Say what you want be we are screwed!!!

[Brazoo]

It probably goes without saying - but I LOVE The Amazing James Randi.

What if all the recent UFO sightings are fake and holograms. No aliens, but technology tricking the masses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbA-FbeNtqw
We're seeing some of these things now. The video is four years old.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuuTVLS6eVg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGQW-fw2Gew

Hey Lonnie - please understand I just don't have more time to watch or debate these new videos. I think I've given fair time to some of the other points and sources you've brought up - and I'll be happy to stick to points that were already on the table if you want to focus the discussion back on those? time-wise I can't just keep up with more theories that begin with the same premiss again. I really hope that's understandable!

I promise you that I've spent a HUGE chunk of my life looking at sources from the outlook that believes in NWO, Aliens and "End Of Times" predictions - and I find that even if some of the specifics of the theories change the rational for those theories stays the same, and I've tried my best to address that.

Here's some great sources I encourage you to check out. Even if it doesn't change your mind these might at least help you understand what I'm trying to say. This stuff is way more articulate and intelligent then anything I can get across anyhow:

I think this Michael Shermer talk is a little snide, but it does serve as a good intro:
Michael Shermer on strange beliefs | Video on TED.com

Jon Ronson's work (which the video you presented quoted from):
http://www.jonronson.com/goats_04.html
Amazon.com: Them: Adventures with Extremists (9780743233217): Jon Ronson: Books

The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Podcast (Search for UFO and Conspiracy Theories in the episode topics):
Home - The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe


Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World"
Amazon.com: The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (9780345409461): Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan: Books

James Randi's "Flim-Flam!"
Amazon.com: Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions (9780879751982): James Randi, Isaac Asimov: Books



Again, I don't mean to dismiss your arguments or your opinions, I just don't know if I can keep presenting new points or arguments if we keep adding new claims the one's we've already discussed. I'll be happy to respond to a few rebuttals if we're sticking to the the points we're already discussing though. Is that cool?

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

"Watch the Skies" by Curtis Peebles is good too.

Don C.

[darklord1967]

Darklord - I just want to quickly and crudely explain my arguments for two of your points.

IF aliens exist...
IF aliens are super advanced...
IF the technology to travel across the universe exists...
IF the laws of the universe even work that way...

Those are some enormous IFs!! It's not that I don't think we should try to find the answers to these "IFs" or even write off alien visitation theory as a possible theory - but when a more practical reason might explain something we're confused by we should probably go with that first.

My problem is that someone sees something weird, and they go with the big wild theory first instead of last.

Occam's razor!

Well I certainly am NOT suggesting that when something unusual / extraordinary happens, that "wild theories" are what should be explored first as explanations. Indeed, I personally am of the opinion that all "less sensational" possible explanations should be initially examined thoroughly so as to rule out the paranormal before any such claims can be made. That is only prudent... and it IS scientific.

However, I also feel that theory posturing (in the other extreme) makes virtually NO scientific sense. I see absolutely no intelligence nor scientific value in stubbornly negating an event's paranormal explanation (after the exhaustion of all other possibilities) simply because it does not fit into a pundit's belief system or limited realm of understanding. The result has often been explanations that stretch the realm of believability and plausibility to such a degree that a paranormal explanation seems logical and downright reasonable by comparison!

The universe is a very BIG place. And our understanding of it is extremely limited. Some of the extraordinary events that have been witnessed on this planet have an explanation that falls OUTSIDE of human understanding, and OUTSIDE of human recorded "evidence". The fact that no "evidence" exists for the ultimate truth of something does NOT automatically negate its existence.

The atom existed LONG before it was discovered, recorded, and "evidenced" by human science.

I also find it ironic that "evidence", by it's very definition, is what is presented to establish the truth of something. That includes mass eyewitness (and earwitness) testimony, official documentation, photos, videos, audio recordings, ancient fossils and artifacts, scientifically-measured residue, electro-magnetic signatures, DNA... the list goes on. What is ironic to me is how pundits will only accept these forms of evidence for claims that fall within their realm of understanding... but not for anything else.

I think I probably first heard of OCCAM'S RAZOR (the principle that suggests that "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one.") back in 1997, when I first saw the film "Contact".

Near the ending of that film, Eleanor Arroway (played by Jodie Foster) is transported across the galaxy in mere seconds in a fantastic device that bends space and time to allow for such a trip. She visits a distant planet where she meets an extraterrestrial ambassador who takes the form of her deceased father. This meeting occurs over 18 hours, and her headset camera is recording the whole time.

When she returns to Earth, a mere few seconds have passed, and all of the footage that her camera recorded appears as static.

When she is questioned by an advisory panel as to the validity of her extraterrestrial claim, she is hit by a LOT of skepticism... most notably of which comes from an arrogant Presidential Advisor by the name of Michael Kitz (played by James Woods). He points to the lack of evidence surrounding her claim and evokes Occam's Razor, speculating that Arroway was more than likely the unwitting pawn in a hoax perpetrated by eccentric millionaire S.R. Haddon (John Hurt).

After the panel concludes, Kitz is contacted by Rachel Constantine (portrayed by Angela Bassett), asking if he has had an opportunity to read the confidential findings report from the investigating committee:

The scene plays out as follows:

Michael Kitz: I flipped through it.

Rachel Constantine: I was especially interested in the section on Arroway's video unit. The one that recorded the static?

Michael Kitz: Continue.

Rachel Constantine: The fact that it recorded static isn't what interests me.

Michael Kitz: [pauses] Continue.

Rachel Constantine: What interests me is that it recorded approximately eighteen hours of it.

Michael Kitz: [leans forward so he is looking directly in the camera] That is interesting, isn't it?

To me, this scene beautifully demonstrates the arrogance, the folly, and the fallacy of the Occam's Razor argument as it is used by so many pundits. The (sensational) pertinent facts of a case, (the ones that defy conventional explanation and demonstrate STRONG EVIDENCE for a legitimate paranormal event ) are summarily, dismissed, ignored... even buried all together... while the claimant is discredited, and their name / professional reputation is dragged through the mud, by the very individuals who know the truth.

In addition, I feel the need to point out that the very definition of Occam's Razor has typically been misquoted by so many pundits who wish to dismiss extraordinary claims.

This is an excerpt from wikipedia:

Occam's Razor... is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects. For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place.

The principle is often inaccurately summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one." This summary is misleading, however, since the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions. That is, the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation. Philosophers also add that the exact meaning of "simplest" can be nuanced in the first place.

I'm not trying to write off ALL presented evidence - I'm saying it's all based on human perception which is incredibly fallible. I'm not trying to ignore it either.

Well my question is, what humanly presented evidence for ANYTHING that ever existed falls outside the category of human perception? Just because human perception is fallible does NOT make it wrong 100% of the time. In fact, more often than not, it is reasonably accurate when dealing with the observations of sane, sober, focused, alert, and socially respected individuals. Courts of law throughout the land recognize this... and so does the scientific community.

I hope you'd agree that the vast number of encounters reported are not all of equal merit. And I hope you'd think that at least SOME of the encounters have plausible and everyday explanations.

To me all the reported cases fall on a spectrum. On one side we have super-confirmable 100% mistaken people being fooled or hoaxed or whatever - on the other we have claims with absolutely zero confirmable data. There are less cases at either end of that spectrum - most fall somewhere along the middle.

I would agree that not all purported alien encounter cases are of equal merit, and that there is a "spectrum" of cases as you pointed out. However, while one end of the spectrum is the 100% confirmably explained misidentified cases, hoaxes, etc... I see the other end of the spectrum as cases with a wealth of confirmable data that point to extraterrestrial visitation to this planet.

So to me it's far from a vast amount of baffling data that can only have "aliens" as an explanation.

"Vastness" is a very relative thing. If in the entire history of purported extraterrestrial encounter cases, 100 of them are completely un-explained and point strongly to a bona-fide paranormal event, then to some, 100 is a "vast" number of cases. However, I assert that there are likely a considerably LARGER number of cases that fall into that category than a mere 100.

And I honestly think that the UFO side is the side that's throwing out data. ALL the major "sightings" that have been debunked by scientist, military and/or government are predictably get dismissed as "cover".

I could just as easily point out that all of the major sightings that have been reported by respected scientists, military personnel, ex-government personnel, ex- NASA exployees, airline pilots, astronauts, law enforcement, etc, are predictably discredited, dismissed as "mistaken"... or even more insultingly, labeled as "crazy".

But believers have understandably become very cynical of "official explanations" that stretch credibilty beyond the breaking point. I'm not talking about idiot hoaxers here. But people become very insulted when they are told that what they saw and experienced was NOT what it was... or worse when they are called liars.

Sober, decent people (with NOTHING to gain by their claims except ridicule) KNOW what they saw and experienced... whether they are mistaken or not. But the "official explanations" crammed down their throats are often (frankly) insulting to their intelligence. Don't tell people that the strange craft they saw in the night sky was "swamp gas" when:

A) The sighting took place nowhere near a swamp.
B) The craft was witnessed by multitudes of people who all have IDENTICAL accounts of what they saw.

and

C) The vessel is witnessed performing areal acrobatics which are IMPOSSIBLE for even the most advanced aircraft devised by man to perform.. much less mere swamp gas.

The "believers" are the ones "throwing out data"? Really??

Listen, if you spend more than 50 years telling people that what crashed on that rancher's farmland in Roswell, New Mexico back in 1947 was a crashed weather balloon, but military personnel were the ones who were charged with the Top Secret clean-up, then you have to expect that people are going to speculate and ask questions.

Since when is the military needed to recover a crashed weather balloon?

When Major Jesse Marcel went to his grave claiming that the wreckage recovered in 1947 in Roswell was of highly unusual composition, exhibiting characteristics that he had never seen before... when he asserted that among the wreckage was an "I" beam panel with a heiroglyphics type of writing etched upon it... these pertinent facts were summarily "thrown out" by the military and the government, and he was forced to pose with the wreckage of a weather balloon for newspaper photos.. He was hung out to dry and thrown under the bus in front of the American public. He was basically portrayed as a boob and not as an experienced military man who was more than capable of initially recognizing the difference between a common weather balloon and the wreckage of an exotic craft which he had never seen before.




Weather balloons... the standard cop-out explanation for all sorts of bizarre witnessed areal phenomena for decades.

Many years (and many de-bunkings) after the government's BS story about a "weather balloon" at Roswell New Mexico, they "admitted" that what actually crashed on that ranch was a high altitude surveillance balloon from a classified project named "Mogul". Right. You gotta wonder what new story they'll come up with 30 years from now (if the truth is still not revealed).

When a strange object appeared over the skies of the California coast on February 25th 1942, the US Army fired anti-aircraft batteries up at it for over an hour. They could not bring down the object. Within 24 hours, the Department of War sent a memo to the President classifying the incident as being precipitated by "unidentified airplanes". But the Army declared the object was a "weather balloon".

I'm not necessarily saying that what appeared in the night skies over Los Angeles was an extraterrestrial flying saucer. But find it a little worrisome that over 1500 rounds of anti-aircraft shrapnel were incapable of bringing down... a "weather balloon".

Don't you at least find that odd?

[jackson5677]

And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

[boss]

hot water burn baby.

[darklord1967]

Since you started with bringing up the idea that NASA and the US Government (or possibly other governments) have been covering up evidence supporting alien visitation I'll start here.

I don't understand what the motive the US government would have for covering up alien evidence, and I'm even less convinced that NASA would participate in that kind of cover-up.

Government:
The US government has often been accused of creating or heightening fear in the public to increase spending on military and weapons technologies. It's also been accused of covering-up alien evidence to quell the public's fear.

What I find with these cover-up and conspiracy theories is that the characterization of "the government" sways both ways depending on which version is going to lend credence to the topic on the table. On one hand, the government is creating fear to strengthen the industrial military complex, and on the other hand they're covering things up to prevent widespread panic.

Personally, I think governments (all democratic governments) by their nature require the public they serve to think their service is a necessity, and often use different modes of fear to different degrees to strengthen their arguments. It can be as simple as "vote for me, because THAT guy will cause unemployment to rise", but it can also be "You need us because WE believe in homeland security and military defense".

ALL of the genuine and established conspiracies that have come to light in mainstream accepted history follow the narrative of governments trying to keep power, or trying to strengthen power. (I won't go into specifics, because that's bound to be political - but you can imagine that I'm talking about the big ones that have come to light like Watergate for example.)

For me that contradicts the opinion that governments corrupt enough to conspire and cover things up are worried about public fear and I have a really hard time coming around to believing theories that start with that premiss. It's far easier for me to picture a government that would use alien threat to expand it's military funding then it is to picture one that is chiefly concerned with preventing fear.

Actually, I see no contradiction at all in the notion of the government using fear as a populace-controlling mechanism versus the government wishing to avoid public panic over the official disclosure of extraterrestrial visitation to this planet.

You see, as you yourself pointed out, Brazoo, most (if not all) of the governments of the world, utilize the fear of various types of threats to consolidate their control over the public. They emphasize that only they can offer protection and salvation from these (often manufactured or artificially inflated) threats, ensuring the public’s trust, loyalty, and ever-increasing tax dollars.

Now, this works just fine against the threat of economic downturn, disease, hunger, poverty, war, you name it.

But when the “threat” takes the form of highly advanced extraterrestrial visitation to this planet with technology which we cannot begin to understand (nor defend against should it ever become hostile), then that public threat / fear becomes one which the government CANNOT adequately control. In that instance, the role of the government as the ultimate provider /protector/ authority becomes seriously compromised. And then its hold on the people is tenuous, at best. History repeatedly shows that when the people en-masse lose faith in their leader’s / government’s ability to protect and provide for them, they WILL rise up and overthrow such leadership… if nothing else out of desperation and… you guessed it… fear.

So fear, then, is a double-edged sword. Controlled properly, it allows governments and leaders to maintain a hold over their people. But allowed to spiral beyond their control, fear can be turned against that very leadership and threaten its existence.

Of course, artificially manufactured threats / fears are only one method which the government uses as a means for maintaining control over its public. Another big component is religion.

Most (if not all) of the governments of the world are inexorably linked to the predominant religious cultures of the populations that they govern. These governments likely find religion to be a very convenient tool for the control of the public. If people are allowed to remain scientifically ignorant while they cling to religious traditions and dogma, then control and loyalty is almost assured.

Now, conventional religious wisdom almost uniformly dictates that God created humans in His image, and that we are a unique construct in the universe, EXCLUSIVELY available upon the planet Earth... in short, no intelligent life exists anywhere else in the universe. I submit that open official government disclosure of the existence of extraterrestrial visitors to this planet could shatter this religious view for millions of people, permanently severing the government's religious controlling power over them.

NASA:
NASA has no current space program in development. There have been massive layoffs and this is a huge blow to it's already depleted budgets. A large part of NASA's experimental research is geared towards finding and looking for mechanisms for life to live on other planets. All the research so far is interesting, but it also seems really preliminary - which makes no sense to me if they have actual evidence of alien life. So I really don't believe that the motive of covering up alien evidence exists there at all and I don't understand the programs direction if they are.

Security:
In government and government agencies like NASA I think it's reasonable to accept that there are going to be certain projects and documents that are going to be classified for security reasons. It's just part of their job to do that.

Of course keeping some things secret will ALWAYS lead to people speculating on what's being hidden - that's just human nature.

Sure NASA is owned by the citizens of the US - but as a service to the people they have to maintain security as well. For example, NASA is not going to release blueprints for experimental technology it's developing to the public, because releasing their work to the public could actually be a disservice to the public it serves. NASA is developing technologies to patent - not spending millions of dollars to give new technology away.

Just because things are going to be kept secret, doesn't mean we have to leap to conclusions that can't be verified.

This is going to be a reoccurring theme, because the cornerstone of my belief system is that an unknown fact is - at best - something that can be speculated upon, but we CAN'T draw conclusions from an unknown. An unknown is just that - unknown until further evidence.

Well everything you’ve said here is all well and good except for one thing: You’re making references that relate to NASA as it exists today.

The (government-mandated) NASA cover-ups which I’m referring to do NOT relate to NASA’s current state. I am mainly referring to the agency as it existed during the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions of the 1950’s, and 1960’s, the Mars Viking mission of the 1970’s, and the Discovery missions of the 1980’s and 1990’s.

I am referring to the experiences of Astronauts like Gordon Cooper who have seen craft capable of performance that was far beyond human technology at the time they were observed (and even today).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvPR8T1o3Dc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T87td...eature=related



I am referring to the ancient ruins and structures discovered and photographed on the surface of our moon… photos which were classified, and / or airbrush – censored when they were released to the public.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6VYC...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIjmj...eature=related



I am referring to the experiences that Apollo Astronauts Neil Armstrong, Edgar Mitchell and Buzz Aldrin had when walking on the moon, or the things they witnessed while traveling outside of the Earth’s atmosphere during space missions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDIXv...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af96FNdy9ho&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArmiN...eature=related


I am pointing to the classified photos taken of the area known as the “Cydonia Complex” on the planet Mars where the ruins of pyramid-like structures surround what appears to be an enormous “face” monument which NASA has “debunked” as a “trick of light”.

Google Image Result for http://www.jaesonjrakman.com/Cydonia%20101/Cydonia%20101%20Pics/cyd-geom.jpg

Cydonia (region of Mars) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Brazoo]

Okay, so I just checked back in to see if anything was added since I posted last, and man! Darklord, I do want to respond to everything - but it might take me some time - so please have patience!

Well I certainly am NOT suggesting that when something unusual / extraordinary happens, that "wild theories" are what should be explored first as explanations. Indeed, I personally am of the opinion that all "less sensational" possible explanations should be initially examined thoroughly so as to rule out the paranormal before any such claims can be made. That is only prudent... and it IS scientific.

We are of TOTALLY the same mind here, but you have to admit the natural bias is towards seeing something that looks unusual and concluding that it IS something unusual.

Again, the news reporters in those videos posted by Lonnie show this clearly. There are two responses: #1 the reasonable and skeptical response and #2 the natural human reaction which has often been primed by our culture.

#1 "Those lights seem out of the ordinary, we should investigate further"

#2 "Wow! Those are 100% UFOs!" (UFOs meaning alien crafts, in this particular case.)

#2 is the common and more natural response by far. Popular cultural references play a roll in what we THINK we see. We're primed to see these things and then we do.

We can look at history as well. Dragons, fairies, magic... There are tons of examples of things that people believed in and think they saw - that we (generally) do not believe in now.

There's literally thousands of scientific studies to show priming effects as well as optical illusions and other ways our eyes and mind can trick us. The normal human impulse is to think "seeing is believing" but that's not so.

You're not just weighing one equal theory against another - you're weighing piles of very established and deeply researched and tested theories across several disciplines of science against one that has no way of being tested yet.

However, I also feel that theory posturing (in the other extreme) makes virtually NO scientific sense. I see absolutely no intelligence nor scientific value in stubbornly negating an event's paranormal explanation (after the exhaustion of all other possibilities) simply because it does not fit into a pundit's belief system or limited realm of understanding. The result has often been explanations that stretch the realm of believability and plausibility to such a degree that a paranormal explanation seems logical and downright reasonable by comparison!

Okay, here I just have to say that your impression of science based critical thinking and maybe skepticism as a whole is deeply confused by popular stereotypes.

Personally, I do not see myself as "posturing" or "stubbornly negating" about anything. If we're going to discuss specific evidence SHOW ME specific evidence. We've mostly discussed theory and method up till now, and I've responded to these general topics. If you think that I'm sitting here hoping you're not right - then that's just crazy. I've been excited about aliens, magic, paranormal experience and cryptozoology since I've been able to read - and I've never lost my hope that I'd see evidence of something. I find it unfair to conclude that because my understanding of the evidence I've come across diminishes the probability of these things existing that I'm "stubbornly negating" evidence just to fit my paradigm. I love to learn, and learning means being wrong a lot of the time. Trust me, my ego can take it. Lay it on me.

I think you're idea of science is a bit wrong, limited and based on stereotyping. Real science DOES include making radical stuff up when no other explanation can be made (dark matter and M-Theory are newer examples). They just don't pretend that the answer is correct right away - they leave conclusions up to testing, peer review, open discourse and sometimes YEARS of study. (I'm sure we'll come back to this.)

The universe is a very BIG place. And our understanding of it is extremely limited. Some of the extraordinary events that have been witnessed on this planet have an explanation that falls OUTSIDE of human understanding, and OUTSIDE of human recorded "evidence". The fact that no "evidence" exists for the ultimate truth of something does NOT automatically negate its existence.

The atom existed LONG before it was discovered, recorded, and "evidenced" by human science.

I also find it ironic that "evidence", by it's very definition, is what is presented to establish the truth of something. That includes mass eyewitness (and earwitness) testimony, official documentation, photos, videos, audio recordings, ancient fossils and artifacts, scientifically-measured residue, electro-magnetic signatures, DNA... the list goes on. What is ironic to me is how pundits will only accept these forms of evidence for claims that fall within their realm of understanding... but not for anything else.

Please note - I edited this section after thinking about it. My mind is never sharpest first thing in the morning and I screwed up some facts:

The theory of the atom was originally meant to explain the point at which something couldn't be divided any more. For about 200 years science thought the atom couldn't be split - and now we know that not only can it be split, but the atom itself is made of of smaller parts. Sometimes science is a slow and exhausting process and technology has to catch up. In science theories gain a consensus - and then the burden of proof is on the people postulating a new theory to disprove the old one. It's not static - as you paint it. It's not about holding onto ideas with faith. But, you can't negate the burden of proof if you're going against the established consensus either.

So, I disagree. Science doesn't negate the possibility of aliens visiting the Earth - it concludes the theory is unclear (at best) or even improbable based on the evidence. It's how science works - for the atom and for UFOs.

What is ironic to me is how pundits will only accept these forms of evidence for claims that fall within their realm of understanding... but not for anything else.

If by "pundit" you mean critical thinker then you're 100% correct. For example, when two people tell two different stories about one event we understand that one of them is mistaken or lying - we don't conclude that they both came from parallel universes and saw two different events that they thought was one.

Or another example - before atoms were confirmed they were theorized because something had to make up different substances. It was a theory that fit a concept they knew. They could have thought everything was held together by something supernatural just because they couldn't explain it. So is that a better way to postulate?

Reasons should be informed - otherwise it's just blind speculation. I'm not sure why you'd put stock in something that doesn't make sense. In fact, I'd bet money that you don't do that either, it's just that we both have different things that make sense to us. The main difference is that my beliefs are with the current consensus of science.

I think I probably first heard of OCCAM'S RAZOR (the principle that suggests that "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one.") back in 1997, when I first saw the film "Contact".

Yeah - as you say later - I was going to say that that's the wrong explanation of Occam's Razor. Wikipedia's definition IS more accurate:

"Occam's Razor...is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects. For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place."

I'm not trying to be overly pedantic or anything - but I hope you see the distinction because I think it's important. Simplicity isn't really the key to Occam's Razor - it's the number of unknown assumptions.

#1 "I lost my keys"

OR

#2 "Somebody must have picked the lock to my apartment, found my keys and took them, ran away without stealing anything else and locked the door on the way out."

So, it's not that #2 is impossible - it's just less likely. AND it's not really less likely BECAUSE of Occam's Razor - Occam's Razor is just a tool to remember to think about how many assumptions are required for each possible explanation. Our minds are good at rooting out the least likely explanations automatically:

#3 "Garfield came out of the morning paper and ate them!"

But our minds are not always hot when it comes to calculating probability in some cases. So it's not a rule or a law - just a helpful tool - IF it's understood correctly.

Here's one last rewording from wikipedia: "Bertrand Russell offered what he called "a form of Occam's Razor" which was "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities."

Near the ending of that film, Eleanor Arroway (played by Jodie Foster) is transported across the galaxy in mere seconds in a fantastic device that bends space and time to allow for such a trip. She visits a distant planet where she meets an extraterrestrial ambassador who takes the form of her deceased father. This meeting occurs over 18 hours, and her headset camera is recording the whole time.

When she returns to Earth, a mere few seconds have passed, and all of the footage that her camera recorded appears as static.

When she is questioned by an advisory panel as to the validity of her extraterrestrial claim, she is hit by a LOT of skepticism... most notably of which comes from an arrogant Presidential Advisor by the name of Michael Kitz (played by James Woods). He points to the lack of evidence surrounding her claim and evokes Occam's Razor, speculating that Arroway was more than likely the unwitting pawn in a hoax perpetrated by eccentric millionaire S.R. Haddon (John Hurt).

After the panel concludes, Kitz is contacted by Rachel Constantine (portrayed by Angela Bassett), asking if he has had an opportunity to read the confidential findings report from the investigating committee:

The scene plays out as follows:

Michael Kitz: I flipped through it.

Rachel Constantine: I was especially interested in the section on Arroway's video unit. The one that recorded the static?

Michael Kitz: Continue.

Rachel Constantine: The fact that it recorded static isn't what interests me.

Michael Kitz: [pauses] Continue.

Rachel Constantine: What interests me is that it recorded approximately eighteen hours of it.

Michael Kitz: [leans forward so he is looking directly in the camera] That is interesting, isn't it?

To me, this scene beautifully demonstrates the arrogance, the folly, and the fallacy of the Occam's Razor argument as it is used by so many pundits. The (sensational) pertinent facts of a case, (the ones that defy conventional explanation and demonstrate STRONG EVIDENCE for a legitimate paranormal event ) are summarily, dismissed, ignored... even buried all together... while the claimant is discredited, and their name / professional reputation is dragged through the mud, by the very individuals who know the truth.

Okay - so this is actually the classic misrepresentation of the arrogant "skeptic" in popular culture.

Here's the main problem in "Contact", (it comes up time and again in movie after movie through film history, but we'll stick to "Contact" for now):

In the fictional world of "Contact"

#1 alien contact has been scientifically established and confirmed
#2 the consensus of science agrees that the alien technology does something incredible
#3 so much so that they get funding and build the thing

The claim that the jerk character was making - that a bazillionare spent a ton of cash to perpetrate a hoax - should have actually have been ruled out using Occam's Razor, because it actually creates MORE assumptions, not less. The character didn't understand Occam's Razor.

Of course in real life (as with anything) there is good skepticism and bad skepticism, and good science and bad science - but the classic portrayal of "the scientist" in popular fiction is bias. They're often portrayed as being single minded, arrogant and totally cold. In reality that portrayal is usually inaccurate. Just read a few biographies about real scientists. They're dedicated to their theories, but they're also trying to figure out what's wrong with them. Falsifiability is a HUGE component to science - that I frankly, don't see it in UFOlogy, cryptozoology, paranormal studies, parapsychology, homeopathy...

Trying to falsify ones own claims is key in science - but these other belief systems don't allow for that. In science a good theory is usually falsifiable. With alien visitation theories evidence against a claim is automatically disbelieved - so it's fruitless.

In addition, I feel the need to point out that the very definition of Occam's Razor has typically been misquoted by so many pundits who wish to dismiss extraordinary claims.

This is an excerpt from wikipedia:

Occam's Razor... is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects. For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place.

The principle is often inaccurately summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one." This summary is misleading, however, since the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions. That is, the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation. Philosophers also add that the exact meaning of "simplest" can be nuanced in the first place.

Well, we both addressed this. I agree with you, simplicity is not correct or helpful in weighing two arguments. In the post where I first used Occam's Razor I tried illustrate my point by listing some of the unknown assumptions on each side - but I should have been clearer. I did say I was in a hurry!

So my point again, with that as an explanation:

IF aliens exist...
IF aliens are super advanced...
IF the technology to travel across the universe exists...
IF the laws of the universe even work that way...

Those are some enormous IFs!!

Again, just the general basis of the theory automatically argues in favor of at least four unknown assumptions. You add the cover-up theories to that and you're neck deep in assumption. We have testable theories for psychological priming, misperception and illusion. We know that there are military tests, flying objects, difficulty telling distance and scale against a sky, random coincidence, satellites, meteorites, weird natural light effects through clouds...

I think I've relayed this story on this site before - but a while ago I heard a great podcast with an astronomer who was driving through the dessert late at night. He started noticing a brightly lit cigar shaped object whizzing beside his car skimming up and down in the sky. If he sped up, it seemed to follow. If he slowed down - same thing. He began to get worried. He got ahold of his senses and stopped the car. He turned off his headlights and it disappeared. It was the reflection of his headlights against the electric wires along the road. If he was just a tad more frightened he might not have stopped. He might have reported this "strange" sighting and there would be one more UFO case on the books.




Right now I have to pause - but I will try to come back soon.

[Brazoo]

I'm not trying to write off ALL presented evidence - I'm saying it's all based on human perception which is incredibly fallible. I'm not trying to ignore it either.

Well my question is, what humanly presented evidence for ANYTHING that ever existed falls outside the category of human perception? Just because human perception is fallible does NOT make it wrong 100% of the time. In fact, more often than not, it is reasonably accurate when dealing with the observations of sane, sober, focused, alert, and socially respected individuals. Courts of law throughout the land recognize this... and so does the scientific community.

It's a great question! Also court of law is a really good analogy!

In science established theories are the defendants side - new theories are the prosecutors side.

Burden of proof is on the prosecutors side - we always assume innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's up to the prosecutor to build their case with physical evidence, a reasonable motive and yes, eye witness testimony.

But eye witness testimony is only one component of a case - and the case is argued to create a consensus amongst 12 jurors. They're told that they need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. One person alone is susceptible to bias, confusion, crazy ideas - anything. SO our legal systems recognize that one person alone is more fallible than 12.

In science a new theory is suppose to be peer reviewed and evaluated. If it doesn't succeed in surpassing people's expectations - if it doesn't provide evidence that the current prevailing theory is wrong - then it doesn't move forward.

The system isn't 100% correct, just as we can't know anything 100% ever - but our legal system and science both depend on this system to try and get as close to truth as possible.

[Brazoo]

I would agree that not all purported alien encounter cases are of equal merit, and that there is a "spectrum" of cases as you pointed out. However, while one end of the spectrum is the 100% confirmably explained misidentified cases, hoaxes, etc... I see the other end of the spectrum as cases with a wealth of confirmable data that point to extraterrestrial visitation to this planet.

Okay - so I'm glad we agree on the "spectrum"!

The most mysterious cases that I've seen often have the least or fuzziest data. So I'd like to see if you have something better.

We've spent a LONG time discussing the general theories of how we both measure the weight of evidence - so is it possible for you to list the most convincing evidence and best built case you know of so we can just focus on one case for now?

[Brazoo]

"Vastness" is a very relative thing. If in the entire history of purported extraterrestrial encounter cases, 100 of them are completely un-explained and point strongly to a bona-fide paranormal event, then to some, 100 is a "vast" number of cases. However, I assert that there are likely a considerably LARGER number of cases that fall into that category than a mere 100.

Regarding vastness - fair enough - I get your point, but I think using the amount of cases as evidence in-itself was your point. I was going along with whatever number you thought was high enough to be convincing.

Numbers don't really matter when the evidence is better anyway - that was the clumsy point I was angling for. Like, one confirmed sample of alien DNA would do it for me. Or even an unknown and unnatural alloy from a spaceship.

If we can concentrate on the best case that would be fun - if we do 100 (or whatever) then I think we're both going to be driven insane!

[Brazoo]

I feel like in some of this I'm going to just be repeating myself a bit, and I don't want to be to bore you too much, so I'm going to try to stick to new points where I can!

I could just as easily point out that all of the major sightings that have been reported by respected scientists, military personnel, ex-government personnel, ex- NASA exployees, airline pilots, astronauts, law enforcement, etc, are predictably discredited, dismissed as "mistaken"... or even more insultingly, labeled as "crazy".

People are people. We're ALL susceptible to being mistaken. I'm not dismissing all these cases - but this is why "argument from authority" is a logical fallacy.

Also, I'm not calling anyone crazy. Though I assume there ARE crazy people who have seen "aliens".

But believers have understandably become very cynical of "official explanations" that stretch credibilty beyond the breaking point. I'm not talking about idiot hoaxers here. But people become very insulted when they are told that what they saw and experienced was NOT what it was... or worse when they are called liars.

Yeah, but feelings are exactly what entrenches people into beliefs beyond what the evidence shows. My interest is in truth - better found with objectivity, no?

I know you believe that scientists are entrenched in their belief systems and tossing out evidence, and I've stated this before, but that's not how the consensus of science works. Newtonian mechanics were tossed in the garbage can just as the theory of relativity was demonstrated with evidence. There are SO many examples of this through the history of science. YES individual scientists may be susceptible to ignoring data because of personal bais - but there are very few examples of the consensus remaining on the wrong course after proper evidence is presented. Just like the jurors we were talking about before.

Sober, decent people (with NOTHING to gain by their claims except ridicule) KNOW what they saw and experienced... whether they are mistaken or not. But the "official explanations" crammed down their throats are often (frankly) insulting to their intelligence. Don't tell people that the strange craft they saw in the night sky was "swamp gas" when:

A) The sighting took place nowhere near a swamp.
B) The craft was witnessed by multitudes of people who all have IDENTICAL accounts of what they saw.

and

C) The vessel is witnessed performing areal acrobatics which are IMPOSSIBLE for even the most advanced aircraft devised by man to perform.. much less mere swamp gas.

Actually, if you listen to good skeptics - like Dr. Steven Novella, The Amazing Randi, Michael Shermer or Carl Sagan they're usually not denying that in situations where multiple people have witnessed something unusual that they haven't. The conclusion that the unusual thing is "Alien" is what they (and I) contest. And they're usually not mocking people - thought they may at times mock the folly of human error that could effect THEM too. Their argument is FOR the scientific method to take precedence.

You're other examples don't have enough info for me to debate. But for example - a VERY common sighting is something along the lines of "Three lights in a perfect triangle formation so it couldn't be natural". A) the believer here is concluding that the answer needs to be natural or alien when there ARE other possibilities that they're ignoring B) any 3 lights in the sky form a triangle.

One of the things we're really bad at is sensing scale and distance without anything to judge scale against (like the night sky), and we're really not so hot at seeing at night anyway. How many times have you looked down and thought a sock left on the floor was a mouse (or something)? Maybe even thought it moved a little? but then turned on the lights and/or looked closer and realized what it was just a sock. Night vision really isn't our bag.

The "believers" are the ones "throwing out data"? Really??

Yes, I stand totally by that, actually. I can't say all. I think most are just not understanding some of the primary principals of science and doing it unwillingly - to be honest. The lack of falsification that goes on in the (as you say) "believer" side, is really lacking in the research that's usually done, for starters. Then there's the logical fallacies like "Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable", "Confusing association with causation", "Ad ignorantiam"...

Listen, if you spend more than 50 years telling people that what crashed on that rancher's farmland in Roswell, New Mexico back in 1947 was a crashed weather balloon, but military personnel were the ones who were charged with the Top Secret clean-up, then you have to expect that people are going to speculate and ask questions.

If I believe the military covered "something" up, why do I have to assume it was alien? Why not a secret military craft? Again, your explanation is adding WAY too many unknowns - and that's my main problem.

Bottom line, the military DOES do secret stuff.

Weather balloons... the standard cop-out explanation for all sorts of bizarre witnessed areal phenomena for decades.

Many years (and many de-bunkings) after the government's BS story about a "weather balloon" at Roswell New Mexico, they "admitted" that what actually crashed on that ranch was a high altitude surveillance balloon from a classified project named "Mogul". Right. You gotta wonder what new story they'll come up with 30 years from now (if the truth is still not revealed).

When a strange object appeared over the skies of the California coast on February 25th 1942, the US Army fired anti-aircraft batteries up at it for over an hour. They could not bring down the object. Within 24 hours, the Department of War sent a memo to the President classifying the incident as being precipitated by "unidentified airplanes". But the Army declared the object was a "weather balloon".

I'm not necessarily saying that what appeared in the night skies over Los Angeles was an extraterrestrial flying saucer. But find it a little worrisome that over 1500 rounds of anti-aircraft shrapnel were incapable of bringing down... a "weather balloon".

Don't you at least find that odd?.

I might find that odd - but not 3 months after Peal Harbor. Not the day after Santa Barbara California was attacked by a Japanese sub. L.A. was in constant surveillance mode. Nerves were high - EVERYONE on the coast was expecting and dreading another attack. Images of cities bombed in Europe were in every paper every day - and had been for years at that point.

We know first hand what people's nerves were like after 9/11, and how citizens were constantly kept on their toes to look out for anything odd. There were incidences all over the US, Canada and Europe where full out bomb squads and evacuations were initiated only to find something dumb and harmless.

Covering up a alien ship and covering up a mistake look exactly the same - but personally, I live in a world where people making mistakes is a more common phenomena than alien ships.

[Brazoo]

Darklord - my feeling is that it's hard for you to understand how I can dismiss some of the cases you're siting, so I'll try to explain in a summary.

• When you follow the scientific method
• when you adhere your understanding of the world to what is knowable and don't base your ideas on unknowable "beliefs"
• when you understand that you can't "prove a negative"
• when you use tools for rationalization (like falsification, or Occam's Razor)
• when you understand illusion and phenomena like Pareidolia
• when you study how much research has confirmed the fallibility of our memories and senses
• when you toss out arguments based on logical fallacies

there isn't much left to discuss about alien/UFO theories. The cases you sited are full of these problems.

I also want to point out some of the better analysis I have come across for some of the events or claims you are siting, because some of the claims you are siting are decades old, and there has be progress made to uncover these claims that have produced very little - or in fact brought to light some of the inconsistencies of these claims and bring into question the information that these arguments are based on:

Kevin D. Randle is a longtime UFOlogist and "believer". In a 2011 interview in "Skeptical Inquirer" he admits, "I set a very high bar for the level of evidence required. There are very few authentic UFO cases. However, some skeptical explanations don't fit the facts. Still, I'm getting more skeptical in my old age." Simply put, when you want good evidence and you devote a lot of time to uncovering evidence to support your theory that doesn't materialize you have to start questioning your theory.

Here's a recent (well, recent for Roswell research) blog entry Randle wrote regarding the consistency of Major Jesse Marcel's information and he even points out some of the ways errors could have entered into the official story and loosely suggests that Marcel's memory was suspect on other issues as well: A Different Perspective: Major Jesse Marcel, Sr.

He didn't just listen to youtube videos edited to show one perspective, this is Randle hunting down original source material (very very important) for the claims and coming up with information that questions the available data instead of confirming it.


The same connection to facts and, let's just call them "issues" with Gordon Cooper's story exists. Some of his facts or memories are just wrong. There are others, but here's one example based on his claim that the photos he saw never resurfaced:

"Now, in fact those photographs did not vanish after all: they had been sent to Project Blue Book, at Wright- Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio, per regulations (I even have talked to the officer who did the original Blue Book interviews, former Captain Hubert Davis, who had been greatly impressed with the witness's sincerity) . Years later the photos were pulled out of the retired Air Force files by UFO writers and investigators, as yet ignorant of the still-unpublished "Cooper connection". Two of the photos appear in Brad Steiger's paperback "Project Blue Book" (Ballantine, 1976) in the set of illustrations between pages 360 and 361."

UFO Evidence: In Search of Gordon Cooper's UFOs (skeptical)

I'm not saying this answers why he's seeing UFOs (which he claims to somehow know are alien) but you should also take a look at the effects of concussions, a history of understanding the long lasting effects of concussion. Test pilots and astronauts have prolonged and regular exposure to G-forces that produce them - and I'm saying again that this doesn't answer what's happening, but we can't just wipe that off the board either.

This was a really great science podcast (unrelated to UFOs entirely) where they discuss G-force effects with interviews of pilots who experienced them: http://www.radiolab.org/2006/may/05/out-of-body-roger/

I'm not dismissing what HE experienced, but I am saying there are ways to experience what he experienced without actually being correct.

There are TONS of memory experiments and studies that conclude that older memories are less accurate and that the accuracy of those memories can actually decrease as the level of confidence increases. Here's one study:

http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftu...es/Imagine.htm

[ctc]

>In science a good theory is usually falsifiable.

Actually; in science a theory is ALWAYS falsifiable. That’s what makes it science and not faith. Lots of folks don’t understand that one, which is why you hear a lot of “Yeah? Well... last year they said we should do THIS and now they say THAT! ‘Cos they don’t know anything!” Science changes as our knowledge increases. It’s DESIGNED that way.

The problem with a lot of.... let’s call them conspiracy theories ‘cos I can’t think of a more apt term and I’m sure this one puts us all on the same page.... is that they AREN’T falsifiable. No matter what evidence you can provide to disprove them, there’s always another layer that can be slapped on. It’s called “ad hoc;” and it’s the opposite of good ol’ Occam’s Razor. So if you’re of a mind that the government is covering up aliens there’s really NO way to dissuade this, ‘cos the lack of evidence becomes PART of the evidence. “Well, if there IS a huge conspiracy to hide the flying saucers, why haven’t we seen more hard data?” ‘Cos they’re THAT GOOD at it, that’s why! Not only is that ad hoc, it’s circular too; and circular arguments tend to feed off themselves. Add in some ignorance and yer off to the races!

>One of the things we're really bad at is sensing scale and distance without anything to judge scale against

If that wasn’t the case, video games and comic books wouldn’t work. Eyewitness testimony is considered the absolute worst in court, because it’s so easy for witnesses to be wrong. Not ‘cos we’re stupid or anything, but because there are so many problems with our senses and how our brains process stuff.

Don C.

[Brazoo]

Awesome - thanks for clarity Don!


RE: Face On Mars and NASA Photographic Anomalies

Richard C. Hoagland's "Face on Mars" theories are just not convincing to me in the least. I think anyone who comes from an artistic background is going to be very skeptical of these claims because we know that it doesn't take much to see realistic objects in abstract forms. The psychological effect is called Pareidolia. With all due respect to you personally, this stuff is decades old and has gained no ground or evidence in science study in any relevant discipline - even ones outside of space related research - like archeology for example. No evidence can change Hoagland's theories, because he dismisses all new evidence as part of a conspiracy. Well, that's just not how science works. As Don just stated, a theory needs to be able to change with new evidence.

Those videos of the NASA airbrushing structures on the moon couldn't be less compelling to me. Show me pictures from different angles confirming those "structures" are consistently occupying the space they're suppose to be in before they even become compelling enough to research them. Also - try taking a picture you own and scan it - then zoom all the way in. You'll see all kinds of fuzzy details. Those "structures" are minuscule and a photo is a 2D surface. For argument's sake let's say that NASA is airbrushing the pictures. All sorts of dust particles and moisture can get onto a lens, and it's perfectly reasonable that NASA would airbrush flaws in the images like that. Anyone who works professionally with photos needs to do this all the time. I do this all the time!

PLUS - Hoagland and others have been jumping up and down about NASA conspiracies for years. What about Russia's moon missions? What about China's moon missions? What about the ESA, JAXA and all the other world space agencies? They're all just in on it? Honestly, this stuff your siting is very old - it's a whole different world now. NASA is just one player now - so you can't really keep using that logic. Unless you keep adopting and expanding your paradigm to explain away the new data.

[Brazoo]

Darklord, in this link you posted:

Cydonia 101: Page 7

Honestly, this one is just full of logical fallacies like "Circular cause and consequence", "sharpshooter fallacy", "Cherry Picking" and "Kettle logic".

Look up the history of these geometric shapes in other non-Mars alien sources. Like a geometry book. These shapes occur in nature and were studied and emulated so that people could build stuff that would - you know, not fall down because they stand up in nature!

So - for example: If a giant mound of dirt is to support its own weight it tends to be mountain shaped - a pyramid shaped mound of dirt is even stronger (I've said this in another discussion we had a while ago, but it's worth repeating I think: a pyramid isn't the most complex structure to build on a large scale, it's actually the most primitive.)

"Golden ratio", "Fibonacci Spiral" and Da Vinci's "Vitruvian Man" geometrically describe shapes that happen naturally. The site almost basically understands this - for example on the site I found these statements: "You can then use these shapes, to create the Golden Spiral, which also manifests in the geometry of nature." and "This Golden Ratio is also expressed in the formations of nature. "

They seem to be arguing (in a very convoluted way), that these structures HAVE to be designed by intelligent beings - because they based on geometry found in nature.(?!!!) Those are two totally contrary ideas build on a hodgepodge of mathematical gobbledygook. We should throw the "wrong direction" logical fallacy on this too - since the nature came first and geometry to describe it came after - but they're arguing natural structures can't have this geometry. It's very odd.