Aliens from space (split from Time to talk about UFO's or now as the military calls them UAP's?)

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

On the other hand, in legal circles, our society places enough trust in eye witness testimony to allow the rendering of a verdict capable of either exonerating or convicting those accused of a crime, however serious it may be.  Eyewitness testimony cannot and should not be so casually dismissed.  

Just been trying to remember something I'd read long ago about episodic memory that could be relevant to this discussion.

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/uncategorized/myth-eyewitness-testimony-is-the-best-kind-of-evidence.html

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/mandela-effect-what-is-it-and-why-does-it-happen.html

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256375079_Collective_representation_elicit_widespread_individual_false_memories

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory#Mandela_effect

Quote

One well-documented example of shared false memories comes from a 2010 study that examined people familiar with the clock at Bologna Centrale railway station, which was damaged in the Bologna massacre bombing in August 1980. In the study, 92% of respondents falsely remembered the clock had remained stopped since the bombing when, in fact, the clock was repaired shortly after the attack. Years later the clock was again stopped and set to the time of the bombing, in observance and commemoration of the bombing.^[15]

(My emphasis.)

While I have the greatest respect for the Law, and I always abide by it and recommend everybody to do the same, we should always keep in mind that in the end it is a product of human convention, while science ellucidates facts and correlations between those facts. If science makes it objectively, reproducibly, and unambiguously clear that we have reasons to believe witness accounts are not totally reliable, the Law --and the law people-- would be well advised to take science's salient facts into account as, in the words of a famous scientist, "Nature cannot be fooled."

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Yet you didn't post your source.

Interesting how you have a convenient explanation for everything at the ready.

Perhaps you should do more than just a "cursory search" when looking into matters such as this.

I find it equally laughable how you find yourself unable to objectively consider this event as it is reported by the actual eye witnesses.  I wonder why that is.  And yes, I'm sure the town makes millions off of that UFO museum.    

Right back at you.  Don't allow your confirmation bias and self-ordained skepticism to get in the way of objective observation.  And it's not a youtube video, it's a feature length documentary; one that you won't watch, of course, because you already know you're correct.

Source was the same one I posted up the page:  Brian Dunning.  I don't personally research every scientific issue myself, given the finite lifespan and being one person thing.  His approach shows scientific rigor, not "preordained skepticism" whatever that is.  Sounds like you are trolling, because you know the evidence here is incredibly flimsy and doesn't support that ardent desire to believe you share with your pal Fox Mulder. 

As for the length of the documentary (which, yes, I watched, and I'd love those minutes of my life back but what can ya do?), this seems like a weak shot (since I didn't specify the length of the video) and just more trolling because

You

Have

Not

One

Shred

of

Evidence

that deserves the term "evidence."  You have a set of unrelated odd stories - some kids saw a strange man, someone saw some odd feet sticking out from under a blanket in a hospital, someone saw very short people in a hospital, some military trucks drove by....good Lord, I think Paul Bunyan had more empirical basis.  We should probably be researching the existence of giant men who hang out with giant mules. 

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable in legal circles, which is a lower standard than science has. “Objective” in science means measurements and recorded data.

 

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

On the other hand, in legal circles, our society places enough trust in eye witness testimony to allow the rendering of a verdict capable of either exonerating or convicting those accused of a crime, however serious it may be.  Eyewitness testimony cannot and should not be so casually dismissed.  

In the Varginha case we have physicians, former soldiers, those from the local news media, as well as normal citizens who all reported experiencing something unexplainable that day.  I for one find it compelling; those like TheVat do not.  We can each cast our own votes as to the veracity of such an event, ideally after taking all the evidence from both sides into consideration.      

     

Science has different standard than the law does.  That was Swanson's point. 

The objective truth of what happened is not determined by voting or what narrative we might find "compelling."

It is determined (to a reasonably high probability) by an abundance of solid data that constitutes evidence.  No one needs to provide evidence that ETs did not visit Varginha - you can't disprove that sort of negative.  Nor can anyone prove leprachauns never visited Varginha.  The burden of proof is on you and the documentarian making all the extraordinary claims of alien visitation. 

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by TheVat
fix

[Moontanman]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Indeed. The lack of rigor is frustrating to people who are used to it in scientific inquiry.

Does scientific rigor mean concluding the data must be wrong because it's not conclusive ? 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable in legal circles, which is a lower standard than science has. “Objective” in science means measurements and recorded data.

I am quite aware of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony does that mean it should be ignored completely?   

3 hours ago, swansont said:

I don’t think the data are being dismissed. The conclusions are.

I am not asking anyone to make a conclusion. all i am asking is that the data not be ignored because just it points to a possibility that is uncomfortable for many. 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Apply the same standard. We didn’t “dismiss” lightning - the phenomenon was observed. It was studied under somewhat controlled circumstances.

Very true, that same cannot be said for rocks falling from the sky but even lighting was assumed to be from the gods and since at the time we couldn't study it in anyway that conclusion was accepted. 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Show me the scientific experiments that show UFO phenomena must be aliens.

 

 

When have I asserted that UFO sightings must be aliens? I am only asking that the data be followed to the logical conclusions. If that conclusion is "we don't know" then we have to continue to gather more data not simply dismiss it out of hand because it make us uncomfortable to consider things that lie outside our comfort zones.

The real take away for me is that "if" the UFO phenomena represents something extraordinary and that something is best explained by saying it lies outside our current understanding not continuing the study seems somewhat less than scientific. 

It is true that most UFOs do not have much in the way of data but some do, in fact some have so much data it's downright embarrassing to have to say we don't know. 

I pointed out the Stockton Ca. sighting in 1896 not because I think it is proof of anything but because it is one of those sightings that is either absolute proof of aliens or an absolute hoax. Nothing in between will explain it, many sightings are like that and while either disturbing or laughable depending on your faith in humanity. It remains as something unusual on many levels not the least of which it supposedly happened at a time when the idea of aliens wasn't exactly part of the zeitgeist. It was at a time when it probably should have been seen in a religious/demonic context not technological or maybe the cusp of those two were meeting and in this case technology won out for whatever reason. 

One thing I think should be considered is that if we are dealing with an alien intelligence capable of technology far and away above our own then we are unlikely to get the "rigorous evidence" we require unless that intelligence gives it to us or they make a big mistake... everyone makes mistakes, we just need to make sure we are looking hard enough when it happens to know something extraordinary has happened.    

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

Again, the military arrival is easily fact checked.  

The convoy of military trucks going through town was nothing more than a convoy of military trucks going through town to be dropped off for scheduled maintenance, which was exactly what happened to them. The trucks dropping off strange mechanisms at the hospital were delivering new cardiovascular equipment. The ambulance was dropping off a corpse that had been exhumed as part of an ongoing criminal investigation. The pair of small aliens at the hospital were expectant parents having their baby delivered — and they were little people.

All of this information is widely available and pops right up during the most cursory search.  I find it laughable the way completely unrelated events are cobbled together into this Roswellian tale, and we now have a town who economic health undoubtedly now depends on its UFO museum and its flying saucer water tank.  

If you want to pursue real scientific evaluation of evidence, then don't allow your own desires to render you gullible, letting hucksters connect the dots for you in exploitative YouTube videos.  

As for teenage girls, their reliability as witnesses should be questioned.  Especially given other details and the weather being described as a "blustery rainstorm".  I used to have teenage girls in my house and I can well recall their departures from objective observation of odd events.  And the way 90% of their vocal communication consisted of giggling.  

Ok, I'll give you this one, it's complete bullshit, does that have any bearing on other sightings that cannot be explained away? 

[TheVat]

29 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Does scientific rigor mean concluding the data must be wrong because it's not conclusive ? 

While letting Swan speak for himself, I will add that data isn't wrong but people can be if they draw conclusions from data that aren't really supported.  Not conclusive just means that.  No conclusion can be drawn.  I'm totally cool with getting more data, and you may count me among those who would be awed, delighted, and thrilled to quivering pieces should we find that ET beings are visiting.  

34 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I pointed out the Stockton Ca. sighting in 1896 not because I think it is proof of anything but because it is one of those sightings that is either absolute proof of aliens or an absolute hoax

This is one for Mr Ockham, eh?  Given the history of the American West (me being both spouse and son-in-law of western historians), in which we find European settlement accompanied by a staggering number of grifters, hucksters, snake oil peddlers, and hoaxers, I think it's possible to lean strongly towards hoax (or, as you mentioned, shroom tripping.... 😀).   

41 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Ok, I'll give you this one, it's complete bullshit, does that have any bearing on other sightings that cannot be explained away? 

No.  I was just giving my take on the Brazil incident.  I hope very much to take each report on its own merits.  Where evidence is ambiguous so too must be our conclusions.  

49 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

One thing I think should be considered is that if we are dealing with an alien intelligence capable of technology far and away above our own then we are unlikely to get the "rigorous evidence" we require unless that intelligence gives it to us or they make a big mistake... everyone makes mistakes, we just need to make sure we are looking hard enough when it happens to know something extraordinary has happened.   

And I raise a glass from "the vat" to looking hard and forensic thoroughness.  And also to open and transparent interagency and public sharing of all findings so that science folk can do their jobs.  Secrecy breeds conspiracy theories.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Does scientific rigor mean concluding the data must be wrong because it's not conclusive ? 

Dealing in vague assertions is one of the issues that fall under the “lack of rigor” umbrella. I can’t comment on such a nebulous claim. I have not seen where anyone has asserted the data must be wrong. I’m not aware of claims where there is actual data. I know where people have asserted that the conclusions are wrong, because a conclusion was claimed that was not conclusively supported.

 

 

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I am quite aware of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony does that mean it should be ignored completely?   

Who is ignoring it completely? Saying that eyewitness testimony is unreliable is not ignoring it.  Saying “what eyewitness testimony?” would be ignoring it. Show where it’s being ignored.

Another thing I’m not a fan of is straw man claims. Until you support your claims, that’s what these appear to be. Playing the victim to cover for a lack of evidence. Some people might agree that the best defense is a good offense, but it becomes obvious that it’s always attack and complain, instead of any kind of thorough, scientific analysis.

 

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I am not asking anyone to make a conclusion. all i am asking is that the data not be ignored because just it points to a possibility that is uncomfortable for many. 

Another unsupported claim of data being ignored

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Very true, that same cannot be said for rocks falling from the sky but even lighting was assumed to be from the gods and since at the time we couldn't study it in anyway that conclusion was accepted. 

Yes, there was a time before science existed. That’s hardly the fault of science, though. And now that it exists, we ask that it be applied.

 

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

When have I asserted that UFO sightings must be aliens? I am only asking that the data be followed to the logical conclusions.

Please explain how the second statement does not imply the first.

 

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

If that conclusion is "we don't know" then we have to continue to gather more data not simply dismiss it out of hand because it make us uncomfortable to consider things that lie outside our comfort zones.

If the data are inconclusive, that’s the conclusion. It’s not dismissing the data.

How do you gather more data about an event?

 

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

The real take away for me is that "if" the UFO phenomena represents something extraordinary and that something is best explained by saying it lies outside our current understanding not continuing the study seems somewhat less than scientific. 

You would have to show that it lies outside our current understanding.

 

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

It is true that most UFOs do not have much in the way of data but some do, in fact some have so much data it's downright embarrassing to have to say we don't know. 

I pointed out the Stockton Ca. sighting in 1896 not because I think it is proof of anything but because it is one of those sightings that is either absolute proof of aliens or an absolute hoax. Nothing in between will explain it, many sightings are like that and while either disturbing or laughable depending on your faith in humanity. It remains as something unusual on many levels not the least of which it supposedly happened at a time when the idea of aliens wasn't exactly part of the zeitgeist. It was at a time when it probably should have been seen in a religious/demonic context not technological or maybe the cusp of those two were meeting and in this case technology won out for whatever reason. 

One might proceed without assuming everyone is familiar with this event and the alleged evidence. Or why a search of “stockton” only shows one post from you: the one you just posted. As if you’ve not actually brought it up before.

 

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

One thing I think should be considered is that if we are dealing with an alien intelligence capable of technology far and away above our own then we are unlikely to get the "rigorous evidence" we require unless that intelligence gives it to us or they make a big mistake... everyone makes mistakes, we just need to make sure we are looking hard enough when it happens to know something extraordinary has happened.    

Which is a commonality with conspiracy theories: there is no evidence because that’s what happens with a conspiracy (except that’s never what happens)

 

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Ok, I'll give you this one, it's complete bullshit, does that have any bearing on other sightings that cannot be explained away? 

Nobody has to explain an incident away. It’s nice when that happens, but the burden of proof is with the UFO crowd. Stop trying to shift that responsibility.

Another thing to consider is that every time someone cries wolf (i.e UFO) and a mundane explanation is confirmed, it further damages the credibility of anyone making claims, and underscores the fact that the UFOlogists’ standards are lax and their analysis shoddy. 

[Alex_Krycek]

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

Source was the same one I posted up the page:  Brian Dunning.  I don't personally research every scientific issue myself, given the finite lifespan and being one person thing.  His approach shows scientific rigor, not "preordained skepticism" whatever that is.

Does "scientific rigor" mean concocting self serving alternative explanations, rather than giving credence to the actual eye witness reports of people who were there?  Did Dunning visit Varginha or otherwise corroborate his theory with people who actually claim it was Mudhinho or whatever else he is positing?  If not, that doesn't sound very rigorous to me; it sounds more like confirmation bias - i.e. "I'll fabricate whatever convenient explanation I can to fit these unusual events into my narrative."  If you start out with a conclusion that something must be false, and then ignore anything to the contrary, that isn't a scientific approach.

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

 

  Sounds like you are trolling, because you know the evidence here is incredibly flimsy and doesn't support that ardent desire to believe you share with your pal Fox Mulder. 

No, I'm not trolling.  Kind of insulting that you would insinuate that but I'll let it go.  There have been too many credible reports lately to dismiss these events.  In my view they have to be taken seriously at this point. 

You seem to fundamentally believe that the possibility of aliens visiting Earth is nonsense, that anyone reporting such events is engaged in  "hucksterism", and people who give credence to them are either gullible or trolls.  You've said as much in your previous posts.  

As established I have a different outlook - I think the odds of visitation by an intelligent extraterrestrial species are incredibly high given the number of habitable planets and the age of our universe.  I don't see alien visitations as abnormal - it was always only a matter of time.   Further - the denial of the probability of aliens is actually very dangerous for our species, but that's another topic.

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

You have a set of unrelated odd stories - some kids saw a strange man, someone saw some odd feet sticking out from under a blanket in a hospital, someone saw very short people in a hospital, some military trucks drove by....good Lord, I think Paul Bunyan had more empirical basis.  We should probably be researching the existence of giant men who hang out with giant mules. 

This is how you choose to frame it:  "all of the witnesses of the Varginha incident are deluded idiots who have been caught up in mass hysteria, or are making up this story to attract tourists to make money."  Then you ridicule it further by comparing it to giants and Paul Bunyan - again because your anchoring belief is that this must all be nonsense.

Sure, when you frame it like that, it doesn't sound very authentic. 

But you have to establish first that those witnesses really are deluded or self serving opportunists before your theory has any weight.    

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

 

Science has different standard than the law does.  That was Swanson's point. 

The objective truth of what happened is not determined by voting or what narrative we might find "compelling."

It is determined (to a reasonably high probability) by an abundance of solid data that constitutes evidence.  No one needs to provide evidence that ETs did not visit Varginha - you can't disprove that sort of negative.  Nor can anyone prove leprachauns never visited Varginha.  The burden of proof is on you and the documentarian making all the extraordinary claims of alien visitation. 

 

When you have this many credible witnesses who have no interest in lying, who corroborate each other in a logical way despite not knowing one another, taken with all of the other cases (such as the Ariel School and many, many others), combined with the statistical inevitability that intelligent beings will eventually visit Earth, such information should be taken seriously and not dismissed, that's all I'm saying.

 

 

[Moontanman]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Dealing in vague assertions is one of the issues that fall under the “lack of rigor” umbrella. I can’t comment on such a nebulous claim. I have not seen where anyone has asserted the data must be wrong. I’m not aware of claims where there is actual data. I know where people have asserted that the conclusions are wrong, because a conclusion was claimed that was not conclusively supported.

 

 

Who is ignoring it completely? Saying that eyewitness testimony is unreliable is not ignoring it.  Saying “what eyewitness testimony?” would be ignoring it. Show where it’s being ignored.

Another thing I’m not a fan of is straw man claims. Until you support your claims, that’s what these appear to be. Playing the victim to cover for a lack of evidence. Some people might agree that the best defense is a good offense, but it becomes obvious that it’s always attack and complain, instead of any kind of thorough, scientific analysis.

 

Another unsupported claim of data being ignored

Yes, there was a time before science existed. That’s hardly the fault of science, though. And now that it exists, we ask that it be applied.

 

Please explain how the second statement does not imply the first.

 

If the data are inconclusive, that’s the conclusion. It’s not dismissing the data.

How do you gather more data about an event?

 

You would have to show that it lies outside our current understanding.

 

One might proceed without assuming everyone is familiar with this event and the alleged evidence. Or why a search of “stockton” only shows one post from you: the one you just posted. As if you’ve not actually brought it up before.

 

Which is a commonality with conspiracy theories: there is no evidence because that’s what happens with a conspiracy (except that’s never what happens)

 

Nobody has to explain an incident away. It’s nice when that happens, but the burden of proof is with the UFO crowd. Stop trying to shift that responsibility.

Another thing to consider is that every time someone cries wolf (i.e UFO) and a mundane explanation is confirmed, it further damages the credibility of anyone making claims, and underscores the fact that the UFOlogists’ standards are lax and their analysis shoddy. 

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124844-aliens-from-space-split-from-time-to-talk-about-ufos-or-now-as-the-military-calls-them-uaps/?do=findComment&comment=1230506

 

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124844-aliens-from-space-split-from-time-to-talk-about-ufos-or-now-as-the-military-calls-them-uaps/?do=findComment&comment=1230506

 

When did these gentlemen provide a urine or blood test to confirm that they weren’t under the influence of one of the many drugs that were legal at the time? If you can’t rule out hallucinations, it’s not conclusive.
 

It’s also curious that these aliens seem to use technology somehow familiar to the people - a luminous mineral for light, a shoulder bag containing gas (what gas would this be?) Those are not descriptions of advanced technology.

”the specific gravity of the creature was less than an ounce” for being seven feet tall? And they were carrying items!

“outside of a large rudder there was no visible machinery”

How does a rudder function in outer space?

 

This is your best example of having “so much data”? 

 You described this as “It reads so matter of fact but it's more like a guy detailing his experiences while drinking shroom tea.”

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

combined with the statistical inevitability that intelligent beings will eventually visit Earth

Where is your calculation of this probability?

[Alex_Krycek]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Where is your calculation of this probability?

Let’s set some conditions.

We’re estimating the probability that an intelligent life form in the universe has:

1. achieved interspecies sustainability (i.e. they’ve moved past, or never encountered, the challenge of blowing themselves up
2. exists at the same time as humanity
3. has solved the distance problem by harnessing a physical principle that human beings have yet to actualize.  Using this physical principle and the technology built upon it, they are able to traverse the galaxy efficiently.  By efficiently, I mean physical distance is basically irrelevant to them.  They have understood how to manipulate spacetime in such a way as  to go where they want, when they please.

So in other words this species is a type 3 (galactic civilization) as defined by people like Michio Kaku.

For the sake of this thought experiment we can apply the extremely conservative percentage of .000001% that these three conditions would be met in a particular dataset.  I think the odds are much higher than this, but for the sake of argument let’s say there’s only a .000001% chance of these conditions arising.

So based, on .000001%:

The SETI Institute estimates that there are 300,000,000 habitable planets in the Milky Way.  Of these, if we assume that .000001% of these planets has produced the species fulfilling the conditions above, there would be 3 species within the Milky way that are capable of visiting Earth.

If we move beyond the Milky Way, the odds are even more favorable. Mario Livio, an astrophysicist at the Space Telescope Science Institute estimates there could be between 100 billion and 200 billion galaxies in the universe.  Let’s assume 100 billion galaxies. 100 billion galaxies multiplied by 300 million habitable planets in each galaxy is 3e19.  With a .000001% chance of meeting the 3 conditions stated above (remember this species has solved the distance problem), there would be thousands of species capable of reaching Earth.  With 3,000,000,000,000,000,000 (3e19) planets capable of supporting life in the Universe, it's highly possible at least 1 of those has met the three conditions stated above, if not more.

 

Edited February 21, 2023 by Alex_Krycek

[swansont]

7 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

has solved the distance problem by harnessing a physical principle that human beings have yet to actualize.  Using this physical principle and the technology built upon it, they are able to traverse the galaxy efficiently.  By efficiently, I mean physical distance is basically irrelevant to them.  They have understood how to manipulate spacetime in such a way as  to go where they want, when they please.

IOW, you assert current physics is wrong, but can’t show it to be wrong, or present the physics that is “correct”

That’s science fiction, or possibly magic, not science. It’s not a serious argument.

[DanMP]

13 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

As established I have a different outlook - I think the odds of visitation by an intelligent extraterrestrial species are incredibly high given the number of habitable planets and the age of our universe.  I don't see alien visitations as abnormal - it was always only a matter of time.

8 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

We’re estimating the probability that an intelligent life form in the universe has:

1. achieved interspecies sustainability (i.e. they’ve moved past, or never encountered, the challenge of blowing themselves up
2. exists at the same time as humanity
3. has solved the distance problem by harnessing a physical principle that human beings have yet to actualize.  Using this physical principle and the technology built upon it, they are able to traverse the galaxy efficiently.  By efficiently, I mean physical distance is basically irrelevant to them.  They have understood how to manipulate spacetime in such a way as  to go where they want, when they please.

8 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The SETI Institute estimates that there are 300,000,000 habitable planets in the Milky Way.  Of these, if we assume that .000001% of these planets has produced the species fulfilling the conditions above, there would be 3 species within the Milky way that are capable of visiting Earth.

If we move beyond the Milky Way, the odds are even more favorable. Mario Livio, an astrophysicist at the Space Telescope Science Institute estimates there could be between 100 billion and 200 billion galaxies in the universe.  Let’s assume 100 billion galaxies. 100 billion galaxies multiplied by 300 million habitable planets in each galaxy is 3e19.  With a .000001% chance of meeting the 3 conditions stated above (remember this species has solved the distance problem), there would be thousands of species capable of reaching Earth.  With 3,000,000,000,000,000,000 (3e19) planets capable of supporting life in the Universe, it's highly possible at least 1 of those has met the three conditions stated above, if not more.

Ok, even if they "solved the distance problem by harnessing a physical principle that human beings have yet to actualize" (which is highly improbable), there are plenty of planets to visit, so the probability to be here, now, should be much lower than you think.

Another problem: if somehow aliens arrived here, what are they doing? Would you do such an effort just to play hide and seek?

Apart from UFO being misinterpreted natural phenomenons, there may be also other explanations, like secret military research/experiments, including genetic (see the creature in Brazil; it reminds me of Jurassic park).

[Alex_Krycek]

2 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Another problem: if somehow aliens arrived here, what are they doing? Would you do such an effort just to play hide and seek?

I think they're interested in the planet, not us.  We're part of the scenery - a nuisance for the most part.

As for playing hide and seek, the dark forest theory is a logical answer why they'd want to stay quiet.  Human beings are quite dangerous, even normal ones who aren't armed to the teeth.  

[TheVat]

13 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Does "scientific rigor" mean concocting self serving alternative explanations, rather than giving credence to the actual eye witness reports of people who were there?  Did Dunning visit Varginha or otherwise corroborate his theory with people who actually claim it was Mudhinho or whatever else he is positing?  If not, that doesn't sound very rigorous to me; it sounds more like confirmation bias - i.e. "I'll fabricate whatever convenient explanation I can to fit these unusual events into my narrative."  If you start out with a conclusion that something must be false, and then ignore anything to the contrary, that isn't a scientific approach.

What theory of Dunning's are you referring to?  He looked at the evidence and found it inconclusive.  The theory seems to be all Mr Fox's.  The "narrative" seems to be one fabricated by Friedman and swallowed whole by Fox.  Dunning was doing a form of peer review, the necessary step of looking to poke holes in the data and methods of collection and interpretation.  This is the essential part of science where errors and weak spots are discovered and hopefully remedied.   Science cannot rely upon rumors that spread through small towns, especially when they are years in the past and magnified by time and money.  Theories cannot be built from such.

14 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

You seem to fundamentally believe that the possibility of aliens visiting Earth is nonsense, that anyone reporting such events is engaged in  "hucksterism", and people who give credence to them are either gullible or trolls.  You've said as much in your previous posts.  

Your reading skills are not strong here.  I have said many times at SFn that there is some probability of ET contact, but factors in the Drake equation suggest it is far from clear what that P is.  Nor have I said witnesses are any one thing.  Undoubtedly, there are hucksters who take eyewitness accounts and massage them into lucrative narratives. Witnesses are a range of personal qualities, so each is evaluated on an array of factors that help determine reliability.

 

14 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

When you have this many credible witnesses who have no interest in lying, who corroborate each other in a logical way despite not knowing one another

Sentence assumes things you have yet to prove.  It is you who evidence a strong confirmation bias.  

Again, Sagan's Law is your friend.  

2 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

As for playing hide and seek, the dark forest theory is a logical answer why they'd want to stay quiet.  Human beings are quite dangerous, even normal ones who aren't armed to the teeth.  

Begs the question on all these contact reports you keep posting.  If their objective is quiet observation, what's up with all the up close and FTF stuff?  

[Alex_Krycek]

22 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Begs the question on all these contact reports you keep posting.  If their objective is quiet observation, what's up with all the up close and FTF stuff?  

In the Varginha case contact was unintentional.  The craft was either shot down or crashed.  The beings that were sighted were attempting to evade capture, not interact with the townspeople.  Intriguingly, one of the military policeman who allegedly captured one of the creatures died from an unknown infection 2 weeks later.  The doctor who treated him was interviewed in MOC.  What you'd expect if your immune system came into contact with an extraterrestrial bacteria.  

As for other encounters where there was seemingly intentional interaction:  the Ariel School landing, the Greater Barrington abductions, Betty and Barney hill, etc.  Probably some attempt at either communication or closer study of our species, for the same reason human scientists occasionally lift an animal out of its natural habitat.   

Could be they're slowly making themselves known, so as not to cause panic amongst us paranoid apes.  Slowly pulling back the curtain until the new reality is entrenched.    

With the Ariel school case I think that was an attempt to communicate via the culture, letting the story of the encounter filter down through the years, gaining greater and greater credibility.  Of all the cases that has the potential to tip the scales in terms of convincing the general public about the veracity of their existence, the Ariel School would be it.  If the secondary and tertiary effects of that encounter were indeed orchestrated, then we're dealing with a being of formidably high intelligence. 

[TheVat]

Your non-response to the major points of my previous post duly noted.  

Anyone who has investigated any incident knows that stories that "filter down through the years" do not gain in credibility or evidentiary value.  Passage of time muddies and contaminates evidence.

39 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

the Varginha case contact was unintentional.  The craft was either shot down or crashed.

assumes facts not in evidence

40 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The beings that were sighted were attempting to evade capture, not interact with the townspeople. 

assumes facts not in evidence 

40 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Intriguingly, one of the military policeman who allegedly captured one of the creatures died from an unknown infection 2 weeks later. 

assumes facts not in evidence 

...and the actual cause of the death was recorded, in the public record, and discovered by a researcher, one unbeguiled by an ET narrative.  As was linked earlier in this thread:

(Dunning again): Cherese, the young military police officer who died, did indeed die. The IPM report was not even necessary to tell us this, as there was nothing secret or strange about his death, which was reported in the newspapers. Cherese had had, for some time, a cyst under his left armpit, and had been scheduled for an operation to remove it even before the incident. Later, in the hospital, the surgical site became infected and he died — tragic, but neither unusual nor unexplained...

[Moontanman]

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

Your non-response to the major points of my previous post duly noted.  

Anyone who has investigated any incident knows that stories that "filter down through the years" do not gain in credibility or evidentiary value.  Passage of time muddies and contaminates evidence.

assumes facts not in evidence

assumes facts not in evidence 

assumes facts not in evidence 

...and the actual cause of the death was recorded, in the public record, and discovered by a researcher, one unbeguiled by an ET narrative.  As was linked earlier in this thread:

(Dunning again): Cherese, the young military police officer who died, did indeed die. The IPM report was not even necessary to tell us this, as there was nothing secret or strange about his death, which was reported in the newspapers. Cherese had had, for some time, a cyst under his left armpit, and had been scheduled for an operation to remove it even before the incident. Later, in the hospital, the surgical site became infected and he died — tragic, but neither unusual nor unexplained...

How about we change to a case that is somewhat more robust than the one we have been bashing in the above thread? Are you game? I have three, all of which involved the military and are well documented. No crashed spaceship or alien bodies so they cannot be "concrete" but are not easily debunked either. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

No crashed spaceship or alien bodies so they cannot be "concrete" but are not easily debunked either. 

Nothing needs to be debunked. The burden of proof is entirely on anyone claiming alien origin.

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

How about we change to a case that is somewhat more robust than the one we have been bashing in the above thread? Are you game? I have three, all of which involved the military and are well documented. No crashed spaceship or alien bodies so they cannot be "concrete" but are not easily debunked either. 

I'm game (he said, warily).  😀

Seriously, debunking implies an agenda, which as Swan points out is not what a scientific evaluation is about.  It's really just seeing where, if anyplace, a set of observations and measurements and so on takes us as to a conclusion.  Some events are just inconclusive in the traces they leave, some leave evidence that strongly suggest a terrestrial origin (the Marfa Lights seem to be an optical phenomenon with different temperature layers of desert air bending light from cars, IIRC), and some fall short of proving any hypothesis but do suggest possible hypotheses for future testing (like irradiated patches of soil, or EMF interference).

[Alex_Krycek]

8 hours ago, TheVat said:

Your non-response to the major points of my previous post duly noted.  

What "major points" are you referring to?     I thought I responded to your main argument already with my counter points.  

The points I received from your argument are:

• the eye witnesses can't be trusted because they're either stupid or lying (for financial reasons)
• the creator of the documentary or any material on UFOs is an opportunistic huckster merely out for financial gain
• Brian Dunning has the real facts on what happened
• eye witness testimony isn't real evidence (due in large part to point number 1)

What did I miss?  (genuine question)

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Alex_Krycek

[Moontanman]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Nothing needs to be debunked. The burden of proof is entirely on anyone claiming alien origin.

Again... I am not asserting alien origin, I know i used to do that but thanks to you and other people I now know that cannot currently be supported but the unexplained sightings with loads of data still remain. Their origin remains unknown but  that doesn't mean they are all conventional objects. All I ask is that people who do instigate these things are not ridiculed or dismissed out of hand. The phenomena is real and deserves to be investigated without ruining the reputations of those who do the investigations. 

This has improved in recent years to be sure, the subject has started to be taken seriously but the idea that "concrete" evidence has to be obvious before it can be taken seriously seems to be rampant on this forum as it was decades ago. Nothing can be discovered by people who assume there is nothing to be found.     

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

I'm game (he said, warily).  😀

Seriously, debunking implies an agenda, which as Swan points out is not what a scientific evaluation is about.  It's really just seeing where, if anyplace, a set of observations and measurements and so on takes us as to a conclusion.  Some events are just inconclusive in the traces they leave, some leave evidence that strongly suggest a terrestrial origin (the Marfa Lights seem to be an optical phenomenon with different temperature layers of desert air bending light from cars, IIRC), and some fall short of proving any hypothesis but do suggest possible hypotheses for future testing (like irradiated patches of soil, or EMF interference).

Debunking has, until quite recently, been the modes operandi of science and the government, I am glad to see this phenomena being taken seriously in recent years but even now it is being used by unscrupulous persons to make money. The skin walker ranch fiasco comes to mind. Charlatans are attracted like moths to a flame when money is involved. Is anyone else having problems with the spell check? 

Now that the video the phenomena is available on you tube we can pic it apart bit by bit. 

This one is interesting

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0Kr1TwKhQk

02:50 to 04:50

It's either a hoax or a real sighting of something extraordinary.  

 

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Again... I am not asserting alien origin,

Then what is needing to be "debunked" or "explained away"?

 

 

 

[Alex_Krycek]

10 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I am glad to see this phenomena being taken seriously in recent years but even now it is being used by unscrupulous persons to make money. The skin walker ranch fiasco comes to mind. Charlatans are attracted like moths to a flame when money is involved. Is anyone else having problems with the spell check?  

How much of SWR have you watched?  I didn't find it to be a fiasco at all.  Erik Bard and Travis S. Taylor are legit scientists running experiments to gather data and observe the phenomena at is occurs.  The theory about the "portal" or wormhole on the property seems to be the best explanation of the phenomena that is manifesting, especially considering the UAPs they have filmed seeming to enter and leaving said portal.

As for their purpose being financially driven, Brandon Fugal, the current owner of the ranch, is already a multi-millionaire commercial real estate investor.  I doubt he's trying to scam his way to his next million via a public TV show.  On the contrary, everyone on that team seems 100% genuinely interested in investigating the unexplained events that occur there.

Also highly recommend the book Hunt for the Skinwalker, by George Knapp, if you want to do a deep dive on whats occurred there.  The book documents the experiences of the previous owners of the ranch: the Shermans and also Robert Bigelow of Bigelow Aerospace, and the NIDS (National Institute of Discover Science) team he had working out there.  Fascinating book.   

Edited February 22, 2023 by Alex_Krycek

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

a multi-millionaire commercial real estate investor.  I doubt he's trying to scam his way to his next million via a public TV show.

Yeah, we've never seen anything like that before... 🙄

[TheVat]

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/claims-about-pentagon-ufo-program-how-much-is-true/

(from the SWR section of article)

Supposedly haunted and filled with all kinds of cryptids and paranormal phenomena, it was purchased in 1996 by Robert Bigelow to study its alleged phenomena. Members of Bigelow’s National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS) stayed on the ranch to do a careful first hand study. One of them was Colm Kelleher, Ph.D., co-author of the 2005 book Hunt for the Skinwalker. Another was Dr. Eric Davis, an astronomer who now works at Dr. Hal Puthoff’s Institute for Advanced Studies in Austin, Texas, studying weird physics. Despite Bigelow’s funding and the investigators’ unfettered access to the alleged phenomena,

after several years of [Sherman] family trauma and of focused NIDS investigation, we managed to obtain very little physical evidence of anomalous phenomena, at least no physical evidence that could be considered as conclusive proof of anything (Hunt for the Skinwalker, p. 209).

So, all the King’s Horses and all the King’s Men and all the King’s cameras and electronic recording devices could not document anything paranormal occurring at the Skinwalker Ranch, in spite of scientists spending several years onsite trying to do so. NIDS never did document anything much happening anywhere, so Bigelow shut down NIDS in 2004. In 2016 he sold the ranch to Adamantium Real Estate, LLC, whose once-anonymous owner has just revealed himself to be Brandon Fugal, a wealthy real estate investor from Salt Lake City. Fugal had previously been involved in weird science projects, like “an attempt to create a gravitational reduction device that could produce clean energy”. 

(....)

Not only was the yearslong monitoring of “Skinwalker” by NIDS unable to obtain proof of anything unusual happening, but the people who owned the property prior to the Shermans, a family whose members lived there 60 years, deny that any mysterious “phenomena” of any kind occurred there. The parsimonious explanation is that the supernatural claims about the ranch were made up by the Sherman family prior to selling it to the gullible Bigelow. Many of the really bizarre alleged incidents described in Hunt for the Skinwalker were witnessed only by Terry Sherman, who stayed on the ranch as a caretaker after it was sold to Bigelow.

[Moontanman]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Then what is needing to be "debunked" or "explained away"?

 

 

 

Again... During the "heyday" of UFOs, probably beginning in the 40s to the late 70s, after which the phenomena was pretty much ignored as anything but "crazy" the main goal of the air force was not to study but to debunk. Their motives were their own and few were privy to them but some scientists like J. Allen Hynek quite working for the air force due to the total lack of rigor concerning the phenomena. Hynek said that the air force was in the business of debunking not studying the sightings and expected him to explain them away no matter how unlikely the "explanation" was. The air force would tout the sightings they could explain while actually hiding info on the ones they could not. They ended up withholding evidence from Hynek and keeping him from having access to witnesses considered to be highly competent like air force pilots and gun camera footage.   

23 minutes ago, TheVat said:

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/claims-about-pentagon-ufo-program-how-much-is-true/

(from the SWR section of article)

Supposedly haunted and filled with all kinds of cryptids and paranormal phenomena, it was purchased in 1996 by Robert Bigelow to study its alleged phenomena. Members of Bigelow’s National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS) stayed on the ranch to do a careful first hand study. One of them was Colm Kelleher, Ph.D., co-author of the 2005 book Hunt for the Skinwalker. Another was Dr. Eric Davis, an astronomer who now works at Dr. Hal Puthoff’s Institute for Advanced Studies in Austin, Texas, studying weird physics. Despite Bigelow’s funding and the investigators’ unfettered access to the alleged phenomena,

after several years of [Sherman] family trauma and of focused NIDS investigation, we managed to obtain very little physical evidence of anomalous phenomena, at least no physical evidence that could be considered as conclusive proof of anything (Hunt for the Skinwalker, p. 209).

So, all the King’s Horses and all the King’s Men and all the King’s cameras and electronic recording devices could not document anything paranormal occurring at the Skinwalker Ranch, in spite of scientists spending several years onsite trying to do so. NIDS never did document anything much happening anywhere, so Bigelow shut down NIDS in 2004. In 2016 he sold the ranch to Adamantium Real Estate, LLC, whose once-anonymous owner has just revealed himself to be Brandon Fugal, a wealthy real estate investor from Salt Lake City. Fugal had previously been involved in weird science projects, like “an attempt to create a gravitational reduction device that could produce clean energy”. 

(....)

Not only was the yearslong monitoring of “Skinwalker” by NIDS unable to obtain proof of anything unusual happening, but the people who owned the property prior to the Shermans, a family whose members lived there 60 years, deny that any mysterious “phenomena” of any kind occurred there. The parsimonious explanation is that the supernatural claims about the ranch were made up by the Sherman family prior to selling it to the gullible Bigelow. Many of the really bizarre alleged incidents described in Hunt for the Skinwalker were witnessed only by Terry Sherman, who stayed on the ranch as a caretaker after it was sold to Bigelow.

It is also disturbing that these people were deeply involved in the pentagons recent "investigation", I'm not sure how much influence they actually had but the skinwalker ranch program does not exactly bolster confidence.