pwagen Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Pwagon, are you asking me to purchase the book for you? What are you saying? Or are you saying all of the laboratories that confirmed the implants as manufactured out of extraterrestrial substance are not unbiased third party? I'm saying that until these labs have confirmed their results themselves, we can't know the author didn't manufacture the reports himself. He might as well have made everything up, from the implants even existing to him sending them in to the labs, to getting the results he claimed. I'm not sure how to say this more clearly, but you can't take what he writes in the book as an absolute truth without confirming with the labs in question. Name the labs.
swansont Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 By Tyson, do you mean the boxer? Why is this relevant here? Neil deGrasse Tyson. His last name is Tyson. A true scientist wouldn't have possibly mentioned the Drake Equation as anything close to valid, for it is entirely unscientific and nonmathematical. I understand why scientists cannot delve into the UFO/ET phenomenon. However, scientists would not lose respect, if, at least, they would not dismiss millions of UFO sightings around the world in derogatory manner or treat abductees like mental cases. The Drake equation is nonmathematical? How can an actual equation be nonmathematical? Your interpretation of Tyson's statements concerning argument from ignorance is off the mark. He was saying that everyone is susceptible to making the argument, and gave the reasons why this is plausible. (It also has interesting implications for religion, but that's OT for this conversation). There is no derogating going on here.
Klaynos Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Why? How will that make humans good witnesses all of a sudden? There are reports that are difficult to explain jumping from that to ebe is not something I could support. I'd be more interested if you could.provide a peer reviewed paper that shows how a metal can be proved to be extra terrestrial and it not just being a leap.
ResistETIntervention Posted March 20, 2013 Author Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) Pwagon, in the Appendix I of the book “The Aliens and the Scalpel,” the author stated that “Persons interested in pursuing the details further may contact the author through the publisher. Research is on-going, and future reports may be available from other sources.” The address of the publisher is: The Book Three, P.O. Box 16476, San Diego, CA 92176. The labs and other organizations the author consulted include Health Line Clinical Laboratories, Inc., International College of Surgeons, The University of Texas at San Antonio, National Institute for Discovery Science, and New Mexico Tech. In the appendix are photocopies of biological analysis reports, metallurgical data, and experimental XRD patterns along with published patterns of possible cladding phases, as well as the letter from Los Alamos National Labs, lab reports from New Mexico Tech identifying elemental composition of unknown sample, etc. Swansont, an equation is not an equation if the left-hand-side and the right-hand-side do not equal. Drake makes way too many assumptions in arriving at his so-called equation. By the way, I wasn’t born yesterday. Please try not to defend someone simply because he’s someone you admire or because you share the same interests. Anybody else can see clearly that Neil deGrasse was trying to exercise “spin and dirty tricks” to the letter. Klaynos, please consult the author of the aforementioned book through the publisher, if you're interested. Edited March 20, 2013 by ResistETIntervention
swansont Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 04:01, said: The astrophysicist Neil deGrasse in the video was an interesting fellow…contradictory, but a handsome and interesting fellow. He sort of reminded me of the handsome and charismatic Carl Sagan who had many friends in the positions of power in politics. He also said something like what Neil deGrasse said; he didn’t state whether we were being visited by aliens from outer space or not, but he made a video in which he attempted to “compute” the probability of intelligent beings in outer space who might wish to communicate with human beings, via Drake’s Equation – an equation that middle school student would find ludicrous. Yet, I’ve encountered people through forums such as this, who apparently considered themselves to be scientific and intelligent, would attempt to convince me that the possibility of intelligent beings existing in the universe is so low that it doesn’t concern us, according to the equation. Interesting, because most people I've encountered use the Drake equation to support the idea that we are not alone, even if abiogenesis is not a high-probability event. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 04:01, said: Was Carl Sagan artificially elevated to the position of a “celebrated scientist” by certain individuals in the positions of power, in order to keep the public ignorant about the phenomenon? Is Neil deGrasse? By the same token, do you know of anyone such as Karla Turner who exposed the sinister hidden activities the extraterrestrials have been carrying out and became a victim of denigration meant to discredit him/her? Neil deGrasse sat in his chair with an air of embarrassment that he should even be responding to a topic such as the UFO/ET phenomenon, in his position as an astrophysicist. He had a big telescope stationed behind him to ensure that the audience recognized his standing as a scientist. Or was he possibly attempting to spot UFOs or a star in the studio/auditorium? Appeal to ridicule is not a good path to start down. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 04:01, said: He began with a joke that “I’m not authorized to answer that.” That is actually the only true statement he spoke in the course of that 11-minute video clip. He is NOT authorized to answer any questions on the UFO/ET phenomenon because his intention was to belittle witnesses and abductees and trivialize their testimonies and the phenomenon. You don't really know his intent, and neither do I, but that's not what he as doing. Given his intelligence and talent for oration, I suspect that if he did, he'd have done a better job. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 04:01, said: Neil deGrasse dropped the title “psychologists” many times in his speech, in order to allude to the audience that UFO witnesses and abductees are mental cases. No, you're making this up. You don't actually know it. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 04:01, said: Neil deGrasse is employing that method to the letter in order to denigrate UFO witnesses and abductees. Again, no. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 04:01, said: Neil deGrasse also said that if people see a UFO, then it is “unidentified” so the conversation should stop there. Isn’t it odd that a scientist should say this? Human minds will tend to reason out and derive conclusions when they observe an incidence that cannot be explained. If it cannot be explained, then assigning an explanation — a conclusion — is wrong. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 04:01, said: This is the first step of the scientific method: observe and form a hypothesis. If unidentified flying objects are immobile or moving in such ways that cannot possibly be explained away as weather phenomenon, atmospheric phenomenon, meteors, meteorites, airplanes, helicopters, or birds, then the next logical thing to hypothesize is that they must be extraterrestrial spaceships. Observing and forming hypotheses have been what people are taught to do as the first step of carrying out the scientific method. Yet, the scientist encourages people to stop at the observation and move on with their lives. Should they? Yes, I mean the scientists. Should they stop at the observation and move on with their lives? Could they do so as scientists? They’re more interested in watching stars far away in the universe than the strange phenomenon of UFOs occurring right here in our world. How could they possibly? It’s quite absurd. First of all, cannot possibly be explained isn't what's going on here. The bar is set much lower than that. Cannot trivially be explained, perhaps. Argument about whether ET is the next logical thing to hypothesize aside, hypotheses must be tested before you accept them. You investigate the predictions they make and test these predictions. One prediction is that there must be a way for ET beings to get from one solar system to another on a fairly regular basis and superluminal travel is mention. But there is no independent confirmation of superluminal travel, and that contradicts known physics. That's a show-stopper right there. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 04:01, said: He also said that the public has the “burning need to have the answer to what is unknown.” Ummm…isn’t that the very need all scientists have? Isn’t that why they became scientists? Shouldn’t that be their attitude? You missed the caveat that a scientist is OK with not having answers, because they live at the edge of the unknown. They have to resist the temptation to fill in the unknown with ideology or conveniences that have not been scientifically established. A scientist has to be willing to say that we don't know yet why something happens, instead of making up a reason. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 04:01, said: Yet, with millions of sightings all over the world with evidence that have been mounting over the past six decades, he sat there in a chair complacently and told the audience that they shouldn’t try to seek any answer to what is unknown - apparently because such strange phenomenon does not interest scientists such as himself? I don't recall him saying anything like that. (of course, given the reliance on reliability of personal observation, you must accept that as fact). ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 04:01, said: They would spend enormous amount of money on high-tech devices to observe stars that are light years away, which have no immediate bearing on our lives, but he casually dismisses the UFO phenomenon occurring in our world as just “unknown phenomenon,” the event which laymen should not even bother to delve into, let alone the scientists themselves? Hmmm…. Interesting….contradictory but interesting…. We have lots of evidence that stars exist, and testable models of how they work. Nobody is stopping the UFO community from attempting to do actual valid research. People are begging — including Tyson in the video — for them to do it. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 04:01, said: Neil deGrassed said that “the lowest form of evidence in this world is eyewitness evidence,” although these are used to determine people’s fate in the court of law. He even had a second-grade boy ready at a microphone to demonstrate that ear-witness is unreliable, in order to suggest that those who rely on the testimonies of other witnesses of UFOs are less intelligent than second-grade elementary school students. Relying on eyewitness testimony is a bad strategy. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 04:01, said: He even mentioned that camera/video evidences are not acceptable, either. Since extraterrestrial spaceships can travel at such unearthly high velocities, the only way authentic photos or videos can be produced is if the UFO witnesses happen to have a camcorder or cameras handy by chance at the time they were sighting. I certainly didn’t have any such devices handy when I sighted UFOs. However, don’t these scientists have access to high-tech equipment (satellites, high resolutions telescopes, etc.) to observe such incidences around the clock and record them? If not, since, apparently, none of the scientists have ever sighted UFOs, they really don’t have any authorities to even speak about the phenomenon, do they? That does beg the question though, as to why people with good equipment never observe ET. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 04:01, said: He stated that witness’ testimonies, photos, and videos do not satisfy any scientists’ requirements as evidence. Witness’ testimonies, photos, and videos cannot satisfy their requirements? Aren’t these the same people who totally believed the Einstein’s relativity theory that “prohibits” any objects from travelling at superluminal speed, the theory that was not even formed from empirical data? Formed as an hypothesis, yes. Accepted as a theory, no. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 04:01, said: Aren’t these the same people who believe in space-time warp and wormholes, even though there were absolutely no empirical data to support their theories? Aren’t these the same people who created a whole quantum theory based on the existence of quarks that have never been observed but imagined? So, in order to satisfy their requirements of evidence, people must come up with some outlandish theories rather than providing actual physical evidences or testimonies based on observations? Science certainly has changed a lot, hasn’t it? If you're suggesting that quantum mechanics doesn't have scientific evidence to support it (including evidence for quarks) you will likely lose any credibility you might still have. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 04:01, said: He also mentioned “optical illusion” as “brain failure” in his attempt to brainwash the pacified audience that UFO witnesses have mistaken “optical illusory” incidences as UFOs and that their brains have failed them because they were seeing such incidences. Try telling this to millions of witnesses all around the globe. How odd that, all of a sudden, modern people with all they know cannot even distinguish UFOs from birds or light glows around clouds… Are you challenging the existence of optical illusions? Or claiming that smart people aren't fooled by them? ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 04:01, said: Neil deGrasse questioned why extraterrestrial spaceships always land on farmers’ lands instead of Times Square. Then he made a mocking joke with a person sitting next to him that perhaps it did land on Times Square, but people didn’t even notice it. He obviously read a thing or two about crop circles that cannot be explained away, so he made a mockery out of it. People seem to feel empowered by making mockeries out of and laughing at things that they cannot explain. The Extraterrestrial Intervention is here to conquer the world covertly. They will not land their spaceships in a crowded place such as Times Square……until they have already attained their goal and are ready to present themselves to the public. It's funny how crop circles are confirmed hoaxes — hoaxers have admitted it and showed how it was done — and yet some still believe that they are evidence of UFOs. Swansont, an equation is not an equation if the left-hand-side and the right-hand-side do not equal. By the way, I wasn’t born yesterday. Please try not to defend someone simply because he’s someone you admire or because you share the same interests. Anybody else can see clearly that he was trying to exercise “spin and dirty tricks” to the letter. You'll have to be more specific about your objection. AFAIK, in the Drake equation the left-hand-side and the right-hand-side are equal What if it's supposed to be an inequality? That's not a mathematical equation? Also, you've shown yourself to be bad at guessing motives, so my suggestion is not to attempt this. My motivation for defending what Tyson said is immaterial. You characterized some science incorrectly; that's all the motivation I need. That you paint this as spin and dirty tricks is just a straw man, i.e. your own spin. 2
SplitInfinity Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 I have to say that the number of claimed Abductions by E.T.'s claimed by people is a rediculously high number. The number of people claiming to have been abducted boarders on almost ZERO% Probability as given the number of people and the dates and approx. time spend aboard E.T. craft as well as if one were to take the single highest number of claimed abductions within a specific year it would be almost IMPOSSIBLE that a VERY LARGE NUMBER of people would have witnessed at least some of these claimed E.T. crafts abducting people. In some cases a single city in one specific week had over 400 claimed abductions. Since this was a large city...Chicago and the immediate surrounding area...the numbers show it would be close to 60 abductions a week...averaging over 9 abductions a NIGHT...as all claimed to have been abducted at night...and over 95% claimed to have been abducted between the hours of 9pm and 3am...thus 1.5 abduction an HOUR...in a major city...of MILLIONS of people. There is NO WAY that if this actually happened that a HUGE number of people would not have witnessed most of these claimed abductions. This is not to say that abductions do not occur...they do...but nowhere in the same or even close numbers claimed and definitely not in a major city. The problem is that because many people need the attention given to abductees...the actual abductees who are very few in number...find that their claims fall on deaf ears. I know this is not giving any proof but I will put it out there anyways. Of the things I know it was made known to me that both NASA as well as the U.S. Agency who's name is unknown to me and this agency is tasked with handeling ANYTHING related to E.T....that both these entities are aware of more than several races of E.T.'s. I was also made aware that by agreement or treaty...which supposedly took more than two decades...and the inability to form this treaty due to complications of understanding as well as the U.S. REFUSAL to give up either E.T. craft wreakage or E.T. bodies...that the Washington DC Mass Flyovers by E.T. craft in the late 1950's and late 1960"s were a result of this failure to come to an agreement. Although I am just guessing about this next statement...I believe that the U.S. Military and Civilian groups that dealt with this issue purposely dragged their feet in pretending to not understand the E.T. attempts at communication as there was no desire to give back or loose any E.T. Technology or Biologics. After a treaty was agreed upon...the U.S. Agencies were able to gain a very small amount of leverage as even though we had no ability to stop them if they really desired to get their property back...it has been said for them to do so would have been..Too Overt. Because of this small amount of leverage gained we were able to limit but not stop abductions as a much lower number was agreed upon as well as we were able to cease any abductions were the subject was never returned. Although this seems like a deal with the Devil...given our complete and total inability to do ANYTHING about it previously...the deal is considered a WIN. One other point was supposedly agreed upon and I was told that in exchange for specific cooperation...and I believe some of it is specific to not coming near Underwater E.T. Bases with our Navy...this specific E.T. race agreed to fend off when able several specific E.T. races know to them that place zero value upon Human Life as abductees supposedly suffered terribly as well as their children for many years and in some cases were used for horrific purposes such as a Lab Rat would be. Split Infinity
swansont Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 I know this is not giving any proof but I will put it out there anyways. Why? Despite the dubious nature of the topic, we're still trying to have a science-based discussion.
ResistETIntervention Posted March 20, 2013 Author Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) [by Swansont] Interesting, because most people I've encountered use the Drake equation to support the idea that we are not alone, even if abiogenesis is not a high-probability event. Actually, that is the ostensible idea. When people all over the world are sighting extraterrestrial vehicles (yes, some very up close), and people are being abducted (some even recall the abduction experiences), and people are supporting Drake’s “equation” to claim that we’re not alone is analogous to claiming that there is a chance, though not very good, that there could be thieves and rapists in the world. [by Swansont] Appeal to ridicule is not a good path to start down. I agree. [by Swansont] You don't really know his intent, and neither do I, but that's not what he as doing. Given his intelligence and talent for oration, I suspect that if he did, he'd have done a better job. On the contrary, he is doing a good enough job of it. Do you really know his intent, or mine, for that matter? [by Swansont] If it cannot be explained, then assigning an explanation — a conclusion — is wrong. Isn’t that what he was doing throughout the clip? He even suggested that abductees should grab a souvenir from the spaceship “the next time they get abducted,” because then, he might be willing to speak with them. That is, he concluded that abduction phenomenon is non-existent. Otherwise, how much more callous can a person get? [by Swansont] First of all, cannot possibly be explained isn't what's going on here. The bar is set much lower than that. Cannot trivially be explained, perhaps. Please do some research on the phenomenon before “assigning an explanation – a conclusion.” [by Swansont] Argument about whether ET is the next logical thing to hypothesize aside, hypotheses must be tested before you accept them. You investigate the predictions they make and test these predictions. One prediction is that there must be a way for ET beings to get from one solar system to another on a fairly regular basis and superluminal travel is mention. But there is no independent confirmation of superluminal travel, and that contradicts known physics. That's a show-stopper right there. Actually, the hypotheses that UFOs are extraterrestrial spaceships and extraterrestrials have been abducting people are not hypotheses or theories. They are reality. They cannot be tested by scientists or laymen because these extraterrestrial beings carry out their activities covertly and possess technology that is beyond current human technology. Please do not presume that physics known to human beings are at the peak of its evolution. [by Swansont] You missed the caveat that a scientist is OK with not having answers, because they live at the edge of the unknown. They have to resist the temptation to fill in the unknown with ideology or conveniences that have not been scientifically established. A scientist has to be willing to say that we don't know yet why something happens, instead of making up a reason. Let me ask you the same question I asked three other people in this thread. What scientific proofs are you seeking regarding this phenomenon, given that they possess more advanced technology and carry out their activities clandestinely? Please read my response to Pwagon regarding the extraterrestrial implants removed from abductees. A scientist who is not willing to investigate strange events that are clearly occurring in the world is not a true scientist. I understand all the obstacles true scientists face in attempting to delve into the phenomenon more deeply, seriously, and earnestly. However, there also exist scientists who intentionally mislead people to keep them ignorant by exploiting the fact that these laymen rely on scientists - as experts - to provide them answers. If scientists don’t have answers, then they should explore further instead of making mockeries of abductees’ experiences and denying people’s sightings of UFOs is “not a good path to start down.” That is very unprofessional, to say the least. [by Swansont] Nobody is stopping the UFO community from attempting to do actual valid research. People are begging — including Tyson in the video — for them to do it. What is a UFO community? You make it seem as if UFO/ET phenomenon is occurring only to the “UFO community.” It is occurring globally. It concerns every one of seven billion some people including you and Neil deGrasse. Neil deGrasse is begging whom to do the research? Shouldn’t he do is himself, since he is an astrophysicist with all the high tech instruments and his expertise? [by Swansont] Relying on eyewitness testimony is a bad strategy. So why don’t we disregard all the eyewitness’ testimonies and pretend that the UFO/ET phenomenon is not occurring, while people including children and babies are getting abducted? Could you honestly do that? [by Swansont] That does beg the question though, as to why people with good equipment never observe ET. It is a naïve stance to assume that the official stance of such organizations is the actual stance, in light of the phenomenon. You probably knew this, of course. [by Swansont] ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 04:01, said:He stated that witness’ testimonies, photos, and videos do not satisfy any scientists’ requirements as evidence. Witness’ testimonies, photos, and videos cannot satisfy their requirements? Aren’t these the same people who totally believed the Einstein’s relativity theory that “prohibits” any objects from travelling at superluminal speed, the theory that was not even formed from empirical data? Formed as an hypothesis, yes. Accepted as a theory, no. Yet, he also said that if people see unidentified flying objects, then it should stop there, instead of forming any hypotheses. Please do make up your mind, you and him both. [by Swansont] If you're suggesting that quantum mechanics doesn't have scientific evidence to support it (including evidence for quarks) you will likely lose any credibility you might still have. Since you seem to have much credibility, please do provide “scientific evidence” or “physical evidence” of the existence of quarks. [by Swansont] Are you challenging the existence of optical illusions? Or claiming that smart people aren't fooled by them? What do you think Neil deGrasse meant? [by Swansont] It's funny how crop circles are confirmed hoaxes — hoaxers have admitted it and showed how it was done — and yet some still believe that they are evidence of UFOs. It’s not that funny and they aren’t confirmed as hoaxes at all. Please do some further research on this, rather than reading one incidence of hoaxers. [by Swansont] You'll have to be more specific about your objection. AFAIK, in the Drake equation the left-hand-side and the right-hand-side are equal. What if it's supposed to be an inequality? That's not a mathematical equation? Also, you've shown yourself to be bad at guessing motives, so my suggestion is not to attempt this. My motivation for defending what Tyson said is immaterial. You characterized some science incorrectly; that's all the motivation I need. That you paint this as spin and dirty tricks is just a straw man, i.e. your own spin. First, it is “Drake’s equation,” not “Drake’s inequality.” Also, if it is an inequality, the probability that intelligent life exists is anywhere between 0 and 1 according to the equation, and that doesn’t say much, does it? Anybody can tell you that. Here again, you’re trying to defend the equation, even by converting it to a useless inequality. I’m not sure how I have shown to be bad at guessing motives, since you don’t know what his motives are, either. Isn’t that so? You need to see beyond the seeming reality to see what is really occurring. Regarding Drake Equation…… here, if we are very honest, we will come to the conclusion that human beings cannot know anything about the realities of life in the universe. Carl Sagan explained the Drake Equation in a youtube video. I didn’t know there could be an equation that could determine the likelihood of the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial beings in our galaxy that may be interested in human beings and capable of navigating a vehicle to travel across the space to get to our world. Here, we realize that the only way an equation can be formulated is by guesses based on too many assumptions to be considered scientific. Human science has evolved only so much to make a crude guess at the number of stars in our Milky Way Galaxy and even cruder guess at the number of stars that have planets around them. What’s more, before taking a further even cruder guess at the number of planets that are capable of sustaining life per star, we need to realize that human beings cannot possibly guess what sort of conditions extraterrestrial creatures can survive or under what conditions extraterrestrial life or intelligent life can evolve. Further, we cannot possibly know what methods technologically advanced worlds would use to communicate and whether or not any of them desire to communicate with us. The assumption that they would use radio waves to broadcast their communications out into the space eagerly seeking any intelligent beings out there is born from human perspectives: naïve, hopeful, ignorant of life in the universe... We then realize that any equation formulated to attempt to take a very, very crude guess at the probability of any intelligent beings in the galaxy, that are able to communicate to us or travel to this planet would be a futile attempt. The only conclusion we can honestly reach is that human beings have not technologically evolved enough to travel into the space and do not have the vantage point from which to observe life in the universe. Again, regarding the Drake Equation.... it is intended to make a very crude, uneducated guess at the probability of the existence of an earth-like planet in a solar system like ours and of intelligent beings like human beings with similar desires as human beings who communicate via radio waves and are at a similar evolutionary stage and at a similar stage of technological development. It is not an equation that can be relied upon to determine the existence of intelligent beings in this galaxy or the universe, who can survive in very different conditions from those that human beings can, who have very different cultures, philosophies, values, ideologies, and desires from those of human beings, and who are at different evolutionary stages and at different stages of technological development, using different methods of communication from those that human beings use. The universe is filled with intelligent beings at every evolutionary stage conceivable. Those who have witnessed UFOs up close or even from a distance, or those who have had unfortunate, premature encounters with various aliens can attest to that fact to some degree. [by Split Infinity] In some cases a single city in one specific week had over 400 claimed abductions. Since this was a large city...Chicago and the immediate surrounding area...the numbers show it would be close to 60 abductions a week...averaging over 9 abductions a NIGHT...as all claimed to have been abducted at night...and over 95% claimed to have been abducted between the hours of 9pm and 3am...thus 1.5 abduction an HOUR...in a major city...of MILLIONS of people. Could you please cite the source? [by Split Infinity] One other point was supposedly agreed upon and I was told that in exchange for specific cooperation...and I believe some of it is specific to not coming near Underwater E.T. Bases with our Navy...this specific E.T. race agreed to fend off when able several specific E.T. races know to them that place zero value upon Human Life as abductees supposedly suffered terribly as well as their children for many years and in some cases were used for horrific purposes such as a Lab Rat would be. Are you implying that there are extraterrestrial races present in the world or in the solar system that humanity can rely on? Edited March 20, 2013 by ResistETIntervention
Moontanman Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) Sure. Try not to get the topic locked until I get off work. By Tyson, do you mean the boxer? Why is this relevant here? I have to say that the number of claimed Abductions by E.T.'s claimed by people is a rediculously high number. You know what else has nothing but anecdotal evidence? Fairies. My big issue with most of these things comes down to two things, eye witness reports are known to be fundamentally flawed and just because you, I or everyone cannot explain something doesn't mean you immediately jump to aliens, we don't know is a valid answer especially when the events are not repeatable. Interesting, because most people I've encountered use the Drake equation to support the idea that we are not alone, even if abiogenesis is not a high-probability event. Why can't we all just get along.... sorry, I couldn't help myself. If all we want to do is talk about alien abductions, fairies at the bottom of our gardens and how science is orchestrating a huge cover up or make vapid claims about witnesses being unreliable then we need to stop this right now. All of the claims both pro and con are valid to a point, alien abduction is almost certainly a psychological phenomena, there is serious doubt about the veracity of the Dr. who claims they were made of "obviously extraterrestrial" material even the existence of these object has not stood up to peer review. Writing book doesn't automatically make you right... Eye witness accounts can be seriously flawed, this is true, but multiple independent eye witness accounts backed up by radar and many of the witnesses being trained observers has a bit more weight than some drukin' idiot who passed and out and woke up thinking he saw aliens. These objects have been seen and photographed as well as painted by radar, they have left physical traces and even pieces have been found and analyzed (the results were indeterminate) The phenomena is a mystery, in fact i am sure it is several different mysteries unfortunately combined into one. What they are I don't know but to me not knowing means more investigation is needed. Ridiculing them out of hand serves no one any better than believing all of it with out any filters. We need to concentrate on the best reports that cannot be explained, trying to include reports that are silly or simply have too little data to be eliminate possibilities gets us no place but a merry go round of conspiracy theories and finger pointing. There really are some cases that beg for more investigation, we are rapidly approaching an era of technology where we should be able to detect any alien space craft that comes close to the earth, perhaps even those any place inside our solar system. Conspiracy theories and ridicule get us no place, the only sensible way to discuss this is to site specific incidences and see if they can be explained in a reasonable way if not then they are unknowns but even unknowns can be intelligently speculated about if there is a reasonable amount of data. Even if it turns out there is no reason to suppose the alien hypothesis there is still a huge gap in our knowledge when we try to explain why humans see these things, if it is psychological even that could teach us something interesting about the human brain. My main objection to the idea of aliens visiting us has nothing to to with the Drak equation, the quality of eye witnesses, or any lack of evidence... Humanoids, why are they virtually always humanoids? Why are there so many of them considering the travel times between stars why would they bother to land in Joe Blows back yard instead of contact us from orbit? Why all the anal probes? Some of this stuff at least smacks of humans having delusions. But saying there are is no physical evidence is simply not true... The US military is guilty of a cover up, what they were or are covering up is debatable. And yes i have anecdotal reports told to me by military personal, no I don't mean something I read about it but real people in real time telling me what they saw... interesting but still not evidence... Edited March 20, 2013 by Moontanman
ydoaPs Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Klaynos, please read the posts by “Split Infinity” above. Please read the book “Taken” by Dr. Karla Turner – it’s a book of collection of the testimonies by abductees, some of whom recall part of the abduction on their own.There's no such thing as recall "on their own". They aren't isolated from their culture. In a different time and place, they'd probably be recalling their abduction by fairies (the American version of fairies is nowhere near as cool as the actual mythology-which, incidentally, has had the same type of "evidence" as alien abductions) instead. Human memory is horrible. Every time a memory is recalled, it is possible to be changed. And that's without external factors.Also, please read the book “The Aliens and Scalpel” by Roger Leir who have been extracting extraterrestrial implants from abductees’ bodies.How do they know the things pulled from the bodies are "alien implants"? Have the been tested for unknown alloys and technology? What do the "implants" do? How do we know? My money is that they're things like calcification or metal splinters. 1
swansont Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 I just ran across this new post at Uncertain Principles, and this stands out in light of this discussion Stripped to its essentials, science is a four-step process: you look at something interesting in the world, you think about why it might work that way, you test your idea with further observations and experiments, and you tell everybody you know what you found. The problem is that, in general, the UFO crowd is truncating step 2, skipping step 3, and going on to step 4. You can't skip step 3 and be taken seriously by the science community.
Moontanman Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 There's no such thing as recall "on their own". They aren't isolated from their culture. In a different time and place, they'd probably be recalling their abduction by fairies (the American version of fairies is nowhere near as cool as the actual mythology-which, incidentally, has had the same type of "evidence" as alien abductions) instead. Human memory is horrible. Every time a memory is recalled, it is possible to be changed. And that's without external factors.How do they know the things pulled from the bodies are "alien implants"? Have the been tested for unknown alloys and technology? What do the "implants" do? How do we know? My money is that they're things like calcification or metal splinters. I agree, alien abduction is almost certainly an extension of human brains and things like waking dreams. Humans have been "seeing" things like succubus and incubus and the associated mythology for many years. a great many abduction cases strain the credibility of anyone with a rational mind, being abducted from the middle of a large apartment building in the center of a large city just can't be true on any level humans can understand... I just ran across this new post at Uncertain Principles, and this stands out in light of this discussion The problem is that, in general, the UFO crowd is truncating step 2, skipping step 3, and going on to step 4. You can't skip step 3 and be taken seriously by the science community. While i agree I think that ridicule started by the military to ward off any real investigation has contributed to this and left the area open to pseudo science. Any realistic attempt to study what is going on would take huge sums of money away from "real" research, this attitude that all UFO report must be hogwash gets us nothing in return but hogwash... The fact that the military has a term for radar contacts entering and leaving the earths atmosphere because they happen regularly is something that begs investigation not dismissal... I wish i knew how to proceed on this, past reports that really needed to be investigated were dismissed by the military in ways that were insulting to anyone with half a brain and these explanations were used to ridicule anyone who wanted to look deeper. Now it's really too late to investigate them and these days the popularity of hoaxes poisons the well so thoroughly no real conspiracy is necessary...
swansont Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 10:05, said: Actually, that is the ostensible idea. When people all over the world are sighting extraterrestrial vehicles (yes, some very up close), and people are being abducted (some even recall the abduction experiences), and people are supporting Drake’s “equation” to claim that we’re not alone is analogous to claiming that there is a chance, though not very good, that there could be thieves and rapists in the world. This is the opposite of what you earlier stated regarding the Drake equation. And I renew my objection to saying that these people saw extraterrestrial vehicles; they saw UFOs. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 10:05, said: On the contrary, he is doing a good enough job of it. Do you really know his intent, or mine, for that matter? I stated I don't know his intent, and I don't care. I don't know your intent, and I don't care. You are, however making dubious claims and stating falsehoods, and that I do care about. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 10:05, said: Isn’t that what he was doing throughout the clip? He even suggested that abductees should grab a souvenir from the spaceship “the next time they get abducted,” because then, he might be willing to speak with them. That is, he concluded that abduction phenomenon is non-existent. Otherwise, how much more callous can a person get? He's stating the threshold of acceptable evidence. Callousness doesn't enter into it. Telling someone they are mistaken, or they have not presented valid evidence, is not an insult. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 10:05, said: Please do some research on the phenomenon before “assigning an explanation – a conclusion.” I have. I have seen how many UFO sightings are subsequently explained. How can that be, if UFO sightings are those that "cannot possibly be explained" ? ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 10:05, said: Actually, the hypotheses that UFOs are extraterrestrial spaceships and extraterrestrials have been abducting people are not hypotheses or theories. They are reality. They cannot be tested by scientists or laymen because these extraterrestrial beings carry out their activities covertly and possess technology that is beyond current human technology. Please do not presume that physics known to human beings are at the peak of its evolution. You can only claim reality if you have met the burden of scientific proof. The video explains, to some extent, what is and isn't considered valid scientific evidence. If the physics of the situation is unknown to us, then we conclude that it's unknown. You don't get to actually use "then a miracle occurs" ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 10:05, said: Let me ask you the same question I asked three other people in this thread. What scientific proofs are you seeking regarding this phenomenon, given that they possess more advanced technology and carry out their activities clandestinely? If they carry out their activities clandestinely, how is it that there are any sightings at all? I want the same level of scientific evidence that any other scientific endeavor demands. Repeatability of observation or experiment plays a large part of that (one reason why eyewitness reports are not evidence) ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 10:05, said: Please read my response to Pwagon regarding the extraterrestrial implants removed from abductees. A scientist who is not willing to investigate strange events that are clearly occurring in the world is not a true scientist. I understand all the obstacles true scientists face in attempting to delve into the phenomenon more deeply, seriously, and earnestly. However, there also exist scientists who intentionally mislead people to keep them ignorant by exploiting the fact that these laymen rely on scientists - as experts - to provide them answers. If scientists don’t have answers, then they should explore further instead of making mockeries of abductees’ experiences and denying people’s sightings of UFOs is “not a good path to start down.” That is very unprofessional, to say the least. I was wondering when "blame the scientist" would make its appearance. No, I do not owe you my time; I have my own experiments to run. If you want to make the observations, go ahead and do them. You've been given the ground rules. There are many "amateur" scientists out there who do make contributions to their field, e.g. astronomers. They gather actual data and apply rigor. You have no excuse not to do the same, and you don't get to blame others for doing your work for you. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 10:05, said: What is a UFO community? You make it seem as if UFO/ET phenomenon is occurring only to the “UFO community.” It is occurring globally. It concerns every one of seven billion some people including you and Neil deGrasse. Neil deGrasse is begging whom to do the research? Shouldn’t he do is himself, since he is an astrophysicist with all the high tech instruments and his expertise? He's an astrophysicist. He should be doing the research that interests him. This is your job and your burden of proof. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 10:05, said: So why don’t we disregard all the eyewitness’ testimonies and pretend that the UFO/ET phenomenon is not occurring, while people including children and babies are getting abducted? Could you honestly do that? This is a circular argument. You haven't presented any legitimate evidence that this is happening. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 10:05, said: It is a naïve stance to assume that the official stance of such organizations is the actual stance, in light of the phenomenon. You probably knew this, of course. Yet, he also said that if people see unidentified flying objects, then it should stop there, instead of forming any hypotheses. Please do make up your mind, you and him both. Since you seem to have much credibility, please do provide “scientific evidence” or “physical evidence” of the existence of quarks. We have a number of threads discussing quarks where you can get the particulars. Deep inelastic scattering experiments showing three charge centers were observed in neutrons and protons, to name one. Further discussion here is OT, but by all means read and ask in the appropriate thread. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 10:05, said: What do you think Neil deGrasse meant? I was asking what you meant. What I think Tyson meant is that eyewitness observation is notoriously unreliable and your eyes and brain can be tricked. Easily. Which is pretty much what he said. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 10:05, said: It’s not that funny and they aren’t confirmed as hoaxes at all. Please do some further research on this, rather than reading one incidence of hoaxers. Not being confirmed hoaxes does not lead one to the conclusion that they are the result of ET. Some of them are. The idea that they MUST be ET in origin is therefore debunked. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 10:05, said: First, it is “Drake’s equation,” not “Drake’s inequality.” Also, if it is an inequality, the probability that intelligent life exists is anywhere between 0 and 1 according to the equation, and that doesn’t say much, does it? Anybody can tell you that. Here again, you’re trying to defend the equation, even by converting it to a useless inequality. I’m not sure how I have shown to be bad at guessing motives, since you don’t know what his motives are, either. Isn’t that so? It shows the probability (or number of systems, depending on the version you use) of planets/systems where you might expect intelligent life to arise. So it is an equation, then. Right? My reference to inequality was a demonstration of the inadequacy of your definition. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 10:05, said: You need to see beyond the seeming reality to see what is really occurring. Regarding Drake Equation…… here, if we are very honest, we will come to the conclusion that human beings cannot know anything about the realities of life in the universe. Carl Sagan explained the Drake Equation in a youtube video. I didn’t know there could be an equation that could determine the likelihood of the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial beings in our galaxy that may be interested in human beings and capable of navigating a vehicle to travel across the space to get to our world. Here, we realize that the only way an equation can be formulated is by guesses based on too many assumptions to be considered scientific. The only way we can assign values to the equation is by guessing or estimating. That's not the same as the equation itself "being mathematical" or not. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 10:05, said: Human science has evolved only so much to make a crude guess at the number of stars in our Milky Way Galaxy and even cruder guess at the number of stars that have planets around them. What’s more, before taking a further even cruder guess at the number of planets that are capable of sustaining life per star, we need to realize that human beings cannot possibly guess what sort of conditions extraterrestrial creatures can survive or under what conditions extraterrestrial life or intelligent life can evolve. Further, we cannot possibly know what methods technologically advanced worlds would use to communicate and whether or not any of them desire to communicate with us. The assumption that they would use radio waves to broadcast their communications out into the space eagerly seeking any intelligent beings out there is born from human perspectives: naïve, hopeful, ignorant of life in the universe... We then realize that any equation formulated to attempt to take a very, very crude guess at the probability of any intelligent beings in the galaxy, that are able to communicate to us or travel to this planet would be a futile attempt. The only conclusion we can honestly reach is that human beings have not technologically evolved enough to travel into the space and do not have the vantage point from which to observe life in the universe. Again, regarding the Drake Equation.... it is intended to make a very crude, uneducated guess at the probability of the existence of an earth-like planet in a solar system like ours and of intelligent beings like human beings with similar desires as human beings who communicate via radio waves and are at a similar evolutionary stage and at a similar stage of technological development. It is not an equation that can be relied upon to determine the existence of intelligent beings in this galaxy or the universe, who can survive in very different conditions from those that human beings can, who have very different cultures, philosophies, values, ideologies, and desires from those of human beings, and who are at different evolutionary stages and at different stages of technological development, using different methods of communication from those that human beings use. All very plausible, and none is actual evidence that we have been visited. ResistETIntervention, on 20 Mar 2013 - 10:05, said: The universe is filled with intelligent beings at every evolutionary stage conceivable. Those who have witnessed UFOs up close or even from a distance, or those who have had unfortunate, premature encounters with various aliens can attest to that fact to some degree. Again, a circular argument. You are assuming that these people have had encounters with aliens to try and show that they have had such encounters. I agree, alien abduction is almost certainly an extension of human brains and things like waking dreams. Humans have been "seeing" things like succubus and incubus and the associated mythology for many years. a great many abduction cases strain the credibility of anyone with a rational mind, being abducted from the middle of a large apartment building in the center of a large city just can't be true on any level humans can understand...While i agree I think that ridicule started by the military to ward off any real investigation has contributed to this and left the area open to pseudo science. Any realistic attempt to study what is going on would take huge sums of money away from "real" research, this attitude that all UFO report must be hogwash gets us nothing in return but hogwash... The fact that the military has a term for radar contacts entering and leaving the earths atmosphere because they happen regularly is something that begs investigation not dismissal... I wish i knew how to proceed on this, past reports that really needed to be investigated were dismissed by the military in ways that were insulting to anyone with half a brain and these explanations were used to ridicule anyone who wanted to look deeper. Now it's really too late to investigate them and these days the popularity of hoaxes poisons the well so thoroughly no real conspiracy is necessary... Military response is political as much as it is strategic and politics is perception. If people are convinced that UFOs are real, the military is going to get pressure to do something. Furthermore, you track these things as a matter of protocol anyway, because you're on the lookout for ICBMs and the like. However, once again there is the chasm between "unknown contact" and "ET has visited". Now add in the conspiracy factor. The Air Force investigates an unknown contact and concludes it's nothing, and the conspiracy people go nuts — that's exactly what they would say if there's a coverup. Never mind that it's exactly what they would say if they found nothing. It's a circular argument, started by the assumption that the phenomena are real, instead of approaching it scientifically from a null hypothesis that they aren't, and demanding someone provide reasonable evidence. It's backward, making this antiscience. I point to the example of amateur astronomy again. Investigation can be done properly. Steadfast refusal to do so is inexcusable. 2
Externet Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 There will never be a voluntary disclosure from the US military. If such thing ever happens, the military would be equaled as liars because all the past denial. Evidence would have to be gathered by force, or surreptitiously. Chances are by force won't beat the military. Instead of chatting on the subject; efforts to gather unbeatable evidence would be better; which is the only thing science and public is after. Interviews, affidavits and testimonies just stir the soup. Would take one million unarmed citizens walking together storming into all suspected top secret locations, and then, perhaps... "Bill Clinton – as quoted by senior White House reporterSarah McClendon in reply to why he wasn’t doing anything about UFOdisclosure.Sarah, there’s a government inside the government, and I don’t control it. " Clinton could not find out. If Kennedy did, was unable to disclose. If James Forrestal tried, ended also unable. If Monroe menaced, did not work. My guess is not even the top gun knows who is in charge of the subject, IF there is any. Chances are it is a compartmentalized organization to a degree that no one knows everything, and an individual testimony from one of he compartments (who does not even know of the existance of other comparments) is taken by the public as another nut case due to the abundance of hoaxes.
swansont Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 "Bill Clinton – as quoted by senior White House reporter Sarah McClendon in reply to why he wasn’t doing anything about UFO disclosure. Sarah, there’s a government inside the government, and I don’t control it. " Clinton could not find out. If Kennedy did, was unable to disclose. If James Forrestal tried, ended also unable. If Monroe menaced, did not work. Funny I can't seem to find anything about this that actually tells you what Sarah McClendon actually asked. Just a vague description of the topic. There's no actual implication about knowledge, only about the ability to disclose information, or expedite the disclosure of information. And the president is still bound by rules (seemingly less bound after his tenure, though) — he doesn't control everything. He doesn't get to arbitrarily disclose classified information to the public, for example. My guess is not even the top gun knows who is in charge of the subject, IF there is any. Chances are it is a compartmentalized organization to a degree that no one knows everything, and an individual testimony from one of he compartments (who does not even know of the existance of other comparments) is taken by the public as another nut case due to the abundance of hoaxes. That's the great thing about conspiracy theories. No matter the answer, it supports the notion of a conspiracy. A denial is just what you expect if there's a coverup. That it's what you expect if there is no coverup is conveniently ignored. I wonder if the conspiracy theorists all secretly get together to agree on how to handle all of this.
Externet Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 There is no date shown on that one from McClendon. Tried to find such and I was not successful with Ojose nor Scirus search engines. Have not read them all, but shows here too, true or false : http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/mclendn.html http://www.presidentialufo.com/ufo-quotes. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/exopolitica/esp_exopolitics_zzl.htm http://www.hillaryclintonufo.net/billclintonquotes.html http://www.hillaryclintonufo.net/disclosureefforts.html
ResistETIntervention Posted March 21, 2013 Author Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) Clearly, there are too many incidences occurring in the world all of a sudden that cannot be explained with what human beings know so far, particularly during the past six decades or so. There are way too many sightings of UFOs and spaceships observed up close to dismiss them simply as “unknown, so leave it at that.” Many claims and attempts have been made to belittle abductees because they are, in fact, the proof that extraterrestrial beings are, indeed, present in the world carrying out some sinister activities. Abductees get in the way of those skeptics or disinformers who intend to keep the public ignorant and misled. Many of you in this thread dismiss anecdotal evidence as unreliable. Yet, most of the evidence is anecdotal because we’re dealing with extraterrestrial forces that have technology much more advanced than human beings'. Human technology is currently far too inferior to enable people to explore, analyze, and derive irrefutable conclusions regarding the phenomenon. However, if we continue to have the stance that sightings and abduction incidences cannot be explained with the science known to human beings and thus, should be disregarded,then humanity’s fate will be sealed. All of you who posted in this thread have made some remarks indicating abductees’ testimonies as unreliable or even belittling abductees as untrustworthy, drunkards, or even delusional. Isn’t it very strange though, that abductees, after having “abduction dreams” or “delusional episodes of seeing aliens,” all of a sudden sprout implants manufactured with extraterrestrial substance in their bodies? Mind you, these implants extracted aren’t some traces of extraterrestrial substance, but objects manufactured with precision made of extraterrestrial substances. Those of you scientifically inclined who won’t even accept the words of scientific evidence obtained by laboratories might want to ponder upon this: why did these “delusional drunkards” all of a sudden sprout out any implants at all, let alone implants engineered with precision manufactured out of extraterrestrial substances? If you’d care to read the testimonies of abductees in “Taken,” you’ll see that abductees aren’t some folks attempting to get five-minute fame or quick fortune, or drunkards. They are normal people like you and me from all walks of life, who just happened to be unfortunate victims of the Extraterrestrial Intervention. Some of them are even children who recall their abduction incidences which continued into their adulthood. They suffer psychological trauma not only from the abduction itself, but also from the fear of not knowing when they will get abducted again, feeling of isolation in the world unable to trust even their loved ones who dismiss them as having some sort of psychological issues, being ridiculed by the public and media when they bravely come forward to speak about them, and becoming marginalized in the society. Someone in the thread remarked that writing a book doesn’t mean that the authors are correct. I completely agree. However, Dr. Roger Leir is a surgeon who doesn’t have anything to gain by delving into the phenomenon by spending his time and even his own money to perform the extraction surgeries, renting surgical facilities, employing camera crews to document the whole surgical procedures, sending specimen extracted over to different laboratories for analysis (while ensuring that the lab people do not know where and how the implants were obtained), spending many hours speaking to people in various fields to confirm his findings, etc. YdoaPs, human memories are, indeed, unreliable. These abductees’ memories have been suppressed or even altered by their extraterrestrial abductors. If I were you, I wouldn’t bet a single penny on your claim that the implants are calcification or metal splinters though. Dr. Roger Leir sent implants he extracted from the abductees to be tested and analyzed by independent laboratories without telling them how and where they were obtained. All of them independently concluded that the implants were of extraterrestrial origin indicated by isotopic ratios, and “the form of the objects is clearly engineered and manufactured with precision rather than being a naturally occurring form. In short, we now have the “smoking gun” of ufology: hard physical evidence of an alien presence on Earth!” (Leir 161) However, they were not able to discern what the implants do yet. While I recognize that those who are scientifically inclined help propel research of the phenomenon by demanding scientific proofs, we must also recognize that extraterrestrial beings clearly have technology much more advanced than human beings'. The phenomenon humbled me to face the fact that humanity is neither alone nor preeminent beings in the universe, for I was very close-minded regarding UFO/ET phenomenon only several years ago. Swansont, you can try to connect various accounts and deduce your own conclusion: Millions of people have sighted UFOs globally, particularly in the last six decades or so. Some people including former presidents of the U.S. and air force officers as well as laymen around the world sighted extraterrestrial vehicles up close. Many people have endured experiences of abduction by extraterrestrials. Some of the abductees recall abduction incidences on their own. Implants extracted from the bodies of abductees have been tested and analyzed; they were objects engineered with precision and made of extraterrestrial substances Also, swansont, I do not blame scientists. I know that there are true scientists who would love to delve into the phenomenon, but cannot risk their reputations or careers. Some may even be impeded by the organizations they belong to, which cannot risk losing funding from private sources of otherwise, and thus, preclude their employees from doing any serious research into the phenomenon. Though it is my stance that at least, scientists should not use their credentials to misinform or mislead people, at the same time, I do not know their motives or circumstances for doing so. So no, I don’t blame them. Edited March 21, 2013 by ResistETIntervention
swansont Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 Many of you in this thread dismiss anecdotal evidence as unreliable. Eyewitness testimony is being dismissed as unreliable because it is, and has been scientifically demonstrated to be so. Anecdotes are not considered scientific evidence, because science demands systematic and rigorous data gathering. The bar to be accepted as science is fairly clear. You can't make up for the lack of quality by increasing the volume of crap. Swansont, you can try to connect various accounts and deduce your own conclusion: Millions of people have sighted UFOs globally, particularly in the last six decades or so. Some people including former presidents of the U.S. and air force officers as well as laymen around the world sighted extraterrestrial vehicles up close. Many people have endured experiences of abduction by extraterrestrials. Some of the abductees recall abduction incidences on their own. Implants extracted from the bodies of abductees have been tested and analyzed; they were objects engineered with precision and made of extraterrestrial substances Implants that have been extracted. "Extraterrestrial substances" Hey, that's physical evidence! So, where are these items? I see no link to the multiple analyses these important artifacts surely underwent, by qualified professionals. Also, swansont, I do not blame scientists. I know that there are true scientists who would love to delve into the phenomenon, but cannot risk their reputations or careers. Some may even be impeded by the organizations they belong to, which cannot risk losing funding from private sources of otherwise, and thus, preclude their employees from doing any serious research into the phenomenon. Though it is my stance that at least, scientists should not use their credentials to misinform or mislead people, at the same time, I do not know their motives or circumstances for doing so. So no, I don’t blame them. Ah, more conspiracy. Always room for more conspiracy. It's like Jell-O 1
Moontanman Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 This is the opposite of what you earlier stated regarding the Drake equation. And I renew my objection to saying that these people saw extraterrestrial vehicles; they saw UFOs. I stated I don't know his intent, and I don't care. I don't know your intent, and I don't care. You are, however making dubious claims and stating falsehoods, and that I do care about. He's stating the threshold of acceptable evidence. Callousness doesn't enter into it. Telling someone they are mistaken, or they have not presented valid evidence, is not an insult. I have. I have seen how many UFO sightings are subsequently explained. How can that be, if UFO sightings are those that "cannot possibly be explained" ? You can only claim reality if you have met the burden of scientific proof. The video explains, to some extent, what is and isn't considered valid scientific evidence. If the physics of the situation is unknown to us, then we conclude that it's unknown. You don't get to actually use "then a miracle occurs" If they carry out their activities clandestinely, how is it that there are any sightings at all? I want the same level of scientific evidence that any other scientific endeavor demands. Repeatability of observation or experiment plays a large part of that (one reason why eyewitness reports are not evidence) I was wondering when "blame the scientist" would make its appearance. No, I do not owe you my time; I have my own experiments to run. If you want to make the observations, go ahead and do them. You've been given the ground rules. There are many "amateur" scientists out there who do make contributions to their field, e.g. astronomers. They gather actual data and apply rigor. You have no excuse not to do the same, and you don't get to blame others for doing your work for you. He's an astrophysicist. He should be doing the research that interests him. This is your job and your burden of proof. This is a circular argument. You haven't presented any legitimate evidence that this is happening. We have a number of threads discussing quarks where you can get the particulars. Deep inelastic scattering experiments showing three charge centers were observed in neutrons and protons, to name one. Further discussion here is OT, but by all means read and ask in the appropriate thread. I was asking what you meant. What I think Tyson meant is that eyewitness observation is notoriously unreliable and your eyes and brain can be tricked. Easily. Which is pretty much what he said. Not being confirmed hoaxes does not lead one to the conclusion that they are the result of ET. Some of them are. The idea that they MUST be ET in origin is therefore debunked. It shows the probability (or number of systems, depending on the version you use) of planets/systems where you might expect intelligent life to arise. So it is an equation, then. Right? My reference to inequality was a demonstration of the inadequacy of your definition. The only way we can assign values to the equation is by guessing or estimating. That's not the same as the equation itself "being mathematical" or not. All very plausible, and none is actual evidence that we have been visited. Again, a circular argument. You are assuming that these people have had encounters with aliens to try and show that they have had such encounters. Military response is political as much as it is strategic and politics is perception. If people are convinced that UFOs are real, the military is going to get pressure to do something. Furthermore, you track these things as a matter of protocol anyway, because you're on the lookout for ICBMs and the like. However, once again there is the chasm between "unknown contact" and "ET has visited". Now add in the conspiracy factor. The Air Force investigates an unknown contact and concludes it's nothing, and the conspiracy people go nuts — that's exactly what they would say if there's a coverup. Never mind that it's exactly what they would say if they found nothing. It's a circular argument, started by the assumption that the phenomena are real, instead of approaching it scientifically from a null hypothesis that they aren't, and demanding someone provide reasonable evidence. It's backward, making this antiscience. I point to the example of amateur astronomy again. Investigation can be done properly. Steadfast refusal to do so is inexcusable. First of all the wheat must be separated from the chaff, the majority of sightings can be explained, it's those niggling few that just can't be explained that intrigue me. I must ask what would be evidence enough to justify continued investigation? the origin of meteorites was ignored literally for centuries due to the common knowledge that rocks could not fall from the sky. Aliens cannot be here because of the distances to the stars is a similar statement and used to negate even a discussion of the phenomena. As i said earlier the military calls objects seen leaving the earths atmosphere "fast walkers" if an object is "seen" leaving the earths atmosphere isn't that cause for "I wonder what that was" the military simply saying "oh it's nothing we see them all the time" is not an explanation. Again what would it take to justify researching the phenomena? What was this? It was seen by defense satellites... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident SwansonT have you seen this? What is your opinion, believe it or not I do value your take on these things... http://brumac.8k.com/trent1.html
ResistETIntervention Posted March 21, 2013 Author Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) Swansont, you stated that “proving the UFO/ET phenomenon” my job and my burden of proof. It is occurring around the world and yet, how is it my job and my burden of proof? I noticed that you didn’t say this to other people in the thread, who made the statement that the UFO/ET phenomenon is real. Do you have some sort of personal issue with me? You also stated that I have “no excuse not to do the same, and don’t get to blame others for doing [my] work for [me].” What excuse am I giving to not do the same of what? I’m not sure what you are trying to say exactly. Who is doing which of my work for me? Are you still talking about the UFO/ET phenomenon or are you playing some sort of game here? As I have said before to “Externet”, I’m not here to play any sort of game or deal with playing at words. You’ll be utterly confusing yourself, if you attempt to play some sort of game with me, because you’ll be playing by yourself. I will state again my response to Pwagon above: In the Appendix I of the book “The Aliens and the Scalpel,” the author stated that “Persons interested in pursuing the details further may contact the author through the publisher. Research is on-going, and future reports may be available from other sources.” The address of the publisher is: The Book Tree, P.O. Box 16476, San Diego, CA 92176. The labs and other organizations the author consulted include Health Line Clinical Laboratories, Inc., International College of Surgeons, The University of Texas at San Antonio, National Institute for Discovery Science, and New Mexico Tech. In the appendix are photocopies of biological analysis reports, metallurgical data, and experimental XRD patterns along with published patterns of possible cladding phases, as well as the letter from Los Alamos National Labs, lab reports from New Mexico Tech identifying elemental composition of unknown sample, etc. [by Swansont] We have a number of threads discussing quarks where you can get the particulars. Deep inelastic scattering experiments showing three charge centers were observed in neutrons and protons, to name one. Further discussion here is OT, but by all means read and ask in the appropriate thread. Yes, so quarks themselves were not observed, but the evidence of them was observed. You do experiments assuming that quarks exist, and you were able to find only the “evidence” of the existence of quarks. That’s a circular argument, isn’t it? Then you don’t really have any scientific or physical evidence of the existence of quarks, do you? (That’s a rhetorical question; I already knew that.) However, isn’t that what you have been stating regarding the UFO/ET phenomenon? Except physical evidence does, indeed, exist in the latter case. [by Swansont] Again, a circular argument. You are assuming that these people have had encounters with aliens to try and show that they have had such encounters. Do you mean like the one that you give for quarks? [by Swansont] It shows the probability (or number of systems, depending on the version you use) of planets/systems where you might expect intelligent life to arise. So it is an equation, then. Right? My reference to inequality was a demonstration of the inadequacy of your definition. The only way we can assign values to the equation is by guessing or estimating. That's not the same as the equation itself "being mathematical" or not. Again, the left-hand-side of the equation does not equal to the right-hand-side of the equation, then it is not an equation. I didn’t define “Drake’s equation.” All of the factors in the “Drake’s equation” are based on assumptions. That formula is neither scientific nor mathematical. [by Swansont] I point to the example of amateur astronomy again. Investigation can be done properly. Steadfast refusal to do so is inexcusable. I agree. Would you like to suggest how to go about doing such investigation? Moontanman, I noticed that you use the word “silly” more than once to describe my sightings of UFOs. In what ways are they “silly”? May I cordially suggest not exercising “spin and dirty tricks” on me? Edited March 21, 2013 by ResistETIntervention -1
pwagen Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 Dr. Roger Leir sent implants he extracted from the abductees to be tested and analyzed by independent laboratories without telling them how and where they were obtained. All of them independently concluded that the implants were of extraterrestrial origin indicated by isotopic ratios, and “the form of the objects is clearly engineered and manufactured with precision rather than being a naturally occurring form. About that... I'm currently checking with the labs you named earlier. So far, not looking so good. But until I'm done, Leir was apparently featured on Penn & Teller's show. Haven't seen it yet, but it might be worth looking into.
ResistETIntervention Posted March 21, 2013 Author Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) [by Pwagon] About that... I'm currently checking with the labs you named earlier. So far, not looking so good. Weren’t you able to get a hold of anyone to speak to over there? Try writing to the publisher at the address I’ve provided in the post above to contact the author directly, if you wish. Edited March 21, 2013 by ResistETIntervention
pwagen Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 No, I'm getting in touch with them all right. It's the fact that Leir sent alien objects for analysis that seem to not hold up.
ResistETIntervention Posted March 21, 2013 Author Posted March 21, 2013 What do you mean by that? You can see the photocopies of their lab results in Leir's book. Also, can I ask whom you're speaking with at which facilities?
imatfaal Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 ! Moderator Note No names of labworkers to be passed on or discussed on open forum please. If they are not seeking notice through publication then we should respect their privacy. 1
Recommended Posts