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.

 

Why oh why do some many on ATS fight against logical explanation?

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhatAliens

Originally posted by Zeer0
People fight because not everything is Chinese Lanterns and CGI. And all these 'Debunkers' claim every sighting can explained by those means and its not a good way to think.


I don't know what a debunker is, but isn't a normal logical explanation the best explanation?


No my friend, thats Occam's Razor

I love how its stated and i love using this on so many levels but its ignorant to think that most logical explanation is always the right one.

Something is definitely changing, whether it be beings from another planet or our government conspiring for their own greater good. And for those of you too arrogant to accept this, have a look around and WAKE UP!
edit on 02/06/2011 by fordizzl3 because: (no reason given)

edit on 02/06/2011 by fordizzl3 because: (no reason given)

edit on 02/06/2011 by fordizzl3 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


"This is just misleading, and the statement hinges on so many assumptions. The truth is, we don't know the exact process that allowed life to spring into existence, so predicting how common life will be throughout the Universe is a wild guess at best. It could be exceedingly rare, and in fact, it's within the realm of possibility that life is such a fluke it happened once here on Earth, and that's it."

Personally I believe life is common, although even ignoring that and moving forward with the belief that life is extremely rare that allows for Millions of possible civilizations that could be in any developmental stage, likely much further than us. The below link has a page where they estimate at least 100 billion stars in our galaxy (the more we learn the more this number increases it seems) alone have planets. Even with the most cautious estimation of 1 planet per star (of course already flawed as proven by our solar system and several others we discovered) and calculating about .01% of them being able to support life you get about 10 million planets with possible life at various stages.

dsc.discovery.com...

"If your suggestions are accurate, and alien life is so common place, why did SETI not manage to make contact? I would recommend the book "The Eerie Silence" by Paul Davies for a sober look by someone working with SETI, who is truly in the know."

Again even not suggesting life being common place there could be millions of possibilities. You even mention the need to crack interstellar travel, something that would be simple for any species thousands or millions of years beyond us. SETI searches for radio waves only, a species that travels beyond the speed of light would not use a form of communication so slow. We search only based on what we know and use when a species so far advanced would be well beyond such primitive technology. The civilizations at or near our level of technology are likely rare, we could search for many hundreds of years limiting ourselves to radio waves only and likely not find anything.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by fordizzl3
 


Fordizzl3, here's another interesting comment about the UFO subject and the (ab)use of Occam's razor from Brian Zelier:


"UFO debunkers do not understand Occam's Razor, and they abuse it regularly. They think they understand it, but they don't.
What it means is that when several hypotheses of varying complexity can explain a set of observations with equal ability, the first one to be tested should be the one that invokes the fewest number of uncorroborated assumptions. If this simplest hypothesis is proven incorrect, the next simplest is chosen, and so forth.
But the skeptics forget two parts: the part regarding the test of the simpler hypotheses, and the part regarding explaining all of the observations. What a debunker will do is mutilate and butcher the observations until it can be "explained" by one of the simpler hypotheses, which is the inverse of the proper approach".

Brian Zelier



I also think astrophysicist Bernard Haisch makes a mighty fine point in this statement:






"I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic.
One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers. The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism. If a competent witness reports having seen something tens of degrees of arc in size (as happens) and the scoffer -- who of course was not there -- offers Venus or a high altitude weather balloon as an explanation, the requirement of extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim falls on the proffered negative claim as well. That kind of approach is also pseudo-science. Moreover just being a scientist confers neither necessary expertise nor sufficient knowledge.
Any scientist who has not read a few serious books and articles presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual honesty refrain from making scientific pronouncements. To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science."

Dr. Bernard Haisch
Director for the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics


UFO Sceptic


Cheers.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by WhatAliens
 


There is no logical explanation.

Why should we believe in UFO? Well because we have our own imagination, desires, perceptions there are reports, (official and unofficial) pictures, videos and we are influenced by the media. That's why some of us believe in them. I for instance search for evidence in official scientific documents, images and videos made by space agencies. Do I find UFO? Sometimes I do find "objects" that appear in places where we normally not would expect them. These objects are of unknown origin, they fly and therefore for me they are unidentified flying objects. Meanwhile I literally found hundreds of objects for which I do not have a logical explanation.

Why should we believe in the Bible? I cannot tell you. Only proof we have is a book that has been re-written thousands of times by monks in the middle ages. How much of the Bible is still genuine material and how much has been altered, made up or deliberately deleted by monks who felt bored and wanted to ad some exciting parts? No one can tell for sure. We would have to travel back in time to verify it. Example: Read or tell the content of the Bible to 100 people who than will tell / write it down for / to another 1000 people and you will end up with 100,000 (complete) different stories.

As long as we do not see an alien in person or a UFO will land on earth soil we can only guess what they are!

Greetz,

1967sander



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join