I'm pretty tired of skeptics who are unable to think outside the box.

reply to post by Pathos


That's what I mean, all you have as evidence of Alpha Centuari is a fuzzy point of light in a telescope...

Is that not enough evidence?

-wfa

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
reply to post by Pathos

 

That's what I mean, all you have as evidence of Alpha Centuari is a fuzzy point of light in a telescope...

Is that not enough evidence?

-wfa

Oh, I get where you are going. I didn't catch on earlier. D'oh!

When it comes to evidence that scientists find professionally, (NASA, SETI, Universities, JPL, etc...), I believe they have enough credibility to give it weight. If you personally have access to a powerful enough telescope, you can find Alpha Centuri for yourself. Correct?

Issues come from drawing a conclusion based upon evidence provided by those with a limited perspective. You and I cannot list every single military craft ever made, nor do we know how the currently known planes work. Same thing does apply to say Mexican fighter pilots. Even though they cannot explain what is in the sky with them, that does not mean Russian, United States, Asia, or Europe doesn't have the technology. Mexican fighter pilots are only comparing what they see to the limitation of what they know.

Make sense.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Pathos]

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

 

Oh, I agree that ET visitation of Earth is certainly a possibility, but that's all it is for me -- a possibility.

Terrestrial explanations seem at least equally possible, therefore at least equally valid.

Agreed, until/unless all terrestrial explanations have been exhausted...

-WFA

This is where we differ...

...I don't think you CAN come to the "Extraterrestrial Visitation" conclusion by eliminating terrestrial explanations because the very nature of "currently unknown terrestrial explanation" (i.e., being unknown) means that it is impossible to eliminate it as an explanation. The subset of terrestrial explanations is too unknown to be fully vetted.

If you could eliminate every terrestrial explanation, then I would say you are right -- it must be aliens. However, I'm saying it is impossible to eliminate every terrestrial explanation, therefore that is not a valid method.

You can't prove ET visitation by the process of elimination, because the explanations that need to be eliminated are unknown.


[edit on 9/17/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Well this has turned into a #fest quicker than Obama killing Americans LOL

Whilst the real matters are going on un-hindered Obama and Skeptics are killing us

Bring em skeptic's on

With my background they make easy fodder

Originally posted by Somamech
Whilst the real matters are going on un-hindered Obama and Skeptics are killing us

Oh, you cannot be serious.

Originally posted by Somamech
With my background they make easy fodder

And that is what?

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


Exactly what I said... People are more interested in which ever American President is going to kill them than looking into what is really going on.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex



I work for a contractor

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


That's an excellent point Soylent, and I respect your view.

I think this is the point where we may agree to disagree
Not a bad place to do so!

I feel that every terrestrial explanation that is available today can be tested against the hypothesis.

An Unknown terrestrial explanation cannot at this time be tested, and therefore cannot serve to invalidate the theory.

At the point at which this new terrestrial explanation enters the realm of known science, it can then be used to hold up against the evidence, and perhaps that theory will trump the current theory (ET Craft and Timeships are the only two suggestions fitting the observable evidence I've seen to date in the case you and I have been discussing...).

But until that point, according to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is usually the most likely.

In absence of any terrestrial explanation that fits with the observable evidence, non-terrestrial explanations are best then explored.

But I perfectly understand if you do not agree on this point, and respect your opinion in either regard

Very well thought out post Soylent!

-WFA

Edited to add this quote:
[As Dr. Peter Sturrock, emeritus professor of applied physics at Stanford University, says in his book The UFO Enigma, “In principle, we can prove a hypothesis not only by finding strong evidence in its favor, but also by finding strong evidence against every other possibility.”]

[edit on 17-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]

Edited again to add source for quote:
www.freedomofinfo.org...


[edit on 17-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


Doomsday, I agree with your assessment of that post fully.
Not sure if you're aware, but there is a warn button to use, if you feel the need to do so...

Not only were those comments off-topic, but they were quite incindiary.

-WFA

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

That's an excellent point Soylent, and I respect your view.

I feel that every terrestrial explanation that is available today can be tested against the hypothesis.

An Unknown terrestrial explanation cannot at this time be tested, and therefore cannot serve to invalidate the theory.

At the point at which this new terrestrial explanation enters the realm of known science, it can then be used to hold up against the evidence, and perhaps that theory will trump the current theory (ET Craft and Timeships are the only two suggestions fitting the observable evidence I've seen to date in the case you and I have been discussing...).
-WFA

I agree that Soylent's post and point is an excellent one. I have to agree with Soylent. It seems apparent to me that many people cannot even conceive of all the possible terrestrial explanations which need to be tested or considered, much less rule them out.

In the specific case you mentioned, ET craft and timeships are possibilities, but the terrestrial explanation of war nerves, a weather balloon launched at 3am, and a thick smoke cloud from the AA fire aimed at the balloon initially and eventually in the direction of the spotlights, has not been ruled out as a 3rd possibility by me, though I suspect you disagree and have ruled that out in your analysis. I don't think we'll ever know with 100% certainty which of the 3 it was.

reply to post by Pathos


You called everyone stupid some posts ago, but now you're the one that is not bright enough to understand that you're not defending science, you're defending your own beliefs.

Claiming them as proof doesn't mean they are. You keep pushing examples up that go both ways, and you're here in a loop, without understanding anything at all.

Everyone here knows that to some point you have to measure claims, videos, photos, and all other evidence, and construct the "puzzle" with what you get.

...you're only able to speak about the puzzle after it has been completed.

Before Galileu, people looked at the sky and saw everything spinning around, stars, the Sun, the Moon... It was their proof because they were watching it (like we did with Mars untill "recently", using your example).

...ang guess what, even though they had "proof", they weren't the center of the Universe.

Your way of thinking, is the same as theirs.

[edit on 17/9/09 by Tifozi]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

In the specific case you mentioned, ET craft and timeships are possibilities, but the terrestrial explanation of war nerves, a weather balloon launched at 3am, and a thick smoke cloud from the AA fire aimed at the balloon initially and eventually in the direction of the spotlights, has not been ruled out as a 3rd possibility by me, though I suspect you disagree and have ruled that out in your analysis. I don't think we'll ever know with 100% certainty which of the 3 it was.

I'll be brief so as not to overly discuss that case, but yes I've ruled it out.
The radar tracking could not have been tracking a balloon, for several reasons, nor a plane, for several other reasons. The smoke cloud theory was also ruled out, using optical physics backed up by in the field experiments using the actual equipment used in the event. All of it is detailed in the thread...

However, that being said, I agree with you both that no one individual can possibly think of every possible terrestrial solution.

This is why I am here posting about it at ATS. And it's why I invite others to share their theories, so that I can weigh them against the available evidence in the case.

However, we cannot in science merely be content to stop at 'unknown'. And certainly if a theory comes along that fits with the full data set, and is terrestrial in explanation (making it a 'simpler' solution) I'll be willing to change my theory to adapt.

As it stands now, with due respect, these theories have all been examined extensively in that thread, and everyone I ask really doesn't have any other terrestrial solutions (except Nohup, that brilliant brilliant man).

Until/unless further evidence, or a new terrestrial explanation comes to light, I would hope that the simplest solution to the mystery would be granted it's usual place in the Scientific mainstream as the leading contending theory.

The mockery of the theory (not by either Arby or Soylent - not directed at you at all) is the subject of my soreness. The theory is the leading contending theory currently, in my view. It is the simplest solution that fits the available data set.

Darn it, I didn't keep this post brief at all. Sorry.

I really don't want to detract from Kleverone's topic here, so lets please post BOLA questions in the BOLA thread. I think we're all pretty much in agreement here in general, outside of the specific details in the case.

I'll be more than happy to respond within that thread though, regarding those questions! Having researchers like you explore the evidence only makes my ability to understand the event stronger. Let's find the best theory together! That's what ATS is all about

-WFA

Originally posted by Tifozi
...Everyone here knows that to some point you have to measure claims, videos, photos, and all other evidence, and construct the "puzzle" with what you get.

...you're only able to speak about the puzzle after it has been completed.

Before Galileu, people looked at the sky and saw everything spinning around, stars, the Sun, the Moon... It was their proof because they were watching it (like we did with Mars untill "recently", using your example).

...ang guess what, even though they had "proof", they weren't the center of the Universe....

Very good point -- However (and you may already realize this) this works both ways...

...a UFOlogist can construct the puzzle based on all the information he or she sees and still be wrong -- just like the pre-Galilean world constructed the puzzle and wrongly thought that the Earth was the center of the universe.

reply to post by Tifozi

What are you afraid of? Science?

Keep in mind that religion once wiped out science. It was religion who hung Galileo (a scientist) for discovering that the Sun was at the center of the universe. Science proved Galileo was correct over a period of time. If we were to separate science from exploration, we would be regressing back to the dark ages.

Originally posted by Somamech
I work for a contractor

Color me skeptical.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


But that's my point, my friend. It works both ways. I'm a skeptic to many cases around the world, but I believe in alien life, and I believe in advanced technology (far beyond what most people know about) in this world... And I give credit to some conspiracy theories.

I just think HIS point of view of ufology is ridiculous. He attacks it with arguments that can be used against what he believes.

reply to post by Pathos


*this is not an insult* I'm afraid of ignorance. Not the ignorance by stupidity and lack of culture, but because of the lack of capability to see past the undeniable.

I LOVE science. I live with science. I actually work with science and maths every minute in my job.

BUT that doesn't rulle out UFOlogy as a serious research group or, maybe, a part of science, neither the lack of evidence that YOU consider invalid rulles out any possible theory.

You may not believe that some UFOs are aliens, or that some governament has alien technology (personally I don't believe in 98% of abductions), but you can't rulle out every case around here, and not considering aliens a possibility.

reply to post by zorgon


It's called a sense of HUMOR, try one you may find it makes life bearable.



S...

Originally posted by Springer
It's called a sense of HUMOR, try one you may find it makes life bearable.

If it isn't some delusional buffoon who's name rhymes with Lohn Jear, then they are not serious researchers.

Originally posted by Somamech
I work for a contractor

Could you elaborate a bit, please?

What kind of special knowledge does this supposed employment grant you that skeptics will be "fodder" for you?

I believe it to be there vanity, I got alot of friends ( mostly girls ) who believe in living in the moment and seizing it. You can tell them everything you know about a topic and well, there mostly drunk or if there not are pretending to care but in reality are dying to hear your thoughts about the latest drama. But back to my point, people who believe they are un effected by the events of the world or believe there un effected are content with hearing the offical story like, I admit, when 9/11 occured I was in grade 6 and in computer class. My teacher shut our screens off and said watch this, it was then I saw the events of 9/11 and at the time felt somewhat compelled to do something but didn't and watched the speeches on CNN and believed the whole 9 yards...I was a skeptic on the whole event for 5 years and have only recently opened my eyes to Aliens and Ufos, but its the reason they are unable to think outside the box. They just want to look at themselves in the mirrors or if its not that, its that religion thing because if I hear God as a plan for us one more time...just once more from that vermin of a wo-....heh...thanks for reading