Fair enough; though I suspect those non-PhD scientists' work stayed within accepted mainstream paradigms.

But are you suggesting the JBIS paper is "baseless" with "obvious physical flaws?"

If so.... how so?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Likewise, and none taken.
I find myself more and more skeptical of "skeptics." There appears to be as much an industry of "debunking" as there is pseudoscience. And from what I've witnessed here over the last couple of years is many so-called "skeptics" of the ETH are as uninformed and rooted in "belief" as they so often suggest the "woowoos" are, exhibiting high degrees of subjective thinking when considering the ETH.
I believe I've pointed out a couple of good examples here in this very thread.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

See Scourge, this is the very real problem. You're asking us to try and ID something that is nearly impossible to ID. If you were totally convinced that it was Russian Migs scouting out your hometown for a parachute drop we couldn't help you any more than if you had said it was space aliens. I agree that what you saw was at least mildly enigmatic, but I can't get excited about it. Why? There's nowhere near enough evidence in your experience to begin to make an educated guess. Most of us on this board know the hazards of trying to figure out what's in the sky and how difficult it is to ID stuff when it's difficult to see or just a collection of lights. (Personally, I now always carry binoculars in my car so I can attempt to satisfy my curiosity.) I'm not saying you should stop trying to figure out what it was, but even if, as you say, it would be really stupid for an experimental military craft to be conducting test flights over a populated area, that possibilty is still much, much more likely than it being space aliens.

Have you conclusively eliminted the possiblity of the military? Have you concusively eliminated the possibility of some sort of private stunt pilots? Of someone deliberately hoaxing you? Someone trying to hoax the whole area? I mean, these are very unlkely circumstances, I agree, but each and every one of these is MUCH more likely than it being an alien craft.

See, it's always difficult to prove something by negatively proving it. (i know, I could have said that better). What I mean is that you're trying to say that its probably space aliens because it's not a natural phenomenon or can't have been accomplished by people on earth. Unfortunatley, and this is probably the most basic premise that the UFOers singuarly fail to grasp: it's almost impossible to prove something this way. I can always come up with a scenario that is possible, no matter how preposterous it sounds, that is more likely than sace aliens. It could be a collection of ballons, several miles away, each with powerful lights attached to the bottom of it that wink in and out making it seem like sharp angle turns. Et cetera, et cetera.

Yes, we do ask for extrordinary evidence. After all, it's an extrortdinary claim.

John

Most skeptics I know are willing to accept the possibility - even if a remote one, but don't feel the evidence is particularly compelling. And, to date, not a single Unidentified Flying Object has ever been postively and unequivocally Identified as a vehicle from outer space containing intelligent extraterrestrials. Therein, lies the problem. Its great to speculate on the possibiities, but without clear, unequivocal and independently verifiable evidence that identifies an unidentified flying object as something of extraterrestrial origin, no one can reasonably conclude we are being visited by E.T.

And yes, invectives like "woowoos" and "crackpots" may suggest bias, but the trouble is "UFOlogy" is full of such characters, from Pru Calabrese, who "remote viewed" a spaceship in the tail of Hale Bopp to Richard Hoagland, who still claims there is a face on Mars. "UFOlogy" sports no standardized methodology and has no standards of proof by which a body of systematically organized evidence may be assembled. Its simply "science" by anecdotes, which isn't science at all. Running around collecting ephemeral "sightings" reports about fuzzy objects in the sky and excusing the lack of any real evidence on so-called government cover-ups, doesn't cut it.

Its not up to the "skeptics" to prove the advocates wrong. Its up to the advocates to prove their right. Those who truly think there is a case to be made need to do a better job of making their case. I'm willing to be convinced with something truly convincing.

__________________
Anything may be possible, but not everything actually is. Some things are true and some things are not. Wisdom is knowing the difference.

OT for a second guys, if you don't mind.

Hewhocaves. a few posts back you say this:

I thought I had read where it'll never be possible to view the landers from Earth. This being due to the distance, size of target and the properties of light. "Diffraction limited" is the term used to describe this for scopes, I believe. . .

Is this incorrect?

__________________
. . . My moustache is touching my brain!!!!

yes, i've heard that said as well. however, we've done such wonderful things with adaptive optics in the last few years I wonder if that sentiment shouldn't be revised.

Never is a really strong word to use. I'm 32. Where were we, telescope- wise 50 years ago? (1955) We still had people debating canals on Mars. We could point the Keck at Mars today and knock out that idea. We could probably point any number of ameateur scopes with a CCD on it and do it as well.

And if I can head off what I perceive as the inevitable counter-argument; I don't think any of us on here have said that we will never be visited by ETs, we're just saying that the evidence presented that we have already been visited is shaky at best

John

Previous posts explain why I see this situation as a true conundrum, rather than an amusing footnote. Because a phenomenon like this is –perhaps by its very nature- scientifically indemonstrable, since the one thing required to reach a consensual conclusion is the one thing we will probably never get—a piece of whatever is moving in the sky. Nothing less is going to be taken seriously by the scientific community. But I think some of these reports, especially those by trained observers, hold profound significance worthy of conscientious, rigorous scientific investigation. So it’s a Catch-22.

What I think we need here is a special category of scientific inquiry for phenomena that, by their very nature, cannot produce irrefutable physical evidence, so we can at least –look- at a phenomenon like this without resorting to name-calling and knee-jerk accusations of foolishness/delusion/lies.

Some people are trying to do this, but since precious few scientists are willing to risk their reputations and livelihoods by associating themselves with such investigations, and since their work has to be funded almost entirely by their own savings accounts, little if anything significant is getting done. But I have faith in science, and I think if we had some support by the scientific community to conduct a solid investigation, we may not end up with the ‘smoking gun’ to establish exactly what is going on—but I think we’d be able to demonstrate conclusively that in fact –something extraordinary- is going on. I seem to recall that even Project Blue Book concluded that some small number of reported sightings fell into exactly such a category, but it fell on deaf ears. Why? Since when has science turned its nose up at any unsolved mystery?

So what we’re left with, for the most part, is a very loosely organized group of nonscientists attempting to do something that scientists themselves won’t dare to attempt—make an extraordinary case with nothing more than photographic evidence, some good stories, and an occasional odd soil/plant sample or midnight sunburn of the face. It’s not right—of course their efforts are fumbling, because rather than helping, most scientists would rather sit back and laugh at the show. I’m sorry, but that kind of behavior seems kinda contemptible to me—it’s like watching the neighborhood bully beat up the stuttering girl, and passing the popcorn. And God forbid some poor sucker tries to jump in and help—we’ve seen the apparently well-meaning Dr. Haisch get torn to shreds before our very eyes right here.

And a salient point that seems to keep sailing over the heads of the ‘disbelievers’ here is: how can you say that an extraterrestrial craft is ‘more unlikely’ than a military craft defying the known laws of physics, when Fermi’s paradox was born from the scientific conclusion that ‘they’ –should- be here, right now? If indeed our best guess (and I’d like to take a long hard look at this issue if anyone’s game) is that our galaxy ought to be essentially teeming with intelligent life, then why it is so freakin unlikely that we might actually see ‘them’ from time to time? It’s not scientific—you can’t have it both ways, viz ‘well yes, we’ve concluded that it’s highly probable that we’re the new kids on the block, but you’re a fool if you think we’re going to ever see our neighbors. It’s much more likely that someone around here is performing physics experiments we’ve deemed impossible.’ ?

Algorithm--you're asking non-scientists to make a positive ID of something the scientific community doesn't even acknowledge may exist--doesn't that strike you as a little disingenuous? Can you put the shoe on the other foot and see what a bind you'd be in if -you- saw something that defied conventional wisdom?

Sure, maybe what I saw, and what other people have seen, was nothing more than advanced military aircraft. But if we go with that—then our own government is holding back a few chapters from our modern physics books, and that’s hardly an acceptable state of affairs now is it? Or if what I saw was some radical form of ball lighting or something? Well dang—what if one of those struck a passenger plane? Or worse, showed up on Korean radar during delicate nuclear weapons negotiations? Or as someone suggested earlier—what if it was some unknown kind of mass delusion…something that could happen to pilots and send them into a collision? We should know.

For these and many more reasons, it’s not only unbecoming, but it’s irresponsible of the scientific community to dismiss the reports in question. Nobody’s going to back a responsible investigation without your support, because answering observed enigmas is your field. But until you acknowledge that there is a question, the rest of us are left out in the cold, reluctant to even share our observations under threat of public humiliation and downright derision. We’ve been waiting for a long time, would it really be so bad to lend a helping hand?

amen

__________________
"I'm a visionary, I'm ahead of my time...
...problem is i'm only about 30 seconds ahead."
George Carlin

Wow... where to begin?

Not necessarily. But you are at least partly correct in that the world will want something more than an easily fakeable light and sound show

so what you're asking for is a science without the scientific method. Good luck there. I think Creationism ascribes to that idea. You should talk to them

Another problem here that's pretty commonplace: the idea that if just enough scientists 'believe' in somehting, it suddenly becomes 'good' science. That's a really misdirected view on how science works.

I'll admit the first part of this actually irked me. But look at the second part. Is that a good body of data? Heck no! I can accomplish the same thing on any given evening. I can take terrible pictures with my digital camera, go digging in a landfill, tell stories around a campfire and break into a tanning salon at midnight.

and right off the deep end we go... there's no point in debating this kind of bitter name calling.

again, you're assuming that you, the observer, have not made any sort of mistake in your observation, that you haven't been fooled by some perspective of vision, that you are not the unlucky recipient of some hoax and that you are a qualified expert in all poissible obects that you can view in the sky. That's an impressive resume then.

how many eskimos are australain pygmys likely to see? Just because something *should* be there does not mean that it *must* be there. In fact, if it isn't there, then there's probably a very likely reason for it. And while hte UFOists are sitting there complaing that the astronomers are doing nothing, it is in fact the astronomers who are finding the exoplanets, understanding the other planets in our solar system and digging deeper into the fundamental principles under which our galaxy is ordered. Yes, they're really "beating up the stuttering girl". And in fact, when all is said and done, I think you'll find that it's the long, slow, methodical approach that will eventually come up with the final, correct answer - not some woowoo with a camcorder along a state highway.

or maybe its just a confused eyewitness.

Wow. that's a real textbook case of a persecution complex. And what happens if your sghting is investigated and its proven to be "observer error" or a natural phenomenon. Are you going to say "Wow, gee. I guess I was wrong! Thanks, science for clearing that up. All I really wanted to know was what that thing in the sky was. Golly, I'm sure glad it was all readily explainable. What a silly mistake it all was!" No, of course not. You're going to want another test, then another test, then another test and etc... Then you're going o pore over the results, look for something that could be misinterpreted as something else, misinterpret it and then say "Oooh Science screwed up because I observed it and I have to be right because my eyes can't possibly be fooled by something because I'm the observer and my fertile imagination has already settled on 'space aliens' as the answer and I won't stop until the data is 'cooked' to the point where it supports my claim.

Hmm.. that may have been a tad harsh. I wish the aliens hadn't told me to write that. I hate when they make me help cover up the conspiracy.

John

There's already a "category" without the scientific method...it's called pseudo-science.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about and scourge pointed it out as well: You are automataically applying a low a priori probablity to the ETH.
I see this as the crux of the matter.
Why?
Because even in the "scientific method" one must make assumptions to test a theory, and it is in these assumptions that personal bias can shows itself.
The "scientific method" is supposedly "objective" but within the method itself allows for subjectivity to creep in.
Hence the low a priori probability "skeptics" like yourself apply to the ETH.
Here, we have a seemingly mainstream journal publishing a paper that says, according to modern astrophysics, that we should be immersed in a galactic Civ, AND YET, "skeptics" still think the prosaic explanations are "MUCH" more likely.
I see this as the reason that "Science" has alienated (pun intended) the masses. People worldwide have experiences such as scourge's and yet "science" tells him he's a "crackpot" misidentifying some mundane event.

***SNIP***

I disagree. As I pointed out earlier, humans have been writing about "those from heaven to earth came" for millennia, replete in our Religious and Mythic texts. They've also documented countless "sightings" through the ages into our very own day. In the blink of an eye, evolutionarily, humans became a space faring species. Presently, we have scientists saying that modern astrophysics demands ET is all around us.
So what exactly is so "extraordinary" about such a claim?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

lol.. you made me use the dictionary. bad you.

Seriously, I see your point, and you do have a valid point. Yes, we do tend to look at ETs as the absolute last case scenario for something inexplainable. But I personally don't see a problem with that, nor do i see it as "science" conducting a crusade against the UFOists.

Look, it's really simple. When you're trying to figure out what something is, one of the easiest ways to do so is deciding what it's not and working from there. So you start with the easiest things to eliminate. Is it a plane? Is it a star? Is it Venus? Is it a weather balloon? Is it an RC glider? Parachutist? Good Year Blimp? Comet? Meteor? Ball Lightning? frisbee with a laser pointer taped to it? Etc... And if it passes all those and you can conclusively prove that it isn't any of those AAANNND you have useful data to analyze you can start making some general assumptions about it based on the data. That is: size, speed, altitude, etc... keeping in mind the limitations of the data that you possess.

Those last couple of sentences are where IMHO most UFOers go horribly, horribly wrong. They eliminate the obvious and then presume that it's space aliens. So you've got some lights in the sky. Fine. Some people saw them. Great! Were there any photographs taken - and I mean useful ones, not what you tend to see on the Sci-Fi channel. Were the five people standing next to each other, or were they miles away. I'd like to be able to triangulate this thing to see how far and how high up it was. Did you see anything except lights? Could you see a craft? Or have the space aliens perfected interstellar glowsticks?

It doesn't take long (and I'm sorry scourge for using your example - believe it or not, I believe you saw something odd in the sky that day - I just don't know what) before you realize that there's very little substance to the sighting. Without data to analyze, theres little for the scientist to do. And that's frustrating, because the witness desperately wants to know what he/she saw, especially if it is aliens. I mean how cool would that be? Nevermind the appearances on Letterman, the permanant entry into the history books, the cash lecture tour - just to know that we're not alone, well that in itself is damn comforting. We could ask their advice. "How did you survive the nuclear age? The Red Sox winning the world series? The almost-collapse of civilization?"

But it's preciscely because it's such an enticing idea that we HAVE to be extra skeptical. What a disservice we would be doing if we blew the whistle too early, if we misidentified something natural as aliens? What would people think? And then if we mistakingly convinced ourselves that there were aliens actively watching us from low orbit or closer and we tried to contact them and there was no one to respond... Then what?

You know, theres a lot of flack about science "alienating" people. And yet, people gladly embrace the fruits of science - the technology, the advances, etc... UFOists have been studying this same phenomenon for over fifty years now. In that time, science has gone from vacuum tubes to tablet PCs, from the moon to the edge of the solar system, from an average death at sixty to almost eighty. And yet the UFO "evidence" today is as shabby as it was fifty years ago. You talk about science being such a terrible thing, but it has one thing going for it. It works. Somehow, in the midst of the greatest revolution in the history of humanity, the UFO movement has completely and totally stood still. IMHO it's not science that has alienated the masses. they love us. We give them IPods. It's you guys.

John

Science works well indeed. I agree quite strongly with the following (from this article):

Woverine,

That is a great quote. A fertile imagination and an open mind are wonderful things, but they are only the beginning steps towards knowledge and wisdom. Rigor and discipline are necessary to complete the process.

Regards,
Algorithms

__________________
Anything may be possible, but not everything actually is. Some things are true and some things are not. Wisdom is knowing the difference.

I agree with that article completely Wolverine, especially this part:
"the scientific method must be employed as the basis for drawing conclusions regarding paranormal claims." But if most scientists abide by this, then why are they not particpating in the inquiry more actively?

I like science; it’s the best thing since soap. I’m saying we need to apply it to the ‘sighting’ phenomenon, rather than leaving it up to the cranks to draw wild-eyed fantasies about it. But ever since Project Bluebook was closed, the only place people have to turn, even if they have a compelling case happening right in front of them, is to the –least qualified- people in the country. Am I the only one here who appreciates this problem?

This is why I’m saying we need –scientists- to look at this stuff, because the layman isn’t equipped or qualified to meet this high standard of skepticism. You’re asking the layman to do the work of a group of top-notch scientists. The scenario itself is fundamentally flawed, which is why it’s been leading nowhere but to greater division on this issue. The scientific community has left ‘us,’ the witnesses, with nobody but the ‘UFOists’ as you call them--the cranks and the crackpots and the pseudo-scientists, to investigate the issue. So of course the field of inquiry harbors no respect. I come here to calmly discuss the issue, and I get flamed for making claims I’m not even making. All I’m just saying is we should look into it, and suddenly I’m one of ‘them’--the hoaxsters/crackpots/knuckleheads. If we can’t even look at the question objectively, and without prejudice, how are we –ever- going to have solid answers?

Such as? Tell me what an average person could bring to your attention that would make you think twice about this issue, short of a chunk of alien technology.

That was uncalled for, and you too R.A.F., with the ‘pseudo-science’ crack. We accept far more tenuous evidence for astronomical phenomena—we often don’t even have –photos- of things we assume to exist because of secondary or tertiary effects, such as black holes, and somewhat less so, 'dark matter.' The evidence is far from ‘irrefutable physical evidence,’ yet we move forward with those investigations with the banner of empirical reductionism flying high. So is that ‘pseudo-science’ too? Of course not. So really, this is about a double-standard, in principle anyway. It’s a conceit of those scientists who don’t feel they need further evidence to base their opinions upon, viz ‘I don’t need to know what that is because I’m pre-convinced that it’s not what you think it could be.’ This, despite a reasonable theory that backs up the claims of eyewitnesses. Your 'Creationism' slur only validates the public perception of scientists as self-aggrandizing, belligerent, patronizing priests of ‘The One and Only Truth,’ which is horribly tragic, because the scientific enterprise is probably the single most heroic undertaking of human history. Your words, John, soil the nobility of that endeavor.

Don’t lecture me about science, I probably appreciate its essential nature better than you do. Where have I ever asked anyone to ‘believe’ or ‘disbelieve’ –anything-? Never. We know what we know, the rest is guesswork…and you don’t know there’s nothing interesting going on, that’s an opinion, and you know what they say about those. By support, and I specified this, I mean a sound investigation. The Air Force felt this was justified in the Sixties, but now you proclaim that it’s beneath science to investigate these unidentified phenomena…based on nothing more than belief and supposition. I was always taught that there’s no such thing as a foolish question, because not asking is the foolish alternative. The sightings issue is an open question, but you make me out to be a fool for asking it. That isn’t wisdom, and that isn’t science.

This is ‘armchair refereeing.’ This is not scientific thinking—you expect to sit back and wait for people who are not scientists to fumble forth with whatever paltry evidence they can muster on their own, and then proclaim how inadequate it all is from your pillowed throne. The investigative spirit is at least half of real science—you have to be available when opportunity knocks, to go out there and take samples and photos and castings and bring them back to the lab and scrutinize the evidence you collect. I went over this. The general public doesn’t have the know-how or the technology to bring solid findings to your doorstep. They need help, scientific help, to find answers that explain what they’re observing—they can’t convince anyone of anything without some inside help—and—you’re already predisposed to Not believe them when they tell you what they’ve experienced. Thus, the Catch-22. The scientific community in general refuses to help, and the public thinks less of them for it—and they’re right.

The hoax scenario you just described is appalling, because it assumes that the evidence is faked, when in fact most people who see these things are as good and honest, and sometimes as careful at observing, as anyone on this board. To justify –not even looking- at what they have, because ‘it could have been faked’ does –all- of those good people a profound injustice.

Do you see the hypocrisy at work here—you’ll assume that if it didn’t come from Lawrence Livermore Labs, it’s probably a fake, or useless or whatever. But Lawrence Livermore isn’t looking. This is an untenable situation—and you can’t blame the public for it—it’s the ‘ivory tower’ mentality of much of the science community that has barred the doors to honest investigation.

What? Okay, I see--the analogy slipped by you: the bully is the difficult task of trying to wrestle with an enigma without the facilities, tools, or training, the stuttering girl is the group of people trying to wrestle with that insurmountable task, and the scientific establishment en masse is passing the popcorn rather than helping out. No name-calling, just a fairly fitting analogy.

And you, the armchair referee, are assuming that I have been mistaken/fooled/etc. Besides, that’s my entire point—I’m not qualified to draw scientific conclusions from my observations, that’s why we need scientific help to establish what’s going on. I’m not saying I know what it is. But five people I knew well saw exactly the same thing, and there are –thousands- of people who report similar sightings. Are they all liars or deluded? Do you have any idea how conceited it sounds to hear you dismiss –all of these incidents- without so much as a nod that there –might- be something happening that –you don’t know about-? And you didn’t even answer the question, jeez. You can’t say the ETH is ‘unlikely,’ when scientists have been saying for decades that they should be here right now, under our noses.

I never said it *must* be there, I said it ‘might’—we won’t get on better footing until good science takes the reigns from the quacks. And don’t twist my words, that’s dirty pool.

And ‘if’ cows could fly, then there’d probably be good reason for that too, heh. This is parabolic logic, at best.

This is all emotional topic-shifting—I never said that astronomers aren’t doing their work, and doing darn good work at that. I’m proud of the work scientists do...the progress they make with modeling the intricacies of the universe, it’s all a magnificent and majestic undertaking that I support 100%. A couple of my closest friends are brilliant scientists, and I’m proud to say it.

Ahh, the demon shows it’s face…so now everyone who videotapes something unusual in the sky, is a ‘woo-woo.’ That kind of prejudice is woeful. I think this will be my last reply to you. Anyway, for the millionth time, I’m not saying that science is flawed; I’m saying that we should apply it to the sightings of our people, because that’s how we’ll get answers. Science isn't going to find those answers if it doesn’t –look-, and it’s –not looking-. Man, I feel like a broken record, but this is just not getting through. And I don’t know where you came up with this ‘scourge vs. science’ malarkey, I guess it was that analogy you misinterpreted—to reiterate, I accused the scientific establishment of sitting on the sidelines of the debate, not beating anyone up, sigh. A refreshing exception was the Mexican Air Force case, but it took world-wide press to get that done, and better cases every year are relegated to the likes of Hoagland.

And you’d know this…..how? By sitting back and willfully –not investigating the consensual claims of thousands of rational people-? Thought so.

Imagine that. After having to deal with countless people who’d rather call me an idiot than get off their haunches and look at the situation, for thirty years… It’s not a 'complex' if you really –are- being persecuted, and most of your post here proves the point.

Sure, though I'm not saying I know one way or the other, so I can't really be 'wrong'--I can only be 'sure,' which is more than I can be now. Anyway, I’m not talking about my sole experience; I’m talking about a phenomenon that’s basically sweeping the globe. I’ll probably never come any closer to knowing for sure what it was I saw with my neighbors and friends that day, but that’s ultimately irrelevant. Sightings are going on nearly every day, and some of those may have something amazing to teach us. We need to focus on those—cases that are fresh, have some kind of evidence, photographic, radar, whatever. Strike while the iron’s hot, and maybe we’ll get to the bottom of it. If it all is just some weird synaptic design failure of the species, at least we’ll learn more about that…who knows what else that understanding could lead to…but in any case, it would be valuable knowledge (and put a lot of people’s mind at ease in the process, to have solved the riddle).

Okay, so you’re obviously not a scientist, thanks for clearing that up. You’ve taken all the calm, rational discussion I’ve presented previously, and brewed it through your contempt filter for the entire field of inquiry we’re discussing, then heaved out a meaningless string of ignorant biases that have nothing whatsoever to do with what I’ve said through this whole thread. “Harsh” doesn’t even begin to cover it, that was downright abusive, not to mention deeply insulting.

I’ve done nothing more than tell my story, and request a fresh look and careful examination of the issue at hand using the rigors of the scientific method that I have grown to love and respect. For some, like yourself, the words aren’t heard, and anyone attempting this is obviously going to be subjected to your preposterous abusive nonsense. When Wolverine showed me evidence that the Mexican Air Force footage was actually plumes from oil platforms, I accepted it (gratefully, I might add). But when I ask you to consider that thousands of your neighbors, friends, family, and countrymen might be telling the truth about some fascinating sightings they’ve experienced, you go on some potty rampage about how I’ll never accept any explanation other than little green men and all that, pfft. So of the two of us, who holds a more sincere and unqualified interest in finding the truth?

Threads like these are interesting and, when intelligently argued, useful. Even though I have never seen either side convince the other (the lines are drawn apparently), they are useful in that they allow the lurkers and fence-sitters to arrive at their own conclusions based on the arguments presented.

I'll admit I beleive that almost all sightings are miss understood government experiments...
... but with that said I also do not see any reason why we could not have been visited by et explorers or et scientists who just want to study the primitave humans.

__________________
"I'm a visionary, I'm ahead of my time...
...problem is i'm only about 30 seconds ahead."
George Carlin

I think the strongest arguement against UFO phenomena being E.T. visitors is the immense size of the universe along with the unimaginable distances between stars.

Intelligent life with the capability of space travel is likely very rare. And, given the trillions of places there are to visit, its not likely any one rare race of intelligent extraterrestrials would find us.

But most compelling are the vast distances that must be traveled...definitely too far for conventional means. And, suggestions of travel by spacewarps and wormholes is even less likely given the enormous energy requirements that might be necessary to create such things, assuming they can actually be created.

Now this doesn't completely rule out E.T. visits to earth, but the probabilities involved argue convincingly for other explanations for UFO phenomena.

__________________
Anything may be possible, but not everything actually is. Some things are true and some things are not. Wisdom is knowing the difference.

scourge, you better get used to it. allthough this is a self entitled science forum the fact is its filled with pseudo-skeptics, some of them quite vicious and very effective. it will be them who will come out of the woods to attack any idea or opinion that doesnt "conform" and disrupt any serious discussion with circular logic and personal insults.

nevertheless i appreciate your input. those are very well grounded arguments and its a shame that you only get contempt and bad mouthing in return.

its a sign of the times i guess. while more than half of the world plundges in middle ages religious beliefs to phsycologically escape the hardening of our daily life conditions the other side, the "scientific", has built an air tight ivory tower, where pumped by rich corporations, they can distance themselfs from the rest of the people.

worst of all, if one dares to question their dogmas one will surely find himself quickly ostracized, if not ridiculed or even ruined. its a fact, which the armchair skeptics do not seem, or dont want, to realize and its a damn shame that our suposedly civilized societies still engage in witch huntings.

that is only a problem based on the limitations of our current technology.
arguing the limitations of an advanced civilization technology based on the accomplishments and example of only one species leads nowhere. its a mute point.

and you know this... how? there is no known way to apprehend this today, unless we can go outhere and explore the Universe, or we find a way of detecting inteligent life across the extent of the Universe. im sorry, but even if looking for radio signals is a valid idea its not necessarily the only way to find other intelligent species.

another vacuous argument. its precisely the fact that intelligent(?) life exists in this planet that might make it an interesting place to visit and study. after all, we're taking our first steps towards being a space faring civilization ourselfs. untill now, our war centered and belicist civilization has been confined to this planet due to our technological limitations, if an advanced civilization exists relatively near us i dont find it very strange that they would like to keep an eye on us.

well, you've answered your questioning yourself. our "conventional means" are not enough yet. that obviously accounts for our incapacity of visiting other planets, however its not usefull as an argument against ET visitation.

Well, we've been advertising our presence for a while now. There must be a bubble of TV and radio broadcasts about 60 light years across surrounding us by now - likely to arouse suspicion in any alien within that area. Although they wouldn't understand the broadcasts, it's apparent output would make the Sun would look like an extremely peculiar star altogether and would attract study.

Emphasis mine...

Assumption 1...That other life exists in the universe.

Assumption 2...That they are capable of multi-light year space travel.

Assumption 3...That they have some "reason" for visiting us.

Assumption 4...That they actually ARE visiting us.

These examples are simplified, of course, there are many more...the question remains...

How many "assumptions" are you willing to allow and continue to call it science???

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Your arguments concerning ET are without the slightest bit of supporting evidence.

Tell me Outcast, just how is this statement pseudo-skeptical or a personal attack???

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

The Big Bang rests on many more assumptions. At very best some of them remain mere interpretations of evidence. But many have sold their souls to the BB, and become very irrrational when it is challenged. The Paradigm Police, however, consider it 'scientific'.

How many more assumptions are they prepared to accept? Double standards I fear!

We're on equal footing here R.A.F., because it takes an equal number of assumptions to arrive at the opposing conclusion (which I should add, we -haven't arrived at yet-, we're only considering the options with an open mind here, I hope, and suggesting very careful analysis of available information):

Assumption 1...There probably isn't life nearby in the universe.

Assumption 2...If there is, they're equally or less advanced with space travel as we are.

Assumption 3...Even if they -could- send a craft our way,they wouldn't be motivated by the same curiousity that inspires us to send probes to places like Titan.

Assumption 4...So they mustn't be visiting us.

So what makes -this- 'better science?' Your preconceptions, or the scarce facts available? As I see it -we just don't know- which is more plausible, because we have no firm basis to determine any of these answers yet...though in absence of more data, it seems to me that taking our situation as a fairly mundane occurence is the more scientific position to take, not that we're the product of some miraculously unlikely confluence of circumstances. After all, our star is fairly average, maybe our planetary system and our conditions for life and evolution are as well. It seems to me, that in this case, the burden of proof for claiming that we're some extraordinarily exception in these ways falls upon the nay-sayers, not the genuine skeptics.

Thank you for your thoughtful words Outcast--burning at the stake is a far less agonizing experience when someone's willing to jump into the flames with you, heh.

I admit, I wasn't prepared for the skewering I've gotten over the ideas I've presented. I figured that kind of rancor was reserved for those making outrageous claims, not those offering constructive suggestions. The scientific minds I've been fortunate to befriend have always been open to discuss any issue with patience and depth. I was foolish to take them for granted, even among those in their field.

It's agonizing to see some practitioners of the endeavor that freed us from the confines of fundamentalist theology, adopt parallel tactics, but I'll hold on to the hope that they are the most vocal, and not the most prevalent, among the community.

And that’s a solid point Lianachan—we’re advertising our presence every day with our broadcasts. But moreover, we’re starting to learn how to detect Earth-like planets in other systems now—so it’s not unreasonable to think that another civilization could have gotten quite sophisticated at detecting systems with viable life-producing planets like our own, perhaps even long ago. And the difficulty of sending a probe our way is inversely proportional to the level of technological sophistication. Any way you shake it, there’s no reason to scoff at the idea that others may very well know we’re here, even if we haven’t found them yet. Even if it takes a few centuries for a probe to reach us and take samples/make observations, there’s no reason to believe that no-one is making that level of effort. If we could, we would—and soon, we will.

We have every right to be proud of our advances—but I think we’d be wise to consider that we may not be the ultimate technological civilization in the neighborhood. Despite what some people say, it is a perfectly viable hypothesis at this time.

If you or anyone get any personal insults, PM the BA. He'll warn or ban the offender. If anyone uses circular logic, point it out. This has been done in this discussion, and that is good, like when it was pointed out that you have to make too many assumptions to be certain that ET's exist and are here, but that you have to make as many assumptions to be certain that they don't. Then you can go on to discuss which has the higher probability, but noone will be able to say that his side is absolutely true (if you want to stay in the boundaries of science, that is).
There are pseudo-skeptics and pseudo-scientists here, but there are in my experience a lot more scientists and sceptics (I'm a sceptic, not a scientist). They will point out flaws in logic and proofs that are wrong, but if you consider that 'attacks', that's too bad, that's just the way science and scepticism works. Loads of 'accepted' scientific ideas get discussed here, and rarely does everybody agree. For example, A.DIM starts about the Anunnaki in almost every discussion he participates in, but noone (I hope) has said him to bugger off with his ideas. Most of us (I think) don't agree with him, but we ignore him or we discuss with him.
But if you take every discussion, every post that points to a flaw in your reasoning, as a personal attack, then I can believe that this board is not the place for you, as it is dedicated to discussions based on arguments and evidence, based on science and logic, not on beliefs and hopes.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

This all seems to boil down to why certain unprovable assumptions have to be considered as invalid until there is irrefutable proof for such claims. When it comes time to decide what to accept as being "true" if we did not assume these unprovable assumptions were false, we'd have to decide which unprovables to believe by some totally arbitrary means. This would be engaging in "belief by whim". We'd have to assume that all such statements are true. Now, you say, we could believe true those unprovables that do not contradict other proven statements or that do not contradict each other. Even if we do this we still have no grounds for choosing which of two contradictory unprovables we will choose to believe! Back to "belief by whim". Even if you add in these provisions, this policy would result in a great number of ridiculous beliefs (one could say that there are large purple elephant aliens somewhere in the universe and by this reasoning it would be valid). When you finally have to form a method to decide what to believe, it is obviously the best policy is to assume that all unprovables are false, until they can actually be proved. In other words, it is reasonable not to believe an assumption when there is no evidence, even if it is somehow "less false" than other assumptions which are contradicted by evidence. Although it may not be a certainty it is still reasonable to regard them as false so long as we've examined the evidence and don't ignore any new evidence that comes along. Hopefully, this will clear up why we don't just assume that aliens exist and are visiting (or have visited) the earth.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

60 light years is an exceptionally small portion of the universe, almost infinitessimal. Yet it is still an incredibly huge distance. What this means is that it is very unlikely that a race of intelligent beings exist within this distance (using the variables in the Drake equation). And, even if there did, it is is even less likely that they would possess the technology to travel such interstellar distances.

Keep in mind that we should be able to "hear" anyone who is able to hear us. To date, we've not heard from anyone.

This is really a question of probability. Its highly probable that there are other intelligent lifeforms elsewhere in the universe. But we'd be enormously lucky to have anyone close enough to us to be able to find and eventually visit us. One cannot rule out the possibility, but one can reasonably assert that it is improbable and that other explanations for UFOs are far more probable.

__________________
Anything may be possible, but not everything actually is. Some things are true and some things are not. Wisdom is knowing the difference.

That logic won't fly.

R.A.F's assumptions were all required,comparing to yours which aren't dependant of each other.

It's basically a comparison between:
Assumption1 AND Assumption2 AND Assumption3 AND Assumption4
to:
Assumption1 OR Assumption2 OR Assumption3 OR Assumption4.

Doesn't seem to be quite equal...

I am aware exactly how small a 60 light year bubble is - I was only saying that any aliens that happen to be within it will have noticed something peculiar about our star by now, assuming they use radio astronomy of course. I was implying neither that there are aliens within that area, nor that (in the unlikely event that there are) they would visit us or be able to. The point I originally was responding to was one that said, and I paraphrase, "Why us? Why consider our star system different?" and I was giving an example of one way in which it would look different within a certain radius. That's all. Of course, within another hundred years or so we may not be using electromagnetic communication and instead of a constantly expanding sphere we may have emitted a "shell" of radio noise a couple of hundred light years thick, before and after which we look like a normal star. Other aliens, in the unlikely event that they exist, may have done this and we simply hadn't invented radio astronomy yet when their "radio shell" passed us.

I do agree with you, that the odds are stacked against aliens visiting us - but I do see reasons why this could be the case, without saying we are alone in our neck of the woods let alone the universe as a whole. Of course, if an alien civilisation situated 60 light years away has detected our radio noise and thought the best way to say hello was to reply in kind then we won't have picked up the signal yet. So I suppose that makes the effective bubble within which an alien civilisation could have detected us and replied even smaller - if they wanted to reply at all.