Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

Because you are arguing the same perspective a lot of the time, I address the argument not the individual making it. So both of you have attacked the scepticism which claims of ufos are greeted. So I address that. You DID attack scepticism. You DID approve Aspergians research on CSICOP. And you DID cite vos Savant in an attempt to discredit scepticism. An irony of massive proportions given her membership of CSICOP.

For the third (?) time, I didn't cite vos Savant.  I cited the Monty Hall Problem.  Vos Savant's column in Parade was simply a part of how the rest of the world got to know of the problem.

I'm losing patience with you.

I know you won't remember this because it's not important to you, but this is Vivus, not Aspergian.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:

For the third (?) time, I didn't cite vos Savant.  I cited the Monty Hall Problem.  Vos Savant's column in Parade was simply a part of how the rest of the world got to know of the problem.

I'm losing patience with you.

I know you won't remember this because it's not important to you, but this is Vivus, not Aspergian.

You cited Vos Savant:

" Many of Ms. vos Savant's critics savaged her ruthlessly. But when they were shown to be wrong, and her right, there were few apologies."

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
I'm a published scientist.

I don't doubt this, but I'm having trouble squaring it with your post that said non-carbon-based life has been found on Earth.  That is not at all what the linked article said.  On top of that, the referenced study has since been refuted.

I don't know what your training is, but I would think that anyone with post-graduate exposure to either chemistry or biology would well know that no non-carbon-based life has ever been shown.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Not,quite

We know non carbon based life forms on earth http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 04183.html

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st19042107

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
We know non carbon based life forms on earth http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 04183.html

This was essentially disproved by several labs two years ago. Moreover, it was not arsenic-based life, but instead arsenic was proposed to take the place of phosphorus. The flaw in NASA's work was that it's impossible to get phosphorus-free biochemicals, thus what they thought was phosphorus-free really wasn't.

All life known is based on carbon, and carbon has the physical and chemical attributes that life elsewhere in our universe will also be based on carbon, unless you find a place where the laws of physics are different.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
Your entire pitch is based on the assumption that life exists only as we know it.

My "pitch" is that only carbon has the qualities to fit the criteria of life.

Where in the definition of life is water required? Wait - IT'S NOT!

I already addressed this. Did you not see it?

Your "physics" isn't anything of the sort. It's just circular logic. Defining life as we know it commonly on Earth (Eliza has even demonstrated that not all Earth life is carbon-based) and applying those criteria to life everywhere - WITHOUT ANY DATA - and claiming physics means it has to be?

Eliza is wrong. There are plenty of data to support carbon as the most likely basis of life, simply because of its physical attributes and the need to have polar solution for biochemical reactions. You know, I'm not just making this shit up, its found in most good biochemistry books published today.

You claim that a life form must make complex macromolecules - which is an assumption that you can't prove.

Science doesn't "prove" anything. It can only disprove. Are you not familiar with this basic tenet of science?

Just because lifeforms do so on Earth doesn't mean lifeforms MUST.

Life will certainly require complex macromolecules. Otherwise, it would be unable to replicate.

I think you ought to go buy a college-level biochemistry book. This subject is covered in the first chapter or two.

Monad Studios wrote:
I don't doubt this, but I'm having trouble squaring it with your post that said non-carbon-based life has been found on Earth.  That is not at all what the linked article said.  On top of that, the referenced study has since been refuted.

I don't know what your training is, but I would think that anyone with post-graduate exposure to either chemistry or biology would well know that no non-carbon-based life has ever been shown.


https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st19042107

Yes I put that badly. I remembered the claim without checking it and of course it wasn't claimed carbon was absent anyway. Nevertheless if it had been that arsenic had replaced phosphorus it would have challenged our notions that all these elements are present. You rightly corrected it. Completely my bad. Nevertheless it was of interest within this context. The reason I raised it being the fact it would be unlikely to amount to very much for complex life which the NASA scientists raised in the cite. I wasn't aware it had been refuted anyway. So yes, I was wrong. Its feasible, but in any case it wouldn't amount to much. The claims that GFAJ-1 was using arsenic instead of phosperous could not be replicated.
So firstly I should have put that not carbon, and secondly I should have checked and found the claim had been challenged. Which just goes to show how while I may be as fallible as anyone, scientific claims have to be thorough. The NASA scientists Pamela Conrad et al may have screwed up and I certainly did. But the process through which claims are made are all challenged so thoroughly are part of the process that is so absent in claims of UFOs etc. It wasn't the hypothesis that was challenged, but the scientific process that ked to the claim of evidence that was.
I should indeed practice what I preach however!



But it does necessarily exclude the possibility of other bases to carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulphur, and phosphorus . We may find something like this on one of the gas giant moons
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/ … 00603.html
But again it wouldn't amount to very much as only carbon appears chemically rich enough.
Many organisms on earth however use methane, silica, etc in their make But silicon is much more commonly occurring than carbon yet those proposing such a base for life ignore this. If there was a truly silicon based life form possible why haven't we seen it on earth? Carbon is relatively rare. That doesn't mean use of other biochemicals in biological structures and processes don't happen. Silicon for example is used in diatom cell wall structure. And we have eco systems that process methane etc for energy in cold methane seeps.


Also of interest is the work of Cairns Smith in pointing out that the easiest assembled biochemistries are not necessariy the ones started out with. How about clay life hypothesis? Or crystal? What would happen on carbon rich planets? Would we even recognize life if we found it?

http://m.elements.geoscienceworld.org/c … 7.abstract

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic … -its-head/

http://science.howstuffworks.com/weird-life1.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/weird-life.htm 

http://m.space.com/13639-alien-life-met … -zone.html

But to me the whole of this is not going to be interesting to anybody expecting complex life and certainly not aliens in spacecrafts. And even if we had discovered a life form which had used methane instead of phosperous, let alone carbon, it wouldn't be very exciting to those expecting sentient beings.

The Grey Forest wrote:
hah, !  finally justice, moderator intervention cans the troll.

anyhooo...  "Life in the universe besides on Earth"

this is a broad question:  yes, there is, microbes (living cells in stasis or fossilized) have been found on a few of our celestial bodies / asteroids and debris in planetary rings and meteorites that hit the earth, and its become a point of interest that they helped seed biology on our little planet (and is continually doing so)

as for intelligent life: (compared to sentient beings) I would argue yes again,
in our dim history, it wasn't long ago that people were chastised or jailed for thinking the earth wasn't flat...  several lifetimes later we have the tools to prove that "theory" untrue  ~ but many people still argue that the "moon landing" itself was a fraud
...thus, there is no satisfying everyone.

they will believe what they want to believe.

as for myself, I and my parents had a close encounter of the 3rd kind, and a number of visitations thereafter (I saw the ships, I saw the creatures) and cannot explain in full what they were.  Alien ?  well, we have ships on Mars & the moon and inspecting/visiting other planets from which we didn't originate where "we humans" are in fact the aliens as proof and point.

I used to be a hard-core skeptic; until I witnessed it for myself, and spent decades and nearly 4000 hrs of research into the subject, now I am much more open minded,

...unlike some who are biased and abuse others for such.


"is there Life in the universe besides on Earth ?"

so fundamentally, it is the very core of this question is what needs to be examined.  Why should we care ?  The human strain holds curiosity, to wonder and dream and seek what is just beyond the next mountain or the distant shore, we want to know, to explore, to discover new things ~ a characteristic that helped our species spread across the globe to seemingly unreachable areas and lands. 

Thus, we are turning our eyes towards the stars and reaching out into space, even when we still haven't fully explored the depths of our own oceans (freak'in 70% of our home planet) and with a wider vision, wondering if there is someone staring back towards us.

... then arises another question: if this is really our home planet,
or were we seeded here from somewhere else in our distant...distant past?

I'm not canned. I was blanked because I responded to an ad hominem (also blanked) and we shouldn't do that either. I have never abused anyone on MM either btw I don't go in for name calling and character assassination. People who resort to that do so because of frustration that they cannot support their argument  and it's a well known automatic fallacy. I am always open to ideas and claims of evidence. That's why I am in this thread. I don't disbelieve it believe. I disbelieve only claims of evidence that don't stand up to scrutiny.


Please can you provide citations of the evidence of this microbe life on meteors and celestial bodies from a credible source. I'd be very interested to see it. If it's true, there would be a peer reviewed  paper on it. There may well be - be interesting to see.


Also, is your research published for us to consider?
Did you get any photos of this close encounter? Could you explain with times dates places exactly? Were there newspaper reports?

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

You cited Vos Savant:

" Many of Ms. vos Savant's critics savaged her ruthlessly. But when they were shown to be wrong, and her right, there were few apologies."

Those are my words, not vos Savant's.  I didn't cite her, I mentioned her in my cite to the Wiki article on the Monty Hall Problem.

It's a round hole, Eliza.

The Grey Forest wrote:
yes, there is, microbes (living cells in stasis or fossilized) have been found on a few of our celestial bodies / asteroids and debris in planetary rings and meteorites that hit the earth, and its become a point of interest that they helped seed biology on our little planet (and is continually doing so)

Life has never been detected other than on Earth.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
Those are my words, not vos Savant's.  I didn't cite her, I mentioned her in my cite to the Wiki article on the Monty Hall Problem.

It's a round hole, Eliza.

Yes they are your words. You 'brought her up' in relation to your attempt to attack the scepticism of people with PhDs and his they can be wrong . I think the point was entirely moot for various reasons (because essentially it's attempting to explain gambling motivation not a mathematical probability - the problem is a disguise) . But what was incredibly ironic is this Monty Hall problem you and I and everyone else would NOT be aware if unless it had been highlighted by Vos Savant. So therefore in bringing it up you CANNOT extract yourself from the irony of her being a member of the organization who have set themselves up expressly to attack claims of UFOs etc., any more than you can extract yourself from claiming you do not align yourself with UFOlogists when you are in threads about alien life. You therefore do NIOT have an open mind as to their causes. No matter how much you wriggle out of the chains of your own words through pedantry. By raising the 'unexplained' in a thread about UFOs and criticising scepticism and scientific process, you are not unbiased.


When you quote the Monty Hall problem then you ate citing Vos Savant. You don't think cite means literally to quote do you? It means to raise in support of your argument. So you have raised Vos Savant in your words. And as she is a member of CSICOP, the epitome of everything you have criticized, I find irony in that. Even I doubt CSICOPs ability to be unbiased!
Or are you saying that the words were wikis? Not yours? That wasn't clear if so, but if you are quoting an article which cites Vos Savant as the protagonist in the battle with the mathematicians, then it's fair to say it's ironic.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

Yes they are your words. You 'brought her up' in relation to your attempt to attack the scepticism of people with PhDs and his they can be wrong . I think the point was entirely moot for various reasons (because essentially it's attempting to explain gambling motivation not a mathematical probability - the problem is a disguise) . But what was incredibly ironic is this Monty Hall problem you and I and everyone else would NOT be aware if unless it had been highlighted by Vos Savant. So therefore in bringing it up you CANNOT extract yourself from the irony of her being a member of the organization who have set themselves up expressly to attack claims of UFOs etc., any more than you can extract yourself from claiming you do not align yourself with UFOlogists when you are in threads about alien life. You therefore do NIOT have an open mind as to their causes. No matter how much you wriggle out of the chains of your own words through pedantry. By raising the 'unexplained' in a thread about UFOs and criticising scepticism and scientific process, you are not unbiased.


When you quote the Monty Hall problem then you ate citing Vos Savant. You don't think cite means literally to quote do you? It means to raise in support of your argument. So you have raised Vos Savant in your words. And as she is a member of CSICOP, the epitome of everything you have criticized, I find irony in that. Even I doubt CSICOPs ability to be unbiased!
Or are you saying that the words were wikis? Not yours? That wasn't clear if so, but if you are quoting an article which cites Vos Savant as the protagonist in the battle with the mathematicians, then it's fair to say it's ironic.

Just wondering:  Do your fellow scientists give you flak when you purport to tell them what their motives were, and when you insist that you are right and they are wrong?

Tony-S wrote:

Life has never been detected other than on Earth.

Correct.  The day may not be far off, but we're not there yet.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
Just wondering:  Do your fellow scientists give you flak when you purport to tell them what their motives were, and when you insist that you are right and they are wrong?

No because like me they admit when they are wrong. Or explain themselves without using pedantics to wriggle out if it. If they do, everyone laughs because it's a well known fallacy.

And furthermore they all know what citing means. It would appear that you do not.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:

Correct.  The day may not be far off, but we're not there yet.

I will agree that's possible.
I predict it will be found on the gas giant moons, as do the bookies..

Lohkee wrote:
I dunno. Given the immense size of the universe and how much we really don't know about it, I think it a tad bit arrogant to think we are the only game in town.

That's all I have to say on the subject.

I don't think anyone is saying we are alone. Indeed most scientists expect to find life in our own solar system.
But complex life, and intelligent life, may be very rare. It's,rare on Earth. Unique in terms of space faring in billions of species over billions of years on the perfect planet to support life. Given size of universe it's still likely. But at such great distances it's probably unlikely we will be able to contact it any time soon even if on the nearest systems. SETI may get lucky of course.

The Grey Forest wrote:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1504 … trial-life


http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/nasa1.html


http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles … sphere.htm

Chandra Wickramasinghes work has been proved to not have conformed to rigorous scientific method. For starters, his team failed to establish the objects studied were meteorites in one case. A dreadful gaffe.

But then this is the man who who claimed archaeopteryx was a fake and supports creationism, one of the very few scientists who does. I'd say it's a case of him attempting to fit up evidence to support his panspermia theory.

When expert geologists tell him it's a rock from earth, and diatom experts tell him the diatoms include known earth species which prove at least contamination, his credibility has taken an even bigger nose dive.


Your second citation was the 1996 Martian meteorite  discovery. It was only chemical indicators to do with HPCs which are far from evidence of life, but in any case the claims were withdrawn
http://whyfiles.org/shorties/mars_rock_not.html



The third is far from convincing. They have found known earth examples. So is it mire likely that a water based diatom got there by volcanic eruption and has been floating there a while, or that it arrived on a meteor without water present?
http://m.space.com/22875-alien-life-cla … robes.html



I'm not saying it won't be found. But the Journal of Cosmology has a bias in trying to prove the panspermia theory. In any case diatoms are a long way from alien space craft even if they were proved to be from space, which they haven't.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

No because like me they admit when they are wrong. Or explain themselves without using pedantics to wriggle out if it. If they do, everyone laughs because it's a well known fallacy.

And furthermore they all know what citing means. It would appear that you do not.

I used to do original legal research, inter alia, for a living.  I supported the research using Bluebook citations.  I was an expert.  Attorneys came to me to Shepardize and cite-check their work, and be sure their citations were in proper format.  Bluebook citations are merely a special form of citations used in the legal profession, but their proper use requires you to understand general principles of citation, which I did...and still do.

You seem to be confusing opinion and what lawyers call "dicta."  Dicta are statements in an opinion that are not germane to the main point.  Everything that the article quotes of vos Savant are dicta.  Whether they are statements of vos Savant or Cap'n Crunch is completely irrelevant.  They are merely meta-data, bridges that the author uses to say what he is intending to say.  They are not what he is intending to say.

But if you still think the article is about Marilyn vos Savant, so be it.  Believe what you must.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:

I used to do original legal research, inter alia, for a living.  I supported the research using Bluebook citations.  I was an expert.  Attorneys came to me to Shepardize and cite-check their work, and be sure their citations were in proper format.  Bluebook citations are merely a special form of citations used in the legal profession, but their proper use requires you to understand general principles of citation, which I did...and still do.

You seem to be confusing opinion and what lawyers call "dicta."  Dicta are statements in an opinion that are not germane to the main point.  Everything that the article quotes of vos Savant are dicta.  Whether they are statements of vos Savant or Cap'n Crunch is completely irrelevant.  They are merely meta-data, bridges that the author uses to say what he is intending to say.  They are not what he is intending to say.

But if you still think the article is about Marilyn vos Savant, so be it.  Believe what you must.

Thats desperate.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
I used to do original legal research, inter alia, for a living.  I supported the research using Bluebook citations.  I was an expert.  Attorneys came to me to Shepardize and cite-check their work, and be sure their citations were in proper format.  Bluebook citations are merely a special form of citations used in the legal profession, but their proper use requires you to understand general principles of citation, which I did...and still do.

You seem to be confusing opinion and what lawyers call "dicta."  Dicta are statements in an opinion that are not germane to the main point.  Everything that the article quotes of vos Savant are dicta.  Whether they are statements of vos Savant or Cap'n Crunch is completely irrelevant.  They are merely meta-data, bridges that the author uses to say what he is intending to say.  They are not what he is intending to say.

But if you still think the article is about Marilyn vos Savant, so be it.  Believe what you must.

Thats desperate.

You cited a problem that was brought to the world's attention by Vos Savant and laughed at the fact PhDs responded to her saying she was wrong.

Vos Savant is herself a sceptic from CSICOP. As your testimony and that if others here has attacked scepticism, I think it's fair to say that it is laughably ironic that your post cited this problem. I did not day you QUOTED her. You cited the problem which you would be unaware of without her, and included her name in your post saying that none of the PhDs apologized to her.
So this is a poor show to attempt to distance yourself from it and demonstrably false to say she was cited dicta to the Monty Hall problem when she is central to the publicising of it and the solution.  the  And indeed it was interesting. But ironic that she's a CSICOP member.



I am aware you think this is a battle of wits which can be won on pedantics. It can't. It's a FALLACY if you derail an argument to do that or make personal attack. It's always a sign your argument is on the ropes.

You have yet to show a single example of a UFO that has nit been debunked or cannot be explained using a possible known natural phenomema (let alone an unknown one - red sprites ball lightning elves etc are all only recently discovered) .
At the moment there is no evidence for et life not even microbial. That isn't to say that there won't be. I think it's possibly going to be found on a gas giant moon. But it doubt very much it will be capable of flying spaceships.

These are the two questions. If you are going to wriggle out of things claiming them dicta I suggest you don't cite them in the first place and stick to these questions.

In the meantime I will continue to find amusement in you citing a CSICOP member (even as dicta) to point out PhDs can get it wrong sometimes. We know that. It's that ufologists seem to get it wrong EVERY time. And the person in your illustration would be first to point that out

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

Thats desperate.

You cited a problem that was brought to the world's attention by Vos Savant and laughed at the fact PhDs responded to her saying she was wrong.

Vos Savant is herself a sceptic from CSICOP. As your testimony and that if others here has attacked scepticism, I think it's fair to say that it is laughably ironic that your post cited this problem. I did not day you QUOTED her. You cited the problem which you would be unaware of without her, and included her name in your post saying that none of the PhDs apologized to her.
So this is a poor show to attempt to distance yourself from it and demonstrably false to say she was cited dicta to the Monty Hall problem when she is central to the publicising of it and the solution.  the  And indeed it was interesting. But ironic that she's a CSICOP member.



I am aware you think this is a battle of wits which can be won on pedantics. It can't. It's a FALLACY if you derail an argument to do that or make personal attack. It's always a sign your argument is on the ropes.

You have yet to show a single example of a UFO that has nit been debunked or cannot be explained using a possible known natural phenomema (let alone an unknown one - red sprites ball lightning elves etc are all only recently discovered) .
At the moment there is no evidence for et life not even microbial. That isn't to say that there won't be. I think it's possibly going to be found on a gas giant moon. But it doubt very much it will be capable of flying spaceships.

These are the two questions. If you are going to wriggle out of things claiming them dicta I suggest you don't cite them in the first place and stick to these questions.

In the meantime I will continue to find amusement in you citing a CSICOP member (even as dicta) to point out PhDs can get it wrong sometimes. We know that. It's that ufologists seem to get it wrong EVERY time. And the person in your illustration would be first to point that out

I don't know anything about CSICOP, beyond what I've gleaned from you and Aspergian talking about it.  I still haven't been to their site.  You say I made approving "noises" in response to posts of Aspergian about it.  And to you, that's the same as me relying on it so that now you can make an "Aha!" Perry Mason style point about Marilyn vos Savant.

And I maintain, and I will always maintain, that I cited to the Wiki article on the Monty Hall Problem, which illustrates the point I was making at the time, that even well-educated mathematicians can fail to grasp probabilities problems.  If the fact that the article relates how the issue came to public attention via Marilyn vos Savant is worthy of humor and/or irony to you, so be it.  If that's how your brain works, so be it.

I'll acknowledge that vos Savant was central to the publicizing of the problem (which afterwards became known as the Monty Hall Problem).  However, neither you nor I cited to the article to say anything about its publicizing.  So, I see no relevance there.  You also say she was central to its solution.  We could argue about that for a while, if you want.  But I don't want to.  It's way remote from this thread.

Although, I do worry about the danger that you're going to pop something, stretching like that.

Of the 12,618 sightings in Project Blue Book - to pick a convenient compendium of sightings - I think there is a very large number that have not been refuted.  From time to time, you and I have discussed some.  However, your view is always that they have been refuted, as witnessed by the fact that nearly always, the USAF classified them as "Explained."  Often, the "explanation" turns out to be - to use your phrase - Venus or Jupiter, notwithstanding the complete lack of evidence for those "explanations."

No point in rehashing that.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:
I don't know anything about CSICOP, beyond what I've gleaned from you and Aspergian talking about it.  I still haven't been to their site.  You say I made approving "noises" in response to posts of Aspergian about it.  And to you, that's the same as me relying on it so that now you can make an "Aha!" Perry Mason style point about Marilyn vos Savant.

And I maintain, and I will always maintain, that I cited to the Wiki article on the Monty Hall Problem, which illustrates the point I was making at the time, that even well-educated mathematicians can fail to grasp probabilities problems.  If the fact that the article relates how the issue came to public attention via Marilyn vos Savant is worthy of humor and/or irony to you, so be it.  If that's how your brain works, so be it.

I'll acknowledge that vos Savant was central to the publicizing of the problem (which afterwards became known as the Monty Hall Problem).  However, neither you nor I cited to the article to say anything about its publicizing.  So, I see no relevance there.  You also say she was central to its solution.  We could argue about that for a while, if you want.  But I don't want to.  It's way remote from this thread.

Although, I do worry about the danger that you're going to pop something, stretching like that.

Of the 12,618 sightings in Project Blue Book - to pick a convenient compendium of sightings - I think there is a very large number that have not been refuted.  From time to time, you and I have discussed some.  However, your view is always that they have been refuted, as witnessed by the fact that nearly always, the USAF classified them as "Explained."  Often, the "explanation" turns out to be - to use your phrase - Venus or Jupiter, notwithstanding the complete lack of evidence for those "explanations."

No point in rehashing that.

Why is it that you are unable to understand that things can remain unexplained without recourse to alien life.
Earlier the duck billed platypus was mentioned in 1798. The first evidence of it was quite rightly sceptical. It was a suspected hoax. Eventually it was shown to be real obviously. So no problem. An unidentified thing, scientists were sceptical about, is real. Its not supernatural or not of this earth though is it?

If you are entering or starting a conversation about alien life, then what your raise as 'unexplained' does NOT require resort to ETH. And if Venus or Jupiter were in the sky at a reported direction of a UFO, its fair to suggest that what was witnessed were those planets subject to optical illusion like pillars dogs and cloud movement.

If these are NOT eliminated by those claiming them, then you cannot resort to ETH. So its not for me to eliminate them its for me and others to suggest them as possible or likely explanations and those claiming ETH to prove they were NOT those planets.

And I haven't ever said they are all explained. I have said many times I cant identify much of what I see down a microscope it doesn't mean its alien. Its up to those claiming that something unexplained means it is worthy of considering as alien to establish the case as to why.

The burden of proof falls on the claimant. Look at Chandra  who claimed he'd found evidence of life in the meteorite. The reason his claims were rejected is because he couldn't even show it was actually a meteorite he had tested!
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom … wrong.html

And yes I still think its amusingly ironic you cited Vos Savant's Monty hall problem in a conversation about scepticism when she's a member of CISCOP.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

Why is it that you are unable to understand that things can remain unexplained without recourse to alien life.
Earlier the duck billed platypus was mentioned in 1798. The first evidence of it was quite rightly sceptical. It was a suspected hoax. Eventually it was shown to be real obviously. So no problem. An unidentified thing, scientists were sceptical about, is real. Its not supernatural or not of this earth though is it?

If you are entering or starting a conversation about alien life, then what your raise as 'unexplained' does NOT require resort to ETH. And if Venus or Jupiter were in the sky at a reported direction of a UFO, its fair to suggest that what was witnessed were those planets subject to optical illusion like pillars dogs and cloud movement.

If these are NOT eliminated by those claiming them, then you cannot resort to ETH. So its not for me to eliminate them its for me and others to suggest them as possible or likely explanations and those claiming ETH to prove they were NOT those planets.

And I haven't ever said they are all explained. I have said many times I cant identify much of what I see down a microscope it doesn't mean its alien. Its up to those claiming that something unexplained means it is worthy of considering as alien to establish the case as to why.

The burden of proof falls on the claimant. Look at Chandra  who claimed he'd found evidence of life in the meteorite. The reason his claims were rejected is because he couldn't even show it was actually a meteorite he had tested!
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom … wrong.html

And yes I still think its amusingly ironic you cited Vos Savant's Monty hall problem in a conversation about scepticism when she's a member of CISCOP.

And suppose the celestial bodies offered as explanations were actually on the other side of the planet at the time, as in the Oklahoma sightings mentioned earlier?  By your own reasoning, we have to eliminate them, do we not?  And, in fact, do we not have to eliminate all offered "explanations" that do not fit the facts of the sighting?

No, I guess we don't.  We can continue to pound that square peg into that round hole, forever, and claim it fits better than the ETH, when it obviously doesn't.

There are cases in which the witness says he pointed a flashlight at the UFO and turned it on and off in a pattern not likely to be due to chance, and the UFO shined a light back at the witness, and turned it on and off in the same pattern.  Venus?  Jupiter?  Lenticular cloud? Leprechauns?

In some of those cases in which the UFO absolutely seemed to be under intelligent control, the better part of wisdom would be for skeptics to not respond at all to that part of the report, imo, rather than to offer knee-jerk gibberish and say, "It turned out to be the planet Jupiter."

Uh...no, it didn't.

Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote:

And suppose the celestial bodies offered as explanations were actually on the other side of the planet at the time, as in the Oklahoma sightings mentioned earlier?  By your own reasoning, we have to eliminate them, do we not?  And, in fact, do we not have to eliminate all offered "explanations" that do not fit the facts of the sighting?

No, I guess we don't.  We can continue to pound that square peg into that round hole, forever, and claim it fits better than the ETH, when it obviously doesn't.

There are cases in which the witness says he pointed a flashlight at the UFO and turned it on and off in a pattern not likely to be due to chance, and the UFO shined a light back at the witness, and turned it on and off in the same pattern.  Venus?  Jupiter?  Lenticular cloud? Leprechauns?

In some of those cases in which the UFO absolutely seemed to be under intelligent control, the better part of wisdom would be for skeptics to not respond at all to that part of the report, imo, rather than to offer knee-jerk gibberish and say, "It turned out to be the planet Jupiter."

Uh...no, it didn't.

It's not up to the sceptic to prove the object was Venus, it's up to the claimant to prove it wasn't.
If a light was shined back in a repeated pattern you'd have to eliminate possibilities such as another human before claiming alien. Or possibility of reflection. ALL possibilities must be entirely eliminated. Completely.

In all cases I've read, this has not been done. You want me to look at an Oklahoma one please cite it.

Ive cited actual cases where Venus has been responsible without doubt. I've given examples of his this apparently unlikely confusion is actually commonplace and how /dogs, columns,and other distortions. I've given a case where Canadian airlines is being sued over a pilot, who are often championed as infallible observers, put his plane into a dive to avoid collisions with Venus. So it's absurd to cite eye witness testimony as reliable.

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
Is this what you guys are discussing?

A non carbon based bacteria that uses Arsenic as one of its component processes

Yes, but that work has been disproven (two years ago). It was never asserted that it was a "non carbon" life form, but instead that arsenic could replace phosphate, which is what was disproved.

All known life is based upon carbon, and due to physical properties, carbon is the most likely, perhaps only, atom upon which life will be based, should it be found elsewhere in the universe.

Tony-S wrote:

Yes, but that work has been disproven (two years ago). It was never asserted that it was a "non carbon" life form, but instead that arsenic could replace phosphate, which is what was disproved.

All known life is based upon carbon, and due to physical properties, carbon is the most likely, perhaps only, atom upon which life will be based, should it be found elsewhere in the universe.

Silicon based life form?

Well they're common in scifi but how would that work in the real world?

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
Silicon based life form?

Highly unlikely, for reasons I previously described in this thread.

Tony-S wrote:

Highly unlikely, for reasons I previously described in this thread.

I know.......But if it were possible how would it work?

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:

I know.......But if it were possible how would it work?

You'd have to violate the laws of physics.

Tony-S wrote:

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
I know.......But if it were possible how would it work?

You'd have to violate the laws of physics. [/quote


Ah OK I forgot ..... Damn physics takes the fun out of everything lol...

Yes I know it would violate that.. But I find the thought amusing.