This is basically recycled UFO nonsense, nearly all of which was debunked many years ago. I guess the producers figure some folks will watch anything. I watched one episode, hoping it would be something new and more scientifically analyzed than most of this genre. But I was wrong and I won't watch anymore.
It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek
i am into this stuff and i have not heard most of these stories were debunked as you claim.
i have watched 12 of 13 ep's and the show is not too bad.
a couple of the incidents i think are likely bs but hey that comes with the territory.
some stories seem more convincing than others.
Unless your mind is made up, which it may be, I suggest you do some research via Google. But I'm guessing most of the folks who watch this don't want to look very hard for disconfirming evidence. That's the nature of the beast.
It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek
The nature of the beast is for people to put forward their own explanation (often based on a hazy understanding of science) and call it "debunked". It's usually no such thing. And then you have two competing attempts at explanation, both without evidence, and it's up to someone's beliefs as to which way they lean.
Debunking, also, requires firm and specific evidence, not just people intoning "Occam's Razor".
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
A former deputy director of the CIA was once asked if he thought that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe. He said, "Almost certainly." Then he was asked if he thought this planet had ever been visited by extraterrestrial beings. He said, "Almost certainly not."
As Carl Sagan said in "Cosmos": "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." There has been no extraordinary evidence. But whenever this nonsense pops up, scientists have been able to give a plausible explanation. The problem is that many nonscientists start with the premise that this stuff exists, and then they spin the evidence to try to "prove" it. It's much the same thing as ghost stories. Or those who say that because there are gaps in the fossil evidence that haven't yet been filled in, therefore evolution must be wrong. And they say this even though we can see evolution going on right before our eyes.
I will waste no more time on this thread.
It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek
If "a former deputy director of the CIA" is your authority on UFOs, then you really are wasting your time, but it's all your own doing.
I just love it when people trot out poor old Carl Sagan's quote for the umpteenth time, while clearly not understanding its import. The need for evidence goes in both directions; it's not enough to say "that's unlikely", and invoke Carl Sagan like some kind of mantra, and think your work is done; and it *absolutely* does not mean that something has been "debunked". "A plausible explanation" is not automatically correct, and it doesn't refute anything, merely offers an alternative. Beyond that, it's a matter of faith as to which one you believe.
Evolution isn't even vaguely related to this thread, unless you lump it together (as you apparently have) under some "scientists are always right" credo. But where, pray tell, have you seen evolution "going on right before our eyes"? What, species dying out because of destruction of their habitat? That's not evolution. It's bloody tragic, and we're insane, but it's not evolution.
I will waste no more time on this thread.
Just one more reply before I put you on my ignore list. If you don't think evolution goes on before our very eyes, then Google it. I don't know whether you're smart enough to figure it out, but folks have been observing and reporting on this for over 100 years. And my comment about evolution is in reference to those idiots who claim that a few gaps in the fossil evidence is proof for Creationism and the existence of God. Now that I've spelled it out for you, maybe you understand. But it figures that you either wouldn't have heard of ongoing, observable evolution or you have repressed the recollection of it.
And if there were any credible evidence of extraterrestrial visitors, it would have made worldwide headlines and we wouldn't be able to stop talking about it. Some folks believe in angels, ghosts, leprechauns and fairies, too. But there is no credible evidence that they exist.
The point that you have obviously missed is that the burden is not on scientists to disprove the existence of extraterrestrial visitors. The burden is on those who make extraordinary claims to provide evidence that everyone can point to as proof. You apparently don't even understand how science works, or anything about the scientific method.
It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek
Mate, it's not a case of "you're either with us or agin us". I haven't said a word about believing in UFOs as extraterrestrial, nor in angels or ghosts. I made a point about careless use of the term "debunked", and from that you've spun into questioning my intelligence and ability to understand? So much for rational enquiry and the scientific method, eh?
But there is no credible evidence that they exist.
The point that you have obviously missed is that the burden is not on scientists to disprove the existence of extraterrestrial visitors. The burden is on those who make extraordinary claims to provide evidence that everyone can point to as proof. You apparently don't even understand how science works, or anything about the scientific method.
I'll give it one more try and humor you a bit more. Now pay attention, because you obviously didn't pay close enough attention in your college science courses (if you ever took any).
And you apparently never bothered to look up the meaning of the term "debunk." In order to debunk an exaggerated claim (alien spaceships or whatever), one does NOT necessarily need to disprove it. One needs merely to propose a less fantastic explanation, thus showing that the exaggerated explanation is just that--an unnecessary exaggeration. And one does NOT need to prove that the less fantastic explanation is true. That's the whole point of Occam's Razor, which is used by the scientific community so that we don't all waste huge amounts of time pursuing every wingnut theory and arguing endlessly about it. The problem is that some folks jump right to the "spaceship/space alien" hypothesis without considering other less fantastic explanations (swamp gas, ball lightning, the planet Venus, an airplane, an optical illusion, etc. . . .).
If you don't understand what I'm saying now, then I'm afraid I can't help you. And by the way, the CIA does not constrain former employees from expressing personal opinions, as long as they don't reveal classified secrets. So there's another false assumption/incorrect statement on your part.
Also, my threat to ignore you was not based on your disagreeing with me; it was based on not wanting to waste my time listening to sloppy logic and misinformation. So it didn't represent an unscientific attitude. It represents my desire to use my time efficiently.
Now I'm willing to continue this discussion a bit longer if you wish, but only if you first do what I told you to do re: ongoing evidence of evolution. Do some research and report back here with what you find. If you're too mentally lazy/incurious to do that, then I won't waste any more time on this discussion.
It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek
Well, you couldn't have made your own ignorance and arrogance more plain. And it's hysterical that you dress it up in such a pompous tone, decked with ad hominems. "Do what you're told and report back"?? Really, who the feck do you think you are?!
It's you who needs to look up debunk. According to the OED, it means, "To expose the falseness or hollowness of a belief". In other words, show it to be false. It's not enough to merely put forward an alternate explanation that you assert is more reasonable or scientifically probable.
Occam's Razor is a principle that states "Don't multiply entities needlessly". That's it. In other words, don't make explanations more complex than they need to be. It says nothing about "less fantastic", except in the minds of Internet Snarks and those who think that all "Scientists" speak as one on any specific issue.
If you do reply to this (and I don't actually care either way; you're not doing us all the favour that you seem to think your opinion is), I've no doubt it'll just be yet another attempt to talk down to me and paint me as not understanding. Pity the facts aren't on your side, though.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Wow, you really don't bother to do much research. How pathetic. You've picked only one of the possible meanings of the term "debunk", completely ignoring the one I used. Here are some sources showing what I said previously:
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary: to expose as being false or exaggerated.
Dictionary.com: to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated.
As for Occam's Razor, here's a blurb from Wikipedia (which, by the way, has been shown to be as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica): "It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better."
I think most reasonable people would say that any of the competing theories I posited earlier are less complicated (as well as less fantastic) than aliens from outer space.
It's too bad that you're not quite up to the game.
Now, since you failed your rather simple homework assignment on evolution, I'm done with you, as I warned you I would be.
It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek
What a numbskull.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Well, it's always funny when someone says they will quit the thread they created at the first sign of dissent... then keeps going.
shareWhat a lunatic! There simply is NO evidence of alien visitors or crafts.
sharewatch season two and try to say that again. all the stupidest parts about the show get 10 times worse.
shareThe featured review changes. I assume it was eb999's. The Jordan one is good too.
share