Reply to article by: "Kavik Kang" <Kavik_Kang@hotmail.com>
Date written: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 04:30:15 GMT
MsgID:<rl48d.2169$UP1.1429@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>

Yes, nothing I would qualify for evidence that ETs have visited us.  I was a
little confused by the second to last last sentance.  There is evidence,
just not conclusive evidence.  Hudreds of thousands, if not millions of
witnesses is evidence.  The 5% of unexplained cases in both US and USSR case
files is evidence.  Cases like Beligum '91 is evidence.  None of it
conclusive, but it is unreasonable to insist that there is no evidence at
all... which is exactly what many people do.

If the "evidence" is inconclusive, then it isn't evidence, it is insignificant
trivia.

No, it's still evidence.

Science considers evidence as something that is "helpful in forming a conclusion
or judgment" and something that cannot be proven true or false cannot be used to
form a legitimate scientific conclusion.

Anthoropology and Archeology both, for example,
have very little conclusive evidence to support their current beliefs. The
vast majority of evidence in those fields is inconclusive. And yet, it is
still evidence which supports the currently accepted conclusions.

Just because some or many people do it does not prove it is logical or
reasonable or legitimate science. Remember all the scientists that believed the
Earth was flat or the center of the universe?

What
consitutes "evidence" is not affected by the subject matter.  Inconclusive
evidence is still evidence.

Legitimate science does not consider unverifiable testimony as evidence. The
only way for testimony to be useful to science for forming a conclusion or
judgement is for that testimony to be backed up by actual evidence. Without
evidence, testimony is mere storytelling.

It cannot be said that there is no evidence at
all for alien visitation, which is my only point.

All you have to support your viewpoint that ETs are visiting us are mere
storytales that they are visiting us. The only proper conclusion to derive from
the actual facts given is that there is no actual evidence for the existence of
ET visitations. This is hardly something to take seriously.

That's always been my
only point, for nearly 20 years, it's unbelievable that anyone argues about
it.  My only claim here is that there is evidence for alien visitation, it's
not conclusive, but it is evidence.

It isn't legitimate scientific evidence if it isn't conclusive.

This debate can never move forward
until that fact is established and accepted by both sides.  The most ardent
"Raving Lunatic Debunkers" insist that there is "not one shred of evidence",
which is clearly not the case.  The most ardent "Foaming True Believers"
insist that there is "conclusive evidence", both groups are equally wrong.
Until both sides of the debate accept these truths, this debate will never
move forward.

Every single UFO/abduction testimony is merely an unverifiable report of
evidence and not actual evidence. That makes every single UFO/abduction
testimony a storytale instead of actual evidence that needs explaining (with the
exception of the psychology of fads and myths).

In science, what a witness allegedly observed is never as important as the
observer's report of what they believed they saw. The witness may report they
saw an ET piloted flying saucer but a properly trained scientist will understand
that the witness saw a distant speck of light on the horizon and reported it as
an ET piloted flying saucer, rather than as a speck of light on the horizon.
Anything other than a report of the speck of light is imagination and the UFO
community has a very active imagination. While in a court of law the mere words
of a witness would be acceptable, in a court of science mere words are never
acceptable unless accompanied by physically corroborating evidence. That is
considered hearsay and meresay, not evidence, with the exception of the science
of psychology.

25,000 year old cave drawings and renesiance (I just know I spelled that
wrong:-) art containing objects that resemble modern day UFOs are not
hearsay.

Correct, it isn't hearsay, but it is personal interpretation...which is worse
than hearsay for deriving logical conclusions since the interpretation of art is
in the eye of the beholder.

Belgium '91, with hundreds of eyewitnesses and multiple radar
tracks is not hearsay.

Again, these were mere reports of evidence and not actual demonstration of
evidence. The French Airforce said in their report that they could never confirm
the existence of any actual UFOs. Although they had temporary radar contact of
uncorrelated targets, they were not identified as ET-piloted vehicles. It is
only the blind faith assumption of the UFO community that they were ET-piloted
vehicles. As for the "hundreds of eyewitnesses", they cannot be located as
actually existing, as only a small handful of witnesses were actually documented
by name in the report.

Those are just two examples of such evidence.

Evidence of what? Certainly not evidence of ET-piloted vehicles or visitations
as you claim they would be.

Certainly inconclusive, and certainly debatable (which I'm sure someone is
about to prove), but it is evidence none-the-less. For that matter,
anecdotal evidence is also evidence, not the best evidence, but it is
evidence. Again, my only point is that evidence does exist.  That is an
undeniable fact, and yet so many seem ready to deny it.

Anecdotes are not evidence, they are storytelling. Storytelling is not
considered a fact by anyone but UFO believers.

You are asking me if a barbaric species would be interested in another barbaric
species, and yes, barbaric species tend to be interested in other barbaric
speices. But you are assuming that our species will forever remain barbaric
rather than evolve as it has been and that is just not a reasonable unspoken
assumption. I am reminded in this instance of a famous quote...

And you assume that only a species so advanced that they would have no
interest in other alien cultures could ever find us.

Don't assume to know what I assume. You aren't even close to what I claimed or
implied so that shoots down the rest of your argument here since it is based on
a strawman...

It was exactly what you said. You said that any alien race advanced enough
to find us would be uninterested in us.

I never said that, I said that a barbaric species would be most interested in
other barbaric species. It is right up there in writing. We are a barbaric
species therefore find it hard to relate to what it would mean for a
non-barbaric species to not be interested in barbaric species like us.

I simply pointed out that in order
to reach the level you assume is necessary in that statement, they would
have had to have gone through earlier stages in which they did have an
interest in life on other worlds.

That is nonsesnse since it isn't based on actual research of the psychology of
any actual aliens. You can't make up stories and then turn around and pretend
they are actually facts.

You are the only one building straw men
on this point. Anyone can go back in the thread and see what was said.

They can also go back and see what wasn't said. You need to look up the
definition for a strawman since you are the only one making them here so far.

Who knows how "cheating Einstien" might work?  If it's something like a
"wormhole" our solar system could be the very first one a species found.
And any species that goes into space is very likely to spend at least the
early era of their time there seeking out life.  Finding "someone else out
there" is very likely to be a nearly universal trait, if not the only
universal trait, of "interstellar civilization".  Even if it's not, at least
some species would be "explorers".

Is that a fact or a fantasy? If it is a fact, please provide your evidence. It
seems you are once again assuming that what we would do today if we could go
into space is what every other species in the universe will do once they can go
into space. I see no compelling reason for advanced life to act like we do
today. Most of all, I'm going by what we *actually* know rather than what
coulda, woulda, shoulda been. You can imagine all kinds of alternate scenarios
that you want but imaginary is not the same thing as reality. You need facts to
back up your stories, not imagination.

I don't have a story, nor is it my imagination.

I asked for facts so we could see if you were fantasizing or not and since you
didn't provide any facts, the only proper conclusion to make is that you are
fantasizing. The rest of your argument means nothing without some facts like I
politely asked you for...

To suggest that any species
would forge out into space, and then have no interest at all in life they
encountered is obviously rediculous.  A species could concievably advance to
a point that they might lose interest in investigating other forms of life,
but that would probably take thousands of years at the very least.
Certainly, during their earliest years of space travel, finding ET life
would be at the top of the list of any space-faring species.  It would have
been a primary motivation for going into space to begin with.  When someone
advances a theory that defies all logic, such as yours in which alien
species will forge out into space and yet have no interest at all in alien
life they encounter, it is up to that person to show why that would be.
It's not up to me to prove the obvious, it would be up to you to prove such
an unrealistic and nonsensical claim.  Your position makes no sense at all.

I've spent all my life looking for anything odd and while I have found many
things that were odd, none of them were in the category of being paranormal.
There is no such thing as the paranormal, it is all wishful thinking.

But there is nothing what-so-ever "paranormal" about aliens. They would be
entirely normal. Simply another real, tangible species that had developed
on another world. There isn't anything paranormal about that.

That is only your opinion but it does not reflect the judgement of the rest of
the world which has deemed UFO stories as paranormal tales.

It is not my opinion.

You mostly definitely are resorting to opinion...

   "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by
   positive knowledge or proof"
   (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=opinion&r=67)

Read more carefully.  It is not my opinion.

I'm not going to argue against the dictionary as you are doing here. It is most
definitely your opinion since you have no *POSITIVE* knowledge or proof. The
dictionary says it is your opinion and I accept the dictionary's word.

I said, twice now, that if...

There are no "if's" about it, the current UFO phenomenon most definitely is
"beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation" and that is
exactly what the dictionary defines as paranormal.

aliens exist there would be nothing paranormal about them.  Read it again.
If aliens exist, there would be nothing at all paranormal about them.  They
would be real, tangible creatures that simply evolved on another world.  The
phrase "would be" is the important part that you are missing.  They "would
be" real, they would not be paranormal.

There would be nothing paranormal at all about
aliens.  They would be real, tangible creatures that simply evolved on
another world.  There is nothing paranormal about that.  It is certainly
true that anecdotal evidence of aliens visiting Earth has been lumped in
with that category, which is easy to understand considering the lack of
conclusive evidence, there would be nothing at all paranormal about real
aliens.

Unless you can scientifically explain or mechanically reproduce any alleged UFO
experience, it clearly falls under the definition for paranormal...

No, it doesn't.  There would be nothing paranormal about real aliens.  They
would be real creatures.  A ghost of an alien would be paranormal, an actual
alien would not be.  This isn't worth arguing about, since it is so obvious
to anyone who is being honest.

You are talking about what reality could be like, not what it actually is like.
You are in denial of reality instead of accepting it. Your argument is based on
wishful thinking rather than a logical derivation of what we know for a fact.

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page      :           http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================