Question For skeptics

data5091
As I have said before, there is evidence, lots of evidence, whether it be radar contacts, to abduction evidence, to markings on the ground where ufo's have been to additional evidence of abductees, and many people who have had close contact with a ufo have had medical conditions from this contact, usually related to radiation burns of some type, and so on. Its your choice, whether to accept this evidence or not.

Uh, no. The choice is how to assess the claims of evidence, either naively and gullibly and dogmatically -- as you seem to -- or carefully based on real-world experience with ambiguity and garble and distortion-effects.

I have no problem even accepting the possibility of current observation of Earth by ETI, who would have full control of how much [or how little] we detect them. There is no way to prove they are NOT watching us invisibly.

The question for proof is the other way: are there no other possible explanations for all the stories and observations and photographs, and more to the point, if there WERE no 'true UFOs', would today's crowd of part-time amateur highly-biased investigators be able to FIND every one of the non-UFO explanations? No, I think not.

In other words, our own human limitations guaranty a residue of 'unsolved cases'. How is that set distinguishable from one where there a few genuinely anomalous events thrown in?

reply to post by Picollo30

Picollo30
do you guys believe there's absolutely no alien life outside planet earth, or you only doubt of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life (due to lack of real tangible proof i started having doubts that there's intelligent life out there) ? there's a difference here and it's important to distinguish one thing from the other.

if there are other planets why can't there be conditions for life? i think it's kinda selfish to believe we and our planet are so unique.

edit on 22-2-2014 by Picollo30 because: (no reason given)

It's the word believe I have a problem with. I try to avoid anything that needs believing. I want to know. If I don't know, I cannot state otherwise.

Why do you feel it is kinda selfish to not wanting to discern the possibility that even with all the planets out there, life on it does not have to be a given. You know - There must be a first time for everything and we might be just that. When the BIG evidence otherwise is not there, one cannot discard these kind of scenarios. When the science has not progressed into the stadium of disproving any, the full spectrum of scenarios is on. My just proposed first-time-hypotheses is as good as any out there.

That's what I feel being sceptic is about. Have an open mind even towards less popular options. It is the choice to state I don't know (insert statement) in stead of I believe (statement). To try not to take leaps, nor to fool oneself, neither to fill gaps. The choice to knowingly not know and question any statement stating otherwise.

Why is not knowing such a big deal?

reply to post by Picollo30


-removing my post here-

reply to post by Picollo30


Lack of Evidence? There was supposedly no water on mars until we were able to send a rover and touch down. Think about how wrong we were about a planet so close in our own Solar system. Yes Hubble can see light years back and wide shots of galaxies, but they truly have no idea what is habitable or what isn't. We usually don't even know there is an asteroid passing close to earth until after it passes, or sometimes days before. That should give you an idea of how advanced we are in the scope of understanding the universe. Short answer.. We are as primal as man living in caves who have just realized how to make fire.

Also name something that there is only 1 of example? ~We have a moon, so do other planets.~ We have a solar system, there are other solar systems.~ We are part of a galaxy, there are other galaxies. ~ We have somewhat intelligent life, there is probably another planet with the same. ~

Even on Earth there are more then 1 example of anything that is organic. All of nature has at least 2 of everything. Why would we be the exception to the rule? We aren't, we just aren't smart enough to find it yet.

There are no skeptics about other life or even other intelligent life in our universe since there is tangible proof of both. The skeptical aspect of it all is whether they are flying around us in their little ships.

reply to post by Picollo30

do you guys believe there's absolutely no alien life outside planet earth, or you only doubt of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life (due to lack of real tangible proof i started having doubts that there's intelligent life out there) ? there's a difference here and it's important to distinguish one thing from the other. if there are other planets why can't there be conditions for life? i think it's kinda selfish to believe we and our planet are so unique.

I'm not sure you addressed your thread to the correct "group'. It sounds like you associate the word "skeptic" with someone not considering the possibility of anything no matter what.

Maybe it should have been addressed to religious fundamentalists, or something else as it deals with other intelligent life in the universe.

As repeated over and over here, the sheer numbers point to intelligent life out there somewhere. Since that is all your OP covers, I will not delve into the lack of tangible, irrefutable proof of that life coming to our small planet out of the trillions and trillions of other planets out there to visit and "probe".

reply to post by NotSoAnonymous

There was supposedly no water on mars until we were able to send a rover and touch down.

False. The existence of water in the Martian atmosphere was confirmed in 1963. Quite a while before the first lander.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Grimpachi
reply to post by teamcommander

 

We have the opinion that we are the only "intelligent life"

Correction: We have the opinion that we are the only "intelligent life" in our solar system.

Actually, I am speaking of our egocentric position here on the earth.
The solar system is just too large a place for most people to contemplate.
I have always tried to allow for some intelligence even in the smallest of minds.

The typical response from skeptics avoids the real situation which is that they cannot handle the possibility of the implications. They will argue variously: A lack of proof (as if they were doing an armchair scientific study), influences from religion (that blocks allowing the thought), sheer ignorance (despite growing evidence), willful decline to a new though, unwilling to accept the lowering of the human position in the Universe, brainwashed by education/science to not think on their own and fear of the unknown.

Notice how all of these easily transfer to not accepting the mountains of various kinds of physical data for the reality of UFOs. Of course, the supposed genuineness of the government's denial of UFOs is a special case as they have their own reasons.

reply to post by Aliensun

The typical response from skeptics avoids the real situation which is that they cannot handle the possibility of the implications.

What implications?
What's to handle?

Of course, the supposed genuineness of the government's denial of UFOs is a special case as they have their own reasons.

And of course, this thread is not about UFOs.

Aliensun

The typical response from skeptics avoids the real situation which is that they cannot handle the possibility of the implications. They will argue variously: A lack of proof (as if they were doing an armchair scientific study), influences from religion (that blocks allowing the thought), sheer ignorance (despite growing evidence), willful decline to a new though, unwilling to accept the lowering of the human position in the Universe, brainwashed by education/science to not think on their own and fear of the unknown.

Notice how all of these easily transfer to not accepting the mountains of various kinds of physical data for the reality of UFOs. Of course, the supposed genuineness of the government's denial of UFOs is a special case as they have their own reasons.

So in other words...

1. Their is no irrefutable proof
2. We should just believe you.
3. If you require proof and just dont believe you are ignorant.

Data and evidence are not the same thing but please point me in the direction of these mountains which have irrefutable data that show UFOs are alien.

reply to post by Aliensun


I was planning on writing out some big long rebuttal of what you have said above...

but then i noticed that there was no point as i think your entire post says more about the awful attitude that some "believers" have rather than the failings of "skeptics" when it comes to this debate.

I find it both infuriating and laughable when i see posts like yours, infuriating because you lower the tone, intellect and general good natured flow of a mature and interesting debate, but also laughable because it is so pathetically easy to refute any claims you make with a little logic and a sharp tong and also because you seem oblivious to how most other members have such little regard for your frankly childish post.

In short your post does nothing in anyway to negate any of the points thus far.

UFOlogy would do much better and gain much more respect and attention if people like you would restrain yourselfs from running off your mouths.

Picollo30
do you guys believe there's absolutely no alien life outside planet earth, or you only doubt of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life (due to lack of real tangible proof i started having doubts that there's intelligent life out there) ? there's a difference here and it's important to distinguish one thing from the other.

if there are other planets why can't there be conditions for life? i think it's kinda selfish to believe we and our planet are so unique.

edit on 22-2-2014 by Picollo30 because: (no reason given)

I look at this two ways:

The first way is, scientifically, by the sheer amount of stars and their systems, in our galaxy alone, one doesn't find it hard to postulate that life could be common if one goes by the idea that life can start spontaneously if the right "soup" of ingredients exists at just the right time and place.

The second way is, spiritually, it probably doesn't matter one way or the other. I believe we're spiritual beings living in temporary physical bodies, and even if ET is real, and the science is real, the distances are so great, i doubt even ET can overcome them. I figure "all will be revealed" after I croak anyway, so why worry about it unless ET decides to reveal himself to humanity in an unprecedented way? But that's just my perspective on your question.

data5091
As I have said before, there is evidence, lots of evidence, whether it be radar contacts, to abduction evidence, to markings on the ground where ufo's have been to additional evidence of abductees, and many people who have had close contact with a ufo have had medical conditions from this contact, usually related to radiation burns of some type, and so on. Its your choice, whether to accept this evidence or not.

The question is, evidence of what?

1. Radar Contacts: Are you seriously suggesting that radar contacts are evidence of aliens coming to Earth? All you've got is a radar contact, which may show some unusual behavior, but how can you jump from "radar contact" to "aliens from space."? It's this kind of illogical fallacy that gives believers a bad name.

2. Abduction evidence: Though tainted with an incredible number of people with serious mental issues, even if you take the ones offered by credible people, all you have is an anecdotal story. But let's take those at face value. All you have is a phenomenon that is suggesting people are being abducted by "aliens from space." Do you believe everything you are told? Apparently.

3. Markings on the ground. So if these markings were not made locally, something may have landed. How does that equate to "aliens from space." Once again, that's a logical leap that is not justified.

4. Medical problems, radiation burns: How do those equate to "aliens from space.'? In one of the more famous cases, Cash-Landrum, it's much more likely those "radiation burns" came from a terrestrial craft. You can't get to "aliens" from radiation burns.

5. We were wrong about water on Mars, therefore..." As Phage has pointed out, we've known about water on Mars since the sixties. Your argument is completely bogus. But even if we had not, the fact that we did not know one thing about Mars does not mean "aliens from space." It's not a logical argument. It isn't even related. Further, we NEVER said, "There's no water on Mars." Prior to the sixties we said, "We have yet to find irrefutable evidence that there is water on Mars." If you do not understand the difference between those two statements, then back to science class for you.

As you can readily see your evidence here is sadly lacking and almost laughable. The ORIGINAL question posed by the OP has been proven here to be conclusively not true. But you bring up a good point, which is the opposite question:

Why do believers use anything they can't understand, including many mundane issues such as lights in the sky, radar contacts, anecdotal stories from questionable sources, and downright provable hoaxes as evidence for "aliens from space."?

To me these folks are incredibly gullible and naïve with very little understanding of the subject matter or the issues involved. My guess is that reading Jacque Vallee would be well above their level of understanding.

schuyler
It's also an eye-roller every time someone announces, "Given the great vastness of the Universe it is arrogant to believe we are the only life....blah blah blah." Please give it a break. Really. Nobody believes that. You just made it up, a straw man you can subsequently criticize.

THANK YOU!!!!!

Picollo30
do you guys believe there's absolutely no alien life outside planet earth, or you only doubt of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life (due to lack of real tangible proof i started having doubts that there's intelligent life out there) ? there's a difference here and it's important to distinguish one thing from the other.

if there are other planets why can't there be conditions for life? i think it's kinda selfish to believe we and our planet are so unique.

edit on 22-2-2014 by Picollo30 because: (no reason given)

Statistically, there is almost certainly a great deal of life throughout the universe. Since what we call "intelligence" seems to be survival positive, natural selection favors the evolution of intelligence. There is a problem, however. Developing a technological civilization like ours requires the presence of heavier elements, elements that can only be forged inside stars. The (observable) universe is about 13 billion years old. The Sun is about 4 billion years old. The first generation of stars would have been metal poor. The second generation of stars would have had more metal, but it is likely that the Sun is a third generation star. In other words, only stars that are about 5 billion years old or so are likely to have planets that can develop a technological civilization. If we can trust the data we have been getting from Kepler, most of the stars that have exo-planets must be relatively young; their planets have not yet migrated into stable configurations. This means that our species may be one of the most advanced species in the universe. Think about it.

reply to post by schuyler


All I am saying is that SOME radar sightings, some experiences, cannot be explained. If they are not something we would recognize as being anything related to military, then what are they, what could they be? There have been lots of big name sightings as you know over the past many decades. Lets take the Stephenville lights just for an example. What were the Fighters from the nearby Air Force base chasing according to many witnesses? They all said they saw bright lights doing different things in the sky and in some instances moving at incredible speed. Most said they didn't know what it was, but a former Pilot said he thought what he saw was not of this earth. And then you have to take into account at first the Air Force denied any Fighters were in the air that night, but then the story changed. Just my opinion, but when you have a pattern of shifting explanations like we have had from government and the military complex, this could be used to reinforce a case.

There are some things that happen for which we have no perfect answer, or they can't be explained away. And in my opinion, if thats the case, then in my mind you have to consider the possibility, just a possibility, that maybe what was seen or experienced was not from this Earth. I don't believe every light in the sky IS a an et craft, but I do think some are.

schuyler

Why do believers use anything they can't understand, including many mundane issues such as lights in the sky, radar contacts, anecdotal stories from questionable sources, and downright provable hoaxes as evidence for "aliens from space."?

To me these folks are incredibly gullible and naïve with very little understanding of the subject matter or the issues involved.

Here's how it works. Take every piece of 'UFO' related data and put it into a pile. Now, organise that pile into one of three boxes: "Explained/Hoax", "Genuine Mystery" and "Definitely Aliens". 99.999% of stuff goes into the "Explained/Hoax" box, a tiny handful goes into "Genuine Mystery", and the "Definitely Aliens" box is empty. Your average ufologist deduces that, based on the sheer volume of evidence, the alien hypothesis is the only valid conclusion.

The prospects for finding active biology elsewhere in our own Solar System has never seemed brighter -- here's recent book foreword on that theme:

www.jamesoberg.com...

I think there is evidence for visitation (at least circumstantial), but as to the nature of what this visitation may be is anyone's guess.