Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
- Status
Patricio Elicer
Obsessed with Reality
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
LOL
For some strange reason the term "Hypocrisy" springs into my mind...
Last edited:
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
Do you know how much energy is required to accelerate at 1G for 1 year?
More to the point, how much energy is required to accelerate a reasonably sized probe at 1G for 1 year? Let's assume a 100kg probe, and you can feel free to look up the most energy efficient means of propelling it. Then find out how long it would take to reach Alpha Centauri accelerating at 1G for 1 year, and the decelerating at 1G for 1 year at the other end. You might also want to examine the cost of such a probe. Then examine how much it would cost to do the same for every star within 10 light years. Okay, let's make it simpler, every Solar type star in that distance.
Get back to me when you have numbers instead of wild proclamations from someone else.
Who says that the signal has to be a direct communication with us? SETI are looking for anything, even TV and radio signals. Do you know how narrow the TV and radio signals we use are? Do you know why we use them like that?
Try answering those questions and you might just understand why Friedman is talking crap.
They might, or they might not. Does the possibility of their snubbing us mean we shouldn't try to find them? Are you serious?
Answer the questions posed above and then get back to me.
Please note the use of the term "conceivable". Is there some part of that that you fail to understand?
Can a radio station tell who has received their Radio broadcast?
All of which is completely irrelevant to the validity of SETI. Please, just reposting Freidman's argument is silly. Tell us how it's relevant to the scientific validity of the SETI project.
Tell us how it's relevant to the scientific validity of the SETI project. You're just repeating Freidman's argument again.
So are you suggesting that we shouldn't look because we haven't seen any evidence so far?
I thought that was the exact opposite of your usual argument?
Do you know how searches for extra-solar planets might identify signs of life? More importantly, how would they identify signs of intelligent life?
Again, you're just parroting Freidman. Try to make your own points, and do some research into the subject.
Indeed, they may not want to talk to us. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to find them and talk to them?
Before our leaders can deal with aliens our leaders need to know that the aliens are there. Who's going to find these aliens and open the channels of communication?
Do you actually think about this stuff before you write?
All of which are the subject of various studies, and are included in the SETI project as targets.
Did you have a specific point?
He freely admits that almost all of the factors in his equation are unknown. But if you want to estimate the number of advanced civilizations you need to identify the factors that you need to consider. That's what the Drake equation is, and there are now several versions, as people have amended the list of factors.
Does he believe in his own formulation? I think he believes that it's a good place to start, but that the numbers you get are dependent upon the host of assumption that have to be made because of the lack of hard data in relation to the factors.
Why don't you actually find a quote of his?
It's a possibility. It isn't a necessity.
Tell us how it's relevant to the scientific validity of the SETI project.
So what?
What does this have to do with the scientific validity of the SETI project?
Do you think that a belief that UFOs are alien craft is incompatible with support for SETI?
OR, they're unmanned. OR, they're not real. OR, they're actually ultra secret test craft piloted by humans, and we do have the technology, but it isn't publicly known yet.
It's a reasonable question to ask. If they should already be here then where are they? Have they made direct contact yet?
If not, then that suggests that either they aren't there at all, OR that they haven't visited us, but they are out there. Neither of which means that we shouldn't look.
If they have contacted us then why don't we know about it?
Tell us how it's relevant to the scientific validity of the SETI project.
What substantive points? That he doesn't like the way SETI people dismiss UFO proponents? That there are other ways to find aliens? That the aliens might already be here?
How is any of it relevant to the scientific validity of the SETI project?
No, you've repeated Freidman's arguments, almost none of which have any relevancy to the scientific validity of the SETI project.
Try to think for yourself. You claim to be a scientist, and to understand the scientific process. So, in your own words, please explain what's wrong with the SETI project from a scientific perspective.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
That's right. Let's put a label on the skeptics (call them debunkers as a slur and refer to their opinions as that of a cult) because they are the ones holding up UFO research. You are shifting blame from your own/Friedman's incompetence and inability to present evidence by demonizing those with an opposing opinion. This is not science and if you want to call it that, you are no scientist. A REAL scientist is interested in opposing views and accepts the criticism of their theories. They take it in and try and make their research better. Friedman has been doing this since the 1960's and he has not added one iota to the level of knowledge about UFOs. What do we know about UFOs now that we didn't know in the 1950s or 60s? From what I can see, absolutely nothing. Sure there are plenty of new cases that are "unexplained" but what does that prove? Friedman is a promoter and not a scientist. Trying to compare him to those involved in SETI is just laughable.
Patricio Elicer
Obsessed with Reality
SETI is looking for possible radio waves coming from ETI. What can possibly be wrong with that?. They don't have the data, that's precisely why they are looking.
Rramjet said:
SETI doesn't know if ETI exists, that's why they are looking. On the other hand, some ufologists proclaim that ETI actually exists, and that they have the supporting evidence. Big difference.
Astrophotographer makes a good point here, and I can vouch for it from personal (and very tedious) experience: All this is old stuff, a cud that the Ufoologists have been chewing, swallowing, and coughing up again since -- my god! -- 1947.
I'd dearly love to hear some "outside or new ideas” on the subject of aliens and their goddamn flying saucers.
I'd dearly love to hear some "outside or new ideas” on the subject of aliens and their goddamn flying saucers.
I stated:
FYI: I have NEVER claimed alien spaceships, alien bases, alien visits, etc. You argue (to be polite) as if I have claimed these things. I have not.
I was merely noting that the manoeuvrers and characteristics of the Tehran UFO suggest intelligent control and technological capability outside human capacity. If not human – then what?
I stated:
You believe the cases to be “inadequate”, but that mere belief does NOT make them so. For over 60 years the UFO debunkers have held sway over public and media opinion. THAT mere fact also does NOT make the cases “inadequate”. I am presenting cases with strong evidence. So far the only “debunker” explanations have been implausible - like the “helicopter” for Zamora’s UFO, or the “blimp” from Rogue River. In other cases I have presented (Tehran, Father Gill, White Sands) the ONLY counter to them from the debunkers is ad hominem. I expected some evidence against my cases from JREF (or at least some sound arguments)… I got none…
Bad research? I present the cases. Your merely stating that “data is lacking, contradictory and impossible to confirm” does not make that contention true.
I stated:
A radiologist who examined the witnesses' medical records for MUFON wrote, "We have strong evidence that these patients have suffered secondary damage to ionizing radiation. It is also possible that there was an infrared or ultraviolet component as well." (quoted in Clark, 176)” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-Landrum_incident)
Brad Sparks? Yeah… he’s the expert now? Perhaps this case might interest you. (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)
I stated:
And we know that he was Dr Peter Rank. So those ARE the facts as reported by the investigating radiologist.
“Proof” of what? The consulting radiologist made his report. That Radiologist was Dr Peter Rank. This is common public knowledge to anyone who has conducted even the most cursory examination of the case.
I stated:
However, when we apply all the scientific and logical methodology to a case and we find the witnesses reliable and we STILL draw a blank on mundane explanations, then we are free to draw hypotheses based on the evidence as presented in the reports.
So you say… but that does NOT make your statements true.
I stated:
I HAVE however claimed that, after applying our “known or studied means”, and when we have exhausted all plausible mundane possibilities, THEN we may start to explore alternative hypotheses based on the evidence as presented in the reports.
If you can come up with plausible mundane explanations for the cases I have been presenting, please go ahead.
I stated:
I DO however claim that perceptual research CAN inform us about eyewitness reports by making us aware of the conditions and circumstances under which perception may be mislead and therefore providing us the ability to examine the case reports in light of this research for such conditions and circumstances.
Heat haze is not a phenomenon noted over water. When observed over land, it is also noted only close to the ground. If you contend that using binoculars from a boat is “very hard”, then perhaps you better inform the Navy and tell them that whatever they see through their binoculars from their boats cannot be what is actually there. I am sure they would take you seriously too.
I stated:
A good example of this is provided by the Rogue River case. A number of people observe an object in a clear, blue sky. Perceptual research tells us that estimates of distance are difficult under such conditions. IF the witnesses all agree on a distance , THEN we become suspicious of the report because, according to research, we EXPECT different estimates from our witnesses if they were truly independent – and what do you know, the distance estimates vary between 1 and 4 miles!
I noted that the differences in distance estimates are precisely what perceptual research tells us should happen. If the witnesses ALL reported the SAME distance, then we would be suspicious. THIS is how perceptual research CAN inform us.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
The realisation of “I don’t know” leads us to create hypotheses and then explore those hypotheses to see if they fit the evidence.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
If they do NOT fit the evidence then we reject such hypotheses and move on to others.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
We keep doing this until we run out of hypotheses to explore.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
If at the end of that process we are left with no answers, then we must simply accept that we REALLY don’t know and all we can do then is continue to gather data until something else suggests itself and then the process begins all over again.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
At the base level a UFO is a UFO is a UFO… and we MUST accept that in the end WE simply DO NOT KNOW.
But we CAN also legitimately speculate based on the evidence.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
However, the UFO debunkers traditionally take a step in the direction of outright and irrational denial
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
…and the UFO proponents take a step in the direction of irrational ET hypotheses.
Your point being?
Originally Posted by Rramjet
Reasonable UFO proponents will then soften their stance to state that okay…ET IS an unfounded assertion, BUT then HOW DO we EXPLAIN the physics defying and seemingly intelligent control properties of UFOs if NOT ET (not to mention the fact that “aliens” are SEEN in some of these encounters)?
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
We MUST therefore conduct more RESEARCH into the problem.
Then stop hindering the process.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
Unfortunately the debunkers refuse to accept this. Primarily because they maintain an anti-historic, naïve realist view of the world. If physics says it is impossible, then by golly, it IS impossible! Therefore the eyewitnesses MUST be deluded, liars, hoaxers, etc.
So we use the evidence we have available and research conducted that speaks to witness reliability. You deny that we can do this?
Originally Posted by Rramjet
The UFO proponents then refer the UFO debunkers to the history of science to show how time and time again what was thought “impossible” invariably becomes “possible” after “paradigm shifts” in the way we think about the problem.
Are you sure about that?
Originally Posted by Rramjet
The debunkers merely go into deeper denial and implacably maintain “impossible”. Having no logical grounds for this stance they then resort to ridicule and abuse.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
However, the UFO proponents would simply be happy if the UFO debunkers just stepped out of the way for a while and allowed the necessary research to proceed.
Critical voices are fine, but active disinformation, ridicule and abuse are not.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
But of course the debunker mentality cannot allow that to happen. They have after all invested over 60 years of their energies into their debunking effort. A whole new generation has emerged, steeped in the debunker mentality. They have strong beliefs about the subject and they will now do ANYTHING to maintain that belief system. They set about to actively PREVENT any such research from occurring!
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true. You are simply denying the history of UFO research and government and debunker involvement in the process. Perhaps you can start here: (http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf)
Originally Posted by Rramjet
They recommend in reports that no use can come of such research. They state that there is no way that science can approach the problem. They state that the people involved are delusional, liars and hoaxers. They associate UFO proponents with psychics, believers in fairies and unicorns, witches and goblins.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true. This merely shows your lack of knowledge of the subject.
Perhaps you should read the statements that lead up to my comment that you cited.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
They conduct covert “hoax” campaigns designed to trap and destroy the reputations of serious researchers. The government adds to the problem by “covering” their own covert operations under the UFO banner – adding to the general confusion. In short the debunkers will stop at nothing to prevent serious research from progressing.
You really don’t know the history of this subject? Seek and ye shall find.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
Of course they will pay lip service to the idea of research. They will claim that if anyone wants to conduct research they are quite welcome to try. “Go ahead” they say “conduct the research. Stop whining about it and just DO the research” they say. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, in forums such as the JREF, the ridicule and abuse continues unabated.
No, they just add to the general negative “noise”.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
They co-opt popular “media personalities” into their campaign (Penn and Teller spring to mind) to unmercifully attack the very idea that there might be something worthwhile to be investigated in the UFO field.
Of course you do.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
Then the UFO proponents do not help themselves either. Understanding the public’s appetite for “mysteries of the unknown” they try and cash in. Liars, hoaxers and the plain delusional flock into the field to try and turn “a quick buck” – not realising that there is actually very little to “turn”. The UFO debunkers point to these people and say “See, we told you so!” and wise men nod sagely and think to themselves they are better off keeping well out of it! Thus the funding dries up. No peer research panels are set up. No peer-reviewed journal gets off the ground. No properly constituted research proposals are formulated. And the field is left in disarray. Open to all and anyone with an opinion and a loud voice to assert their dominance.
No, you missed my point.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
But serious UFO researcher MUST push on. They must continue to gather the data.
Indeed.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
They must continue as best they can to publish research reports.
Taken as given surely.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
They must continue to take the fight up to the debunkers (in forum such as this). For there is a mystery out there and sooner or later humanity will get around to exploring it – despite the debunkers concerted objections.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
Thus I simply present cases to show that there IS “something” of real substance to UFOs. I do not conclude “therefore aliens did it”. I simply note that given the characteristics of UFOs then by definition they represent something “alien” to us – “alien” to our science and to our way of thinking about the world.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
I am interested though in the reaction of JREF in the form of ridicule and abuse that I have been receiving.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
I began to realise three things about it. First it was a deliberate tactic to "make me go away" - (either by me responding in kind so that there was an excuse to ban me, or by me not being able to "wear" the insults and just leaving of my own accord) in other words, the JREF seemed NOT to want to discuss the cases at all (!) and second, that if that was quality of JREF members, it did not bode well for the future of JREF itself. Finally, if ridicule and abuse was the best answer JREF could come up with to many of the cases I present, then the cases just might be good ones!
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
Of course the other reaction was to propose implausible explanations (Blimps at Rogue River, Helicopters for Zamora, etc) and these do nothing to help the debunker cause either. My cases were looking better day by day!
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
Essentially UFO debunkers contend that there IS no good evidence for UFOs (being other than explicable in mundane terms) and I have simply been presenting cases to counter that assertion.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
The latest case is the O'Hare case, which for some strange reason, the UFO debunkers seem to want to shy away from. THAT piques my interest in the case even further! What IS it about this case that the debunkers don't want to discuss. If it is NOT a good case, then surely the debunkers would state UP FRONT what is wrong with it and then we could move on... but they have not done so... I merely wonder why.
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/010/TR10_Case_18a.pdf)
Originally Posted by Rramjet
Actually, that statement is going too far. I would not say that the ET hypothesis does not fit ANY evidence – we have the []sightings of “alien” beings, we have “technological” craft, we have supposed “statements” from the “aliens” themselves… so there IS evidence… however the point is do we believe them when they tell us that they are from (for example) Zeta Reticuli… I contend that we should not.
Let’s just write off all human observational experience shall we? After all, we can get along without it can’t we?
Originally Posted by Rramjet
The debunkers here are very quick to propose mundane solutions based on no evidence (helicopters and a Lunar Surveyor for the Zamora case for example - or at least an implausible scenario involving the military taking a multimillion dollar piece of equipment 100 miles away from the testing range and into a small New Mexico town. That sort of “explanation” really DOES require evidence and none has so far been forthcoming. That directly refutes you contention above).
So you say.
Ha!
Originally Posted by Rramjet
What does this case do then?
(White Sands - http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm), this is not an "eyewitness account" - these military researchers set out to "capture" UFOs with their instruments and they succeeded!
So what does THAT tell you?
Originally Posted by Rramjet
The plain facts are these:
1. People observe objects that they and subsequent research cannot identify in mundane terms.
2. These objects cannot be identified in mundane terms either because
the objects seem to posses properties or characteristics that lie outside the limits of what we take to be the boundaries of the natural of technological world, or that no mundane explanation presents itself as plausible in the circumstance.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
There are two ways we can proceed from here. First we can deny that the objects do possess such properties as described and that the objects actually do lie within the limits of what we take to be the boundaries of the natural or technological world - in which case we must hypothesise that the observer has (wittingly or unwittingly) misapprehended the true properties and characteristics of the object, or we accept that the observer is substantially accurate and that the objects really do possess the characteristics as described and that we must hypothesise that our consensus view of “reality” is inadequate to explain them.
Sure… no eyewitness in the history of humanity has ever been able to accurately report what they observed…
Originally Posted by Rramjet
While there is a natural opposition to the latter (no-one likes to think that they do not have a good grasp of what constitutes the boundaries of the natural or technological world), history is replete with examples that tell us that our view of the world and how it operates is based on a consensus opinion and that new discoveries are continually shifting and amending those boundaries. Thus to deny the properties and characteristics of the objects in these terms – based on what we know about the world and technology today – could easily itself be a misconception and thus not a valid objection.
No-one is accepting anything at face value.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
Which direction we take then depends on whether we consider the observer to be accurate or to be under some form of (witting or unwitting) misapprehension.
What objective means?
Originally Posted by Rramjet
First “unwitting” misapprehension:
Can observers be mistaken about what they observe?
Yes, of course they can.
Does it necessarily follow then that they are mistaken in any particular observation we care to examine?
No, of course not.
How then can we tell if a witness, in a particular observation, was mistaken or not?
There are two ways of explicating this. First we can examine research on the circumstance and conditions under which witnesses can be mistaken and see if it can inform us on whether any of those circumstances or conditions might apply in the observation under examination and second we can see if there are independent observers who describe the same properties and characteristics of the observed object.
How is this relevant to my statements above?
Originally Posted by Rramjet
Second, “witting” misapprehension:
Do observers lie or hoax?
Yes, of course they do.
Does it necessarily follow then that they are lying or hoaxing in any particular observation we care to examine?
No, of course not.
How then can we tell if a witness, in a particular observation, is lying or hoaxing or not?
There are actually two ways of explicating this. First we can examine the reliability of the witness (Do they have a history? Are they of sound mind? Have they solid references? etc) and second, we can see if there are independent observers who describe the same properties and characteristics of the observed object.
Indeed.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
One final thing to consider is whether there exist unknown natural or technological phenomena that do lie within the limits of what we take to be the boundaries of the natural or technological world, but that our current consensus knowledge simply has not yet discovered and if and when it does, it will be able to describe how this can be so (while maintaining our consensus view of reality).
The problem adherents of the latter “explanation” for the observed object have is that “anything goes”. Anything from unknown electromagnetic phenomena, to secret military technology, to extraterrestrials are all equally valid hypotheses under this “explanation”. Proponents of each hypothesis formed under this “explanation” will claim that each, when positively “discovered”, will conform to the natural world once we understand their true nature and can describe in mundane terms how each manifests and operates. Thus this explanation is a dead end. We can go nowhere with it that will provide us new knowledge. It is merely putting off until the future, questions that need to be answered now.
!
Originally Posted by Rramjet
So, then we must return to questions of whether the observed object really does or does not have the characteristics as described by the observer. But what if we discover that the observers are reliable and accurate? How should we proceed from there?
If you want me to reply to you should at least try to make you comments relevant to my statements.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
Of course we must then explore mundane explanations to see if any accord with the characteristics and properties of the observed object. In this endeavour we must be careful to restrain our hypotheses to plausible hypotheses. For example it is no use stating that the observer misapprehended a mundane object if that mundane object was not (or could not have been) present at the time.
We have reliable data - you just don’t care to admit it.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
But of course the real world is rarely as straightforward. After the event we can never determine with 100% reliability whether a witness was reliable and accurate but by the same token, we can also never determine with 100% reliability that any mundane hypothesis we propose is the answer either.
So you say…
Originally Posted by Rramjet
It all comes down to a balance of probabilities. Given the circumstances and conditions and considering past research, is it likely or unlikely that the witness is reliable or accurate? Also given the circumstances and conditions and considering past research, is it likely or unlikely that our hypothetical mundane solution provides the explanation.
!
Originally Posted by Rramjet
One other thing to note is that in our determination of the above questions, we must provide evidence. That is, it is no good merely stating that we think that a witness is reliable and accurate. We must provide evidence that there is at least a strong likelihood of this being true. Similarly it is no good merely stating that we think a particular mundane object is the explanation, we must provide evidence that there is at least a strong likelihood of this being true.
Explain this then (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)
Originally Posted by Rramjet
So, what if, after having gone through all the above, we finally end with a determination that it is likely that the witness is reliable and accurate and that the object therefore really does have the properties and characteristics as described and that we cannot ascribe a likely, plausible mundane explanation to it?
Yes.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
Well then we are at the point of being able to state that the object is unidentified. In other words a UFO.
!
Originally Posted by Rramjet
Then where do we go? We have already noted that an appeal to unknown natural or technological phenomena that might be discovered in the future is a dead end, so how then should we proceed?
I did.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
Well of course we must examine the descriptions of the object’s properties and characteristics (and its affect on the surrounding environment) and see what those characteristics and environmental effects might tell us about the nature of the object.
So you say…
Originally Posted by Rramjet
We might ask questions like:
Is it a solid object?
Does it display aspects of intelligent control?
Do its properties and characteristics accord with our knowledge of physics, chemistry, etc?
… and so on.
No.. perhaps you are right… we shouldn’t ask questions. That would be too logical a step to take.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
But once we have finished asking and answering those types of questions, where do we go from there?
We create hypotheses of course.
Could it be ET?
So you can’t imagine any hypotheses concerning ET?
Originally Posted by Rramjet
But now we run into a problem. Hypotheses should be testable right? Well, yes and no. HOW did we imagine our hypothesis in the first place? Of course we based it, like any naive inductivist would, on the observations. Intelligent control, physics defying properties, associated “beings”… it MUST be ET! Well, no… we can imagine other hypotheticals, like, interdimensional beings perhaps, or time travellers, or “they” might actually be “indigenous”…co-inhabitants if you like… or perhaps Venus was once like earth… or one of the moons of Jupiter could support life… Nevertheless, the ET hypothesis would seem to be the most plausible of all such potential hypotheses. That of course does not make it the correct hypotheses…
Just an opinion.
Originally Posted by Rramjet
Of course we will never know for sure unless ET actually takes us to their “home” and gives us the grand tour. For even if they landed on the Whitehouse lawn we would not know… they could be deceiving us still! Even if we had a crashed craft and alien bodies… we STILL would not know for sure. So it is disingenuous for the UFO debunkers to claim that they will only “believe” if UFO proponents can show them physical evidence. For even after such evidence is admitted, there is STILL no direct proof of ET. We are still left with the proposition “Well it looks like it could be…” But that is just what we have now. “It looks like it.”, so what we need to do now is conduct research with the evidence that we have now. [/I]
What objective evidence?
Originally Posted by Rramjet
We need to look at the cases. For it seems to me that the UFO debunkers still do not believe that UFOs are NOT mundane objects. We need to show that the witnesses are reliable and not mistaken. And we can do that by presenting cases that demonstrate this is likely to be true and that there is no plausible mundane hypothesis that can be put forward as an explanation. I propose the cases I have been presenting do exactly that.
What objective evidence do you propose in light of my above comments?
Frying Dutchmen
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 387
Yes Rramjet, hand wave all other posters here has members of a cult because they disagree with
You directly imply: First, that the Sturrock panel was fooled by a “one-sided” report by Scheussler and Second, that they were not expert enough to even “venture much of an opinion” on the cause of the injuries, yet even though this was (in your opinion) the case – they managed to conclude that there was no “indication of an alien presence”?
So, according to you, the Sturrock Panel was not given good evidence and was not expert enough to conclude anything even if that evidence was good, yet you maintain their conclusions are valid? And you call ME “not smart enough”? LOL.
On the “Curious Phenomenon in Venezuela” (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)
No “real facts”? This is a matter of fact account relating the facts of the matter to the editors of Scientific American. There is no hype, no mention of UFOs, just a series of factual observations. The whole point of the account was that the witnesses and the reporter did not know what they were exposed to. The reporter presumes that it may be related to the meteorological/electrical phenomena discussed in Scientific American and draws their attention to such perhaps hoping that they might have the answer in a related phenomenon. Did they have dinner prior to their experiences? You know, 99% of all fatal car crashes have involved people with food in their stomachs. According to you we must ban “food driving”! Preposterous! And that food was contaminated by a “chemical or a naturally occurring radioactive alpha-emitter” – yet no similar “poisonings” ever occurred prior or since? Yeah, sure…that’s plausible! LOL.
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
I bet if you were constrained to posting actual evidence of aliens you wouldn't bother to post here at all Rroger, all we've had so far is evidence of U.F.O's which no one here denied exist in the first place
so do you have any evidence of what you claimed you had evidence for or are you just going to carry on wasting everyones time ?
Yeah, that’s right…attack the man rather than the argument with wild, handwaving, unfounded and generalised assertions. But of course, according to Astrophotographer, that's how we DO science isn’t it? LOL.
You know I went to page 17 and found no evidence for you assertions (why am I not surprised?).
Freidman states that Dateline reported the “lights” (which were speculated to have been flares) in the Phoenix Lights case, and claims they failed to distinguish between the lights and other reports of a “huge boomerang shaped, low flying silent object which took minutes to pass overhead”. He also criticised Michael Shermer, who came up with the obviously preposterous “explanation” of “high-flying airplanes”.
The article then goes on to REPEAT Dateline’s omission and misconstrue Freidman’s complaint by stating “Only a few reports mentioned a dark object behind the lights”. OMG! The ‘Lights” were NOT what Freidman was talking about! It was the huge, boomerang shaped UFO reports that he claims were missed – BOTH by Dateline AND now in the current article under discussion! Then the article goes on to criticise Freidman for NOT talking about the “lights”! OMG, this is just irrational nonsense!
The article continues by citing a “craft” report (so there WAS reports about craft – not just lights!) and then claims that Freidman was “unaware” of such reports! Then the article claims that this means that Freidman was doing “research by proclamation”, not telling his readers the rest of the story… not bothering with the facts… employing the “attack the people” argument… Hooo boy…talk about madness. IMHO this article is demonstrably insane! Black is white and white is black… (shakes head in utter amazed disbelief). And Astrophotographer puts it forward as an example of Freidman’s hypocrisy? LOL.
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
I've noticed that Rramjets use of CAPITALISATION has started to involve only small words
is this good or bad
should we be worried ?
Patricio Elicer
Obsessed with Reality
What argument?. Friedman's arguments on challenging SETI and its scientists have been already addressed by Wollery. Now the ball is in your court to answer a simple question: in what way his arguments affect the scientific validity of the SETI project?.
ETA: Let's not forget that Friedman called SETI a silly project.
Last edited:
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
hey, join the queue, were still waiting for RRRRrrrrrroger to provide evidence of aliens, if you start giving him other things to do he'll lose sight of the main objective, fail miserably and become a figure of ridicule
Patricio Elicer
Obsessed with Reality
hey, join the queue, were still waiting for RRRRrrrrrroger to provide evidence of aliens, if you start giving him other things to do he'll lose sight of the main objective, fail miserably and become a figure of ridicule
haha, yes, one thing at a time, but he has had 120 pages worth of opportunities to provide his announced evidence of aliens. Since that's already a dead cause, let's call the next in line .....
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
It's a Boeing X-50.
I'll prepare an article about it and post shortly.
Cheers,
Dave
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/BoeingX_50.jpg[/qimg]
I'll prepare an article about it and post shortly.
Cheers,
Dave
so officiallly this was a UFO then
I wouldn't bother memorising its sillhouette for future reference though,
DARPA withdrew funding for the X-50 program in late 2006 due to inherent design flaws, it was supposed to demonstrate that a rotor could be used as a fixed wing for forward momentum,
of the two prototypes
ship 1 crashed
ship 2 crashed
guess where the design flaw was,
Last edited:
Andrew Wiggin
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 2,915
I've noticed that Rramjets use of CAPITALISATION has started to involve only small words
is this good or bad
should we be worried ?
Broken keyboard? Caps lock key not staying down long enough to type long words? Certainly his wall-o-text attacks are long enough to pound some serious punishment into a keyboard...
A
- Status