Ancient Aliens Debunked

[jvarnell]

He calls upon something called "arguing from ignorance". Here is the wiki for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I call it not knowing how and what the words "Must, shall, may and will" mean. Most UFO/alien shows use the words theroy or unexplaned. I know this seams petty but in my business people try to shut down the discussion by defining what I say or think instead of me defining what I have said or think.

 

[Brother JC]

When my forebears landed... uhm, moved to Roswell, it was only to get away from the war and work with cattle. Really. :34:

 

[Brent Heilman]

Lol, at what point was Superman classed as "identified"? When he was called a bird, when he was called a plane, or when he was correctly called Superman? ^_^

EDIT: or better yet, if you're working on a car and say you've "identified" the problem (the engine won't start), then realized you were previously wrong and now REALLY identified the problem (no key in the ignition), would you still say the problem was identified the first time?

I love talking semantics. hehe

EDIT EDIT: oooh better yet, if you are unable to ever prove the real problem with the car, does the first "identification" stand regardless of validity/truth?

Well Superman was never called an unidentified flying object. They said look in the sky it's a bird, it's a plane, no it's Superman. He was always identified. Maybe when they looked at him from afar he looked like a bird, but as he got closer they were able to distinguish what he really was. None of those people ever said hey look it's a ufo it must be an alien, no wait, never mind , it's just Superman.

As far as the car thing goes identifying the engine won't start as a problem is really just identifying a symptom of a problem. It is like troubleshooting a TV. You identify a symptom of the problem by figuring out the TV won't turn on. The problem is still unknown (unidentified) but you have a symptom to work off of. You do some looking and find that it is unplugged. Then the problem is identified and now you can definitively say that "A" was caused by "B".

 

[Brent Heilman]

I call it not knowing how and what the words "Must, shall, may and will" mean. Most UFO/alien shows use the words theroy or unexplaned. I know this seams petty but in my business people try to shut down the discussion by defining what I say or think instead of me defining what I have said or think.

No one is trying to shut you down. You have your views and want me to see things from your viewpoint. I have my views, yet you refuse to see things from my viewpoint. To you it seems as if you are saying you are right and that I am wrong. They are opinions and when dealing with opinions there is no right and wrong. I will always stand firmly on the premise that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

The problem with the whole AA theory and that aliens visit on a regular basis is that those who adhere to those theories always try to shift the burden of proof. Science says that it is impossible for these events to take place. We have years and years of research showing how the physical world works and have proved many, many theories of space, physics, and quantum mechanics to be true. For someone to visit here from another planet at least some of those laws may have to be broken. Until, someone can prove the laws can be broken the burden of proof lies in the hands of those that make the claims regarding the AA theory and alien visitation.

 

[Godfrey Daniel]

Great Caesar's Ghost !

 

[Brent Heilman]

Great Caesar's Ghost !

View attachment 2684

Nice!

 

[crono782]

It is like troubleshooting a TV. You identify a symptom of the problem by figuring out the TV won't turn on. The problem is still unknown (unidentified) but you have a symptom to work off of. You do some looking and find that it is unplugged. Then the problem is identified and now you can definitively say that "A" was caused by "B".

Usually I just kick it. Always seems to help. ^_^

 

[Brent Heilman]

Yeah I spent too much money on mine to do that. Now, the old TVs I don't mind hitting every once in a while.

 

[crono782]

The one in my office is coax only, rabbit ear style. Pretty sure the bootprints add to it's "charm".

 

[Brent Heilman]

Gives it character right? We have a monitor n one of our trainers here that unless you beat the crap out of it it won't display properly. So every time someone turns on the station you will the thunk all over the office.

 

[Godfrey Daniel]

copyright infringement

 

[jvarnell]

No one is trying to shut you down. You have your views and want me to see things from your viewpoint. I have my views, yet you refuse to see things from my viewpoint. To you it seems as if you are saying you are right and that I am wrong. They are opinions and when dealing with opinions there is no right and wrong. I will always stand firmly on the premise that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

The problem with the whole AA theory and that aliens visit on a regular basis is that those who adhere to those theories always try to shift the burden of proof. Science says that it is impossible for these events to take place. We have years and years of research showing how the physical world works and have proved many, many theories of space, physics, and quantum mechanics to be true. For someone to visit here from another planet at least some of those laws may have to be broken. Until, someone can prove the laws can be broken the burden of proof lies in the hands of those that make the claims regarding the AA theory and alien visitation.

I know your not trying to shut me down I am pointing out that those are the type of words used in the real word to shut down free flow of thought and that is what the guy on the video is doing by shaming people. I also am not saying that the AA people are right and have proof but that they have informations we should look at it may point some people to look at Aliens and it may point people at othere theroys. Since it is a theroy and not a conclustion no one is right and no one is wrong. The only point to this converstions is not what is right or wrong but is there some informations in there theroy that we should research more.

Thorey's are just that that and don't have to be proven till they become a conclussion. Thorey's are a tool to cause research. You can only debunck answers that come as a result of the hypothis which is before the conclution.


And you need to look at the physics as stated by Einstein and Hawking about what is broken or not. But they are also just thorey's and not at conclustion ether.

 

[jvarnell]

You can not debunck a theroy but you can only prove or disprove data used when comming up with a conclustion.

 

[Brent Heilman]

I have looked at the physics of Einstein and Hawking. Of course Hawking has been dealing more with Black Holes and the physics of them than most others. Einstein put forth the General and Special Relativity. These are not just theories any longer. They were theories then they were tested and found to be laws much like Newton's Laws of Motion. They were theories first and are now Newton's Laws of Motion. You can't say theories don't have to be proven. In the science world if you put forth a theory you had better be able to back it up through experimentation. If it can't be then it is tossed. With a theory the product must reproducible and repeatable by anyone wanting to test your theory.

Once again I will repeat Dr. Tyson would be one of the last people on Earth to try to shut down free thought, especially when it comes to science. All he said was if you claim something to be "A" then turn around and call it "B" you should never have called "A" in the first place.

 

[crono782]

A theory is just a supposition of something. It inherently can only exist in 3 states, proven, disproven, or remain a theory. It was a theory that the earth was flat until the theory was shown false. Same with the earth being the center of the universe. Theory until proven false. Gravity: theory until proven true.
Proving or disproving the data, that is, the corroborating substructure of the theory, at a certain point reaches a critical mass where the evidence proves or disproves the theory itself.

 

[jvarnell]

I have looked at the physics of Einstein and Hawking. Of course Hawking has been dealing more with Black Holes and the physics of them than most others. Einstein put forth the General and Special Relativity. These are not just theories any longer. They were theories then they were tested and found to be laws much like Newton's Laws of Motion. They were theories first and are now Newton's Laws of Motion. You can't say theories don't have to be proven. In the science world if you put forth a theory you had better be able to back it up through experimentation. If it can't be then it is tossed. With a theory the product must reproducible and repeatable by anyone wanting to test your theory.

Einstein and Hawking had theroys that have taken year and years to prove but the process is still being adheared too. In time every part of the AA theroy will be proven or disproven and untill that has happend it is still just a theroy and not debuncked as a whole. The product is used to make the conclution and it still doesn't change the theroy. The debuncking is only of the data use in proving or disproving of the theroy. I don't know anyone that says a theroy has to be right everytime before it is put forth. A theroy just need enough thought.

"Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works, or even how divine or metaphysical matters are thought to work. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings.
"

Remember I am not saying that the AA guys are right....or wrong I am saying the words in the title of the thread and name of the video is intresting because of the nature of a theroy. And I don't like it when the convertion about a theroy is stifled in any way about a theroy because that is a part of the information used to prove or disprove the theroy. The guy in the video you put up trys to stifles the convertion by say once a person says what a person thinks it it replaces the U and not waiting to here what others say what they think it is.

That is why I say they are trying to stop the convetion. I sit in meeting 6 to 8 hours aday where this is done all the time and the trick is knowing when to stop giving information about the subject.

 

[jvarnell]

A theory is just a supposition of something. It inherently can only exist in 3 states, proven, disproven, or remain a theory. It was a theory that the earth was flat until the theory was shown false. Same with the earth being the center of the universe. Theory until proven false. Gravity: theory until proven true.
Proving or disproving the data, that is, the corroborating substructure of the theory, at a certain point reaches a critical mass where the evidence proves or disproves the theory itself.

Yes

 

[Brent Heilman]

Once again, he was just saying it can't be both. He never was said don't look into, do research into it, or anything else. He never made a position that is to stifle anything. He just said you can't call it unidentified and then say it something. By doing that it can no longer be unidentified. Period nothing more. It is either unidentified or is identified. A strange light in the sky can't be a plane and a UFO at the same time by the definition of a UFO. You can say "Hey, it's a UFO wonder what it is?" then proceed to eliminate possibilities. At some point you will come to the conclusion that is a star, planet, plane, meteor, or something unknown. If it stays unknown then that is all it ever should be, a UFO. Does this mean you need to make the leap to alien origin? No, because once you say it is something it can't be classified as UFO?

I am not trying to argue against alien spacecraft. I am just saying that the term, UFO, can't be used interchangeably with alien spacecraft.

 

[crono782]

Yeah I always found that kinda puzzling. If you "know" it's a spacecraft, then it's not exactly unidentified.

 

[jvarnell]

Again the way I took it was if we see what we called a UFO and the government says "oh it was just a air craft" the convertion should stop? I think not. It can be undefined in my mind but defined in your's. In my mind I can say it is a UFO but I think it is a meteor. because I said out loud it is a meteor it did not all the sudon morph in to a meteor it may be a blue ice bomb like in Joe Dirt.

In my mind I don't ever think something is identifyed until it is identifyed by everyone in the same manner.