Gustav said:
No.
1. alien sightings on earth are mystical
2. claims of visits can easily be supported. Just not by blabla alone.
where is the evidence for alien visitation?
- Thread starter mars13
- Start date
- Status
No.
1. alien sightings on earth are mystical
2. claims of visits can easily be supported. Just not by blabla alone.
...I don't get it. But we'll talk about this later.
First of all, I've seen you use this STDD thing, and I'd like you to please use whole words. I don't know what STDD means.
OK...I ask again...where is the proof? Can you, Norval, please give me some evidence for this conclusion? That is all I ask. Evidence.
Where do you get this from? What basis do you have for this claim? What documentation do you have? Do you even have eyewitness testimony for this? Has anyone seen a crater caused by an alien weapon? I would love to know at what point in your life you said "Oh my god, this is alien!" and what evidence brought you to that conclusion.
I don't care how much space you take in this thread...or better yet: Start another thread, and please breakdown what, exactly, made you believe. I would love to know. PLEASE do this.
How do you draw the first conclusion. See, we can only speculate that life exists elsewhere because of the scope of the known universe and the fact that life exists here. The chances for intelligent life elsewhere cannot be calculated because, simply, we only know of one--us. I know I made these comments earlier and the conversation took a turn for the worse into philosophical meanings of what is "truly intelligent" but let's be honest: Humans are the the intelligent beings on Earth.
And Earth was here for billions of years before we came about. Many species dominated the Earth before us, and none of them became intelligent. So we, as it seems, are the sole exception to the rule, at least here on Earth.
How many planets, would you imagine, in the universe went through billions of years of evolution without producing an intelligent species?
So I ask how anyone here can claim that it is a fact that aliens exist when there is no evidence for alien life, and moreso there is no evidence for aliens visiting us?
And whomever said that eyewitness testimony is recognized in the west...today's judicial system works on the premise that the witness will not lie and in America we ask the witness to go as far as placing their left hand on the Holy Bible. There is a penalty for lying in court, yet there is none in the realm of UFO claimants.
And Duendy was right...we can cross-examine the witness in court, and do a background check. We can account for their motives, becase there are is a set scenario in the case. We can tell who is credible and who is not, but both can testify. In this world, where people on a TV show or website recall stories of alien abduction, even giving a name, they do so in annonymity. If Jane Stone comes on TV and says she was abducted, I cannot prove her wrong or verify her story. I don't know if Jane Stone is a UFO kook, or a former skeptic, or a lair, or a vulcan who can't lie. I have no idea. In my eyes, that testimony is no better than hearsay.
JD
It's all on the net for all and any that want to know to research for themselves. Or not. 
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
JDawg said:
... Well, some of them are, certainly.There is a calculation regarding that, it's called the Drake Equation - formulated by the astronomer Paul Drake. Can't say as I entirely hold with the fundamental premise of the thing, given as it takes as a stand point the idea that the evolution of a species with our sorts of mental capacities is, necessarily, a guaranteed logical conclusion evolution has in mind - but that aside the math's fundamentally solid.
Pegs the number civilisations out there in the Galaxy at something like 100,000 or so probable. Fundamentally it's been one of the major justifications why SETI as a project has remained up and running for as long as it has.
In general terms under Drake, the odds for life elsewhere in the galaxy, in the broadest possible terms, remain pretty high even with the lowest numbers used.
However, that only remains true when applied in the most general terms possible - the instant anyone starts making demands on the formula, setting distances from Earth within certain parameters for example, the likelihoods for the same outcomes dramatically decrease in probability.
This remains, again, one of the problems UFO Belief imposes - one the one hand the odds for life out there remain reasonable to a little too good to probably be true, but in terms of the distances involved, that hardly matters - UFO Belief, on the other, places so many limitations on those likelihoods in terms of specific beliefs however, instead of remaining high, probabilities in outcome drop to deeply improbable, full stop.
Basically, rather than "opening" minds to further possibilities, UFO Belief in terms of those so far expressed actively reduce possibilities rather than increase or expand them.
One of the many conundrums UFO believers singularly fail to grasp.
Science in general terms doesn't have any real problem with the idea of life existing out there - lamentably, UFO belief in specific places such an astronomically highly unlikely burden on the proposition as to make it ridiculous to contemplate.
Mr Anonymous said:
Oh, I assure you pretty much everyone is hugely weary - except Gustav, and he's not in the slightest bit interested in what you have to say, he's just interested in telling you you're wrong. It doesn't matter what you're discussing, what the subject actually is, you're wrong - that is the nature of discussion on Gustav's part and he's been pulling this trademark brand of crap on everyone.
I read what you had to say. It's perfectly valid and makes perfect sense. A lot of other people are attempting to do the very same and, though fruitless an endeavour as it may be, no doubt will continue to try - but the point is, Gustav isn't the ring master in this tread - you don't have to qualify yourself to him or acknowledge him anyway, shape or form.
Saying your piece and walking away really is the only productive course of action you can take. Sooner or later he'll piss off back to whatever urethra it was he trickled out of and the rest of us can get back to whatever passes as being our day.
Sorry if I'm interjecting or anything, Light, but this has been going on for pages and it's not going to stop until piss face does.
Thank you, Mr. Anon, for your thoughts. And no apology needed.
I dropped into this thread just in passing because it had the lastest current post in the listings. I thought there was a possibility that it might contain something new but without expecting much. And that's just what I found - not much.
That shouldn't be surprising, though, because the topic has pretty well been beaten to death.
I see. Well, I shall do this investigation and get back to you. Of course, as stated above, the answer you provide is a cop-out. You aren't giving me a damn thing except "Look it up yourself," which I will, but it would have been nice to know that you did this research as well, which I suspect you may not have.
I am aware of the Drake Equation, but I'm not exactly sold on it. For the reasons you stated--it makes the assumption that intelligent life is necessary. I am not sure what to think on this subject, but I only know of one intelligent life form, and there are many life forms on this planet. So to say that there must be intelligence elsewhere is something I will not do. So far, the evidence points to intelligence being the exception rather than the rule.
You would think this to be true, and I suppose that it would seem true, but I can't imagine there being a way to calculate distances as variables of probability for intelligent life in the universe. We haven't seen any yet, so what is to say where it is in relation to us? I know we can sort of judge based on our own experience (ie.: the type of star we have, the type of planet we have, the placement of our planet in relation of our sun) but I imagine there are a few near us which would fit those needs.
Maybe I'm wrong.
You're right, and Norval is the poster boy for this sad state of affairs. Crater chains don't happen naturally ever according to our old friend. Rather, every single instance is ancient warfare between alien races in the cosmos. Yes, this is much more likely...
JD
Mr Anonymous said:
and we come to the crux of the matter
the retard's modus operandi
the forum is used as his own personal soapbox
dissension/opposing viewpoints/debate/discussion is not tolerated
a rather intellectually deficient approach
a very cowardly approach
an approach that focuses more on ego and personality than actual intellect
of course, i really expected nothing less
I know you are being serious but you need to stop basing your arguments on logical fallacies if you want others to take you seriously.duendy said:
Actually close minded means "not ready to receive to new ideas". This seems to describe your behaviour.
I'm sure CSICOP don't tend to publish an article unless they have a little bit more than 'i don't know'. However they do publish articles that are inconclusive and/or call for more evidence.
Duendy, what if I said I refused to look at any evidence collected by someone who believed in alien visitation? To use your tone "They have a vested interest! they are just trying to say that ALL sightings are aliens!!" Do you see what an absurd situation that is? You would accuse me of refusing to look at evidence ect ect blinkers ect ect.
When you refuse to look at a csicop article it just sounds like a weak excuse from someone who is scared to see some comments he/she might not like.
Mr Anonymous said:
May I add to this that the human species (with our sort of mental capacity) can barely lift a specimen of its own species into Lower Earth Orbit (LEO).
To extrapolate this capacity to have trouble lifting a single specimen of the species to LEO to make it highly improbable that a alien species with similar mental capacity can bridge the immense gap between stars to play hide and seek with the local species actually exists.
Tell me if I'm wrong, but isn't that exactly what you're doing? You just pretty much accused him of being a retard and a coward, and yet he's the one who can't handle opposing viewpoints?
...Didn't you at one point call me a piece of shit?
Just some food for thought. Er, retard thought.
JDtard
ohhhh, i jest said i did do. now i may be some things....andother tings uually spouted by phlu and jdaaaaawg, but i try NOT to be pretentious. yesi looked and was met wit all kinds of technical jargon. i'm expected to understand all tat? what am i a fukin airline pilot or someting? get real.........so i look in a different way.....look. if you read the link i give you will see that CSIOPS have metaphysical assumptions---a materialist philosophy. THIS very same philosophy gives us te insidious mental health myth which presently is deleteriously affecting millions of people including children. I d not like hose fukin poeple. got it. i do not trust them at all. And do i haveto read the whole fukin Bible to know its false?.........shaman_ said:
JDawg said:
i think it was "filthy fucking pig"
reason was..you accused me of coming at you with shit when i clearly did not
check the historical record
i have endeavoured to address all concerns and questions
what effort have you put in?
go on
check the record
however, i have no quarrel with you.
just the maggot anon
ps; you really do not understand the dynamics of a flame war so.......
Re: Crater chains as evidence of ancient alien wars.
Never heard of that before. But if ET is capable of near-light velocities while travelling, then he doesn’t need to fight with weapons that cause rinky-dink craters. He’s got the ability to control energy releases to the tune of the output of the sun. We can presume that his uncontrolled releases would be even greater still,; meaning that he doesn’t leave crater chains in the wake of his wars, he leaves radioactive debris fields that eventually re-coalesce into a planet…
Right – it’s evidence. And the advantages and disadvantages of such evidence will mirror that used in court in previous years.
It looks to me as if the issue can be secondary to many posters – the real game seems to be the thrill of direct confrontation. Akin to a bar fight – but with more typing and less punching.
People lie in court all the time. It is very rare for anyone to be punished for it.
Your point is actually quite good though – the more disadvantageous for a “witness” to come forward, the more likely it is that they are telling the truth. Cost/benefit analysis can be objectively measured for UFO witnesses, hence a stable and reliable system for “sorting” the high-quality reports should be an achievable goal. In other words, if a witness has great reason not to report a siting, but does so, and if that witness conforms to statistical standards that demand high reliability from past legal precedent, then it constitutes evidence.
Never heard of that before. But if ET is capable of near-light velocities while travelling, then he doesn’t need to fight with weapons that cause rinky-dink craters. He’s got the ability to control energy releases to the tune of the output of the sun. We can presume that his uncontrolled releases would be even greater still,; meaning that he doesn’t leave crater chains in the wake of his wars, he leaves radioactive debris fields that eventually re-coalesce into a planet…
Right – it’s evidence. And the advantages and disadvantages of such evidence will mirror that used in court in previous years.
It looks to me as if the issue can be secondary to many posters – the real game seems to be the thrill of direct confrontation. Akin to a bar fight – but with more typing and less punching.
People lie in court all the time. It is very rare for anyone to be punished for it.
Your point is actually quite good though – the more disadvantageous for a “witness” to come forward, the more likely it is that they are telling the truth. Cost/benefit analysis can be objectively measured for UFO witnesses, hence a stable and reliable system for “sorting” the high-quality reports should be an achievable goal. In other words, if a witness has great reason not to report a siting, but does so, and if that witness conforms to statistical standards that demand high reliability from past legal precedent, then it constitutes evidence.
Mr Anonymous said:
i defy anyone to show me that this is indeed the case
go on
it should be a cakewalk, ja?
Mr Anonymous said:
taking a page out of the crackpot's rulebook and adopting it as a strategy
moral and intellectual bankruptcy is what i see
Mr Anonymous said:
this is plain and simple pathology
the degree of involvement and attachment to this thread is clearly obsessive
perhaps a few symptoms
- *aggressive, competitive, and impatient;
*an inability to relax;
*controlling of themselves, others, and situations;
*indirect in their expression of anger although an apparent undercurrent of hostility is often present;
like looking into a mirror, eh?
Welcome All!
Welcome To the Pseudo Skeptic Social Club
Our Events Today Comprise Of:
*Yak Yak Yak
*Bitching
*Catfight
*Break For KoolAid And Sandwiches
* Butthole Grease
*Anal Probes By Aliens
Welcome To the Pseudo Skeptic Social Club
Our Events Today Comprise Of:
*Yak Yak Yak
*Bitching
*Catfight
*Break For KoolAid And Sandwiches
* Butthole Grease
*Anal Probes By Aliens
Mr Anonymous said:Light said:phlogistician said:Mr Anonymous said:JDawg said:Mr Anonymous said:Mr Anonymous said:Mr Anonymous said:JDawg said:
- Status