Refuting Aliens

[Utsanomiko]

IIRC, while most North American (and maybe Europe) abduction experiences include strikingly simmilar 'aliens', that does not hold true for other regions (again, IIRC, they appear as furry cyclopes in South America).

They've done tests on the subject; they've put people in a dark room, stimulated centers of the brain, and the people always feel like they've been 'wisked away' and brought before someone's presence. It's not vary complicated at all.

And you'd think that after 100,000 anal probes, these aliens would have enough data on that part of our biology?

[The Dark]

Everywhere I go, there are people who believe in aliens, whether they've been watching too much of the X-Files, or they believe the stuff in Weekly World News. They are quite clever. Whenever I ask why they would travel so far for no apparent reason, they say "because they can". Half the time, they bring up "aliens in Area 51", or nonsense like that.

Does anyone have advice for refuting myths of alien landings, and the like?

Also, does anyone think there are people out there that think aliens can travel hundreds, if not thousands of lightyears, but don't belive that we can travel 250,000 miles to the moon?

Well...right now we can't travel to the moon. None of our spacecraft are powerful enough to make the transit. The current most powerful rocket is the Lockheed Martin Atlas V, with 1 million pounds of thrust. The Saturn V, on the other hand, had 7.5 million pounds of thrust.

As far as the aliens go: if they're out there, they're out there. If not, not. Until we have proof of something that cannot be explained by another theory, it will remain a "back burner" theory, still there, but not high on the list of precedence.

[pecker]

IIRC, while most North American (and maybe Europe) abduction experiences include strikingly simmilar 'aliens', that does not hold true for other regions (again, IIRC, they appear as furry cyclopes in South America).

They've done tests on the subject; they've put people in a dark room, stimulated centers of the brain, and the people always feel like they've been 'wisked away' and brought before someone's presence. It's not vary complicated at all.

And you'd think that after 100,000 anal probes, these aliens would have enough data on that part of our biology?

I thoguht about that experiment, and realized that whiel it creates the appropriate result, it uses the wrong means.

They give the subject complete sensory deprivation. However, people in cars (who also are affected by 'missing time') are not in such a state.

Also, it is unknown if the test subjects saw 'little grey men' because that is what they believed they should see, or if it was the natural state.

[pecker]

Also, the major flaw on both sides of the argument is generalization:

Believers see all unexplaiend lights and encounters as aliens.

Non-believers tend to group all UFO phenomenon under either hallucinations, hoaxes, or hysteria without actual investigation.

If yoiu take it on a case-by-case basis, you will see that these are all very different events, that are only superficially similar.

[Uraniun235]

I read that one of the ideas floating around regarding construction of the pyramids is that they used gigantic kites to lift the stones.

[Vympel]

Anyone ver seen those damn stupid fucking conspiracy shows that has the pyramids taking off as if they're spacecraft? WTF?

[pecker]

Anyone ver seen those damn stupid fucking conspiracy shows that has the pyramids taking off as if they're spacecraft? WTF?

Sure that wasn't a cartoon?

[Darth Wong]

Also, the major flaw on both sides of the argument is generalization:

Believers see all unexplaiend lights and encounters as aliens.

Non-believers tend to group all UFO phenomenon under either hallucinations, hoaxes, or hysteria without actual investigation.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far, the only evidence is weak. You have a propensity for Golden Mean fallacies.

When confronted with a mystery, we look for explanations that involve phenomena which are known to exist. If you walk outdoors one day and see that your car has been vandalized, do you assume it was punks, or aliens? Keep in mind that you have no direct evidence of either. Would it be unreasonable of you to assume it's punks, just because aliens are a ridiculous explanation?

[Joe]

Also, the major flaw on both sides of the argument is generalization:

Believers see all unexplaiend lights and encounters as aliens.

Non-believers tend to group all UFO phenomenon under either hallucinations, hoaxes, or hysteria without actual investigation.

If yoiu take it on a case-by-case basis, you will see that these are all very different events, that are only superficially similar.

But you can't really investigate these claims. They have absolutely no evidence. A claim that cannot be practically investigated or tested for truth is either an irrational belief or a flat-out lie. The latter, in the case of most "abductees," I'm sure.

[Sea Skimmer]

Anyone ver seen those damn stupid fucking conspiracy shows that has the pyramids taking off as if they're spacecraft? WTF?

Sure that wasn't Stargate?

Some days I'd swear people think that movie was based off credible research or actual discoveries. .

[Vympel]

Anyone ver seen those damn stupid fucking conspiracy shows that has the pyramids taking off as if they're spacecraft? WTF?

Sure that wasn't Stargate?

Some days I'd swear people think that movie was based off credible research or actual discoveries. .

No I'm serious it was an actual conspiracy 'documentary' show. I laughed my ass off when I saw that.

[XPViking]

In regards to vandalizing your car, The Loggers from Space did it.

Damn Loggers.

XPViking

[pecker]

Also, the major flaw on both sides of the argument is generalization:

Believers see all unexplaiend lights and encounters as aliens.

Non-believers tend to group all UFO phenomenon under either hallucinations, hoaxes, or hysteria without actual investigation.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far, the only evidence is weak. You have a propensity for Golden Mean fallacies.

When confronted with a mystery, we look for explanations that involve phenomena which are known to exist. If you walk outdoors one day and see that your car has been vandalized, do you assume it was punks, or aliens? Keep in mind that you have no direct evidence of either. Would it be unreasonable of you to assume it's punks, just because aliens are a ridiculous explanation?

And you have a tendency to have no idea what I'm saying

I do not esposue the theory of aliens as more than a VERY REMOTE possibility. I have said REPEATEDLY I do not. I have said that I do believe that there are instances where no satisfactory answer is given. Even if they are simply natural phenomenon, they are phenomenon which have yet to be successfully identified. And if these phenoenon are giving people radiation burns and wiping out their memories, I'd sure as hell like to know what it is.

[Shrykull]

I definitely think that aliens exist (I mean who wouldn't? If life can evolve here then why should this planet be the only one that can support life, why is this the only planet that is the right distance from it's star to support life, I think it's absolutely ludicrous to say that they don't exist) whether they've been here is probably not true. I heard that reports of alien encounters didn't start until Hollywood started making scary alien movies, but what if prior to that if people ever saw an alien they thought of it as a monster, or a demon, or angel etc? Also, why is that usually the reports of how aliens look are pretty much all the same- white skinned slender humanoids with black oval shaped eyes? For the reports I can remember...........
I remember I saw some alien autopsy on TV, but they said that it possibly was a fabrication, that it could have just been a homemade creature puppet like the predator or ET (Why didn't they take a look at it's cells through a microscope to see if it even had cells and if so what kind of DNA it had? If they did do that, wouldn't that be proof that aliens do exist, the DNA that doesn't match anything close to anything of Earth?
Also I've heard about the reports of abductions the ones where some is abducted and they come back, and then only under hypnosis do they realize they had been abducted.
Another one I heard of was on the unsolved mysteries show where 3 people and a kid came across what appeared to be a UFO, and now the kid has permanent radiation damage done to his body, assuming that is not a lie, where else could he have suffered that kind of injury?
I don't know, guess we'll have to wait about 600 years until science has advanced that far and we'll know a lot more about what can and can't be done with technology, if we can travel faster than light, etc.

[Joe]

It doesn't matter how convincing the stories you hear are (and I'm sure a bastion of journalistic integrity like Unsolved Mysteries would NEVER falsify information), that does not change the fact that there is not.one.piece.of.physical.evidence to even vaguely suggest the existence of extraterrestrials that have visited the Earth. Just lots of claims without substance and speculation.

[Darth Wong]

I do not esposue the theory of aliens as more than a VERY REMOTE possibility. I have said REPEATEDLY I do not. I have said that I do believe that there are instances where no satisfactory answer is given.

You're missing the point. When the evidence is not collected in a properly documented fashion, corroborated by credible witnesses, etc., then no answer is necessary.

Even if they are simply natural phenomenon, they are phenomenon which have yet to be successfully identified.

Oh, they've been identified. UFO evidence is invariably caused by a phenomenon known as trailer trash.

And if these phenoenon are giving people radiation burns and wiping out their memories, I'd sure as hell like to know what it is.

You mean "if people can fake burn marks on the ground and pretend to have been abducted", then you'd sure like an explanation? Why do you overlook the obvious one?

Let's put it this way: we have no evidence whatsoever of extraterrestrial visitation. We do, however, have mountains of evidence of UFO-ologist fraud. So why characterize the explanation of fraud as unsatisfactory?

[neoolong]

Anyone ver seen those damn stupid fucking conspiracy shows that has the pyramids taking off as if they're spacecraft? WTF?

Sure that wasn't Stargate?

Some days I'd swear people think that movie was based off credible research or actual discoveries. .

There was an Egypologist or some such type of guy that fairly researched it and came up with the concept. I think it was to make a sci-fi what if type thing that has some basis in history. Not to be really serious about it.

[Joe]

I do not esposue the theory of aliens as more than a VERY REMOTE possibility. I have said REPEATEDLY I do not. I have said that I do believe that there are instances where no satisfactory answer is given.

You're missing the point. When the evidence is not collected in a properly documented fashion, corroborated by credible witnesses, etc., then no answer is necessary.

Even if they are simply natural phenomenon, they are phenomenon which have yet to be successfully identified.

Oh, they've been identified. UFO evidence is invariably caused by a phenomenon known as trailer trash.

And if these phenoenon are giving people radiation burns and wiping out their memories, I'd sure as hell like to know what it is.

You mean "if people can fake burn marks on the ground and pretend to have been abducted", then you'd sure like an explanation? Why do you overlook the obvious one?

Let's put it this way: we have no evidence whatsoever of extraterrestrial visitation. We do, however, have mountains of evidence of UFO-ologist fraud. So why characterize the explanation of fraud as unsatisfactory?

You shouldn't use the word "UFO-ologist" so freely. It implies that the field has some scientific credibility. Kooks is more suitable.

[pecker]

I do not esposue the theory of aliens as more than a VERY REMOTE possibility. I have said REPEATEDLY I do not. I have said that I do believe that there are instances where no satisfactory answer is given.

You're missing the point. When the evidence is not collected in a properly documented fashion, corroborated by credible witnesses, etc., then no answer is necessary.

I'd consider military piltos, radar operators, and records to be credible.

Even if they are simply natural phenomenon, they are phenomenon which have yet to be successfully identified.

Oh, they've been identified. UFO evidence is invariably caused by a phenomenon known as trailer trash.

I could comment on that, but it'd give me too much of a headache right now.

And if these phenoenon are giving people radiation burns and wiping out their memories, I'd sure as hell like to know what it is.

You mean "if people can fake burn marks on the ground and pretend to have been abducted", then you'd sure like an explanation? Why do you overlook the obvious one?[/quote]
Not burns on the ground. Radiation burns on people. And if these people are faking, then they faked teeth falling out, hair loss, and killed their dog. Not to mention are willing to bear ridicule from family and friends and never fess up. They also left large burns in an asphalt road. Pretty good for two grandparents and an 8-year-old.

Let's put it this way: we have no evidence whatsoever of extraterrestrial visitation. We do, however, have mountains of evidence of UFO-ologist fraud. So why characterize the explanation of fraud as unsatisfactory?

You obviously have limited knowledge in the matter. Yes, there is a large number of rauds. There are a large number of honest mistakes. There are also a number of reports where official investigations have admitted the cause is unknown. There are numbers of radar records, corroborated by military pilot accounts, of unknown objects from many countries. There are recollections from military personnel. There are military records that report unknown phenomenon. There are recollections from airline pilots, who could seriously lose their jobs over making such claims, and some have.

The explanation of fraud is satisfactory when it's proven. But in many cases, fraud is ruled out.

Of course, if you want to discount every report as trailer trash, that's your choice.

[Darth Wong]

I'd consider military piltos, radar operators, and records to be credible.

Radar records of what? A vehicle which doesn't identify itself? Big deal. Or is it a vehicle travelling in some manner which is impossible? Most of the UFO claims are inherently flawed; they hold up "proof" in the form of a vehicle which moves impossibly fast (for example) even though the side-effects of sonic boom and ion storm are not present. UFO kooks leap to the conclusion that rather than blame instrumentation or some bizarre atmospheric effect, we should conclude that the laws of physics are completely wrong and that UFO's did it.

Not burns on the ground. Radiation burns on people. And if these people are faking, then they faked teeth falling out, hair loss, and killed their dog. Not to mention are willing to bear ridicule from family and friends and never fess up. They also left large burns in an asphalt road. Pretty good for two grandparents and an 8-year-old.

There are a huge number of phenomena which can leave burns in an asphalt road or toxic reactions in people. A chemical spill, a piece of satellite falling from the sky, etc. When you have an "abduction incident" where the only proof of abduction is appeal to ignorance (ie- "I don't remember what happened therefore something fantastic must have happened"), you have nothing more than faulty logic. Why are UFO's alternately tracked by radar (but don't go anywhere) or suddenly show up in front of some hicks (but not tracked on radar?) Why doesn't an interplanetary spacecraft not leave the kind of take-off blast evidence that, say, a Saturn V rocket would leave, instead of a small blackened spot on the road? Why no noise? Why no sonic boom? Why no corroborating eyewitnesses? Every damned time?

Oh, wait. Of course, the UFO people make sure their presence is a secret. Classic appeal to ignorance: the very weakness of the evidence proves that it must be true, right?

[Joe]

Not burns on the ground. Radiation burns on people. And if these people are faking, then they faked teeth falling out, hair loss, and killed their dog. Not to mention are willing to bear ridicule from family and friends and never fess up. They also left large burns in an asphalt road. Pretty good for two grandparents and an 8-year-old.

You know, there are a lot of things on Earth that can cause a dog to die, people to lose hair, and teeth to fall out. But you have shrewdly picked what is clearly the most likely cause of all these things; aliens.

You obviously have limited knowledge in the matter. Yes, there is a large number of rauds. There are a large number of honest mistakes. There are also a number of reports where official investigations have admitted the cause is unknown. There are numbers of radar records, corroborated by military pilot accounts, of unknown objects from many countries. There are recollections from military personnel. There are military records that report unknown phenomenon. There are recollections from airline pilots, who could seriously lose their jobs over making such claims, and some have.

As Carl Sagan said, as Wong quoted, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. There is nothing extraordinary or even compelling about the personal anecdotes of fallible individuals who present absolutely no proof other than their stories.

My point is, to even suggest the possibility that aliens have visited Earth in the past, extraordinary proof needs to be presented. There is none.

[pecker]

OK, guys, you aren't reading. I agree that they aren't aliens. I agree that theya re msot liekly antural phenomenon. My problem is that while you say 'Many natural phenomenon could cause such things", I never seem to hear what it is.

And what faulty logic am I using? All I said is that there are records of uknown phenomenon that have not been explained from credible sources. My entire point is that UFOs are Unidentified some times.

Me: There are phenomenon.
Wong: There are no aliens!!!
Me: I never said there were.
Wong: All UFO stories are faked!
Me: But some of them have effects that could be caused by natural phenomenon that were likely not faked. They are likely not spacecraft, but soem unidentified event.
Wong: There many kinds of natural phenomenon that could create such effects, they are not spacecraft you fool. Stop believing in aliens.
Me: *Bangs head into wall*

[Darth Wong]

OK, guys, you aren't reading. I agree that they aren't aliens. I agree that theya re msot liekly antural phenomenon. My problem is that while you say 'Many natural phenomenon could cause such things", I never seem to hear what it is.

And since the evidence is sketchy, poorly documented, and often contradictory, what makes you think a solid explanation will ever be found? Can you explain what happened to my TIE fighter toy with pop-off panels that I had when I was a kid? It disappeared without a trace. Can you say exactly where it ended up? Of course not. Does it matter? Of course not.

The fact that we cannot take poorly documented, uncorroborated, often self-contradictory claims and explain precisely what must have happened is nothing to get excited about.

[pecker]

OK, guys, you aren't reading. I agree that they aren't aliens. I agree that theya re msot liekly antural phenomenon. My problem is that while you say 'Many natural phenomenon could cause such things", I never seem to hear what it is.

And since the evidence is sketchy, poorly documented, and often contradictory, what makes you think a solid explanation will ever be found? Can you explain what happened to my TIE fighter toy with pop-off panels that I had when I was a kid? It disappeared without a trace. Can you say exactly where it ended up? Of course not. Does it matter? Of course not.

The fact that we cannot take poorly documented, uncorroborated, often self-contradictory claims and explain precisely what must have happened is nothing to get excited about.

Well, understanding the basics of quantum mechanics doesn't really matter to your Average Joe. However, last time I checked, humans were curious creatures. My mind just happens to be intrigued by such things.
The fact that we currently cannot explain such things is no reason to not try. We will learn something in the process. Be it that they are fakes, swamp gas, geolights, or psychological pohenomenon.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Everywhere I go, there are people who believe in aliens, whether they've been watching too much of the X-Files, or they believe the stuff in Weekly World News. They are quite clever. Whenever I ask why they would travel so far for no apparent reason, they say "because they can". Half the time, they bring up "aliens in Area 51", or nonsense like that.

Does anyone have advice for refuting myths of alien landings, and the like?

Also, does anyone think there are people out there that think aliens can travel hundreds, if not thousands of lightyears, but don't belive that we can travel 250,000 miles to the moon?

The quick and dirty refutation of alleged UFO landings and ancient spacemen:

A) Show me the <saucer/dead body/fossilized alien remnants/ruins>

B) Explain to me why I should believe that aliens built the pyramids when it has been demonstrated that the ancient Egyptians had more than enough tech to build them, and that, from a civil engineering standpoint, a pyramid is a structure that is little more impressive than a random pile of rocks?

C) Explain how a government that has a hard enough time keeping important things, like the dalliances of it's top officials, or the landing sites of it's major military operations quiet, can cover up alleged UFO crashes and sightings.

D) Explain how an agency as maligned and cash-starved as NASA would see the benefit of covering up evidence of life from other worlds, when said evidence would guarantee their funding until the end of eternity?

E) Where's the physical evidence and the legitimate scientific reports? And when I say legitimate, I don't mean Richard Hoagland or Art Bell. And I don't mean hypnotic regression. It's been demonstrated that hypnotic regression makes the hypnotized person susceptible to the suggestions of an over-eager hypnotist.

Just a quick primer. Just about all UFO arguments are laughably easy to deconstruct.