I`ve found it! what makes a ufo skeptic!

I was having a debate with a cab driver the other day about how the world started, we discussed two things, the big bang and God.

Without getting into it, it went like this. According to religious people, nobody created God, he created himself.
Well if thats the case, then God didnt always exist, because if he had always existed, why the need to create himself.

The big bang theory-- what caused the pressure/build up for the big bang.

Now without getting into all that, as its a subject which has been discussed greatly in the past and nobody knows the answer..

Anyway, we got onto the whole, well how did something come out of nothing, there HAS to have been a begining! bit, well anyway we came to the conclusion that the human brain is hard wired into its own reality, and finds it almost impossible to comprehend something outside of the reality it is tuned in to.

We are told you cant just wave your hand and make a wad of cash appear, you cant snap your fingers and make a palace appear.. well same thing, in our brainset, we find it almost impossible that something came out of nothing, which ultimatly must have happened.. because even if you still stick with the ridiculous theory of the big bang, and even try and explain what caused the conditions/pressure for the big bang... then your still left with the whole, `well what caused the build up`.. its a never ending topic which ultimatly goes back to something created out of nothing!

Yet, in my mind, and im sure many other peoples minds, it doesnt make sense, i repeat again -- how did something come out of nothing?

Bingo! i said! its exactly the same thing with the alien topic. Theres some people out there, that even when provided with very credible eyewitness testament (which in a court of law, and the case of the holocaust/nuremberg trials) eyewitnesses were one of the major factors, yet in the ufo case, its not good enough, people will still not believe.

Why? because its out of their reality.. they simply can not comprehend why if aliens exist, are they not physically here now, why is the only things released to the public blurry footage and the usual youtube garbage.

Until they think out of that reality, and it probably would take something like an abduction, or an alien taking them to their planet, they really will not be able to think otherwise.

The human brain is hardwired to a certain way of thinking, and unless something major happens to alter it, nothing will change it.

Basically, it goes back to the old saying, What came first the chicken or the egg?, i personally like to the that the universe was a magnificent accident that happend and god came into existance through he faith that poeple had in him

But still i shall give you a Flaggy wag and a shiny star

Yes, you are right

People tend to ONLY believe things when some scientist comes and says it. It's actually sickening.
They believe on some people they don't know. They even don't know if the scientist is really right, or that they are just guessing.

Like my friend, he doesn't believe in anything paranormal or something that coulden't happen. But as soon he hears some scientist telling about the very same thing, then he jumps on the wagon! I could barf.

But ok, who should we trust then? We can't really trust anything. Its getting over control, thats my point of view.

reply to post by TedHodgson


The egg was there looong before the chicken.
The chicken is in family with t-rex. And t-rex lay eggs. (what we know of)

So I think the chicken came long after the egg. Like alligators lays eggs too.

Originally posted by rabbigoldstein
its a never ending topic which ultimatly goes back to something created out of nothing!

Are you certain that the Big Bang theory makes such a claim?

...

Originally posted by TedHodgson
Basically, it goes back to the old saying, What came first the chicken or the egg?, i personally like to the that the universe was a magnificent accident that happend and god came into existance through he faith that poeple had in him

But still i shall give you a Flaggy wag and a shiny star

edit on 1/12/10 by TedHodgson because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/12/10 by TedHodgson because: (no reason given)

thanks, but its not really a `what came first` topic, that was just an example

its to illustrate my point than our brains are wired a certain way, and unless we think outside of the reality we are wired too, we`ll never see what other people see

Originally posted by ypperst
reply to post by TedHodgson

 

The egg was there looong before the chicken.
The chicken is in family with t-rex. And t-rex lay eggs. (what we know of)

So I think the chicken came long after the egg. Like alligators lays eggs too.

T-rex to chicken = De-Evolution at its best!

Aye i understand essentially that the egg came first, i was more reltively speaking about the meaning of the question which describes that there can never be something from nothing. something must have come first, wheras if we didnt exist the question would therefore be [BLANK] and the answer would be [BLANK]

Originally posted by rabbigoldstein

The human brain is hardwired to a certain way of thinking, and unless something major happens to alter it, nothing will change it.

Agreed. And until we get demonstrable evidence of extraterrestrial life there's no reason to assume that the lights someone saw in the sky that they can't identify are aliens flying around in spaceships.

UFO skeptics exist quite simply from the incredible lack of evidence of extraterrestrial life. We don't even know of extra-planetary microbes, let alone ship-flying, naked alien hominids.

reply to post by rabbigoldstein


hi, the fact is no respected scientific or astronomy institution subscribes to the belief we are being visited by aliens in spaceships.

The standard of evidence in a court of law is much lower than that of the court of science. Witness testimony well it means nothing in the court of science. Science doesnt care about witness testimony its regarded as the lowest form of evidence, science cares about testable repeatable evidence & math. Anything else is beyond the point as far as science is concerned.

If we all subscribed to believing "witness testimony" we would accept mermaids, loch ness monster & big foot as real. I bet you dont even beleive in all of those.

I would say the reason most people dont believe we are being visited by aliens in spaceships is becuase there isnt strong evidence to support it. Maybe one day ufologists will come up with the evidence that would be great.

Heres a scientists take on why people believe strange things

reply to post by rabbigoldstein


In that case dont take any notice of me for my brain Isnt wired


Still its a thought provoking thread i must say

I'm not a UFO believer, but I'm open to the idea.

In the interests of this thread, I thought I'd share a relevant article.

www.fredoneverything.net...

Here's the most relevant part:

For example, there's a place called the Washington Sailing Marina, where I go to heist a brew with friends and keep an eye on the Potomac. Suppose that a giant green leprechaun, six feet tall, appeared on the dock. (That's a pretty healthy leprechaun, but the diet's been good in Ireland since the Potato Famine. We'll probably see leprechauns in the NBA.) Suppose he walked out on the river, turned into a huge order of barbecued ribs, and disappeared into the sky like a bottle rocket, bang!

Remember we're supposing it really happened. What would the response be of the, say, 25 people who might be there?

Fifteen of them wouldn't see it at all. They'd be looking the other way, scratching, or swilling beer and lying about their stock portfolios. Some would watch, startled, and then begin to worry about themselves, and head for a serious bar. They wouldn't say anything, to anybody, ever. I mean, you don't run up to strangers and say, "Hey, did you see a giant green guy turn into a plate of ribs?" They'd call for a struggle buggy and some big orderlies.

A few would see it together.

"Jeez. . . Fred, what's that?"

"Green guy. No, rack of ribs. No, looks like a bottle rocket."

"Fred!"

"I don't want to think about it."

There would be a lunge for explanatory security blankets. It was a mirage caused by odd reflections on the water. Not ribs, but a flock of seagulls browned by the smog. A Navy submarine, towing a green weather balloon from beneath the water (which is eight feet deep).

That would be the end of it. Nobody would ever speak of it again. It wouldn't have happened.

Even though it had.

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by rabbigoldstein

 

Heres a scientists take on why people believe strange things

FYI, Michael Shermer is lettered in the "history of science," far from qualifying as a scientist. The guy's basically a hack of all trades. An entrepreneur who's always on the look out for inventive new ways to line his back pocket. Some days he's an expert economist, other he knows everything about psychology (condescendingly telling people what they really saw, as evidenced in your linked video), and other days he fancies himself a homeopathic physician.

He's just a just a step better than Vitaly Borker. Instigating to attract attention to his magazine.

Originally posted by Xtraeme
and other days he fancies himself a homeopathic physician.

Where do you see that claim made? It doesn't seem to be in your link.

I think he serves more as a skeptic than any of those other professions. Still though, do any of those things refute his assessment of self-deception?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Xtraeme
and other days he fancies himself a homeopathic physician.

Where do you see that claim made? It doesn't seem to be in your link.

... after months of training under the guidance of a "nutritionist" with an unaccredited Ph.D. After years of practicing acupuncture, chiropractic, massage therapy, negative ions, rolfing, pyramid power, fundamentalist Christianity, and "a host of weird things" (with the exception of drugs) to improve his life and training, ...

Right there.

Originally posted by Xtraeme

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Xtraeme
and other days he fancies himself a homeopathic physician.

Where do you see that claim made? It doesn't seem to be in your link.

... after months of training under the guidance of a "nutritionist" with an unaccredited Ph.D. After years of practicing acupuncture, chiropractic, massage therapy, negative ions, rolfing, pyramid power, fundamentalist Christianity, and "a host of weird things" (with the exception of drugs) to improve his life and training, ...

Right there.

Ahhh. Those things that caused him to become a skeptic. I don't think that necessarily qualifies as 'on other days fancying one's self' as such.

More importantly, does any of this stuff invalidate his presentation on self-deception?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Ahhh. Those things that caused him to become a skeptic. I don't think that necessarily qualifies as 'on other days fancying one's self' as such.

By his own admission he studied it for "years," not exactly a small thing.

More importantly, does any of this stuff invalidate his presentation on self-deception?

Shermer's presentation on self-deception is more a discussion of Skinner's research. Michael reviews Pavlov's dog, as well other classic experiments, and uses this to launch in to his idea of 'patternicity.' This leads to a description of "Type 1" and "Type 2" behaviors and from this he formulates an argument how this potentially encapsulates the creation of human belief systems. While it may capture many aspects of bias reinforcement and act as a means of self defense, as an a priori position it discounts anecdotal observation as speculative and presumes that any paranormal explanation is by default incorrect.

Now I'll be entirely honest ‒ I deeply respect and prefer the idea of first looking for a more down to earth explanation to any bizarre observation. However what Michael's doing, whether he recognizes it or not, is he's ignoring a vast repository of information that contradicts the notion that all UFOs are simply misidentifications. Most notably the USAF Project Blue Book Special Report #14; and the work done by the AAAS, AIAA, the Condon Group, Blue Book, and the USAF on the '57 RB-47 case. This is all documented in Jerome Clark's UFO Encyclopedia, under Brad Sparks' 30+ page dissertation on the case. It's an extremely technical analysis, well sourced, and it's withstood debunking for some 12 years now.

So ... "does any of this stuff invalidate his presentation on self-deception?" Yes, in that he lumps all unknown observations in to the category of misidentification or psychosis.

When will we all stop and just finally admit that we cant prove ****.
But seriously, might as well forget about everything. We can't prove anything.

reply to post by Xtraeme


well im sure if you asked he would concede its possible theres the option of unknown natural phenomenon. Most skeptics would accept that.

But neither special report 14 or the RB-47 case are high quality evidence for ET in spaceships. its been 50 years since and especially the last 20 years has not produced any better evidence for the ETH despite our tech advances.

reply to post by yeti101

I think we're looking at something a lot weirder than ETH or any naturalistic explanation. If you take the RB-47 case the UFO was EMITTING a radar beam, i.e., transmitting a radio signal. It was NOT merely "detected" on "ECM monitoring gear aboard the RB-47" as if the ECM was some kind of radar that actively sent out signals and listened to returns.

The most anomalous aspect of the observation is that the object paced and overtook the RB-47. It also strangely enough blinked-in and -out which was corroborated by numerous independent channels monitoring the object. This demonstrates it was faster than the RB-47, extremely maneuverable, and whatever it was it followed the RB-47 in trail over several states as the RB-47 made course corrections.

I wouldn't claim ET intelligence, but I think it's highly indicative of some form of intelligence. I've discussed this with several people who vehemently oppose this statement.

in·tel·li·gence
–noun
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

7. interchange of information: They have been maintaining intelligence with foreign agents for years.

I find it hard not applying the most basic definition "capacity for learning, ... facts."

To completely mimic the RB-47's movements, in trail, epitomizes "interchange of information." There is no known natural phenomenon capable of these types of maneuvers.

I'll be the first to admit this doesn't stipulate biological understanding or consciousness, but at a minimum it does exhibit intelligence on the order of what's possible with robotics and computer learning techniques.

reply to post by Xtraeme


the big problem with the RB-47 is we dont have any data. For skeptics & science that is fatal.