Who says the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't real? : Respectful Insolence

Who (or what) is Orac?

Orac is the nom de blog of a (not so) humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued here, along with a DISCLAIMER that you should read before reading any medical discussions here.)

Orac's old Blog is archived at Archived Insolence.

Search

Non-Orac Insolence

Medicine

Science

Skepticism and critical thinking

Combatting Holocaust denial

Blog carnivals

Science and Surgery

« Technical problems resolved | Main | Technical issues (again) »

Who says the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't real?

Category: Evolution • Humor • Paranormal • Pseudoscience
Posted on: February 21, 2006 2:03 PM, by Orac

His Noodliness walks (or flies) among us, and here's the evidence.

Hey, it's better than any "evidence" that I've seen supporting the existence of UFO's or ghosts.

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Comments

That is one of the funniest and coolest things I've seen on the Net. Whoever put that together deserves an Academy Award.

Posted by: ericnh | February 21, 2006 2:10 PM

Awesome link!!!

I don't really intend to derail any spaghetti monster discussion here, but I'd like to make a quick point in response to your dig at convincing UFO evidence.

There is a huge amount of evidence that supports the existence of UFOs. Besides things like radar tracking data, photographs and films, there is the even more important category of eyewitness accounts. And while it's very easy to discount sightings by the Average (or Below Average!) Joe, only a fool would dismiss reports from astronauts, pilots, scientists, generals, presidents, and other intelligent, informed, reasonable people.

UFO reports from astronauts, pilots and aerospace/atmospheric scientists are particularly interesting, because these individuals are often trained in observation and critical thinking and are usually pretty familiar with the various esoteric phenomena of the heavens that UFOs are so often ascribed to.

There's nothing pseudoscientific about pointing out that years of accumulated evidence from scores of highly-qualified observers indicate that there are things occurring in our atmosphere that we cannot remotely explain.

Now, that being said, I would agree with you if you had stated that there isn't excellent, unassailable evidence that UFOs are in fact extraterrestrial spacecraft. But to simply state that there isn't evidence that the phenomenon of UFO sightings is real is blatantly wrong, as is the idea that every documented case has an easy scientific explanation.

Posted by: Lee Billings | February 21, 2006 2:59 PM

Lee -

For sure there some things that we see in the sky that are unidentified. However, the vast majority of objects at first unidentified are later identified as something completly mundane. The vast majority of photos or videos are either mundane objects or outright fakes. In those that are not, its unclear as to what the object even is.

However there is a great deal of difference between seeing something in the sky that we can't explain, and saying it's an extraterrestrial craft. There is little in the way of evidence for the later. No alien bodies or clear unambiguous photos or bits of wreckage. Personal accounts, even by professionals, may have many other and more plausible explanations.

Posted by: Dave S. | February 21, 2006 3:39 PM

Dave,

Yes, the vast majority of objects initially unidentified are later found to have mundane explanations. Yes, the vast majority of photos/videos also have mundane explanations or are fakes. As you said, "In those that are not, its unclear as to what the object even is."

That means those remaining instances are unidentified flying objects, no? All I'm saying is, it's silly to dismiss the personal accounts from well-qualified observers for lack of a simple plausible explanation. It's better to just admit that we don't know what the hell these well-qualified people saw and we can't adequately explain it. Hence the term UFO.

We're on the same wavelength, really. Notice that I too made the point that there isn't sufficient evidence to label UFOs as extraterrestrial spacecraft.

Posted by: Lee Billings | February 21, 2006 4:54 PM

All I'm saying is, it's silly to dismiss the personal accounts from well-qualified observers for lack of a simple plausible explanation.

I generally dismiss them because they're eyewitness accounts. The source has little bearing on it.

Posted by: BronzeDog | February 21, 2006 5:24 PM

This should win a lot of converts to Pastafarianism.

Posted by: Fragano Ledgister | February 21, 2006 7:47 PM

Lee,

Although I see your point, that's reading a lot into a quick one-off post that was meant as nothing more than a bit of humor.

Posted by: Orac | February 21, 2006 10:56 PM

Orac,

You're right - apologies for the threadjack. Sometimes I let my contrarian nature get the best of me!

Posted by: Lee Billings | February 22, 2006 1:53 PM

Lee said:

We're on the same wavelength, really. Notice that I too made the point that there isn't sufficient evidence to label UFOs as extraterrestrial spacecraft.

Agreed.

Posted by: Dave S. | February 23, 2006 9:00 AM

For your viewing pleasure!

http://jesusjustforyou.blogspot.com/

Posted by: JesusMarine | July 30, 2006 9:32 PM

Sorry, JesusMarine, something is wrong with your blog. It only had a silly paragraph explaining the beginning of the world as "God did it" and no promised image. Try harder next time.

Posted by: HCN | July 30, 2006 10:00 PM