not a radar expert and cannot comment). How do you deduce they are not ours? Do you have access to Black Projects? Are you certain that no disinformation campaign exists to prepare for a mass fake UFO invasion as some ATS members claim?

I aware of all alternative hypothesis. As I was saying to the other guy, the best explanation for some cases is ETH. Other hypothesis: underwater civilisations, underground civilisations, time travellers, secret government projects are unnecessary multiplications and purely speculative. On the latter, the fact that this UFO phenomena is pre-modern, with similar decriptions to ones reported today occuring in the far past, means that while some UFO's may well be secret government projects, ET UFO's are still the most lilkey explanation.

Second part: a different technology
We can't put a UFO on a workbench and take it apart to see what makes it tick. We can only speculate about plausible physical phenomena like glowing plasma, or fantasies like anti-gravity. A possibility that no one ever mentions is that none of the usual hypothesis are correct. The complete lack of knowledge does not even justify the assumption that they are craft piloted by sentient creatures. They could be automated probes, or critters, or ... I could list a dozen sci-fi ideas. As every simple explanation fails to explain their inherent randomness and absurdity, they may be physical manifestation in our reality of something impossible to imagine. It is highly likely IMO that UFOs are shadows in Plato's cave.

The clear difference between your argument and mine, is yours is from possibility and mine is from inference. Yep, they could be some unknown physical phenomenon, some manifestation from a quantum level, perhaps some kind of space-time flux, maybe saucers and teapots from a cartoon universe. In the realm of possibility anything can be thought. I am not going to go down that road. All that we need to know is that they are not ours, they do not work using our sciece and technology, and thus the most likely explanation is they are ET. All of these are valid inferences and not a single quantity has been multiplied.


Just a remark on your point about not accepting the evidence as it has been reported. This is really what separates the skeptics from the pseudoskeptics. A pseudoskeptic will argue against the evidence actually being what it is at all e.g., "I saw a UFO the size of several football fields hover over me, it was metallic - "How do you know you saw it" It's a silly question. The pseudoskeptic then ends up either trying to assassinate the character of the witness or to adjust their evidence just so it can fit their explanation. A genuine skeptic will work with the evidence that is available and produce a hypothesis consistent with that.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I aware of all alternative hypothesis. As I was saying to the other guy, the best explanation for some cases is ETH.

If you start your argument by dismissing any other hypothesis, yes. Objectively other hypothesis are just as good.

All that we need to know is that they are not ours, they do not work using our sciece and technology, and thus the most likely explanation is they are ET. All of these are valid inferences and not a single quantity has been multiplied.

Wrong premise, no logic, wrong conclusion. Did you read what I wrote?

A pseudoskeptic will argue against the evidence actually being what it is at all e.g., "I saw a UFO the size of several football fields hover over me, it was metallic - "How do you know you saw it" It's a silly question.

No. To not ask questions and believe everything without critical analysis is a silly attitude. Even believing your own eyes is stupid. (You've never heard of an optical illusion I suppose.) A football field size and metallic shine mean nothing without a careful examination. Birds & bugs look metallic too. Size and distance are nearly impossible to estimate with unknown objects. This uncritical attitude is what separates gullible people from the rest. If you want to believe blindly, go ahead, but don't say it's logical.

Originally posted by nablator

We can only speculate about plausible physical phenomena like glowing plasma, or fantasies like anti-gravity. A possibility that no one ever mentions is that none of the usual hypothesis are correct. The complete lack of knowledge does not even justify the assumption that they are craft piloted by sentient creatures. They could be automated probes, or critters, or ... I could list a dozen sci-fi ideas. As every simple explanation fails to explain their inherent randomness and absurdity, they may be physical manifestation in our reality of something impossible to imagine. It is highly likely IMO that UFOs are shadows in Plato's cave.

I am inclined in this direction.

We should look at ourselves today as people at a relatively similar level of knowledge that we were in previous centuries. Only beginning to get a handle on what was happening in space, in our own atmosphere, and how our senses and minds worked.

The unknown was interpreted back then as religious occurrences because the meme of interplanetary visitations was not firmly established.

Many of us now are like those in the past convinced ghosts or angels are watching are visiting us. Our anthrocentricity produces an expectation that whatever is responsible for the unexplained phenomena must be humanoid with variations - larger head and eyes, thinner bodies, etc.

Even if alien intelligences are responsible, we shouldn't be locked into a notion that they need to fly here in metallic ships and maneuver through our atmosphere, just because that's the level of transportation we are at now. In more primitive time what was up in the sky was thought to be gods in chariots.

We only recently began to explore the complexities of our universe and quantum mechanics. Similarly there are areas we are only slightly aware of but do not comprehend.

Maybe someone on an Einstein level will some day pull it all together for us.
We can start by thinking about new models rather than imposing our present ones on what we can't comprehend.

Mike







[edit on 24-3-2009 by mmiichael]

If youou start your argument by dismissing any other hypothesis, yes. Objectively other hypothesis are just as good.

I am not rejecting any hypthesis. One should not begin any investigation with any prejudices, so I leave all hypothesis and possibilities open.
Some hypothesis, however, are an unnecessary multiplcation of quantites, such as underwater civilisations as mentioned earlier by the other guy. This is on the same level as saying cartoon universe. Yes, both are logical possibilities, but merely argument from possibility is not enough.

It maybe that a UFO that we explain as ET UFO is actually from an underwater civilisation, but still we are going to have use an explanation that can best explain all available data and which is rational.

There is nothing irrational about ET, because the the probability of life occuring in the universe is 100%. There is life on Earth, loads of it, and it appeared immediately on Earth. This means life on planets is a known phenomenon of the universe. To say life on planets exists is not an argument from possibility, but an empirical observation. Yes, you could turn around and say to me, "But how do you know life on other planets exist, all you have is one sample, and you cannot generalise from one sample" This is as silly as asking, "Well how can I know that others have minds, all I have is one sample of mind" its stupid skepticism and pointless.

If we go down that slippery slope we might as well conclude we cannot ever know anything and become vegetables. We do know things, even if what we know is only a temporal truth. I cannot say for certain what a UFO is and making any kind of positive claim is not tenable. However, what I can do is form a hypothesis that is the most likely explanation for the UFO and all the data available.

I will reiterate again for some UFO's the only explanation that works is ETH. Such as the LA one I discussed earlier, which you have interestingly gone quiet on.

Wrong premise, no logic, wrong conclusion. Did you read what I wrote?

Yes I did, and obviously I rejected it because the argument was not sound.
If you think my logic is flawed, then please point out the flaws and the offending premise.

No. To not ask questions and believe everything without critical analysis is a silly attitude. Even believing your own eyes is stupid. (You've never heard of an optical illusion I suppose.) A football field size and metallic shine mean nothing without a careful examination. Birds & bugs look metallic too. Size and distance are nearly impossible to estimate with unknown objects. This uncritical attitude is what separates gullible people from the rest. If you want to believe blindly, go ahead, but don't say it's logical.

I am not certainly saying one should not ask questions about the data. Indeed its the skeptics job to ask questions, "Where did you see it, how far was it from you, were you under any alocholic influence at the time, was there anyone around" Of course these questions have to be asked. The Skeptic needs to ask as many questions as possible to collect as much data as possible. The problem comes when the skeptic does not listen to the answers, but actually influences the answers with leading questions, rhetoric and debunking attempt. I will give an example:

UFO witness: I saw it as clear as I can see you right now. It was metallic, it was emitting a bright orange glow and it hovered right above me on the road. You know like that film Independence day, the mothership just hovers above. It was just like that. It wasn't only me who saw it, but my girlfriend as well.
I am not lying I swear. I never beleived in this stuff before, but I guess seeing is believing.

Skeptic: You said it was on the road, how do you know that it was not just the headlight of a car or truck?

UFO witness: Dude, I know what the headlight of a car or truck looks like. I've been driving on the road for 20 years. This was not headlight.

Skeptic: How can you be sure. If you were the road and a very bright headline shines in your face, it is hard to see anything clearly and then its easy to imagine that there is something large in front of you. Are you telling me it is impossible that you are not mistaken?

UFO witness: No, I am not saying that. Its always possible that one can be mistaken, but is it possible that both me and my girlfriend are mistaken.

Skeptic: Yes, loads of people may all agree they see a ghost, only to later find out it was a lighthouse. Shared delusions are possible.

UFO witness: Look, I see what you are saying, but I believe 100% that I saw a UFO. I have never had an experience like this ever in my entire life.

Skeptic: Then you agree it is just a belief you saw the UFO. Then my job is done. Case dismissed.

The dialogue above is inspired slightly by the movie contact, when Jodie Foster in the end has to admit to the skeptics that as a scientist it is possible that she did not experience her journey. The tactics employed by the skeptic above are similar to tactics lawyers use in court rooms. It is not scientific at all and nor is it ethical. It is a bastardization of scientific research.

Let us look at the problems in the skeptics dialogue with the UFO witness:

1. The skeptic is overtly influencing the UFO witness and asking him leading questions
2. The skeptic is using arguments from possibility to negative the UFO witness experience - "It is possible you saw a headlight" it is also possible that he did not see a headlight, but a UFO. Therefore it is an invalid argument.
3. The Skeptic is not listening to the UFO witness, everything the witness says is explained away using argument from possibility - "My girlfriend also saw it" - "But it is possible it was a shared delusion"

These tactics are all fallacies and rhetoric, but regularly used by pseudoskeptics to dismiss everything they don't like. Pilot testimonies - "It is possible that the pilot was dreaming", Radar reports - "It is possible the equipment malfunctioned" Ancient UFO paintings, "Post-hoc reading"

I would like to alert the "believers" to these common fallacies used frequently by many so-called skeptics on this forum. Namely:

1: Slippery Slope Fallacy
2: Argument from possibility fallacy

Other fallacies you should keep an eye out for: appeal to authority fallacy(not peer reviewed etc) and adhominem and strawman fallacy.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

If you are confident that there is intelligent life - not just life, but intelligent life, on other planets, and that they have superior technology to ours - but not superior enough to avoid detection, or else their psychology and motivations are so "alien" to us that we can't understand them - and are choosing to repeatedly visit planet Earth without ever declaring themselves officially or publicly, and making themselves known to a few select individuals in such a way that those individuals are later presumed to be wacko nutjobs instead of the ETs giving them anything which might help them prove their story .... (and I haven't even yet mentioned crop circles, livestock mutilations, buzzing airplanes close enough to cause accidents, scaring people, etc.)

You just go right ahead. More power.

However, I would greatly appreciate it if you (collectively) would stop calling me/us names like "closed-minded, narrow-minded, debunker, pseudo-skeptic, and bogus skeptic" and/or accusing us of being "cowards, shills, disinfo agents, or stupid" because what I just posted above DOES NOT make sense to me and does not appear to me to be the BEST POSSIBLE explanation for UFO sightings.

Thank you.

A race of truly superior intelligence and technology would not be handling the situation the way that "UFOs" are.

1. If we were like animals to them (insignificant or unintelligent), they wouldn't ever try to hide from us, erase memories, or avoid being seen by using stealth/cloaking technologies. They'd be buzzing around our largest cities in broad daylight, totally unconcerned about what we might do or see.

2. If we're an experiment and they're trying not to affect the results, they wouldn't allow us to get any hint whatsover of their presence. We would have no clue they are here.

3. If they think we're too "primitive" or "immature" and are waiting for us to
"grow up" before they make contact, they wouldn't be abducting people and giving contactees conflicting stories. A non-intervention rule would prevent them from doing many of the things they've been reported to do.

4. If their intent is malicious, such as conquest or extermination, then what the HECK are they waiting for all these hundreds of years?

5. If they think we're "equals" who just haven't managed the leap to their mode of travel, their treatment of us is VERY shoddy.

No theory I have ever heard reasonably fits their behavior and actions. If no hypothesis of why ETs would act like they do and do the things they do makes sense, then it makes it, in my opinion, considerably LESS likely that the ETH is the correct answer.

When you find correct answers, the puzzle usually makes MORE sense.

ETH causes UFO sightings, abductions, contactees, and other types of reports to make LESS sense. Therefore it is likely not the correct answer.

It's like putting pieces into a jigsaw puzzle and discovering that the resulting picture is not a coherent whole but instead looks to be parts of 3 or 4 different pictures. I would conclude that I had used wrong pieces somewhere, and that is exactly what happens when I plug the ETH hypothesis into the body of UFO evidence. It doesn't make any kind of coherent or sensible picture!

Now perhaps you will say that there is probably more than one species/race visiting us, and you will STILL try to claim that that is LESS of a scientific or belief stretch than some of the other hypotheses.

In all the vastness of space, it's fairly improbable that ONE race/species found us, took the time and trouble and expense to visit us, and yet chooses to handle the situation very bizarrely from our point of view, let alone that TWO OR MORE of them have found us and come here and ALL of them choose to act in ways that would cause us to suspect humans of insanity (or perhaps gross immaturity) if they acted the way these supposed ET's are acting towards Earth and humanity.

You can start now with all the what ifs, but the more what ifs and crazy theories you have to throw out to try to explain your ETs' behavior, the more YOU are violating the Occam's razor principle and unecessarily multiplying the possible answers.

Originally posted by karl 12
Just writing off all radar/sonar evidence as 'false echoes' seems a little irresponsible (and unscientific).

True. I hope you're not implying I said anything like that.
There are UFO cases where radar evidence was presented as proof and received world-wide publicity. For example the radar signals recorded on board a F-16 on March 30-31, 1990 in Belgium. Let's talk about who is irresponsible and unscientific.

[edit on 2009-3-25 by nablator]

Things would be a lot better if the actual proof was evaluated instead of the personalities involved. Take the diclosure project, the only thing holding back its credibility is Steven Greer's side buisness where he takes people out to "channel" alien beeings.
Every group has their extremists. Both the extremist UFOligist and skeptik will sound equally insane when they talk. The phoenix lights were a good example, skeptics will say those were military aircraft or flares no matter how many tests are compared based on the light patterns of flares and the flying speed of planes, and how it can't be explained. The extremist UFOlogist will not accept anything besides those being aliens as an answer.
But the burden of proof will always lie on the UFO crowd. Every video is labeled a trick of light or CGI. The skeptic will rarely test their theories, they leave that to the believers and even then they just shoot holes in the testing that was done.