It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Question for Skeptics. What if?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


what if i told you i saw the loch ness monster as other people have claimed. Then suppose we actually caught a huge dinosaur like creature in loch ness. In the above situation would you be any more likely to consider my loch ness monster sighting as genuine?

why or why not?

What if i told you i saw a unicorn with wings gallop down my street. Then suppose we actaully found a herd of flying unicorns in the amazon jungle. In the above situation would you be anymore likely to consider my flying unicorn sighting as genuine? why or why not?

see what i did there? i've not changed my individual evidence it still remains bad. But we changed reality to make it more believable.

What you demonsrated is the cosmic leaps of imagination you have to make in order for the ETH to become plausible




posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


what if i told you i saw the loch ness monster as other people have claimed. Then suppose we actually caught a huge dinosaur like creature in loch ness. In the above situation would you be any more likely to consider my loch ness monster sighting as genuine?

why or why not?

What if i told you i saw a unicorn with wings gallop down my street. Then suppose we actaully found a herd of flying unicorns in the amazon jungle. In the above situation would you be anymore likely to consider my flying unicorn sighting as genuine? why or why not?

see what i did there? i've not changed my individual evidence it still remains bad. But we changed reality to make it more believable.

What you demonsrated is the cosmic leaps of imagination you have to make in order for the ETH to become plausible



Hi yeti. I would have to say yes to both of your questions. If you claimed to see the Loch Ness monster or a unicorn, I would at first be skeptical. To be fair, I haven't actually looked at any evidence for the existence of these creatures, so I have to reserve judgment to some degree. But if we actually captured one, I would definitely change my mind about your claims. I understand your point in asking those questions, but I don't think you are actually demonstrating what you think you are.

The situations you present are not analogous to the one I presented. They would be analogous if I had posited in our hypothetical scenario that we had "found" a UFO and determined that it was of extraterrestrial origin. If that were the case, there would be no room for doubt as to the origin of UFOs, just as in your example there would be no room for doubt about the existence of unicorns. In fact, I put forth no such idea. I posited the discovery of advanced extraterrestrial life - not here on Earth, but far, far away across the galaxy. We still would have no proof that UFOs have any connection to these newly discovered civilizations. In fact, the UFO evidence would not change at all. If your doubt regarding the ETH as an explanation for unexplained UFO reports is based primarily on the lack of any "good evidence", then your doubt should remain just as firm in the aftermath of our hypothetical discovery. If, on the other hand, upon learning of the existence of these other intelligences you begin to lend more credence to the UFO evidence, it may indicate that your beef was not truly with the quality of the evidence to begin with, but rather with what you perceive as the unlikelihood of such intelligent civilization either existing at all or having the ability to travel to Earth.

By the way, just so I'm clear on your stance, what do you consider to be implausible about the ETH?
edit on 11-3-2011 by Orkojoker because: added question for fellow member



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 



what evidence is there that any ufo sighting is connectable with ET spaceships?

and in my scenario i just added how we know these things are real. You can substitute "finding a dinosaur like creature" to " we know they still exist on earth - it doesnt matter how we know"
edit on 11-3-2011 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 



Let's suppose that somehow we here on Earth knew for a fact that there were several thousand intelligent species in our galaxy, and that 90 percent of them were at least 100,000 years ahead of us technologically. How we discovered this is not important. The scientific community considers it as well established as anything in human knowledge. We also know that each of these civilizations is capable of travelling from any point in the galaxy to any other point in the galaxy in no more than three days.


How we "know" this is crucial. We "knew" there was no water on the Moon for years, but now we know otherwise. Scientists already accept the possibility that the universe is filled with life, some of it perhaps more "advanced" than we are... but we don't know that with any certainty. If we "knew" all the things you posit in your hypothetical because we had actually made contact with the extra-terrestrials, then we would know for a fact whether we were seeing spacecraft in our skies because they would have identified themselves. Even so, people would continue to see things in the skies they could not identify. Here is the question for you: if in your hypothetical situation, the aliens agreed that they would always flash red green and blue navigation lights when operating near Earth, what would you make of floating orange orbs? Would they be UFOs? Would you need to find some other explanation, since you would now know for a fact that they are not extra-terrestrial craft?



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I wish people would stop going on about The Drake Equation.

Anyone with a basic scientific awareness can look at this thing and quickly realise it is meaningless. All it really does is put a few labels on our ignorance. To look at it as if it is a meaningful mathematical insight is a joke.

So yeah - there could be anywhere between 0 and infinite civilizations out there? ( to exaggerate a little, admittedly). Yeah, that's great, Drake - very useful.

Its like all the folk on this site who repeatedly cite Occam's Razor as some kind of meaningful insight when applied to highly complex and barely understood subjects. Its infuriating.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
They are more likely to be billions of years ahead of us considering the age of the galaxy.
They most likely are god like in technological abilities and would appear as gods to us.
Perhaps this is where the gods come from...ultra advanced aliens.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Orkojoker
 



what evidence is there that any ufo sighting is connectable with ET spaceships?

and in my scenario i just added how we know these things are real. You can substitute "finding a dinosaur like creature" to " we know they still exist on earth - it doesnt matter how we know"
edit on 11-3-2011 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)


I would say that we have evidence of things flying around that seem to be under intelligent control, but which do not seem to be within the scope of human technology. That's not to say they are necessarily ET, or that they are spaceships. It is, however, unexplained, and I see no reason to consider the ETH implausible. I'm certainly open to alternative hypotheses if you have any to discuss.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Orkojoker
 



Let's suppose that somehow we here on Earth knew for a fact that there were several thousand intelligent species in our galaxy, and that 90 percent of them were at least 100,000 years ahead of us technologically. How we discovered this is not important. The scientific community considers it as well established as anything in human knowledge. We also know that each of these civilizations is capable of travelling from any point in the galaxy to any other point in the galaxy in no more than three days.


How we "know" this is crucial. We "knew" there was no water on the Moon for years, but now we know otherwise. Scientists already accept the possibility that the universe is filled with life, some of it perhaps more "advanced" than we are... but we don't know that with any certainty. If we "knew" all the things you posit in your hypothetical because we had actually made contact with the extra-terrestrials, then we would know for a fact whether we were seeing spacecraft in our skies because they would have identified themselves. Even so, people would continue to see things in the skies they could not identify. Here is the question for you: if in your hypothetical situation, the aliens agreed that they would always flash red green and blue navigation lights when operating near Earth, what would you make of floating orange orbs? Would they be UFOs? Would you need to find some other explanation, since you would now know for a fact that they are not extra-terrestrial craft?


I completely agree that method by which we "know" any fact is of the utmost importance in determining whether or not we really "know" it. However, for the purposes of this exercise the method by which we have gained this hypothetical knowledge is irrelevant. In our scenario, we know it to be a fact, and you personally accept the knowledge as totally valid.

The assertion that "we would know for a fact whether we were seeing spacecraft in our skies because they would have identified themselves" is unwarranted based on the scenario put forth in my original post. Under the circumstances, we know nothing of these civilizations aside from what has been explicitly stated in the original post.

Regarding the scenario you put forth, I'm not sure what I would think of floating orange orbs. Currently, I don't find them very compelling, primarily because those I've heard about exhibit characteristics that are practically indistinguishable from those of Chinese lanterns. If sightings of them had been thoroughly investigated by knowledgeable people and it was determined that they were not any known natural or man-made phenomena, due to some aspect of their appearance or behavior, then I would probably call them UFOs.
edit on 11-3-2011 by Orkojoker because: to answer fellow member's question



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


Why would we still debate on UFOs once we establish the existence of intelligent beings outside of Earth. Interesting to contemplate on the world after confirmation. I see the world will still be split into 2 camps. One that prefers to live in status quo and be sealed from external influences, and another that will be totally focused on technology and exploration.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TinkererJim
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


Why would we still debate on UFOs once we establish the existence of intelligent beings outside of Earth. Interesting to contemplate on the world after confirmation. I see the world will still be split into 2 camps. One that prefers to live in status quo and be sealed from external influences, and another that will be totally focused on technology and exploration.



I think the debate would still be alive and well because the existence of UFOs does not necessarily imply the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs. There are many people who are convinced they exist, but deny that they might be ET.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 



I completely agree that method by which we "know" any fact is of the utmost importance in determining whether or not we really "know" it.


Agreed.


However, for the purposes of this exercise the method by which we have gained this hypothetical knowledge is irrelevant.


But it makes a huge difference. Do we know because we have made contact, or do we "know" because they just started repeating these "facts" on TV without any proof?


In our scenario, we know it to be a fact, and you personally accept the knowledge as totally valid.


Why? What makes you suppose I would accept a "fact" without any evidence? That just doesn't make sense.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker
Just a quick hypothetical situation to consider:

Let's suppose that somehow we here on Earth knew for a fact that there were several thousand intelligent species in our galaxy, and that 90 percent of them were at least 100,000 years ahead of us technologically. How we discovered this is not important. The scientific community considers it as well established as anything in human knowledge. We also know that each of these civilizations is capable of travelling from any point in the galaxy to any other point in the galaxy in no more than three days.

In the above situation, would you be any more likely to consider some UFOs to potentially represent visits by some of these beings?

Why, or why not?

Discuss.


It appears to me you just want and answer of YES from people in an attempt to convince others its possible to have aliens here. Its not that simple, in a hundred thousand years it might be possible for us to be those aliens and visit others but I'm afraid we would need to survive that long as a species. There is a long list of things that point to NO.

I guess what I'm saying is its unlikely rather than a yes



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



I can't say what evidence would be necessary to convince any particular person of the truth of the existence of these civilizations, but in this scenario the entire scientific community is onboard. Maybe the SETI people finally made contact. Whatever it was that convinced them, it has been written about extensively in the peer reviewed journals and has been agreed upon to a great degree: We have this knowledge, science now tells us. Let's just say that whatever evidence is necessary for you to be convinced of the facts laid out in the original post, that is the evidence you have, with this one proviso - we did not learn these things as a result of these beings visiting Earth, and we have no idea whether any of them have ever visited Earth. We know only that they would be capable of doing so.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by majestictwo

Originally posted by Orkojoker
Just a quick hypothetical situation to consider:

Let's suppose that somehow we here on Earth knew for a fact that there were several thousand intelligent species in our galaxy, and that 90 percent of them were at least 100,000 years ahead of us technologically. How we discovered this is not important. The scientific community considers it as well established as anything in human knowledge. We also know that each of these civilizations is capable of travelling from any point in the galaxy to any other point in the galaxy in no more than three days.

In the above situation, would you be any more likely to consider some UFOs to potentially represent visits by some of these beings?

Why, or why not?

Discuss.


It appears to me you just want and answer of YES from people in an attempt to convince others its possible to have aliens here. Its not that simple, in a hundred thousand years it might be possible for us to be those aliens and visit others but I'm afraid we would need to survive that long as a species. There is a long list of things that point to NO.

I guess what I'm saying is its unlikely rather than a yes




I assure you, I'm not looking for a "yes". I'm looking for either a yes or a no, along with a rationale behind whichever answer is chosen. Rather than trying to convince others of anything, I'm asking this question for my own personal curiosity. I would like to see people articulate their doubts to determine to what extend their skepticism is based on their study and rejection of the actual UFO evidence, or to what extent it is based on other considerations. For example, your post seems to indicate that part of your own skepticism stems from the idea that species may not survive long enough to develop the knowledge and technology necessary for interstellar travel. I consider that to be a completely valid basis for your doubt. I'm hoping to get other people to analyze their own reasons for doubt, beyond simply saying "there's no good evidence." I simply feel it could lead to an interesting discussion.

So far I've had very few people attempt to give a straight answer and explain it. I appreciate the fact that you have done so.
edit on 11-3-2011 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 



Whatever it was that convinced them, it has been written about extensively in the peer reviewed journals and has been agreed upon to a great degree: We have this knowledge, science now tells us.


And I read those peer reviewed journals: what do they say?



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Orkojoker
 



Whatever it was that convinced them, it has been written about extensively in the peer reviewed journals and has been agreed upon to a great degree: We have this knowledge, science now tells us.


And I read those peer reviewed journals: what do they say?


I suppose, in your case, they essentially say whatever it is that would convince you that it is a reality. The question at hand is really not, "What evidence would convince you that they were out there?" - but rather, "Imagine that you have been satisfied that they are, indeed, out there (but not necessarily here). Would this alter your position on the possibility of UFOs being of extraterrestrial origin?"

Some people would say, "Despite the fact that we would know they are out there, and we would know they could come here, there is not one single shred [others, I've noticed, prefer "iota" or even "scintilla"] of evidence that they HAVE, in fact, come here. Therefore these revelations, however certain, would not move me one bit from my position that UFOs represent nothing but misperceptions of conventional objects and phenomena, and possibly some as-yet-undiscovered natural phenomena, as there is nothing in the body of UFO evidence that cannot be explained in the aforementioned terms."

Some people, on the other hand, might take a second look at the UFO evidence. Just curious about who stands where in the situation presented.











edit on 11-3-2011 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 



I would say that we have evidence of things flying around that seem to be under intelligent control but which do not seem to be within the scope of human technology


I havnt seen any good evidence for that. 1 video of a craft of unknown origin doing incredible manouvers would be good. As the decades have past it gets worse for the eth we have an order of magnitude greater covergae of our skys from the ground and from space. Still nothing.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   
If you tell them that there are aliens, if you tell them that there is a hidden history, then basically, you are telling them that most of everything that they have been told is a lie, when they cast thier innocent eyes upon those who had played the role of thier father-figures, to realise that they have been lied to for centuries - would destroy them.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Orkojoker
 



I would say that we have evidence of things flying around that seem to be under intelligent control but which do not seem to be within the scope of human technology


I havnt seen any good evidence for that. 1 video of a craft of unknown origin doing incredible manouvers would be good. As the decades have past it gets worse for the eth we have an order of magnitude greater covergae of our skys from the ground and from space. Still nothing.


I tell you, I could really go for some decent video footage myself. I've seen some that is compelling, but certainly not conclusive. I have to wonder, why ISN'T there more good video if these things are really out there (which I believe they are)?

What I find most convincing, and what many people reject out of hand without a second thought, is some of the testimony from people who seem to be totally competent and sincere, but who describe things that are totally unexplainable by our current knowledge of the world.

The Coyne incident, for one, I feel needs to be explained, and yet 30 years later, nobody has been able to offer any explanation for what that thing was. I think it's more likely, in this case and in many others, that the witnesses (plural) were describing the event pretty much as it actually happened, than that they were all lying or mistaken. Cases such as this one leave virtually no room for conventional objects or known phenomena, and there are many others equally as baffling.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker
In the above situation, would you be any more likely to consider some UFOs to potentially represent visits by some of these beings?

As a sceptic I don't question the possibility of intelligent life other places in the universe, i actually accept it. What I don't believe in though, is that we are visited by any of those species. I don't believe that scifi-ish space travel as we know it from books and movies is possible.


Originally posted by ShadeWolf
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


Well, scientifically speaking, we do basically know that there are roughly 10,000 intelligent species we could theoretically detect in the Milky Way, thanks to the Drake Equation.

The Drake equation is based on a number of variables we have no way of checking, so no, it is not 'scientifically determined' that there are that many intelligent species in this galaxy.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join