Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Pseudo-science of anti-Ufology


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1    UM-Bot

UM-Bot

    News, media and articles

  • 6,196 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • Beep Boop

Posted 31 May 2009 - 10:29 AM

Image credit: Stanton Friedman MSc
Image credit: Stanton Friedman MSc
In his latest article UFOlogist Stanton Friedman talks about those who attack the notion that UFOs are of alien origin. Friedman maintains that people need to take a close look at the available evidence and investigate in full before criticising this view.

"There have been a number of remarks by people calling themselves scientists attacking the notion that any flying saucers are of alien origin. The arguments arenít scientific, but rather represent research by proclamation rather than investigation. We can learn a lot about how to deal with these attacks by focusing on the claims that are made and what is irrational or illogical or just plain wrong about them. "

View: Full Article | Source: UFO Chronicles

This is an official comment thread for a main site news story, article or video.
Please keep comments civil and on topic.
Thank you.

#2    karl 12

karl 12

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,760 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Europe

Posted 31 May 2009 - 10:43 AM

Umbot -interesting post, I certainly think some UFO debunkers have a 'psychological need' to debunk cases - irrespective of any facts that might get in the way.
I've also noticed that many are loathe to address certain incidents -instead preferring to just concentrate on the vague 'easy to explain away ' ones.

I suspect the mindset of the UFO cynic is far more dogmatic then pragamtic - perhaps they've got more in common with 'people who beleive everything is a UFO' than they like to think.


#3    Lt_Ripley

Lt_Ripley

    Forum Divinity

  • Banned
  • 20,036 posts
  • Joined:09 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female

Posted 31 May 2009 - 05:36 PM

karl 12 on May 31 2009, 06:43 AM, said:

Umbot -interesting post, I certainly think some UFO debunkers have a 'psychological need' to debunk cases - irrespective of any facts that might get in the way.
I've also noticed that many are loathe to address certain incidents -instead preferring to just concentrate on the vague 'easy to explain away ' ones.

I suspect the mindset of the UFO cynic is far more dogmatic then pragamtic - perhaps they've got more in common with 'people who beleive everything is a UFO' than they like to think.


agreed.


#4    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • If you don't believe the sun will rise
    Stand alone and greet the coming night
    In the last remaining light -Audioslave

Posted 31 May 2009 - 06:05 PM

There is one thing that UFOlogy has to consider however. The speculative leap from UFO to alien vessel. We have neither proof of aliens or their ships so seeking a "terrestrial" or mundane explanation first is paramount. Anyone seeking the truth (and not pushing a pet theory) would agree.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#5    Lt_Ripley

Lt_Ripley

    Forum Divinity

  • Banned
  • 20,036 posts
  • Joined:09 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female

Posted 31 May 2009 - 06:52 PM

Slave2Fate on May 31 2009, 02:05 PM, said:

There is one thing that UFOlogy has to consider however. The speculative leap from UFO to alien vessel. We have neither proof of aliens or their ships so seeking a "terrestrial" or mundane explanation first is paramount. Anyone seeking the truth (and not pushing a pet theory) would agree.


and when the mundane earthly explanations clearly don't fit ?  you assume that we have no proof. many others in better positions than you have said we do.

in saying that.  I believe we've been to the moon . many say we haven't. but do a bunch of rocks prove we have been ? video ? pictures ?  

as many who claim that everything is a UFO or alien is just as bad as thinking what has been seen couldn't possibly be. Why is it skeptics gloss over the really extraodinary accounts , film or photos pre things like photo shop ?

anyone seeing the truth and not an agenda would agree.


#6    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • If you don't believe the sun will rise
    Stand alone and greet the coming night
    In the last remaining light -Audioslave

Posted 31 May 2009 - 08:01 PM

Lt_Ripley on May 31 2009, 11:52 AM, said:

as many who claim that everything is a UFO or alien is just as bad as thinking what has been seen couldn't possibly be. Why is it skeptics gloss over the really extraodinary accounts , film or photos pre things like photo shop ?


I can't speak for all skeptics but I try not to make assumptions about what I don't know about. Could some of the footage be ET? Maybe. Could it be a hoax or misidentification? Maybe as well. I am skeptical of the proposed "proof" however. If it were solid proof then the entire scientific community would be all over it like vultures on a carcass. Nor do I believe in some agenda or conspiracy to keep a lid on things, too many people would want the truth to come out. Especially considering the subject matter could be the biggest discovery in the history of humanity. That's just how I see it. thumbsup.gif

Edit to add:

Quote

and when the mundane earthly explanations clearly don't fit ?


This assumes we know all there is to know about things "mundane". I have my doubts about that. There is clearly more room for further investigation but personally I would put aliens at the bottom of the list.

Edited by Slave2Fate, 31 May 2009 - 08:06 PM.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#7    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Mainly Spherical in Shape

  • Member
  • 25,119 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:there

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 31 May 2009 - 08:14 PM

I think that any scientist who says outright that UFOs are not alien spacecraft is, yes, being unscientific, so I do agree with ol'Stanton there, but there's Š big difference between saying that and saying that there's no evidence yet to prove absolutely that some of them are, and I wonder if Stanton is rather making an assumption by saying that people who say that are wanting to debunk the whole thing.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#8    Paranormalcy

Paranormalcy

    Interterrestrial Being

  • Member
  • 5,621 posts
  • Joined:04 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NE OK USA

  • "Friday, Friday, gotta get down on Friday."

Posted 01 June 2009 - 05:15 AM

I personally think that while he makes good points here and there in all the interviews, etc. and is probably one of the most knowledgeable people from the "hard science" end of things, that Stanton has definitely developed (if he didn't already have) a.. shall we say "zeal", which can at least look like a fanatical, dogmatic attitude. I agree also that, true evidence wise, there is a vast gulf separating "UFO" from "alien", a similar gulf existing between "UFO" and "crop circle" or "UFO" and "cattle mutilation" - there may be circumstantial evidence and hearsay or even unusual/unexplained physical trace or effects, but none that concretely or conclusively ties any of these subjects to another - correlation is not causation.

| Ouija/Ideomotor | Sleep Paralys./Hypnogogia | Ouija: 252 hrs/4yrs



#9    Siara

Siara

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,427 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Maryland, USA

Posted 01 June 2009 - 06:22 AM


Part of the problem is that the two sides in the argument are so polarized.  One group of people think we've NEVER had any alien contact at all- even on a meteor containing extra-terrestrial bacteria.  The other camp thinks that we are under continuous surveillance by thousands of UFO's, our ancient civilizations were started by UFO's, there are inhabited  rogue planets in our solar system undetected by any science that suddenly "pop" into view, etc.  It's sort of like a religious argument with radical believers in one of two separate camps.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users