[extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs

[Martin Striz]

On 4/27/06, The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> --- Martin Striz <mstriz at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes.  If they could find a way to get here, they
> > could find a way not
> > to be detected.  Our knowledge of their existence is
> > pure fantasy.
>
> Well the evidence in support of these "fantasies" is
> staggering:
>
> 1. There are 375 photographs of UFOs quite a few
> dating from BEFORE the invention of technology to
> alter photographs. There are also a handful of videos
> of UFOs. http://www.ufoevidence.org/

Ambiguous and inconclusive.

> 2. There are newspaper articles about them.

Well, I'm convinced.  You win.  I know that the newspapers never lie.

> 3. There are 4000 eyewitness accounts of people both
> reputable and not including two US presidents who
> claim to have seen them as well as people who claim
> "abduction".

Ambiguous and inconclusive.  Eyewitness accounts are particularly
unreliable given the human penchant for confabulation, exaggeration,
fantasizing, and poor observation.

> 4. There are government reports on them and sworn
> affidavits attesting to them.

Ambiguous and inconclusive, especially when based on eyewitness testimony.

> 5. There are alleged landing sites that are
> radioactive according to geiger-counter wielding
> "experts".

Ambiguos and inconclusive.

> 6. There are numerous non-profit organizations devoted
> to their study.

Meaningless.  This in particular is not evidence for aliens.  There
are thousands of religions.  I don't consider that to be evidence for
God's existence.

> 7. There was a historic military confrontation with
> one or more UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS during World
> War II:
> http://www.militarymuseum.org/BattleofLA.html

Ambiguous and inconclusive.

> 8. At least 2 extropes on this list have personally
> seen a UFO.

Heh, well, no comment.

> If even 99% of these are hoaxes, this still amounts to
> on the order of 100 solid data points in FAVOR of the
> existense of UFOs.

I'm not saying they are hoaxes.  I believe most people are sincere in
what they believe.  I'm saying they are WRONG.

If human beings were neutral truth-seeking machines with accurate
observational modes, I might be inclined to give this "data" some
merit.  But I know that human psychology is tragically flawed, which
renders this data unreliable.

People can see a lot of stuff -- that doesn't mean it's there.  They
see aliens and ghosts and swaying and crying statues of the Virgin
Mary and Big Foot and even a lot of natural phenomena that aren't
really there.  When people are scared, their senses become
hypersensitive to stimuli, calling a lot of false positives (a trade
off worth making when you perceive that you are in danger).  It is no
coincidence that almost all of these "encounters" happen at night,
when people are alone.

And despite all of the data that you just cited, there is not a single
piece of clear, incontrivertible, documented evidence.  To me, that
suggests a psychological phenomenon, not an ontological one.

> In the world of scientific inquiry (and legal
> proceedings for that matter) hear-say does not cut the
> mustard.

Halleluja.  Case closed.


Martin