| User | Post |
|
8:43 pm
November 21, 2009
|
angelfire
| | N.East England | |
| Investigator in Training | posts 7 |
|
|
Hi there, I'm Dan and I'm new to the forum, just wanted to say hi and introduce myself with a post, I hope you are all well. I've been interested in ufos since the nineties, read a lot of books of varying beliefs and thoughts on the subject but just always wanted to find some rational sense in it all! I used to wonder if ufos were indeed ets lol, I even wrote some songs on the subject, but, rationally, I've just become skeptical over the years and now I thought I'd join a site, even if hopefully to get some answers …
I think because I've been left to my own devices, after watching documentary after documentary you can kind of lose touch with reality and actually believe what you're seeing, and not finding alternate explanations, so forgive my gullibility … I'm not a skeptic, I wouldn't say I'm a believer either, but maybe I am a skeptical believer?
Anyway, some thoughts on ufos I'd love some points to, answering some basics I guess, and I sincerely appreciate your time if you can point me in the right direction etc, and forgive me if these have been covered time and time again, I'm a newbie and just sincerely looking for the right direction:
The May 2001 'Disclosure Project' – there was nothing new about this event, it brought old and existing ufo witness testimony with no new ground or 'evidence' yet, we are left with 500 high grade military witnesess, although still human and fallible, what does this mean? I assume few would ascertain they are fraudelent individuals or orchestrating a hoax, I doubt that due to their credibility and the sheer unliklihood involved, however were they simply lying?
Often ufo 'believers' claim that skeptics say 'there is no evidence' as a way of dismissing evidence – for instance the MOD's document dumps showing that ufos are 'real' and not all imagined or hoaxes etc – personally I don't think the dumps prove anything, either from the British or other nations, they just prove that ufos are experienced, although not what is behind them, which, like the Disclosure Project is also true; evidently something is being experienced, but what? I find it hard to believe that the Disclosure Witnesess are lying, fraudelent or simply mistaken, yet maybe social matrixing is to explain the more esoteric stories, such as dead alien bodies? Discuss lol – only kidding, but any thoughts are welcome.
The Cometa Report – Again, high grade military 'believers' involved, yet I must admit, although as I said I don't like to think of myself as a skeptic or believer either way, the use of 'ufo nuts' or 'ufo believers' or 'conspiracy theorists' does seem a little dismissive in a negative way, I think these people sincerely and simply are interpreting the 'evidence' (and yes, or lack of!) of ufos.
But, this report does indeed highlight the modern day mythology of ufos: simply saying this report is not scientific brings problems for me, simply because science states that human perception/reality etc is fallible and hence cannot be taken as a true account, but when you are faced with witness accounts like for instance Gorden Cooper who stated that he saw a 'flying saucer' land, extend it's landing gear, then take off, there is little room for manouvre in explanation terms, other than; he hallucinated which personally I find hard to accept, or, it was an experimental type aircraft unknown to society created from various black budgets? The advanced technology being an explanation also confuses me as simply shouldn't there be some kind of paper trail? Some kind of evidence to support such a claim? Anyway, again, thoughts are welcome!
I could go on, but, if no one replies to this post I won't lol, but, I hope this has been of interest to you - I am here for discussion and reasoning logically and I'm sure I'm in the right place. Thanks.
Dan
|
|
|
9:17 pm
November 21, 2009
|
Stephen
| | San Jose, CA | |
| Admin
| posts 589 |
|
|
Hi Dan/angelfire! Welcome to the site.
My position on the extraterrestrial hypothesis for UFOs (ETH) is similar to my position on most of these other topics: I want to see hard, solid evidence. I have no problem believing in life elsewhere in the universe. However, to date I haven't seen any evidence that convinces me. There's a remarkable collection of anecdotes, some from quite reliable-seeming people. Sometimes, though, those accounts kind of disappear when looked at closely.
Take the Gordon Cooper story you mention. According to the Wikipedia entry on him, Cooper never actually saw the strange craft. His men claim to have filmed such a craft, but Cooper wasn't with them at the time, and never actually viewed the developed film. He looked at the negative, apparently, but that can be a little more ambiguous than watching a movie. So I don't think he was lying or hallucinating, but he may well have been lied to or unintentionally misinformed. Also, since he hasn't produced a paper trail, all we have to go on are his recollections. Memories can be distorted, even if you're an astronaut.
People are lousy observers and wonderful myth-makers. There are many accounts out there that I can't really explain, but I don't think that's my burden. As has been said before, the plural of anecdote is not evidence. Or, to twist a common phrase, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence– but it is absence of evidence, and that's enough.
|
Stephen the Friendly Skeptic
|
|
|
11:43 pm
November 21, 2009
|
angelfire
| | N.East England | |
| Investigator in Training | posts 7 |
|
|
Hi Stephen 'the friendly skeptic' it's good to meet you. Thank you for your reply, it was very appreciated.
"My position on the extraterrestrial hypothesis for UFOs (ETH) is similar to my position on most of these other topics: I want to see hard, solid evidence."
I completely agree with you concerning ufos/ets etc regarding evidence, without evidence there is nothing. However, I only wonder at the nature of being a 'skeptic' or 'believer' in regard to 'evidence' - it just seems so obvious and final to say there is no evidence so no discussion, what I mean is there any point to discuss ufos ets etc because evidently and obviously there is no evidence so why even deliberate over it?
To elaborate, science states that there is no evidence for ufos or ets, that is a fact. No evidence. Fact. And, science is the utmost form of reasoning understandably so why do the ufo community still claim that there is evidence, such as the mod info dump, or disclosure project or the cometa report etc? I just don't get it. When I first saw ufo documentaries on tv or online or read books I had no compass or way of discerning what I was seeing or reading, but later it just came across as misinformation – basically leading up the garden path to think a certain way. But then again, are just dealing with mind sets with the whole skeptic and believer ufo debate? Of course I mean mindsets outside of the solidarity of science.
"Take the Gordon Cooper story you mention."
Again I agree with this, but I just wonder when I hear outright stories of 'flying saucer' accounts, and this Cooper story was an example of that, I kind of don't care that logically it can't be true, my gut tells me to believe the stories, no matter how skeptical I get, I still think 'yeah, he's telling the truth' that's my problem. It's so easy to dismiss these stories, laugh at them, mock them, or disect them, but at the end of the day when someone (not an abductee or contactee I may add) says they simply saw something appear, land and fly away, I kind of keep it simple and don't over complicate the matter by taking it on face value. Again, I know, it is my problem but it's just me.
"People are lousy observers and wonderful myth-makers. There are many accounts out there that I can't really explain, but I don't think that's my burden."
I know exactly what you mean here, I'm the same, I simply can't explain a lot, I've dismissed the whole et ufo thing yet I really can't explain a lot, the problem I've found with ufology, exopolitics etc, is that it makes a leap from not understanding something, to maintaining it is of unearthly origin, and conspiracy theories fly and I've heard all the rumours and stories and myths and it's incredible what people will believe, from flesh eating Reptilians to lazer weapons from space that disintergrated the world trade centre!
Overall I agree with you completely Stephen, I just find some things hard to swallow with the phenomena, like yourself I guess, but, I'm still open to believe though like many on this forum, I haven't found it yet.
Thanks,
Dan
|
|
|
10:19 pm
November 24, 2009
|
WaveyDavey
| | |
| Investigator | posts 39 |
|
|
Dan, how did you establish that there was "no evidence" of UFO's? You kind of threw me with the size of that generalization.
|
|
|
10:32 pm
November 24, 2009
|
WaveyDavey
| | |
| Investigator | posts 39 |
|
|
Stephen said:
People are lousy observers and wonderful myth-makers. There are many accounts out there that I can't really explain, but I don't think that's my burden. As has been said before, the plural of anecdote is not evidence. Or, to twist a common phrase, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence– but it is absence of evidence, and that's enough.
Well that should be reason to not have any position at all, not to have an anti-extraterrestrial/aliens position, shouldn't it?
Proof is the burden of anyone who states something as a fact. As I've stated in the past, skeptics seem to think they get an easier road to travel because they think more conventionally, but the fact is they have the same reponsibility to prove their positions as anyone else has. Otherwise, they simply have opinions.
|
|
|
11:52 pm
November 24, 2009
|
Stephen
| | San Jose, CA | |
| Admin
| posts 589 |
|
|
WaveyDavey said:
Well that should be reason to not have any position at all, not to have an anti-extraterrestrial/aliens position, shouldn't it?
My position is that there's no verifiable, compelling evidence for the extraterrestrial hypothesis of the origin of unidentified flying objects. I never said that I had evidence that aliens have never visited this planet. That would be a far-reaching claim. What I am saying is that there's no verifiable, compelling evidence that they have. If there is some, let's talk about it! I'd honestly love to be wrong on this one.
|
Stephen the Friendly Skeptic
|
|
|
12:54 am
November 25, 2009
|
WaveyDavey
| | |
| Investigator | posts 39 |
|
|
Well, first you'd have to define verifiable. The nature of the subject means that most of the evidence is fleeting and fairly inconclusive. "Verifiable" in the hardest sense would only come down to one or both of the following: alien craft or alien bodies/living aliens being held and studied. If that's the verification you require, I would say you won't get it, and my opinion is that that isn't because neither thing has happened, but because it's an incredibly closely guarded secret whenever it does.
You stated that you've seen a lot of evidence that was hard to readily explain away and you and I seem to come down differently on those kinds of incidents. The part of me that likes to believe in "fantastic" things abounding in the universe tends to err on the side of thinking those kinds of cases could well be extraterrestrial (or in some other way beyond conventional reasons), whereas, if I'm reading your statement correctly, you tend to do the opposite (i.e. err on the side of assuming that there probably is a conventional explanation that just hasn't been found yet).
If so, then we would probably be at an impasse. I've heard quite a number of reports of eyewitness accounts of the famous Rendlesham Forest/RAF Bentwaters base incident and they add up to my having concluded that something of either an extraterrestrial, or in some other way highly unusual, origin was probably responsible for those occurrences (which happened on at least two different nights), but my conclusion is based on the multiple eyewitness accounts of military personnel, not on evidence that has been secured and taken into a lab for analysis.
My opinion is that the more people are involved in an incident (unless you are talking about some kind of crazy cult situation) the less likely that an explanation like the one used as the offical line in the Rendlesham case (i.e. that the witnessing of very strange multi-colored lights seen from multiple directions in a forest on multiple nights could be chalked up to military police mistaking a distant lighthouse for UFO's) becomes less and less credible.
I'm willing to take poweful circumstantial and eyewitness evidence into account in making my own assessment of the likelyhood of something either being extraterretrial or in some other way significantly out of the ordinary. My own position is not to dismiss something out of hand because it is based on eyewitness testimony, but to look into the nature of that testimony and then make a conclusion as to how likely a conventional explanation seems to be.
|
|
|
7:36 am
November 25, 2009
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2959 |
|
|
To elaborate, science states that there is no evidence for ufos or ets, that is a fact. No evidence.
It's a very small word, but I would change one word in this statement. For to Of. …that there is no evidence OF ufos or ets…
Evidence "for" (to me) would include finding conditions that would be conducive to the formation of life elsewhere. There is evidence supporting the possibility that there may once (still????) have been life on Mars. There is (as yet) no evidence OF life on Mars.
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
3:08 pm
November 25, 2009
|
WaveyDavey
| | |
| Investigator | posts 39 |
|
|
First off, I'd have to interject that there is no "science", there is only a collection of scientists and a body of written work and published information about studies, theories, etc. I would dispute that all scientists disbelieve in extraterrestrial vistation. For one, Stanton Friedman is a scientist. Dan's statement was also so incredibly sweeping and generalized that it would take an enormous amount of effort to even begin to confirm whether it's actually accurate.
And there's another overriding issue, which is simply that it would be largely impossible to prove that something came from another planet anyway, barring getting into a strange craft and flying back to their home planet, so it's a bit misleading to say that science recognizes no evidence of extraterresitrial visitation.
There is a body of evidence, though, that doesn't avail itself easily to any known explanations, and since it involves flying objects, and in some cases involves witnesses describing encounters with non-human intelligent creatures who appear to use advanced forms of technology, it has simply been one fairly reasonable speculative explanation to suggest they may have travelled here from other solar systems.
|
|
|
5:34 pm
November 27, 2009
|
angelfire
| | N.East England | |
| Investigator in Training | posts 7 |
|
|
"I'd have to interject that there is no "science","
I've read countless books, magazines and seen many documentaries on ufos and I'm aware of the so-called science of ufos that believers claim, however, there simply is no science, and you can quite rightly say that is generalised and sweeping, because I'm right, as far as science goes there is nothing to study. No matter how many ufo enthusiasts complain that project blue book was a farse, the fact is if a scientific inquiry was brought today, the results would be the same, that there isn't any science.
This is my problem with believing the whole ufo mythos, and I don't say that lightly, like Stephen, I'd love to believe, I'd love to accept the arguments, but Stephen is right anecdotal witness testimony is not verifiable in any shape or form.
Evidence is always one step away, always slightly out of reach.
Thanks,
Dan
|
|
|
2:08 am
November 28, 2009
|
Revenant
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1393 |
|
|
An interesting thread. Thank you for starting it Angelfire/Dan. And welcome to the website. I tend to agree with both yourself and Stephen. However, there are a couple of things said in this thread that I find terribly interesting…
WaveyDavey said: "Well, first you'd have to define verifiable. The nature of the subject means that most of the evidence is fleeting and fairly inconclusive. "Verifiable" in the hardest sense would only come down to one or both of the following: alien craft or alien bodies/living aliens being held and studied. If that's the verification you require, I would say you won't get it, and my opinion is that that isn't because neither thing has happened, but because it's an incredibly closely guarded secret whenever it does."
In the other current UFO thread, Mr Wavey mentioned something about only a few people being qualified to know anything about aliens or their visitations to Earth. Silly me. I thought he was referencing a few high-end scientists in a particular field. Now it becomes clear. It's a UFO conspiracy that's being batted around. Wow. I believe that's a forum first…someone referencing the "government knows and are just keeping it from us" thing without a smiley face icon next to it. And in a way, I'm deeply saddened that no one pointed this out.
So, let me get this straight, Mr Wavey. You are hounding us with how biased and non-objective the skeptics are around here and you're coming at us with UFO conspiracies. The old "it's an incredibly closely guarded secret and if any of you found out, you'd probably be killed so…you know…just believe it's true." Sorry, my friend…you're going to have to do much better than that. I know understand the comment about how Friedman is "open-minded" about UFO's now. Wow…
WaveyDavey also said: "And there's another overriding issue, which is simply that it would be largely impossible to prove that something came from another planet anyway, barring getting into a strange craft and flying back to their home planet, so it's a bit misleading to say that science recognizes no evidence of extraterresitrial visitation."
Um…what? So science does recognize evidence of extraterrestrial visitation…because it would be largely impossible to prove? That paragraph isn't making a whole lot of sense there. Strike that…it makes no sense at all.
Also, if the craft did contain any elements or alloys not found here on Earth…that would probably be a pretty good indication that it's not from this planet. No need to fly back to the home world…although I would gladly volunteer for such a trip. You see? I want there to be aliens and space crafts coming to Earth too. I just need more than Friedman's word to believe so…
And lastly, to Angelfire/Dan…I don't wish to turn your first thread into a shooting gallery. I just have a very low tolerance for government/UFO conspiracies. Especially on this website…
|
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
|
|
|
5:58 pm
December 3, 2009
|
angelfire
| | N.East England | |
| Investigator in Training | posts 7 |
|
|
Hi,
your welcome for starting the post, I just hoped it wasn't a real 'newbie' kind of post lol – oh god not another obvious question!
I'd love to believe that ufos are ets, when I started out looking into it I really thought wow there must be something to this because of the visual evidence and the witness testimony, I think simply because when you read a book about ufos or see a documentary on tv, primarily by someone who believes that ets are ufos etc, it seems very much filled with misinformation, misleading evidence, miss quoates etc. Basically the idea is to make it appear very appealing, obvious and rational that ufos are ets, yet when you actually read into it and look for alternate explanations, then you realise it's better to take on other view points etc.
I find it a shame though, maybe I'm wrong here, but there's so many so called documentaries like out of the blue, fastwalkers, I know what I saw etc that mislead the viewer and DON'T give the more logical/mundane explanations. However, there's some documentaries which are skeptical which make anyone who believes in ufos absolute nutters who should be kept at a distance lol, I think there should be a balance, not documentaires made to lead the viewer into thinking one way, rather the options and evidence should be given, and then the viewer left to make up their mind.
Why I'm talking about tv I don't know lol. But seriously, I imagine, most people gain their thoughts from the history channel or sci fi channel etc, not the plethora of books available on the subject, hence my interest.
As to WaveyDave'ys points, there really is only camera footage and witness testimony, other evidence is slight at best etc, I found it interesting at first, but there's always a more obvious explanation rather than the fantastical it must be an et. For instance, on the 'smoking gun' footage of the NASA transmissions I can only see space debris and ice particlues, because it seems more likely, maybe they are acting odd and strange at first site, but they can be explained. And so on.
Thanks,
Dan
|
|
Login 
Register 
The Forum [is where Ancient Roman skeptics hang out.]
Reply to Post
Quote and Reply 
Print this Post 
Topic RSS 
