You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 02, 2016, 08:32:18 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Alien Astronaught Theory  (Read 5755 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dingo

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2010, 12:48:17 PM »
And what if there was some catastrophic event on a planet with intelligent life somewhere, which blasted that world apart into a million pieces, away from their star system, drifting along space until in meteor form it crash landed on a different planet with a situation possible to proceed in life.

As in, I recall that some time ago there was some talk about meteorites being found containing fossilized bacteria.

Now assume that they actually survived inside the meteorite, it could be perfectly possible that there is life like the life on Earth without actual alien involvement.

And then it is possible that planets similar to Earth exist.

Then again, speculation about this is moot. Considering we only begin scratching the basics of science. And we have hardly touched the science of life which might actually hold the answers. And we have explored only a very small portion of our own planet. While we're busy destroying it.

Offline Kate

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #26 on: December 22, 2010, 08:58:47 PM »
Quote
Most of the so-called "Evidence" of "alien astronauts" is the product of inkblotting.  You are probably familiar with inkblot tests that were once used by psychologists, yes?  It's the same thing.  One archaeologist (fake or otherwise) will say said ancient picture on an Egyptian (or Mayan, Aztec, etc) wall looks like flying saucers and helmeted space men.  This interpretation will be picked up by other people who will look at it and see the same thing, since it is prominent in their minds and they are looking specifically for it.  It's also called "matrixing" and relates to how we as humans look for faces instinctively in things that normally don't have them.  It helps to explain blob shapes in mirrors that folks think are the faces of ghosts etc. 

Ie we see what we want to see this implies seeing a hoax when there wasn't one but it was real in the same breath. Preprocessing and postprocessing of sensory input is something that doesn't just apply to "believers" but it also "aflicts" skeptics too.

This inst an argument which should make believers less trustworthy than skeptics this is an argument we shouldnt trust what we beleive we are seeing no matter what our beleif set is.

Remember also different dimensions or parallel realities is something that isnt out of the question in our own science.

Winking in an out of existence is also attributed to ghost and paranormal activity.

Until all things can be explained and reproduced, we dont know what we don't know, having faith our current belief set is right is not logical => Its faith.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 08:59:57 PM by Kate »

Offline Zakharra

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #27 on: December 22, 2010, 09:08:49 PM »


Until all things can be explained and reproduced, we dont know what we don't know, having faith our current belief set is right is not logical => Its faith.

 If it's science, then you're wrong. Science is based on provable facts. Faith, isn't for the most part.  Hense why religion seems to run into problems when some of it's followers find themselves facing scientific facts that do not agree with their religious views. 

 However that is it's own thread.

Offline Silverfyre

  • Mr. Fyre, or if you're slightly more daring, oh Silver my Silver.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2010
  • Location: Affixed to a Star
  • Gender: Male
  • Once more, with gusto.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #28 on: December 22, 2010, 09:15:49 PM »
Yeah, having faith in aliens influencing our society over the hard scientific evidence that states perfectly mundane yet fascinating human reasons and methods seems a little silly to me. The same goes for ghosts and paranormal events.  Shows like "Ghost Hunters" make it look like they are using science but it is all based on theory.

Faith doesn't need to be blind is all I'm saying. Look at the scientific evidence we have before pointing and yelling the fantastic. Occam's razor and all.

My .02.

Offline Kate

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #29 on: December 22, 2010, 09:18:27 PM »
"[beliefs are faith ] If it's science, then you're wrong. Science is based on provable facts. Faith, isn't for the most part.  "

Science has laws which can be tested to certain confidence levels ir "99.999" percent accurate.
=> Enough to have faith its objectively true. it could be true for those circumstances=> Its still faith, based on statistics.


Offline Will

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #30 on: December 22, 2010, 10:28:42 PM »
Faith vs. science should really be in its own thread (although it already is, actually, probably several times over!).

What evidence is there to suggest "alien astronauts" outside of some questionable glyphs/art/etc?  The Dogon, mentioned earlier in this thread, most likely encountered other Westerners, picked up that little tidbit about Sirius B, and incorporated it into their folklore.  At least, that's a heck of a lot more believable than the idea that they were visited by aliens.

There are all kinds of possibilities out there.  We can't prove that "alien astronauts" didn't begin life on earth, but there is no real evidence that they did, either.  We can't prove that there's no Russel's Teapot; that doesn't make it worth believing.  If you make an outrageous claim, then the burden falls on you to prove it (not on everyone else to disprove it).  So, again: what evidence is there for "alien astronauts?"

Offline Silverfyre

  • Mr. Fyre, or if you're slightly more daring, oh Silver my Silver.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2010
  • Location: Affixed to a Star
  • Gender: Male
  • Once more, with gusto.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #31 on: December 22, 2010, 10:34:04 PM »
Faith vs. science should really be in its own thread (although it already is, actually, probably several times over!).

What evidence is there to suggest "alien astronauts" outside of some questionable glyphs/art/etc?  The Dogon, mentioned earlier in this thread, most likely encountered other Westerners, picked up that little tidbit about Sirius B, and incorporated it into their folklore.  At least, that's a heck of a lot more believable than the idea that they were visited by aliens.

There are all kinds of possibilities out there.  We can't prove that "alien astronauts" didn't begin life on earth, but there is no real evidence that they did, either.  We can't prove that there's no Russel's Teapot; that doesn't make it worth believing.  If you make an outrageous claim, then the burden falls on you to prove it (not on everyone else to disprove it).  So, again: what evidence is there for "alien astronauts?"

Well said and I completely agree.  There has been no evidence put forth save for a couple of interpretations of ancient artwork, glyphs, and artifacts.  It's all subjective too, no hard evidence exists or has been put forth. 

Offline Zakharra

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #32 on: December 22, 2010, 10:55:30 PM »
"[beliefs are faith ] If it's science, then you're wrong. Science is based on provable facts. Faith, isn't for the most part.  "

Science has laws which can be tested to certain confidence levels ir "99.999" percent accurate.
=> Enough to have faith its objectively true. it could be true for those circumstances=> Its still faith, based on statistics.

 No, that is fact, not faith. There is a big difference and you seem to be mixing them up.

Offline Star Safyre

  • Mrs. Fyre or, if you're slightly more daring, O Captain my Captain.
  • Dame
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2010
  • Location: Beyond the flesh
  • He who is fixed to a star does not change his mind
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #33 on: December 22, 2010, 11:26:42 PM »
[H]as been no evidence put forth save for a couple of interpretations of ancient artwork, glyphs, and artifacts.  It's all subjective too, no hard evidence exists or has been put forth.

I must concur.  For as much as I enjoy interpretation of ancient art, we can never truly perceive any ancient piece through its creators' eyes.  Even firsthand accounts of art interpretation can be marred through poor translating or lack of knowledge regarding the symbols' associations within that culture.  As much as I love art, it isn't a science, and thus it cannot solve science's issues.  Trying to prove the origin of life through ancient architecture and art is like trying to create a cure for cancer with interpretative dance.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 11:27:45 PM by Star Safyre »

Offline Kate

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #34 on: December 23, 2010, 12:04:02 AM »
Quote
What evidence is there to suggest "alien astronauts" outside of some questionable glyphs/art/etc?  The Dogon, mentioned earlier in this thread, most likely encountered other Westerners, picked up that little tidbit about Sirius B, and incorporated it into their folklore.  At least, that's a heck of a lot more believable than the idea that they were visited by aliens.

Usually art of primitive cultures depicts what they have seen. Assuming it wasnt the case because we dont beleive it is an assumption.

Psychology is an art as well as a science. we dont "know" the human brain. we dont "know" people, trends yes, some things yes.

Science has its place its highly useful, but what is proposed concerning "what they really were drawing" or what people "Really experiecned but interpreted differently" isnt a science. There are non-paranormal explainations for SOME alien encounters.

Assuming that is the case for all of them - is an assumption. Based on assumed psychology of the witnesses.
That isn't science. Its your faith on what happened and what you beleive their intentions or experience was being applied with the view your objective or more so than they are. Ie they are more subjective than you.

Offline Kate

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #35 on: December 23, 2010, 12:08:21 AM »
To be a skeptic you dont have to have

a) A degree in anthropology.
and
b) A degree in science
and
c) a degree in behavioural psychology
and
d) Qualified training in investigation techniques.
etc

Why ? Because skeptics dont feel they NEED to.
Why ? Because they think they know enough to assume an sensible stance on a subject.

Now the same argument also can be used against beleivers. Stating they know for a FAct they saw / met / talked to aliens.
I do agree. What my point is - is from the beleivers perspective current stance of mainstream science rules their experience has false.
They beg to differ.

A true scientist would see their behaviour as real => And investigate why they are behaving that way - and the end game would be "what really happened" => Not the first objective.

Offline Star Safyre

  • Mrs. Fyre or, if you're slightly more daring, O Captain my Captain.
  • Dame
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2010
  • Location: Beyond the flesh
  • He who is fixed to a star does not change his mind
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #36 on: December 23, 2010, 12:17:05 AM »
I do not think the discussion here needs to break down into defining any supposed schism between "skeptics" and "believers".  Either there are facts to prove a theory or there are not.  I would like to think that even those who propose this theory have some evidence which can logically built toward the conclusion; actually, I'd like to see some evidence either way rather than this continued argument of semantics.

Can we please get back on topic with some evidence either for or against the theory in question rather than dancing around whether there can be evidence at all?

Offline Silverfyre

  • Mr. Fyre, or if you're slightly more daring, oh Silver my Silver.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2010
  • Location: Affixed to a Star
  • Gender: Male
  • Once more, with gusto.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #37 on: December 23, 2010, 12:18:26 AM »
Usually art of primitive cultures depicts what they have seen. Assuming it wasnt the case because we dont beleive it is an assumption.

Psychology is an art as well as a science. we dont "know" the human brain. we dont "know" people, trends yes, some things yes.

Science has its place its highly useful, but what is proposed concerning "what they really were drawing" or what people "Really experiecned but interpreted differently" isnt a science. There are non-paranormal explainations for SOME alien encounters.

Assuming that is the case for all of them - is an assumption. Based on assumed psychology of the witnesses.
That isn't science. Its your faith on what happened and what you beleive their intentions or experience was being applied with the view your objective or more so than they are. Ie they are more subjective than you.

Actually, we do know a lot about the human brain and how it works.  Psychology is still a social science, yes, but there are a lot of solid, hard teachings that are based on facts found through the scientific method rather than subjective values.  We have chemical and biological means of measuring the brain's neurological functions and how they play out in the so-called "human experience".  We know what chemicals attract us to each other, we know how certain sections of the brain will react and change when damaged or suppressed... we know so much through science that is not subjective at all.  Maybe you should consider those factors and the reality behind them.

Art of primitive cultures was often created from the artist's own imagination as well, not just on what they saw.  Have you seen the cave paintings of Peche-Merle in France?  There are some wonderful examples of "cave men creativity" there, like the hand outlines of an unknown artist, spiraling geometric shapes, and the fantastical paintings of hunters riding large predatory animals like they would a horse. 

Here's a link for you to explore and educate yourself: http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/prehistoric/pech-merle-cave-paintings.htm

These ancients were just as creative and imaginative as we are today.  Aliens didn't influence these cultures; their own imaginations and minds did.  This has nothing to do with faith when we say there is no evidence that aliens came down and taught us or influenced us in any way.  It's based on science and the facts that these ancients and their wonders grew out of their own ingenuity.  We have the evidence that they create such things like Stonehenge.  There is no evidence that little green men came down and did anything.  Nothing.  In the hundreds if not thousands of years of archaeology that have occurred, we have not found hard fact one that supports the theory of alien life. 

And your definition of skeptics and believers is really muddled, much like your entire argument. A skeptic DOES try to make shape of their world view on cold, hard, testable facts rather than assumptions about reality.  Believers, in my experience, are somewhat gullible people who often accept a fact as truth without looking for evidence or a more mundane reasoning behind it.  Occam's razor continues to hold true.

Produce some links for your assumptions and maybe we can take your subjective attitude towards factual science seriously.

« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 12:22:44 AM by Silverfyre »

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #38 on: December 23, 2010, 01:27:11 AM »
You know, I ran across an interesting discussion of the 'alien' phenomenon in the modern consciousness just earlier this afternoon in Carl Sagan's 1995 The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. It's a general overview of the science v. pseudo-science conflict partially framed by investigations of the alien astronaut theory, ufo sightings, crop circles, etc. as that was the major front on which Sagan routinely was forced to deal given his speciality of astrophysics and interest in the possibility of alien life.

Well worth checking out for anyone interested in dealing with these purported phenomena on a basis of reason rather than wishes.

Offline Silverfyre

  • Mr. Fyre, or if you're slightly more daring, oh Silver my Silver.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2010
  • Location: Affixed to a Star
  • Gender: Male
  • Once more, with gusto.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #39 on: December 23, 2010, 10:05:26 AM »
You know, I ran across an interesting discussion of the 'alien' phenomenon in the modern consciousness just earlier this afternoon in Carl Sagan's 1995 The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. It's a general overview of the science v. pseudo-science conflict partially framed by investigations of the alien astronaut theory, ufo sightings, crop circles, etc. as that was the major front on which Sagan routinely was forced to deal given his speciality of astrophysics and interest in the possibility of alien life.

Well worth checking out for anyone interested in dealing with these purported phenomena on a basis of reason rather than wishes.

Oh definitely. That book is wonderful. Ever see "Cosmos"? I love Carl Sagan.

Offline Noelle

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #40 on: December 23, 2010, 10:37:15 AM »
To be a skeptic you dont have to have

a) A degree in anthropology.
and
b) A degree in science
and
c) a degree in behavioural psychology
and
d) Qualified training in investigation techniques.
etc

Why ? Because skeptics dont feel they NEED to.
Why ? Because they think they know enough to assume an sensible stance on a subject.

Now the same argument also can be used against beleivers. Stating they know for a FAct they saw / met / talked to aliens.
I do agree. What my point is - is from the beleivers perspective current stance of mainstream science rules their experience has false.
They beg to differ.

A true scientist would see their behaviour as real => And investigate why they are behaving that way - and the end game would be "what really happened" => Not the first objective.

There's...a lot that's wrong with this post. A lot.

Do you even know what actually happens within the skeptic movement? Your definition is the very antithesis of what most intelligent skeptics work with. It's not even close to being right.

True skeptics pursue knowledge through avenues of education -- looking for good, credible, unbiased research from qualified individuals who often do have advanced knowledge in their field. It's about checking sources, making sure all parties are advancing knowledge as it comes instead of putting it through a filter of bias to twist them to say what they want to say. They're not the average type to get their false information from an e-mail forward or to take the first page they find on Google as fact -- on the contrary, good skeptics do their research and do it thoroughly. Good skeptics hardly assume they know "enough", given that good skeptics tend to constantly check to make sure the information they do have is the best information available, not the most biased or gives the answer they want to see.

Now, some people use "skeptic" to describe the scrutiny they give certain subjects, but it's usually (from what I've observed) grossly misapplied and abused in relation to the definition I've already given you -- Take evolution skeptics, for example. They're often creationists who want to "teach the controversy" even though there is no substantial, credible evidence to point towards creationism -- definitely not enough evidence to show that the two ideas of evolution and creation are equal in standing scientifically. That's not being skeptical, that's ignoring facts that inconvenience you and giving yourself a badge of honor for "challenging" evil old science while trying to assert that your idea is equal to another. It's one thing to have a healthy and questioning mindset, but self-delusion starts to happen at a point, as well.

There's a difference between being a skeptic and being self-assured or just plain contrary; they're practically opposites. In terms of this whole "alien astronaut" thing, sure, maybe we're just pet hamsters to an advanced race of super-intelligent, sentient beings from another galaxy with superior cloaking abilities, but compared to the other theories on the origin of life, it is simply not equal in a rational, scientific setting. Believing strongly in alien astronauts despite this fact isn't being skeptical. You can say that there's no conclusive evidence for or against, you can say that there's still a margin of doubt, but the things, the facts we do know are still there; it is, as of this point in time, not equal to any more popular theories out there.

Offline Jude

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #41 on: December 23, 2010, 10:55:43 AM »
If it seems to you like skeptics dismiss claims of alien abduction out of hand without the slightest bit of consideration, I have two explanations of this phenomenon for you:

1)  The individual you are arguing with is not thinking skeptically, and is instead parroting information he heard from other resources that merely agrees with the point of view that skeptics argue.  These people do exist, but they are not actually skeptics, because they aren't practicing critical thinking, metacognition, or analyzing evidence.  These 3 things are incredibly important to skepticism, and someone who simply accepts the word of another person as true is never, ever a good skeptic (even if that person is a scientist, even then we check the methods behind the studies that they speak of).

2)  The individual you are arguing with has probably already engaged in a lengthy intellectual endeavor on the plausibility of the existence of aliens, one they don't wish to rehash with you because you've already spouted standard alien abductee talking points.  I'll give you a brief summation, if you're interested you can and should do the research yourself.

- People claim they are abducted in their sleep primarily.  Thus dreams suffice as an explanation for almost all of this.
- The feeling of paralysis that "abductees" often describe is a natural phenomenon associated with a certain stage of sleep/wakefulness.
- Memory reclamation (often called memory implantation by those educated about it) is responsible for a great deal of alien nonsense.
- Memory is far from perfect, so ascribing "white out periods" to abduction is foolish.
- Never has physical evidence of alien probing, device implantation, or anything else ever been found on a supposed abductee.
- There is a trend in that accounts of what the "aliens" looked like varies based on whatever depiction popular media is using in the time.

And that is why skeptics are pretty sure that the presence of aliens is absolute nonsensical bullshit.  Is it still possible?  Yes.  Is it extremely, extraordinarily, ridiculously unlikely to be true?  Absolutely.  In fact I don't think I used enough adjectives to describe how insanely improbable it is.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 10:58:15 AM by Jude »

Offline Lio

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #42 on: December 23, 2010, 04:31:26 PM »
There are a lot of people more intelligent than me posting in here, but I thought I'd put my thoughts in never the less.

First off there is belief involved in science, it's our way forward. We believe things before we prove them, we believe we'll find a new set of subatomic particles in the LHC at certain energy levels...however we might be wrong (difference with blind faith is that scientists will reassess their veiw and that it's belief based on something...it is still belief though).

Also, study of light is probably universal isn't it? Leading to wave spectrum and radio signal. If there's a civilisation who has advanced this far shouldn't we be picking something up somewhere on the spectrum?

Also, if the aliens came to us...how come we could understand their message?

Offline Kate

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #43 on: December 23, 2010, 10:32:52 PM »
Ok.

More than a few pockets of resistance here.

Its a theory that's all. It does explain a few things in many minds more aptly.

Evidence to those who "believe" or want to are things like tests done on implants being of materials and nature not seen elsewhere.
Scar-less or near-scar-less surgery / Cattle mutilations with surgical precision beyond what our current medical experts can manage or explain.
Crop circles. Reems of people in high ranking positions testifying UFO being treated as true in the government, footage by military planes on things that accelerate faster that anything known. Radar readings of the same thing ...

Buz Aldrin = his views on UFOS being real could be dismissed as wanting attention through jealousy of Neal Armstrong etc.

Now I understand that these can be dismissed with some other theories on human claims and behaviour => Ie these people want attention / do this for money / or believe it although it isnt true do to wanting to feel special or are understress or not "objective" because of this and that reason.
ra ra ra.

To "beleivers" (please humor me using this loosely, semantics I think none want to get bogged down in)
the accumulated mosaic of explanations that need to be combined to explain away all "cases" of implied alien
visitations is itself harder to believe than ... drum role ... aliens visiting earth.

Now I know this is different to aliens being our creators. But it seems the difference between

Aliens have not visited earth => Aliens have visited earth

Seems to be more the debate than what they have done and when.

Again I do subscribe to people seeing what they believe.- not the other way around so personal accounts cant be assumed objective ( doesnt mean we can dismiss them but stronger evidence would be highly more preferable)

 I am not justifying ALL cases of ufo reports, or ALL cases of crop circles. For every found hoax there are others which still defy understanding.

All I am saying the theory is a powerful one of you suspend disbelief and look at "evidence."

Now I know "evidence" is subjective also. Lets talk of implants, Crop circles and animal mutilations for example, lets focus on those
Because we don't have to believe a person when they what they experienced.

If any are interested in implant testing, crop circle investigations, animal mutilation investigations (btw it can be claimed the farmer did it themselves for attention or to get money because his farm was going under => But the level of precision surgery makes this assumption a little strange)

I can start linking ... however if some claim "well they did the test but who is to say the test results and monitor read outs and their findings are not also hoaxed... who is to say that the doctors saying they saw evidence of a procedure that is beyond current medical know-how is also in on it wanting some quick cash or whatever huh ? Oh and Claimed Nasa footage huh ? How are you SURE its from NASA how are you SURE it wasn't messed with ... "

... then we are in a catch 22 concerning belief memes - and nothing i can link you will convince any from their existing mindset.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 10:37:48 PM by Kate »

Offline Noelle

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #44 on: December 23, 2010, 11:25:42 PM »
Evidence to those who "believe" or want to are things like tests done on implants being of materials and nature not seen elsewhere.
Scar-less or near-scar-less surgery / Cattle mutilations with surgical precision beyond what our current medical experts can manage or explain.
Crop circles. Reems of people in high ranking positions testifying UFO being treated as true in the government, footage by military planes on things that accelerate faster that anything known. Radar readings of the same thing ...

I know you said you could provide links upon request, but I'll save you the trouble because most of the things you mentioned are not, in fact, "beyond what our current medical experts can manage or explain" and do have a lot of plausible explanations that are actually pretty simple for anybody to grasp. For some confusing reason, people find it easier to believe in something they're not actually equipped to identify than things they actually are. It's as absurd as saying that the milk in my fridge curdled -- it could've been common bacteria converting lactic acid...but it could've been a colony of tiny milk-dwelling aliens attempting to study human food consumption through refrigerator-based invasion. How would I even know milk-dwelling aliens if I saw them? Aren't bacteria a little more believable given they've been observed and reported on and studied millions of times over?

Nevertheless, just a few links providing more realistic speculation on all of these so-called 'phenomena' Crop circles, Cattle mutilations, Psychic surgery ("scarless" surgery? This is the closest I could find on the subject without linking to unreliable internet witness reports...did you mean something else?).

Quote
Buz Aldrin = his views on UFOS being real could be dismissed as wanting attention through jealousy of Neal Armstrong etc.

Buzz Aldrin = incapable of telling you what a UFO is if it landed on his house and did a tap dance in a top hat and monocle on the remains. He has no credibility whatsoever on the nature of UFOs or aliens any more than anyone else because of the simple fact that nobody actually knows what a "real" UFO is or looks like. How do we know what we've seen if we've never seen for sure what we're claiming it is? There is no irrefutable proof of the existence of UFOs. There is no universal testimony, no constants, no nothing. In fact, as it's been mentioned here before, claims to aliens/extraterrestrial activity here on earth usually follow trends that change based on the time period. It's as absurd as people who claim to be experts on vampires. And for that matter, how would you know a jabberwocky if you saw one?

Quote
Now I know this is different to aliens being our creators. But it seems the difference between

Aliens have not visited earth => Aliens have visited earth

Seems to be more the debate than what they have done and when.

Well, no, not exactly. The first line of debate is whether or not there's even intelligent life out there capable of sentience to begin with, nevermind possessing the ability to span light-years of distance just to do the most mundane thing they could possibly think of in their inconceivably advanced minds and...well, mutilate cows and play around in fields just to fuck with us, so to speak. Even believers can't make up their minds -- are these mystical aliens cloaking themselves or are they not? Are they remaining hidden or, for some inexplicable reason, are they choosing to selectively reveal themselves to a lucky few in the most mind-numbingly uninteresting ways possible? I mean, really, you have the power to travel galaxies away, and you choose to mutilate cows and make pretty pictures in some poor farmer's crops? Zzzzz.

At this point, don't you think something more sophisticated than a cheap camera would've picked up on a large, fast-moving, foreign body entering our atmosphere, much less hanging out and playing in farm fields for awhile? We've got an abundance of detection methods for airborne objects and the best we can do is blurry photos and shaky, homegrown videos of stuff that might be a UFO, but might also be a myriad of ordinary, mundane things that are probably more realistic but admittedly far less exciting? It's amazing to me that the most obvious of solutions can be laying right in front of a person, but still it's easier to put all of your belief in the most fantastical, roundabout explanation.

Offline Silverfyre

  • Mr. Fyre, or if you're slightly more daring, oh Silver my Silver.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2010
  • Location: Affixed to a Star
  • Gender: Male
  • Once more, with gusto.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #45 on: December 24, 2010, 12:01:18 AM »
Yeah...Kate, that is quite the jumbled argument for things that have already been explained scientifically as nothing but hoaxes.  Your naive faith in aliens and the power of faith as a catch all for perception is honestly a little out there, even for a conspiracy theorist. Really, do your research on what you are perceiving as unknown and paranormal activities before using them as evidence. Its like arguing in a circle with you. No offense but its hardly productive.

Offline Kate

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #46 on: December 24, 2010, 12:17:22 AM »
Quote
people find it easier to believe in something they're not actually equipped to identify than things they actually are.

Perhaps its easier for some to believe that it must all be hoaxes of misinterpretations ... than the thing it really is.

 Alien Astronaught  is a theory.

Quote
but I'll save you the trouble because most of the things you mentioned are not, in fact, "beyond what our current medical experts can manage or explain" and do have a lot of plausible explanations that are actually pretty simple for anybody to grasp

Plausible isn't enough for some.

"Most things. are not in fact beyond what current medical experts can do ?"

What if there was one thing ? How many things should be needed to take the matter seriously as a THEORY, not fact THEORY.
And I don't mean taken seriously by EVERYONE... just taken seriously by SOME ?

 Alien Astronaught is a theory.

Quote
Buzz Aldrin = incapable of telling you what a UFO is if it landed on his house and did a tap dance in a top hat and monocle on the remains.

To you that sentence is true and his views are not trusted to you personally, thus by assuming objectivity => This distrust "should" by adopted by others if they are informed, logical and sane. To you that sentence aids your intention (whatever that may be - even if its just expression.)
You right to choose your intentions, their interpretation, and have right to believe what you do from your mindset, your belief set suits you.
Others are right to choose their intentions , their interpretation and belief sets.

 Alien Astronaught is a theory.

Quote
".but it could've been a colony of tiny milk-dwelling aliens attempting to study human food consumption through refrigerator-based invasion. How would I even know milk-dwelling aliens if I saw them? Aren't bacteria a little more believable given they've been observed and reported on and studied millions of times over?"

Interesting implications on the mindset you think I am representing. Im not entirely convinced people who are "believers" are ones that would quickly rush to Alien theories for anything they happened or experience during their mundane life. Car missing - stolen ? No abducted. Keys missing ? Lost them forgetful ? No abducted....

Assuming believers are "primed" to insert alien implications before mundane explanations is an insulting assertion, if you wish one to take you seriously you probably should take them seriously also.

Bacteria can explain milk curdling perfectly, there is no need for alien inferring.
Some ufo/paranormal cases are not as easily explained through known science.
Plausible explanations within our current scientific knowledge can be treated as "possible" and because its without need of more theories
it can be treated as more likely than thus "explained"

Some people don't buy what is deemed "plausible" by others to explain what they believe or experience, which to them is something else.

 Alien ... theory.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2010, 12:33:32 AM by Kate »

Offline Kate

Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #47 on: December 24, 2010, 12:29:08 AM »
Quote
Yeah...Kate, that is quite the jumbled argument for things that have already been explained scientifically as nothing but hoaxes.  Your naive faith in aliens and the power of faith as a catch all for perception is honestly a little out there, even for a conspiracy theorist. Really, do your research on what you are perceiving as unknown and paranormal activities before using them as evidence. Its like arguing in a circle with you. No offense but its hardly productive.

Its not productive for your intentions I'm sure, you seem to be a little ... frustrated or exhausted trying to convince me something, perhaps want to be done trying. Most usually are frustrated trying to convince another how applicable their perspectives are on subjects others wholeheartedly beleive otherwise. This is the same for both sides of the coin.

 But we don't need to convince the other, its unlikely any "evidence" would prove the same thing to both camps.

We interpret things based on our beliefs.

Guys.

"Explained" to some is subjective.
"Proof / Evidence" is subjective.
"Truth" is subjective.
Statements I have "Naive faith" => Is implying the speaker is more objective than I am, perhaps more authoritative.

To them they are more objective, more authoritative. More sensible or logical, more informed.

To me they are not.

... I am representing why the theory itself is reasonable to be quiet taken with by SOME (while still being sane) , nothing more.

« Last Edit: December 24, 2010, 12:32:44 AM by Kate »

Offline Silverfyre

  • Mr. Fyre, or if you're slightly more daring, oh Silver my Silver.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2010
  • Location: Affixed to a Star
  • Gender: Male
  • Once more, with gusto.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #48 on: December 24, 2010, 12:37:14 AM »
Its not productive for your intentions I'm sure, you seem to be a little ... frustrated or exhausted trying to convince me something, perhaps want to be done trying. Most usually are frustrated trying to convince another how applicable their perspectives are on subjects others wholeheartedly beleive otherwise. This is the same for both sides of the coin.

 But we don't need to convince the other, its unlikely any "evidence" would prove the same thing to both camps.

We interpret things based on our beliefs.

Guys.

"Explained" to some is subjective.
"Proof / Evidence" is subjective.
"Truth" is subjective.
Statements I have "Naive faith" => Is implying the speaker is more objective than I am, perhaps more authoritative.

To them they are more objective, more authoritative. More sensible or logical, more informed.

To me they are not.

... I am representing why the theory itself is reasonable to be quiet taken with by SOME (while still being sane) , nothing more.

To be reasonable means to give reasons for it.  There is causation there.  You are not giving it, hence why your views can be seen as "naive".

Truth is subjective?

Evidence, based in facts, is subjective?

Here's my thought on your whole idea of what is and what isn't "subjective".

You keep using that word.



« Last Edit: December 24, 2010, 12:38:16 AM by Silverfyre »

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Alien Astronaught Theory
« Reply #49 on: December 24, 2010, 12:49:30 AM »
"Explained" to some is subjective.
"Proof / Evidence" is subjective.
"Truth" is subjective.
Statements I have "Naive faith" => Is implying the speaker is more objective than I am, perhaps more authoritative.

To them they are more objective, more authoritative. More sensible or logical, more informed.

To me they are not.

... I am representing why the theory itself is reasonable to be quiet taken with by SOME (while still being sane) , nothing more.

You may wish to familiarize yourself with the following two stickies:

Logical Fallacies
Fact, Theory, Hypothesis, Law

These are the basics that people expect when discussing things in P&R (Logical Fallacies in particular) and the more debate-oriented threads in Elliquiy U (Fact, Theory, Hypothesis and Law resides in that forum, but equally applies here, due to the subject matter).