Does the Phenomenon deserve study

[Trajanus]

There is no proof, but there is a compelling case as NASA puts it.
Of all the hypothesis there is a compelling case for the ETH.

If this is the mechanism by which life was seeded here, then that is likely to be a mechanism we see repeated anywhere life (as it does in even the harshest eco niches here) can gain a foothold.

I consider it most likely that terrestrial life is indigenous. It's been here for 4 billion years, soon after earth was formed. Origination elsewhere has a problem--where and how did it originate, if it didn't or couldn't on a clement world like ours?

This model would clearly conflict with the creation myths though, evolution is still a touchy subject to this very day, panspermia a poison to creation myths.
many dont believe we could have evolved from such seeds, that there must be a devine purpose to our existance.
There are estimated to be up to 100 million species of animals alone on earth, not to mention plants , add to that the older extinct species...... do they all have divine purpose ?

Lol, countless lineages vanished leaving no descendants. Pretty quirky "creator."

We can SEE other stars like ours, we can see other planets and other galaxys, there is a very compelling case for the ETH, based on the model we can see right here.

When you add that to the witness accounts of structured craft and non human entitys, even if only one of those accounts is true. The ETH becomes the most logical conclusion as an explanation.

Of course, it's the most parsimonious.

---------- Post added at 11:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 AM ----------

An earlier example discussed by you and Angelo regarding the t-rex:

Hypothesis 1: Based on the physiology of the t-rex,

Not physiology but morphology--it's dead.

Hypothesis 2: Based on the physiology of the t-rex, we can say it was not a predator. In fact, it was exclusively a scavanger because it could not have moved quickly enough to catch smaller prey and did not have the capacity to kill the very large, slow, and powerful herbivores.

Lol, says Horner--far from the standard take. Try reading Holtz's chapter in Tyrannosaurus the Tyrant King.

This is actually a better hypothesis.

It was downright stupid long before it was falsified. Based on morphology, the bulk of dinosaurologists have long thought T. rex was a super-predator. Massively muscled jaws, forward facing orbits, huge cnemial crests, robust teeth....

(Even though it turned out to be wrong). It only requires you to find one instance where an animal was bitten by a t-rex and survived to invalidate it. Seeing as how biting a live animal is a defining charateristic of a predator, you can see how it invalidates hypothesis 2 and supports hypothesis 1 by inference.

Right it supported the view long assumed to be true by the bulk of researchers i.e. the view long considered most parsimonious.

 

[stphrz]

Well, I just don't know. You keep missing the entire point, either on purpose or for some other reason I can't begin to understand..

The state of paranormal investigation is in the state it's in precisely due to the kind of thinking you espouse. Mainstream science is uninterested in the phenomenon because way too many folks see things just like you do. There is just simply no way for scientists to operate in such an environment. There's nothing for them to look at, nothing for them to do. So they just ignore it, and it is completely right for them do so.

Faced with that, the only hope for understanding relies solely on revelation. That means disclosure from the government, from whatever is behind the phenomenon or on high.

That's a long wait for a train don't come.

 

[Trajanus]

There is just simply no way for scientists to operate in such an environment. There's nothing for them to look at, nothing for them to do.

Nuclear physicist Friedman would disagree would that, I'm sure. There's plenty of physical evidence, albeit limited in quality.

Faced with that, the only hope for understanding relies solely on revelation. That means disclosure from the government, from whatever is behind the phenomenon or on high.

Right, there can be no conclusive resolution of the issue until the government, or the phenomenon itself, reveal it. It's not the fault of ETHers that scientists have limited material to work with. Btw would the government disclose, as conclusive proof, a ghost, or interdimensional demon, lol? The idea of coverup or disclosure presupposes the ETH i.e. a spacecraft or wreckage from one, and bodies.

 

[stphrz]

Waiting on revelation is religion.

Thank you for admitting the ETH requires revelation.

Thank you for admitting ETH is essentially religious belief.

May your gods in government, or in little grey aliens bless you and grant you what you seek.

(and maybe grant you the ability to grasp a point)

 

[exo_doc]

Waiting on revelation is religion.

Thank you for admitting the ETH requires revelation.

Thank you for admitting ETH is essentially religious belief.

May your gods in government, or in little grey aliens bless you and grant you what you seek.

(and maybe grant you the ability to grasp a point)

Ya know, points can be made on this site without "smarter-than-thou" snarkiness.

All that does is just piss people off and shut down any open-mindedness people may have for your point..

Unless it's your intention to piss people off, then you're just a troll (people in general, not just you) looking for some attention.

Lance and Pixel are especially good at writing in a style that seems designed to provoke unhealthy emotional responses, not quite trolling, although I will admit they have been getting more civil lately and are actually making points without too much "WELL YOU'RE JUST STUPID" remarks.

I am not the thread police, but wading through all the kindergarten verbal Nya-Nya's is getting old.
Courtesy, respect, and intelligent postings that are not childish name callings or in your face .....costs nothing, and doesn't waste peoples time and energy fighting over things that really do not matter.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
About your posting points, ETH is not a religion (Unless you're a Raelien), it is a perfectly viable conjecture. The main problem with it is no evidence, just guess work. But then, so is every other hypothesis concerning UFO's and UAP's.
Without any actual, testable, physical "touch with your fingers" evidence, it's all going to remain conjecture.
THAT doesn't mean UFO's/UAP's don't exist though.
It means, they are sighted and experienced, but we just don't know what they are.
So until evidence comes along,....it's ALL conjecture, and one point is as good as another.

 

[stphrz]

exo_doc:

Yeah you're right. I get frustrated sometimes. I can assure you it's not an intention to piss anyone off, it's me getting pissed off and letting it show. Something I need to work on. After all, as you said, it's not really that important.

I still stand by the content of my posts, but not the manner in which I stated it.

I apologize to Trajanus.

 

[exo_doc]

No biggie.
I would ask if you don't mind though to explain, if possible, how the beleif or idea that extra-terrestrials are visiting us is somehow a religion. I've heard this before, but never really understood the reasoning behind it.

 

[stphrz]

No biggie.
I would ask if you don't mind though to explain, if possible, how the beleif or idea that extra-terrestrials are visiting us is somehow a religion. I've heard this before, but never really understood the reasoning behind it.

Essentially because the hypothesis that "intelligent extra-terrestrial life is visiting the earth" is just like the hypothesis that "god exists." No matter how much evidence you gather that does not support these hypothesis it does not invalidate them. No matter how many hoaxes are uncovered regarding UFOs, no matter how many scientific discoveries which don't support specific religious doctrines etc. The basic hypothesis and non supporting evidence are not mutually exclusive.

You then have to ask the question, well since they can't be disproven, what would it take to prove them? The answer in both cases is some sort of massive undeniable event of revelation. Since we can't discover the truth by the fruits of our own efforts, it must be disclosed[/i] to us by power or virture of something that is not us. Something better, more intelligent and greater than us.

Scientists don't make a habit of sitting around waiting for revelations. They don't make a habit of waiting for someone to call on them and bring them evidence, telling them "here's the proof!" They don't let others tell them what's real. They go out, observe, collect information, make hypothesis based on those observations, then test those hypothesis.

In order to test something, there must be a condtion upon which you can say for certain that the test failed.

Dispite the human failings of individual scientists, the scientific method is the antithesis of dogma. Warning bells go off in my head when I hear things to the effect of "it's more logical" or "it's most likely" or "it just makes the most sense" etc.
What makes the most sense? According to whom? Upon what objective basis?

 

[tyder001]

Good points although I differ somewhat. If the U.F.O. question truly turns out to be spacemen/women then we won't need science to tell us what they are. They can indeed idenify themselves and maybe even teach us a thing or two about science. On the other hand if it is some kind of "other" dimensional experience then our "science" may not (as of yet) have the tools to measure it. In that case it will be like a persons religion or a wondering about what happens at death or where we come from. It just may be something that doesn't lend itself to study. It may be something that lends itself to myth. Doesn't mean it's not real. Just means that like an idea about God or what came before the Big Bang or the question of purpose in the universe we may not be able to perceive it from our present posistion or state of being. I still don't personally believe that we are being visited from another planet. But, I certainly don't mean to imply it's not possible. I just don't see the evidence right now.

 

[stphrz]

tyder:

Your statement about the phenomenon lending itself to myth, yet still being real, is the kind of the thinking I had when I suggested we study the mythology as a way of indirectly investigating the phenomenon.

 

[boomerang]

Is there an accepted term that denotes entities which are at once extraterrestrial, extra-dimensional, extra-temporal and so on? Such a term might be useful.

 

[Trajanus]

No matter how much evidence you gather that does not support these hypothesis it does not invalidate them.

That's because the bulk of evidence is consistent with it.

No matter how many hoaxes are uncovered regarding UFOs,

There are hoaxes in every field.

no matter how many scientific discoveries which don't support specific religious doctrines etc. The basic hypothesis and non supporting evidence are not mutually exclusive.

The ETH would've been discarded long ago if there was a superior competing hypothesis. Is the bulk of evidence better for supernatural apparitions, or interdimensional "demons"?

You then have to ask the question, well since they can't be disproven, what would it take to prove them? The answer in both cases is some sort of massive undeniable event of revelation. Since we can't discover the truth by the fruits of our own efforts, it must be disclosed[/i] to us by power or virture of something that is not us. Something better, more intelligent and greater than us.

Those are the breaks. We may not know exactly what the government has or knows. But there are good grounds for believing it has spacecraft wreckage and it's obvious what that implies about the nature of the phenomenon.

Scientists don't make a habit of sitting around waiting for revelations. They don't make a habit of waiting for someone to call on them and bring them evidence, telling them "here's the proof!" They don't let others tell them what's real. They go out, observe, collect information...

Exactly what they've been doing, with regard to landing traces and other evidence, for many years. The quality of evidence may not be anywhere near as good as what witnesses have reported confiscated, but it's still supportive of the ETH.

Dispite the human failings of individual scientists, the scientific method is the antithesis of dogma. Warning bells go off in my head when I hear things to the effect of "it's more logical" or "it's most likely" or "it just makes the most sense" etc.
What makes the most sense? According to whom? Upon what objective basis?

Our own history. All the ETH requires is a repeat on some other planet of an evolutionary ascent similar to ours, albeit earlier in time, hence more advanced by now. How do "interdimensional beings" or "demons" arise, and pass into our dimension? We know other planets exist in droves; is a wholly different realm of existence even verified at all? The ETH is certainly most parsimonious.

 

[tyder001]

The ETH would've been discarded long ago if there was a superior competing hypothesis. Is the bulk of evidence better for supernatural apparitions, or interdimensional "demons"?

There is no "hypothesis" as far as mainstream science is concerned. Just a bunch of yahoos running around yelling the spacemen are here. Another bunch running around saying the demons are here and another bunch running around saying "Hmmm, interesting. What do you think Dr. Vallee?" "Hey, George ask that Dr. Kaku guy tonight on the show if there are parallel worlds" "Oh, tonight we got the guy that thinks he's a horse?" Never mind!

 

[Trajanus]

There is no "hypothesis" as far as mainstream science is concerned. Just a bunch of yahoos running around yelling the spacemen are here....

KDR and Friedman are not yahoos. Btw the ETH would've been effectively sunk if there were no radar sightings.

 

[PararealitySaint]

Both of your explanations as to the relevance of this subject is merited as the EXACT feeling I have had on the subject for many years now.

As I stated many times, I originated as a believer that E.T. had already visited us on planet earth. I was dedicated to proving it, and during my more extensive study, used to haunt the libraries searching for the final physical evidence which would show all the naysayers they had no idea what they were talking about.

When this never showed up, and all I was left with was eyewitness reporting and radar verification, I began to wonder, "could this anomaly" be derived from another, more unexplained reason. Could it be inter-dimensional, or perhaps match the Biblical definitions, etc.

I had the advantage of my faith to give me at least something to hold onto, but I understand this doesn't work for everyone. I just have a really hard time believing that after so many years of supposed crashes, retrievals, etc., that the U.S., Third World, and everyone else has been able to keep the "proof" from the public (any physical evidence necessary) in order to to BEGIN the long road to disclosure.

It just hasn't happened and I felt it was time to move onto bringing in other explanations. This does not mean that E.T. is definitely NOT what is happening, just that at this point I believe it's best to be more open to the subject, and perhaps include the fantastical as a probability as well....because it just might be the myths or ideas we cannot touch with our science.

Excellent replies gentleman.

Lastly, I wanted to apologize to both Trajanus and Mike for my obvious anger and conflicting attitude shown in some of my replies. I sometimes take the subject so seriously, that I wind up losing the Christian sense I am supposed to lead by, and for this I am thankful to Mike for pressing me to change.

Mike, you are an intelligent person and I pray will understand that I am not one of those "religious zealots" who cruises the net enforcing some holier than thou mentality. I know we do not agree with what is happening out there, but I can assure you, many many theories seem to fall right into place purporting to "know" for sure, and this is what I have had a problem with all along.

 

[RJHark00]

I would not say that belief in UFO's or ETH is a religion (though it is for some people), but it has numerous parallels with religious systems. There is a belief in incredible claims which lack consensually accepted evidence, there is a reasoned belief in some claims over others, there is a strong commercial aspect, there is an historicized meta-narrative which is supposed to lend credibility to the claims, there is waiting for confirmation through revelation, and, to some extent, a social control system.

The most "parsimonious" explanation for the formation of Christianity is that it did not happen the way it's described in the Bible. There were a bunch of competing claims and internal tumult as they developed the official narrative and theology, and yet they never did. There is a huge spectrum of Christian belief. Does that say more about the truth/falsehood concerning the founding of Christianity or the development of the traditions? After all, we have essentially only eyewitness testimony and the claims are extreme.

How is this any different for the most parsimonious explanation for the UFO phenomenon: that reports of aerial phenomena within a particular historical context (the dawning of the nuclear age) combined with reorganized elements of a cultural meta-narrative and the will to believe in "the Other." I mean, that *is* the most parsimonious explanation given the current state of empirical evidence. If you go further then this, you're making a faith claim. That's fine--but call it for what it is.

What you run into here is the presumption that belief in ETH is different because it's more reasonable or has a better evidentiary chain. We're told that eyewitnesses sixty years ago were somehow less fantasy-prone or less vulnerable to suggestibility than witnesses two-thousand years ago. Even if this is the case, it's uniformly presented on here by some as "one is true, the other is false" which, IMO, ignores the process of belief, which I think is the main point. The nature of the evidence presented so far (especially eyewitness accounts) is so subjective that it is pliable enough to fit the meta-narrative. The cultural meta-narrative is, IMO, the most fascinating part of this whole thing.

The problem we run into here looks, for all intents and purposes, like a double standard: "Well, they were a bunch of superstitious bronze-agers living in tents. That can't compare to all the credible eyewitnesses for ETH." "Most of the witnesses indicate the same thing." "Of course there are hoaxers but that doesn't affect the believability of these other people." "Well, there's no evidence because the government took it all." "UFO researchers are balanced and impartial unlike the holies with their living bread" And, ultimately, "the government is covering it all up and we can't definitively say anything until it's revealed." That's the ultimate non-starter, and it's really not that different than saying "God will reveal all in God's time."

The will to believe is strong.

 

[PararealitySaint]

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <wunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> Quantification is not going to change a lack of quality oriented and verifiable proof in a physical world which we live within.

Religion is an “out" only when the sheer lack of scientific base forming or factually qualified foundation isn’t present to elucidate. If a man knows he is running down a long road, but has no idea which way the road will bend or even end, he must go on the entire merits of his past experience to make his best “guess” as to the completion of this particular run. If not he is left with knowing that “today” the road is “here”, and move on to the next physical dimension to enable him a reference.

Man’s justification of religion is faith based, juxtaposing relevance because of the spiritual road which has within it the many bends and dips not able to be predicted or foretold by the senses alone.

In the case of ETH or any of the phenomena by which we cannot predict that bend in the road, or even understand why the path is set the way it is, we must utilize our history…our knowledge of what we do know and leave the rest up to that very faith our best “guess” arrives at. Either this or hypothesize another explanation and test it with the available variables known to have been accepted by the universal standard and thus physically based.

Others in this forum tend to like to use the latter, I prefer the former, and with it the sometimes heartfelt conflict we become zealous by.

 

[Trajanus]

How is this any different for the most parsimonious explanation for the UFO phenomenon: that reports of aerial phenomena within a particular historical context (the dawning of the nuclear age) combined with reorganized elements of a cultural meta-narrative and the will to believe in "the Other." I mean, that *is* the most parsimonious explanation given the current state of empirical evidence.

I beg to differ. The phenomenon couldn't be wholly imaginary. It's based on empirical data albeit limited as far as laymen know. Imagination doesn't cause radar blips or indentations.

What you run into here is the presumption that belief in ETH is different because it's more reasonable or has a better evidentiary chain. We're told that eyewitnesses sixty years ago were somehow less fantasy-prone or less vulnerable to suggestibility than witnesses two-thousand years ago.

Lol, they certainly were far better educated. You can't compare the testimony of Marcel sr with say, paul or the gospels. The latter weren't even first hand, far from it. They were umpteenth hand and based on the testimony of illiterate fishermen.

Even if this is the case, it's uniformly presented on here by some as "one is true, the other is false" which, IMO, ignores the process of belief, which I think is the main point. The nature of the evidence presented so far (especially eyewitness accounts) is so subjective..

Subjective? Many reports are from former skeptics. And witnesses tend to be credible enough--policemen, pilots, professors etc.

The problem we run into here looks, for all intents and purposes, like a double standard: "Well, they were a bunch of superstitious bronze-agers living in tents. That can't compare to all the credible eyewitnesses for ETH."

In fact in most cases they can't.

"Most of the witnesses indicate the same thing." "Of course there are hoaxers but that doesn't affect the believability of these other people." "Well, there's no evidence because the government took it all."

The latter didn't come out of thin air--people reported this.

"UFO researchers are balanced and impartial unlike the holies with their living bread" And, ultimately, "the government is covering it all up and we can't definitively say anything until it's revealed."

IMO we can at least say the phenomenon is real.

 

[exo_doc]

Excellent reply stphrz. Very well resoned. There are some other really good posts on here too.
I would argue that an alien espresso maker might do it too(prove the ETH), and wouldn't necessarily involve a revelatory event, but I see what you're saying.

However, I do not think unkown aeriel phenomena can be explained with just one hypothesis. It seems to me there are several possibilities, and I do not exclude any of them, although I have to say it's tough for me to think some UFO's are demons or have anything at all to do with religon, but that's just me.

To list a few of the explanations hypothesized (this is for the 1-5% of sightings and events that can't be explained by natural phenomena, clouds, etc)
1. Demons here to cause mischeif.
2. Inter-dimensional probes, travelers, etc.
3. Human race originated time travelers.
4. Secret government vehicles.
5. A secret advanced race of beings from right here on earth hiding from the human race.(Hollow Earth, Atlanteans, etc)
6. EVERY event will be eventually explained by currently unkown natural forces at work (i.e. earthquake lights).
7. Advanced intelligent life originating from another star system here to explore and/or study the human race. Well I guess they could originate from this solar system, but from where and how?

Since we have no evidence either way, one explanation is just as good as another, or a combination of them.
I just get a big thrill from the GEE WHIZ factor that any of these (excluding the demon theory) could be happening.
I can't help it. It's the SUPER NERD in me.

 

[mike]

I beg to differ. The phenomenon couldn't be wholly imaginary. It's based on empirical data albeit limited as far as laymen know. Imagination doesn't cause radar blips or indentations.



Lol, they certainly were far better educated. You can't compare the testimony of Marcel sr with say, paul or the gospels. The latter weren't even first hand, far from it. They were umpteenth hand and based on the testimony of illiterate fishermen.




Subjective? Many reports are from former skeptics. And witnesses tend to be credible enough--policemen, pilots, professors etc.



In fact in most cases they can't.



The latter didn't come out of thin air--people reported this.



IMO we can at least say the phenomenon is real.

I absolutely agree, If these craft are technological in nature (and i think they are) then you cant compare the testimony of someone raised in a technological culture with someone raised in a bronze age culture, they simply dont have the language to describe the phenomena.