Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Famous astronaut: - Aliens are visiting us?

  1. Oct 10, 2008 #1
    Famous astronaut: - Aliens are visiting us

    Normally it's not a good thing to start with the conclusion, but can we in this case pre-conclude that Mitchell is just a stupid nutcase?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwE0vDuTm48&feature=related (also see the rest of this Larry King show)

    http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/6692/Astronaut_Dr__Edgar_Mitchell_on_Roswell/

    http://www.p4.no/player/VideoPlayer.aspx?id=280591&mmoid=218753
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2008
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 11, 2008 #2

    CEL

    User Avatar

    Dr Mitchell's diction is so atrocious as to be almost unintelligible for a foreigner like me. Anyway, from what I understood, he limits himself to the proverbial governmental conspiracy.
    Since aliens have supposedly being visiting all countries on Earth, this is a huge conspiracy. The only subject in which governments all over the world are in agreement.
    I wish they would agree in that manner for solving the financial crisis.
     
  4. Oct 11, 2008 #3
    I think we can conclude that Mitchell is a nutcase. EOD.
     
  5. Oct 11, 2008 #4

    CEL

    User Avatar

    That's my opinion, but without specific claims it is difficult to dismiss what he thinks.
     
  6. Oct 11, 2008 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Huh. I'd think scientific principles demand that without specific claims we have no choice but to dismiss what he thinks.
     
  7. Oct 11, 2008 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    He claims to be repeating what he was told, so in this sense he isn't making any claims - he doesn't claim any personal knowledge of ETs. But he is one of many formerly high-ranking military or intelligence people telling the same story.

    The French COMETA reports concludes that ET is most likely here. But, after over twenty years of following this stuff, I have never seen evidence convincing enough for me to conclude the same. On the other hand, IMO, to dimiss it all as outright nonsense is an unjustified leap of faith. In fact, I see absolutely no justification for doing so.

    Is Mitchell a nut? Maybe. Is he telling the truth? Maybe. Could both be true? Maybe. But I don't see how we can label him a nut based on this story. After all, he only claims to be relaying the stories of men who wanted their stories told.

    One thing is certain: Anyone telling such a story gets labeled a nut. And I'm sure that makes a lot of people sleep better at night. It is a scary prospect to consider the alternatives.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2008
  8. Oct 11, 2008 #7
    Yes, but we should remain agnostics with respect to alien visitors just in the same way that we are toothfairy agnostics.
     
  9. Oct 11, 2008 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I appreciate that sarcasm creates a sense of security. But there is no need to be afraid.
     
  10. Oct 11, 2008 #9
    Afraid of what? Aliens? If there were unfriendly aliens on our planet, they would have defeated us long ago. The thing is, faced with a phenomena that we can't yet explain; why assume that there are little creatures from other stars in them? THAT is a leap of faith. There's no more evidence for that than there is evidence for toothfairies or God.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2008
  11. Oct 11, 2008 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There is no scientific evidence for aliens, but there is plenty of evidence for UFOs, and plenty of anecdotal evidence for aliens. There is by far more direct anecdotal evidence for aliens than the tooth fairy. Your statement is nonsense.

    As for God, I won't touch that one because I don't know the rate of alleged God contacts, but I can't recall any recently.

    There are certainly some well documented UFO encounters, including military encounters, that are suggestive of an advanced technology and that seem to defy prosaic explanations.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2008
  12. Oct 11, 2008 #11
    Yes, there is evidene for unidentified flying objects. But visitors from other stars? IMO aliens are todays fairy tales. People have always come up with irrational explanations to phenomena they didn't understand.

    Anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all. You can say the same thing about ghosts.

    You can't disprove ghosts, nor can you disprove alien visitors, but the very fact that you can't disprove a certain thing, doesn't make it realistic.

    When it comes to (the Christian) God, it's evident that he doesn't exist if you read the Old Testament. But that's OT.

    I remain a sceptic here. Even if there is intelligence behind the UFOs, it doesn't mean there are intelligent beings INSIDE them. I think it's far more realistic that they are part of a military spy project.

    At least we agree on Obama :-) Shame I can't vote.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2008
  13. Oct 12, 2008 #12
    I dont think the alien option is necessarily irrational. I agree that, after establishing that a craft is flying around, first thing that should be considered is whether it is human technology.

    But, suppose you saw the giant independence day ufo (this one) flying over your head, it would not be irrational to suppose that it's probably alien. Even though you cant see the occupants, you can compare the crafts properties with human technology and reach a conclusion.
     
  14. Oct 12, 2008 #13

    CEL

    User Avatar

    The problem is that nobody has seen that vessel. We only have personal testimonies and blurred photos.
    Despite the thousands of alleged alien abductions, nobody was able to bring back at least an ashtray stolen from the spaceship.
    As for the supposed cover up from all world governments, I mistrust governments in the same level as anyone else, but the fact that governments lie constantly does not mean that they lie about the evidence of alien visitors. A broken watch gives the right time twice a day. Governments say the truth once in a while.
     
  15. Oct 12, 2008 #14
    People claim to have seem some extremely weird UFO's, including giant ones. Unfortunately they didn't bring back conclusive evidence, but for eyewitnesses of such craft, if they did see what they claim they saw, then it is not irrational for them to believe it was aliens.

    If you watch the first minute and 15seconds of this video, you see an example of someone (B-52 copilot) judging a craft to be alien based on what he saw:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  16. Oct 12, 2008 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    So what does that mean? As you often point out, UFO stands for "Unidentified Flying Object", not "flying saucer", so the existence of UFOs is a trivial fact, but at the same time the existence of UFOs tells us nothing whatsoever of value when it comes to the possibility of the existence of aliens.

    The fact that you trust someone who thinks they saw a flying saucer doesn't alter the problem at all.
    As you appear to understand with your statement above, anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence. So the existence of anecdotal evidence doesn't alter what you said above: there is no scientific evidence for aliens. The only possible thing a scientific minded person could believe is that there is no reason to believe that aliens could be visiting us.
    They happen on a nearly daily basis, Ivan, you're just not paying attention (they don't always make the news anyway). The evidence is in the news and on sale on Ebay all the time. Here's evidence of God so compelling that it sold on Ebay for $28,000: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6511148/
    And as you said: they don't meet the standard of science. So scientifically minded people such as yourself have no choice but to choose not to believe in aliens or alien spacecraft. Choosing to believe that they do exist is nothing more than a religion of a different kind.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2008
  17. Oct 12, 2008 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Your logic is fine, but the problem is that no one as yet been able to "establish" as fact that a flying saucer was seen.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2008
  18. Oct 12, 2008 #17

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Just remember that is only your opinion.

    That is true. And some of the most ardent ET believers will tell you the same thing. In the UFO community, it is known that 90-95% of all "UFO sightnings" can be easily explained. However, some of the most interesting reports defy the notion that people were mistaken. Either they are lying or not, and sometimes the corroborating evidence suggests they are not lying. These are the cases the most interest serious investigators.

    False. I think you are assuming that scientific is the only form of evidence. While it is true that accepted scientific doctrine only recognizes scientific evidence, the breadth of human experience often does not enjoy the luxury of reproducibility on demand.

    Given that people are convicted of crimes in part based on anecdotal evidence, it is in fact the law of the land that anecdotal evidence is evidence. Now, if you choose to consider only those assertions supported by scientific evidence, that is your right, but it doesn't change the fact that there are many types of evidence. Scientific evidence is the most rigorous form. Others are: Experimental evidence, photographic and video evidence, RADAR evidence, trace physical evidence, as well as eyewitness testimony. Note that photographic, video, and RADAR evidence, are really just measurements.

    The weight given any evidence can depend on corroborating evidence.

    Your assumption that ghosts do not exist does not serve as proof of your position. It is circular logic: There are no ghosts because we have no evidence. All evidence if false because there are no ghosts. Now, if you want to limit the discussion to scientific evidence, then please tell me what specific evidence could qualify. What evidence of ghosts [if they exist] could serve as scientific evidence?

    Nor does it make something untrue.

    That is a leap of faith.

    GOOD! You should be. I'm not trying to convince anyone that ET is here. But I am saying that there are very good reasons why people believe such things. I have said this many times and I will say it again. After over twenty years of following this subject with great interest [thinking that I could figure it all out], I don't know what to think, but it isn't all nonsense. Is ET here? I have no idea! But based on the evidence, I can't rule out that possibility.

    In some cases this is almost certainly true. It has also been suggested by scientists that remote probes would be the most likely alien technology that we might encounter.

    Then you are obviously a very intelligent and highly perceptive individual. :biggrin:
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2008
  19. Oct 12, 2008 #18
    I thought anecdotes were evidence in science too. They use it in neuroscience fMRI experiments. Its just the lowest form of evidence.
     
  20. Oct 12, 2008 #19

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Generally, scientific evidence requires duplication and peer review. Even experimental evidence is not automatically scientific evidence. Something like an MRI image might serve as legal evidence, medical evidence, or as scientific evidence. The standards for the three situations would be different.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2008
  21. Oct 13, 2008 #20
    Personally I don't find the notion of aliens that far out of the realm of possible. Even given the light speed limitation you can get anywhere in this galaxy in 20 years with 1G constant acceleration. The notion that returning home wouldn't be possible due to the hundreds of thousands of years passing back home presumes their home is a fixed location. It may well be their home they came in. Even weirder notions like they seeded life here to see what would happen isn't impossible. We have a good handle on evolution but abiogenesis remains speculative. However far fetched such an alien hypothesis is I'm curious as to how the odds of abiogenesis compares. It's reasonable to presume it's not very likely given that it seems to have occurred only once on Earth and all life branched out from there. Unfortunately the data is simply not there. Just a few tantalizing guesses.

    That said it remains dishonest to claim any of it to be so, no matter what people think they saw. Even if a bunch of greys took me on board and told me all this it remains a leap of faith that someones not pulling a big psych experiment at my expense. Even if they were real aliens I have no knowledge of their social structure to assess the honesty of what's said. Giving me some neat toys might help a lot. Just showing them to me wouldn't.

    The fact is the evidence for aliens is nil. No, anecdotal evidence is no evidence of aliens whatsoever. Even to take the sightings I personally witnessed and make a simple presumption of UFO implies too many assumptions to make any reasonable bet on what it was. Even if your 90% sure on any given assumption if you stack enough assumption you are nearly certain to be wrong. Does unidentified mean unidentified to all humans? Does flying mean that it is self propelled? Does object mean a solid object? Intelligence, artificial intelligence, non-human, and extra terrestrial are all completely separate assumptions. Even those considerations bypass assumptions about visual acuity of translations against a background of stars, etc. We tend to grossly underestimate the number of assumptions we make in even everyday mundane observations. Our bias is compounded greatly when we are contemplating the unknown. We also tend to massively underestimate the number of possibilities that we fail to consider.

    The notion that anything we have to date is evidence is intellectually dishonest. Belief in such conjecture as factual is just nuts.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Famous astronaut: - Aliens are visiting us?
  1. Visiting Canada from US (Replies: 16)

  2. Deserve to be famous? (Replies: 13)

  3. How famous ? (Replies: 5)

Loading...