I was a believer, now skeptic. Believers are wrong.

reply to post by bottleslingguy


That's true. But it's possible for two honest skeptics to reach two different (but valid) conclusions on UFOs based on their standard of evidence, and the evidence they've seen.

RUInsane
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

That's true. But it's possible for two honest skeptics to reach two different (but valid) conclusions on UFOs based on their standard of evidence, and the evidence they've seen.

so how does one decide one way or another?

I think the premise that "it's all aliens" is the simplest and most obvious hypothesis, I mean come on look at all the weird mysteries from megaliths to ooparts, it answers all those questions in one fell swoop. It explains what is otherwise inexplicable.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

It explains what is otherwise inexplicable.

Argument from ignorance. Must be aliens.


I have an easier one:
God did it.

tanka418

ccross
I can't believe how many people are so convinced that aliens exist. I will not go so far as to say they don't exist, but everything I have seen can be easily explained away.

I get sooooo tired of people who think it can all be "explained away"!!

Please explain this:

Keeping in mind that the original data purportedly came from ET. . . Explain this!

Was it pure "chance"? or perhaps ET does truly exist and IS visiting.

The zeta reticulian star system was discovered a long time ago the only reason it is famous is because of the famous abduction case barney hills. Most recent evidence tells us that the stars are about two billion years old compared to our sun of 4.5 billion years of age. Because the stars are so young it counts against the possebility of higher intelligentic forms in the star system.
Zeta reticul is so full in mystery and hoaxes that its hard for ordinary folks like you to seperate the truth from lies.

ZetaRediculian
Care to have a go at a game of poker to test your knowledge of probability?

Who said anything about psychology? the guy in the video is most likely retarded.

No, I'll pass; poker does not demonstrate what I'm talking about, has little to do with knowledge of mathematical probability (aside from being described by it). All I see is a failed attempt to dodge the real question.

How about the probability of finding "where" the original "view" was from? Or better yet, [I]ANY[I] analytical attempts at the actual data. You have a long standing habit of trying to ignore the real world data in favor of our own "views". Time to face the real world.

Perhaps the speaker is simply not well practiced at reading the script. In any case, you have absolutely no basis for that sloppy attempt at character assassination. Oh, and it was n fact you that brought up psychology.

Keylogger

The zeta reticulian star system was discovered a long time ago the only reason it is famous is because of the famous abduction case barney hills. Most recent evidence tells us that the stars are about two billion years old compared to our sun of 4.5 billion years of age. Because the stars are so young it counts against the possebility of higher intelligentic forms in the star system.
Zeta reticul is so full in mystery and hoaxes that its hard for ordinary folks like you to seperate the truth from lies.

Actually, Zeta 1 and 2 Reticuli have two different and widely separated estimates on their age. The "color" age of the star is about 1.5 billion years, the "movement" age of the star is over 6 billion. I put the average at 4.75 billion years, very close to Sol.

Astronomy is a bit odd on the Star Age thing; it seems there are two way to estimate the age. One way is to look at a layer of the stars surface; based on the activity and color spectrum an "age" can be estimated. Another way is by it's movement; the rate of spin, the stellar group it belongs to, and some other movement factors can give another estimate of age. Usually these two are "close", but, in the case of Zeta(s) Reticuli, there is a wide gap. Astronomers seem to want to use the older of the two; I, as a data scientist, feel that the average of the two is a closer estimate of age, at this time.

Further Zeta Reticuli isn't the only star on the map. Tau Ceti for instance has two planets within the habitable zone.

Over all, the closeness of "fit" to actual stars, the discovered planets, raise the probability of Zeta Reticuli, and the Betty / Barney Hill encounter to something greater than 0.9 (in my current opinion).

Phage
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

It explains what is otherwise inexplicable.

Argument from ignorance. Must be aliens.


I have an easier one:
God did it.

edit on 12/28/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Isn't that the way scientific hypothesis is built? One takes an observation, and out of abject ignorance begins to build an explanation? One starts with something that can explain the observation and builds from there...

Or is there a better way?

reply to post by tanka418

One starts with something that can explain the observation and builds from there...

Using evidence. All evidence.
One does not ignore evidence that contradicts the hypothesis.
One does not conclude that a "lack of evidence" (see above) to the contrary indicates the hypothesis is correct.
One does not conclude that further speculation about evidence strengthens the original hypothesis.

I can't un-see what I have seen, but what I have seen doesn't cause me to believe that there are aliens flying around.

I have seen things which were much more than blurry lights in the distant sky, in fact one thing I saw was under-water less than 250 yards away from me and in a very remote area, I was alone, it wasn't anyone else close-by.....

The only thing I believe is that we have so little knowledge of our planet that there could very well be more advanced civilizations existing here with us without the general population being aware of it, or even simply advanced technology the general population isn't aware of / familiar with.

I KNOW what I saw, I think....?....several times, not on just one occasion.

I never did believe much in UFO's till I saw a few, but they were simply Unidentified Flying Objects, along with one that was a UFO, and then a USO....

Maybe I'm just hypoglycemic.

reply to post by Keylogger


It sounds like you never had a real ufo experience of your own which is why you seem to not believe. I do believe in UFOs, but that does not mean that I believe that it is always little green men flying them. UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object not Unidentified Flying Alien Object. Alot of what we see is man made.
My brothers and I have seen a ufo before as clear as day, I dont know if its an alien craft or if it was man made but, you will never Ever be able to tell me that what we saw was just a figment of our imagination as it was a group of about 50 people who saw it that day.
I do agree with you that most of what you can find on the internet is fake, yes you are right on that one, but you are completly 100% wrong when you say there are no such things as UFO's. Yes you have done research into this subject but obviously you are just getting crap pics/vids in the first place. Make a trip up the british columbia, hang out in the lower mainland around any of the Cascade Aerospace/Lockheed Martin bases out here and you will be amazed at some of the things you will see in the sky, or better yet go hang out around Keremeos BC Canada and you might just see something like what I saw. What I think your problem is, is you spend too much time infront of the computer screen and not not enough time looking at the sky. Why not go to UFO hotspots and see for your self. Canada has always been working on UFO technology and there are lots of reported sightings here.

Personally it sounds like you are just whinning because you have never seen one in real life. If you have seen one great tell us about it, if not stop complaining because some of us have actually seen these crafts with our own eyes.

Phage



I have an easier one:
God did it.

well that DOES beg the question where They came from but seriously if you can't connect the dots you will consistently fall short in accepting this reality. If one shred of it is true then the fundamental structure of our reality is built on sand and I'm sure all of those who've thought they were building on bedrock all this time are not going to go quietly into the new paradigm. So they flail and use circular reasoning that never allows them to look up off the 2d page to see what else there is out there.

reply to post by bottleslingguy

They came from but seriously if you can't connect the dots you will consistently fall short in accepting this reality.

Trouble is there's a problem with connecting dots that don't have numbers on them. You come up with all kinds of weird drawings. More like a Rorschach test than anything else.

reply to post by Phage


I did not say that One should ignore any evidence! Nor did I state anything about evidence.

I was talking about "starting points". The creation of Hypothesis; which is necessarily speculation, but, is wholly based on current knowledge / evidence.

After that One can begin to gather and examine data.

reply to post by tanka418

After that One can begin to gather and examine data.

Yes. And in doing so one must follow the caveats I listed.

RUInsane

That's true. But it's possible for two honest skeptics to reach two different (but valid) conclusions on UFOs based on their standard of evidence, and the evidence they've seen.

Y'all should be using only one standard for evidence. That "standard" is actually already established, and used everyday in court rooms around the world.

Phage
Yes. And in doing so one must follow the caveats I listed.

Yes, yes, Phage; of course.

1. "Using evidence. All evidence. "
2. "One does not ignore evidence that contradicts the hypothesis. "
3. "One does not conclude that a "lack of evidence" (see above) to the contrary indicates the hypothesis
is correct. '

However; when One finds little / no contradictory data, and mostly / only supporting data. The Hypothesis becomes Theory.

4. "One does not conclude that further speculation about evidence strengthens the original hypothesis. "

Further speculation on the data may lead to more / greater insights. Of course this requires all the same scientific rigor.

One should also be cognizant of all areas and paths of investigation, and leave no stones unturned.

reply to post by tanka418


Courtrooms use eyewitness testimony, which is the least reliable form of evidence.

reply to post by tanka418

However; when One finds little / no contradictory data, and mostly / only supporting data. The Hypothesis becomes Theory.

Not quite. Technically there is another important part. In order to progress from hypothesis to theory it should be testable; "if true then we should see this."

And no fair including hypotheses about the evidence. ("What else could this be but a primitive drawing of an ET?")

Phage
You come up with all kinds of weird drawings.

I can't help the fact that you want to bend reality to fit inside your own personal box of normalcy so you can avoid the weird scary parts. You are going to have to accept some unpleasant notions or else you can stay the way you are, regardless though, just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't mean it is not true. Keep your eyes shut real tight and maybe it will go away.

reply to post by tanka418

No, I'll pass; poker does not demonstrate what I'm talking about, has little to do with knowledge of mathematical probability

Poker has everything to do with mathematical probability. If you don't understand that, you don't understand probability or basic math.

the person in the video could have a speech impediment but there still could be something very wrong with him/her and we shouldn't trust his/her "math".