983 replies to this topic

[lost_shaman]

I thought it might be a good idea to start this thread because the opposite thread is very popular but basically a fiasco!

I wondered if the tides were turned and Skeptics of UFO witnesses were asked to explain why they discount these people who witness UFO's; if we would end up with the same type of interest and interesting discussions.

The point here is basically to see if self proclaimed skeptics are both willing and able to initiate valid arguments to support their skepticism of UFO witnesses and evidence.

If you are a self proclaimed "skeptic" this thread is the place to outline your arguments with the catch being this time the burden of proof is on you.

[Guyver]

lost_shaman, on 17 May 2010 - 05:05 AM, said:

I thought it might be a good idea to start this thread because the opposite thread is very popular but basically a fiasco!

If you are a self proclaimed "skeptic" this thread is the place to outline your arguments with the catch being this time the burden of proof is on you.

I'm not much of a skeptic per se.  Having seen a UFO myself once, and acknowledging that there is something to the phenomenon.  My biggest criticism regarding aliens though, and I'm sure many share this idea, is the vast distances involved in space. Not too long ago I did some calculations regarding the nearest star (cluster) Alpha Centauri (Proxima).  Based on the distances in light years, converting those to miles and giving a high rate of speed (200,000 mph i think it was)- it was something like 125 million hours of travel to reach earth.  To me, that pretty much eliminates any alien visitations.  I will acknowledge the possibility of some sort of technology that could reduce those numbers, but still.  The universe is just really big and earth is just comparatively really small.

[lost_shaman]

Guyver, on 17 May 2010 - 05:25 AM, said:

Based on the distances in light years, converting those to miles and giving a high rate of speed (200,000 mph i think it was)- it was something like 125 million hours of travel to reach earth.  To me, that pretty much eliminates any alien visitations.  I will acknowledge the possibility of some sort of technology that could reduce those numbers, but still.  The universe is just really big and earth is just comparatively really small.

I don't doubt your calculations but if you simply travel faster closer to light speed the time decreases exponentially. The 'relative' distance needed to travel literally shrinks the closer to light speed you get.

[Blacksabbath]

I'd say the best argument is that the existence of aliens from outer space visiting us, utterly lacks proof. The claim that UFO's are aliens from another planet is exactly that, nothing more but a claim, and an assumption.

Edited by Blacksabbath, 17 May 2010 - 06:02 AM.

[lost_shaman]

Blacksabbath, on 17 May 2010 - 06:01 AM, said:

I'd say the best argument is that the existence of aliens from outer space visiting us, utterly lacks proof. The claim that UFO's are aliens from another planet is exactly that, nothing more but a claim, and an assumption.

There are lots of people who claim to see things that don't claim what they witnessed was "Aliens" visiting. If the burden of proof is in your hands how do you discount any possibility without making any argument that incorporates some form of evidence?

Edit: If your argument lacks evidence, at least the UFO witness actually observed something.

Edited by lost_shaman, 17 May 2010 - 06:21 AM.

[Blacksabbath]

lost_shaman, on 17 May 2010 - 06:12 AM, said:

There are lots of people who claim to see things that don't claim what they witnessed was "Aliens" visiting. If the burden of proof is in your hands how do you discount any possibility without making any argument that incorporates some form of evidence?

Edit: If your argument lacks evidence, at least the UFO witness actually observed something.

Exactly. A UFO stays a UFO. But people are hell bent on them being aliens from another planet, which is just an assumption with no proof whatsoever.

[keithisco]

I think the total lack of any indisputable Alien artefacts does not promote the idea of Alien visitation. Eyewitness accounts, backed up by radar traces are, on the other hand, a very strong and persuasive indicator of "something" happening in our skies.
Although hundreds, if not thousands, of people have claimed Alien abduction which resultd in "implants" being inserted, I have yet to see any physical evidence of this in any news media, or reputable scientific journal of investigation.

With more stories and sightings now being based on what has recently been released in mainstream theatres and cinemas (The "Matrix" effect) simply defies credulity.

Their is simply not enough, if any, hard evidence that the Earth is, or has been, visited by Alien peoples

[Blacksabbath]

keithisco, on 17 May 2010 - 07:00 AM, said:

I think the total lack of any indisputable Alien artefacts does not promote the idea of Alien visitation. Eyewitness accounts, backed up by radar traces are, on the other hand, a very strong and persuasive indicator of "something" happening in our skies.
Although hundreds, if not thousands, of people have claimed Alien abduction which resultd in "implants" being inserted, I have yet to see any physical evidence of this in any news media, or reputable scientific journal of investigation.

With more stories and sightings now being based on what has recently been released in mainstream theatres and cinemas (The "Matrix" effect) simply defies credulity.

Their is simply not enough, if any, hard evidence that the Earth is, or has been, visited by Alien peoples

Yup something is up in the skies. But are they aliens? There's no proof. But I'm sure we're going to be getting loads of cases and explanations posted here anyway. But the fact still stands, there's no proof as to what those things actually are. Just belief.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Indeed, the favourite evidence that's been presented (very often) so far just doesn't seem to go quite far enough to convince the skeptics, or even the neutral. I think that's about the size of it. However, that can't prove that it hasn't happened, or that there are no aliens, of course. That's the difference with the two viewpoints. I don't think anyone tries to insist there there are no extraterrestrials, just that the proof that they've visited us isn't strong enough to convince yet.

[Dimly]

'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'

[mcrom901]

failure in recognizing the active role of the authorities in suppression of any 'available' info concerning extraterrestrial intelligence is the main shortcoming of the pseudo-skeptics.... moreover, as far as the burden of proof goes, in all cases where they seem to be resorting to the 'last' prosaic explanation i.e. black-ops craft.... they are very much obligated to provide the relative proofs about same....  

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

mcrom901, on 17 May 2010 - 08:39 AM, said:

failure in recognizing the active role of the authorities in suppression of any 'available' info concerning extraterrestrial intelligence is the main shortcoming of the pseudo-skeptics.... moreover, as far as the burden of proof goes, in all cases where they seem to be resorting to the 'last' prosaic explanation i.e. black-ops craft.... they are very much obligated to provide the relative proofs about same....  

I think you're true there. Same with crop cirlces; it's easy enough to say "secret aircraft", or that they're done by crop circle artistes, but there seems to be not much proof as yet that these actually exist, or they can do what they claim they do.

[mcrom901]

Guyver, on 17 May 2010 - 05:25 AM, said:

My biggest criticism regarding aliens though, and I'm sure many share this idea, is the vast distances involved in space. Not too long ago I did some calculations regarding the nearest star (cluster) Alpha Centauri (Proxima).

on what basis have you ruled out the possibility concerning the presence of et in our very own solar system?

[mcrom901]

Blacksabbath, on 17 May 2010 - 07:26 AM, said:

But the fact still stands, there's no proof as to what those things actually are. Just belief.

any and all understandings are 'beliefs'....

the term 'scientific proof' is a misnomer.... scientific theories can never be conclusively verified but only conclusively falsified... the term 'proof' implies 'a result that is final and beyond doubt'..... whereas scientific theories by default are vulnerable to being replaced by newer and improved theories....

Edited by mcrom901, 17 May 2010 - 09:08 AM.

[mcrom901]

Blacksabbath, on 17 May 2010 - 06:24 AM, said:

Exactly. A UFO stays a UFO. But people are hell bent on them being aliens from another planet, which is just an assumption with no proof whatsoever.

what do you call this?



'unidentified aerial phenomena'?