Fine, but the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis doesn't fit any evidence. Indeed absurd scenarios have to be created. That isn't "fitting the evidence". That is retrofitting to match the scenario.
Actually, that statement is going too far. I would not say that the ET hypothesis does not fit ANY evidence – we have the sightings of “alien” beings, we have “technological” craft, we have supposed “statements” from the “aliens” themselves… so there IS evidence… however the point is do we
believe them when they tell us that they are from (for example) Zeta Reticuli… I contend that we should not.
At first, it is true, we do not know. Sometimes we find out later what has happened. In these cases, it has (so far) always proved to be non-ET reasons. Of course, that could change, but the record of 100% in favor of non-ET reasons (among resolved cases) is pretty formidable.
But this is merely a restatement of the “All crows are black” logical fallacy! One cannot build a case based on a logical fallacy!
Debunkers are much quicker to say "we don't know" than UFO proponents. They are much more likely to wait for evidence. Much much. After all, debunkers require evidence.
Ummm… perhaps you have not been following this thread very closely then? The debunkers
here are very quick to propose mundane solutions based on no evidence (helicopters and a Lunar Surveyor for the Zamora case for example - or at least an
implausible scenario involving the military taking a multimillion dollar piece of equipment 100 miles away from the testing range and into a small New Mexico town. That sort of “explanation” really DOES require evidence and none has so far been forthcoming. That directly refutes you contention above).
Proponents only require belief.
But here you cast your lot in with the
debunker belief system! It is an unfounded, generalised assertion for which you provide NO evidence.
Research has been done. Every time, it has either been fruitless or turned out to be not of extraterrestrial origin.
But this is just plain wrong… You contend that the Battelle study was “fruitless”? The Condon Study? The British UAP report? COMETA? And I have been pointing out since my very
first post – SERIOUIS UFO researchers do not claim ET (they might hypothesise, but that is all, there are plausible counter-arguments to the hypothesis, and while they remain unanswered, so must ET remain a hypothesis only).
No, it maintains a pragmatic view. If so much research has not turned up anything, then we have better things to research. We don't research N-rays anymore either. Doesn't mean they don't exist, but not worth it after so much unproductive research.
But here again you resort to unfounded, generalised assertion. Research HAS turned up interesting findings. I simply point you to the Battelle study, the Condon report, the British UAP report, COMETA…etc… then there are the “individual” studies conducted… I have mentioned the recent University of Melbourne (Australia) PhD thesis that was conducted on UFOs… so it is just plain incorrect to assert that research has “not turned up anything”.
Just because you
believe that UFO research might be “unproductive” does not mean that it is or will be.
Some may say "impossible", but only because it breaks well-established principles with lots of evidence. Maybe they shouldn't say "impossible", but more like "incredibly unlikely". Well deserved ridicule and abuse are aimed only at those who claim that exceptions to these principles are "likely".
Well, perhaps a little lesson in the history of scientific exploration and discovery might help dispel your “mythos”. Pick a topic…Astronomy… the geocentric universe had “good” observational evidence to support it plus plausible theoretical backing! The earth is NOT the centre of the Universe? “Impossible”! Physics…How can light propagate if there is not an “ether” to transmit it? And you forget that Newtonian physics had us all blasted and blinded by every cosmic ray in the universe at once – but no-one assumed the theory to be in error. It took a paradigm shift to work out what we were missing.
And where IS your “lots of evidence” … in fact reading back over that sentence it does NOT make any logical sense! In fact the first TWO sentences do NOT make logical sense. In fact… the
whole paragraph seems not based on any rational logic or scientific thinking!
It is full of partially formulated straw men and unfounded belief–based assertion. Perhaps you can revisit it and reformulate it so that we can understand the logic that lead up to such a mish-mash.
Shouting matches do occur in science. They have occurred many times. In the end, the shouter that has the evidence is the winner. There are no "ETs are real" winners. They have no evidence. But that doesn't remove their right to shout. That just removes the chance of them being remembered.
Oh, so you endorse “shouting matches” in science then? Thankfully I suppose you are not on any peer-review scientific panels! But why am I not surprised at you position?
And you are back to the ET thing… my very first post dispelled that and I have been reiterating the position ever since… but let’s not let that
evidence of that get in the way of a good story!
There is nothing preventing the UFO proponents from doing research. Nothing whatsoever. Oh, unless you mean their unwillingness to pay for it themselves. Go ahead, UFOPs. Do your research. If it is good research, it will be published by peer-reviewed publications. If it is not, then it will be explained why it is not good science.
Ughh…so you just do not wish to address any of the points I raised in this regard. I have even provided the evidence for my contentions (for example (
http://www.cufos.org/YOU_WANT_TO_BE_A_UFOLOGIST.pdf and (
http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf) - Yet you just continue to assert your
belief system without addressing the issues as they are raised. Instead of refuting or addressing the claims and points I make about this topic, you just ignore them to repeat you own unfounded, generalised assertions over and over, as if the mere repeating of them will MAKE them true. Bunk I am afraid!
You'd be surprised. Most debunkers would LOVE to see evidence of UFO being ETs. Hell, I know I would. Carl Sagan was the biggest proponent of SETI and even wrote books about it. You seem to have a very narrow view of debunkers as people who are naysayers. They are not. They are evidence-seekers. If you don't have the evidence, then they will debunk. And that is the way it should be.
I garner that view from the debunkers posting in this forum. If they really were “evidence-seekers” then they would present the
evidence to support their assertions. Even YOU do not - and that merely reinforces the “naysayer” image.
And if the UFO debunkers cannot “debunk” the evidence I am presenting that merely reinforces the ‘naysayer” image even more.
That is totally wrong. They may request that grant and tax money be spent on more productive research, but they in no way block private research. If you want to spend your money on research, you are more than welcome to. It is unlikely that you will reap any reward (which is why we don't do it) but hey, do what you like with your money.
But this is the whole point. We have presented to us potentially one of the greatest mysteries in the history of mankind and you merely state that we should devote no resources to it outside what individual interests can muster? That is a completely bankrupt position. I am of the opinion (shared by MANY) that there are publically funded research endeavours that are simply NOT worthy of pursuing (public money in SETI for one!), but just because we are of that OPINION does not, in itself, make the endeavour worthless.
Some are. That much has been proved. Some are merely hopeful. Few seem to understand how science works. None have been proved correct. Why do you think that is?
I simply refer you to the texts on “science” and “proof” and the relation of the terms to one another in those texts. You seem not to understand that there is no such thing as “proof” in science. (ughh sorry…momentarily lost the links… but I have posted them previously,… so the evidence is there!)
Some are, but really it is a similar form of "magical belief". They long for something to be real for which there is no evidence. Read this short story (by one of my favorite Sci-Fi writers) and maybe you'll understand why.
You present fiction as evidence and not fact (as represented by peer-reviewed research etc). You peculiarly folklaw perspective of how a debate should progress is not going to cut it with me I am afraid.
I stated:
” They conduct covert “hoax” campaigns designed to trap and destroy the reputations of serious researchers.”
All the "serious researchers" have to do is present evidence, and those campaigns will be for naught.
So… straight from the horses mouth… no denial of such campaigns and tacit acceptance that they occur… at least THAT is in itself a breath of fresh air!
But WHY conduct those campaigns at all? If you really DID have the conviction of your beliefs, such abominable practice would not be necessary – you would let the researchers get on with the job and – and according to you, if you really WOULD like to see evidence of ET – then rather than hindering, you should be helping…! Not the reverse!
Seems to me the government would benefit mightily from having UFOs be proved to be ETs. That would make it much easer to hide their covert operations if they could just say, "No, that wasn't a new bomber. It was just an extraterrestrial." If you're going to suggest the "evil government" then you might want to explore what an "evil government" might logically do. You are essentially showing that even a government who is interested in covering things up is not crazy enough to use ETs as a cover-up. Not good for your side. Not good at all.
Perhaps then you should study the actual (rather than propositional) history of government involvement in the UFO field. A good place to start might be here: (
http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf)
Meanwhile nothing. GO AHEAD!! What is stopping you? If you find the evidence then what happens 'behind the scenes' don't mean crap. Your evidence will blow all that away. Right? And if wrong, then why is it wrong? Sure, you could make "what if" scenarios about what they might do to cover up your evidence, but hey, this is the age of the internet. How could they cover it up? So instead of crying about "what if", bring it on. Bring it on.
But “Behind the scenes” is deliberately aimed at attempting to forestall ANY research in the area. So behind the scenes matters very much. IF we are
allowed to go about our business without the ridicule and abuse and disinformation campaigns then yes, I believe the evidence WOULD “blow all that away”. But of course THAT will not happen. The debunkers will continue their “dirty trick” campaign and confusion will ensue and THAT is their object!
If you had somebody besides liars, hoaxers and delusional people making your case for you, then this wouldn't happen. Where are the wise and sagacious UFO believers? Why does every single one fit into one of them fit into the LHD category? Give us a hero. Von Danniken was the one for a while. I used to believe in him. Now he's a joke because he never supported his theories with evidence. Next?
You used to believe in Von Danniken? Well, there you go! I know of no rational scientist who did - and even when the book(s) came out the scientists were decrying the lack of evidence… yet you
believed? And just because you
believe there are no “wise and sagacious” UFO proponents, does NOT make that a true belief. (What is “LHD” and where is your
evidence for such a generalised unfounded assertion?)
Most serious UFO researchers reach the realization that there is no good evidence. It's so hard to keep good serious UFO researchers these days. What you are left with are people who are conclusion-driven. The only people who believe that extraterrestrials visit the earth are those who are willing to ignore all the evidence (or manufacture some). Sure, they do the best they can. It is not enough to make it real science. That's why they don't get published in peer-reviewed journals, not because of some conspiracy. Hell, scientists absolutely LOVE to have their world turned on end by real evidence. I was around when the very controversial asteroid theory of dinosaur extinction first came into vogue, and I can promise you that scientists were damn near orgasmic with excitement. But then, they had evidence.
You make all these unfounded and sweeping generalisations, yet provide no evidential support. At least I DO provide evidence to support MY assertions. You on the other hand do NOT. What does that tell you about our respective approaches to the topic?
All you have shown is that there is something we do not yet know. Hell, we know there is stuff we do not know. Science asks you to tell us what it is and provide your evidence. The evidence you have presented consists wholly of anecdotal evidence. Not one scrap of provably extraterrestrial material. Not one single working hypothesis that can be tested. Not one molecule of alien tissue. What do I conclude from this? I conclude that the contention that extraterrestrials have visited Earth is without evidence.
It is not “wholly anecdotal” at all. What about the White Sands research for example – (
http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm)?
And
again with ET…. What IS it about the UFO debunkers and their
fixation with ET… oh… of course… SETI! Now THERE is one mother of all
faith-based belief systems if I ever saw one! LOL.
Of course there are hypotheses that can be tested. Just because YOU cannot think of any does NOT mean that such hypotheses do not exist!
