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.
neoholographic
reply to post by Phage
Again, this is a trivial way to look at a debate. It's not just debating opinions. It's debating conclusions that were reached based on evidence.
I don't really remember that. I haven't seen much of that debate on ATS. Can you provide some examples?
People want to assign amazing abilities to aliens because of our understanding of physics. That doesn't make much sense to me.
UltraverseMaximus
reply to post by intrptr
But but but....you saw it on earth. Not from here you say
Nope, it's my opinion that the evidence is strong enough to reach the conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred. It's your opinion that the evidence isn't strong enough to reach that conclusion.
That's my point. Maybe there's not enough evidence for you to reach a conclusion but there's more than enough evidence for me to reach this conclusion.
Not really. The only evidence we have that there is intelligent life anywhere is right here on Earth, the genus homo. No evidence of intelligent life anywhere else.
How did you reach this conclusion? It was based on the available evidence.
If you want to act like people weren't debating the existence of Aliens on ATS then that's fine. If you want to stick your head in the sand and say this was never debated, again that's fine with me.
Now, I'm sure it's been mentioned but I don't really recall there being much, if any debate about it. Certainly not the debate.
I remember when I first came to ATS, the debate was whether Aliens exist.
This is just common sense. Nobody is talking about anything supernatural. If we make it to 100 years from now, there will be technologies that we don't have today. Like I said, it's just common sense.
Like I said, we always reach conclusions based on the available evidence. We couldn't have a lot of debates if people didn't reach conclusions based on the available evidence.
Not really. The only evidence we have that there is intelligent life anywhere is right here on Earth, the genus homo. I do not base my conclusion about extraterrestrial evidence on any evidence, just on probability. Probability is not evidence. My conclusion is pure speculation.
intrptr
UltraverseMaximus
reply to post by intrptr
But but but....you saw it on earth. Not from here you say
I said "not of this earth". Not a product of man?
Maybe I should say… what do you say? I don't actually know what it was. Thats obvious to me. I think thats why they call them UFO's.
Just that I have not seen anything like it before or since. Its not any one thing about it that convinced me it was otherworldly but when you add up all its attributes:
impossible hue of blue and red
impossible speed
totally silent
sudden angular change of direction at that impossible speed (no radius of turn)
As well at the last it disappeared into the only cloud in the sky at the extreme southern end of the bay. In other words it shot into a cloud but did not come out the other side.
All of us were slack jawed. So compelled by it we returned three nights in a row but it didn't return. We all argued so much about it it actually ruined a good friendship. We drifted apart after that and we had been buddies in hi school and into our early twenties.
Probability has to be based on evidence.
You can look at exoplanets and the amount of stars and galaxies in the universe and reach a conclusion that extraterrestrials most likely exist.
Did you see who or what was inside the craft? Did you speak with the occupants first hand?
We have time travel, we have anti gravity…
intrptr
reply to post by UltraverseMaximus
We have time travel, we have anti gravity…
Ummm…. not to sure about that.
I see a trend here. Everything that has to do with U.F.O.'s, Psi or the Paranormal is put into the prison of the unexplained. Why can't we explain or identify some U.F.O.'s and say there most likely craft flown by extraterrestrial beings?
There's mountains of evidence to support this conclusion. Let me say this again. The conclusion is SOME of these U.F.O.'s are mostly likely controlled by extraterrestrial beings.
Why can't I reach this conclusion based on the available evidence? Why do I have to put everything that skeptics disagree with into the black hole of the unexplained?
U.F.O.'s are called Unidentified Flying Objects. This doesn't mean we can't identify some of them based on the available evidence.
People have never seen parallel universes yet people have reached the conclusion based on the available evidence that parallel universes exist.
Now, what am I supposed to do here? Take the word of a skeptic that had nothing to do with the case and believe that the Detective must be an idiot. Or should I listen to the Detective with over 30 years experience who worked these cases?
I believe Psychics exist but it has nothing to do with anything magical or supernatural. It most likely has to do with non locality and space-time.
At the end of the day, I'm supposed to just stick my head in the sand and say these things can't be explained and this is because the explanation doesn't agree with the skeptics belief system. So it could never be Psychic Ability exist, it always has to be Psychic Ability is unexplained or it's just a bunch of stupid cops who get bamboozled by old ladies.
Like I said, I think a lot of these things have explanations but their just kept in the unexplained prison because the explanation doesn't agree with the skeptics preexisting belief.
Any time a scientist begins a sentence with “Many of us suspect,” it is codespeak for “we sit around and discuss it at the bar.”
There’s nothing wrong with that. Should you get the chance to join them at that bar, please avail yourself of the opportunity, because there are few occupations where the participants are as funny and engaging as scientists. But “many of us suspect” is a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority, and that makes for terrible science, as Sagan noted often.
...
Any time a scientist begins a sentence with “Many of us suspect,” it is codespeak for “we sit around and discuss it at the bar.”
There’s nothing wrong with that. Should you get the chance to join them at that bar, please avail yourself of the opportunity, because there are few occupations where the participants are as funny and engaging as scientists. But “many of us suspect” is a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority, and that makes for terrible science, as Sagan noted often.
...
In fact, anthropic beliefs are quite old, and it was Copernicus who really began to undo them, though he did not realize it at the time. Ironically, by invoking the multiverse Tyson harkens us back to a time when the anthropic principle was rampant and disputing it was heresy, just before the telescope changed everything. Tyson believes in the multiverse with the same lack of evidence religious authorities had in favor of an Earth-centric universe in 17th-century Italy.