Why care about UFOs? [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

UncleBeer

10-01-1999, 01:02 PM

I think I'll start here with a response to what I took as a serious question. It is after all, the Great Debates forum.

I think there are many reasons why people are interested in UFO's, or more likely, IMO, the beings piloting them. The simple answer is just the curious nature of the human race. But if you want to break it down a little bit, consider these:
1) A genuine interest in lifeforms which did not originate on this planet. Perhaps this could be called a biological interest.
2) Personally, I think it would be interesting to see what we could learn from them. I'm not saying UFO's exist, but pending any real proof I believe there are other forms of life in the universe. The real question is whether they have visited us. This appeals more to my technical side.
3) Good old fear. Perhaps people think they are coming to destroy us. Witness all the Hollywood bilge on this topic.
4) If I may be so bold as to bring up the ugly specter of religion, maybe some people are curious to see if the aliens have any more of a clue than we do. Or even perhaps we are just one of their experiments.

Now, off the topic. As I said above, I interpreted BeerUser's question as a serious one. If Wally and C#3 didn't see it that way, maybe they shouldn't have responded. If you guys really want to have another pissing match, please don't do it here. There is a forum designated specifically to vent your spleen.

------------------
One complete set of morals for sale to highest bidder, new in box.

kellibelli

10-01-1999, 01:10 PM

I will respond as if it was a serious question too...

We must as intelligent thinking people constantly stretch our own limits of understanding.

We are curious by nature, if we werent, we would still be eating raw meat in a cave, with 'kilroy' level language skills.

While I agree it would be much more pleasant to merely stick our heads in the sand and quielty go on with our own business, never concerning ourselves with the great questions of ufo's, religion, good & evil, right & wrong, etc, that just isnt human nature.

10-01-1999, 01:27 PM

On a related thread, I believe I responded to a similar question from Polycarp. My main reason for being interested in UFOs is that I believe there are four threats to the survival of the human race, and the possibility of conquest by a hostile extraterrestrial civilization is one.

Polycarp

10-01-1999, 01:29 PM

I'm glad to see that the Beerocracy (Beeruser and UncleBeer) are taking the question seriously. I've always liked the quote that I believe is attributed to Carl Sagan: "Either we're the only intelligent life in the Universe. Or we're not. Either way, it's a sobering thought."

A quick semantic quibble: UFO means "unidentified flying object" and is not synonymous with "flying saucer." May I suggest ETV (extraterrestrial vehicle) when we want a quick and dirty term for "things observed which we want to describe as what aliens are flying"?

Given that, I think we could learn an immense amount from them, even if they are advanced beyond us only in having ETVs. In virtually every social-science field, we are handicapped by having only a single intelligent species to study. The religion issue is, as UncleBeer points out (and which has been dealt with on another thread) obvious. Biology, astrophysics, planetology, you name it: having their data would change our world.

Question: There is an assumption in much science fiction that the more intlligent or advanced race must exercise extreme care in dealing with the less, to avoid instilling a racial psychic inferiority complex. Do you think this is valid?

zoony

10-01-1999, 01:47 PM

Question: There is an assumption in much science fiction that the more intlligent or advanced race must exercise extreme care in dealing with the less, to avoid instilling a racial psychic inferiority complex. Do you think this is valid?

IMO, not only is that a valid consideration, but one which grew out of the whole UFO paranoia biz. Assuming that you're referencing the "Prime Directive" ideal, it would seem to me that the whole inclusion of such an ideal was - like so many other plot derivations of the Star Trek genre - purely the result of media attention to such topics. It was sort of the scriptwriters way of answring the whole UFO question - if there was intelligent life visiting this planet, wouldn't it be nice if they could either be up front about it and "reassure" us that they meant no harm, or be a little more careful about concealing their work.

As far as the idea of instilling an 'inferiority complex', check out the other threads on UFO's and the statements of those who obsess on them. Apparently, DIF worries about the extinction of humanity at the hands of a malevolent, aggressive extra-terrestrial species.

We got more than enough psycho's down here to help along the extinction bit. Seems a little trivial.

Z

------------------
"Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock."
- Will Rogers

10-01-1999, 02:26 PM

Zoony:We got more than enough psycho's down here to help along the extinction bit. Seems a little trivial.

Yeah, but those are the ones I 'worry' about under the 'nuclear war' and 'biological war' headings. I ain't losing any sleep at the moment. I'm more worried about a biological weapon being used. The sudden outbreak of "west Nile virus-like" disease in New York's got me tapping a finger . . .

Polycarp

10-01-1999, 02:33 PM

I wouldn't classify DIF as a "loony" who "obsesses" over it. He's made it clear that he's interested because he sees it as one potential threat. I think that a "dinosaur-killer" asteroid is a significant threat to humanity (and every other species more advanced than the cockroach). If opportunity presents, I let my Congressman know that the proposed sky search to see if any asteroids are on Earth-impact orbits is worth funding. I don't obsess over it. DIF strikes me as taking the same view.

Yeah, the Star Trek Prime Directive. It wasn't my source, though. Heinlein and Jack Williamson, to name two, had written about the idea when Gene Roddenberry was junior assistant prop man (or the equivalent).

Alphagene

10-01-1999, 06:27 PM

I think a lot of people are hoping that the aliens in their ETVs (which sounds eerily like SUV) will gladly hand over their cold fusion and FTL technology. Maybe in exchange for a commodity rare and precious on their planet but common on ours. Like french vanilla pudding or styrofoam peanuts.

What is it about the West-Nile virus epidemic that makes you suspicious, DIF?

tracer

10-01-1999, 06:40 PM

A little bit of insight as to why people want to believe UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft can be found in the nature of the aliens reported by people who have claimed to have seen them (or people who believe others who claim to have seen them). UFO Aliens, almost without exception, are described as belonging to one of two categories:

(1) Vastly intelligent benefactors who have come to Earth to enlighten us or make our wishes come true (although they may feel that we're not yet "ready for" or "worthy of" their gifts), and

(2) Evil conspiratorial creatures who torture innocent victims in their lab experiments and (usually) are secretly in cahoots with various government agencies to hide their existence and/or better prepare the public for their future subjugation.

In both cases, aliens are intensely interested in the affairs of us humans, and in fact have human-like motives themselves.

In short, the two cases described above are virtually indistinguishable from (1) Angels, and (2) Demons.

------------------
Visit the Internet Stellar Database at www.stellar-database.com (http://www.stellar-database.com)

Czarcasm

10-01-1999, 07:05 PM

C#3, just once could you let us know which is the truth?
1. I really believe in U.F.O.'s.
2. I am just jerking everyone's chain because it's the only way I can get people to talk to me.
3. Both.

Clark K

10-01-1999, 10:09 PM

What interests me is the overlap between belief in extraterrestrial visitors and belief in any number of paranormal powers -- from telekinesis to waterwitching.

I mean, believing in the possibility of ETVs makes some sense, I suppose. There are certainly lights in the sky to gawk at and plenty of "witnesses" to believe if you want. And, of course, the whole question of life on other planets is fascinating, so a little of that legitimacy rubs off on the UFO business.

But C3 apparently also believes all kinds of claims about mental powers and such. I just don't see what encourages that kind of faith in the unseen.

So I'm asking seriously, with no intention to insult: C3, do you believe all claims of Mysterious Powers or just those for which you see some kind of proof? If you accept the existence of most such phenomena, does it ever occur to you that you believe because you WANT to and not because there's a good reason?

------------------
Up, up and away!

Clark K

10-01-1999, 10:29 PM

Hey, C#3! Apologies in advance if you're not a believer in all kinds of psychic phenomena. I saw your thread about the Amazing Randi and assumed you believed in the types of things he disproves. But others later in the thread got me to thinking that maybe I had misjudged you.

Sorry about that.

------------------
Up, up and away!

WallyM7

10-02-1999, 12:19 AM

I know, C#3, I just can't help myself. I guess I'm afraid you'll think I'm beaten.

According to your criteria for evidence, silence is acceptance. It's not.

I'm starting to think that maybe it's the number of responses to your posts that matter to you.

David B

10-02-1999, 12:44 AM

Beeruser, if aliens really are visiting our planet, I think that would be a great discovery! Think of what they could tell us! I, for one, would love to see it happen. The problem is that some people confuse what they would like to happen with what actually does happen. So they see a light in the sky and "think" it must be aliens.

So I understand the fascination with the idea, but some people go beyond that to a fascination with nonsense.

GuanoLad

10-02-1999, 08:34 AM

I personally am fascinated in the debunking of UFO claims. And in the truth behind them. That interests me more than the stories themselves, which tend to be very similar these days.

But I do think that it would be pretty damned cool if aliens really were visiting. I'd love to see them.

Markxxx

10-02-1999, 11:30 AM

UFOs cause interest for two reasons.

First of all to those who are religous the lack of them indicates that they are correct. God did create us and we are special to him. If a UFO was proven it would destroy all religious thinking as we know it. Oh I'm sure they would adapt the current line of thinking but it would cause a change in thinking drastically

Second to those non believers we know the world is doomed. Eventually the Sun will expand and consume the earth. There is NO WAY to get around this. Unless we can colonize other planets. If UFOs were real they could provide us a means to continue.

This is why we exist to reproduce. We want to continue. And UFO are a hope.

Contestant #3

10-02-1999, 09:48 PM

I care about UFOs and like to discuss them and to learn more about them. Virtually each week brings more and more sightings and new information to share.

As a topic, UFOs are spicy and a sure crowd-pleaser too...

Heck, I post about a lot of things out here...I offer gift suggestions and ideas for food for picnic lunches...I share about cats, children, etc...

UFOs are but one item that catches my interest. Ironically, the time that I posted about the state-level UCITA proposals that would adversely affect each and every one of us...or the time I attempted to start a dialogue on CAFRs and their very serious implications, I got hardly a response from the SDMB "intellectuals"...go figure...maybe I need to start inter-mingling UFOs with serious topics in order to get at least a little dialogue on the serious stuff.

Possible OPs of the future:

CAFRs and the ramifications...alien plot to tax us into submission?

UCITA?...benefiting greedy UFO software and publishing lords?

------------------
Contestant #3

David B

10-02-1999, 09:54 PM

Maybe you should start by not using acronyms, and explain what CAFRs and UCITA are.

David B

10-03-1999, 12:49 AM

Markxxx said:First of all to those who are religous the lack of them indicates that they are correct. God did create us and we are special to him. If a UFO was proven it would destroy all religious thinking as we know it.I disagree. The only religious folks I have heard who say aliens would contradict their religious beliefs are the literalists. They say there's no mention of aliens in the Bible, so therefore they don't exist. But, from a religious viewpoint, even if God made us and some guys with big grey heads, that doesn't necessarily mean man is any different than he was before.

10-04-1999, 07:42 AM

Alphagene, I'll answer your question, although it really calls for a thread of its own. I'm a little suspicious of the west-Nile virus outbreak because it would make a perfect means of opening a biological war against the U.S., or for testing techniques to use in later, more deadly, attacks. OTOH, with New York being the hub of international travel that it is, perhaps the question might be -- why now, and not a lot sooner? Why have U.S. public health measures apparently worked to keep it out up 'til now, and suddenly there's an outbreak that requires spraying pesticides which are themselves to some extent toxic to humans? And what I mainly wish is that friggin' ABC would stop running feature story after story on the Nightly News, which may only give the idea to someone who hasn't had it yet. If you think Columbine High was bad, imagine an outcast/nerd going to his basement lab and whipping up some variation on typhus and spiking the punch at the senior prom with it. Fifteen years ago, this stuff was cutting-edge; now, anyone with sufficient funds and catalogs can get what he needs FedExed overnight. Digression over.
==========================================
If 'extraterrestrials' turn out to be real, I believe that revealing themselves to us explicitly would be big trouble for most Christian, Jewish, and Islamic sects. Buddhism and Hinduism could probably take the 'blow', since both seem to take such an accepting attitude toward whatever comes, while Christians, Jews, and Muslims start out with the Old Testament and Special Creation. It might finally wipe that smug grin off Jerry Falwell's face.

GuanoLad

10-04-1999, 08:09 AM

CAFR appears to mean Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports.

and UCITA is the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act.

I have no clue as to what they are or what's controversial about them, and frankly I don't care.

As you can probably tell, politics bores the shit out of me. :)

------------------
"So what you are telling me, Percy, is that something you have never seen is slightly less blue than something else that you have never seen."

Polycarp

10-04-1999, 08:58 AM

Ya need to be true-blue American to get the implications of these, GuanoLad. :)

We threw George III and his minions out because he was trying to trespass on our freedoms, particularly by taxing us without giving us a voice on it. About 150 years later we passed an amendment to our constitution permitting "taxes on income from whatever source derived."

The Internal Revenue Service (also called IRS, as well as other things Dave would have to edit out ;)) was for many years evidently taking the attitude that every taxpayer was ipso facto subject to suspicion of cheating on their income taxes. (Supposedly we have a "kinder, gentler IRS" today -- a matter on which I am a bit skeptical.)

If you have a slightly paranoid frame of mind, as both C#3 and I do (not an insult, C#3 -- I'm just saying that we're inclined to see "tendencies" where our more "objective" posters do not), then the IRS requirements to file this-n-that can be seen as highly controversial and unjustified probing into private concerns they need not know.

Have I gotten this one on target?

David B

10-04-1999, 01:08 PM

In relation to the issue of what would happen to religious folks if aliens were discovered, I'm reading the new Carl Sagan biography, by Keay Davidson, and the author makes an interesting point about extraterrestrial life and religious beliefs. Talking about Christians who looked into the sky and saw all the stars in the 17th century, he says, in summarizing their position: "Why would God create myriad planets in space, then fail to populate them? They must by inhabited: what could better demonstrate God's omniscience and infinite creativity? In the nineteenth century, this theme was hammered home by the great Scottish orator Rev. Thomas Chalmers. The astronomy writer Rev. Thomas Dick also frequently speculated about alien life. So tight was the presumed link between extraterrestrial life and Christian revelation that in the 1850s when the famed author William Whewell argued against the existence of aliens, he was accused of encouraging atheists."

------------------
"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."
-- William Kingdon Clifford

tracer

10-04-1999, 02:56 PM

Polycarp wrote:

We threw George III and his minions out because he was trying to trespass on our freedoms, particularly by taxing us without giving us a voice on it. About 150 years later we passed an amendment to our constitution permitting "taxes on income from whatever source derived."

This is one of my favorite topics, because 2-and-a-half years ago I almost fell for the Patriot/Sovereign Citizen/Tax Protestor rhetoric (income tax is voluntary, the 16th amendment wasn't properly ratified, etc.).

It turns out that the 16th amendment didn't give the Federal government any taxing powers that it didn't already have. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to tax anything. Two other clauses in the Constitution, however, require that direct taxes (e.g. property taxes) be apportioned to the states according to their population -- non-direct taxes only have to be uniform throughout the states.

In the 1860s, Congress passed the first Federal income tax. The Supreme Court ruled that it was an indirect tax, and was thus not subject to the apportionment requirement. Income taxes continued to be considered indirect taxes until 1894, when a Supreme Court case named "Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co." flew in the face of all previous Supreme Court decisions by a 5-4 margin, and established that taxes on incomes derived from property were equivalent to a tax on the value of the property itself, and were thus direct taxes subject to the apportionment requirements.

Now, apportionment is a really messy procedure to go through. Direct taxes are hard as heck to "get right", and some wealthy land owner always feels shafted by them even when they are done right. The situation was made worse, though, when taxes on income derived from goods manufactured on property were not considered direct taxes and thus must not be apportioned. The source of the income for tax purposes became an intractable sticking point. The only solution seemed to be a Constitutional Amendment to place taxes on all income, regardless of source, in the category of indirect non-apportioned taxes.

And so, in 1913, such a proposed amendment became ratified as the 16th Amendment to our Constitution.

And if you don't believe me, check out the 1916 Supreme Court case "Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad".

------------------
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.

Polycarp

10-04-1999, 03:20 PM

David B said:
when the famed author William Whewell argued against the existence of aliens, he was accused of encouraging atheists.

And you discount Contestant #3's evidence, and also believe that, at minimum, there is insufficient evidence to suggest the existence of God.

Maybe they had a point! :D

10-04-1999, 08:28 PM

Hey C#3!

I got me one Gen-U-ine Bermuda Triangle/Crop Circle Space\time Warp Detector for sale, right now; at a low, Low , LOW! once in a lifetime sale price!

Oh, sure; it looks like an El Cheapo compass out of a crackerjack box, but don't be fooled! That's what THEY want you to think! The Illuminati Conspiracy! YEAH! THEM! ( Contrary to rumors, "THEM!" does not refer to a movie about creating giant, fictional, mutant ants; rather it discusses a conspiracy to create REAL giant ants. Ask C#3.He can prove it with a website reference....)
C#3, you CAN buy this almost new Space\Time Warp Detector for the bargan price of only $200....payable only in 1943 US Zinc Pennies. Zinc Pennies only this time. I can't take any more Roman Cestercies. Market is flooded....

------------------
We have met the enemy, and He is Us.--Walt Kelly

DrFidelius

10-04-1999, 08:44 PM

I thought the line was "a two-bit trinket from a Cracker Back jox."

Aw, she's no fun, she fell right over.

Doobieous

10-04-1999, 09:59 PM

I'm a little suspicious of the west-Nile virus outbreak because it would make a perfect means of opening a biological war against the U.S., or for testing techniques to use in later, more deadly, attacks.

On the other hand since one of the vectors are birds, perhaps this arrived in a shipment of birds from Africa (private collectors love secretly shipping in birds from other places). Then a mosquito bites it, gets a stomachful of the virus and then transmits it to other birds and other people. A lot of areas spray for pesticides when there are breakouts of harmful pests. Here in California if fruitflies are found, they will spray infested areas by air with pesticides.
I am actually surprised we don't have more of these viruses especially with collectors underhandedly smuggling in exotic animals under the nose of customs officials.

kaylasdad99

10-04-1999, 10:04 PM

As far as the issue of UFOs intersects the more general issue of conspiracy theories, I have always been fond of the hypothesis that if a conspiracy can be _established_ as being carried out and covered up by some mysterious cabal of powerful individuals, it "proves" that our society is not our own to control, that the game is fixed, that our misfortunes, failures, personal failings, and such-like are not the result of anything that we as individuals or groups might have done or chosen. This "means" that we as individuals are not responsible in any way for any conditions we observe that we do not like. It's all a result of what "THEY" are doing, so we don't have to make any inner changes, because what would be the point?
It's not a new idea, either. The Devil is a pretty good example of such a "THEY". In the book "The Snake Oil Wars," (by Parke Godwin) one character was going to be sent to another planet to be the Messiah (don't ask), and he asked if perhaps they shouldn't be sending along a Devil, as well. "Don't worry," he was assured, "They'll provide one on their own. Who wants to believe he's a son of a bitch without help?"
As to Contestant #3, and whether he subscribes to a belief in the paranormal and other topics that might fit under the umbrella of "X-files fodder," I'm not feeling inclined at the moment to do the research, but if the poster who brought up the subject wishes to, he can keep in mind the general ideas stated above, then look for evidence in C-#3's posts that tend to suggest he places credence in more than a couple of conspiracy theories. If the evidence suggests that he does, I would be inclined to guess that by the principle of "can't put anything past those bastards," we could extrapolate that his attitude toward the subject matter of most conspiracy theories does not lean in the direction of the skeptical.
Until such evidence is found, I will presume C-#3 to be generally a responsible skeptic.
To C-#3 (I hope I'm using an acceptable form of abbreviation, and that you'll inform me if I'm not): Please don't think I'm picking on you out of the blue. Unless I'm mistaken you were the OP of a thread on the French UFO Report, in which your original message contained a reference to your hope that a government might finally be coming clean on the UFO issue. You also originated (and re-posted) the threads regarding (1)how we as consumers are being made vulnerable to being taken to the cleaners by software manufacturers, due to proposed (or perhaps it was recently-passed) legislation addressing some form of product liability, and (2) how our governments at every level are hiding their assets from public scrutiny so that they can continue to raise money by taxing us to death. Now, this may only give me the right to say of you "Gee, that guy probably isn't as impressed by governments in general as governments in general would like for us to be," (or it may give me no rights to say anything of you at all; but the world being what it is I have the right to think as I please :) ), but in honesty, I must say that you have not yet been acquitted of being one of those types who thinks of Art Bell's show as a reliable source of news. Or, to satisfy all you constitutional scholars who WILL insist that the rules of jurisprudence must be applied in every human interaction, regardless of its applicability to a court of law, you have not, in my eyes, been -convicted_ of being a free-thinker who makes his own decisions and never jumps to embrace as his own the assertions of any demagogue (such as Mr. Bell and the majority of his guests) before rigorously testing such assertions with data from verifiably unbiased sources.
To C-#3 (and everyone else, for that matter): it may be appropriate for me to state that I am composing this off-line, and that I am not yet skilled enough in this form of composing to be able to save the content except by minimizing the window before I try to re-connect to the web. Furthermore, my three-year old is using the telephone to talk to her auntie as I type. My point is that, while I may have made some factual errors while I have been typing, I am not in a position to check for myself right now. However, you have my word that as soon as I can, I will return to the website to verify any points that I may feel unsure of, and will post recantations (if that's the right word) as soon as possible. If I'm coming off as a mealy-mouthed back-pedaller with that last bit, feel free to let me know (as though I'd be able to inhibit you -- great, dude, now you're being a mealy-mouthed sycophant). I am hoping to establish a reputation as a reasonably erudite smartass, and I'll take instruction in that field from whatever experts I can find :) .

------------------
Time to change the signature line; my cover's been blown . . .

kaylasdad99

10-04-1999, 10:23 PM

Gotta add a bit more; please bear with me.
Daniel p, I never thought I'd use such a cliched (somebody put an accent mark over the "e" for me, please) acronym, but LOL. I guess that'll teach me to spend two hours composing a reply, then posting it without looking to see what's been going on.
BTW, I meant to continue in my last paragraph (although you're probably glad I didn't) that I was not willing to lose all of the text I had written, and have to start from scratch.
Can somebody direct me to a good tutorial on the UBB? I need to start using some font modifiers.

------------------
Time to change the signature line; my cover's been blown . . .

David B

10-04-1999, 10:42 PM

Kaylasdad said:Until such evidence is found, I will presume C-#3 to be generally a responsible skeptic.Wow! Of all the things C3 has been called, I'm pretty sure this is the first for that particular one.

As far as what you said about him and Art Bell, well, an Art Bell subject was one of the first times I remember seeing C3 post -- and, yes, he was in favor of some of the nuts who were on the show. Similarly, he has advanced claims that no responsible skeptic would advance. And now he'll come back and flame me for pointing this out to you. So you can ignore what I say if you'd like, and I encourage you to reach your own conclusion. But I strongly suspect you won't consider him a "responsible skeptic" for long. :)

Contestant #3

10-04-1999, 11:40 PM

David,

Don't be so extreme. Not every single guest on the Art Bell programs is a kook or charlatan. Nor do I buy into every guest of Art Bell. To characterize me and/or the AB program that way is as dishonest as it is incorrect because I know that you know better.

I'll agree with you that "responsible skeptic" is giving me more credit than deserved, but a lot of the time in the stuff that I post I ask what others think about it and I've attempted to get others to peruse the same data that has led to my post.

I'm sorry to observe that on too many occcasions, people such as yourself knee-jerk react with EXTREME skepticism without even having read or listened to the material I present. I usually start shooting back with devil's advocate arguements which piss you off and lead to my labeling.

------------------
Contestant #3

Czarcasm

10-05-1999, 02:33 AM

The trouble with conspiracy theorists per se is that any evidence against the "conspiracy" is deemed to be part of a cover-up. Can't find a report that some-one said proves their point? "They" hid it! Can't find the u.f.o. that the aliens came in? "They" buried it! Can't find the aliens themselves? "They" killed them! People aren't kicked out of the military because of poor performance and silly beliefs, they are kicked out because the "conspiracy" has decided that they know too much! Every nut-case is a self proclaimed expert, and every every telephone call from lonely, self-delusional people to a late night radio show is called evidence. A lot of people who can't make it in the real world trade "can you top this?" stories with each other, feeding the frenzy and perpetuating the illusion that they are on top of some great S*E*C*R*E*T!

David B

10-05-1999, 08:29 AM

Just saw this over on the Skeptic News site ( www.skepticnews.com (http://www.skepticnews.com) ) and thought it amusing enough to post an excerpt here. The person who wrote in saw it on a news show in Chicago about a month ago (the Skeptic News is getting caught up from a hiatus while the webmaster was on vacation).

"In the piece, a standard UFO videotape was shown, a bright light dancing about, low on the horizon, appearing and disappearing. Then they related how the videographer decided to try to find the source of the lights. He drove in that direction and came upon the source:

A billboard with floodlights pointing up to the sky. Bugs were attracted to the lights, which attracted birds, who swooped over the billboard. As the birds flew over the lights, their bodies apparently reflected enough light to make an instant UFO (from a distance). Case closed."

David B

10-05-1999, 09:35 AM

C3 said:Not every single guest on the Art Bell programs is a kook or charlatan.Never said they were. Don't try to argue against things I never said. As far as Art, even a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn (although in his case it's mostly just nuts).Nor do I buy into every guest of Art Bell.Again, never said you did. You might consider reading what I wrote before arguing against it. I very clearly said, "he was in favor of some of the nuts who were on the show." And you accuse me of knee-jerking?To characterize me and/or the AB program that way is as dishonest as it is incorrect because I know that you know better.What's dishonest here is your obvious straw man -- claiming I said something that I never did say.I'll agree with you that "responsible skeptic" is giving me more credit than deservedFinally, something we can agree on!I'm sorry to observe that on too many occcasions, people such as yourself knee-jerk react with EXTREME skepticism without even having read or listened to the material I present.You assume too much. Just because we don't have time to listen to a particular Art Bell net broadcast doesn't mean we don't know what we're talking about. Meanwhile, it's rather hypocritical of you to claim we respond that way when you repeatedly refuse to answer legitimate questions directed at your claims.I usually start shooting back with devil's advocate arguements which piss you off and lead to my labeling.If you're gonna be the devil's advocate, don't be surprised when you're accused of being evil. If you're going to post pro-UFO nonsense and refuse to answer legitimate questions, and then respond nastily to people who question you, it's no wonder you're labeled as a troll. If you want to play devil's advocate, label it as such. Others do. The way you act, however, makes it look like you are an anti-rational-thought troll, and that is the light in which I will personally continue to see you until you show otherwise.

10-05-1999, 09:35 AM

Doobieous:. . . perhaps this arrived in a shipment of birds from Africa (private collectors love secretly shipping in birds from other places). Then a mosquito . . . transmits it to other birds and other people. A lot of areas spray for pesticides when there are breakouts of harmful pests. Here in California if fruitflies are found, they will spray infested areas by air with pesticides.

A good point, Doobie, but from everything I've read and heard, there's been no indication of a foreign bird being 'Patient Zero'. I'm inclined to think if the health services had discovered this, they'd be quick to say so; one, to make themselves look more 'on the case', and two, to allay fears that it is the opening shot of a biowar attack.

On the other other hand, imagine a scenario where foreign terrorists already in the U.S. simply go out into the open country around New York, use a snare net to capture a flock of crows, inject them with the virus, and then release the flock. If someone comes along while they're doing it, they just say they're testing a new form of contraception to be used in controlling avian pests like crows & starlings.

If you want to continue this, let's do it under a separate thread.
============================================
Dr. Fidelius: Lemme guess - You were the punk in the Anselmo Pederaste Case, weren't you? No need to deny it! Your silence speaks volumes!
============================================
David B: Your point is valid, but only as it regards eighteenth century attitudes. A lot of them have changed since then; although it must be admitted that 'anti-evolutionism' as an expression of religiosity has raised its Cerberus-like noggins again. It's always going to be easier to think of 'extraterrestrials' as 'our undiscovered brothers and sisters in Christ' as long as you think there's also no way they're ever going to be a voice at the end of a very long, slow, dialogue. It would be an entirely different state of affairs if a majority of people began to see reasons for thinking their 'space brothers' are right here, right now, and think of humanity as a vast experimental pool of 'superKokos' to be treated with the same disdain we have for the average Norwegian rat.

The Roman Catholic Church might have a slightly different reaction, due to their long support of intellectual attainment (despite the occasional Galileo case), but I wonder how they'd handle it if the aliens landed and claimed the planet in the name of God and 'Pope Kodos the First'.

I also fail to see what point you were trying to make with that silly straw man 'example' UFO sighting. So, you've shown that a 'UFO sighting' was really just birds darting after insects in the beam of floodlights. So what? You always seem to choose the easiest cases to 'debunk' -- and to imply that they're all just as easy. Like they say here, some people churn for the sake of the butter, and some only churn for the sake of the froth.

David B

10-05-1999, 09:36 AM

Incidentally, as an example, was your post about Riley G and Randi an example of you playing "devil's advocate"? It sure looked like you trolling because you dislike the way the skeptics keep shooting down your pet beliefs.

10-05-1999, 09:50 AM

Damn! I hate when that happens. That should have been "they're never going to be anything else but a voice". My bad!

manhattan

10-05-1999, 10:07 AM

DIF sez: On the other other hand, imagine a scenario where foreign terrorists already in the U.S. simply go out into the open country around New York, use a snare net to capture a flock of crows, inject them with the virus, and then release the flock.The virus we face is, in the scheme of things, pretty mild stuff. Most people who get infected never know it. Terrorists could make more trouble by stealing and misusing the unguarded 55-gallon drums of malathion and anvil (sp?) that one of the local news stations tracked down last night in Queens. My money is on a legit exotic bird brought into the Bronx zoo. If you want to start a thread, I'll follow. But I won't post a list of the best ways for terrorists to operate in my city. ;)

------------------
Livin' on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

kaylasdad99

10-05-1999, 10:42 AM

David,
I just finished reading page 1 of the thread "Who killed JonBenet Ramsey?" and I see your point.

------------------
Time to change the signature line; my cover's been blown . . .

kaylasdad99

10-05-1999, 10:46 AM

Oops.
Delete "killed", substitute "murdered".
That is all.

------------------
Time to change the signature line; my cover's been blown . . .

David B

10-05-1999, 10:58 AM

Incidentally, that short message was supposed to appear directly below my longer one, but DIF snuck in. It was directed at C3, not DIF.

DIF said:It's always going to be easier to think of 'extraterrestrials' as 'our undiscovered brothers and sisters in Christ' as long as you think there's also no way they're ever going to be a voice at the end of a very long, slow, dialogue.True. I just thought it was an interesting counterpoint to those who assumed discovery of aliens would destroy all religion as we know it.I wonder how they'd handle it if the aliens landed and claimed the planet in the name of God and 'Pope Kodos the First'.I suspect they'd fight against the "false Pope."I also fail to see what point you were trying to make with that silly straw man 'example' UFO sighting.Was I trying to make a point? Hmmm, didn't realize it. I thought I was just posting an amusing UFO-related blurb I'd come across and that I thought some people would get a kick out of. I must say that I was surprised this was actually covered on the nightly news, but that's about it. Now, if you would like to read more into it, we could notice that some other UFO reports might end up having a similar explanation. But that's up to you.

David B

10-05-1999, 01:04 PM

DIF said:Were you directing the counterpoint to me?No, I was directing it at Markxxx, who had said: "If a UFO was proven it would destroy all religious thinking as we know it." But you could have found that out if you read back in the thread...As for what the Catholics would do, I think it would come to what you say, but the next question would be, which Pope? Suppose 'Pope Kodos' would allow for female priests, married priests, contraception, etc., claiming a 'superior message' from God and citing his/her?/its more elevated position as justification, in much the same way the Church itself justified the extermination of Native American religions?Which Pope? Both, probably. There would likely be some sort of schism, with some Catholics believing in the new alien pope, and some continuing to believe in the old earth pope. It would be an interesting study in sociology to watch.I took your 'point' to be that you thought it was amusing. Which it wasn't, it just kind of lays there.Well, gosh. I'm sooooo sorry. From now on I promise to run all possibly amusing posts by you to check on your humor scale, since you are obviously the arbiter of what is or is not amusing.

10-06-1999, 12:06 AM

DavidB:True. I just thought it was an interesting counterpoint to those who assumed discovery of aliens would destroy all religion as we know it.

Were you directing the counterpoint to me? I think my comment was limited to saying it would be 'big trouble', not that it would 'destroy' all religion AWKI. Certainly, it would change it radically.

As for what the Catholics would do, I think it would come to what you say, but the next question would be, which Pope? Suppose 'Pope Kodos' would allow for female priests, married priests, contraception, etc., claiming a 'superior message' from God and citing his/her?/its more elevated position as justification, in much the same way the Church itself justified the extermination of Native American religions?

Was I trying to make a point? Hmmm, didn't realize it. I thought I was just posting an amusing UFO-related blurb . . .

I took your 'point' to be that you thought it was amusing. Which it wasn't, it just kind of lays there. So, some bumpkin misidentifies a light and then finds out it was, indeed, a light. Thud. Where's the punchline? The fact that some local tv station seized upon it as a filler-feature says far less about the UFO phenomenon than it does about the desperate state of local television news. What, no local basketball games that night?

10-06-1999, 08:20 AM

DavidB said:No, I was directing it at Markxxx, who had said: "If a UFO was proven it would destroy all religious thinking as we know it." But you could have found that out if you read back in the thread...

Poor, poor, put-upon DavidB -- it must sometimes be a real strain trying to come up with ways to score some typically petty dig while technically staying 'within the lines' of being a moderator.

So, what now? Everyone who replies to one of your postings, when it contains a half-assed obscure reference to a previous message, has to re-read the whole thread? Yeah, right -- or you could simply C&P the line you're to which you're responding, which you clearly know how to do . . .

I'll resist the urge to C&P your "I'm sooooo sorry" line and say that it would make a good summation of your entire life. :)

As for your promise 'to run all possibly amusing posts by you' -- naw, David, no need for that. Just run them by the nearest average plant, because it would have a better sense of humor than you display, and know that your 'amusing UFO-related blurb' was neither amusing or particularly informative. All it truly was, was another feckless attempt to say, in effect,"There! You see how easy UFO sightings are to debunk! And they're all just that easy!"

For real hilarity, people could try reading some of the tortuous 'explanations' Phillip Klass has come up with for sightings over the years . . .

You don't prove anything by hitting the slow pitches, David.

Czarcasm

10-06-1999, 06:36 PM

You just don't get it, Dif. It is not up to David B, me, or anyone else to disprove anything. Every time it is done, you will pop up with,"Well, that just disproves THAT example, not this one!". If you are going to make an incredible claim, that an alien intelligence has travelled an incredible distance and in all likelihood has defied the known laws of physics to do so, it is up to YOU to prove it. If you don't have the proof, please go away, because we already have an overabundance of gullible "true believers".

tracer

10-06-1999, 09:21 PM

And not only can these aliens cross trillions of miles of empty space and routinely defy Newton's laws of motion, but they're also too stupid to know how to stay out of Earth's atmosphere.

Funny, too, that they usually choose to reveal themselves to people whom no one is likely to believe anyway.

------------------
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.

10-07-1999, 01:47 PM

No, STUPID, you don't get it, and never will, so why don't you go find another butt to crawl up? There's all kinds of valid, verified, reliable photographic evidence, from still photos to film to videotape, of UFOs that prove incontrovertibly that these things exist and are seen over every continent, virtually every day. It's for you and other denialists to come up with genuine proof (and not carefully selected 'examples' that wouldn't convince anyone) that they're just some sort of 'natural phenomenon' that's existed throughout thousands of years of human civilization without ever re-appearing in the same place under the same conditions.

The proof is there, for anyone with a truly open mind (and not one that's already been filled with garbage). All you can offer is 'scoffistry'!

Polycarp

10-07-1999, 02:00 PM

Absolutely, DIF. There is not a soul on this board that does not accept the existence of UFOs.

The question at issue is, are they ETVs (see my post on p.1 of this thread)?

David and numerous others, for their own reasons, are enormously skeptical of this idea. My impression is that you, C#3, and a few others, buy into the idea.

I'm neutral. I don't need ETVs for anything. It would be wonderful if they did prove out to be real. And I've seen enough phenomena that can only be "explained away" by contorted logic to allow that some UFOs could be ETVs.

But, on balance, I'd have to say that, yes, the burden is on those alleging that some UFOs are ETVs to prove their case, and against some strong skepticism, because what we know to date militates against the likelihood of interstellar voyages. This does not rule them out, but it does make them improbable. And the improbable requires a bit more evidence to be accepted than does the fairly likely.

If you told me a black-and-white-striped donkey-like animal had been seen west of Palm Beach, I would assume a zebra had escaped from Lion Country Safari as my working hypothesis. If you told me a twenty-foot bipedal lizardlike creature had been seen there, my working hypothesis would involve the intoxication of the observers, or something else that would impugn the veracity of their observation.

Matter of likelihood.

10-07-1999, 02:30 PM

Polycar: There is not a soul on this board that does not accept the existence of UFOs.

I'm not at all sure I'd agree with that assessment, Poly. DavidB & his princelings seem pretty set in denying even the possibility they could be anything other, in absolutely 100% of all cases, than misidentifications. That is not what I'd typify as accepting the existence of UFOs.

As for what I believe about them -- I will ask you to retrace the several threads that have been generated on the subject to which I've posted. I think if you do, you'll see that I have, several times, taken pains to make it clear I don't claim to know exactly what they are; if I occasionally referred to them as 'extraterrestrial vehicles', it was only within the immediate context of the dialogue that was going on; I prefer to refer to them as NFOs (nonidentifiable flying objects) to differentiate them distinctly from the countless misidentifications that clearly do take place. However, you can see how far that got me. I don't 'buy into' any idea other than that they exist, and they are unlike any other natural phenomenon science has discovered and, ultimately, been able to explain. That they should remain unexplained, given the heights which human intellect and technology and the natural sciences have achieved, indicates to me a clear case for believing that, whatever they are, whoever (if anyone) is apparently piloting them, wherever they come from, it ain't from these here parts. That makes them, in the most technical sense, 'extraterrestrial'. It doesn't mean they're necessarily time-travelers, trans-dimensional, interstellar, whatever. It just means they [b]ain't[b/] us.

As for 'need' -- who the hell needs UFOs?! It might be wonderful if they're real -- assuming that you mean by 'they', their occupants -- and if they're really friendly. I can think of several scenarios where they might not be.
But do I 'need' them? I'd be pleased as hell if they'd all, one day, just suddenly stop showing up, anywhere in the world . . .

Well, no, not actually pleased as hell. Actually, a sudden total lack of sightings for an extended period would have its own set of attendant worrisome thoughts. Maybe if they gradually petered out to nothing, okay.

. . .what we know to date militates against the likelihood of interstellar voyages. This does not rule them out, but it does make them improbable.

Hmmmm. Not trying to rag on ya, guy, but don't you mean "what we think we know"?

And please -- don't confuse this issue with any others, like cryptozoology and the like. This is just this, this is not about that, or that, or that other thing there . . .This is just this.

And would you put that goddam gun away and stop wavin' it around!!!!

Polycarp

10-08-1999, 08:00 AM

DIF, my sincere apologies. I should have recalled your NFO statements, and mis-remembered a C#3 assertion as yours, and consider myself foolish for having done so.

Okay, then, let us pose the question to the skeptic contingent: Making clear that we are not assuming anything about their nature, is it correct to say that a percentage of unidentified flying object sightings are not explicable by information available at present, and it would require the sort of twisted reasoning that a fundamentalist would apply to the data for evolution to explain those particular sightings? In short, are DIF's NFOs (which he defines as nonidentifiable flying objects, italics being mine, not his) a valid concept?

Are there, in short, more things in heaven and earth than are explained by your philosophy?

pldennison

10-08-1999, 09:48 AM

"David B. and his princelings"? Oh, that's priceless. You know, with paranoiac ranting like that, you almost completely sacrifice the right to be taken seriously. You think I had no opinion on the matter before I ever heard of David Bloomberg? Puh-leeze. Well, I suppose that makes you C#3's mouthpiece.

Anyway, Polycarp, I'm willing to come down on the side of nonidentified flying objects, but not nonidentifi[i]able ones. One does not imply the other. And, in any case, as I've said before, I take issue with DIF saying "Occam's Razor comes down firmly on the side of extraterrestrial spacecraft." I don't think it's nearly as firm as he would like it to be; and as I mentioned, it's an explanation that explains nothing.

SpoonsJTD

10-08-1999, 10:30 AM

DIF said:
No, STUPID, you don't get it, and never will, so why don't you go find another butt to crawl up?

The debating skills shown in this statement almost scared me away from entering into this thread. Almost.

DIF said:
There's all kinds of valid, verified, reliable photographic evidence, from still photos to film to videotape, of UFOs that prove incontrovertibly that these things exist and are seen over every continent, virtually every day. It's for you and other denialists to come up with genuine proof (and not carefully selected 'examples' that wouldn't convince anyone) that they're just some sort of 'natural phenomenon' that's existed throughout thousands of years of human civilization without ever re-appearing in the same place under the same conditions.

First, do you have 'still photos to film to videotape' from 'thousands of years' ago that 'prove incontrovertibly that these things exist'? I'd love to see those.

Second, I would assert that when two people disagree with the explanation of an event that is not simply explained, the burden of proof is on the party whose explanation requires the most deviation from the scientific principles that we accept. Moreover, considering the number of these sightings that have been explained 'incontrovertibly' with an accepted scientific explanation, and, to my knowledge, not one of these sightings has ever been proven to be extra-terrestrial in origin, that further places the burden of proof on those who claim the latter.

Have you considered just how difficult it would be to prove that something shown in 'still photos to film to videotape' is not extra-terrestrial with no evidence to analyze except the film? I would assert that it would be even more difficult, if not impossible, to prove from this same evidence that it WAS extra-terrestrial.

The large numbers of these phenomena you refer to and the fact that science can not explain them away (from lack of evidence or whatever) does in NO way prove your case that they are extra-terrestrial. It merely shows that there are UFO's. Why you seem to think the burden of proof is on the skeptics to disprove an outlandish claim made from no hard evidence baffles me.

David B

10-08-1999, 10:35 AM

DIF said:No, STUPID, you don't get it, and never will, so why don't you go find another butt to crawl up?You haven't learned yet that this type of behavior is unacceptable? Either cool it or watch your messages get deleted again. It's that simple.

--------
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator

Occam

10-08-1999, 10:36 AM

I guess I just can't imagine a superior intelligent species travelling light-years across galaxies to joyride in an atmosphere of a planet filled with goofballs.

10-11-1999, 11:55 AM

Polycarp: Once again, effusive thanks for demonstrating the commendable openness of mind you display on numerous other threads. I take it you've noticed that, as of this morning, no really substantive answer has been made to your final question? As pldennison makes clear, all he can truly do is quibble about virtually indistinguishable differences between words.
============================================
pldennison: What, thou a princeling? Nay, thou Churlish One, didst I invoke thy name? Thou wouldst mayhap have preferred the sobriquet running dogs?

Far be it from me to kick a man when he's down (especially when he's got a freakin' bionic leg to come back with. :)

I don't recall every specifically using the word 'firmly', and this isn't a quibble, since that significantly changes the import of the sentence. If I did, okay, I hereby withdraw the word, and maintain the rest of the statement.

As for the difference between 'nonidentified' and 'nonidentifiable'-- it would take more than Occam's razor to split that hair. So, if I'm understanding you, you're saying that everything, 100%, bar none that is currently classified as a UFO, which has not subsequently yielded to any conventional explanation, is nevertheless identifiable, awaiting only whatever progress Science may make in the future and thereby provide an explanation? And how long, pray tell, must we be reasonably expected to wait to classify it otherwise?

As for 'an explanation that explains nothing' -- to deny that these things are in some way nonterrestrial is, in effect, to assert that they are terrestrial. If they are, you provide an explanation. Otherwise, you're just whistling past the graveyard.
============================================
Spoonie: What, you call that fillip of flatulence sarcasm. Why, you little noodling, if you think that's sarcasm, you better keep your distance from people like Kellibelli, ChiefScott, Big Iron, Contestant#3, et al.

Assert whatever you want, Bunkie. Since it is obvious from your mention of my use of 'incontrovertibly' that you haven't made even so minimal an effort as to read the posts on this very page, and therefore know what I'm talking about, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. I assert right back that, in the situation you put forth, the burden of proof is exactly equal. As for the extent of your knowledge, the depth of your obvious ignorance of the subject is inversely proportional to the shallowness of your thought about it.
As for baffling you -- that wasn't hard, I did it without even trying.

Come back when you have terrestrial explanations for every UFO ever sighted.
Because, despite whatever whining denialists ever do on the subject, that is where the burden of proof lies for those who assert such a thing.
============================================
Occam, I think you're onto something there:
[quote]I guess I just can't imagine . . .[/i]

SpoonsJTD

10-11-1999, 01:14 PM

DIF said:
Spoonie: What, you call that fillip of flatulence sarcasm. Why, you little noodling, if you think that's sarcasm, you better keep your distance from people like Kellibelli, ChiefScott, Big Iron, Contestant#3, et al.

I didn't realize that the goal here was to out-use each other with sarcasm. I use sarcasm to make a point.

DIF said:
Assert whatever you want, Bunkie. Since it is obvious from your mention of my use of 'incontrovertibly' that you haven't made even so minimal an effort as to read the posts on this very page, and therefore know what I'm talking about, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
[/QUOTE}

I apologize if its difficult to synthesize your points and arguments from the general name calling and other pointless blather found in your posts.

[QUOTE]I assert right back that, in the situation you put forth, the burden of proof is exactly equal.

I at least explained why I made my assertion and still believe it is logically sound. Perhaps instead of just making blind assertions, you could provide points to back those up? I don't think that is too much to ask in a forum called 'Great Debates.'

As for the extent of your knowledge, the depth of your obvious ignorance of the subject is inversely proportional to the shallowness of your thought about it.

Perhaps you should stick to the name calling rather than trying to use a mathematical reference to describe my 'depth of ignorance' and 'shallowness of thought' which I am assuming you think are both large. I'm fairly certain to achieve the effect of suggesting these are both large, you should have stated that they were directly proportional. I only bring this up because you at least show great potential for being good at insulting, and barely a spec of potential for being a good debater, and I'm a firm believer that everyone should try to reach full potential at those things they seem to be somewhat adept at.

As for baffling you -- that wasn't hard, I did it without even trying.

Hardly something to brag about.

Come back when you have terrestrial explanations for every UFO ever sighted.
Because, despite whatever whining denialists ever do on the subject, that is where the burden of proof lies for those who assert such a thing.

For sake of argument, we can agree that all UFO's are either terrestrial or extra-terrestrial. I assert that 'No UFO's to date are extra-terrestrial.' This is equivalent to 'All UFO's to date are terrestrial.' You assert that 'All UFO's to date are not terrestrial.' This is equivalent to 'One or more UFO's to date are extra-terrestrial.' You can assert all you want that proving these two points have equal burden of proof. You say to prove all UFO's are terrestrial, I say to prove that one is extra-terrestrial. Considering that science tries to work within the realm of possibility, _you_ actually have the easier task.

I should note that I do not deny the possibility of extra-terrestrial life. I actually believe that there is. I do not believe, however, that any of the UFO's reported to date were extra-terrestrial in origin, which I believe is supported by the current scientific evidence to date, logical arguments notwithstanding.

If my assumption about what you are asserting is incorrect, feel free to correct me DIF. Since you provided no specific examples of what I said that caused you to believe that I hadn't read any prior posts, I would welcome a further explanation.

10-11-1999, 01:46 PM

First, Phil, a word of advice: decaf.

Second, I am not asserting that they must be nonterrestrial simply because they are nonidentified, and remain nonidentifiable by any present, fair-minded, rational means. I am asserting that it is reasonable to presume (until evidence otherwise is found) that they do not originate on this planet because they behave in ways no terrestrial, conventional flying object has ever been known to behave, or even will be able to behave, in the foreseeable future. Nor can any sensible arguments be put forth to explain why, if they're terrestrial, the builders haven't made themselves known.

Yet you continue to insist that they cannot be nonterrestrial because that's 'impossible'. Therefore -- is this not a fair conclusion? -- you are saying, in effect, that they must all be terrestrial, no exceptions.

If my worry about the ultimate intentions of whatever/whoever is behind UFOs 'colors my perception' of these things, it certainly does so no more or less than your quasi-fundamentalist 'faith' in the inviolability of natural law as we currently perceive it.

As for your questions, I had intended to answer them, but by the time I had the time to get back to the particular thread, the conversation had moved so far along, the immediate topic had shifted. But, here goes, for what it's worth:How do abductees travel between star systems with no relativistic effects?
To quote someone else you may recognize:How the hell should I know? Do I look like a prognosticator?

If I could come up with the technology to do what 'they' do, you think I'd be dicking around an internet message board with hardheads like you? (I'd be hovering outside the freakin' library windows during the next meeting of REALL, for one thing! :))

Polycarp, if you read this, check me: did I say I absolutely think 'they' (and you know who I mean) are necessarily interstellar? I don't even know that there is a 'they', but if others who claim to have had encounters say there are beings involved, I am at least willing to listen without prejudice.

Why do so many sightings resemble things Hollywood SFX guys came up with 40 years ago, and indeed resemble what pulp mag cover artists come up with 80 years ago?

Correct me if I'm wrong in my attribution, but aren't you the guy who attacked post hoc, ergo propter hoc logic on another thread, or was it David, and you simply agreed with him? But now it's suddenly a legitimate point?

One man's 'speculation' is another man's Nobel Prize. It may all just be speculation, but then so is your insistence that all UFOs are ultimately explainable. Insisting that they must be explainable, even though they have remained unexplained after years of investigation and research, also explains nothing.

You act as if saying "Now what?" ends the discussion. If the working hypothesis is that these things are nonterrestrial in origin, now we investigate by every means available, and we look for new means of investigation. As for proof, there are literally shelves and shelves and cabinet upon cabinet of proof, both in the form of photographic evidence and in the testimony of almost countless impeccable eyewitnesses that include people to whom we entrust the nation's defense and society's protection. All of which means nothing to you, only because your mind is immutably closed on the subject.

I don't want to prove they're ET spaceships. I just want you to prove that they are all terrestrial in origin; that is what your stance ultimately requires of you, which you manifestly can't do and will never be able to do.

Polycarp

10-11-1999, 01:59 PM

I want to try to find some level ground for us to pursue this on, since it appears that we may actually be getting somewhere if the proportion of heat to light can be kept to a reasonable level.

Here are some assertions:
1. There are flying objects which have not as yet been identified. I think everyone agrees on this.
2. There are hoaxes, errors of observation, misinterpretations of data, and other phenomena which account for a fair share of the otherwise unexplained phenomena, but not all of it. This seems safe to assume. C#3, who seems the least skeptical of our UFO posters, has IIRC accepted this.
3. Some unexplained sightings include phenomena that appear to preclude natural explanation, such as improbably rapid turns in flight.

Okay. DIF appears to be saying that these last are "nonidentifiable" in the sense that nothing known to man could have caused them. Phil appears to be saying otherwise... that there is a "natural" explanation not involving things not now known to man. Have I interpreted your posts right?

4. Explanations of these phenomena include:
Fortean phenomena Extraterrestrial visitations Visitations from other universes Misinterpretations of data Unknown natural processes
Am I in error here, and have I omitted any major category (whether or not you accept it as a probability)?

5. Occam's Razor is not a sure guide to an explanation. But it does place the onus of proof on the theorist whose theory requires the greater number of or the less probable assumptions. Does anyone have a problem with this? (E.g., if I read a post alleging itself to be from TubaDiva, it is more likely that there is a real TubaDiva posting it than that a hypothetical Satan is messing with my mind. Although Satan is verifiable, given where I live and work, and the probability of a lady tuba virtuoso stretches my credulity.... ;))

Okay, given all this:
The least improbable explanation, the one requiring the fewest assumptions, is that data were consciously or unconsciously misinterpreted. The probability of the existence of additional natural laws explaining the observed phenomena cannot be estimated, but would in theory be testable, once hypotheses are mounted to explain the data. The probability of extraterrestrial visitations cannot be reliably evaluated, but based on our current knowledge of physical law is tentatively low. (I think that the skeptics would allow that there are strong potentials for the exploitation of "loopholes" available in current natural law, and the discovery of new law. Simultaneously, the pro-ETV advocates would have to allow that the likelihood of ETVs which operate on known mechanisms is quite low. We have no propulsive forces nor operator support devices which would allow for the operation of ETVs that do aerial broken-field runs like rabbits evading beagles. In the absence of reliable evidence for intrauniversal movement (by anything, be it subatomic particle or ETV), the whole multiple universes concept, including ETVs as interuniversal transports, must be relegated to a very low priority. Fortean "explanations" explain nothing.

tracer

10-11-1999, 05:51 PM

"Purple unicorns exist" is not a scientific statement, because it cannot be falsified. "Purple unicorns do NOT exist" is a scientific statement, because it can be falsified by catching a purple unicorn."

Similarly, "extraterrestrial spacecraft exist" is not a scientific hypothesis, because it cannot be falsified. "Extraterrestrial spacecraft do NOT exist" is a scientific hypothesis, because it can be falsified by catching an extraterrestrial spacecraft."

Until someone catches an extraterrestrial spacecraft, saying that they do not exist is a scientifically valid theory.

------------------
Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.

pldennison

10-12-1999, 12:33 AM

No, I'm sorry, DIF, you're asserting that these things must be nonterrestrial only because they have not been identified. We both know it simply doesn't work that way.

Furthermore, you've stated before that invasion by an alien lifeform is one of your fears for the destruction of humanity. Don't you think that might color your perception of what these things might and might not be?

Furthermore, neither you nor C#3 have answered any of my legitimately posed questions either. How do abductees travel between star systems with no relativistic effects? Why do so many sightings resemble things Hollywood SFX guys came up with 40 years ago, and indeed resemble what pulp mag cover artists come up with 80 years ago? If you have no answers for these questions, it is indeed an explanation that explains nothing. It's all just speculation.

Let's work with your assertion--they're nonterrestrial. Now what? You act as if you have proof for all of these assertions, but you have none. Zip. Zero. Nada. Nothing but your own perceptions. So what do you want us to do about them? We can't match their super hi-tech gravity-and-intertia-defying propulsion systems; can't even find their radio traffic, let alone decode it; can't see where they're hiding and staging from. So what do you want us to do?

"Denialists," "whistling past the graveyard" . . . you sit there as if you have incontrovertible proof of anything, yet you have nothing. But in order to disguise the fact, you want "denalists" to prove that they aren't ET spaceships. You want to shift the burden of proof to them from yourself. When will science have explanations for all of them? How the hell should I know? Do I look like a prognosticator? It hardly matters, as you would be inclined to reject any scientific explanation anyway.

10-12-1999, 08:31 AM

Polycarp - Point 1: agreed; point 2: agreed; point 3: agreed. On the summaries, I just want to be sure that you didn't use a double negative by error in describing Phil's position, so to re-state it somewhat differently, Phil appears to assert that all otherwise unexplained/unexplainable UFOs could nonetheless be explained in terms of currently understood scientific principles if sufficient effort were made. I'd concur with your summary of my viewpoint.

On point 4, bullet #1, I'd like you to specify 'Fortean phenomena' a bit -- do you refer to things like 'rains' of frogs, rocks, etc.? I don't recall ever reading anyone 'explaining' UFOs in a similar way. I'd summarize bullets #2 & #3 under one, since anything 'interdimensional' would, by definition, also be extraterrestrial, along with anything either interplanetary or interstellar. Bullet #5 I have no problem with. Bullet #4: since I include misinterpretations under 'misidentifications', I'm understanding this to mean "natural processes manifesting in previously unrecognized ways."

I don't entirely agree with your summation of Occam's Razor, since I have always understood it to just to mean "the simplest explanation is probably the right one". First, I think it would be unreasonable to try to apply it to an explanation for an entire class of phenomena; for individual cases, yes. Second, it comes down inevitably to being a matter of opinion which of two contending explanations truly requires more, or less probable, assumptions.

E.G. -- ufologists can provide a considerable library of photographic, movie, and video images of UFOs of unattributable design, behaving in ways which seem to violate our terrestrial understanding of the laws of nature. Their explanation: the objects are built and guided and/or pilotted by some extraterrestrial source, operating according to principles we have as yet not discovered, OR operating using applications of natural law as we understand them, but which we have not as yet realised to be practicable. There are four or five assumptions this explanation requires, but most of them, corresponding to the unknown variables of the Drake Equation, are assumptions I think most 'Saganists' would agree are reasonable, if you see any point to conducting a SETI program. If you can find it believable that a certain crucial number of alien civilizations can be as advanced as ours is, to the point of beaming radio transmissions to other hypothetical civilizations, it's not all that humongous a leap to believe there will be a certain number technologically advanced beyond us, and of that number, there will be some so technologically advanced that interstellar flight might be practicable. These last two really might be reduced to one.

On the opposite side, the use of Occam's Razor comes down to saying: whatever they are, they're explainable in some natural way. The assumption: the anthropocentric one that our knowledge of physical laws is so thoroughly complete that 'everything that's discoverable (regarding certain currently known physical laws) has been discovered' (to paraphrase a certain patent office official), so that our current technology is the highest available. The evidence: none, only a hopeful conjecture.

As for the final bullets, I can agree with all, with the proviso that, in #1, an explanation of 'misinterpretation' requires the party advancing such an 'explanation' to provide reasonably convincing evidence of what the proper interpretation should (or at the very least could have been.
=========================================
Trying the typical reductio ad absurdum tactics won't pass. Like David, you don't prove anything by hitting the slow pitches. No one but you has mentioned 'purple unicorns'. The statement might better be understood as this:

Here is a photograph taken by the wing camera of a United State Air Force jet during an era when computer generated imagery was impossible. Analyzed down to the level of the pigment grains, it shows no evidence of tampering. The plane was operated by a certified, highly professional USAF pilot who would have faced such severe personal repercussions if he had participated in the perpretration of a hoax that to advance such a theory is preposterous. The photo nonetheless shows a disc with no discernible markings, only a few feet in diameter, which 'paced' the plane at hundreds of miles per hour through a succession of maneuvers, and ultimately vanished without a trace. Your assertion is that this is a manifestation of natural physical law as we on Earth understand it. Provide proof.

Polycarp

10-12-1999, 08:38 AM

Whoa...falsifiability is a necessary but not sufficient characteristic of a scientific statement. Allow me to demonstrate by analogy:

"Whales live in the ocean."/"Whales do not live in the ocean." By your standards "Whales live in the ocean" is not scientific, but "Whales do not live in the ocean" is, because it can be falsified by demonstrating one whale which does live in the ocean. Clearly there is an error somewhere in the sequence of logic here.

DIF, do I understand your position correctly that UFOs are not necessarily extraterrestrial in nature, but (some) are not currently explicable, and that you feel that the ET hypothesis cannot be ruled out?
And it is your understanding that Phil et al. are asserting that the ET hypothesis can be ruled out, simply because of its relative improbability?

Polycarp

10-12-1999, 09:00 AM

Whoops...we simul-posted. Yes, I meant pretty much what you said in all cases. I may have misused "Fortean" but my intent was to suggest that those who "explain" UFOs in Fortean terms are throwing them into that great grab-bag of weird phenomena collected by Charles Fort and his followers, who were less interested in explanations than in accumulations of oddities. In general, Fortean phenomena are (a) not readily explicable but (b) "natural" as opposed to being the work of intelligent life. In short, a "Fortean" explanation explains nothing.

The "interuniversal" bit was a sop to something Contestant #3 brought up, which is a sincerely held belief by a group led by a Dr. Mack and operating out of Boston that UFOs and ET contacts are directly related to a trans-universal contact attempt "from another dimension." They have gotten into the facilitated memory stuff, and have discovered some interesting linkages between claims of alien abduction and (repressed) childhood sexual abuse. Their take on this, however, is not what any reasonable person would expect. I simply distinguished that sequence of explanations from the (more mundane!) explanation of interstellar flight within our own space-time, possible if arduous using known physical laws and mechanisms. If C#3 has any background on Mack's group, which my wife researched at one point but no longer has the info. on (and I'm posting from work, so I cannot tap her memory), I'd be interested in seeing a new thread on that.

We concur on what William of Ockham shaved his facts with. I skipped the definition to assert that he who proposes an explanation not in accord with Occam's Razor bears the burden of justifying why an explanation with fewer or simpler assumptions will not hold water, a concept with which you seem to agree.

I think I can buy in theory your Drake's law explanation for the potential of interstellar flight, and I have lived long enough to know that Clarke's first law is quite valid:
If a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. If he states that something is impossible, he is almost certainly wrong.

Now, on the one hand, you propose a specific, and it is not a "slow pitch." May I as a disinterested searcher for truth suggest that those who are skeptical of ETV explanations explore possible terrestrial explanations of that phenomenon? On the other hand, those who are inclined to accept an ET hypothesis are invited to suggest possible reasons for the observed behavior of UFOs. If they are ETVs, what are they attempting to do? Why do they behave as they do?

10-12-1999, 09:05 AM

Polycarp -- I'm assuming the first part of your last answer was directed at tracer; if I'm wrong, please correct me . . .

Hmmmm . . . I'm taking a looooong moment to go over the second half of your message 'cuz I really hate when I subsequently have to deal with some ramification of agreeing that I didn't foresee and don't agree with . . . BUT! Yes, I think you've summarized pretty well. I would entertain the proposition that some (perhaps even all, but unlikely) NFOs operate according to principles we understand but using applications we haven't conceived of, e.g., Bernoulli's Principle used to lift airfoils/hydrofoils vs. it's use in disc drives. I can even think of one possible one that might explain some of the anomalous flight dynamics of certain UFOs, and if you like, I'll provide it. I hesitate to do so now because I see little point to providing more fodder for possible mindless mockery by others.

10-12-1999, 09:45 AM

Rats! Another simul-post. Let's see if I can catch up to your last last post, regarding providing a rationale for the behavior of ETVs and/or their presumed operators.

Thinking about this stumped me for a long time. Then one day, it occurred to me that, obviously, the only example I had to draw from was the human one. Since there are moments, even periods, in human history which to us today appear insane in one way of another, yet the overall course of history has been a rising, rational one -- were there any possible parallels between human history that might explain why alien behavior, while at times appearing irrational, might nonetheless serve a ultimate rational course of action?

Well -- I just deleted the beginning of what would have been a dauntingly long explanation, but what it comes down to is: when I thought about the behavior of ETV occupants, I began to realize that (allowing for some 'cultural differences') the behavior of ETVoids (?--I'm sure debunkers will like that, since they think the whole subject is void) can be compared to the behavior of human societies at various points in our history, and ultimately nothing they do is truly irrational once the correct 'identifications' are made between what ETVoids do and what humans have done to each other in the past.

10-12-1999, 02:26 PM

Just a little link to a story that tends to support my contention that there may be aspects of certain accepted physical laws (i.e., the speed of light as an unvarying constant) of which we are not yet aware:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005114024.htm

Czarcasm

10-12-1999, 07:28 PM

Hey DIF, nice dancing. Come up with any evidence of extra-terrestrials stopping by for a visit yet? Outside of blurred photos, tall tales told by twilight, and conspiracy rants, of course.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Always have-always will.

David B

10-12-1999, 09:36 PM

DIF -- I believe you brought up "Rods" in another thread (I don't have time to search, and this is the most active UFO thread at the moment, so I figured I'd post about this here). Anyway, the new show "Exploring the Unknown" (Fox Family Channel, Tuesday nights) just had a segment on these. Frankly, they tore it apart.

The main proponent says they are previously undiscovered life forms from 4 inches to 100 feet long, and can fly at up to 200 mph. He says they are not aliens or mechanical, but biological entities. He is probably right that they are biological entities -- but we know them quite well, as insects.

Don Ecker, of UFO Magazine, investigated these and said they were flying bugs. A video expert they interviewed came to the same conclusion, as did an entomologist. It's a photographic artifact caused by a flying insect going through the frame beating its wings quickly. It's the same effect you'd see if, for example, you took a picture of a kid swinging a baseball bat.

Now, the proponent says he uses a shutter speed that doesn't allow this. One main problem, though, is that many of the videos he is using as "evidence" were obviously not using that speed (the video expert explained how he could tell this by showing other objects blurring).

And, of course, there is the question of where 100-foot-long flying things are hiding. Why do we only see them on video?

It's not a new life form -- it's an old one. Bugs.

SpoonsJTD

10-12-1999, 10:47 PM

David B said:
It's not a new life form -- it's an old one. Bugs.

You realize, David, that that only proves maybe, what, .0001% of the UFO population to be explained by science. Until you come up with answers for the other 99.9999% of them, we must assume that at least one of them is extra-terrestrial.

10-13-1999, 06:07 AM

David: As usual, you have posted something which seeks to change the real subject to something you think you can explain from something it's evident you cannot.

Unfortunately, at this point I've been called away to a new work project and will be unable to sustain the dialogue, at least until my own home pc has been set up, which may take weeks to months.

However, I'll be back.

David B

10-13-1999, 08:25 AM

DIF -- I'm not changing the subject at all. As you know, I was gone for a long weekend; I hadn't even read most of the messages posted here. However, when I saw the bit on "rods" and remembered that you had discussed them, I wanted to post to the most active UFO thread at the time. So rather than thanking me for providing you this information, you whine about it.

Incidentally, on reading the messages now, I see that Phil and others have already said what I would say, so there is little point in my repeating what they've already said -- especially if you're not gonna be around (not that you would have listened anyway...).

Polycarp

10-13-1999, 08:51 AM

DIF said:
Here is a photograph taken by the wing camera of a United State Air Force jet during an era when computer generated imagery was impossible. Analyzed down to the level of the pigment grains, it shows no evidence of tampering. The plane was operated by a certified, highly professional USAF pilot who would have faced such severe personal repercussions if he had participated in the perpretration of a hoax that to advance such a theory is preposterous. The photo nonetheless shows a disc with no discernible markings, only a few feet in diameter, which 'paced' the plane at hundreds of miles per hour through a succession of maneuvers, and ultimately vanished without a trace. Your assertion is that this is a manifestation of natural physical law as we on Earth understand it. Provide proof.

Slythe, it appears that DIF has provided a situation tailor-made for either proving or disproving the case for "inexplicables." He's cited a case where Occam's razor is in favor of the witness's veracity (a career to lose, nothing much to gain except a reputation among UFO-nuts, which the average Air Force pilot is not likely to be looking for), the likelihood of fraudulence in the evidence (photos) is likewise diminishingly small, and the phenomena exhibited (pacing plane through manouvers) is anomalous.

Now, I am prepared to see this debunked. I would accept any reasonable explanation up to a member of the ground crew, nursing a grudge against the pilot, having rigged a Stouffer's plate to "appear" from the wing by transparent nylon cords. But it is not a case that deserves pooh-poohing. I presume this one has been investigated by CSICOP or similar organization. Does anyone have access and time to locate and produce the report on it?

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Agreed. But, as I suggested in the reincarnation thread, there is no "proof" accompanying a claim that cannot be shot down by the proper mix of assumptions.

SpoonsJTD

10-13-1999, 09:12 AM

DIF said:
The photo nonetheless shows a disc with no discernible markings, only a few feet in diameter, which 'paced' the plane at hundreds of miles per hour through a succession of maneuvers, and ultimately vanished without a trace.

As a 'furthermore' to Poly's last post, I would like to add that the photo only indicates a disc, and can provide no evidence whatsoever that it 'paced' the plane and 'vanished without a trace.' A small point, perhaps, but it shows that the actual evidence is quite limited, making it (as most of this kind of 'evidence') impossible to be able to truly prove anything, one way or another.

Polycarp

10-13-1999, 09:21 AM

Okay, disclaimer. I am not in the slightest interested in "proving the validity of UFOs."

But I am interested in the truth, wherever it may lead me. My impression, whether accurate or not, was that the comments about pacing and maneuvers were from the statement of the USAF pilot.

Certainly a still photo would not show that. It could be inferred from multiple still photos, but that would still be subject to dispute.

David B

10-13-1999, 09:55 AM

Poly -- the problem is, as others have already mentioned, the difference between unexplained and unexplainable. Some things cannot be explained because we don't have enough information. I've been thru this before in other threads. However, simply lacking information does not equate to unnatural phenomena from other worlds.

DIF got all pissy about the humorous note I posted related to somebody seeing UFOs and then figuring out they were birds. He whined that I only go after the "easy" ones. While I had no ulterior motives in posting that, it does point something out. What if the person in question had not gone and found the spotlight, leading him to figure out the "UFOs" were birds? Then would we have another "unexplained" sighting of UFOs doing dips and dives that seem beyond our technology?

Another case that I wish I could find again involved a pilot who wrote an article for one of the skeptics newsletters. He was on the ground looking up along with a couple other pilots. They saw something, apparently a large object in the distance, moving to and fro with astonishing turn-on-a-dime moves. They were just about to look away to find a camera when the object looked ready to pass behind some trees. However, it didn't -- it passed in front of them. Way in front of them. The object wasn't large and far away; it was small and close. It was a seed packet, like from a dandelion. Their eyes played tricks on them -- the eyes of three pilots! If they had looked away and then looked back, they wouldn't have seen it, and we would have another case of the object disappearing quickly into the sky.

If DIF is still around, he'll whine that this is an "easy" one and that I'm avoiding the hard ones. The problem is that he doesn't seem to understand that an "easy" one is often just a "hard" one that's been explained.