UFO's (Page 5)
StuckInTheSixties: As to who's a nut case, or moron, the readers can read our respective posts sprinkled throughout Forums and judge for themselves ...
SPIRIT-ONE: many of different faiths PM me and ask for more about my perticular belief ,one of them makes up for 40 hecklers and he-hawer's :
StuckInTheSixties: Yeah, I asked you once for information on it myself once. I was curious as to just what the heck your spaced-out rantings were about anyway.
Got a good chuckle from it.
javier228: Wow lot of posts for this topic. I'll just give my opinion.
I do believe in ufo's(aliens) simply because I've seen them multiple times, met a person who had over 500 pictures of ufos he has experienced, and because this isn't like the first time people have ever seen ufo's, it's been going on for thousands of years.
StuckInTheSixties: Seriously, Javier, look at it from my perspective ...
Any RATIONAL examination of the idea of UFOs, extra-terrestrial vehicles .., combined with even an elementary knowledge of astronomy and physics, and even a hint of understanding of human behavior, and just a little common sense ...
... that makes it difficult to take your "anecdotal evidence" too seriously.
javier228: What would it take for you to consider them existing? Just asking, in my opinion I don't really care if others believe or not. To each his own is what I say. Is there any specific reason you don't believe or is it multiple reasons? Sorry if you have already mentioned something like it before it's just that I didn't really feel like reading all of the other pages.
LiptonCambell: Well, when you take into account human nature to fabricate amazing creatures, is it that shocking that I feel we should hold skepticism and doubt? If history has proved anything, the attitude that will truly answer the question of UFO's will not be one of arrogant certitude, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what we need from a history of just making shit up.
To make matters more alarming, there are instances of misunderstanding or outright hoaxes.
!?!'INSANE FORMER N.A.S.A ASTRONAUT'!?!
javier228: I believe that there should be some level of doubt, but I disagree that doubt is humble. Doubt in my experience usually turns out to be someone full of arrogance. I don't know how many times I have encountered someone who I'm debating with about any topic and I use sound logic,examples,and support,but it ends with the other person simply saying, "no that's ridiculous" and that's that.We should have some doubt,but we should also be open to the possibilities, instead of closing our eyes off from the world.
LiptonCambell: How is it arrogant to take an mysterious event and claim that theres a fair and terrestial explaination for it? I see something mysterious, and see it as something to be examined and judged- you see something mysterious, and instantly attribute it to "space creatures". I see an unknown as an unknown. You instantly decide you've figured it out, and call me arrogent and close-minded for not accepting it.
Unknown lights in the skies, bizzarre aircraft, alien abductions- these all have fair and logical explainations. But you instantly grasp to the idea that there are little creatures from space. Why is that? That, if you see a strange object in the sky, you don't think it could be a normal occurence or even an occurance that has been known and proven to happen(such as sighting a test jet), but rather, aliens?
How do you explain why nothings consistant? That, even when the aliens are simular, the details are contradictory- like height, number of fingers, even skin colour- everyone seems to experience them differently....
javier228: Now you're assuming things about me.You don't know why I believe the things I do and you're placing me into a category of people.I didn't say you were close minded(taking it personally?),I'm just saying that I think people should open their minds to all the possibilities.There are some pieces of evidence you just can't ignore and you aren't ever aware of all the evidence either so a lot is missed or hidden.I've seen enough with my own eyes to know I'm not seeing a plane,lightning,a star,or a hallucination,and that's why I believe.
Also I said that doubt in most of my experiences has been arrogant,I'm not so narrow minded that I would say that doubt in all cases is arrogant.
StuckInTheSixties: Javier asks me a couple of questions:
What would it take for you to consider them existing? Is there any specific reason you don't believe or is it multiple reasons?
I reply to your second question first:
My answers were provided in the post you replied to. I have an elementary knowledge of astronomy and physics, I have a bit of understanding of human behavior, and I have some common sense. Those things lead to my skepticism of the sort of anecdotal evidence you provide. I read your post, and consider that there is a wide range of plausible explanations for it that are far more credible than the possibility that you did actually see "aliens."
Perhaps a clue was contained in your initial post. You claim to have had "seen them multiple times," and state that you "met a person who had over 500 pictures of ufos he has experienced."
Let's just consider the statistical ramifications of that. Out of the general populace, only a very small fraction of us claim to have EVER seen something that they were convinced was "alien" in nature. I think everyone has had something strange that caught their attention, but only a very few make that leap from something they couldn't explain to "aliens."
Yet you have seen them "multiple times." And the person you met has "over 500 pictures" of his own encounters.
You guys are undeniably a statistical anomaly. When one considers what the odds are of having such an encounter, yet you guys seem to defy the odds with "multiple" encounters ... well, it doesn't help your credibility. Again, when you consider the human nature element, that statistical anomaly suggests STRONGLY that there is a human nature explanation.
You also asked what it would take for me to consider [aliens] existing. It would take tangible, objective evidence.
If I turned on the television to find all of the news services were airing segments that radar had detected an object that was coming closer, and the Hubble was trained on it, and it was a flying saucer, and the damn thing landed on the White House lawn, opened up, and the visitors emerged ...
I jest a bit. I'd settle for SETI to announce that they had intercepted a signal, had analyzed it, and had concluded that the plausible explanation was that it was extra-terrestrial in origin ... something like that would be pretty convincing.
All of the "evidence" thus far presented is FAR too ambiguous to be taken too seriously. It always seems to happen at night. Or out in some farmer's field. That sort of "evidence" fits too snugly with the human nature explanation, and is too short on scientifically verifiable explanation.
StuckInTheSixties: Javier, while I was writing that, you made your post, so let me address one thing you mentioned:
The notion of being "open minded." And your obvious inference that if someone doesn't believe in UFOs, they're close minded.
Open mindedness doesn't have to include willingness to suspend rationality. I mentioned SETI. Those folks have what I think of as "openmindedness." They're open to the idea that intelligent life might exist somewhere besides Earth. In fact, their entire effort is devoted to that possibility. But they also make the rational observation that thus far, no credible evidence for extra-terrestrial life, in any form, has been presented by anyone.
Would you consider them to be close minded?
javier228: I appreciate the response. I can tell that you're an intelligent individual who has his own way of thinking all set up already.I'm not one to argue because there is really no point to it.Your form of response was sensible,but there really is no hiding the smug nature behind it.I don't pretend to have all these sources and I don't really care if you find my case credible or not.I've met other people who you would probably call anamolys too,but I can tell the difference between someone who is making up random stuff and someone who has experienced this stuff.Well that's all I really have to say,I can tell neither of us is going to change our minds so I'll just end it here.Nice commenting on your posts.
How is believing in ufos "suspending rationality"?!?!you know what, never mind that statement is too arrogant for my taste.
StuckInTheSixties: I just call 'em like I see 'em, Javier. As you do.
Edit: Oh, if I can persuade one more thing from you, you didn't answer my question about SETI. Are they "close minded"?
javier228: Well the truth is I don't know SETI so I can't answer that.I don't like to answer when I don't have enough information on a topic.They don't sound close minded though,but I don't really trust organizations that research ufo's.
StuckInTheSixties: How anyone could believe in aliens without knowing about SETI is beyond me. It's like being a fan of rock and roll, but not being familiar with the Beatles, or liking English literature, but never having read Shakespeare.
There is also an official SETI website. Wireclub prefers that we not post unapproved links, but here's a hint:
It starts with a "www," it has "seti" in it, and it ends with "org."
SETI is not an organization that collects and shares UFO pictures, personal accounts of encounters with aliens, or any of that sort of stuff. They're a scientific organization, mostly scientists, academics, astronomers, etc. Their position is that although no verifiable evidence of extra-terrestrial life has yet been found, the question of whether it exists is of such importance that an effort should be made to see if it can be detected. Hence, they search. They don't drive around at night chasing strange lights with videocams. The spend their time analyzing radio emanations from space, collected by radio telescopes, trying to detect something that would have an intelligent source. They have respect from the scientific community as a whole.
Their best known champion is the late astrophysicist and author Carl Sagan. In fact, he wrote a really good book, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," on the things that this thread touches on, how we, as humans, have a tendency to believe in things for which there is no tangible, objective proof, how we long for answers to things unanswerable, and how those perceptions don't stand up very well to scientific examination.
Here's a video that will give you a little taste of what SETI does, and why:
SPIRIT-ONE: many have seen more than your statistics show ,many are afraid to come forward with their findings [well ... look at the responses on this thread and ask yourself why they don't]
LiptonCambell: The problem I have with Javiers comments is, frankly, its doublespeak. He calls for people to be open minded- but he himself is not. I and other users suggest that these events could and are more than likely caused by known, terrestial factors- our minds ARE open to ideas such as people being mistaken, and witnessing mundane things in extraordinary ways and (GASP!) making mistakes. We are willing to accept that, when someone sights an unidentified flying object, it could very well be a jet or a satalite or a astroid or numerous other things.
Javier, on the otherhand, has made his stance clear- it was an alien craft. And he knows this because, quite simply, he *knows*. How is that at all open-minded? Someone who was truly open minded would be willing to believe that it could have been a jet, or a weather balloon gone arye. Hell, If you were TRULY open minded, and were willing to accept witnesses and accounts throughout history, as many users here have claimed to accept, then we must also take into account these things being things like pixies and dragons. After all, if its closeminded to disregard claims of aliens, why is it openminded if you disregard claims of dragons? If your proof is someone out there has convinced themselves that what they saw was true, and thats all the evidence necessary, then why do you ponder the idea that aliens are real, but reject the idea of dragons?
StuckInTheSixties: I tend to have a sort of dual approach to things like this. I think in terms of POSSIBILITIES, and also in terms of PROBABILITIES.
Unless I'm aware of specific proof otherwise, I'll accept as POSSIBLE almost anything, even things that could very reasonably thought of as outlandish.
Anything that I deem as possible is also assessed for PROBABILITY. So when it comes to Javier's space ships ...
Sure, it might be possible that he's actually seen real space ships from some far off planet. It might be possible that although there are multitudes of reasons for disbelieving his anecdotes, maybe he did, in fact, see some aliens.
But I don't think so. If I made a list of things that suggest he actually did, indeed, see space ships, it would be a pretty short list. And if I made a second list of things that suggest he didn't, it would be a very long list.
javier228: Wow Lipton you really like assuming things about me don't you.I don't assume things, regardless of what you might think.If I see something in the sky and I can't indetify it because it's so far away and it's dark I don't assume it's an alien space craft,but if it's close enough for me to see clearly and is moving in a way that most air craft can't move in,then yea I'm not going to be an idiot and say there is no way that that was an alien craft.And did you seriously just compare dragons and fairies to ufo's??Wow.
Oh,umm stuck in the sixties,quick question.(please ignore the angry feelings from the post above,this is just curiosity)
How do you decide whether to believe in something or not if you don't know the odds of it existing?(don't have to apply it to aliens)Oh and what if there is no way of testing it or finding out?Would you simply say something doesn't exist simply because there is no evidence to show that it does exist?Would like to hear your response because I respect your opinion and way of thinking.
o·pen-mind·ed /ˈoʊpənˈmaɪndɪd/ Show Spelled
[oh-puhn-mahyn-did] Show IPA–adjective
1. having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments.
2. unprejudiced; unbigoted; impartial.
LiptonCambell: >>>And did you seriously just compare dragons and fairies to ufo's??Wow.
I absolutely did. 1000 years ago, if someone saw an unfamiliar object in the sky, it means they saw a dragon. Today, you see an unfamiliar object in the sky, and it means you saw an alien space craft. Theres a missing logical leap between "I see something I cannot identify" and "I am seeing an alien". All you know is you saw something you that you cannot identify- and you are presenting as supporting evidence for an opinion you already have- the existence of aliens. So no- your opinion absolutely was not unprejudiced, unbigoted, or impartial.
You call us smug, but you refuse to even consider the notion that you may not be able to identify something in the night sky.
javier228: Actually I didn't believe in alien crafts until I saw them myself so I was unbiased.Oh and I actually do believe that it is possible for there to be something similar to a dragon somewhere in the universe,maybe not the breathing fire part though.Reptiles evolved into birds,so who knows how they would evolve under different conditions.Oh and I called you smug because of the attitude displayed in your responses,it lacked respect and common decency.
And you ignored the part where I mentioned specifically that if I see something in the sky that I can't identify I don't automatically say it's an alien because most of the time when I look up I see a plane,a star, or some other natural event.