The U.S. military takes UFOs seriously. Why doesn't Silicon Valley or academia?

I'll add my 2¢ on this subject although it is not one that I concentrate on. My thoughts are therefore influenced by some of the channelled material I have read over the years.

With respect to the advanced development of an alien race, I would imagine that we might expect an advanced society to have moved beyond wars and barbarism and have embraced a more compassionate and altruistic way of life. Perhaps that's my idealism showing through but I see the former as destructive (therefore leading to extinction) and the latter as more evolved. So I'm more Steven Spielberg than Ridley Scott.

On the other hand, I have my doubts about interstellar travel by physical craft so how to explain their physical appearance in our skies is a conundrum. I tend towards the theory that we are constantly visited from, and share our "space" with, other dimensions. Why such visitors would need physical "spacecraft" is a question I can't answer. I'm also inclined to believe that what we now call aliens, our forebears called faeries and elves, etc. I'm also aware of those who apparently meet such beings during psychedelic experiences such as ayahuasca trips, when some of the filters normally imposed by the brain are relaxed.

Lastly, returning to the channelled material: I remember passages which described the interchange of souls between worlds. So I might choose to live a life on a different physical world. I'm not sure whether that physical life would be as a humanoid creature or some other physical form but the spiritual component seems to be universal.

Not that anyone here will really care much, since I wasn't even very involved, but I feel this forum has devolved into an echo chamber, very reminiscent of Skeptiko. As such, this will be goodbye from me. I appreciate the effort that went into creating this new offshoot, but I don't feel this forum is a good place for objective discussion, frankly. Take care on your personal journeys.

Not that anyone here will really care much, since I wasn't even very involved, but I feel this forum has devolved into an echo chamber, very reminiscent of Skeptiko. As such, this will be goodbye from me. I appreciate the effort that went into creating this new offshoot, but I don't feel this forum is a good place for objective discussion, frankly. Take care on your personal journeys.

Not accepting pseudo-skeptical evangelism at face value is not the same thing as an echo chamber. Interesting that you never accused even the sillier skeptics of being intellectually lazy...

Not that anyone here will really care much, since I wasn't even very involved, but I feel this forum has devolved into an echo chamber, very reminiscent of Skeptiko. As such, this will be goodbye from me. I appreciate the effort that went into creating this new offshoot, but I don't feel this forum is a good place for objective discussion, frankly. Take care on your personal journeys.

If this forum were anything like the CT promotion platform that Skeptiko has become, I wouldn't be here either. A forum where people discuss matters of common interest is bound to appear like an echo chamber to people with less of an interest in the subject matter. I'm not sure whether you expect more disagreement or are bemoaning the fact that some of the skeptics don't take part these days. I don't think that the skeptics have been driven off, if that is the charge, but I do think that it is difficult to maintain a presence on a forum which does not (and probably never will) reflect your own views. I wouldn't last long on an atheist/physicalist forum, for example although I understand that some people enjoy the challenge of attempting to change minds. That's not my motivation, however.

If this forum were anything like the CT promotion platform that Skeptiko has become, I wouldn't be here either. A forum where people discuss matters of common interest is bound to appear like an echo chamber to people with less of an interest in the subject matter. I'm not sure whether you expect more disagreement or are bemoaning the fact that some of the skeptics don't take part these days. I don't think that the skeptics have been driven off, if that is the charge, but I do think that it is difficult to maintain a presence on a forum which does not (and probably never will) reflect your own views. I wouldn't last long on an atheist/physicalist forum, for example although I understand that some people enjoy the challenge of attempting to change minds. That's not my motivation, however.

What skeptics want is to be able to post a general debunking site without even referencing the original article with the expectation that proponents will do the heavy lifting for them.

How dare proponents treat their posts with the summary dismissal skeptics reserved for themselves?! It's a new world and skeptics need to adapt or fall away.

Well he (Mick West?) seems quite reasonable and pleasant. He does seem to come at it from the point of view that (like Woerlee on NDE's) it's all explainable by ordinary means and that's it. His analysis of one of the cases where he suggests that it might have been the plane lights that were seen doesn't hold up to well though. I thought plane lights weren't utilised at great heights ? Mind you I wouldn't know, Stan certainly would though.  

Personally, I just keep an open mind on it. I don't think there's any good evidence for alien travellers. I don't mean UFO's; there's plenty of evidence for those but a UFO is only what it is, no more (or less) than an unidentified flying object. I think it's unlikely that we are being 'visited', only because of the inconceivable distances involved, that's all I would say. They must exist somewhere out there though, surely. But of course unlikely doesn't mean it hasn't happened. 

I think we are much further along (in the process of verification) with NDE's myself but others will disagree, some very strongly.

With Berk's sudden departure, I went back through this thread.  Tim's post above struck me.

An unbiased sceptic (I'm not sure any of us are capable of becoming such a thing btw), would never end an analysis of a phenomena with something like "could be explained by" or "might have been this or that".  Those types of conclusions are reflective of the a priori position the sceptic holds regarding the phenomena BEFORE they "investigate" it.

Now, of course proponents are just as guilty of this.  I think its just the human condition.  I've certainly been both a proponent and a sceptic.  The experience is similar when one considers the other's position.

For me, I tend to find the most helpful posters to be those who leave open the possibility of the position contra to their own.  The absolutists seem utterly useless.

An unbiased sceptic (I'm not sure any of us are capable of becoming such a thing btw), would never end an analysis of a phenomena with something like "could be explained by" or "might have been this or that".  Those types of conclusions are reflective of the a priori position the sceptic holds regarding the phenomena BEFORE they "investigate" it.

Now, of course proponents are just as guilty of this.  I think its just the human condition.  I've certainly been both a proponent and a sceptic.  The experience is similar when one considers the other's position.

I've a soft spot for Johann's Scale even though I find my number decreasing over the years.   ->

The Psi Spectrum

1/2. The Ancient-Crystal-Sage: "Spoon is a vibration of energy. Commune with it."

1. The Plunger: "Oh my god, it's almost all real! The best science we have supports NDEs, psi, apparitions; the whole enchilada!"
2. The Edgewalker: "The paranormal is a wide place, but also occasionally people are stupid."
3. The Skeptical Believer: "People are mostly stupid, but we can't dismiss it all"
4. The Super-Skeptical Believer: "Raw information transfer is the only thing in parapsychology that is real."
5. The Agnostic: "On Tuesdays I'm a believer"
6. The Fence-Sitter: "I'm not decided on psi because the evidence is undecidable."
7. The Cautious Skeptic: "Psi probably does not exist."
8. The (un)Cautious Skeptic: "Psi definitely doesn't exist."
9: The Crusader: "Avant gentlemen! We shall drive back the Woo, for Science!"

10: The Auto-Masturbatory-Scion-of-Reason: "Casinos, James Randi, and this argument I pulled out of my ass invalidate psi; I piss on your evidence!"

I've a soft spot for Johann's Scale even though I find my number decreasing over the years.   ->

I'd probably want to reword some of those before I'd find it useful. But I do think different proponents tend to favour different aspects, while being less enthusiastic about others. Even diving in all the way might mean different things to different people.

I'd probably want to reword some of those before I'd find it useful. But I do think different proponents tend to favour different aspects, while being less enthusiastic about others. Even diving in all the way might mean different things to different people.

Yeah it's not a fair scale, why I mentioned my own number is rather on the low side. We know that history is often in dispute, even where the paranormal is not under consideration.

But if, after a point, you decide to take the historical record of the paranormal seriously + the accounts from mysticism you end up close to 1/2 on the scale.

Yeah it's not a fair scale, why I mentioned my own number is rather on the low side. We know that history is often in dispute, even where the paranormal is not under consideration.

But if, after a point, you decide to take the historical record of the paranormal seriously + the accounts from mysticism you end up close to 1/2 on the scale.

Psi is only a part of the spectrum we discuss here, as this very thread will testify although, for me, the UFO phenomenon is probably another aspect of Psi.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, I used to belong to a "live" (as in face to face) discussion group back in the UK and the spectrum there would certainly venture beyond the lower extent of Johann's list. We had people who would believe anything that was posted on facebook and who believed that all of these anomalies were being hidden from us by a grand conspiracy. Suffice to say that, as you know me to be a proponent, I was probably the most sceptical of the whole group back then and there.

The problem we have with skeptics is that the subjects we discuss are automatically dismissed in the same way that those extreme facebook fantasies are. This to the extent that when I discuss these matters with people who have no exposure to them, I am regarded by even the most generous and well meaning as a slightly bonkers and excessively gullible old chap.