UFO Poll -

[windwalker]

I like the poll the way it is especially #9. Anybody believing these things is nuts. Perhaps I would have used a milder word like irrational.

[Bob]

I like the poll the way it is especially #9. Anybody believing these things is nuts. Perhaps I would have used a milder word like irrational.

The option probably is a bit harsh especially for those who don't necessarily truly believe that the "UFO's" are aliens but are merely entertaining the possibility of alien life.

It's one thing to consider the possibilities - for example, that there likely are other worlds out there in the universe that are "Earth-like" and theorize that conditions could be such as to have some form of "life" that we would recognize as life (excepting for those basing their beliefs on some form of religion, it is a bit egocentric to suggest that life as we know it only could have arisen on Earth) - and it's quite another thing to say they're sure that the "UFO's (or some of them) are truly aliens. I see no rational basis for anyone to believe aliens have in fact visited us or that future Earth people are using time machines to revisit us and I chalk those type of hard beliefs in the same category as religion, superstitions, and, at times, "category #9."

But maybe I rely too much on the fact that humans throughout history have a tendency to believe the dumbest damn things (thunder is a god, a rock's a god, etc.) so I tend to want to either see it for myself or understand that at least some credible segment of the scientific community buys into some given notion. But neither of those conditions have occurred yet as far as I'm concerned.

[RichLB]

But maybe I rely too much on the fact that humans throughout history have a tendency to believe the dumbest damn things (thunder is a god, a rock's a god, etc.) so I tend to want to either see it for myself or understand that at least some credible segment of the scientific community buys into some given notion. But neither of those conditions have occurred yet as far as I'm concerned.

Fair enough. But, again, I ask what would constitute "credible" evidence for you? I think the evidence presented in the other thread is compelling - at least to me.

[Gaybutton]

I think the evidence presented in the other thread is compelling - at least to me.

One of the reasons it's not compelling for me is because much of the information you cite is coming from television programs such as "UFO Hunters," in which the presentation is biased toward convincing people that these "finds" and "discoveries" are real, credible, and not subject to other interpretations. Sort of like religion. Well, to me they are subject to other interpretations and biased programming is not going to be what convinces me.

[RichLB]

One of the reasons it's not compelling for me is because much of the information you cite is coming from television programs such as "UFO Hunters," in which the presentation is biased toward convincing people that these "finds" and "discoveries" are real, credible, and not subject to other interpretations.

Again, quite true. However, the program does have a resident skeptic - although obviously hand picked by the producers. But, the bias of the program does not invalidate the data they present - although the conclusions a viewer might make could reasonably differ from theirs. However, sifting through their "evidence" I still find it compelling and reach a conclusion different from yours.

[Gaybutton]

I still find it compelling and reach a conclusion different from yours.

Of course you do. You make it clear you want it to be true, so you interpret these things in a manner that supports your feelings. I also want it to be true, but it's going to take a lot more than a few biased TV programs to convince me because I don't go into it already believing and convinced.

[RichLB]

I still find it compelling and reach a conclusion different from yours.

Of course you do. You make it clear you want it to be true, so you interpret these things in a manner that supports your feelings. I also want it to be true, but it's going to take a lot more than a few biased TV programs to convince me because I don't go into it already believing and convinced.

Nope, I don't want it to be true. I think you are far more guilty of bias than I am. The data, while presented in a TV program format, is not presented in a hysterical manner and relies on interviews with experts who have impressive resumes and physical evidence. All analysis is conducted at recognized laboratories. The program presents government reports, as well. The bias, lies in their omission of countless reportages of clearly demented people and publicity seekers. I assume most such "sightings" come from that group and the program culls them from their program presentation. The facts speak for themselves although the conclusions of the producers might be open to speculation. I am far too much an iconoclast to accept opinions of others without my own analysis of the data.

[Gaybutton]

Nope, I don't want it to be true.

Yes you do.

If I'm biased, I'm biased against accepting as fact things that are not proven. Your idea of proof and mine are obviously very different.

[Khortose]

Then I'll leave it as it is. I don't agree it is biased and it will provide the input I seek as it stands. And, since Bob doesn't care, there's no reason to change it.

Nor any reason at all to respond to it.

[windwalker]

Nope, I don't want it to be true.

Yes you do.

If I'm biased, I'm biased against accepting as fact things that are not proven. Your idea of proof and mine are obviously very different.

I have the same argument with a good friend who also believes in UFOs, USOs (submerged), Big Foot and all the other nonsense that is presented on TV as fact by so called experts. I claim he wants to believe and that is why he believes but he denies that. Says I don't have an open mind and unwilling to accept scientific facts. By education I am a physicist. Go figure.