Most U.F.O. skeptics are not open to the evidence

reply to post by TravisT


What you quoted actually supports what I'm saying. You quoted:

The search for UFO’s, on the other hand, ‘is derided as pseudoscience, even though UFOlogists may consistently practice according to the scientific method. . . and share a similar premise with SETI researchers’ because ‘UFOlogy is not part of the community of astronomy, astrobiology, or any other discipline, and its methodology, no matter how scientifically rigorous, will lead to no useful scientific results except in the singular case of the discovery of an alien spacecraft.

Like I said those who study Ufology follow the scientific method.

The last part of this quote makes no sense and it shows how a closed minded skeptic confuses Ufology with extraterrestrials.

The last part says.

UFOlogy is not part of the community of astronomy, astrobiology, or any other discipline, and its methodology, no matter how scientifically rigorous, will lead to no useful scientific results except in the singular case of the discovery of an alien spacecraft.

Ufology is not the study of alien spacecrafts.

Ufology is the study of Unidentified Flying Objects.

So Ufology doesn't need to find an alien spacecraft in order to be a scientific field of study.

I repeat:

UFOLOGY IS NOT THE STUDY OF ALIEN SPACECRAFTS, IT'S THE STUDY OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by TravisT

 

What you quoted actually supports what I'm saying. You quoted:

The search for UFO’s, on the other hand, ‘is derided as pseudoscience, even though UFOlogists may consistently practice according to the scientific method. . . and share a similar premise with SETI researchers’ because ‘UFOlogy is not part of the community of astronomy, astrobiology, or any other discipline, and its methodology, no matter how scientifically rigorous, will lead to no useful scientific results except in the singular case of the discovery of an alien spacecraft.

Like I said those who study Ufology follow the scientific method.

And if you actual read the last line, it says it will lead to no scientific results. It's not supporting any claims, because you keep making them up. Nobody ever denied that ufologist don't use the scientific method, we were debating on whether it was considered science, and that was the very thing you asked for. Are you that dense to not even remember what you asked for? Try reading next time. Good try, though.

UFOLOGY IS NOT THE STUDY OF ALIEN SPACECRAFTS, IT'S THE STUDY OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS.

You can't, for a second, think what that article is saying, or what you originally asked for? You asked me why ufology isn't science, well, there is your proof! Now, you're shouting at me, saying ufology isn't the study of alien spacecrafts, but you can't even use simple reading comprehension to realize what that article says. It says, ufology will NEVER be science, until we find a physical spacecraft(physical proof). I'm sorry this is such a rough pill to swallow, seeing as you've been clearly shown you're wrong, but no worries, cause I'm sure you'll just make up something, and act like you never said that, or twist your words around, or not read articles correctly.

I think I may be done, because you keep twisting your original points around, and keep making more up, and now you're shouting, and looking even more desperate.

reply to post by TravisT


You can't be serious.

You said:

It says, ufology will NEVER be science, until we find a physical spacecraft(physical proof).

Finding a physical spacecraft has nothing to do with it and the article says an alien spacecraft.

Ufology is not the study of an alien spacecraft but an observed phenomena called U.F.O. that you say exist.

Also, are you saying that many worlds interpretation is not science because there isn't any proof of these worlds?

Again, you don't know what your talking about.

We know unidentified flying objects exists and Ufology is the study of these objects not alien spacecraft.

This is really simple stuff yet you don't understand what you are saying or what you are quoting.

We don't need to find an alien spacecraft we already know that U.F.O.'s exist.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by TravisT

 

Finding a physical spacecraft has nothing to do with it and the article says an alien spacecraft.

Ufology is not the study of an alien spacecraft but an observed phenomena called U.F.O. that you say exist.

And that's why it wont be considered a science, until they have actual physical proof. That's the point, you need proof in order for it to be considered scientific. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. And you trying to flip-flop it around, and say that ufology isn't about alien spacecrafts, when you always told me that they were always apart of the ETH.

Again, you don't know what your talking about.

We know unidentified flying objects exists and Ufology is the study of these objects not alien spacecraft.

If that's the case, then why did you say this about UFO's, you hypocrite?

Originally posted by Matrix RisingWhere else would a flying object that isn't terrestrial come from is what you asked.

You just took your first step towards the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

I never said there was something wrong with a terrestrial explanation. I said there isn't one.

So which one is it? Is it part of the ETH(alien origin), or is it terrestrial?

Now you're telling me Ufology(the study of UFO's) isn't about alien crafts(ETH), but just a few posts ago, you said that's exactly what it was about. Which one is it, Matrix? Which one?

This is really simple stuff yet you don't understand what you are saying or what you are quoting.

We don't need to find an alien spacecraft we already know that U.F.O.'s exist.

No, I think I understand quit clearly what I'm talking about, and what I've presented. You tell me that UFO's aren't of terrestrial origin, and that this is the first step into the ETH, and now you're saying that UFO's aren't extraterrestrial.

I'm sorry, man, but you're loosing your mind. You can't keep track of what you just said, and you continue to contradict yourself over and over again. Just give it up, you're making yourself look like a fool.

reply to post by TravisT


You are really making skeptics look bad.

The E.T. Hypothesis is not the whole of Ufology.

It's one theory that tries to explain Unidentified Flying Objects.

You do realise that there's different theories within Biology or Physics?

Let me explain this again because you are very slow on the uptake.

Ufology is the study of Unidentified Flying Objects.

Ufology is not just the E.T. Hypothesis.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by TravisT

 

The E.T. Hypothesis is not the whole of Ufology.

It's one theory that tries to explain Unidentified Flying Objects.

Ufology is the study of Unidentified Flying Objects.

Ufology is not just the E.T. Hypothesis.

Then this whole thread is pointless! If you understand that there could be other explanations to these UFO's, then you should know that they could be:

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
It's a bird
It's a weather balloon
It's a kite
The person is lying
The person is mistaken
There has to be a "natural" explanation

This is what you've been advocating the entire time, but now, you're saying its perfectly fine if there are other explanations to what UFO's are!?! And of course they are two different things, but you've been preaching how the ETH has been the "most logical" explanation, but now, you're saying "of course there's other explanations", when before, that was the only answer.

If you acted like you were open to other suggestions in your first post, then we wouldn't even be talking still, but somehow, you can't see why people are still questioning you, when have totally changed your perspective somehow. And why do I get the feeling like you're going to just flip this all around again?


-You ask why Ufology isn't a science. I show you clearly, yet, somehow it still is in your world.

-After I show you that Ufology isn't a science, you say it is a science, because ufologist don't just study alien spacecrafts? That doesn't matter, cause in order for it to become a science, you need hard proof. Whether that be terrestrial or extraterrestrial, and you keep skipping over that HUGE, but simple, point.

-You say that the ETH is the most "logical" answer, and now you're saying, that ufologist(you know, the people who study UFO's), don't think the ETH is real, because they don't study alien spacecrafts, they just study UFO's? Earth to Matrix!

-You've been preaching how UFO's are mostly ET in origin, and any other UFO that is terrestrial, isn't a UFO. But now, any kind of explanation, whether it be terrestrial, is fine, because ufology studies other ideas? That's what we've been telling you this ENTIRE time, and you've kept going against what we've said!!!!!!!

[edit on 16-2-2010 by TravisT]

reply to post by TravisT


What???

When I say you weigh the evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely, that means there's a chance that there's another explanation and that's why I listed the evidence and you and others avoided the evidence like the plague.

When you draw a conclusion as to what's most likely based on the available evidence it's not absolute. I don't know why you didn't know this.

It's just the english language.

If you or others had counter evidence I gave you chance after chance to list and respond to the evidence but evidence is like kryptonite to a closed minded skeptic.

Again Ufology is science and you listed something that talked about alien spacecraft. It made no sense.

Ufology isn't the study of alien spacecraft.

Ufology is the study of U.F.O.'s which you say exist.

This is science.

Your quote even said that those in Ufology use the scientific method.

They are just trying to explain an observed phenomena that you say exist. This is what science does.

How can they study an alien spacecraft? That makes no sense.

They come up with theories that point to extraterrestrial spacecraft as being responsible for some U.F.O.'s.

Again, Ufology is not the study of alien spacecraft?

I support the E.T. hypothesis as the most likely explanation based on the evidence that I have listed and that you and others have avoided.

I'm always open to new evidence but the skeptics never bring any evidence to the table just opinion.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Matrix Rising]

reply to post by TravisT

Link doesn't work, and I really have no idea what you're talking about. And please, don't use all caps, I can see if you're addressing me, you don't have to shout.
I am referring to your argument and claims that UFO is not science.
there are plenty of CIA documents to prove it here is that link once again read wat it says carefully

www.faqs.org...

you can view the original document and there are more like thisone they go way back in date I seen one that was dated 1957 in the search box you can search on the topics and this information is mixed in with other material not always with using the UFO keyword for the search word, I was just messing around looking at different stuff pretty cool they have it .

I just don't agree with you either Have you seen the list of classified documents and it's not just here in the US it's global ok so they are incorperating the study into science and it is called several other things for instance you say it is not being studied well then what it this then??????

(1) Department of Social Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Stout, 334G Harvey Hall, Menomonie, WI, 54751-0790


Abstract The case of ufology demonstrates that cultural packaging—a sort of once-removed indication of scientific authority—can be key in creating knowledge accepted as scientific. This adds a new dimension to the argument that scientific legitimacy is constructed, not just from scientific methodologies and institutional location, but also of language, culture, rhetoric, and symbols. Fringe researchers can make their cases for legitimacy using a variety of strategies—few of which involve actual research. Outside of the scientific community, scientific-sounding explanations and proclamations of expert statuses hold sway. Ambiguities about what constitutes science can be capitalized upon by groups like the UFO research community that assembles shards of legitimacy using science as a cultural template.
Notice how it is referred to ,,,,,,,,sosiology of science?????????
sociology of science - UFOs - deviant science
I think you better check it out cause you are WRONG

Doomsday Rex, you just did it, again. CosmicChat0001

reply to post by NorthStargal52


Ok, first off, that link is from 1992, and doesn't prove anything. Again, just because you use scientific methods, doesn't make it a science. Second, that paragraph you have at the bottom just proved that Ufology isn't a real science, but a made up one(pseudoscience). If you read the second paragraph at the bottom page, to the intro that you posted, it states:

By taking the symbolic frame of science and replacing the content with its very own set of completely different facts or theories , ufology effectively re-appropriates the culture meaning of science to support its own endeavors.

resources.metapress.com...

I'm sorry, but that paragraph you just gave me, proves that ufology ISN'T a true science, but a pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology

en.wikipedia.org...

Main Entry: pseu·do·sci·ence
Pronunciation: \ˌsü-dō-ˈsī-ən(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 1844

: a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific

www.merriam-webster.com...


[edit on 16-2-2010 by TravisT]

reply to post by TravisT


Travis I think you are ignoring the facts that be... IN Russia they have scientist that study the physics of UFO's in the CIA documents there in fact was a crashed UFO so they did in fact have this to study it was sent to a place I dont recall the whole word for word scenario of it all but this is in de-classified CIA documents they Have specimens that they have or are studying it's claassified information. You just don't pay attention to what in fact they are doing and what the Government is willing to share. You are wrong

reply to post by NorthStargal52


You have no proof of those things, so therefore, you're relying on hearsay. Science doesn't rely on hearsay, it relies on facts through rigorous testing.

-What scientist? What are their names, and show their recorded findings.

-What "physics" of the UFO did they find out?

-What published scientific finding can I read?

reply to post by TravisT

@%#&^ 1+2=3 & so on

I am no ones personal researcher go find it out for yourself.....
If you can spend hours debating and claiming it's nowhere then you can spend hours finding what others find and know...... Instead all you can do is complain about it.
I gave you the information as where to look yet did you bother, I doubt it.
Instead you say the same things over and over. Have you ever heard of the Dropa Stones? found in high in the mountains of BayanKara-Ula on the borders of China and Tibet ? Do you know what the studie of precious metals is called... do you know anything about nucular energy? maybe you should take the time and do some reading ..... that might be a start and come back here and tell us what you find....

Originally posted by NorthStargal52

I am no ones personal researcher go find it out for yourself.....
If you can spend hours debating and claiming it's nowhere then you can spend hours finding what others find and know

And if you can spend hours debating on here, then you should be able to do the research, as well. I really don't get why you're coming off that way, when all you told me was "Russian CIA documents", which, mind you, reads a little like this:

the ufo phenomenonuzzle that has baffled mankind since the beginning of this century. some people believe that ufos are spaceships sent to the earth by wise extraterrestrial beings. the united nationsesolution8 asking all nations to pay close attention to the ufo problem.

Are yous seriously expecting me to understand what a"phenomenouzzle" is, or "nationselction8", or "uncussified"? Those aren't even words, and even the sentence structure is all screwy. You call a document that has made up words, and horrible grammar, as 'facts' or 'truths'?

Instead all you can do is complain about it.

And what are you doing right now, may I ask?

I gave you the information as where to look yet did you bother, I doubt it.

Again, I tired, but I don't even know how you can read it. With documents with made words, and barely legible sentences, I'm not to sure if you did, or if you can understand what they're saying. I mean, I can make out a few things, but for the most part, it's just a horrible interpretation of a news article from 1992.

Have you ever heard of the Dropa Stones? found in high in the mountains of BayanKara-Ula on the borders of China and Tibet ?

Actually, yes, it's been discussed here on ATS quit a few times, and even University Professors, and well-known members here, have concluded it to be a fake or a deliberate hoax.

Here is a letter from a Professor from Boston University:

Well, it appears that the suspicions that these things are fakes were
justified. I am passing along the reply of Dr. Murowchick at Boston
U. to my query about these stones. His response is unequivocal.


> Hi Charles,
> Thanks for your interesting e-mail. Unfortunately, the so-called
Dropa Stones are some sort of hoax that simply refuses to die. There
are no Chinese archaeologists named Chi Pu Tei or Tsum Um Nui, and
none of the other "details" in these various Dropa stories add up. As
far as I can tell, the story first came to light through the energies
of Erich von Daniken, the Swiss fellow who made a fortune concocting
all sorts of fantasies about ancient astronauts visiting Earth. It is
all BS: there are many carved jade and other stone rings (most
commonly called "bi disks") from prehistoric cultures in China,
particularly from the time period of ca. 5000-2500 BC, and these are
well documented in the archaeological literature. None have writing,
and while their exact meaning is still being debated, there is no
need -- and certainly NO evidence-- to resort to anything
extraterrestrial or supernatural. Instead of fostering further
publicity for the so-called Dropa Stones and other such nonsense, I
would urge you to guide your students instead to the many genuine
archaeological problems that face us today in our research.
>
> You might also want to discuss with your students the prevalence of
what we call "Fantastic Archaeology" - that is, resorting to
extraterrestrial or supernatural explanations to explain selected
artifacts or sites. The various Von Daniken books are fun to read as
long as one realizes how thoroughly they can be picked apart. His
volumes are part of a long tradition of pseudo-science dating back
hundreds of years in the US. You can find interesting details in
volumes such as Stephen Williams, Fantastic Archaeology: The Wild
Side of North American Prehistory (Philadelphia: U Penn Press, 1991),
and Kenneth L. Feder's Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and
Pseudoscience in Archaeology (Boston: McGraw-Hill Mayfield, 2002).
>
> Yrs,
> Bob Murowchick
>
>
> Research Associate Professor of Archaeology and Anthropology
> Director
> International Center for East Asian Archaeology and Cultural History (ICEAACH)
> Boston University
> 650 Beacon Street, 5th Floor
> Boston, Massachusetts 02215 USA

www.democraticunderground.com...

And here is a response about the Dropa Stones, form a respected member/Super Moderator Byrd, on the subject here:

The pyramid is real, but someone here(William OneSac?) has seen it and says it's being misrepresnted.

The Dropa Stones are hoaxes. You can't translate something without a base for the code (a plate or table of ancient Chinese characters that copy a text from one language to the other; the Rosetta Stone.) With just little scrawls of hieroglyphs, you don't know if they represent syllables (ala Egyptian) or whole words (Chinese/Japanese) or some combination or individual letters (English). You can't even guess how many letters total are in the language (we hardly use Z or Q or X in our manuscripts, but they're letters in our language).

There's lots of other problems with the story that indicate it's a real hoax. Including the problem that "Tsum Um Nui " (the name of the Chinese Professor) isn't a Chinese name. Or a name in any other language.

And there's no tribe named the Dropa in Tibet or any other Himalayan area.

And Beijing University doesn't have an "Academy of Prehistory" (nor does any other university in China)
www.geocities.com...



And you can't test stones with an oscilloscope. That's just silly.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do you know what the studie of precious metals is called

You mean what metallurgy is? What does that have to do with proof to the existence of UFO's/ET life?

do you know anything about nucular energy?

Ummm, it's the energy released when splitting fission and fusion and the nuclei of the atom. I learned about it in early highschool. Again, what does this have to do with UFO's/ETs?

maybe you should take the time and do some reading ..... that might be a start and come back here and tell us what you find.

I have been reading, and even read the links you posted. Sooooo.....

reply to post by TravisT


Ypu said>>>>
the ufo phenomenonuzzle that has baffled mankind since the beginning of this century. some people believe that ufos are spaceships sent to the earth by wise extraterrestrial beings. the united nationsesolution8 asking all nations to pay close attention to the ufo problem.
Are yous seriously expecting me to understand what a"phenomenouzzle" is, or "nationselction8", or "unclussified"? Those aren't even words, and even the sentence structure is all screwy. You call a document that has made up words, and horrible grammar, as 'facts' or 'truths'?

So where is this Document and the link can you post it....? You know the one I am referring to with the word phenomenonuzzle. I know you can you have on the Dropa Stone and see I was testing you giving you two things to reseacrh on and the one that came up as a hoax you had lots to comment on but on the other hand when has to do with CIA documents I dont see nothing but crap no link no document no nothing to support what you just posted HA HA

[edit on 16-2-2010 by NorthStargal52]

[edit on 16-2-2010 by NorthStargal52]

reply to post by NorthStargal52


Wait, what? I've already commented on the CIA document, as it was the one you gave me a few posts up. I said, the documents have a ton of made up words, so they're either false documents, or a horrible translation. How am I supposed to decipher any kind of document, when it's not even legible?



[edit on 16-2-2010 by TravisT]

reply to post by TravisT

YOU SAID
You have no proof of those things, so therefore, you're relying on hearsay. Science doesn't rely on hearsay, it relies on facts through rigorous testing.

-What scientist? What are their names, and show their recorded findings

NOW read this carfully.. NOTICE the web site >>>foia.cia.gov...
www.foia.cia.gov...
www.foia.cia.gov...

I hope they work for ya.
Now you can't copy and paste you have to go to the web site and read can you do that?????? there are documents offical ones and the ones we can't see have not been released do you understand that??? do you know that our government has the right to keep secrets about certain information? well then you nor I will be able to see that stuff of course but here is the stuff ya can read from a real russian scientist who styudys UFO"S

reply to post by TravisT

Travis- YOU said.....
Wait, what? I've already commented on the CIA document, as it was the one you gave me a few posts up. I said, the documents have a ton of made up words, so they're either false documents, or a horrible translation. How am I supposed to decipher any kind of document, when it's not even legible?
Northstargal52
So why dont you put the link that you went thats all I asked you to do can you do that or not just copy it and hit the qoute & reply button and paste it you know the routine let me see it (the one you claim I posted) because I just posted a cia document and the first one did fail but the second one went through.

reply to post by TravisT


Travis hey try clicking on the original document ya have to scroll down and it will appear wow i am giving you detailed directions please visit the site as I said there has been scientists and still are scientists that study UFO's some call this study differently but it pertains to the study of unidentified objects or unidentified intelligence, crap I am not going to name them all check it out

reply to post by NorthStargal52


Quick note: First link didn't work for me, maybe it's just me.

Second link talks about investigations of UFOs, not investigations of extraterrestrials. Investigating UFOs does not equate with investigating extraterrestrials.

When the government investigates UFOs, they're likely thinking more along the lines of hostile nation aircraft, missiles, and so on. Aliens are probably very far down on their list.