Need to know about UFO’s!!

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by billsmith

This is why UFO are what they are

................................... ......................

Thankyou

So what is this? It's a modern fairy tale, that's all it is. If that 'proves' the existence of UFOs then I can prove the existence of talking wolves, talking pigs and ginger bread men. Give me a break!

In any case, even by its own rules the story is full of holes. Why didn't Sue grab a few handfuls of evidence like any sane person? How did Barry explain his sudden wealth? Does the tree produce notes with serial numbers? As his socio-economic power grew why didn't those who already have power take care of this upstart?

Bah humbug.

[ngcles]

Hi Bill & All,

Okay, I'll bite one more time and I promise I won't mock (this time).

Bill, in your last post you state a number of conclusions and make claims about certain "facts". All I ask is for verifiable proof that substantiates the claims and "facts". And by the way, a fine sounding and on the face of it clever analogy in no way constitutes proof (and BTW, the analogy is fatally flawed in many ways).

Can you provide verifiable proof for these statements:

Bill wrote:

"this is one of the main reasons why we dont see or have enough physical proof..........its worth so much that many many complicated measures are employed to hush the existance."

Please provide the evidence that backs up the two statements here.


Bill wrote:

"whether you realise it or not...some of this tech has in the past 50 years been introduced into our daily lives without you knowing and passed of as inventions when in fact it was handed down to the manufacturers for domestisizing."

Please provide the evidence that backs up this claim.



Bill wrote:

"Close encounters of the 3rd kind, ET and Independance Day were all produced with objectives to see how the population after viewing these movies would react - This is fact." (emphasis added)

Please provide the evidence that backs up this claim.


Without proof, they are not "facts" -- they amount to no more than wild speculation.

If there is verifiable incontrovertible evidence, then I'd be all ears because I think it'd be great to have contact with the so called "visitors" and I'd be the first to shake hands (pseudopodia ... whatever ...) and offer them a beer and a chat -- but it is my opinion it just won't be happening.


Best,

Les D

[Jen]

just passing by this thread is interesting

[jungle11 (Greg)]

Guess I've learned the dangers of discussing politics, religion, push gravity....and UFOs.

[Jen]

Originally Posted by jungle11

Guess I've learned the dangers of discussing politics, religion, push gravity....and UFOs.

lol Greg

[skwinty (Steve)]

Originally Posted by ngcles

I want hard, physical data. I want an alien on the White House lawn. I want a piece of metal with clearly non-terrestrial isotope ratios of components, or be composed of some currently non-discovered element. I want some piece of predictive evidence — a map of an alien world that can eventually be verified, or an alien-given advance in physics that can later be verified with the LHC or some other cutting-edge technology. And nothing vague like "a unified field theory exists"; it has to be definite and precise, so that there is no controversy.

Hmmm,

There has been an alien on the white house lawn numerous times in the last 50 years.

Given that the earth and all thats on it is a product of the universe, why should ET's spacecraft consist of anything different.

Now, I cant say that there are aliens, but I can't say that there are not.
I can only say that there are no aliens because I have not seen one, or that there are aliens because I have seen one.

Surely the burden of proof is a two way street.

Prove that there are or prove that there are not.

Either way, INMHO, neither side has the moral highground.

[xelasnave]

If you read my latest post I hope you keep all that in mind Steve
it is about everything
alex

[ngcles]

Hi Skwinty & All,

Skwinty wrote:

"Surely the burden of proof is a two way street.

Prove that there are or prove that there are not.

Either way, INMHO, neither side has the moral highground."

Okay, well I'd say it isn't a two way street, I'd say that if one asserts, then the burden is on that person to prove. Notwithstanding, I'll try below to explain the basis of my opinion. There is no way in the world I'll pass it off as fact, it isn't -- its an opinion which (I think) is reasonably well grounded. Argue by all means but at least produce some substance to support an argument.

Also, this is not a question of moral high-ground. There is no "high-ground" here -- we are just looking at the evidence that either supports or contradicts a proposition.

First up, take a look at this thread:

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...t=34210&page=2

You will see in posts 25 & 52 the guts of my statistical argument in support of the notion that intelligent life in the Milky Way Galaxy is at the very least not common -- more probably very rare. It is based partly on scientific evidence and partly on reasoning and reaches a conclusion there that there are in the order of 10 civilisations in the Milky Way Galaxy out of 300,000,000,000 stars. ie 1 star in 30,000,000,000 has an itelligent civilisation that is capable of making and using complex tools, solving complex problems and manipulating their environment to their advantage.

I'd also invite you to look at the other opinions there and weigh them all carefully.

Following that, I'll let you do the maths on this:

The Milky Way is about 120,000 ly diameter and about 1,000ly thick. Now work out the volume of the galaxy. Now proceeding on the assumption there are 10 civilisations work out on average how many cubic light-years per civilisation.

Now do the maths assuming 100 civilisations and even 1000 if you like.

They are all extremely large figures and I think the higher figure (based on about 10 civilisations) is the much more likely.

Based on this, I reckon inteligent life is rare -- by any definition.

Even if "they" happened (by pure fluke) to be reasonably nearby they would have to journey 10s or 100s (more likely 10s of 1000s) of light-years to reach us.

The theories of General and Special Relativity have passed every scientific test thrown at them (and there have been dozens) with flying colours. The conclusive scientific evidence at this stage (and this all is we can go on -- anything else is speculation and there is no evidence to the contrary) is that light-speed travel is impossible meaning interstellar journeys within meaningful timeframes are simply out of the equation. Based on the evidence at this stage, interstellar flight is a "flight of fancy".

One can easily throw a whole stack of speculative ideas and wishful thinking into the equation that somehow allows faster than light travel meaning interstellar travel is possible by some means but there is no evidence I am aware of to support them -- at all. All the credible evidence supports relativity and the prohibition on matter travelling at or faster than light-speed.

There is simply very, very little credible evidence of alien space-craft visiting this planet. There is a whole stack of quite non-credible evidence.

On all the above, I hold an opinion that aliens are not visiting Earth. I'm not passing my opinion off as "fact" -- it is an opinion. I find the evidence to the contrary is lacking substance and is unconvincing to say the least. I know that all sounds very hard, cold and calculating but is the way I see it.


Best,

Les D

[xelasnave]

Even if every solar system in our galaxy had inteligent life the prospect of travell seems remote ... unless they live to 1000 years which would change the opportunity one would think.
C travel would seem unatainable even fractions of c would be difficult...how much would it cost to fill the tank even at a cent a kilometer it would be an expensive trip one would think.
But then maybe they have licked the energy problem but it still does not mean they would come here...mmm unless they have heard our transmissions and are on the way to find out who is filling space with noise.

alex

[xelasnave]

Lets consider why would they visit or better still where would we go and why if we were able???
alex

[skwinty (Steve)]

Hi LesD,
There are those who assert the existence of aliens and those who assert that aliens are drivel (unadulterated).
From my own perspective, I cannot prove either viewpoint, nor do I commit to either viewpoint, purely because I do not know nor do I have any evidence to suggest that they do or don't exist.
Neither of these groups occupy any form of highground.(moral, scientific or evidential)
How can anyone make any of these assertions with out proof?
I do not doubt any of modern science, but, scientific knowledge is not the final word on everything. Science is after all about observable phenomena, and the inferrences drawn from those observations.

The main reason I made the post was to respond to Phil Plaits quote which you posted, to which I replied.

There has been an alien on the white house lawn numerous times in the last 50 years.

Given that the earth and all thats on it is a product of the universe, why should ET's spacecraft consist of anything different.

The first was an attempt at humour and the second an valid question.
You never made any mention of this in your opinion / fact reply.

[ngcles]

Hi Steve % All,

Yep, I got the line about the White House lawn -- and you're right there!

Regarding the "Given that the earth and all thats on it is a product of the universe, why should ET's spacecraft consist of anything different.

The first was an attempt at humour and the second an valid question.
You never made any mention of this in your opinion / fact reply."

Yep, that's a valid criticism ("anything different"), but I think the point is that like me, Phil Plait wants solid proof of some type to back the claims -- not another wobbly video of a drunken UFO. Extrordinary claims require extrordinary proof. I need something that can't be faked, made up etc to change my mind.

Am I "anti-alien"? Not at all! I'm open to change my opinion if some real evidence turns up, or they land in my backyard and ask for directions to Barnard's Star. I'm open minded but this does not equate to being "vacant-minded". I just don't think the evidence is going to turn up, or that they are about to land in the backyard tonight (or any night) for the reasons above.

There has been some criticism of this thread as a whole. Personally, I don't think the criticism valid -- it is one of the "most asked questions" of amateur astronomers by the public and I know hardly a night goes by at Sydney Observatory when someone won't ask the question "Well, are we alone?" and then "Have we been visited?" I think it is good to have an opinion on these things (whatever it is) and some evidence to back it.

What I really take issue with more than anything is opinion, conjecture or speculation being represented as "fact" -- many people have a lot trouble distinguishing between the two.

BTW, Really looking forward to the cricket test series in a few weeks time -- it should be a cracker!



Best,

Les D

[skwinty (Steve)]

Originally Posted by ngcles

BTW, Really looking forward to the cricket test series in a few weeks time -- it should be a cracker!

Yes it will be a good test regardless of who wins.
Of course I am rooting for the Springboks!!
Pity I can only watch on the telly and not have grandstand seats.

[Clarry (Clayton)]

Umm, I do believe the South African Cricket Team are called The Proteas, although I think they use to be Springboks like their rugby brothers.

[Ian Robinson]

Or just ignore it like I do , unless I need a good laugh.

[sjastro]

Personally I don't believe in UFOs which is based on "faith" rather than evidence.

The arguments against UFOs are based on "argumentum ad ignorantiam" or "appeal to ignorance" which states the lack of evidence is proof for non existance. This is a logical fallacy.

Ironically science is attacked this way all the time. Creationists (or Intelligent Designists in disguise) frequently employ this logic.

Of the individuals in this group Alex is the main perpetrator.

Regards

Steven

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Personally I don't believe in UFOs which is based on "faith" rather than evidence.

The arguments against UFOs are based on "argumentum ad ignorantiam" or "appeal to ignorance" which states the lack of evidence is proof for non existance. This is a logical fallacy.

Ironically science is attacked this way all the time. Creationists (or Intelligent Designists in disguise) frequently employ this logic.

Of the individuals in this group Alex is the main perpetrator.

Regards

Steven

you cheeky man

Although I do not crave such recognition Steven it is nice to at least to be seen as holding a position that can be defined in such a manner.

Lets unite and bag "inteligent" design ..they are a group that unfortunately get up my nose the way I get up the nose of others with my thoughts on stuff.

Again I say this specifically in respect of UFO's but what I say can be applied somewhat universally...

"Facts are qualified by ones personal experience and there is no getting away from that ...so one should keep an open mind and never never never become dogmatic...and if one looks to my approach to push gravity, the big bang, dark matter and things generally one will observe I am far from dogmatic...unfortunately I fail to pre qualify most of what I say with those famous words..."in my humble opinion" ...but then this failing is not limited to my approach to stuff as I have observed such in others.

So where do "inteligent designers" place UFO's in their system of things... maybe like finding fossils... sent by God to temp out faith in the word no doubt.

One can imagine other species out there I feel with ease ...however the question as to why they would come here I doubt can be answered readily by those who assert that they come... although their annal probing probably points us in a reasonable direction.

mmmm now I know why ET has such long fingers.

alex

[jungle11 (Greg)]

Hi guys,,,,IIMMM BAAACK! Call the men with the butterfly nets

ncgles, Can't fault your rationalism, and agree that applying what we currently know about life, that it would seem to be pretty rare.
All our available evidence suggests that life began on this world about 4bln years ago. It would appear that this planet was condusive in many ways to life, but then again life adapts like a UFO nutter to wild theories
But even with warm, salty oceans and so on life remained at a single cell stage for over 3bln years thus drawing the question - how often will life even get passed this stage?
Luckily we did, allong came multicellular life, different species, the first plants on land, animals - forgive me, im not an evolutionary biologist so this is a bit vague.
Then, throughout history there were setbacks - would we have developed without them? I'd say proberly not - we don't believe mamals would have found a foothold if the dinosaurs remained kings.
Then you look at today, intelligence is attributed to a number of animals, dolphins for example - but what will dolphins ever accomplish without opposable thums? Or elephants...
Even then, no other primate has made the jump we did way back when. It would appear we are a fluke, who knows how many things actually had to happen to mould the potential for minds like ours? I believe we are only here because of evolution, and evolution itself is not aware - there is no bias towards intelligence. Perhaps intelligence is ultimately more dangerous than benificial?

So no, it seems foolhardy to venture that another fluke of evolution is visiting us. But I do not believe my mind is vacant, far from it. I'm no genius, but I have a solid respect for scientific reasoning. I also have respect for all the times in history where people were laughed at, only to be proven right later on.
Look, im not going to ask a skeptic to look at the reports of ufo's and such any more than a christian is going to get me to read the bible. If one's mind is made up, it usually stays that way unless proof comes allong to the contrary.
I see many things on this subject that I cant get passed, some can, but I cannot. Thousands of credible witnesses - sure many may not be so credible - but not all in my opinion. Radar evidence backed up by visual sightings. All the Belgium info is available - if it wasn't a craft of some sort, how could one explain how it moved? It was there - no doubt about that. Three simultaneous traces can't be a glitch? Over 100 witnesses on the ground reporting it were underneath it's flightpath on radar. Those witnesses, though seperated reported the same thing. It moved against the wind....

Can I prove this, of course not. But an airforce, backed by a government, released this information....

When things like this have happened....I think it's silly not to keep an open mind.

[xelasnave]

Does this help????

from the famous Wiki.......

there are........

Two types of statements: observational and categorical
In work beginning in the 1930s, Popper gave falsifiability a renewed emphasis as a criterion of empirical statements in science.

Popper noticed that two types of statements are of particular value to scientists.

The first are statements of observations, such as "this is a white swan". Logicians call these statements singular existential statements, since they assert the existence of some particular thing. They can be parsed in the form: There is an x that is a swan, and x is white.

The second are statements that categorize all instances of something, such as "all swans are white". Logicians call these statements universal. They are usually parsed in the form: For all x, if x is a swan, then x is white. Scientific laws are commonly supposed to be of this type. One difficult question in the methodology of science is: How does one move from observations to laws? How can one validly infer a universal statement from any number of existential statements?

Inductivist methodology supposed that one can somehow move from a series of singular existential statements to a universal statement. That is, that one can move from 'this is a white swan', 'that is a white swan', and so on, to a universal statement such as 'all swans are white'. This method is clearly deductively invalid, since it is always possible that there may be a non-white swan that has eluded observation


alex

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

I can understand where some people get the idea that they've seen a UFO.

My UFO experience.
It's been mentioned before in other threads, but here it is again.
I was being dropped off at a friends house late one afternoon. My brother and I looked up at the clouds and all of a sudden they were alight with fire, then there was a roar that rocked me to my bones.
Dave and I just looked at each other and said, "This is it, they're here!"
A very emotional moment, fear, excitement, awe etc all at once.
30 seconds later, we both realised it was an F111 doing a very low dump and burn.

One of our Moderators, not naming names, had a UFO encounter too.
The story goes like this, correct me if I'm wrong Paul....
One night, at a party, a light was spotted in the night sky, flying off this way, then going that way. A few of the party goers were caught up in the mystery of it.
It ended up being a firefly caught in a spiders web, buzzing up and down trying to get free.

If the mystery hadn't been solved, here would be another group of people who believed that they'd seen a UFO.