And I thought it was when a bunch of 80’s rat pack actors bore you to tears for two hours. Live and learn 
Mr. Jeff Roberts,
Hello, I have not have the pleasure of electronically meeting you before. If you are new, then welcome!
Yes, I do chose to “think” that SOME of the Unidentified Flying Objects are alien craft. You seem to allow me room to hold this point of view without insulting me, and I appreciate your demeanor.
You then tell me something that I keep hearing over and over in this forum, spoken by those on the opposite side of this “debate” and coined I believe, by Mr. James Randi…something about extraordinary claims needing extraordinary evidence.
That’s a nice, trite little saying, but it is useless for the purpose of a debate, especially a “scientific” one because of the vagueness and lack of definition that it raises. The precise meaning of the phrases “extraordinary claim” and “extraordinary evidence” are defined purely subjectively. Secondly, the statement itself is patently false. ANY claim requires only the same level of evidence to prove it that any other claim does…PERIOD.
You then ask me if I’m aware about the accuracy of an eyewitness account. Actually, yes I am, but I’d remind you that a scientist conducting a controlled experiment must rely upon his (or her) own “witnessing” of the results and/or data of the experiment in order to record and share the outcome with others. According to those you, how can I trust that scientist’s results? He witnessed the experiment right? Could he have been seeing things? Is his account unreliable? But you say that hey C#3, others have conducted the same experiment and observed the same results…OK, just in the same way that one might witness a UFO and others, maybe hundreds of others may witness it too. Why are you being selective about your belief in eyewitness accounts? Are they ALWAYS unreliable or are they only unreliable when the accounts are witness to things that you yourself have not witnessed or maybe don’t even beleive in?
Maybe your retort will address the qualifications or stabilty of the eyewitness. C#3 you might say, that scientist in the lab conducting an experiement can be trusted! He’s educated, an expert in his field, a solid family man, and not known to lie or exaggerate! Well, Jeff, the same can be said of many UFO eyewitnesses as well. They include, educated people…experts in their field, solid, respectable people that would have no apparent reason to lie or make things up. They include doctors, pilots, astronauts, politicians, religious leaders, scientists, etc…
The study of UFOs and the possiblity of some of them being alien craft doesn’t consist solely of the Roswell incident, and doesn’t end with the Phoenix lights. These sightings and incidents continue to occur almost daily all over the planet. I make an effort to try to keep up with as many of them as I can. I read the reports, I look at the pictures, I listen to the investigators, and I try to make sense of it all.
There is no real way that I can convince someone that does not want to be convinced that something is going on that defies explanation as a hoax, natural phenonemon, or top-secret terrestrial craft. I’m not sure that I’m trying really. My posts on the UFO topic on these boards are more to share information with the more open-minded, and to seek out intelligent discussion of the events as they continue to occur and data continues to surface. I’m pleased that I have in fact been able to meet a few people out here that I can discuss these things with without being flamed or having James Randi quotes shoved into my face. Most of the time when I attempt to share data, it goes untouched by the posse of flamers that follow me around disguised as skeptics. You are new here…have you decided?..which will you be?
Contestant #3
C#3: High-five, guy! Well spoken!
Jeff, with the single proviso that I think the quote regarding extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence was from Carl Sagan, he’s done a yeoman-like job of summing up the arguments I could have made. 'Nuff said.
All I would add to anything either of you said is that “unexplained” is not a synonym for “unexplainable”; figuring out what something is not does not always mean you have figured out what it is; and there is a difference between controlled laboratory conditions and uncontrolled conditions. Do you have any argument with those further addenda?
True, true, and true, although with #3, it still doesn’t change the meaning of what I wrote.
Contestant #3
E1,
I just now noticed your post. I wasn’t ignoring it, it’s just that it ended up being the last post on page 1 and I overlooked it.
Your post quotes my strong, but accurate statments concerning the SDMB UFO skeptics and their level of effort in debunking. You ask: “which post?” and “what skeptics?”
I’ll say this much, I won’t go to the time and trouble to search for, and cut and paste my written proof about the skeptics…it’s obvious enough, and I shouldn’t have to.
However, I will take this opportunity to recognize you, E1skeptic, in that you have shown less of a propensity for flaming, and more inclination to read and research than have many of the others. For those qualities, you gain my respect. Still, you stop well short of precise debunking…
Contestant #3
Unidentified flying objects exist. There is no argument about that. There are phenomena which have not yet been identified which are observed to fly/float/hover/hang on the horizon/do circle 8’s around airplanes in flight/whatever.
Are they extraterrestrial spacecraft? That is one possible explanation. We do not know the likelihood of it. Based on current knowledge of possible propulsion, and applying Occam’s Razor, it seems most unlikely. But we don’t know.
If this is not to degenerate to a “Contestant #3 posts his latest evidence and others debunk it” sterile thread, then we need to establish some standards of evidence.
Cartesian doubt is a very valid proposition. You do not know, right now, that the object in front of you is not a fire-breathing dragon with the ability to hypnotize you into believing it is a computer presenting you with information from the Straight Dope Message Board, and just biding its time before consuming you. It is unlikely to the point of total implausibility, true, but it is still an outside hypothesis.
It occurs to me that the debunking contingent have an affirmative duty, if they choose to continue posting to this thread, to define what standards of evidence they are willing to accept. And Contestant #3 has the affirmative duty not to flame them for questioning evidence that does not meet those standards, provided that they do it fairly.
Certainly eyewitness testimony is suspect, and that from apparent flakes more so than that from respected scholars. But, by definition, the only people who claim to see flying saucers are “weirdos who claim to see flying saucers.” Everyone else will either not have seen them or have seen them but avoid making the claim in order to save themselves from being considered weirdos.
Anything can be debunked, given enough time and creativity. And the Lorenz equations show us that “common sense” is not a sufficient guide; “common sense” disallows relativistic effects in fast-moving objects that are predicted by theory and observed in practice.
One final point: On a religious strand, another poster raised the question if the subjective evidence convincing me of the reality of God and Jesus’ resurrection was not due to my “will to believe.” He had a point. I think it is not out of line to ask, Contestant #3, why is it important to you to “prove” the extraterrestrial nature of some UFOs? What are your motivations?
I do not ask this to put you down, but to understand precisely where you are coming from as this thread continues. I had to answer a similar question in that religious thread, and to examine my own motives.
Polycarp, I agree with just about everything you’ve said, and I even said most of them at one point or another either here or in the “S.E.T.H. II” thread a couple of weeks ago (in between the insults and rants). I have to disagree with your use of ‘definition’ in your statement. I would have probably said “by imputation” instead.
As you say, it mostly comes down to the standards of evidence you use. I think pldennison, DaveB, Auraseer, et al., would probably agree to having their standard called “the strictly scientific standard” (or they can suggest something else, of course). I prefer more of what I would call a “forensic standard”, in that there may ultimately be nothing more than eyewitness testimony (in sworn affidavits) and verified film, photo, or video evidence. By ‘verified’ I would mean the chain of possession is such that there is no chance for tampering, CGIs, or other hoaxing.
As far as I can tell from what ‘the other side’ has said, the only evidence they will ultimately accept as ‘proof’ would be an extraterrestrial being (preferably alive and with sufficiently different DNA structure to ensure that it wasn’t a human mutation), and/or a piece of working alien technology that did something no earthly invention ever did before, and did it better. And I would submit that this is about as likely to happen as the dragon is to attack me as I type. It is, IOW, a practical impossibility to meet such a standard.
For one thing, it assumes that the phenomena we examine aren’t actively trying to avoid being proved, which I think NFOs are. I think it’s reasonable to think that because if they didn’t want to avoid being proved, they’d just land and get it over with. Someone (I think pldennison or moriah) countered that it seemed strange these things could cross interstellar space and not have a way to keep from being seen, but that merely begged the question, why would they be concerned about being seen when the most common human reaction of those who haven’t seen is scorn, ridicule, and disbelief?
As to the ‘will to believe’ – I don’t know about C#3’s motivations, but in my case I’m not going to say it’s important to me to prove the extraterrestrial nature of UFOs – what’s important to me is simply to discover just exactly what their nature is, and hang the point of origin. It just seems at this point, to me, that Occam’s razor splits this particular hair on the side of extraterrestrials. I say that because, as far as we are from exceeding the speed of light in a spacecraft, I think we’re even farther from ‘crossing dimensional boundaries’ or whatever. Or finding out something so new about the atmosphere and weather that it totally shifts ‘the current paradigm’. Admittedly, ‘jets’ and ‘sprites’ have only been discovered in the last few years, but even they open appear over thunderstorms, very high up, and only where lightning has flashed. (See my reply to Mojo above.)
Hell, I’ll even entertain the possibility that they’re from the subterranean remains of the “Lost Continent of Atlantis” (boogaboogabooga!) if someone shows me a seismic map or profile that indicates a big enough void in the earth’s crust to hide a whole freakin’ civilization. Otherwise, for now, extraterrestrials seem the best bet.
The reason I think it’s important to discover their true nature is that I consider just four or five things pose a serious threat to humanity that, were they to come to pass, we’d go extinct. There’s nuclear war, biochemical war, a hit from a planet-killer asteroid, or (everybody ready to laugh?) invasion and conquest by an alien civilization.
DIF, I think you still beg some questions, though.
It wasn’t me who brought up the point about crossing interstellar space yet not being able to avoid being seen, but when you say:
,that presumes that they could have predicted those reactions, which is a big presumption.
Even assuming that they “oopsed” the first time, and noted the reaction, so decided not to take further precautions, that implies they can remain close enough to monitor and understand our radio traffic.
So why can’t we monitor theirs? Are they communicating using some portion of the spectrum that is absolutely undetectable to us?
The list of 1952 events C3 posted included all sorts of craft of varying shapes, sizes, colors and descriptions, some in large quantities. Where are these things staging from, and why can’t we otherwise detect them? Are you positing that they are regularly engaging in FTL travel in and out of our solar system? And if so, how do they avoid relativistic effects as far as how much time has passed on Earth? If they leave our system at FTL speeds, and return at FTL speeds, how do they know that we haven’t developed an automatic spaceship-detecting-and-destroying space-deployed weapon in that time?
And, regardless of what methods you want to suppose they are using for intersystem travel, they are somehow defying Newtonian physics within our own atmosphere, if the descriptions are correct. They have dispensed with all laws of motion and inertia. How?
Why do descriptions of these craft match so closely the things that pulp writers and Hollywood sfx guys developed? Coincidence? I would find it really hard to believe that aliens who mastered the ability to travel between planets in reasonable times, who would have a biology and a conciousness completely foreign to us, would show up in, surprise of surprises, flying discs and cigar-shaped rockets.
I don’t think these are just minutae; I think they’re fundamentally important to the idea being discussed.
For myself, I will accept as proof for alien intelligence no less than what I would for proof of a deity: absolute, incontrovertible, physical evidence that cannot have been faked.
Polycarp said:
Actually, that isn’t true. By definition, the only thing that can be debunked is, well, bunk.
I said “anything” and I meant “anything.” All it requires is the intellectual dishonesty to pick your evidence carefully and wear blinders to the rest of it. ARG’s early posts (and some of his later ones) are good examples of that.
You know where I’m coming from on this issue. I believe in intellectual honesty. It has let me to religious conclusions at odds with yours. That’s fine; we can dispute them at length and with mutual respect. But it is quite possible to reason accurately, and wrongly, because you have insufficient evidence. Lord Kelvin’s estimate of the age of the earth is the classic example. He was not wearing mental blinders; he simply reasoned brilliantly from geophysics that the earth could not be more than IIRC 50,000 years old. (Somebody correct that fact to show the right number, please.) Reason: he did not have radioactive decay to provide the heat source needed for an older planet.
I concur with the majority of posters that it is highly improbable that the observed UFO phenomena are compatible with spacecraft piloted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings with any humanly comprehensible reason for doing what they are doing. But that does not disprove them; it simply sets some strong arguments against them. Until every UFO becomes an IFO, on the one hand, or an alien lands and has a press conference, on the other, the question is not resolved. Much the same is true for the resurrection thread. I proposed the phenomenon, stripped of the religious interpretation, as potentially some concrete evidence for my worldview. You asserted some potential alternative explanations for the reported phenomena. Both were subject to no clear value ranking in the absence of a worldview that implies value rankings. (I.e., if there is a God who sends a Messiah who predicts his own rising from the dead and then is reported to have done it, the likelihood of this being the correct interpretation rises radically; if there is no God, then the probability of an urban legend, delusional interpretation of events by followers of the alleged Messiah, or other “rational” explanation becomes the vastly more likely one.)
PLDennison said:
I take it from this you require CE3K-type evidence. An observation, no matter by whom reported and with whatever degree of credibility, would be inadequate.
How would you identify the physical evidence as clearly extraterrestrial in nature? It would seem to me that almost anything could be faked. I suspect that question is a bit unfair, so I’d ask for a by-way-of-example answer (or answers) rather than a definitive response to all possible physical evidence.
On this issue, I have no axe to grind, so I want to play devil’s advocate on both sides. (Satan, please remit retainer. :))
Polycarp said:
And my point still stands – that really isn’t debunking, by definition.
Webster’s New World dictionary says debunk means: “to expose the false or exaggerated claims, pretensions, glamour, etc. of”
So if there are no false or exaggerated claims involved, debunking cannot, by definition occur.
I do understand your point, David. However:
Contestant #3 would, quite sincerely, argue that he makes no false or exaggerated claims.
So, on a different subject, would ARG220.
Granted, what is debunked is, ipso facto, bunk. But I maintain that one can erroneously, or even accurately, debunk what is not in fact bunk.
Continental drift: Wegener was, and quite properly, shot down by virtually all Northern Hemisphere geologists. While he proposed an interesting theory, he had no mechanism to back it up. Was he wrong? Most geologists today would say no, that plate tectonics proves him right.
The fact that neither you nor I tends to accept a whole lot of the evidence Contestant #3 puts forth does not prove him wrong. It merely suggests that his credulousness is higher than ours as regards this subject. You would say that mine is much higher than yours as regards the claims of Christianity. And I would respectfully suggest that there are data which we reject as anomalous which in fact may prove something.
George Adamski was a fraud. Various abductees’ stories have been demonstrated to be bids for attention, or honestly held but erroneous memory constructs. This does not disprove C#3’s claim.
The unlikelihood of regular interstellar travel by means known to humanity casts some negativity on C#3’s claim but does not disprove it. It assumes that we know all possible means of interstellar travel. It assumes that there is no way to break the “light barrier” and travel FTL. My own hunch is that the first assumption is wrong and the second is probably right but debatable.
A line must be drawn. But where? C#3’s evidence is suspect by anyone’s standards but his own.
But there is a limit to how far we can debunk. I would assume that, if there were aliens, they would not build everything out of element #126, and that an aluminum or steel alloy would be a reasonable structural material for many components of their spacecraft. How do we distinguish actual evidence from fraud?
On the other hand, C#3, the fact that Dr. Mack claims that item X is an alien artifact is not necessarily grounds for believing so. Dr. Mack’s theories on transdimensional alien visitations (my wife did a rather thorough study of his with an open but not sievelike mind) are rather outre. This is not to say they are wrong, but it would take the kind of proof Phil and David have asked me for re religion to get me to accept them. Would you evaluate your data with a bit more skepticism, please?
I am not saying to reject it, rather to evaluate it. I personally could not make heads or tails of the photomicrographs you linked to; three were formless blobs that looked to me like foraminiferan tests, and one seemed to be two pieces of normal wire. Maybe they were in fact alien artifacts. But you couldn’t prove it by me.
Polycarp said:
They could argue that, but objective reality is not decided by vote. Either something is bunk or it is not. If it is bunk, it can be debunked. If it is not, it cannot – by definition.
Not according to the very definition of the word, Poly. Whatever it is somebody is doing in those cases, it is not debunking. It may be arguing against; it may be attacking; but it is not debunking.
So what? He was not debunked – he was shot down. Even you used a different term. Do you see what I’m saying here?
Some of his claims have been proven wrong, some have just been shown to be silly, or to not be supported by evidence.
Maybe, maybe not. As I’ve indicated countless times, I recognize that religious belief is just that – belief. While there are some who take belief in UFOs (for example) to virtually religious proportions, there is, in theory, supposed to be some evidence we are all looking at.
I’m pretty sure I’ve never said it did. Which leads me to wonder why you’re even bothering to post this…
Again, I’ve never said otherwise…
Where? With good scientific evidence, that’s where.
Right. If I sounded like I was attacking you in that post, I apologize. I started out to disagree with you and found (from your last post) that we were having another semantic contretemps. Okay, only bunk can be debunked, and what is debunked is ipso facto bunk. I’ll give you that tautology.
Some posters appeared to be totally discounting every post C#3 made, with no reference to the possible validity. Underlying assumption: “There is no such thing as a valid report of a flying saucer.”
Well, I would maintain that any such report should be taken with extreme skepticism. But it should not be totally rejected until proved to be (a) a hoax, (b) a misinterpretation of a natural phenomenon, or © a case of overcredulousness. You may have other categories to add to this.
Polycarp said:
I think that’s more a case of a time-saving device than a proper scientific study. I mean, if somebody repeatedly says ridiculous things, at some point the BS detector tells you to ignore him. It’s the boy who cried “Aliens!”
How can you prove something to be a case of overcredulousness? If I say I saw a UFO the other night, but I don’t remember exactly which night or in which directly, but I’m sure it was a light that was doing things that can’t be explained, what do you do? I haven’t given enough details to be proven wrong. But you, as a skeptic, can’t afford to devote much energy to it because it’s essentially meaningless.
Should these things be “totally rejected”? Perhaps not. But it’s not up to the skeptics to go around rejecting things – it’s up to the people pushing these claims to prove that there is some basis in reality for them.