UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Aepervius]

Wikipedia article about Oneirology doesn´t prove anything. It just proves that science is studying brains and stories about dreams. It doesn´t prove dreams though. Sorry.

We all have dream, we can coorelate having those dream and specific brain wave, so the claim are not extraordinary, they are quite ordinary. Your "it doesn't proof dream" is more akin of arguying for the sake of arguying when you are in a dead end. Rather than admit your example was poorly chosen, you just stammer "it ain't so" and hope to get away with it.

 

[Jocce]

You know that is a really good question ... you'd think it would be here someplace ... after all these are the JREF's finest ...

j.r.

Tomi is correct. The speculation comes mainly from the ufologist side. The sceptics are busy digging up facts that the ufologists can't be bothered to do themselves. Facts like the geographical distribution of geese, ephemerides for astronomical objects and satellites, calculated trajectories, weather conditions etc.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

[tomi71]

My answer about myths was an answer to a claim: Myths are just myths. I was trying to show that they don´t just appear from nowhere. There is always something behind them. Thus being stories about something that really was seen. Yes and I agree that there probably is mundanity behind myths. Are UFO stories myths? If we accept them as myths it´s the same as we decided that there is a mundane explanation in them. How can accept such a conclusion as there is none known mundane example to fit the anecdotal evidence.

By stamping something into a myth-category would easily mean the end of study of the incident as the answer is: myth.

Yet, myth really doesn´t answer anything. It doesn´t add any data into the case.

 

[Jocce]

The above is supposed to be an answer to following questions:

So are you saying that the eyewitness testimony is valuable or not then?
Does it mean that if the police can't verify the eyewitness testimony, it never happened?

As you can see, the answer given has nothing to do with the questions that were asked. Why? Because it's pretty obvious that eyewitness testimony in a hit and run case would be very valuable, and that even if it weren't proven, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. But the skeptic can't admit that without losing ground, so it's better to dodge the questions and be as evasive as possible. Once they admit that human perception is not 100% fallible and eyewitness testimony has value, their whole strategy of denial goes out the window.

j.r.

*shrugs* I guess you're fine with being prosecuted only because someone says it was you who did it. Of course eyewitness statements has value, but it's not enough on it's own. That's pretty darn obvious.

 

[Aepervius]

My answer about myths was an answer to a claim: Myths are just myths. I was trying to show that they don´t just appear from nowhere. There is always something behind them. Thus being stories about something that really was seen. Yes and I agree that there probably is mundanity behind myths. Are UFO stories myths? If we accept them as myths it´s the same as we decided that there is a mundane explanation in them. How can accept such a conclusion as there is none known mundane example to fit the anecdotal evidence.

By stamping something into a myth-category would easily mean the end of study of the incident as the answer is: myth.

Yet, myth really doesn´t answer anything. It doesn´t add any data into the case.

I am not sure why you come to this conclusion, as if skeptic said UFO were myth. We do not say UFO are myth, we say UFO are *UNKNOWN* in explanation, like their name says.

It is the pseudoscientist and dreamer (haha) ufologist which assign a value of "extra terrestrial" to UFO. They are the one building the myth. They potentially ignore (consciously or not) all sort of mundane explanation, so when they present their mythology we jsut come up and say : no , this could be a geeze, a sat, or even , FSM forbid, a BLIMP.

You have got "who-is-claiming-what" reversed.

 

[Marduk]

My answer about myths was an answer to a claim: Myths are just myths. I was trying to show that they don´t just appear from nowhere. There is always something behind them. Thus being stories about something that really was seen. Yes and I agree that there probably is mundanity behind myths. Are UFO stories myths? If we accept them as myths it´s the same as we decided that there is a mundane explanation in them. How can accept such a conclusion as there is none known mundane example to fit the anecdotal evidence.

By stamping something into a myth-category would easily mean the end of study of the incident as the answer is: myth.

Yet, myth really doesn´t answer anything. It doesn´t add any data into the case.

ok, slowly then, just for you
ancient stories about real sea creatures - dragons
ancient stories about animal drawings in far off places - unicorn
ancient stories about creation - Gods

does this make, Dragons, Unicorns and Gods real creatures
of course it doesn't
stories about Ufos - Aliens

are aliens real, because there are stories ?

 

[tomi71]

We all have dream, we can coorelate having those dream and specific brain wave, so the claim are not extraordinary, they are quite ordinary. Your "it doesn't proof dream" is more akin of arguying for the sake of arguying when you are in a dead end. Rather than admit your example was poorly chosen, you just stammer "it ain't so" and hope to get away with it.

Yes. I could argue this endlessly and you could never prove me anything but stories of dreams. Even the brainwaves are only brainwaves. They don´t prove actual experience of things if one just would decide it to be the case and try to argue that endlessly. Or course that wouldn´t be very constructive.

Or maybe I should demand a photograph or a video of someone´s dream? Nope. Photographs and video´s are hardly an evidence in this CGI time. Maybe that brainwave activity shows some anecdotal evidence though and maybe people telling about dreams are actually telling what they´ve experienced. How come this all sounds so familiar?

Should we just trust the papers with ink on it offered by scientists. I wonder why authority is accepted this way but not when authority has experienced non-mundane UFO-cases that are unexplainable, since many believe they are liars.

Anybody could be a liar. There are scientific hoaxes too. Maybe the dream study is too?

Okay, enough with that. I got bored of trying to debunk dreaming. I wonder why debunking is so popular. What ever the truth is about UFOs it´s more fun to keep an open door to non-mundane possiblity instead of finding the fun in ridicule and attacks.

There are too many replies for just one man, like me vs. dozens of opponents. I guess I can´t answer them all, so sorry for that.

 

[Jocce]

I wonder if people saw skeletons of dinosaurs and thus became the myth of dragons.

<tinfoil mode>
No dinosaurs skeletons have wings so that's a stupid suggestion
Besides, most dinosaur skeletons where dug up in recent history and dragons were around long before that.
</tinfoil mode>

Maybe unicorn was actually rhinoceros described by a far away traveller. Some images of unicorns were probably based on real animals, such as the one-horned rhinoceros or the narwhal—a small whale with a single long tooth or tusk that resembles a spiral ivory horn.

<tinfoil mode>
There simply are no Rhinos in Sweden!!! Seriously, you sceptics crack me up. And whales? Seriously...does whales look like dragons to you?
</tinfoil mode>

Fairies could have been dragonflies seen from distance.

<tinfoil mode>
First of all, fairies have faces, dragonflies don't. Also, it's highly implausible that people didn't know what a dragonfly looked like.
</tinfoil mode>

Gods, elves, gnomes could be actually very old ET sightings if we turn the mythology upside down and for a second think that mythology could come from true experiences sometimes and also if we speculate that there has been ET visitations here. Old myths at least are full of stories of "men from the sky" who access great powers of flying and great destruction etc.

<tinfoil mode>
LOL. I've never seen a picture of Vishnu in a flying saucer. You're just guessing now!
</tinfoil mode>

Could be only stories though.

<tinfoil mode>
Yeah right, with millions of people experiencing it over the years. Of course Shiva is real!
</tinfoil mode>

 

[Stray Cat]

By stamping something into a myth-category would easily mean the end of study of the incident as the answer is: myth.

Yet, myth really doesn´t answer anything. It doesn´t add any data into the case.

This is perhaps where you are misunderstanding what happens here.
The conclusion may well be "this is a part of ufology myth", but it certainly isn't the premise of any investigation.
We are not trying to prove that they are myth. We are looking at the empirical evidence and seeing if a firm conclusion can be made.
In most cases it can not, all we can do is speculate on what the most likely cause was, or say that mundane explanations can not be ruled out because of lack of information or inaccuracies/discrepancies in the original reports.

Therefore, the stamp of 'myth' only comes after the study of the case has been done, when there is really nothing left to learn about it.

 

[Pixel42]

What ever the truth is about UFOs it´s more fun to keep an open door to non-mundane possiblity

No-one is arguing that there are no non-mundane possibilities.

It's those who jump to the conclusion that a particular non-mundane possibility - alien visitors - must be the correct explanation who are rightly criticised.

 

[Marduk]

Okay, enough with that. I got bored of trying to debunk dreaming. I wonder why debunking is so popular. What ever the truth is about UFOs it´s more fun to keep an open door to non-mundane possiblity instead of finding the fun in ridicule and attacks.

I think you missed the point of scepticism and critical thinking on this one tomi, the point isn't to debunk everything, the point is to collect evidence that actually proves something

If you go back through this thread you'll soon see that it isn't the ufologists who are examining evidence , its the sceptics, the ufologists on the whole are happy to accept everything, you may remember when you posted during the "rogue river" case that Ramjet presented, and when it was pointed out to him that the UFO looked exactly the same as a blimp, Ramjet responded that he'd checked and that there were "no airships on the west coast at that time" this is because he'd read that that the US Navy was no longer using blimps then. that was true, but they hadn't demolished their blimp hangers and one of them was being used by the goodyear blimp, which was one side of the river a few days before the sighting and the other side of the river a few days later doing a west coast promotional tour. If Ramjet had been allowed to pretend he'd researched it thoroughly, it would still be a mystery, as it was, the sceptics did his job for him

so don't blame the sceptics for starting out with a null hypothesis, thats correct science, blame the ufologists for basing a hypothesis on poorly researched and fabricated evidence in the first place

 

[Aepervius]

Yes. I could argue this endlessly and you could never prove me anything but stories of dreams. Even the brainwaves are only brainwaves. They don´t prove actual experience of things if one just would decide it to be the case and try to argue that endlessly. Or course that wouldn´t be very constructive.

Or maybe I should demand a photograph or a video of someone´s dream? Nope. Photographs and video´s are hardly an evidence in this CGI time. Maybe that brainwave activity shows some anecdotal evidence though and maybe people telling about dreams are actually telling what they´ve experienced. How come this all sounds so familiar?

Should we just trust the papers with ink on it offered by scientists. I wonder why authority is accepted this way but not when authority has experienced non-mundane UFO-cases that are unexplainable, since many believe they are liars.

Anybody could be a liar. There are scientific hoaxes too. Maybe the dream study is too?

Okay, enough with that. I got bored of trying to debunk dreaming. I wonder why debunking is so popular. What ever the truth is about UFOs it´s more fun to keep an open door to non-mundane possiblity instead of finding the fun in ridicule and attacks.

There are too many replies for just one man, like me vs. dozens of opponents. I guess I can´t answer them all, so sorry for that.

I am sorry, but this is the same idiotic reasoning you can do on any train of thought. Dream are not special. You could have said "you can't photography my thought therefore blahblah" it is quite clearly an attempt at a run about. Sure we can't photography what people are dreaming, but we can show with use of EGG and fMRI that they are *INDEED* dreaming.

As for the rest of your critic on science.... Well all I can see is that you are certainly not understanding what science is about, or why being a liar in science will not lead you very far. See that pesky independent verification which exists in science, but does no0t in UFology.

Actually the more analogy and example you offer of real science, the more applying your own example to ufology shows as bad and poor as it is.

 

[wollery]

Anecdotal evidence is very useful in criminal investigation like eye-witness testimony (sometimes however used very badly), asking questions about the incident.

Of course it´s not 100% correct all the time, but sometimes it is.

Maybe in anecdotal cases about UFO´s the testimonies are sometimes correct too.

Or are you really saying that they are always wrong. That is a huge claim, which of course you don´t have to prove, because you have decided the rules.

It's a good thing that nobody is claiming that then.

We know for a fact that witnesses are often wrong about details, often get confused and change their stories with every telling, and are sometimes so wrong that the details they give bear almost no resemblance whatsoever to what they actually saw. Sometimes witnesses are 100% correct.

Unfortunately there's no way to know what sort of witness you're getting from what they tell you, or even how they tell you. That's why Police always investigate further and why courts don't convict unless there's more than just eyewitness testimony, because it isn't safe to assume that any given eyewitness is correct. They could be, but it isn't safe to assume it.

The same applies to anecdotal stories about UFOs. The eyewitnesses could be describing perfectly what was actually there to be seen, but they could also be describing something completely different. There's no way to know without corroborating evidence. So an anecdote is worthless, because there's no way to know whether or not it's accurate.

Let me reiterate this as clearly as possible, because I'm getting pretty annoyed at the number of times this has cropped up in UFO arguments. Rramjet keeps on offering it up, despite being corrected on it every time, ufology has recently used it, and now Tomi71.

Nobody is arguing that eyewitnesses are wrong 100% of the time.
It is a well established fact that eyewitnesses are often mistaken about some details, and sometimes mistaken about almost every aspect of what they saw.
Some eyewitnesses are extremely accurate and detailed, and subsequently shown to be 100% correct.
There is no way to tell, without corroborating evidence whether an eyewitness is accurate, reasonably accurate, fairly inaccurate or wildly wrong in their description.
Therefore, without corroborating evidence, it is unsfe to assume that an eyewitness description is accurate.
This does not mean that eyewitnesses are wrong 100% of the time.
Only a moron or a liar would suggest that, and only a moron or a liar would suggest that that was the argument being used by skeptics in these UFO cases.

 

[wollery]

I think you missed the point of scepticism and critical thinking on this one tomi, the point isn't to debunk everything, the point is to collect evidence that actually proves something

If you go back through this thread you'll soon see that it isn't the ufologists who are examining evidence , its the sceptics, the ufologists on the whole are happy to accept everything, you may remember when you posted during the "rogue river" case that Ramjet presented, and when it was pointed out to him that the UFO looked exactly the same as a blimp, Ramjet responded that he'd checked and that there were "no airships on the west coast at that time" this is because he'd read that that the US Navy was no longer using blimps then. that was true, but they hadn't demolished their blimp hangers and one of them was being used by the goodyear blimp, which was one side of the river a few days before the sighting and the other side of the river a few days later doing a west coast promotional tour. If Ramjet had been allowed to pretend he'd researched it thoroughly, it would still be a mystery, as it was, the sceptics did his job for him

so don't blame the sceptics for starting out with a null hypothesis, thats correct science, blame the ufologists for basing a hypothesis on poorly researched and fabricated evidence in the first place

Not entirely accurate. The promotional tour was the year before. It was, however, in the Pacific Northwest just a few days before the Rogue River sighting.

 

[GeeMack]

If we all hadn´t dreams and if it wasn´t widely accepted phenomena and basic knowledge. Lot´s of if´s, okay but here is my point:

How could we ever prove it? How could anybody prove that he saw something while unconscious?

A little thought game. If only one man in Earth could dream (see dreams) how could he get other people to believe what he says. Even though it would be true (in this thought game, we know it to be true since we are making now the rules for that thought game). It would be only stories, anecdotal storis, even after EEG diagrams many would still doubt how can "Henry the dreamer", see things and even more peculiarly: even experience things while still only in his comfort bed eyes closed.

And even if there were thousands of people like Henry the dreamer, many would doubt it, since there could be no way of proving the dreaming.

What I am trying to say here is that sometimes things can occur (and be in existence) even without 100% way of showing the evidence.

And until those things can be objectively demonstrated to be part of reality, until it is shown that reality is different because of the existence of those things than it would be without them, there is no pragmatic reason to accept their existence or occurrence. It is irrational to accept the existence or occurrence of any thing anyone can imagine if it doesn't objectively affect reality.

It´s okay to doubt. I am not saying that it isn´t. It´s okay to doubt also that we know everything already or that science is always right or that everybody experiencing "wild things" is hoaxer, crazy, seeing something else he/she is telling etc.

Of course nobody is saying that about UFOs/aliens. If that's what you're seeing, you might want to check your confirmation bias at the door, or consider reading a little more slowly.

You must admit that there can´t be so many stories, anecdotes etc. about UFO-phenomena if there isn´t something non-mundane behind it.

You must admit that there can't be so many stories, anecdotes etc. about Santa Claus if there isn't something non-mundane behind it.

Do you see how stupid that argument is?

If not, where is the mundane explanations? Oh yes, you invented your rules of not needing to tell. How convenient is that! You could still try of course just for the sports of it. Just to end the topic and claim your victory. Why not? There shouldn´t be need of these kind of discussions, since you have the answers. If however you don´t have the answers I wonder why many of you behave arrogantly as if having it.

The burden of proof is on those who take the position that UFOs are alien/ET. The claimants have wholly failed at providing that burden of proof. Many common mundane and plausible possibilities have been offered. The skeptics aren't responsible for showing that a particular UFO sighting was, in fact, a flock of birds or the result of a group of people eating some ergot infected bread. All the skeptics have to do is show that any one plausible explanation fits all the evidence as well as another. And when it comes to the implausible "UFOs == aliens" explanation, any implausible explanation is as good as another. Somehow the UFOlien believers are quick to consider extraterrestrials but when gods are mentioned they scoff, or more often willfully ignore the possibility.

Where is the intelligent speculation from sceptics community´s side. Lot´s of nasty humour here though. That kind of creativity could serve better somewhere else.

Read the 10,000 posts above in this thread. To suggest there hasn't been intelligent speculation from the skeptics here would be a display of abject willful ignorance or a flat out lie.

Where is the intelligent speculation from sceptics community´s side. Lot´s of nasty humour here though. That kind of creativity could serve better somewhere else.

You know that is a really good question ... you'd think it would be here someplace ... after all these are the JREF's finest ...

See?

 

[tsig]

Fixed. Now pick one to fill in the blank...

1. what I ____ I saw

a. claim (without evidence)
b. thought (for some unknown reason)
c. believe (without reason)

[this is a test of your intellectual honesty]


That should tell you something, specifically that you’re undoubtedly wrong. Why?

[summarizing all the arguments that have already been made here]

1. Misperceptions (e.g. optical illusions), delusions, fabrications, and confabulations are conventional, natural and manmade and can’t be ruled out without evidence to the contrary.

2. The reported characteristics violate the laws of physics* that apply to the putative “object” and there’s no rational reason to believe they’re capable of being broken by anyone, anytime, anywhere.

* Several general properties of physical laws have been identified (see Davies (1992) and Feynman (1965) as noted, although each of the characterizations are not necessarily original to them). Physical laws are:

• True, at least within their regime of validity. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
• Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe. (Davies, 1992:82)
• Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. (Davies)
• Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies, 1992:82)
• Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws—see "Laws as approximations" below),
• Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations). (Davies, 1992:83)
• Generally conservative of quantity. (Feynman, 1965:59)
• Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of space and time. (Feynman)
• Typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible. (Feynman)

More informally, what makes you believe alien spaceships would even appear that way? Why wouldn't they behave more or less like our own transatmospheric vehicles? Thinking even further outside of the box you’re trapped in, if they actually were capable of breaking the laws of physics, why not (pun intended) a flying cube?

If they can break the laws of physics why can we even see them?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Some thought about the discussion here etc.

It´s interesting how the sceptics movement have taken the status as to make the rules in conversation about UFOs. They say that they don´t have to prove anything even if they make a claim. For instance when the claim is that all UFOs have a mundane explanation and anectodal evidence indicates that this is not the case (like in many many cases presented here (and more)). Why the null hypothesis should be "all UFO cases have mundane explanation" as the science "thinks" that life (and probably even intelligent life) is very probable in the vast universe.

The null hypothesis is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane explanation"​

because it makes no assumptions about unknowns. There is no obligation to prove that the mundane exists. We just assume it. Don't you do the same thing in your everyday life? When you open a door to walk into a room, do you assume that the room will be oxygen free? Do you assume that the room will be filled with water with squid swimming in it? Or do you assume that it's a room like any other until it has been shown to be otherwise?

That´s not a fair balance in discussion. I am sure many would think it unfair even if scientific. I am not sure about how science would benefit for that kind of thinking though. If science in history would have thought so close-minded, we would have never gone to space because the loud debunking society would have ridiculed even the idea of a space travel (and actually they first did many decades until more open minded scientists proved them wrong.)

Ok, so you want to give equal weight to the hypothesis that any door you open will reveal a room without oxygen or full of water with squids swimming in it. Do you carry around an wetsuit and dive tanks? If you don't, then that isn't a fair balance, is it?

The null hypothesis can´t stand in the light of huge weight of anecdotal evidence (or UFO-raports, reliable eyewitness testimony, multiple sightings of an object behaving like "nothing of this Earth."

Actually, the null hypothesis has survived all attacks. Rramjet is so scared of it that he won't even address it anymore. ufology (the poster) refuses to admit that he has a null hypothesis that is unfalsifiable and pseudoscientific. The null hypothesis is easily falsifiable with just one confirmed case of ET (or any other non-mundane explanation.) Unfalsifiable anecdotes, you will admit, are never going to be worthwhile as evidence for falsifying the null hypothesis.

Maybe it however is a the good point to get forward but if many (MANY!) cases seem to indicate otherwise why couldn´t it be challenged?

We invite challenges. If you haven't noticed, Rramjet, ufology and a couple others have challenged the null hypothesis unsuccessfully because all they have is anecdote which are unfalsifiable.

The reality at least seems to challenge sceptics community all the time.

Well, no. Reality bites the UFOlogists in the butt every time. Have you really not read any of this thread?

In the historical perspective these kind of null hypothesis have again and again proven wrong. For certainly there has been a period when null hypothesis was that earth is flat or that human can never fly or that carriage can´t move without a horse etc.

And we're waiting for this one to be proven wrong. All it takes is just one confirmed case of a non-mundane explanation. Until then, we're just stuck with reality which says:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

I wonder how easily some people can dismiss so much evidence being anecdotal or not as being just rubbish, since there are strong cases too even though they can be only hear-say. I think that an example of some of those stronger cases are the cases where pilot(s) have seen something maneuvering near their plane (sometimes almost hitting them) and there are taped conversations about these incidents with ground control plus radar confirming it. In some of these kind of cases there are also eyewitnesses on the ground also confirming that there really was something (=UFO, not ET necessarily, but an object that took maneuvers impossible to man-made-machines. Could be atmospherical phenomena even though there is at least an illusion of a intelligent sort of flying maneuvers. I think that this could be an illusionary thought though about the intelligence.)

You tell me how those anecdotes could be falsified now. How do you plan to replicate the conditions so that you and everyone can see exactly what it was or what happened? Let me know when you've found the solution. As for your atmospherical phenomena, yes, that could be a mundane explanation.

I am not even speaking about ET´s here but mundanity of object(s). I am sure that some electrical atmospherical phenomena (possibly unknown yet) could explain some phenomena for example yet I wonder why it seems that even before anybody would try to solve this phenomena they are stuck in the ET-hypothesis and ridicule. Thus not seeing the forest for the trees.

Atmospheical phenomena could explain some of the sightings. It doesn't matter whether that is the real cause or not. It doesn't matter which mundane explanation it is. We don't have to prove the mundane exists. If someone says, "This one must be PsueudoAliens!" then they have the burden of proof to falsify the null hypothesis. Note that unfalsifiable anecdotes won't do it.

I am sure that many scientist would honestly admit that all UFO cases can´t be explained by mundane standards and yet they would also say that it´s not an evidence about ET. I wonder why the sceptics don´t even accept that.

Because you pulled it from Uranus. The null hypothesis is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

which hasn't been falsified. I look forward to the day when it is.

Certainly they´ve shown that they have no explanation and have tried to make it a rule that they never have to prove anything.

No. Pay attention this time. Nobody has to prove that the mundane exists. It doesn't matter which mundane explanation it is for any particular case. I can't think of them all and neither can anyone else. Anyone who says they can eliminate all mundane explanations is a liar with an agenda. They have the burden of proof to show what non-mundane explanation it is.

All they have to do is repeat the same mantra over and over again neglecting all the raports about UFOs, all the anecdotal evidence or even the evidence, which has more reliability on it (like government raports about UFOs, pilot´s taped recordings and conversations with ground control about UFO-phenomena they are experiencing or UFO cases which have caused physical trauma to a person who´s experienced it:

No. You really should pay attention to this. Anecdotes are unfalsifiable. We can't question them, we can't replicate them. We have no need to show that the mundane exists. If someone says, "This one must be PseudoAliens!" then they have the burden of proof to show that it is ET. Or whatever it is they are trying to prove it is.

radioactive burns for example (or maybe you think they´ve caused it purposedly in order to create a hoax. Actually it should be more plausible, since you think that everything is more plausible than non-mundanity UFO)

Well, I do have faith in reality, if that's what you're saying. You are correct that the mundane is more plausible than the non-mundane. Would any sane person think otherwise?

 

[tsig]

I am more like discussing here in a friendly manner. Not trying to proof you anything. I am sure if you needed proof you could obtain it yourself. You can always bring the mundanity card into the table if you want to make a claim instead of just leaning back and waiting for other people do your job.

You say "There are alien craft in the sky".

I say "No".


Who has the claim?

 

[tsig]

Actually I´d like to ask why sceptics community does believe that people see dreams? Where is the evidence?

Can a true sceptic believe in anything that isn´t proven? If can I wonder why would he discard his reputation of a good sceptic and his great name here. Wouldn´t that compromize all his other wild belief-systems as well?

If you do believe that people see dreams, how can you prove it. All you have is anecdotes and stories. Maybe even your own experience, but as a hard boiled sceptic you certainly know that you can´t believe even your own observation, since it´s possible that you was wide awake and only imagined that you dreamed.

EEG is a piece of paper with diagrams on it. It doesn´t 100% prove that people actually experience things while unconscious.

Or maybe you are saying that everybody knows it to be true. I could say that many many people say same about many other parapsycholical phenomenons and UFOs too. So a great deal of people knowing something doesn´t prove anything.

Ok. Of course you know that I am kidding you, but I wonder why sceptics really do believe they experienced something while unconscious.

I am not really expecting anyone to take this challenge and showing the evidence of dreaming.

So seeing a UFO is like dreaming?

 

[RoboTimbo]

If we all hadn´t dreams and if it wasn´t widely accepted phenomena and basic knowledge. Lot´s of if´s, okay but here is my point:

How could we ever prove it? How could anybody prove that he saw something while unconscious?
Do you have any examples that use reality as it exists?

A little thought game. If only one man in Earth could dream (see dreams) how could he get other people to believe what he says. Even though it would be true (in this thought game, we know it to be true since we are making now the rules for that thought game). It would be only stories, anecdotal storis, even after EEG diagrams many would still doubt how can "Henry the dreamer", see things and even more peculiarly: even experience things while still only in his comfort bed eyes closed.

Another little thought game. If everyone at a football stadium sees the Goodyear blimp overhead except for one person who sees a gleaming flying mothership of a saucer and he saw a beautiful blond Pleidian woman descend on a beam of light and knock the ball out of the hand of one of the players, how would that person convince everyone else of what he saw?

And even if there were thousands of people like Henry the dreamer, many would doubt it, since there could be no way of proving the dreaming.

So if you saw the Goodyear blimp, you would doubt the man who tries to convince you it was really the mothership?

What I am trying to say here is that sometimes things can occur (and be in existence) even without 100% way of showing the evidence.

That is trivially true but it isn't at all what you showed with your example.

It´s okay to doubt. I am not saying that it isn´t. It´s okay to doubt also that we know everything already or that science is always right or that everybody experiencing "wild things" is hoaxer, crazy, seeing something else he/she is telling etc.

So it's ok to doubt the guy who is trying to convince you that he saw the mothership where you saw the Goodyear blimp?

You must admit that there can´t be so many stories, anecdotes etc. about UFO-phenomena if there isn´t something non-mundane behind it.

You must admit that there can be numerous stories and anedotes about UFOs without anything non-mundane about it whatsoever.

If not, where is the mundane explanations? Oh yes, you invented your rules of not needing to tell.

No. Reality invented the rules of not needing to prove the mundane.

How convenient is that!

Reality is pretty convenient. We use it all the time. Even you. Or do you carry around a wetsuit and dive tanks?

You could still try of course just for the sports of it. Just to end the topic and claim your victory. Why not? There shouldn´t be need of these kind of discussions, since you have the answers. If however you don´t have the answers I wonder why many of you behave arrogantly as if having it.

Which answer have you already concluded?

Where is the intelligent speculation from sceptics community´s side. Lot´s of nasty humour here though. That kind of creativity could serve better somewhere else.

I really wish people would learn to read and understand a thread before commenting.

HOAX
Blimp
Debri^WP
Lying
floater in the eye
misidentification
Oil Well fires
And every other mundane explanation you can think of

Your turn to list all the non-mundane explanations that have been proven.