Anybody think there are Aliens (UFO)?

[Alareth]

Life elsewhere in the universe - absolutely. Alien spacecraft coming here - not so much.

+1

 

[Alareth]

I hate it when UFO nuts ask skeptics "you really think we are alone?", just because the skeptic does not accept anecdotal evidence as proof.

Yes, because empirical evidence is such a pain in the ass.

 

[Robert Oz]

Bottom line?
UFOs exist.
THAT much we DO know.
What we DON'T know is the full explanation.
Sure we can apply post hoc rationalisation and call them misperceptions or hoaxes, or mis-rememberings, etc.,
However, even after we do this using rigorous scientific, critical and logical methodology, there REMAIN cases outstanding for which we have no explanation.
That is the bottom line.

Why is 'alien space-craft' the default position when anything in the sky cannot be identified?

If an unidentified flying object simply cannot be identified, shouldn't it just remain unidentified? Why do you feel the need to identify an object with your imagination when all empirical evidence is lacking?

It is up to researchers to discover what is going on to cause (for example) the abduction phenomena.
(But of course no funding is forthcoming because "debunkers" continue their fatuous "denial" and "ridicule" campaign).
It is too easy to say "Oh these people are all deluded!", but that EXPLAINS nothing!
HOW is it that millions of otherwise normal, healthy people are so "deluded"?
Certainly most are extremely traumatised by the "experience".
And given the public disbelief, ridicule and social stigma attached, there is certainly no good outcome for the majority of people having such experiences.
There just does not seem to be any motivation for such experiences in normal healthy people.
So WHY is it so?

I encourage you to read The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan. It goes into this area in some depth.

I also encourage you to read up on sleep paralysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis), which, according to studies, occurs in an astonishing 24.1% of people at least once in their lives.

It is interesting how these abduction experiences have changed over time, going from demons to witches to ghosts to aliens, depending on the fears of society at the time. Even the appearance of aliens in these experiences seems to coincide with their depiction in science fiction film and literature of the time.

The only way to resolve issues like this are via thorough peer reviewed scientific research.

As others have suggested, you are welcome to seriously research UFOs yourself. However, you would have to come up with something more than anecdotal evidence, since these can be explained by over-active imaginations, people being fooled by hoaxes, and sleep paralysis.

Without empirical evidence, unidentified flying objects will remain just that: unidentified.

Good luck with your research.

 

[makaya325]

Yes, because empirical evidence is such a pain in the ass.

Ufo Nut: I have found proof that aliens are here!

Skeptic: Ok, i would be more than happy to take a look at it.

Ufo nut: (To afraid to present anecdote as proof) You think we are all alone in the universe? You are so ignorant!

Skeptic: But you didn't show me..

Ufo nut leaves

 

[arthwollipot]

I believe that most skeptics still consider the "unknown natural phenomena" explanation over the et Hypothesis

I believe that most skeptics still consider the "it was all done by people and they've shown us that they can do it, they've admitted to doing it, and here's a website explaining how it was done" over any "unknown" hypothesis.

 

[makaya325]

I believe that most skeptics still consider the "it was all done by people and they've shown us that they can do it, they've admitted to doing it, and here's a website explaining how it was done" over any "unknown" hypothesis.

I was talking specifically about the "unknown" UFO cases

 

[atavisms]

you guys should google video Peter Jennings: Seeing is Believing
It one pretty compelling case in it (not proof but not just lights in the sky either.

Apparently 4 or 5 cops see this craft floating slowly and silently over there small midwestern towns. The witnesses worked on the video reconstructions used in the show so they could better convey what they claim to have seen.

I don't know why people assume there is no chance of intelligent life anywhere else in the unimaginable vastness of the universe when we cavemen are here. (If I haven't seen it it cannot exist? We all know what proof is and have the same standard hopefully.

But if we consider the age of the universe (4-5 billion is it estimated at?) and compare that with man's appearance on some earth approximately 2-3 million years ago there is a lot of room left for the possibility of much older life forms on distant galaxies...
with, naturally, much more advanced technology.
Haven't you seen star wars? Wake up!! That is how it is!

 

[arthwollipot]

As far as the blurry ones go, are you saying all blurry UFO photos are fake because they’re blurry or because they are alleged to be UFOs, or both?

I'm not saying that any UFO photos are fake, only that there is insufficient evidence that they are alien spacecraft.

I was talking specifically about the "unknown" UFO cases

I was referring to crop circles. I think you were the one who brought up plasma vortices? I opined that neither plasma vortices nor UFOs were necessary to account for crop circles becase we already know what creates them. People.

 

[Rramjet]

What is hindering you from seriously doing research?

Resources, money, peer reviewed process, all these things are unavailable to the serious researcher.
Going to provide any of that for me?
No? I thought not.
Really, If you are inclined to make such foolish statements you need to be able to "put your money where your mouth is" or not make them all.

And of those cases which would you reference as an example?

I reference Blue Book Special Report No. 14.
http://www.bluebookarchive.org/download.aspx
I reference The Condon Report.
http://ncas.org/condon/
I reference COMETA.
http://www.archive.org/details/TheCometaReport
I refernce the British UAP Report
http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/f...aerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm
There's more but what will you do with these?

All in all, the evidence "from the dawn of mankind" is extremely poor in ever conceivable way.

Merely stating it is so does not make it so.
I wish just once in a while a "skeptic" would take a look at the EVIDENCE (see above links for example).

Think about this. If you were able to build a spacecraft and travel to other worlds, would you:...

First Point: We do NOT know that UFOs are ET related, they might not be, they might be something else altogether!
We cannot conclude on mere appearances.
Just because it LOOKS like one thing does not mean it IS that thing.

Second point: IF UFOs ARE ET related, then how can we reasonably ascribe motivations to them?
They might very well decide to land and say "take me to your leader" (although there are NO serious UFO cases outside the movies where that has occurred...NONE!)

Or they MIGHT well dress up in silly costumes...who knows the mind of ET? It would be silly of us to pretend that we do!

Jaksteele your"critical thinker" forum-post assignation is disproved by your pronouncements on the matter.

The body of evidence that supports alien visitation is greatly exaggerated. A majority, if not a totality, of "sightings" have a rational explanation - even if we do not currently know what that explanation is - that does not involve aliens visiting our little planet.

I broadly agree!
Except for the uncritical and fundamentally categorical language which indicates an unscientific and uncritical thought process.

I hate it when UFO nuts ask skeptics "you really think we are alone?", just because the skeptic does not accept anecdotal evidence as proof.

The question is one of the most fundamental questions facing mankind: "Are we alone?"
To cast aspersions on the questioner is unscientific, fundamentalist and illogical.
It is a favourite trick of the antirational debunker to link legitimate concerns with spurious or derogatory statements, following the axiom that "mud sticks".
As I say, unscientific, antirational and uncritical.

Life elsewhere in the universe - absolutely. Alien spacecraft coming here - not so much.

Do you have proof either way?

Why is 'alien space-craft' the default position when anything in the sky cannot be identified?

Because it is easy for the debunkers to heap scorn and ridicule from that "default position".
Serious UFO researchers hold to no such position and deny strenuously that there is ANY "default" position at all -
We simply have not enough evidence to judge one way or other.

Why do you feel the need to identify an object with your imagination when all empirical evidence is lacking?

I agree with you.
Point to ANY of my statements that would lead you to believe I do not agree with your statement.
Again, another "favourite" of the antirational debunker.
Simply ascribe beliefs to your opponent that they DO NOT hold - working on the premise that if one cannot come up with a scientific, rational, critical or logical reposte, just muddy the waters in the hope that no-one can see the truth.

I encourage you to read The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan. It goes into this area in some depth.

Carl Sagan? Since you reference Wikipedia below, let me quote from the same source:

"He pioneered exobiology and promoted the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI)."
AND
"Though quite skeptical of any extraordinary answer to the UFO question, Sagan thought scientists should study the phenomenon, at least because there was widespread public interest in UFO reports."
AND
Sagan did think it plausible that Cold War concerns contributed to governments misleading their citizens about UFOs, and that "some UFO reports and analyses, and perhaps voluminous files, have been made inaccessible to the public which pays the bills ... It's time for the files to be declassified and made generally available."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan).

So if you have a book which refutes these things in Sagan's life then either he was inconsistent or you are.

Sleep paralysis?
I agree that there could be something to this explanation, although to date no study has directly observed or inferred that this IS a cause of many "abduction" cases.
To date it is pure speculation and RESEARCH IS NEEDED to find out if this COULD be an explanation.
To date...merely speculation... and speculation just does NOT cut it.
Again I call for research.

It is interesting how these abduction experiences have changed over time...

Have they?
Where are the historical abduction cases that differ?
As far as I know the first of the abduction cases (so-called) began with the Villas Boas case (1957) and the Hills (1961).
All abduction cases have been REMARKABLY consistent ever since.
Before that we had the "Contactee" cases, but these were NOT abduction cases.
Before that I know of NO cases where "demons to witches to ghosts" abducted ANYBODY.
Do YOU know of any?
Again a favourite of the antirational debunker - where no evidence exists to support a position, fabricate statements that imply that it does exist.

As others have suggested, you are welcome to seriously research UFOs yourself...

And will you fund my efforts (provide resources, pay for my time and living expenses) while I do so?
No... I thought not...
What a Crock!
Another favourite of the antirational debunker - call for the opponant to take action when it is KNOWN that no action CAN be taken (or proof provided, etc).

However, you would have to come up with something more than anecdotal evidence...

Of course research aims to come up with more than the "anecdotal"...that is the PURPOSE of research. Did you not know that?

...since these can be explained by over-active imaginations, people being fooled by hoaxes, and sleep paralysis.

Oh dear, the fundamentalist appears bold at last.
This is just categorical, nonsensical speculation.
Have you proof that the unexplained cases in (for example) Blue Book Special report No. 14 are of such a nature?
Or even more lenient - have you suggestive evidence that those mentioned unexplained cases can so be categorised.
THERE, I do not even ask for "proof", just suggestive evidence...
More, I will even allow you to cite anecdotally an eyewitness account to refute these cases.
How much more generous can I get?
Still can't do it...
What a double standard holding set of antirationalists you all are!

Without empirical evidence, unidentified flying objects will remain just that: unidentified.

And THAT is MY point precisely.
(But note also you have just admitted the existence of UFOs - did you mean to do that or was it just another example of uncritical thinking?)

Ufo Nut: I have found proof that aliens are here!
Skeptic: Ok, i would be more than happy to take a look at it.
Ufo nut: (To afraid to present anecdote as proof) You think we are all alone in the universe? You are so ignorant!
Skeptic: But you didn't show me..
Ufo nut leaves

The trouble is, and as I pointed out, the UFO "field" IS full of NUT CASES.
I also explained why this is so.
There are also NUT Cases in this forum - does that make the concerns and efforts of this forum illegitimate?
Again with your double standards. Hugh!
Why cannot skeptics get over the fact that nut cases exist and confront the serious researchers in a proper scientific, critical and logical manner?
What are they scared of?
I KNOW the answer to that one:
It is because they simply DO NOT have a scientific, rational, or logical case against the existence of UFOs.
UFOs exist.
We need to research them.
Not ridicule and cast aspesions on scientific researchers for merely suggesting that this should be the case.

I believe that most skeptics still consider the "it was all done by people and they've shown us that they can do it, they've admitted to doing it, and here's a website explaining how it was done" over any "unknown" hypothesis.

YOU believe... fine, but what gives YOU the right to speak for "most" skeptics and ascribe to them a set of beliefs that they MAY NOT HOLD.
Ughh, the arrogance, illogic and uncritical thinking of people in this forum is amazing!

But if we consider the age of the universe (4-5 billion is it estimated at?) and compare that with man's appearance on some earth approximately 2-3 million years ago there is a lot of room left for the possibility of much older life forms on distant galaxies...

WOW! The Universe is estimated at 15 billion or so... and the earth and the Sun about 4-5 billion.
But your point is a good one and needs serious consideration.

Haven't you seen star wars? Wake up!! That is how it is!

Oh dear. Speculation again. BOTH sides of the argument in this forum seem somewhat uneducated and uncritical. (disappointing, but I have come to expect such in this forum)

I'm not saying that any UFO photos are fake, only that there is insufficient evidence that they are alien spacecraft.

Well stated! Here, here! At last a sensible comment!

I was referring to crop circles. I think you were the one who brought up plasma vortices? I opined that neither plasma vortices nor UFOs were necessary to account for crop circles becase we already know what creates them. People.

And then you go and ruin the moment...

You people are just too uncritical and fundamentalist for your own purposes ("we already know what creates them").
Are you stating that you have evidence that all "crop-circles" are of human manufacture?
I'd like to see that! Remember I said ALL!
So merely citing examples where a "circle" IS known to be of human origin does not preclude a circle that is NOT.
And remember also I know (as some forum readers might not) the UK "Dad and Dave" story (Ha Ha - sorry an "in" joke for us Aussies) of manufacture has not stood up against the evidence - so don't give me that line of BS either please.

I am sure someone out there has a substantive point to make about the existence (or not) of UFOs.
I live in hope that they will make it.

Best regards to all,
Rramjet

 

[arthwollipot]

YOU believe... fine, but what gives YOU the right to speak for "most" skeptics and ascribe to them a set of beliefs that they MAY NOT HOLD.
Ughh, the arrogance, illogic and uncritical thinking of people in this forum is amazing!

Excuse me. I was not talking about most skeptics, I was talking about my belief about most skeptics. I was talking about me, not them. They may well hold different opinions, in which case my belief about their opinions would be wrong.

Well stated! Here, here! At last a sensible comment!

And then you go and ruin the moment...

You people are just too uncritical and fundamentalist for your own purposes ("we already know what creates them").
Are you stating that you have evidence that all "crop-circles" are of human manufacture?
I'd like to see that! Remember I said ALL!
So merely citing examples where a "circle" IS known to be of human origin does not preclude a circle that is NOT.

Sure, but the hypothesis that any given crop circle was created by humans is far more parsimonious than invoking either otherwise-unknown meterological phenomena or unevidenced alien intervention. After all, we know that humans create crop circles, and we know how they do it. It's a much more reasonable assumption (although, yes, still an assumption) that humans created a given crop circle than some unknown phenomenon or aliens.

Until evidence can be provided that said unknown meteorological phenomenon exists and can cause crop circles - at which point it will no longer be an unknown meteorological phenomenon - then it is much more reasonable that it was created by the mechanisms that we already know about. To wit, humans.

And remember also I know (as some forum readers might not) the UK "Dad and Dave" story (Ha Ha - sorry an "in" joke for us Aussies) of manufacture has not stood up against the evidence - so don't give me that line of BS either please.

Really? Doug and Dave came clean! They said that they'd done it, and showed the world how! What possible motivation could they have to lie about it? And yes, before you ask, I will admit that it is possible that they lied about creating the first crop circles. But once again I will rely on parsimony - the explanation that requires a minimum of additional entities. You might be familiar with the principle of parsimony - it is commonly called Occam's Razor. If you have evidence that Doug and Dave lied about creating crop circles, I suggest you present it. Then also you will need to present evidence that all of the other groups around the world who create crop circles are also lying.

And as for being uncritical, I think you'll find that the UFO proponents are far more uncritical than I am. After all, they do not apply the principle of parsimony which implies that known, terrestrial phenomena are more likely to be the correct answer than supernatural ones or alien invasions.

Show me a blurry photograph and I'd be unlikely to be able to tell you what it is. I might speculate that it might be this, or it might be that, but I would not try to claim anything other than that I don't know what it is. A UFO proponent, however, will immediately tell you that it's an alien spaceship. Which of the two of us is being uncritical?

 

[Tapio]

I reference The Condon Report.
http://ncas.org/condon/

Wait a minute...maybe I missed your point in providing those links, but at least this report concludes:

In our study we gave consideration to every possibility that we could think of for getting objective scientific data about the kind of thing that is the subject of UFO reports. As the preceding summary shows, and as is fully documented in the detailed chapters which follow, all such efforts are beset with great difficulties. We place very little value for scientific purposes on the past accumulation of anecdotal records, most of which have been explained as arising from sightings of ordinary objects. Accordingly in Section I we have recommended against the mounting of a major effort for continuing UFO study for scientific reasons.
This conclusion is controversial. It will not be accepted without much dispute by the UFO amateurs, by the authors of popular UFO books and magazine articles, or even by a small number of academic scientists whose public statements indicate that they feel that this is a subject of great scientific promise.

We trust that out of the clash of opinions among scientists a policy decision will emerge. Current policy must be based on current knowledge and estimates of the probability that further efforts are likely to produce further additions to that knowledge. Additions to knowledge in the future may alter policy judgments either in the direction of greater, or of less attention being paid to UFO phenomena than is being done at present.

Reading through the report it is quite clear these people are inclined to think of the latter option as more likely. The report ends in:

We hope that the critical analysis of the UFO situation among scientists and government officials that must precede the determination of official policy can be carried out on a strictly objective basis.

So...

There's more but what will you do with these?

Well, if every other reference you have concludes the same, as most posters here have expressed as an opinion, that there is no conclusive scientific evidence for UFO's being nothing more than mundane phenomena, we really won't do much with them. Apart from them strengthening the position we already hold. Interesting reading, though. Thanks for that!

I'd like to ask you something. IF you had the time, money and all other possible resources needed to actually do a rigorous scientific study on the abduction phenomena and/or UFO sightings, how would it be different from the ones that have been done so far? What exactly is it that you feel is missing from our knowledge on these things today?

 

[jakesteele]

any[/i] UFO photos are fake, only that there is insufficient evidence that they are alien spacecraft.

That's a fair statement, I would agree.



I was referring to crop circles. I think you were the one who brought up plasma vortices? I opined that neither plasma vortices nor UFOs were necessary to account for crop circles becase we already know what creates them. People

 

[Rramjet]

Excuse me. I was not talking about most skeptics, I was talking about my belief about most skeptics. I was talking about me, not them. They may well hold different opinions, in which case my belief about their opinions would be wrong.

Yes, I see that now and I sincerely apologise arthwollipot.
Funny thing is I actually recognised that when I was replying to your comments (the thought did go through my head) and yet my preconceived ideas STILL got the better of me. Ughh see how easy it is...
I will try to do better.

Sure, but the hypothesis that any given crop circle was created by humans is far more parsimonious

(I see you try at least to be a careful user of language ("any given crop circle") to limit the assumptions you make and you are to be congratulated on this effort and I commend that, nevertheless

Ahh, parsimony... a much misused and misunderstood concept.
I suppose a "folklaw" equivalent would be the KISS "principle" (Keep It Simple Stupid).

First: allow me to quote from a seeming favourite of this forum (I feel that it should NOT be, but when in Rome...), Wikipedia:

"Occam's razor or Ockham's razor[1], attributed to 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham is the principle that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" or, popularly applied, "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."[2] The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony", "law of economy", or "law of succinctness"): entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." An alternative version Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor)

Now, it is the bits about:
"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better"
And
"the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible"
That often seem to be misinterpreted.

Applied to the field of UFOs (and Crop Circles) we have a number of competing hypotheses.
Such as:
Hoaxes, misperceptions, misremembering, delusion, time-travel, extraterrestrials, interdimensional beings, manifestations of a collective psyche, manifestations of a cosmic psyche, the "matrix" hypothesis, etc. and so on.

FIRST: Who is to say WHICH of these is the "simplest" hypothesis.
For those that can achieve it, time travel may be simpler than any other.
SECOND: In fact, because, the "human" origin explanations require MULTIPLE hypotheses and MULTIPLE complex and as yet often UNEXPLAINED behaviours, THEY must be considered to be NOT parsimonious, especially because of the many and varied assumptions that have to be made in conjunction.
It is probably a fact then that the ET hypothesis IS the most parsimonious explanation because it has the fewest assumptions (and if it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, then maybe it IS a rat).
If you are appealing to parsimony that is...

So I don't think you are on solid ground at all here.

- then it is much more reasonable that it was created by the mechanisms that we already know about.

Oh dear, the Flat Earth hypothesis lives on.
I am sure even you can think of scientific discoveries (or inspired revelations) that have arisen that were based on things that were COMPLETELY unknown or outside the purview of contemporary scientists and philosophers (of the age).
Just think that it for a minute....

If you have evidence that Doug and Dave lied about creating crop circles, I suggest you present it. Then also you will need to present evidence that all of the other groups around the world who create crop circles are also lying.

I say YOU need to present evidence that Doug and dave DID create the crop circles.
Any fool can seek publicity by stating "Oh I did that!" but until YOU provide evidence that they DID make crop circles and were not simply hoaxers (after all, they initially took credit for ALL crop circles...was THAT not a lie...?) then you cannot cite them as examples of human origin.
As for all the other groups who create them, where are the groups claiming responsibility for some of the more extraordinary "circles".
Where are the photos of them doing it.
Where are their explanations of how they did it and how much time it took them and what manpower and resources were needed.
And we need SPECIFICS here for particular known circles, not just the "oh, all you need is a few planks and some rope and a dark night..." general baloney.THAT is evidence of NOTHING)
Perhaps these groups are HOAXERS as well.
Until YOU,. yes you, provide evidence for YOUR hypothesis, I am entitled to dismiss it as untested and call for research to be conducted.
You cannot propose an hypothesis and expect people to believe it without backing it up with solid evidence.
To do so would be to hold a double standard - because you are constantly rattling on about Ufologists needing to provide evidence - so WHERE is yours?

(Look, I'll give you a hint as you people still can't see the wood for the trees, I - yes me - don't believe crop circles to be other than of human origin HOWEVER you CANNOT apply faulty logic to make that point - THAT is what I object to! It is uncritical and antiscientific and a danger to rational thought. I also DON'T believe UFOs are extraterrestrial and I DON'T believe in ghosts, goblins fairies etc and so on. I DO believe in being able to make your point in a rational, scientific, logical manner and will come down especially hard on "skeptics" who pretend to that methodology yet do not apply it in practice).

And as for being uncritical, I think you'll find that the UFO proponents are far more uncritical than I am.

Ughhh.... you make too many assumptions again.
You should acquaint yourselves with the works of some "critical" proponents then... but of course how silly of me...you DO NOT KNOW ANY! Your belief system precludes that... I guess that is another downside of being a fundamentalist...

AND by "UFO proponent" what DO you mean?
It is a serious question that requires a serious reply, for if you refer only to ET hypothesis proponents then they are merely a subset of a much broader UFO community and are looked on by serious researchers as overstepping the bounds of evidence.
I am, on the other hand, a proponent of UFOs.
That means I can see that there are cases that remain unexplained (NOT they have no possible explanation and NOT that they are ETs, merely unexplained) and I can also see the debate will rage back and forth and stupidity and irrationality will prevail UNTIL serious research resolves the debate one way or other. That's all...in the meantime I urge all sides to apply logic, critical thought and the scientific method... so far precious little of either seems forthcoming from either side.

After all, they do not apply the principle of parsimony which implies that known, terrestrial phenomena are more likely to be the correct answer than supernatural ones or alien invasions.

Ahhh, but as I have shown, the ET hypothesis IS the MOST parsimonious and it is YOU who do not apply the "principle" correctly.

 

[Rramjet]

Wait a minute...maybe I missed your point in providing those links, but at least this report concludes:

Ughhh ...I said read the (Condon) REPORT, NOT the conclusions. I already stated the conclusions were at odds with what the report contained...don't you people ever read what is written...or understand what is read?

The conclusions were written BEFORE the research was even halfway finished and written by people who did NOT conduct the research and DID NOT have anything to do with the BODY of the report... yet all people seem to read are the conclusions.

THAT is unscientific, illogical and antirational!

(And what about my other linked examples - you conveniently ignore them huh?)

And what is missing that hasn't already been discovered?

Are you serious? You cannot be, surely... perhaps physics is dead because we know everything there is to know already? Chemistry, cosmology? What other science or area of human knowledge do you consider we know all there is to know? Please... this is the Flat Earthers talking... are there no REAL critical thinkers out there?

 

[Tapio]

Rramjet, your tone of writing will not help you pursue this matter. At least not with me. I'm not interested in insults and bickering. Thanks for your reply and goodbye.

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, your tone of writing will not help you pursue this matter. At least not with me. I'm not interested in insults and bickering. Thanks for your reply and goodbye.

I care not about my "tone", that is a subjective matter. As long as I do not overstep the bounds of "propriety" and abide by the forum rules... I call a spade a spade. If people do not read my posts and at least make a token effort to understand the meaning of my writing before replying, then I am free to call their intelligence into question, along with their powers of comprehension, critical thinking and logic.

People are free to ignore me as they will.

Goodbye Tapio.

(besides, I think this forum could do with a bit of "lively" discussion

 

[RoboTimbo]

Resources, money, peer reviewed process, all these things are unavailable to the serious researcher.
Going to provide any of that for me?
No? I thought not.
Really, If you are inclined to make such foolish statements you need to be able to "put your money where your mouth is" or not make them all.

How was my question a foolish statement? This seems to be your pet project, you provide all those things if you think them necessary. Otherwise, your whining about "putting your money where your mouth is" rings hollow.

 

[Cuddles]

I call a spade a spade.

This is the problem. You don't. What you are actually doing is saying that since we don't have definitive proof that every human powered long handled digging device is a spade, some of them must actually be alien backscratchers. That you prefer to insult people rather than actually pay attention to what they say says an awful lot more about you and your beliefs than it does about them.

If people do not read my posts and at least make a token effort to understand the meaning of my writing before replying, then I am free to call their intelligence into question, along with their powers of comprehension, critical thinking and logic.

Actually, you're not. When a majority of people have a problem with your writing, you have to consider that it is you that is at fault, and not everyone else. As for someone who believes aliens are visiting us in order to trample crops in the middle of the night talking about intelligence and logic, I'm sure you don't understand just how funny the rest of us find that.

 

[CurtC]

I don't know why people assume there is no chance of intelligent life anywhere else in the unimaginable vastness of the universe when we cavemen are here.

Has anyone said that? From what I've seen, every single person here who has commented on this aspect has said that they absolutely think that there *is* other intelligent life in the universe.

It's just that it's not very plausible that they would be visiting us here on Earth. Now if there were good evidence, I'd believe it, but we have no good evidence. That's the problem. We just have a bunch of crappy sightings.

 

[Stray Cat]

SECOND: In fact, because, the "human" origin explanations require MULTIPLE hypotheses and MULTIPLE complex and as yet often UNEXPLAINED behaviours, THEY must be considered to be NOT parsimonious, especially because of the many and varied assumptions that have to be made in conjunction.

What assumptions must we make about human circlemakers?
Exactly Which "unexplained behaviours" must be considered?

It is probably a fact then that the ET hypothesis IS the most parsimonious explanation because it has the fewest assumptions (and if it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, then maybe it IS a rat).
If you are appealing to parsimony that is...

And how can something probably be a fact?
This is not only an assumption, but a contradictory assumption!

I say YOU need to present evidence that Doug and dave DID create the crop circles.

Such as their diagrams/plans, their filmed confessions and demonstrations of crop circle making?
It's all presented already, you perhaps choose to ignore it.

Any fool can seek publicity by stating "Oh I did that!" but until YOU provide evidence that they DID make crop circles and were not simply hoaxers (after all, they initially took credit for ALL crop circles...was THAT not a lie...?) then you cannot cite them as examples of human origin.

Actually they never said that, it was a misrepresentation by the crop circle researchers to build a strawman. Along with the statement often applied to Doug & Dave that they claimed to have invented crop circles... which they have also never claimed. Contrary to the protestations of the un-researched crop circle researchers, Doug & Dave have always reported being inspired to make circles by the Australian Tully UFO nests event of the 1960's.

As for all the other groups who create them, where are the groups claiming responsibility for some of the more extraordinary "circles".
Where are the photos of them doing it.
Where are their explanations of how they did it and how much time it took them and what manpower and resources were needed.

The biggest crop circle ever made was made only this year:

Please feel free to read about the details here:
Click here for details and please feel free to contact them with any further questions you may have.

Of course the crop circle community is playing the whole event down as shown here by 'expert' Colin Andrews:
http://colinandrews.blogspot.com/search/label/The Netherlands Crop Circle

Or perhaps this German TV report on one of this year's English crop circles (Windmill Hill, reported 6th August) and the team that is making it:
http://www.daserste.de/weltspiegel/beitrag_dyn~uid,z3xfpidccjntf0ax~cm.asp

And we need SPECIFICS here for particular known circles, not just the "oh, all you need is a few planks and some rope and a dark night..." general baloney.THAT is evidence of NOTHING)

Even though film footage exists of teams with nothing more than planks and rope making formations?
This year Nat Geo commissioned another and filmed the process, in the dark, under usual crop circle making conditions, at the bottom of the same field as the Phoenix and Dragonfly.

Please feel free to contact National Geographic if you require any further verification of the details of this.

Perhaps these groups are HOAXERS as well.
Until YOU,. yes you, provide evidence for YOUR hypothesis, I am entitled to dismiss it as untested and call for research to be conducted.
You cannot propose an hypothesis and expect people to believe it without backing it up with solid evidence.
To do so would be to hold a double standard - because you are constantly rattling on about Ufologists needing to provide evidence - so WHERE is yours?

But when that evidence is provided, you people bury your head in the sand

(Look, I'll give you a hint as you people still can't see the wood for the trees, I - yes me - don't believe crop circles to be other than of human origin HOWEVER you CANNOT apply faulty logic to make that point - THAT is what I object to! It is uncritical and antiscientific and a danger to rational thought. I also DON'T believe UFOs are extraterrestrial and I DON'T believe in ghosts, goblins fairies etc and so on. I DO believe in being able to make your point in a rational, scientific, logical manner and will come down especially hard on "skeptics" who pretend to that methodology yet do not apply it in practice).

Then take a drop of your own medicine... see that the research has already been done, the logic is not faulty and the conclusions reached are, if not a confirmation that all circles are made by people, then at least it is not beyond the realms of human capability for them to have all been made by people.
PS: I for one don't claim that they ARE all made by people as that claim would reach beyond the evidence I have researched, but I can and do claim they COULD have all been made by people as there hasn't been a single one which is beyond human capability. What's more, there is no real evidence in favour of anything more exotic being their creator.

So why should we assume an unproven entity to provide us with an explanation to something which is clearly covered without having to introduce one?