Do you believe in UFO's and Aliens? (poll)

[Archer17]

I was just using as you put it "military jocks flaunting next-generation technology"" as an example. like hell probably 99% of them are planes, balloons, helicopters, blimps, other aircraft or objects, im just saying ...there are some that have some pretty good photos/videos to back em up...but for all i know its not some ufo of et kind but a jet and its just not clear on the footage...so what i am saying is stop bagging me haha im taking both sides in a way.

I'm not sure what you mean about me "bagging" you. Remember .. you came here and brought up the subject.

There hasn't been one photo or video that has proven that any UFO was ET, and with computer-generated effects nowadays I'm surprised you even mention it.

Ya know what doesn't add up for me when you sample much of the lore? ET coming all this way .. just to diddle. You know, hover over Hooterville, do graffiti on farm land, slice up cows, do the abduction thing (that never gets caught on video BTW, even by the so-called multiple abductees), etc etc...ad infinitum. Some ETUFO advocates even imply they have done this for centuries, as if this somehow bolsters their case.

Why come all this way and do .. what? It doesn't add up, even with highdive's math.

[X-COM]

Yes I belive in UFO's (Unidentified flying objects), if you don't know what it is, it's a ufo.

Do I belive in aliens? I will not assume that ET will be lying to me if I ever meet him so yes I belive in aliens. I have still to meet him thou...

[Wolverine]

Here comes the cavalry. OK I believe that witnesses of professional backgrounds and military-trained personnel have met aliens. Are they real? They think so. That's good enough for me.

That's certainly not good enough for me.

Claims or accounts provided by military personnel and police officers, for example, are often assigned more significant value by UFO/ET believers (or perhaps even the general public). The problem being, these individuals remain susceptible to the same the same psychological processes as everyone else. Simply because someone may be a "trained observer" or have a professional background does not guarantee that their claim/account is accurate.

While this doesn't merit dismissing such claims out of hand, they shouldn't be accepted at face value, either. See here for more.

[galacsi]

If the question means: Are there aliens here, now?
Then the answer is no.

You've run afoul of a band of Skeptics.
If something is improbable and has no evidence,
we're not going to believe in it.
Believe is for suckers.

What a wonderfull declaration of principles !

[galacsi]

The question is too simple , anyway i voted "YES" . I am not sure the Aliens are really Aliens , i am not sure they come from another star , the road is so long. This is a very complex subject. And as the sceptics dont stop saying , there are no official evidence. So IMO this is a censured and forbidden topic.
And it is a very heated subject which move us at the heart of our beliefs , very political in facts. I dont believe in the possibility of a productive debate.

[ufo1300]

The question is too simple , anyway i voted "YES" . I am not sure the Aliens are really Aliens , i am not sure they come from another star , the road is so long. This is a very complex subject. And as the sceptics dont stop saying , there are no official evidence. So IMO this is a censured and forbidden topic.
And it is a very heated subject which move us at the heart of our beliefs , very political in facts. I dont believe in the possibility of a productive debate.

Ah well said galacsi, and i nether believe in the possibility of a productive debate. And yes, very heated indead this subject is and i actually believe that no-one who has participated in this debate is right, theres just no solid evidence for either side, so i for one am ending my debating here.

Thanks for contributing to my thread everyone,

Nat.

[koloss]

I think maybe can exist. I think the UFOS are as our spacecraft or similar

[Fr. Wayne]

i actually believe that no-one who has participated in this debate is right, theres just no solid evidence for either side, so i for one am ending my debating here.

Please Mr. Custer, I don't wanna go
Hey, Mr. Custer, please don't make me go
I had a dream last night about the comin' fight
Somebody yelled "attack!"
And there I stood with a arrow in my back.

Further lyrics censored due to PC Rule 17-3.

Nevermind. I'll just go back to bed.

[N C More]

Well, I do think that the numbers and credibility factor of people who see a UFO should be considered. For example, a large group of unrelated people are unlikely to be out right hoaxing. However, the *something* they saw just can't serve as evidence for much more than, this group of people saw *something*. Unless they happen to have the *something* in their possession, just seeing it isn't of much use. The *something* could have been anything; misidentificaton of prosiac aircraft, celestial events (bolide, sun dog, aurora), military testing of new aircraft, occassionally even group hysteria spurred on by faith. Without far more evidence than just seeing a *something* it's certainly not possible to start proclaiming that ET has landed.

Now, I think ET visitation is possible...just not very probable. The lack of solid, irrefutable evidence available makes me think that this is just not happening right now. However, I will not go so far as to say it's outright impossible (some my disagree, that's ok). When you say something is completely impossible one has crossed the line into 'disbelief'. I choose neither to 'believe' nor 'disbelieve', I just want to be shown the evidence... pure and simple.

[Fr. Wayne]

Show me the money. Where's the beef? Alas the cunning petard. Please allow me to introduce myself. (with a quick story- I'll make it brief) Prof says to class I will prove G** does not exist. I will wait 5 minutes for him to knock me off this lecturn and when time is up and he hasn't done it that is my proof. With only 30 seconds to spare a student rushes up and clocks the professor right on his keister. Why ou do that? G** was busy, he sent me. I'm a Marine.

Anyway I do apologize for any religious implications in story, but include it in skeleton form to remind skeptics that:

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be."

-Mother Night
Kurt Vonnegut

Ridicule of theories is fair game. Ridicule of testimony defeats the cause of freedom and truth and replaces it with crowd control. Like I said many moons ago, I'd rather believe one Native American grandpa than all the Einstein's in the world no matter how dazzling their technology may be. What goes around , comes around. I hope I never have to meet an alien.

[Bobunf]

I think Archer17 got it right when he said, "ET coming all this way .. just to diddle."

To me it doesn't make sense for three reasons:

The huge amount of time and effort that must be required, even for an advanced civilization, to make this voyage of many light-years. A trip potentially involving thousands of years--each way.

Having made the trip, ET has so much to gain by a substantial and sustained study of Earth. Even for an advanced civilization, it would be marvelous, and helpful, to study a biological system that has independently evolved for 4 billion years, and has developed millions of species, including a creature that is at least capable of thinking about interstellar travel. What an opportunity! And one that probably doesn't occur very often.

Even if ET has decided to conceal themselves from us, they're really doing an amazingly incompetent job of it, if the UFO stuff is even 1% true.

I know it's not possible to have much of a clue about motives of any ETs, but it doesn't take a deep understanding of motive to find it pretty unlikely that ET is going to expend a lot of time and effort for essentially nothing, and then do it carelessly.

Bob

[SolusLupus]

Ridicule of theories is fair game. Ridicule of testimony defeats the cause of freedom and truth and replaces it with crowd control. Like I said many moons ago, I'd rather believe one Native American grandpa than all the Einstein's in the world no matter how dazzling their technology may be.

And I appreciate science, since that actually saves lives and enhances them, thank you very much. It was science that saved billions of lives throughout history, not some NA's grandpa. So I really don't care what you think on the subject.

What goes around , comes around. I hope I never have to meet an alien.

Not sure what you mean about that, but I doubt you have to worry. Considering that it's highly unlikely UFOs are visiting us (and I do believe that they are not), then you never will have to "meet an alien".

[highdive]

And let's see, we've found 159 other planets, which are likewise massive planets with close orbits resulting in absolutely brutal temperatures and conditions. Let's rule them out also.

Ever heard of Hydrovents? Life can actually thrive in "absolutely brutal temeratures and conditions."

Now we're at 1 out of 169. (0.59%)
But, other than ourselves, that's 0 for 168. (0.0000%) So.....what did all that math really prove?

You haven't scratched the surface with your 169. Start out with a trillion, then multiply that by a few more trillion and then keep going. The odds get a little better.

Next topic of sightings...

The problem being, these individuals remain susceptible to the same the same psychological processes as everyone else. Simply because someone may be a "trained observer" or have a professional background does not guarantee that their claim/account is accurate.

At what point do we stop believing what trained military or credible civilian sources holding offices of authority on arial observances? Would you take the word of a president (Jimmy Carter), exmilitary? Astronauts with NASA who have been to space? Commercial airline pilots by the thousands? There must be a lot of swamp gas out there. Or maybe the government is telling us the truth and these people are simply "nutjobs"? If that is the case, then the government employs and trains nutjobs? oops We have a slight contradiction here.

[Wolverine]

Ridicule of theories is fair game. Ridicule of testimony defeats the cause of freedom and truth and replaces it with crowd control.

Who said anything about ridicule? I (albeit briefly) expressed the necessity to apply sound critical thinking when weighing extraordinary claims, and that remains best undertaken via application of reliable, empirical means.

Testimonies do not necessarily reflect freedom, nor truth -- that's why they must be scrutinized. "Crowd control" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Like I said many moons ago, I'd rather believe one Native American grandpa than all the Einstein's in the world no matter how dazzling their technology may be.

Belief does not establish the validity of any given concept. That's a function best served by scientific methodology. While certainly your prerogative to make such a choice, it will not reliably aid in separating fact from fiction.

[highdive]

Originally Posted by Fr. Wayne
Like I said many moons ago, I'd rather believe one Native American grandpa than all the Einstein's in the world no matter how dazzling their technology may be.

Then you must also believe in Yeti/Sasquatch, glad to hear it, met too.

At what point do we stop believing what trained military or credible civilian sources holding offices of authority on arial observances? Would you take the word of a president (Jimmy Carter), exmilitary? Astronauts with NASA who have been to space? Commercial airline pilots by the thousands? There must be a lot of swamp gas out there. Or maybe the government is telling us the truth and these people are simply "nutjobs"? If that is the case, then the government employs and trains nutjobs? oops We have a slight contradiction here.

The governments policy: "If you can't defeat it, deny it exists" or else risk seeming weak.

[Fr. Wayne]

Hey, the art of persuasion demands that first a trust between individuals must be established. I trust that Lonewolf has every right to defend the scientific method. I hope that those who agree would consider the possibility that the scientific method is a tool and not a religion. Agnostics need not depend only on this tool for their position. They have every right to base their positions on reasonable principles outside the limitations of scientific methodology. There are too many phenomena in the Universe we've yet to experience, observe, or define to require opinions to be proven. I do appreciate what technology has done for me. May we be ever vigilante to make sure this tool is not used to take advantage of people. So far I think you guys at BAUT are excellent role models of such vigilance.

[Wolverine]

At what point do we stop believing what trained military or credible civilian sources holding offices of authority on arial observances?

The matter shouldn't hinge upon belief, for one; that'd be the wrong approach to this and other subjects. As I noted in my post above, belief does not establish validity.

Would you take the word of a president (Jimmy Carter), exmilitary? Astronauts with NASA who have been to space? Commercial airline pilots by the thousands?

I wouldn't "take anyone's word" for it. If Phil Plait himself approached me stating he'd seen an alien, I'd grill him for particulars and scrutinize his statments as I would similar claims regardless of their origin, even though he's a professional astronomer with noteworthy credentials.

If you've not done so, you might want to review this post I linked above (or the entire thread if you prefer, as there's some good discussion there).

Anecdotes in and of themselves simply offer no scientific value.

There must be a lot of swamp gas out there. Or maybe the government is telling us the truth and these people are simply "nutjobs"

Claims of a governmental cover-up of UFOs are not supported by evidence. Further, people aren't necessarily "nutjobs" for reporting unidentified flying objects. As Plait notes here (adapted from an article he authored for Sky & Telescope magazine in 2004), the most prosaic, likely answer is that many people grossly misinterpret mundane objects or events.

[Fr. Wayne]

Wolverine, I trust your opinion. You are steadfast in your principles. You might even convince me someday, and crush the non-scientific axiom: "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" once and for all. Thanks for your patience in the meantime.

[Bobunf]

I'd rather believe one Native American grandpa than all the Einstein's in the world no matter how dazzling their technology may be.

Doesn't this belief depend on the content of what characters say? For instance, two real life encounters:

Native American grandpa: "This moss in your shoes will let you run 40 miles in a day and not be tired."

Einstein: "the time lapse between two events is not invariant from one observer to another, but is dependent on the relative speeds of the observers' reference frames."

Here's my take on these two statements:

Probability that even the Native American grandpa believes what he's saying--about zero.

What do you think? Wanna race?

Probability that Einstein's statement (once you figure out what it means) will be useful in the future; for instance in attempts at interplanetary exploration: 99.9%.

What do you think? Want to plan a trip to Mars figuring time is always the same no matter your frame of reference?

I think your faith may have been misplaced in this case.

Bob

[Lance]

Claims of a governmental cover-up of UFOs are not supported by evidence.

That's the point. It is the lack of evidence that proves the coverup.

Example:

One of the posters here has an invisible elf in his back yard and openly admits it. This is not cover up. If the person who has this invisible elf never told anyone about it, that would be a cover up.

All the users here who make no such claim are covering up the fact that thay too have invisible elves in their own back yards. The lack of evidence is the proof of cover up.

Follow?

[Bobunf]

At last. Now I understand.

No evidence = proof.

Great!

Bob

[Fr. Wayne]

I think your faith may have been misplaced in this case.

It certainly would be in scenario proposed. Einstein was a good man. I shouldn't have used his name as an example. Not meant to be derogatory. I was looking for a short cut to questioning the philosophy of positivism.

[Wolverine]

Hey, the art of persuasion demands that first a trust between individuals must be established.

Analysis of accounts, claims, or evidence does not rely upon trust. From your posts it appears you're including concepts (e.g. belief, freedom, trust) in this dialogue which, quite frankly, have no relevance.

I hope that those who agree would consider the possibility that the scientific method is a tool and not a religion.

The scientific method of inquiry represents the antithesis of "a religion." While I'm sure you meant no offense, I object to this statement as it's a mischaracterization of the principles outlined over the course of this discussion.

Science remains, by far, the best, most accurate means of arriving at reasonable conclusions concerning the nature of the universe and everything within. Neither faith nor religious principles are involved. As such, the attempt at making such a connection is unwarranted.

There are too many phenomena in the Universe we've yet to experience, observe, or define to require opinions to be proven.

Our exchange here, however, does not pertain to unexperienced, unobserved, undefined phenomena. The focus here is distinct -- what you mention simply isn't a prerequisite in order to scrutinize specific claims or render objective analysis.

[Wolverine]

Wolverine, I trust your opinion. You are steadfast in your principles. You might even convince me someday, and crush the non-scientific axiom: "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" once and for all. Thanks for your patience in the meantime.

I appreciate the kind words, Fr. Wayne, but (here I go again )... I'd recommend that you not trust my opinion. Instead, if you choose to accept my statements/arguments as valid, do so based upon their merits and method.

As you can imagine, I'm a huge hit at parties.

[highdive]

I wouldn't "take anyone's word" for it. If Phil Plait himself approached me stating he'd seen an alien, I'd grill him for particulars and scrutinize his statments as I would similar claims regardless of their origin, even though he's a professional astronomer with noteworthy credentials.

May I take it then, using this system of skepticism, you also debunk scientific claims by officials in NASA that claim to have discovered a new planet, meteor, or any other scientific claim? Or is it just the ones you have a hard time believing? Will you not believe there is a 10th planet until you yourself have been there? This system of "picking and choosing" official claims seems flawed. We trust these people to tell us the truth, or we don't.

[SolusLupus]

May I take it then, using this system of skepticism, you also debunk scientific claims by officials in NASA that claim to have discovered a new planet, meteor, or any other scientific claim? Or is it just the ones you have a hard time believing? Will you not believe there is a 10th planet until you yourself have been there? This system of "picking and choosing" official claims seems flawed. We trust these people to tell us the truth, or we don't.

So there's no such thing as scientists being able to provide evidence of their claims? Why would we have peer-reviewed journals, then?

[Fr. Wayne]

As this forum is not meant for philosophical debate, I will only add at this time that I'm glad our government is based on a "two-party" system, in which case everyone can be a star ("hit") as long as they are consistent.

[SolusLupus]

As this forum is not meant for philosophical debate, I will only add at this time that I'm glad our government is based on a "two-party" system, in which case everyone can be a star ("hit") as long as they are consistent.

What does that have to do with anything? And what does governmental structure have to do with scientific principles?

[Fr. Wayne]

I'm a huge hit at parties.

a short cut to questioning the philosophy of positivism.

Apologies, Lonewolf, for not referencing my previous post.

[Wolverine]

May I take it then, using this system of skepticism, you also debunk scientific claims by officials in NASA that claim to have discovered a new planet, meteor, or any other scientific claim?

The suggestion of "debunking" NASA would connotate that discoveries contain "bunk," which is highly inaccurate. New astronomical finds are well-supported by evidence, for one, and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals where they may be verified and scrutinized by other members of the scientific community.

More importantly: these things are not extraordinary claims. We have specific knowledge of planets, meteors, comets, and numerous other astronomical objects. They can be reasonably accepted as valid based upon the merits of supporting evidence.

Beyond that, in the case of cometary discoveries, for example, they can often be directly observed by amateurs, or anyone with the appropriate astronomical equipment.

Or is it just the ones you have a hard time believing? Will you not believe there is a 10th planet until you yourself have been there?

Belief does not enter the equation for me. I accept that which is demonstrably correct, supported by empirical evidence. The discovery of 2003 UB313 stands as valid based upon multiple methods of observation, replicated by other teams aside from Mike Brown's. It's not necessary to travel 97 AU to establish the validity of his team's discovery.

This system of "picking and choosing" official claims seems flawed. We trust these people to tell us the truth, or we don't.

It's not picking and choosing at all, nor is it a matter of "trust." How familiar are you with fundamental principles of science and skepticism? I ask simply because it appears you harbor misconceptions about their very nature.