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

reply to post by AlienCarnage


Of course some U.F.O.'s can be military projects. I never said that they couldn't be. This is because I have an open mind to these things and not a closed mind like the skeptic.

The skeptic will always try to fit the evidence into a terrestrial box. To them all of the evidence has to have a terrestrial explanation and that's just silly.

When I look at the evidence I will say the evidence shows that some cases support a terrestrial explanation while others support extraterrestrial visitation.

This is because I have come to the conclusion based on the evidence that extraterrestrial visitation is a valid explanation for radar reports, mass sightings, eyewitness accounts, trace evidence, abduction cases, pictures and videos.

The skeptic is closed minded and will always try to fit the evidence into a terrestrial explanation. This is because they start with a priori that a terrestrial explanation is the answer.

This is why they make silly, general statements like "it could be anything" or "there has to be a terrestrial explanation."

We are not talking about evidence that just occured yesterday. We have tons of evidence that has accumulated over the years and we can weigh that evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely and reach a conclusion.

We do this in all walks of life. We always reach conclusions based on the available evidence.

In a court room, the jurors don't have all the evidence to reach a verdict, they have all the available evidence. This is why they have appeals in case new evidence comes along that wasn't available to the Jury and may show the person convicted didn't commit the crime.

When it comes to Ufology, the evidence is overwhelming and it's abundent. We can look at the available evidence and reach a conclusion as to what's most likely and what's less likely. This is why I have listed evidence throughout the thread and the skeptics haven't debated any of the evidence, they just want to make these general, meaningless statements.

If the skeptic has evidence that counters the evidence as reported and investigated then I will listen.

What I will not listen to is these general statements of opinion.

This is why I say some of these things are U.F.O.'s (Unidentified Flying Objects) and some are I.F.O.'s (Indentified Flying Objects).

The skeptic will say, no we have to debate any and every possibility ad infinitum. Many of these cases have been around for years and have been investigated over and over again.

I say, let's weigh the available evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely and then let reason be our guide. If it leads to a terrestrial explanation in some cases that's fine. If it leads to an extraterrestrial explanation in other cases then that's fine.

There's more than enough evidence available to reach a conclusion. The skeptics want to remain in a state of constipated possibility and that's just silly. We always reach conclusions based on the available evidence.

What skeptics should do is be honest and say they don't think extraterrestrials exist and they don't see extraterrestrial visitation as a valid explanation for these things.

What they will say is that they are open to the possibility.

This is meaningless and they say these because they know if they say they are not open to the possibility they would look closed mided.

I'm not talking about debating any and every possibility. I'm talking about the evidence as reported and investigated.

The skeptic wants to debate the possibility of extraterrestrials but they don't have any evidence AGAINST extraterrestrial and or extraterretrial visitation.

For instance, 40 years ago, the skeptic may have said,"How could they travel vast distances to get to Earth?" or "Life needs the same conditions as earth to get started."

These things were evidence against extraterrestrial visitation and the existence of extraterrestrials.

Now we know that these things were false.

We have found liquid water on Mars and the Moon, Methane lakes on Titan, extremophiles that can survive in places where they didn't think life could exist, exoplanets, advanced theories on traveling vast distances through space using warp drive or maybe some of them evolved in are own backyard, more physicist talk of extra dimensions and parallel universes and more.

So why should we debate the possibility, when there's no evidence against it? There's only evidence that supports extraterrestrials and or extraterrestrial visitation that has accumulated over the years.

We debate for and against things all the time.

Again, I'm not debating any and every possibility. I'm talking about the available evidence as reported and investigated.

[edit on 3-2-2010 by Matrix Rising]

reply to post by spinalremain


I used the Great Pyramid to show how silly and illogical the skeptic is.

Now if I were to debate "without reason" then I can use the skeptics argument and then be a Great Pyramid skeptic.

I could say I'm open to the possibility that the Great Pyramid exists but I don't accept pictures, videos and eyewitness accounts as evidence. I have never been to Egypt to see the Great Pyramid so I have to depend on third hand accounts from people that are credible witnesses but they could have been seeing a mirage because of the heat.

So until I personally see the Great Pyramid it's just a possibility.

This is the skeptics silly and illogical argument.

There's no way for you to prove that the Great Pyramid exists because I don't accept videos, pictures or eyewitness accounts.

Thankfully, I use reason in all things and I'm not blinded by belief and illogical arguments like the skeptic.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The skeptic will always try to fit the evidence into a terrestrial box. To them all of the evidence has to have a terrestrial explanation and that's just silly.

No. You clearly not only don't understand skepticism, but apparently not even logic and common sense.

You start off with what is known in order to eliminate the possibilities that could be explained by mundane and known things. In the end, if you're left with unanswered questions, it means it's unknown not that it's alien.

What some people do—and what you're doing is—from the start, considering that extraterrestrial explanation is as probable as military aircraft for example. So when you can't explain it—or don't want to—then, to you, it automatically means alien.

The truth—sad to some, especially to the blind believers I'm sure—is that the best ‘answer’ you can wish for, at this time, in a UFO related case is no answer—meaning that you couldn't explain it based on known information. What you do is project the alien hypothesis onto every case you can't explain.

If you don't see the fallacy in thinking “I can't explain that case therefor it's alien,” then there's nothing more I can say.

[edit on 3-2-2010 by converge]

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by AlienCarnage

 

The skeptic will always try to fit the evidence into a terrestrial box. To them all of the evidence has to have a terrestrial explanation and that's just silly.

No a skeptics, or any decent researchers first objective is to examine the evidence against what is known.

When I look at the evidence I will say the evidence shows that some cases support a terrestrial explanation while others support extraterrestrial visitation.

This is because I have come to the conclusion based on the evidence that extraterrestrial visitation is a valid explanation for radar reports, mass sightings, eyewitness accounts, trace evidence, abduction cases, pictures and videos.

How can you say extraterrestrial visitation is a valid explanation? Extraterrestrial visitation is still an unknown.

In a court room, the jurors don't have all the evidence to reach a verdict, they have all the available evidence. This is why they have appeals in case new evidence comes along that wasn't available to the Jury and may show the person convicted didn't commit the crime.

We aren't in a court room are we. Evidence in UFO cases is treated according to the rules of science not law.

What I will not listen to is these general statements of opinion.

Neither will most coherent people here on ATS. But what you are providing is just that - a general statement of your opinion.

This is why I say some of these things are U.F.O.'s (Unidentified Flying Objects) and some are I.F.O.'s (Indentified Flying Objects).

I agree.

The skeptic wants to debate the possibility of extraterrestrials but they don't have any evidence AGAINST extraterrestrial and or extraterretrial visitation.

Someone tried to make it clear to you before that one cannot prove a negative. Sadly you don't comprehend that fact. Neither do you comrehend what scientific method is all about.



[edit on 3-2-2010 by cripmeister]

reply to post by converge


Wrong.

You are debating against an illogical premise that was never made.

I don't insert aliens when there isn't a terrestrial explanation. I make these decisions based on evidence. I don't come to these conclusions in a vacuum.

This is another problem with skeptics. They can't accept that other men and women have looked at the tons of evidence that has accumulated over the years and come to the conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation is the most likely explanation for these things.

The skeptic has to act as if you are just inserting an extraterrestrial explanation blindly and in a vacuum.

Again, this is not blind belief or an illogical argument. These are things the skeptics use. This is based on the evidence as reported and investigated throughout the years.

It reminds me of something Alfred Russel Wallace said. He was a spiritualist that worked on natural selection. He said:

I thus learnt my first great lesson in the inquiry into these obscure fields of knowledge, never to accept the disbelief of men or their accusations of imposture or of imbecility, as of any weight when opposed to the repeated observation of facts by other men, admittedly sane and honest. The whole history of science shows us that whenever the educated and scientific men of any age have denied the facts of other investigators on a priori grounds of absurdity or impossibility, the deniers have always been wrong.

[edit on 3-2-2010 by Matrix Rising]

reply to post by cripmeister

How can you say extraterrestrial visitation is a valid explanation? Extraterrestrial visitation is still an unknown.

No, it's not unknown. There's tons of evidence that has accumulated over the years. Here's just a few cases.

1961 Betty and Barney Hill Abduction
1967 The Betty Andreasson Abduction
1967 Abduction of Herbert Schirmer
1968 The Buff Ledge Camp Abduction
1969 The Antonio da Silva Abduction
1973 The Doraty Abduction, Houston, Texas
1973 Pascagoula, Mississippi Abduction (Parker, Hickson)
1974 Hunter Abducted in Wyoming
1975 The Abduction of Sergeant Charles L. Moody
1975 The Travis Walton Abduction
1976 The Stanford, Kentucky Abductions
1976 The Allagash Abductions
1978 The Cullen Abduction
1978 The Dechmont Woods Abduction
1978 The Abduction of Jan Wolski
1980's Lost Time/Abduction in New York
1980 The Alan Godfrey Abduction
1983 The Copely Woods Encounter
1983 The Abduction of Alfred Burtoo
1985 Abduction of Wladyslaw S.
1985 Abduction of Whitley Strieber
1987 Abduction on North Canol Road, Canada
1987 Hudson Valley Abduction
1987 The Christa Tilton Story
1987 The Ilkley Moor Alien
1987 The Jason Andews Abduction
1988 Abduction of Bonnie Jean Hamilton
1988 DNA Sample From Khoury Abduction
1989 Linda Cortile-Napolitano Abduction
1990 Westchester, N. Y. Abduction
1992 The A-70 Abduction
1994 Abduction in Killeen, Texas
1997 Abduction in Wales
1997 Abduction in Australia, (Rylance-Heller)
1999 Carlyle Lake Abduction
2001 Abduction in Michigan
2003-Abduction in Florida
2004 Francis Family Abduction
2005 Man Abducted in Florida
2005 Clayton & Donna Lee Abduction

www.ufocasebook.com...

So it's not unknown.

We aren't in a court room are we. Evidence in UFO cases is treated according to the rules of science not law.

This is just a silly statement.

I use science and reason to evaluate the available evidence. Are you now making laws that limit what tools I can use to evaluate the available evidence?

In a court room they use reason when they look at the available evidence and so do I.

Someone tried to make it clear to you before that one cannot prove a negative. Sadly you don't comprehend that fact. Neither do you comrehend what scientific method is all about.

I haven't tried to prove anything to you or asked you to prove a negative. People debate for and against things all the time. If you can't debate against extraterrestrial visitation then that should tell you something.

I have been in debates about Parallel universes, extra dimension, the paranormal, dark energy and more. We debated for and against these things without "proving a negative."

This is another silly, red herring the skeptics use.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I don't insert aliens when there isn't a terrestrial explanation.

How do you know there's not a terrestrial explanation?

They can't accept that other men and women have looked at the tons of evidence that has accumulated over the years and come to the conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation is the most likely explanation for these things.

On the contrary. We accept that people think a certain explanation is most likely, in their opinion, based on the evidence they've evaluated, but that doesn't equate to that possibility being the explanation. It's still a possibility nonetheless.

It's funny that you're talking about what others can't accept and yet you're the one shouting ‘Wrong!’ regarding other people's comments.

You guys do realize this is pointless, right? He's just going to keep repeating the same thing, over and over again. He's posted that list of cases at least two other times in this thread. He laughably thinks that just a name and date is proof enough. You cannot argue with someone like this. Most people here can see what kind of person he is. Best move along; save your energies for someone you can actually talk to.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


You're right, I'm out of here. Bye

reply to post by converge


Again, this is based on the available evidence as reported and investigated. We have a lot of evidence that has accumulated over the years.

It's not about debating a possibility but what's most likely and less likely based on the available evidence.

If you have a terrestrial explanation for these things then let's hear it.

This is the problem with the skeptic. They have faith that there's a terrestrial explanation in all of these cases.

I say some cases have a terrestrial explanation and others support extraterrestrial visitation. I don't put myself in a box before I look at and evaluate the evidence.

The real U.F.O. is the elusive and non existent terrestrial explanation that the skeptics have been pushing year after year after year.

Most skeptics are sure to do one of two things.

1. They will always have strong faith in a terrestrial explanation.

2. They will never say the evidence supports extraterrestrial visitation.

This is because their mind is made up before they even look at the evidence. They can always say,"There has to be a terrestrial explanation."

So, I can't reach a conclusion based on the availabe evidence because I have to wait until this elusive, terrestrial explanation as predicted by skeptics is found.

They have been predicting this terrestrial explanation for years. Is there a statute of limitations on how long we have to wait until we find this elusive terrestrial explanation? Do we have to just stand by ad infinitum and never come to a conclusion based on the available evidence while we wait for the Jolly Green terrestrial explanation?

[edit on 3-2-2010 by Matrix Rising]

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Again, this is based on the available evidence as reported and investigated. We have a lot of evidence that has accumulated over the years.

Are you saying there's conclusive evidence that point to extraterrestrials in a particular case? Bear in mind the the difference between conclusive evidence and opinion.

If you have a terrestrial explanation for these things then let's hear it.

I go back to what I said before. I don't have an explanation for some cases. There is evidence, I don't deny that. But evidence of what? I haven't seen any conclusive evidence of anything besides that something seems to be going on. It's unknown at the moment. What's wrong with saying you don't know?

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
You guys do realize this is pointless, right? He's just going to keep repeating the same thing, over and over again. He's posted that list of cases at least two other times in this thread. He laughably thinks that just a name and date is proof enough. You cannot argue with someone like this. Most people here can see what kind of person he is. Best move along; save your energies for someone you can actually talk to.

This statement makes no sense.

I listed the the cases this way because it would take 50 pages for me to post all of the cases. This is why I posted the link to the site. I'm sure you have a mouse and if you have an open mind, you can go to the page and click on each case and read about them. It's not that hard to do.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

Most skeptics are sure to do one of two things.

1. They will always have strong faith in a terrestrial explanation.

2. They will never say the evidence supports extraterrestrial visitation.

This is because their mind is made up before they even look at the evidence. They can always say,"There has to be a terrestrial explanation."

Just because there is not a known terrestrial explanation does not mean it has to be an extraterrestrial one, which is why it is left as an unknown.

Unless you know about every secret project (if you do could you enlighten us please) and are able to dismiss them all, unless you know exactly what extraterrestrial tech looks like (once again if you do could you enlighten us please) to be able to pick these out, then it becomes an unknown.

You have to eliminate what is known terrestrial explanations first, then you would take the next step to say it could either be unknown terrestrial origin or possibly even extraterrestrial origin, but since we do not know enough about either of these it becomes an unknown.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


I happen to agree with a lot of what you're saying about the cases you posted, MR, but I you have to admit that even if you had one thousand more cases just like them that there still wouldn't be solid proof of alien visitation. These cases have led you, over the course of your life to be a BELIEVER in the alien visitation hypothesis. Nothing is factual at this point. That's the thing. Your beliefs are influenced by the case evidence, but nothing is provable at this point. I would like to think that you can agree to that.

Believers are only knowers in their own minds. (Unless of course you have been abducted). I believe aliens may be coming here, but the difference is that I do not declate to know they are, because I don't. The evidence does not nor has it ever proved to me otherwise. The evidence only shows that there is a probability.

It's not that I am a skeptic, I just look at the countless stupid theories of UFOs that I hear from idiots. Just because we can't explain phenomena doesn't mean that they are aliens and UFOs.

Originally posted by spinalremain

You have to admit that even if you had one thousand more cases just like them that there still wouldn't be solid proof of alien visitation....Nothing is factual at this point... nothing is provable at this point. I would like to think that you can agree to that.

The evidence only shows that there is a probability.

Perhaps I'm wrong here, but the impression I get is that this is all that Matrix is really arguing.

1. That there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a very high degree of probability that some UFO's are actually ET craft.

2. Usually such high probability is enough to have a theory accepted practically as fact in various fields of scientific investigation (various examples have been given of this).

hy⋅poth⋅e⋅sis  [hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-]
–noun, plural -ses  [-seez]

1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

The ETH is highly probable in the light of the established fact that there is considerable evidence that defies reasonable terrestrial or 'natural' explanation, and the concept of visiting intelligent beings is perfectly logical and possible (perhaps also likely, as even Sagan acknowledged). Usually science is prepared to push forward with a very strong working hypothesis in such cases. Not so in this case, where an infinitely more absolutist and inflexible attitude is applied, as Alien Carnage demonstrated, saying:

Just because there is not a known terrestrial explanation does not mean it has to be an extraterrestrial one, which is why it is left as an unknown.

(I also don't really accept AC's comments here as fully accurate as they focus on the lack of a terrestrial explanation, but don't acknowledge the evidence for an extraterrestrial explanation, which certainly also exists in many cases)

So, my impression is that Matrix is pointing out the inconsistency in attitude and the 'moving of goal posts' when it comes to the ETH. He points out that skepticism is inconsistently applied and the requirement for 'evidence' and 'proof' is radically different, depending on what is being investigated, which is hardly scientific but which derives from prejudice.

Matrix seems to be arguing that the same standards should be applied consistently.

I think there is more than a little merit to that argument.


[edit on 4-2-2010 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Matrix Rising

The skeptic will always try to fit the evidence into a terrestrial box. To them all of the evidence has to have a terrestrial explanation and that's just silly.

Silly? So you're saying that "skeptics" are acting in an idiotic manner, because some of them try to give explanations of a known origin, while you would try to give an explanation over something that hasn't been proven to be real?

When I look at the evidence I will say the evidence shows that some cases support a terrestrial explanation while others support extraterrestrial visitation.

I love how you just showed that you're supportive at the idea of a terrestrial origin, even though, you keep complaining about that very idea. I also love how you keep putting every "skeptic" into one category.

We do this in all walks of life. We always reach conclusions based on the available evidence.

In a court room, the jurors don't have all the evidence to reach a verdict, they have all the available evidence. This is why they have appeals in case new evidence comes along that wasn't available to the Jury and may show the person convicted didn't commit the crime.

What you're doing here is apples and oranges, my friend. Yes, they do that in a courtroom. BUT, the little bit of information that you're leaving out of your example, is that in court, there is a known individual being prosecuted. See, we don't know if there is extraterrestrial life outside of Earth, yet, you're coming to the conclusion that there is definitive proof, because of eyewitnesses and some fuzzy pics. And this wouldn't even hold up in court, as most of this is just hearsay. I guess the term "those who can't learn from history, are doomed to repeat it", still rings true. Talk to all the women who died in Salem, Massachusetts, because of people who "looked at the evidence", and hell, even had trials about the "evidence", while killing women because they thought they were supernatural. I mean, competent adults witnessed women doing witchcraft, and probably flying on broom-sticks. This was corroborated between a full jury. That must mean that witches are a true part of our reality!

When it comes to Ufology, the evidence is overwhelming and it's abundent. We can look at the available evidence and reach a conclusion as to what's most likely and what's less likely. This is why I have listed evidence throughout the thread and the skeptics haven't debated any of the evidence, they just want to make these general, meaningless statements.

This is ridiculous. Just because you keep posting random "evidence" without any clear indication form the certain cases, doesn't back up your claims any, it just shows how fanatical you are over the subject. If I started ranting on about miracles that have happened throughout history, and started showing "evidence" of these miracles, doesn't mean that god truley exists. It would just show that I need to cling on to the idea of god, rather then be happy that I've found him. All you're doing, is pushing your beliefs on people, and shunning anybody else who doesn't have the same mindset as you, and to tell you the truth, it is quit appalling.

If the skeptic has evidence that counters the evidence as reported and investigated then I will listen.

What I will not listen to is these general statements of opinion.

Yet, we have to listen to your opinion, because you're convinced?

I say, let's weigh the available evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely and then let reason be our guide. If it leads to a terrestrial explanation in some cases that's fine. If it leads to an extraterrestrial explanation in other cases then that's fine.

But physical aliens and ET-spaceships haven't been proven to be real. If reason was your guide, then how are you coming to a conclusion over something that has never been proven to be real? Again, this is called faith, and what you're doing, is pushing your belief system on to people in a very unpleasant manner. I don't care that you believe aliens exist, hell, I believe that there is life outside of our world, but that doesn't mean you need to condemn people, and place them all in one category.

There's more than enough evidence available to reach a conclusion. The skeptics want to remain in a state of constipated possibility and that's just silly. We always reach conclusions based on the available evidence.

No, we come to a conclusion, when we have actual proof that corroborates with the evidence or theory. And so far, we don't have physical proof of an alien, a spaceship, or even a ET-microbe. We have absolutely nothing to even give us a hint of possibility, other then hearsay, and some fuzzy pics/videos.

What skeptics should do is be honest and say they don't think extraterrestrials exist and they don't see extraterrestrial visitation as a valid explanation for these things.

Really? I'm both a believer and skeptic. I believe in extraterrestrials, but still skeptical of ET visitation. Do I have to tell you my thought process every time I give my theory on certain cases, just to make you feel safe and sound, of the label which you want to give people?

What they will say is that they are open to the possibility.

This is meaningless and they say these because they know if they say they are not open to the possibility they would look closed mided.

That's funny, because you just said that some cases have a terrestrial origin, and some don't. You say that, so you don't look close minded. It's funny how that works, huh?

The skeptic wants to debate the possibility of extraterrestrials but they don't have any evidence AGAINST extraterrestrial and or extraterretrial visitation.

Yes they do, it's called lack of physical evidence. The evidence against ET's, is the lack thereof. If we even have the slightest proof of an ET-microbe, then this would be a different story, but we don't even have that. So until we have actual proof of something of ET-origin, then nobody needs to argue against ET's.

So why should we debate the possibility, when there's no evidence against it? There's only evidence that supports extraterrestrials and or extraterrestrial visitation that has accumulated over the years.

Yes, there is evidence that supports ET's, but the big kicker, is actual proof. Until we have actual proof, then you shouldn't tell anybody that they're nuts, when you don't know yourself. Again, that's just called faith.


Bottom line: Like I said above, I am a believer and a skeptic. I accept the UFO phenomenon, but I'm still uncertain of what it is, or if it's of extraterrestrial origin. I also believe in life outside of our planet, yet, I'm not convinced of alien visitation. I like to think that it would be neat, but at the same time, I don't like jumping the gun. I like reading up on, and theorizing on the subject, but what I hate, is when you have people labeling certain individuals, because it doesn't conform to their reality. I don't care if you call me a "skeptic" or a "believer", but what I hate, is the tone around it. These threads are nothing more then a bully pulpit surrounding the subject, and it creates animosity to the members in this particular forum. You say there is a ton of evidence, and while I'm not denying that, you're not doing anything positive to bring the good evidence to the light. All you're doing, is picking sides, and drawing lines in the sand, when you shouldn't worry about doing such things, and worry more about being a productive member, sharing your thoughts and evidence, for the existence of ET-life. Stop bullying others for not having the same belief system as you, cause it wont make anybody more aware of the beliefs that you share, in fact, it'll make it worse.

reply to post by Malcram

(I also don't really accept AC's comments here as fully accurate as they focus on the lack of a terrestrial explanation, but don't acknowledge the evidence for an extraterrestrial explanation, which certainly also exists in many cases)

What I am saying is that we don’t have enough information to come to a conclusion, to form a hypothesis maybe, but no way to prove this hypothesis yet.

When hypothesis are reached in science there are ways to disprove them, so far there is no way to disprove extraterrestrial visitation so it must be a fact? I find this line of thought very disturbing indeed.

For cases that are left unidentified we can not say for certain whether it is terrestrial or extraterrestrial. We don’t have enough information on the unknown factors. We do not know enough about secret government projects, to be able to eliminate them as a possibility, and we do not have enough information on what an alien or alien craft would actually look like.

Yes we have testimony from high ranking officials in the military, but just because they are high ranking does not mean they have high enough clearance on secret projects to know about all of the secret projects going on.

What we have is a puzzle with 2/3 of the puzzle missing. People can try to figure out the rest by trying to move pieces around and hoping they fit, but it is hard to do without all of the pieces.

Is extraterrestrial visitation a possibility, yes but it is also just as likely to be secret projects. It is even possible that if these are secret projects that they got the technology from downed extraterrestrial craft, but we don’t know that either.

So I keep all those unidentified cases in mind, I even go back through them every now and then to see if there is any new news that has proven them one way or the other.

I personally don’t care if they turn out to have been secret projects or extraterrestrial visitation, either one would be very exciting.

[edit on 2/4/2010 by AlienCarnage]

Originally posted by AlienCarnage

What I am saying is that we don’t have enough information to come to a conclusion, to form a hypothesis maybe, but no way to prove this hypothesis yet.

'Prove' is a conveniently flexible term, and the point when it is reached is subjective. What Matrix appears to be saying is that the standards required to constitute 'proof' are unreasonable in the case of the ETH (and ever-changing - the bar keeps being raised, the goals posts moved) and far more stringent than are usually required to 'prove' something. This is why some people say that there are those for whom there will 'never be sufficient evidence' or 'never be proof'.

There have been many 'facts' which were considered 'proven' which were later discarded as inaccurate as more information came to light. What this demonstrates is that commonly we have understandings which are accepted as a working hypothesis, treated practically as fact, and considered highly probably based on the available evidence. That is how science usually works and this is necessary for progress.

So, it is the inconsistency in approach that is being highlighted.

When hypothesis are reached in science there are ways to disprove them, so far there is no way to disprove extraterrestrial visitation so it must be a fact? I find this line of thought very disturbing indeed.

So..... the ETH is less acceptable because it can't be disproved? I'm not sure I see the logic here. If it can't be disproved it should be more acceptable, no?

If there is sufficient evidence to constitute an extremely high probability, as there is here, that is usually enough. Not so in this case. Again, you are ignoring the evidence for the ETH and presenting it as if there is only an absence of an alternative explanation (in some cases).

For cases that are left unidentified we can not say for certain whether it is terrestrial or extraterrestrial. We don’t have enough information on the unknown factors. We do not know enough about secret government projects, to be able to eliminate them as a possibility....

Hmm, I see this as a kind of catch-all get out clause, an artificial catch 22, which in some cases involves more of a stretch of imagination than the ETH. This position often becomes more fantastical and worthy of considerably more skepticism than the ETH. One can always invoke the 'unknown', but science does not usually accept this kind of paralysis based on the infinite 'unknown'. Again, it's not consistent with the attitude to other issues. It's an inconsistency which suggests prejudice, IMO.

Is extraterrestrial visitation a possibility, yes but it is also just as likely to be secret projects.

There are many cases in which it becomes considerably more far fetched to believe that the abilities and attributes displayed by clearly intelligently controlled crafts are due to mankind's secret projects than it is to conclude that they are simply ET craft.

There comes a point when a 'prosaic' explanation is no longer 'prosaic', but unreasonable and worthy of more skepticism than the ETH. This attitude is highlighted by the common joke at ATS about space anomalies being due to swamp gas or weather balloons.

Likewise, in some cases, for UFO's displaying the intelligence, attributes and virtually supernatural abilities that they are sometimes observed to display, it becomes just silly to invoke the concept of black projects - because one would then have to reasonably explain a human culture, infinitely more advanced than any of us could conceive of, sharing this planet with us. It requires conspiracies of quite unbelievable proportions as to become quite unreasonable.

Far more reasonable is the conclusion that, in such cases, they are visiting craft from ET civilizations.


[edit on 4-2-2010 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram

So..... the ETH is less acceptable because it can't be disproved? I'm not sure I see the logic here. If it can't be disproved it should be more acceptable, no?

In this logic almost anything is possible. For instance man can fly without any type of assisting device, he just has done it properly thus far. Prove to me that statement is incorrect; if you can not it must be true. Another example, a human does not need to eat or drink to survive, they are just not doing it properly, prove this statement to be incorrect, if not it must be correct? I could go on and on with silly non realistic improvable hypothesis that would not be able to be proven false, that does not make them a reality, so why should extraterrestrial visitation be held at different standards?

Extraterrestrial visitation is a possibility, but that does not make it a reality. I would love for it to be a reality, but so far it is just a possibility.

If you believe that it is happening fine, believe it, good for you, if it turns out to be correct, you will be a step ahead of the rest of us.

I take a different approach to find the truth, it may not be the lines you follow, but we must each take our own path towards the truth, no matter what it be.