Anyone Not Belive In Aliens

[Jayhawker Soule]

< -- still worth reading -- >

​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is it really half-backed though? An image appearing on a radar travelling at hypersonic speeds and faster, doing sudden moves, which would produce g-forces that would crush a human craft, certainly suggests that these are air crafts not belong to any known human technology. The doubt lessens to insignificance for me when you have convergences of various sources of evidence corroborating UFOs

1. Radars detecting them
2. Group eye witness accounts
3. Aircrafts intercepting them

That kind of evidence is overwhelming supporting that UFO's are real things. They can only be explained with the ET hypothesis.

No, they can't be explained. That's the whole point - it's built into the term: unidentified flying objects. If there's enough evidence to figure out what a UFO is, it's not a UFO.

 

[Surya Deva]

Yes, but I believe that there must be a certain amount of evidence before we accept something, and I don't believe that Ufology is at that level for myself yet.

It may well be in the future though. All fields of social sciences have started from being speculative and fringe, but later became more mainstream. Parapsychology, you could argue, is starting to edge closer to mainstream. The same could happen with Ufology. As long the question of UFO's remain there are going to be some who will want to research it.

Not if they produced concrete results that could be demonstrated at will.

This would be an impossible demand for ufology. I think what your asking for here is nothing short of a spaceship, replete with an alien. The study of ufology can only go off on case studies, it cannot set up experiments.

The evidence which is avaiable to is anecdotal, photographs, videos, radar reports none of which is acceptable on its own. However, to completely discount masses of it, is not reasonable either. Nor is it reasonable to discount individual cases with convergence of various evidences(as I mentioned earlier)

I am actually leaning towards belief in parapsychology, because I have seen a few reputable organisations that have done research in the area, and claimed to get statistically significant results.

You see statistically significant means nothing to a hardened skeptic. They would argue thus

1) It is still chance, the most unlikely things can happen, people win lotteries, planes drop on people, lightening can strike twice!
2) The researcher manipulated the results or hoaxed the results
3) It does not comply with the scientific method and it lacks repeatability
4) The researcher is only showing the positive results, not the negative ones
5) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

The skeptics queries are all valid logically and he could if he wants deny any kind of cause and effect relationship. You cannot beat a skeptic. Thus one requires a suspension of disbelief at some point to make some progress. Now, if you are willing to suspend disbelief for Parapsychology based on statistical significance and using a different method of obtaining evidence(which I fully endorse) then it becomes difficult for you to reject Ufology which is based larely on case studies and uses a different method of obtaining evidence, without becoming subject to criticisms of inconsistency.

Certainly there is something that needs to be examined there, I do not disagree. But the fact that many people simply accept this as proof that aliens must exist is something that I do disagree with. There might well be other conclusions that do not involve the existence of aliens.

I am aware of alternate hypothesis. The most common I hear are US military experiment; parallel dimension/time travellers and ancients revisiting!!!

True, but we have observed the effects of gravity elsewhere. Certainly, there are some small anomalies, but nothing that would tell us that gravity is not a relevant theory.

The moon? The problem is how do we know we have a large enough sample before we can represent a general truth of the whole universe? It is possible that the further one goes into space the more strange or non-existent gravity becomes. The problem with any kind of generalization from a particular is it is inductive. It is not valid in skeptical philosophy.

There has to be a suspension of disbelief. The argument of statistical significance which you said is giving you faith in Parapsychology, can also apply to the sheer improbability of there being no other life. I do not really care for the improbability argument, for me life is a phenomena which takes place in the universe. It is part of the universe, so it could happen elsewhere. I am not the arbiter of where it can or can't happen.
We still don't really understand life ourselves to impose such truths on the entire universe.

Where?

I will have to dig the article up for you. It's late and I am tired, must get some sleep.

It does warrant investigation, certainly.



No. What is to say that UFO's are not part of a US military experiment, for example?

This is a viable alternative philosophy. Except there is a problem. The most compelling UFO cases are decades old even before supersonic flight, and yet UFO's were detected at hypersonic speeds. It seems a bit odd that US had hypersonic technology and unusual gravity defying tech decades ago, but spent muti-billions on inferior jet engines.

I need to multiply quantities for that. I don't with ET's. I argue thus

1. ET life is a high statisical probability
2. UFO's are displaying unknown tech beyond our understanding of physics
3. Therefore: UFOS most likely belongs to ET's

Another contradiction to the US-experiment hypothesis is that UFOs have ancedotal evidence from centuries ago which converge with the general description of UFOs today(it is not modern) and some of these are by famous astronomers who triangulated their speeds. Again I will dig this up for you too if you are not already aware of it.

I have heard of that conclusion, but if they were powerful enough to make it here, why would they be so inept at concealing themselves?

As far I am concerned, and I guess as far as you are concerned, they have been very succesfull. We still have not seen a UFO
The reports of genuine unexplainable UFO's are still very rare. The really compelling cases are even rarer. So considering over a time-span of 50 years, there are not that many. I would argue that is good effort at concealing. We should not think of ET's as omnipotent. We too will become spacefaring in this century and humans beings would probably have a harder time concealing themselves if they flew onto a developing ET planet

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would argue that is good effort at concealing.

Probably taught the technique by the Daoine Sidhe who have clearly perfected it.

(Bizare foolishness is no less foolish by virtue of it being pathetically bizare.)

 

[cardero]

Suraj writes: The evidence which is avaiable to is anecdotal, photographs, videos, radar reports none of which is acceptable on its own. However, to completely discount masses of it, is not reasonable either. Nor is it reasonable to discount individual cases with convergence of various evidences(as I mentioned earlier)

Good post Suraj. In the world of UFOlogy they call this trace evidence and it is a very real and relevant means towards any serious scientific investigation. It doesn&#8217;t prove the existence of extraterrestrial aliens but it does provide direction to the researchers of UFOlogy.

 

[cardero]

< -- still worth reading -- >​

......but it is not the only book that is worth reading.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

......but it is not the only book that is worth reading.

Dumb response ...

 

[rojse]

......but it is not the only book that is worth reading.

And what would you propose, Cardero?

 

[cardero]

These publications are also available and informative.

Above Top Secret; The Worldwide UFO Cover-Up-Timothy Good
Dimensions; A Casebook Of Alien Contact-Jaques Vallee
Alien Agenda; Investigating The Extraterrestrial Presence Among Us-Jim Marrs

The Jim Marrs Alien Agenda book presents historical evidence on the alien phenomenon without bias and allows the reader to form their own judgment.

Dimensions by Jaques Vallee provides cultural case data from our history and offers the reader the theory that these aliens may not be extraterrestrial in origin.

Above Top Secret collects information and investigates the UFO phenomenon from a historical military perspective.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Gee ... on the one hand, Carl Sagan, and on the other, Jim Marrs. What an intellectually challenging decision ...

 

[cardero]

Gee ... on the one hand, Carl Sagan, and on the other, Jim Marrs. What an intellectually challenging decision ...

I'm not sure how anyone can reach such a conclusion unless one has read both books. Have you read both publications Jay?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm not sure how anyone can reach such a conclusion unless one has read both books.

That much is clear.

 

[cardero]

Gee ... on the one hand, Carl Sagan, and on the other, Jim Marrs. What an intellectually challenging decision ...

Originally Posted by cardero
I'm not sure how anyone can reach such a conclusion unless one has read both books.

That much is clear.

So....then that would mean you only have one hand.

It is very fortunate for you that this thread is not about playing the clarinet.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm not sure how anyone can reach such a conclusion unless one has read both books.

In theory, checking the credentials of the two, should convince anyone who is the more reputable source. So, no, it is not necessary to read Mr. Marrs works to maintain the intellectual high ground. If anything, it is like comparing cracker crumbs to the finest Galette des rois.

 

[rojse]

In theory, checking the credentials of the two, should convince anyone who is the more reputable source. So, no, it is not necessary to read Mr. Marrs works to maintain the intellectual high ground. If anything, it is like comparing cracker crumbs to the finest Galette des rois.

Agreed, but shouldn't a book be dismissed by more than a simple ad hominem attack? Or, put another way, isn't the content of the message what really matters, rather than the person delivering the message?

 

[cardero]

In theory, checking the credentials of the two, should convince anyone who is the more reputable source.

In reality, there is no authority on either life on other planets and the UFO phenomenon.

YmirGF writes: So, no, it is not necessary to read Mr. Marrs works to maintain the intellectual high ground. If anything, it is like comparing cracker crumbs to the finest Galette des rois.

For all of Mr. Sagan&#8217;s and I.S. Shklovskii&#8217;s intellect and science degrees, both admit in their book Intelligent Life In The Universe that the study is speculative and that neither know if there is other intelligent life in the universe. I&#8217;m not sure what degree or credentials one would need to depend on or to exalt over another to make such an opinion. The book was also written close to 50 years ago and the study and progression of the alien/UFO phenomenon did not cease or conclude with Sagan and Shklovskii&#8217;s Intelligent Life In The Universe.

 

[rojse]

For all of Mr. Sagan&#8217;s and I.S. Shklovskii&#8217;s intellect and science degrees, both admit in their book Intelligent Life In The Universe that the study is speculative and that neither know if there is other intelligent life in the universe.

And until we have an alien, alive or dead, a signal that comes from aliens, or something of equal stature, that is all that any discussion about extraterrestrials or phenomena related can be - conjecture.

 

[YmirGF]

And until we have an alien, alive or dead, a signal that comes from aliens, or something of equal stature, that is all that any discussion about extraterrestrials or phenomena related can be - conjecture.

Bingo!

 

[cardero]

Agreed, but shouldn't a book be dismissed by more than a simple ad hominem attack? Or, put another way, isn't the content of the message what really matters, rather than the person delivering the message?

This really surprised me too. I.S. Shklovskii&#8217;s was the major contributor to Intelligent Life In The Universe and yet Jay did not credit a link to this author. The least that Carl Sagan did for this publication was add "margin notes" to Shklovskii's writings when he wanted to make particular comments about Shlovskii's research.

 

[cardero]

Rosja writes: And until we have an alien, alive or dead,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_incident

rosja writes: a signal that comes from aliens,

Wow! signal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

rosja writes: or something of equal stature, that is all that any discussion about extraterrestrials or phenomena related can be - conjecture.

I believe that these discussions could be more interesting than mere conjecture.