Well, of course not. Everyone knows they're mined.
- Status
Well, of course not. Everyone knows they're mined.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
Big snip of the usual. It is "most accurate" because Maccabee says so and you choose to believe him. You have no independent verification of the story and we don't really know when the exact radar contact was made or the exact range recorded. All of this is based on memory and claims made well after the event. If you want to believe Maccabee, go right ahead but remember how he has endorsed various hoaxes in the past with the exact same kind of arguments. Do we really need to look at photo #19 in the Ed Walters saga, Carp, MJ-12, the Lawton Triangles, etc.?
Last edited:
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
Call it what you will. You are suggesting something supernatural for which you have provided absolutely no evidence for other than the anecdotal claims. The NZ films do not look alien and appear just like lights with little or no shape. Your photographs could be hoaxes. It is more likely that they are.
As for the truck mirror comment made in a previous statment, can you show us where any "alien" culture has ever used a craft of such design? You apparently have examined ALL MIRRORS that could have been available. Unfortunately, you have yet to provide evidence that you actually did this.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Sorry, those ain't no
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
Exactly how can you write this when your "alien/supernatural" explanation is something you are using to suggest as the source for all these UFOs? It is explaining an unknown with another unknown. We have no idea if there are any species in the universe than our own. We have no evidence that these 'craft' seen in the photographs/videos actually exist or are hoaxes. There is EXACTLY the same amount of evidence for "alien/supernatural" as there is for "god". You really are living in the well lit room of one idea.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
So you admit you are trying to explain an unknown with another unknown. I prefer believing in the god hypothesis when faced with the unknown possibilities you present. At least some of those religious bodies do something good for humanity by trying to help the poor, the underdeveloped, the innocent, the needy, etc in the name of these gods. The UFO religion or the alien beings piloting these craft do absolutely nothing for these people.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
If anything good has come from this thread, it is your amusing art.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Rramjet has admitted that he doesn't have any evidence to support the claim that aliens exist. But in his rather juvenile effort to save face (like anyone fell for it), he's pretending he meant something other than aliens when he said aliens.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
I was pretty easy - I just drew it in from the back of the monitor.
But of course, credit goes to the original artistes.
I stand on the shoulders of, well, people taller than me...
Last edited:
gambling_cruiser
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 734
I hope Rramjet is only a trolling high school kid.
An alternative possibility would be an irrational deluded middle aged adult with a really boring life who has swallowed Maccabee's nonsense hook line and sinker, and this true believe is his only defense against desperation.
No independent verification? I found an interesting reference in Australian Playboy Magazine (August 1979). Fogarty provided a brief version of events from his point of view in which the following statement is included:
"With the object still off our wing, Bill Startup decided to put it to the test. Dennis was the first to know. He beckoned me over. "The bastard's going to aim straight for it and see what happens," he said, somewhat shaken. I shrugged my shoulders. I was certainly in shock, but I was beyond fear (…) Startup put the Argosy into a 90-degree turn and headed toward the object."
It must be noted that this interview was recorded before the Applied Optics argument about the angle of the turn between Maccabee and Ireland and Andrews (also published in August 1979).
You keep stating “claims made well after the event”. But this simply ignores the evidence because we know Dr Maccabee interviewed Startup et al. by telephone less than two weeks after the event and then flew to NZ to conduct face-to-face interviews just one month after the event.
“Endorsing hoaxes” is an entirely different thing than ignoring the evidence - a la your sources Ireland and Andrews - to simply make up a diagram to suit a preconceived notion. Mistakes can be made when examining the evidence in good faith, but it is unforgivable to actually ignore the evidence to construct a version of events that does not accord with that evidence. Scientists take a risk when examining any evidence and publishing their conclusions and I doubt you could find any published scientist who has not got it wrong at one stage or other in their career. In fact it is all part of the essential tension in established scientific processes: Scientists publish their opinions, others publish supporting articles or refutations, hypotheses are amended, theories are refined – it is all part of the process of discovery… but to actually ignore the evidence is a different thing altogether. If ever scientists became fearful of publishing in good faith the results of their analyses, then science would never progress – we would lose that essential tension that provides the impetus for progress. You, Astrophotographer, seem to want to forestall that process by calling into question the whole body of work of particular scientists based merely on the fact that sometimes they have “got it wrong”. No, each analysis must be assessed on its own merits. If we can find errors or misinterpretations, then we point those out, and provide corrections. If we find the analysis and conclusions are supported by the evidence, then we accept those conclusions and move on.
In the NZ case we have more than “anecdotal” evidence when we have radar/visual/film confirmation. That is, we have instrumented confirmation to support visual observations (and vice versa).
And what does “do not look alien” mean? Do you KNOW what “alien” looks like? Of course you don’t. Yet your statement assumes that you do (!) and that is patently a nonsense.
Anything could be a hoax – but that mere fact does NOT make it “likely that they are” – especially when the evidence points toward the opposite conclusion.
Here you now presuppose knowledge of “alien” craft design also – which again is a complete nonsense. Moreover, there is independent photographic verification of the shape of the Trent/McMinnville craft in (the 1957) Rouen photo (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2c.html).
Funny also how you shift the burden of proof here – especially since that is a topic debated at some length in this very thread! If YOU propose that a “mirror” was responsible, then it is up to YOU to provide the evidence to support your hypothesis. That is how science works Astrophotographer. Quite simply it is up to the claimant to support their own claims with evidence.
I stated:
“There has been some nonsense recently about gods being the answer (in other words a Creationist argument). If the proponents of this position had any evidence for such then they should present it. Not only does this hypothesis fly in the face of skeptical thinking, it also falls into the trap of explaining one unknown with another unknown. This merely pushes the fundamental questions we might have about the phenomenon back another level, but it does NOT answer the questions. In fact it leaves the proponents of the "gods" hypothesis in a worse position than before - because not only do they have to explain UFOs, they must explain "gods" as well!”
So now you are supporting the “Creationists”? This just shows how far a UFO debunker will go if they think they can gain an advantage. They will even support ideas that run counter to their own (and skeptical and scientific) beliefs!
And I love the way you pick up my ideas and then twist them to make them in your own image. I guess I should be flattered.
“Alien” is a definitional term. It simply means something that lies outside the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural world (and I include our current technological development in that). That does not mean that the ultimate explanation will not become part of the natural world once we understand what is going on. For example if we were able to transport a flash memory stick back to the time of Newton, he would most certainly consider it not to be part of the natural world. In other words, it would be completely “alien” to him. That is how I use my term “alien”. It does NOT necessarily mean ET (or anything else for that matter). It simply means that we cannot explain it according to our current knowledge of the natural (or technological) world. This does NOT mean that at some time in the future our knowledge will not expand to enable us to so explain it – just at present we cannot do so.
But “gods” is an entirely different situation. “Gods” are by definition not part of the natural world – now or ever! They ARE supernatural entities. They stand outside nature – utterly beyond the reach of natural laws. UFOs are different – they are directly observed to be IN the natural world – and are hypothesised to be PART of the natural world (universe). Besides, “gods” are semantic. The term is applied by some to “explain” something we do not understand. IF YOU want to explain UFOs by appeal to “gods”, then go ahead, but “gods” is NOT an explanation – for we don’t know WHAT “gods” might BE. However we CAN understand “aliens” in terms of being part of the natural world – we just don’t know how “they” do what “they” do. There is a very real sense in which we can conceptualise the existence of “aliens” with definite limits on their powers to operate in the universe. The same CANNOT be said of “gods”. THAT is the critical difference between them. The powers of “gods” are arbitrary – they are whatever we want them to be. The “power” of “aliens” is NOT arbitrary, we suppose them to conform to the universal laws of nature – we just don’t understand HOW that can be at present.
I also find your statement “You really are living in the well lit room of one idea.” to be the pinnacle of irony. Patently I am conceptualising and putting into my posts many ideas and philosophies. I am proposing, as did Hamlet (Act I, Scene V), that “there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy Horatio” – while it is YOU who maintain there are NOT. You have a but single concept of “reality” and (by god) you are going to stick to that come Hell or high water! It is as if you pretend to know all there is to know and what you know is all there ever will be and that nothing in the future will alter that conception. Boy, has history a scrapheap for you! LOL.
It sounds a bit strange, you are claiming a difference between gods and aliens with regards to their adherence to the laws of nature.
But when someone point out the the laws of nature those aliens of yours would violate you kind of overhear it.
Or did you have a response to the distance between star systems and energy requirements for travel. What about the wormholes and their energy requirements?
But when someone point out the the laws of nature those aliens of yours would violate you kind of overhear it.
Or did you have a response to the distance between star systems and energy requirements for travel. What about the wormholes and their energy requirements?
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
I didn't know they where even a science magazine, boy what credit they must have.
Paul
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
I stand corrected.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
- Status