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.

 

Show Me A Sceptic That Does Not Believe In Aliens

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Hawkwind.
 


I agree, Hawkwind. The odds are in favor of life elsewhere. I'm just not seeing good odds that they're hiding in the dumpster at the local 7-Eleven.




posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Rare-earth hypothesis. Yep, that's a belief-logic in the sense that it's foremost belief, logic is secondary. The ET hypothesis is no different. However we can say with some statistical provenance that 'rare-earth' is likely incorrect (see Probability One by Amir, D. Aczel, Ph.D). So therefore we already know there's a statistical likelihood in favor of ET life (not necessarily here in our solar system, but somewhere).

Next all you have to do is evaluate what ET-life might look like. For instance Dr. Michio Kaku has tried to make the point many times that people may be seeing self-reproducing unmanned aerial probes. This is not only an excellent explanation it explains Fermi's Paradox and does not violate the laws of physics.

(scrape to 5:40)


You put those two things together and you then look at a case like this:


or this:


or this:


or this:


or this:


or this:



And based off statistical probability, people who are expert in their field who have attempted to explain these things, people who have made a strong case that there's something unknown, then it becomes not only worth considering ETH, but I believe a scientific imperative to study the phenomenon.

This does NOT have to be a matter of belief or disbelief, the question is, since we have a high probability, what is the next step to prove or disprove this particular hypothesis? To disprove UFOs (definition) would require exhaustively ruling out ALL hypotheses. None of you want to address this issue because this is actual science and requires real work. How many of you as believers even run something like SETI? How many of you as skeptics bother to actually try to tackle and explain the hard cases? I condemn anyone and everyone who mouthes off without first attempting to do something to bring resolution to the issue.

[edit on 11-4-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


"This does NOT have to be a matter of belief or disbelief, the question is, since we have a high probability, what is the next step to prove or disprove this particular hypothesis? To disprove UFOs (definition) would require exhaustively ruling out ALL hypotheses. None of you want to address this issue because this is actual science and requires real work. How many of you as believers even run something like SETI? How many of you as skeptics bother to actually try to tackle and explain the hard cases? I condemn anyone and everyone who mouthes off without first attempting to do something to bring resolution to the issue. "

Sorry, but you don't set the parameters for proof. The procedure for scientific proof is well established and tested over time. Find evidence that will stand up to that and somebody might listen.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Sorry, but you don't set the parameters for proof. The procedure for scientific proof is well established and tested over time. Find evidence that will stand up to that and somebody might listen.


Where did I suggest there is proof of ETs? There is overwhelming evidence of a phenomenon that desperately needs to be studied and you simply would rather verbally masturbate on a forum without lifting a finger to even bring resolution.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


You know more about ETs than you know about my motivations, it appears. I saw your "experts" threads. Pretty much a joke. Is that your "contribution", or are you just jerking off too?



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Bud, you're painting a pretty portrait for everyone here to decipher what kind of person you are.

Good luck, receiving any credibility talking like that, real skeptics don't use the term "jerking off" on these forums, and real scientists don't say what landed in my sig, bottom line.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


You know more about ETs than you know about my motivations it appears.


I don't pretend to know your motivations I simply observe your actions. And your actions are no different than Klass's. Stoke the flames, agitate people, and at all costs prevent any sort of real investigation to study something that for all intents and purposes appears to be a genuine unknown.


I saw your "experts" threads. Pretty much a joke.


Please, then, I would actually enjoy it if you attempted to debunk these cases. That way we at least promote understanding of both sides of the spectrum.


Is that your "contribution", or are you just jerking off too?


Actually I've recommended several times that you evaluate this. This will be my contribution. I'm not going to verbally knock you, because frankly I see you as a bit sad, perhaps bitter about your losses, and you know what I have no desire to tear you down in light of that.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Ah, you're afraid of Philip, are you? You should be. He's very good at asking the hard questions. Too bad for you that all the brains are in the opposition camp.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hawkwind.
Hehe, no need to apologise, Nohup. I acknowledged that there was a minority of sceptics who do not believe at all, although that train of thought does baffle me a bit because as Fraterormus so eloquently states......from a mathematical standpoint alone it is not only possible but probable that life exists off the planet. If you can't trust maths then what can you trust?


I don't know what variables Fraterormus used to come to his conclusion. But even if you use the Drake Equation, there's always a chance that one of the variables is zero (referring to civilizations other than our own), and if you've got a zero in there, the whole equation equals zero.

A lot of people like to think that the sheer size of the universe guarantees other life out there. I like to use the balloon in the box analogy for that one. If you have a box with one big red balloon in it, and you have no idea how it got there, how is it logical to assume that if you had an even bigger box, a tremendously huge box, that there would naturally be another balloon in it somewhere? Where would this other balloon come from, exactly? The same place as the first one? You don't even know where the first one came from!

Now, maybe life is just a simple, common thing that happens if you toss a bunch of chemicals into water and bounce them around for a little while, and once we get out into space we'll find that out. Then all the other probabilities of surviving comet collisions and gamma ray bursts and all the other dangers, to evolve into a spacefaring civilization, is just a piece of cake.

Maybe that's the case. Until we find that out, though, I don't believe there's anything else out there. Some folks tend to call that "arrogant." I think it's "lonely." But I probably won't live to see an alien civilization found. Alien bacteria? Maybe. But not guaranteed.


[edit on 10-4-2009 by Nohup]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Ah, you're afraid of Philip, are you? You should be. He's very good at asking the hard questions. Too bad for you that all the brains are in the opposition camp.


No actually I've read all his work. I think he actually contributed something. However he was petty. He went too far and personally attacked people. Look what he did to McDonald. The second he did that he was no longer in pursuit of truth, but rather his own vanity.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


So, people can attack him because he points out that they're producing tripe for gullible people to buy and that's okay, but if he points out that they're just duping the morons, that's an attack? Interesting system you have there.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


So, people can attack him because he points out that they're producing tripe for gullible people to buy and that's okay, but if he points out that they're just duping the morons, that's an attack? Interesting system you have there.


Who's attacking him? I'm not. I said he contributed something. I said he stepped over the line when he wrote to ONR suggesting that McDonalds security clearance be revoked. He COMPLETELY crossed the line when he wrote to McDonald's supervisors at the University of Arizona to argue that McDonald's academic tenure should be questioned. And yes that is vanity.

See the thing is I genuinely want to understand you. I came from the debunker pool. It used to be my hobby, but when I realized that I couldn't explain certain cases I realized trying to force a conclusion was as bad as saying, "I believe in this inexplicable supernatural phenomenon."

It was at that point I changed my tune and suggested it should be studied by a respectable organization, by people expert in specific areas of study, until the point where we can say with high confidence that we've identified what it is we are observing (even if it happens to be all misidentifications).

[edit on 10-4-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


i just have to say that that image of cat butter antigravity is hilarious!! or its lack of sleep


anyway, yeah odds tell us that theres life definitely out there, but when and where is the question.

and to quote Gawdzilla:

"I'm just not seeing good odds that they're hiding in the dumpster at the local 7-Eleven. "

that made me LOL too.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


"It was at that point I changed my tune and suggested it should be studied by a respectable organization, by people expert in specific areas of study, until the point where we can say with high confidence that we've identified what it is we are observing (even if it happens to be all misidentifications)."

Okay, let's see. The most important (possible) discovery in the history of the world. A planet full of serious scientists. Many reported cases. And none of the serious scientists are giving the matter the time of day. NONE of them. Why is that? Best guess: They're trained scientists. They've looked at the "evidence". It isn't evidence. Now do you understand what the problem with ufology is? You DON'T have any credible evidence. This is not my opinion. This is the demonstrable attitude of tens of millions of trained scientists. There has to be a CLUE there somewhere.

(And, please, please, please, somebody, give us the "it's a conspiracy" line. I love that one.)



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


wow, i thought it was a joke. never realized it there was an actual person.

well at least hes looking for em.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Okay, let's see. The most important (possible) discovery in the history of the world. A planet full of serious scientists. Many reported cases. And none of the serious scientists are giving the matter the time of day. NONE of them. Why is that? Best guess: They're trained scientists. They've looked at the "evidence". It isn't evidence.


That's the real question. Have they looked at the evidence of UFOs (not ETs - lets not get confused)?

I've spoken with friends at UW, MIT, Stony Brook, USC, Boeing engineers and many of them are completely unaware of the better cases. Heck read the work from the most prominent men of the 50-70s (UFO's a scientific debate - Sagan, Thornton Page, Menzel). They rarely address the truly bizarre cases. The only person to touch the truly difficult sightings was Klass and I respect him for that.

I think the reason for this is because the subject is so stigmatized. I think UFO is so culturally indicative of little green men no one wants to touch the subject with a ten foot pole.

That has to change. We don't need it to be a whole field of study (ie/ Ufology). We simply need a group, whether in academia or government (preferably a collaboration between academia and government since they have access to much more field equipment) to simply continue studying this phenomenon. Even if they do it in secret I don't care. I just want to know someone somewhere is doing real science to try and determine more properties about this phenomenon so we can one day say what it is.


You DON'T have any credible evidence. This is not my opinion. This is the demonstrable attitude of tens of millions of trained scientists. There has to be a CLUE there somewhere.


If I don't have any credible evidence of an unidentified aerial phenomena why won't you simply enter this thread and shoot it down. Hell copy and paste from websites I'll happily debate every point.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
"I've spoken with friends at UW, MIT, Stony Brook, USC, Boeing engineers and many of them are completely unaware of the better cases. Heck read the work from the most prominent men of the 50-70s (UFO's a scientific debate - Sagan, Thornton Page, Menzel). They rarely address the truly bizarre cases. The only person to touch the truly difficult sightings was Klass and I respect him for that."

Sure, I believe you. I really, really do. Honest. No kidding.

However, the "better cases" are really just as bad and the "worse cases".

Insert further yeah-buts here.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Sure, I believe you. I really, really do. Honest. No kidding.

However, the "better cases" are really just as bad and the "worse cases".

Insert further yeah-buts here.


See you had the opportunity to ask for evidence and you didn't. You had the opportunity to attempt to back up your assertions that there's no validity to the evidence, but you refuse to even try to debunk it.

You know what that makes you? A disbeliever. That's all I was trying to figure out. You disbelieve on faith. Congratulations you're no better than a person who believes in aliens.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join