Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
About the only thing a person can't say, while still expecting to be taken seriously by those who've actually spent the time, is that there's "no
evidence" in support of the ET hypothesis. Because such a statement immediately evinces near monumental levels of ignorance and / or bias...
I'm not so sure. Show me a single piece of evidence that supports the ET hypothesis. Just one that absolutely could not
but an interaction between Earth and a creature or entity or intelligence originating from another planet.
The ET hypothesis rests on a single shaky foundation which can be summed up as, "Since we (or I) don't know of anything like that -- flying thing,
creature thing, etc. -- here on Earth, it could only have come from another planet." You can hopefully see the tremendous errors in logic in such a
Start with the fact that you don't have a single physical example of the things you're talking about. Just stories, statements, maybe an image of
some kind, or some stray traces, but not really the thing. Then, you must agree that no one person could can definitively know everything that could
possibly represent the whole of reality on Earth. Add to that there is not a shred of solid, corroborating evidence of any kind that there is any
life elsewhere in the entire universe. It all adds up to trying to use a hypothetical to explain an unknown.
Looking strictly at the available evidence, without trying to impose an explanation on it, if you accept that the phenomenon is in some way "real,"
then extraterrestrials becomes one of the weakest potential hypotheses.
After many decades of interest/study, my personal opinion is that when you add it all up, without focusing specifically on the flying saucers, and
including all the weirdest and strangest and counterintuitive reports that get tossed out because they're too goofy, I think what we're dealing with
is a manifestation of reality that interacts with us in a sociological and psychological way that we just can't comprehend and may never comprehend.
It's "real," and even though you might be able to take a picture of it while it's around, it always
vanishes, like in a dream. Dreams are
real, right, even though all we have is anecdotal evidence of them? The only difference is that most people dream, so we agree they're real, but not
everybody sees a flying saucer. And at the end of the day, the ET hypothesis is really the least likely to be workable because it's just not strange
enough. It's too illogical, untestable, doesn't fit a lot (if not most) of the data, and it's also far too dull and ordinary and unimaginative to
edit on 25-9-2012 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)