So you think we are alone in this infinite universe?

@GHOST phil,

I give up when reason is out the window...I am out of conspiracy world without reason... good luck to you all and believe what you will.

1 Reply

@GHOST phil,

GHOST;44073 wrote:

I am not one of those people who believes every wild claim they hear, I look at the evidence, examine it and come to an educated conclusion.

Part of looking at evidence with a hypothesis in mind is looking at the quality of the evidence, including the reliability of the source.

Individual testimony is worthless as a scientifically probative datum. Even expert testimony is worthless except in the absence of anything else.

If you have access to raw NASA footage because you are a scientist at NASA, then that's great. You have raw data. But raw data are not evidence -- evidence is an interpretation of raw data.

If by NASA footage you refer to some clip you've downloaded from the website of some guy you don't know who happens to also believe in UFOs, then you have no idea if it's really NASA footage --and certainly you have no idea whether it's contaminated or not.

0 Replies

@GHOST phil,

If I really tried hard enough, I am sure my abilities with a couple of programs could probably make you think you are watching a video of a UFO... You certainly wouldn't be able to identify it.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

If I really tried hard enough, I am sure my abilities with a couple of programs could probably make you think you are watching a video of a UFO... You certainly wouldn't be able to identify it.

Thats very true. I have a friend who forges fake alien pictures, and they look very real. Its a double edge sword though. There are genuine people who take time to analyze photos and verify authenticity. But there are more people putting out fakes then there are trying to credit or discredit them.

1 Reply

@Joe,

Um, I will be using actual NASA footage that was shown on national television, where these things were shown. It's funny that that NASA stopped doing live streams after that...

2 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

I give up when reason is out the window...I am out of conspiracy world without reason... good luck to you all and believe what you will.

What would you need as the least evidence to be able to say its worth debating ? how do you stand on the two issues of god and ufos ? do you see more evidence of a god or is that a taboo debate? I hope you understand what i am saying , you can question the value of the evidence but not the subject.

0 Replies

@GHOST phil,

GHOST wrote:

Um, I will be using actual NASA footage that was shown on national television, where these things were shown. It's funny that that NASA stopped doing live streams after that...

Give me the very best subject evidence ? Just one...For instance in my county at christmas a respected women and her mother described a sighting that defies explaination..Do i doubt her word ? take it for granted she described it correctly ?

1 Reply

@xris,

So how long is it going to take you to make this footage, Ghost?

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

GHOST wrote:

Um, I will be using actual NASA footage that was shown on national television, where these things were shown. It's funny that that NASA stopped doing live streams after that...

Makes sense to me: they stop doing live streams because people misconstrue what they see to be aliens and all sorts of silly things.

1 Reply

@GHOST phil,

GHOST;44120 wrote:

Um, I will be using actual NASA footage that was shown on national television, where these things were shown. It's funny that that NASA stopped doing live streams after that...

That's not actual NASA footage. That's TV footage, for which you have no means of verifying the authenticity or whether it's been compromised. Actual NASA footage can only come directly from NASA, and you would need raw footage -- unedited. Good luck with that.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Makes sense to me: they stop doing live streams because people misconstrue what they see to be aliens and all sorts of silly things.

What like lights on churches looking like the virgin mary or stones weeping tears . Millions of the faithful attending the place of miracles just because two girls claim to have seen the virgin mary..The church would love to have so many witnesses.. Silly is how you perceive events ...

1 Reply

@xris,

Yeah, that's pretty silly stuff, too. I understand that "silly" is perception, but I think my perception of alien believers and folks who think Jesus is on their toast is pretty sound.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

I swear, if I were an astronaut, and I confirmed that the UFO's seen on the NASA footage that was streamed LIVE, straight onto national television, were seen by all the astronauts on board, you skeptics would still come up with some excuse as to how the footage isn't valid evidence worth examination, and astronauts have come forward and told the public that UFO's exist (don't start on this "we need evidence, not words" crap again). Until Aliens crawl out of your ass, you won't budge on your opinions, even when you start getting what you asked for (solid evidence), this proves, to prove nothing to the skeptics. What would you call "solid evidence", I certiantly would consider a live stream from NASA, more than reliable footage worth examination, highly skilled scientists and other experts have examined such footage. Guess what? They concluded after extensive research and a process of elimation, that these things do have propulsion and do make intelligent monuvers that would kill human pilots, there's no other known phenomena that can possibly explain some of the ocurences on these films, and before you say it, yes, the footage has been examined by experts and they are not illusions, or camera faults, what is seen, is seen, and the exact same objects are seen on a large amount of NASA footage.

1 Reply

@GHOST phil,

To be honest, even if I saw an alien standing right in front of me, and I could hear it speaking, feel it, and everything else... I'd still doubt it's existence. I'd need to convince myself more of its objective existence.

For me, solid evidence would be interacting with an alien in which another person who is mentally sound is also experiencing the interaction of the same alien in the same presence at the same time.

I noticed you revised your theory. If I show you the illogical aspects to it, will you at least respond Smile

, or will you change the theory to make it seem more favourable.

In figuring out whether we are alone in the universe in the sense of whether there are sentient alien life forms interacting with us I think there are 2 (at least) aspects to look at in the "evidence" in order to think about making a conclusion.

From all the descriptions and details of the alien forms, what is their psychology/behaviour?
What is the psychology of the people claiming to see aliens or UFO's and making silly assumptions. There will probably be correlations blatantly seen. Have these witnesses do psychology tests, meyers briggs or something. They all obviously have something in common by wanting attention. Perhaps they INFP ("questors", oooo)? Another example might be that one could find definite correlations between personality type and the resultant interaction with the aliens.

:deep-thought: Is the person seeing the non-terrestial sort-to-speak phenomenon as living aliens, or as abiotic objects (spacecraft, UFO, etc.)? Or is there both?
How coherent is the moment? If you ask the person to detail the whole situation from an extraverted point of view and an introverted point of view, then the more detail they are able to give to the one aspect, the more likely they are to be either introverts or extraverts. (Everybody can be classified as either or)
How many biotic subjects are there?
Whom are they interacting with; you or amongst themselves, or both(though I gurantee it will never be both:OK:)?
What is the colour ratio of the objects/subjects pertaining to the non-terrestrial phenomenon as opposed to the terrestrial environment? For example, if there was little colour difference, then that suggests there was little subjective mood and cliches getting in the way of the experience (as we'd want to know if it was projected from the mind/brain or not, right?).
Was the witness able to focus on the objective (to the point that it is relevant) environment and the phenomenon at the same time?
How was the witness able to account the knowledge of the alien... Introspective experience, or extrovertive experience?
I suppose there is one problem with this. A person in seeing such a non-terrestrial phenomenon, is probably going to have a personality shift in the moment.

I mean a truly insane (amoral) person is not ever going to see aliens, and a mad person is not going to see "aliens" per-se, not subjectively... And there are plenty more questions one could ask.

The whole prospect of alien sentience seems to rectify a conundrum that the mind procreates which will fix itself until it is transcendent or unfalsifiable. But then it becomes useless, because a general rule is that interaction with transcendence is latent, so problem solved. Looking at the evidence and examining its credibility would require a psychological approach.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Do you accept that there are certain persons who make detailed claims they either saw or experienced what might be called unexplained phenomenon.This could be abduction or just seing a ufo perform a spectacular manoeuvre in front of a hundred people. Do you discount them all as the ravings of a fantasy riddled mind ? 70,000 americans claim abduction if that many claimed seing the virgin mary what would the church be declaring ? No one ever remarks on those who go to lourds as freakish nutters .90 % of the reports i see are not convincing but there appears a hard core of sightings that in my opinion need to keep the subject in the realms of serious debate. If we explore it with an open mind it might just be very interesting.Only last week a local women of sound mind made a claim that if true defies explaination ,i cant imagine what to believe. I think most people if they are honest dont either..

1 Reply

@xris,

I am keeping an open mind, I'm just exemplifying how we should go about seeing if the evidence is credible. I'm not saying that everybody who claims to see these phenomenon are delusional or hallucinating. Far from it most of the time, I'm assuming. They could be lying or mistaking something for something much more practical an occurrence.

But yes, I have explained what evidence I feel I need, let's look at it another way. Perhaps we modeled a percentage of population of a given country that claims to have experienced such a non-terrestrial type of phenomenon, abduction, or whatever... And we do this for sever countries scattered across the globe. What are we going to find? Are these aliens picking favourites?

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

The first thing we must not assume is that they are extra terrestrial. If a hundred people watch a display that we could say defies explanation..where do we start to explain. We could say whatever the evidence is it obviously is not a flying saucer because that is impossible, we could just say we dont know , we could say it is aliens from another planet,us from the future or even life from another dimension..The last that has been imagined by me, a type of hallucination a bit like a mirage.Because of the obscure nature of the beast is it a reflection of another dimension ?are all these strange occurrences we have problems with reflections..
The most common in my county appear to be of the tourist ufo they hover around coastal beauty spots or out of the way quarries etc.Their choice of appearance puzzles me.I cant believe all those i know or dont know are all hallucinating or deluded.I may be daft but i find the subject intriguing whatever the truth is..

1 Reply

@xris,

No.

1.This universe is infinite in extent. In an infinite universe, all possible possibilities become reality. Terrestrial life (in all likelihood) does not constitute all possible theoretical possibilities life can take. These possibilities must therefore exist somewhere, ergo there is life on other worlds.

2. Humanity exists on a planet in a totally average part of a totally average galaxy orbiting a totally average sun. Therefore, conditions feasible to the inducement of life form the average state of condition in the universe. By the law of averages, what is average must be replicated in such a way as to make it average (e.g., because our cosmological situation is average, there must be many other places where the cosmological situation, being average, is conducive to the formation of life). Where life may in theory exist life should exist should the availability of resources be there. Ergo, there should be other places in the universe life exists (both within and without our time cone). Note this argument does not imply intelligent life exists elsewhere: I think we can all agree intelligence is almost certainly a most unusual evolutionary adaptation. (If it were common there should be intelligent fish and birds and reptiles and possibly even plants.) Another thing to note is that there could be many planetary configurations inducive to life--A Centauri A & B (Rigil and Kent, respectively, following the Arabic name of the star: centaur's hoof), which orbit each other at roughly 8 AU, or the distance from the Sun to Saturn, would cause a Jupiter effect on each other's (theoretical) planetary systems, for example.

Therefore, we are not alone in this infinite existence.

1 Reply

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

Therefore, conditions feasible to the inducement of life form the average state of condition in the universe. By the law of averages, what is average must be replicated in such a way as to make it average (e.g., because our cosmological situation is average, there must be many other places where the cosmological situation, being average, is conducive to the formation of life).

Everything is average if you consider the universe to be infinite, which, one cannot say the "universe" is infinite, not to mention the universe as infinite is just a syntax. And our situation relative to the universe as we know it, is not normal.

2.

hammersklavier wrote:

Humanity exists on a planet in a totally average part of a totally average galaxy orbiting a totally average sun.

Except the Earth is not your typical planet.

hammersklavier wrote:

Where life may in theory exist life should exist should the availability of resources be there. Ergo, there should be other places in the universe life exists (both within and without our time cone).

Causality fallacy.

hammersklavier wrote:

Note this argument does not imply intelligent life exists elsewhere: I think we can all agree intelligence is almost certainly a most unusual evolutionary adaptation.

Well I can partially agree here. But your idea that the universe is infinite (logically, it's not though in the sense it is a pure open system) kinda refutes this.

hammersklavier wrote:

Therefore, we are not alone in this infinite existence.

Well we have found other life already have we not? Mars has some active biotic forms or something.... or dead, I dunno.

0 Replies

@GHOST phil,

To answer your problems:

1. I was saying our relation in the universe was relatively normal. (Rationality is the abnormal state).
2. Only because we haven't yet refined our planet-finding techniques enough. In theory terrestrial planets too ought to be average.
3. I would fall into the causality fallacy only if I said that life will develop were it's possible for life to develop. Note I merely said life should develop--a much weaker modifier: it allows life to not develop even where it's plausible it can. In other words, my wording was carefully chosen to avoid the paradox you accuse me of falling into.
4. This point was merely to shut Ghost up.
5. I think we've found what may be fossil bacteria on Martian rocks.

1 Reply

So you think we are alone in this infinite universe?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know