Debunk This.

Originally posted by jimnuggits
Welcome to rational thought ladies and gentlemen of ATS...

I know it is against ATS protocol to shine light in the corners, but I feel compelled to try my hand at dispelling the ignorance that the propaganda of BOTH sides of the UFO/Alien question has submitted to the discussion.

Both sides, you say? You seem to have a particular, hostile focus on one.

Originally posted by jimnuggits
Literally every single place on the earth has many local stories associated with these phenomenon.

And every place has stories analogous to fairies. Should we believe such stories too?

Originally posted by jimnuggits
..., for these ALL to be hoaxes.

Evidence open to interpretation and appeals-to-authority aside, you are presenting us with a false dichotomy. It is not either the phenomenon is alien-driven or a massive hoax. There are a myriad other reasons to explain the phenomenon.

Originally posted by jimnuggits
You may look at one particular incident and say, 'hoax' or 'swamp gas', but a cursory look at the bigger UFO/Alien picture paints a very telling story.

Cursory: adjective
going rapidly over something, without noticing details; hasty; superficial: SOURCE

So, what you are telling us is to not look at any case in detail but examine the phenomenon on only the most superficial of levels.

But that is the point, right? A closer examination may challenge your beliefs.

Originally posted by jimnuggits
Occam's razor states that the simplest answer is usually the correct one, and skeptics revel in using it as an argument against EBE and UFOs, yet, when all of these factors are taken into consideration, a very different paradigm emerges.

What factors? False dichotomies and superficial examinations of the evidence? That is hardly a strong case for alien visitation.

Originally posted by jimnuggitsFirst let me say that I am here to ruin the local skeptics and debunkers collective day.

That is unfortunate. That line demonstrates you have no real interest in the truth. Rather, this is about competition for you, putting someone in their place for the sin of disagreeing with you. You are part of why this field is not taken seriously.

reply to post by jimnuggits


Something that isn't there can't scare anyone. Sometimes reality rears it's ugly head, and tells us things we don't really want to believe.

A cover-up of the proportions you talk about makes me believe that you've watched MIB too many times. Good story, but complete fiction. I've watched them all, and read a lot of sci-fi books. Everything Clarke, Heinlein, Asimov, Bradbury, Le Guin, Pohl, Farmer, and Niven. All the ideas those authors present make our imagination blossom, and think, but they have never made us realize the proof of Aliens. Good minds talk about the possibility. It's never occurred. There's no galactic council. There's no federation of planets.

It's a chore sometimes to separate fact from fiction. I'll agree. However, there is no substantial proof. I'll default to that.

Earth to jimnuggits, come in jimnuggits. Over.

I appreciate being baited into reading a thread that reads" Debunk this" and doesn't have any actual evidence to debunk.

reply to post by WingedBull


Excellent syntax assassination.

Would you like to address the actual concept or would you prefer we continue to dance?

Excuse me for my frustration in the original post, but I have an extremely hard time believing that 'skeptics' are being honest with themselves, or those they 'debunk' so vehemently.

The proof is everywhere, literally.

The OP says some pretty outrageous things.

It makes no difference how many UFO reports are made. Unless there is undeniable proof that at least some UFO sightings are real sightings of ET craft, then no number of UFO sightings will ever have any Relevance on determining the reality or unreality of ET visitation. The reason is that we don't know the probability of a UFO sighting being a true positive sighting of ET craft. It might be essentially zero, in which case even millions of UFO reports would mean nothing.

We KNOW that there are lots and lots of false positive sightings of ET craft, but we don't know for sure that there are ANY true positive sightings. If there are no ET UFO's on Earth then every claim of ET activity would be false.

Originally posted by SuperKawaiiNibiru

Eyewitness accounts may work in a court of law, but when it comes to science, they're the lowest form of evidence....

(Yawn...) A tired, old argument which is evidence of unpardonable denial when used to casually brush aside such huge amounts of quality, corroborated testimony & data. Perhaps Neil DeGrasse Tyson (from whom you took those words) needs to go read some Richard Feynman....

Maybe a little perspective from Dr. James McDonald wouldn't hurt, either?

"A frequent objection to serious consideration of UFO reports, made by skeptics who have done no first-hand case investigations, is based on the widely discrepant accounts known to be presented by trial-witnesses who have all been present at some incident. To be sure, the same kind of discrepancies emerge in multiple-witness UFO incidents. People differ as to directions, relative times, sizes, etc. But I believe it is not unfair to remark, as the basic rebuttal to this attack on UFO accounts, that a group of witnesses who see a street-corner automobile collision do not come to court and proceed, in turn, to describe the event as a rhinoceros ramming a baby carriage, or as an airplane exploding on impact with a nearby building. There are, it needs to be soberly remembered, quite reasonable bounds upon the variance of witness testimonies in such cases. Thus, when one finds a half-dozen persons all saying that they were a few hundred feet from a domed disk with no resemblance to any known aircraft, that it took off without a sound, and was gone from sight in five seconds the almost inevitable variations in descriptions of distances, shape, secondary features, noises, and times cannot be allowed to discount, per se, the basically significant nature of their collective account. I have talked with a few scientists, especially some psychologists, whose puristic insistence on the miserable observing equipment with which the human species is cursed almost makes me wonder how they dare cross a busy traffic intersection...."

Originally posted by Xcalibur254

However, there are also those ET hypothesis supporters who claim to be open minded, but as soon as a case of high strangeness comes along they are more than willing to toss it out because it doesn't fit their worldview of UFOs=ETs. I strongly believe that the worst thing that has ever happened to ufology is the ET hypothesis. It has turned a once burgeoning field with aspirations of scientific legitimacy into a cult. We need to stop with these preconceived notions and actually look at the facts. Instead of trying to figure out how the Shag Harbour incident is proof of visitors from Zeta Reticuli we need to simply look at the Shag Harbour incident.

I agree with you, mostly. I just happen to believe that the strongest UFO cases -- the nuts and bolts, multiple witness, radar-confirmed, *physical craft* cases -- are most suggestive of the ET hypothesis, that's all. But of course we should keep an open mind. (And it's all pretty big news regardless of the explanation! Haha.)

Occam's razor states that the simplest answer is usually the correct one,

Bad choice. And misstated.

The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."

www.desy.de...

What that means is that the answer which is most likely to be correct is the one which requires fewest assumptions. For example the question at the very heart of the matter.

Skeptic: It is unlikely that UFOs represent extraterrestrial visitation because of the vast distances involved.

Believer: The vast distances involved are irrelevant because the visitors are highly advanced and have developed technology beyond our wildest dreams which can overcome the problems involved.

Besides the fact that the believer argument is a trifle circular, which one has multiplied the "entities" most? Which one has made more assumptions? Occam's razor does not help your argument.

The OP is suggesting that one peice of evidence is nothing, but a million peices is proof:-

zero * a million = proof

I posit that zero * a million = zero.

Math wins.

reply to post by Phage


I was not making the inference that they were travelling great distances.

I do not presume to know that information.

I was merely stating that when one combines ALL the variables, events and elements involved with an extraterrestrial visitation scenario, in the present and past, you have a much smaller amount of 'entities' in the equation than if you had to find disparate alternate explanations for them all.

While I am sure a unified theory is too simplistic perhaps, it is much easier to infer that otherworldly cultures are visiting our planet than there are swamp gas, cloud refraction, psychological breaks, neuron discharge(?), Chinese lantern, psychosomatic, schizorphrenic, hoaxes that someone CGI'd to make the moon look bluish reddish green and pulsate.

reply to post by Phage


The skeptic who says "it's too far; they can't get here from there" is not making an "assumption"?

Of course he is. Let's get real here. Fermi himself said they "should" be here by now, even if expanding at only a slow rate, galactically.

And... VonNeumann probes? Anyone...?

It's simply not intellectually defensible to dismiss of the best multi-witness radar-visual cases with the "it's too far" mantra....

So the OP's point -- stated a bit abrasively, perhaps -- is valid. At some point, the massive amount of denial and intellectual contortion that must take place in order to casually DISMISS some of the best evidence absolutely does involve making more intellectual leaps and assumptions, absolutely.

If you want to start going through it case by case I guess we could, but the bottom line is this: any "debunking" explanation that requires dozens of human eye-balls plus a radar or two to all be wrong in the same way at the same exact time is much more violative of Occam's Razor than is the slap-you-in-the-face-it's-so-obvious conclusion.

reply to post by jimnuggits

If they are not travelling great distances and if they are ET, where did they come from?

I was merely stating that when one combines ALL the variables, events and elements involved with an extraterrestrial visitation scenario, in the present and past, you have a much smaller amount of 'entities' in the equation than if you had to find disparate alternate explanations for them all.

How much consistency is there in the various reports? I mean the few reports which are not hoaxes, misidentified planets or meteorological phenomena, rocket launches, sky lanterns, and various others. There are huge objects, small objects, incredibly fast objects, slow objects, objects which make radical maneuvers, objects which simply zip across the sky, objects with lights, objects with no lights, fleets, singles, landings, no landings, submersibles...

You cannot "combine all the variables" because you've got apples, oranges, and kiwi fruit. You must look at each case in and of itself. And, if appropriate, you can then apply Occam's razor.

Without some common thread it makes no sense to just say "Well, it happens so much (even though it doesn't really) it can only be extraterrestrial". Of course, should ET choose to make himself known it would make it all moot.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets


If you want to start going through it case by case I guess we could, but the bottom line is this: any "debunking" explanation that requires dozens of human eye-balls plus a radar or two to all be wrong in the same way at the same exact time is much more violative of Occam's Razor than is the slap-you-in-the-face-it's-so-obvious conclusion.

I would disagree about that. There are a LOT of ways to be wrong about believing you have seen an ET craft, there is only one way to be right about it.

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets

If you want to start going through it case by case I guess we could, but the bottom line is this: any "debunking" explanation that requires dozens of human eye-balls plus a radar or two to all be wrong in the same way at the same exact time is much more violative of Occam's Razor than is the slap-you-in-the-face-it's-so-obvious conclusion.

Human eyeballs can be notoriously wrong. Radar is subject to natural distortions and operator interpretation. If you look closely at the reports there are few cases in which there are direct correlations between radar reports and visual reports. It should also be noted that light and radio waves are electromagnetic radiation and both are subject to the same distortions under proper conditions.

Still there are very interesting reports. But to come to a conclusion of extraterrestrial activity one must make the assumption that it is possible for ET to get here and that ET is here. It could be a valid assumption but it still is a very great assumption. It is also circular; it must be ET because only ET can explain it. As the History Channel program has been spoofed to say "I don't know what it is so it must be aliens!"

Originally posted by watchdog8110

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
reply to post by AwakeinNM

 

Admissible in court and proof are two very different things.
Just saying.

The proof part being able to see it right in front of you ( on display ) , looking for clarification ?

edit on 4-12-2011 by watchdog8110 because: (no reason given)

Um...

What?

Originally posted by Tearman

I would disagree about that. There are a LOT of ways to be wrong about believing you have seen an ET craft, there is only one way to be right about it.

The number of ways to be wrong diminishes quite rapidly when the concept of "independent corroboration" is introduced though, right? Obviously.

(And... "ET"? Maybe, maybe not. I prefer "probably," but... none of that is even the point. The point is: unknown flying machines, that appear to be intelligently controlled, demonstrating capabilities that are far exceed anything WE could build.)

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by Algernonsmouse

 

Tone is not something that the written word can convey, although I understand your meaning.

It most certainly is. I am not talking about high or low pitch.

I am being intentionally adverserial in an effort to show the frustration I feel when skeptics demand proof and look for none.

Why should the skeptics be looking for proof of other people's claims? Why would it frustrate you that skeptics want proof? Why do you even suggest they would have an opportunity to look for proof. When presented with whatever the fantasy is, either proof comes along or does not. Why do you think it is up to the listener to go find it? Why is the proof not presented with the claim if it has any validity to it to begin with?

There is proof running out our collective ears, yet still the demand is made.

If it is running out of our collective ears then I would imagine that your thread either contains a ton of it or you offered up a link to some type of repository? Or is this where you make a claim and now it is my job to go find it for you?

Forgive me, but the numbers of stories, physical implants, eye witness testimony and mysterious artifacts are proof in and of themselves.

Of leprachauns, unicorns, ghosts, fairies, Santa, Jesus, Muhammed, etc. Yep, all have been proven.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
You make the OP's point for him. You seem to say that either there is "proof" -- as in a scientific, 3-sigma level of certainty, which any reasonable person admits there is not -- or else any belief is based on blind faith. As if there can be nothing in between?!?! That's simply not a rational position. That's not "skepticism." That's denial.

That makes no sense. What is in between believing in something without proof and asking for proof? How is that a bad place to be? It actually makes the opposite point when you make sense. Hopefully in your next post you will?

The OP is (correctly) telling some of the more hard-line skeptics that it's time for a gut-check, because too many on here improperly apply that label to themselves when what they actually are is a debunker or a denier.

Ok then. I guess that is between him and them then.

Any person reading this who calls himself a "skeptic," yet cannot admit that there are several highly strange, very intriguing UFO cases -- cases highly *suggestive* of ET visitation, even though falling short of proof -- is not a true skeptic.

That is quite the straw man you put up there. Where did any skeptic say there are no interesting cases? Why the hell do you think we are here to begin with? I have not seen that kind of stance from any skeptics let alone all or most of them. Help me out.

That person is actually either ignorant of that most compelling UFO evidence, or is living in some kind of denial-laden fantasy land, one every bit as deserving of ridicule as that which is occupied by, for example, the saucer-callers and ET taxonomists.

I think that person is someone you imagined. Way to go attacking your own imaginary friend.

I want proof. That does not make me a denier. The only other option is to believe without proof. If you can explain how that is anything but blind faith I am all ears.

BTW, the hostile tone of this thread overall is extremely helpful. You guys are winning friends and influencing people to take a harder line against what you are hoping they will come around to see. It is kind of fun to watch though.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Don't forget there are also those people that WANT to believe so baddly that they accept every story they hear, promote and defend those stories, and never really know why.


So what have we learned here today? Some people kind of suck and some of those sucky people belong to every group. Great thread.

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

I agree. Let us weigh the facts on their own merit and allow the supposition to stop.

If indeed we have friends from Zeta Reticuli, let us find the evidence of that in the facts, not the what ifs.

Another problem we have is that our science is only as good as the tools by which it measures.

We are using sticks, figuratively speaking. Yet, even with our rudimentary tools, we have many confirmations that something is happening.

Something we cannot explain and are not responsible for.

See now I agree with this post wholeheartedly. Too bad the adversarial atmosphere has prevented any meaningful conversation to develop in the areas where our ideas converge instead of diverge. Interesting how that worked out.