Disagree. Invoking that lot was not needed but best we agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Lol, yes, your shadowboxing and ignorance on the topic absolutely has me on the ropes. 🙄
This thread sits well with diy audio - armchair re-writing current best science, and replacing science with belief systems is the daily bread for a lot of threads in here.
Good entertainment!
Good entertainment!
Yes, multiverse is a valid set of hypotheses. All hold up as possible explanations, within current QM, if a tad tricky to test...
Says the person who's unable to differentiate between science fiction and reality. You were tko'd before you got in the ring.
How much of our “debate” has been me helping you follow along while you spout boilerplate skeptic talking points in lieu of dealing with specifics? One cannot simply discuss the UFO topic without a skeptic deliberately exaggerating/straw-manning the claim so they can more easily debate it. I repeatedly called you out on this and you cannot deny doing so. Bill Nye does the same thing in the video I linked above.
Is string theory science???
Isn't the multiverse predicted by string theory? I didn't think string theory has been tested yet. Or am I wrong?
I'd thought it was sort of a mathematical philosophy, not science....at lest so far.....
Isn't the multiverse predicted by string theory? I didn't think string theory has been tested yet. Or am I wrong?
I'd thought it was sort of a mathematical philosophy, not science....at lest so far.....
You're not helping anyone, I refuse to follow you down the path of delusion.
I can appreciate how Bill Nye feels when dealing with people who are incapable of rational thought.
I’ll take the concession that you’re arguing in bad faith but please spare us the pariah complex.
Last edited:
My feeling reside with the Multiverse idea.
Or the Prometheus one (or the film/book that predated them all), of the Engineers.
I.e. I dont think life in the universe is rare, but life making planet fall, and evolving into intelligent multicellular life, is a whole lot rarer.
Or the Prometheus one (or the film/book that predated them all), of the Engineers.
I.e. I dont think life in the universe is rare, but life making planet fall, and evolving into intelligent multicellular life, is a whole lot rarer.
So you're bolstering your position by discrediting the Mr. Rogers of the science world?
Some guy is presented with a film and it's credible evidence because of who watched it?
the "wet ears" vs. the truly informed. 😀
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I wonder why humans have evolved the behaviour we call ‘belief’ which has such strong repercussions in the world. The arguments about the possible existence of alien visitors, which like it or not is a topic linked to UFO’s, becomes a conviction for some people. My thought is that it stems from a need to make sense of observations which we can’t explain, observations which carry significance to our survival. But I can’t figure out what evolutionary advantage such behaviour has for us. If we had not evolved to become a species that develops intense beliefs would we otherwise be vulnerable in some way?
Whatever the reason some people develop beliefs that can not be proven or disproven within current accepted knowledge. Furthermore, even when currently accepted knowledge is in conflict with their belief some will simply discard what is known in favour of an assumption that everyone else is wrong.
Evidence of aliens is very weak, there’s no recorded communication, no clear image, little consistency in observation, no repeatable events, such that we are forced to assume unknown physics that have not yet been observed on earth or anywhere else through astronomical observation, forced to assume aliens think very differently from us because their apparent behaviour is hard to explain etc. yet many are convinced of their existance even without observations of their own.
I think this says more about our own species than it does about visitors.
Whatever the reason some people develop beliefs that can not be proven or disproven within current accepted knowledge. Furthermore, even when currently accepted knowledge is in conflict with their belief some will simply discard what is known in favour of an assumption that everyone else is wrong.
Evidence of aliens is very weak, there’s no recorded communication, no clear image, little consistency in observation, no repeatable events, such that we are forced to assume unknown physics that have not yet been observed on earth or anywhere else through astronomical observation, forced to assume aliens think very differently from us because their apparent behaviour is hard to explain etc. yet many are convinced of their existance even without observations of their own.
I think this says more about our own species than it does about visitors.
There was a very specific starting point to the hysteria it invoked about 80 or so years ago. It lives on as a tool for the purpose of those who perpetuate it, namely gov agencies. As far as human behavior is concerned, “hysteria” is the operative.
Well, since this thread has landed in a similar way as some other audio threads, with arguing and bickering over stuff, I think I'll nicely disconnect and unsubscribe, since nitpicking and bickering gives me gas.
I agree, that no one should be jumping to a conclusion. Or dismiss one either. One things is clear, SOMETHING exceedingly unusual is going on. As for WHAT, exactly, that is, we are only left with probabilities to consider at this point. We can, however, apply a bit of deductive logic to help separate those probabilities.
First, let's isolate the question of the vehicles, from the question of what intelligence is controlling them. The 'A' word, ends any chance of open-minded discussion. So, let's talk about the UFO vehicles. The evidence of the vehicles is steadily piling up, which it has been for decades. The evidence for whom is controlling them, however, is relatively poor. The vehicle evidence is includes photographic stills, radar-track recordings, visible spectrum and infra-red spectrum video recordings, and, least reliably, eye-witness reports.
There are at least the following three categories of eye-witness UFO reports:
1) They are mistaken from other objects. Sightings have been reported from people such as farmers, to policemen, to commercial and military pilots, to airline and military ground personnel. Many of these are trained and highly experienced observers. Even so, perhaps, most sightings were mistaken, however, is it rational to think that ALL are mistaken?
2) Seekers of fame. Perhaps likely decades ago, seems much less likely today as UFO reports have become almost commonplace. There is not a monetary motivation here anymore, either.
3) They are delusional. Is it logical that commercial and military pilots, entrusted with life and death responsibility and having thousands of hours of flight experience, who report sightings, are all delusional?
As for instrumented evidence: photographic stills, visible light and infra-red video, radar-track recordings, and such. Are those the product of the equipment being 'delusional'? While the only real proof would be a saucer landing on the front lawn of the White House, I'm only speaking of probabilities. Referring only to evidence of the vehicles. A few more probabilities to consider. The vehicles display flight dynamics which are impossible, according to any physics we understand. Those dynamics MUST be permitted by physics, since they are being done, just not according to the physics we obviously YET understand. Such as, acceleration at hundreds of Gs, including acute-angle turns and other sharp maneuvers at multi-Mach velocity. All without apparent means of propulsion, or flight control surfaces.
Should these vehicles be real, is it possible they are the product of some unannounced human technical breakthrough. Yes, it is. However, that would not merely be a breakthrough, nor even a radical breakthrough. It would be a radically, radical breakthrough. The problem with the notion of a purely human origin is that the vehicles, with their flight dynamics, have been consistently reported for, at least, the past 75 years.
It's not clear to me that anything unusual is going on - and you jump from UFO - "Objects" straight to "Vehicles"
None of the proposed evidence is clear, it is at best unexplained anomalies.
Occam's Razor applies...
None of the proposed evidence is clear, it is at best unexplained anomalies.
Occam's Razor applies...
Right. There is nothing unusual about any of what's coming out of the Dept. of the Navy lately. Nothing to see here. 🙄
The distinction between object and vehicle is whether or not there are occupants. Which, I've not addressed. The odd flight dynamics, which are part of the evidence, is what have been consistently observed and documented.
At this point all that we can assess is whether something is more likely to have occured, than not, based on logical deduction. In the case of UFO evidence, it's not any single piece of evidence that tilts the scale towards the objects/vehicles being more likely real than not. It's the past 75 years of relatively consistent reports, many by professionals with careers at stake, along with corroborating video and radar evidence which tilts the scales, I think. Is all that proof? No. It does, however, suggest that something highly mysterious is, indeed, going on.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.