UFO/ET Phenomenon

[swansont]

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.

 

I meant it as a plural.

 

Do you have some sort of personal issue with me?

 

Not at all.

 

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.

 

You are (in principle) capable of carrying out an investigation that meets the threshold of being scientific. There is no excuse not to do that. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to play by the same rules that everyone else does rather than pleading for exceptions and special treatment regarding the state of evidence you gather/present.

 

As a side observation, you have spent entirely too much time posturing. I doubt anyone is either impressed or intimidated. It's been my experience (and, I suspect, the experience of others) that people who show up to discuss science try to avoid such distractions. The ones who continually return to them undermine their credibility.

 

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.

 

IOW, this amazing, smoking-gun physical evidence is not widely available. You gotta buy the book.

 

 

 

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.

 

The predictions you make are based on a model, and are fairly specific. It's the difference between predicting a dropped object will fall and predicting it will accelerate according to GM/r^2. The former has little value because the prediction is vague. The latter is much more specific, so there are many possible results, only one (or a small subset) of which are consistent with the model. For example, results where the drop time depend on the mass of the object are eliminated. If that had been true, Newton's model would be wrong.

 

The quark model makes specific predictions, so similarly only a small set of observations are going to be consistent with it. Contradictory results would have eliminated the model. Meaning that the claim that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of quarks is patently false. But it does mean I have to add a parenthetical "in principle" to my comment above, since the details of what constitutes scientific evidence still apparently escape you.

 

 

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.

 

You keep saying this, but have not demonstrated this. What makes them unequal? A= B*C*D is a mathematical equation, and the two sides are equal.

 

 

I agree. Would you like to suggest how to go about doing such investigation?

 

Your previous answers indicate that you do not, but OK. The topic is too wide open to suggest anything concrete unless you narrow down the scope.

[Moontanman]

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?

 

 

I used the word silly because you equated seeing a light in the sky as evidence of UFOs are alien space craft, I used the word silly because you saw a beam of light that traveled less than c, I used the word silly because you described an object accelerating away at more than c. If you can give some positive evidence that alien abductions are any more than waking dreams similar to if not identical to incubus and succubus dreams of antiquity I will with draw "silly" from that context but so far you have failed to do so...

[PeterJ]

As someone who tends to push his luck on this forum sometimes and who can get a bit annoyed trying to overcome what might be called 'scientism'., of which there is surprisingly litte here but some, I would agree with Swansont and Moontanman about the need for a bit more science in the discussion.

 

ResistET - You say "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'.

 

Like many others you write, I cannot make any sense of this statement. I would have assumed that everybody in the world knows that anecdotal evidence is unreliable,. The world would be a very different place it it wasn't. And the level of advancement of a technology is not the deciding factor in whether evidence for its existence must be anecdotal. Otherwise a rainforest indian would be unable to prove that the LHC exists.

 

I think you would do well to adopt Moontanman's position, which appears to be balanced, scientifc and sensible, and which does not make me think that all UFO fanatics must be on LSD. (I've seen two, btw, one that I can find a few explanations for and one that utterly baffles me still.).

 

Mind you, there's only anecdotal evidence for consciousness, yet it is presumed that it can be studied scientfically, But that's another can of worms.

[pwagen]

...and which does not make me think that all UFO fanatics must be on LSD. (I've seen two, btw, one that I can find a few explanations for and one that utterly baffles me still.).

 

Sorry, but this reads kind of funny.

[PeterJ]

Nah. I was on LSD.

 

But you're right, it was a bit of a non-sequitor. I saw two UFOs, not necessarily two extraterrestrial spacecraft.

 

I should have said - UFO fanatics who insist that they are extraterrestrial on the basis of no evidence and who think that scientist are fools for not believing them - etc. .

Edited March 21, 2013 by PeterJ

[pwagen]

Actually, it looks a bit like you've seen two UFO fanatics on LSD.

[PeterJ]

Have I? As far as I know I've never even seen one.

[pwagen]

Never mind, poor attempt at a joke. Now then...

 

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.

Long overdue (because research should never take more than a day), here is what I've come up with with regards to the laboratories mentioned.

 

Health Line Clinical Laboratories

When searching for this, it turns out there are more than one lab with this name. Had to check the actual book to find out it was the one in Burbank, which seems to have closed down. Maybe because of billing fraud.

 

International College of Surgeons

The person I contacted was kind enough to humor me with a response, saying they were to check their records, but he was "quite confident that there are no records of such items". In line with the previous mod note, I'll refrain from naming them, but their contact information was readily available on their site.

 

National Institute for Discovery Science

Closed down. And this would not have been an unbiased source, as their main area was paranormal topics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Discovery_Science

 

New Mexico Tech

Unfortunately, this is the one lab I was not able to get a response from. Darn it, I'm sure they would have been the ones to provide the real evidence!

 

In other news, here are the reports from the book. This isn't my area of expertise, but there's absolutely nothing in there that says the items are extra terrestrial.

 

Link

 

And no, the big bold letters at the bottom of some of the pages are the author's opinions, not part of the actual reports.

Edited March 21, 2013 by pwagen

[Ophiolite]

Excellent work pwagen. Thank you for taking the time to debunk this nonsense for the benefit of casual readers who may be initially attracted by the frisson of excitement surrounding the possibility of ET. That possibility, that we may be being visited by aliens, is far too important to be sidetracked by poorly argued cases such as that presented by ResistETInvasion

[swansont]

It's clear from those reports that the previously quoted claims in the book are overblown. Possibly extraterrestrial becomes definitely extraterrestrial, and the observation that several of the isotopic ratios (and of the more common components) are completely consistent with terrestrial minerals is ignored.

[Moontanman]

It's clear from those reports that the previously quoted claims in the book are overblown. Possibly extraterrestrial becomes definitely extraterrestrial, and the observation that several of the isotopic ratios (and of the more common components) are completely consistent with terrestrial minerals is ignored.

 

 

I have often wonder how you could assert that something as definitively extraterrestrial, once they assert that my horse feathers meter pegs out...

[Klaynos]

 

 

I have often wonder how you could assert that something as definitively extraterrestrial, once they assert that my horse feathers meter pegs out...

I'm always flummoxed by that.

[ResistETIntervention]

 

[by swansont] You are (in principle) capable of carrying out an investigation that meets the threshold of being scientific. There is no excuse not to do that. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to play by the same rules that everyone else does rather than pleading for exceptions and special treatment regarding the state of evidence you gather/present.

Nobody, in principle or otherwise, is capable of carrying out any investigation that “meets the threshold of being scientific” regarding the UFO phenomenon, except those who are directly privy to the information. But then those people are bound by non-disclosure agreement, are they not? Let me ask you again what I asked four other people in this thread: what would you consider scientific or physical evidence regarding the UFO phenomenon and how would you go about attaining them? Should I catch and bring the light spots in the sky into a laboratory and see whether I could test it to prove that it was, indeed, an extraterrestrial spaceship, in order to “meet the threshold of being scientific”? That is unreasonable to ask of me, don’t you think? Does that seem like an excuse to you? If you want to be taken seriously regarding the phenomenon, you couldn’t possibly ask me specifically to perform scientific experiments or provide scientific or physical evidence regarding the UFO phenomenon. Also, what rules are you referring to, and in what ways am I “pleading for exceptions and special treatment”? So again, what experiments, in principle, can be performed to “prove” this phenomenon? I do not know you, but you seem somewhat scientifically inclined, so let me ask you, swansont. What experiments can I perform to “prove” the phenomenon? By the way, 1=(1/200,000)(1/10,0000)(1/5,000) is not an equation, for example. Also, the factors in the equation must include all possibilities that could ever exist in determining the probability and no factors must be irrelevant. I have explained in one of the posts above why each factor and the formula itself were unscientific and nonmathematical.

 

[by swansont] As a side observation, you have spent entirely too much time posturing. I doubt anyone is either impressed or intimidated. It's been my experience (and, I suspect, the experience of others) that people who show up to discuss science try to avoid such distractions. The ones who continually return to them undermine their credibility.

I am not here to impress or intimidate anyone. I am here to raise awareness of the phenomenon. While raising awareness on the street, I noticed a certain pattern. It is said that about 80% of the world population believes that UFO/ET phenomenon is occurring in the world and about 5-10% of the world population is believed to have sighted UFOs. As the statistics indicates, I found that about 10-15% of the hundreds of people I spoke to have sighted UFOs. Indeed, about 80% to 90% of the people I spoke to were receptive of the notion: they have sighted UFOs, they know of people who have sighted UFOs, they feel that the phenomenon is occurring, etc. However, about 10% to 20% of them were adamantly in denial of the phenomenon despite the sightings of UFOs by many people. They were mostly science majors, psychology majors, or religious people. I know that people’s minds close when they have strong beliefs. Yet, the Extraterrestrial Intervention is real and it is affecting every single person in the world including those who cannot accept that reality. That is why I am here – to raise awareness of the phenomenon. There is much to learn about the Extraterrestrial Intervention which could potentially have a very grave consequence to humanity. Yet, for some, becoming aware of the phenomenon and accepting its reality is the greatest obstacle for them.

 

[by swansont] IOW, this amazing, smoking-gun physical evidence is not widely available. You gotta buy the book.

Here lies the problem. So many
people’s effort went into providing physical evidence that undoubtedly and irrefutably proves that extraterrestrial beings are present in the world carrying out some sinister activities covertly including abduction of human beings. Some of them are scientists who risked what other scientists wouldn’t risk in order to provide us with some concrete physical evidence of the phenomenon. You’re now presented with scientific evidence and you even reject that with sarcasm. I have absolutely no affiliation with the author and I couldn’t care less whether you purchased the book or not in terms of making profit for the author or the publisher. I was providing the information and the physical proofs of the phenomenon you guys asked for here. You can choose to remain ignorant, if you wish. However, you would be doing so at your peril. I do mean peril.

 

[by swansont] The quark model makes specific predictions, so similarly only a small set of observations are going to be consistent with it. Contradictory results would have eliminated the model. Meaning that the claim that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of quarks is patently false. But it does mean I have to add a parenthetical "in principle" to my comment above, since the details of what constitutes scientific evidence still apparently escape you.

I do believe “model” is not the same as the physical evidence. I thought everyone knew that “models” and “predictions,” specific or otherwise, are not scientific at all. Results
by elimination are also not scientific because you would have to know every single possibility of every single thing that is going on in the universe, ultra-microscopic and macroscopic, in order to prove anything incontrovertibly. Or was that thrown out the window? After eliminating all the possibilities such as weather phenomenon, weather balloons, meteors, meteorites, man-made aircrafts, birds, etc., I’d had to come to the conclusion that at least, some of the UFOs I sighted would have to be extraterrestrial spaceships. Yet, I am quite certain you and some others would retort back with “that is not scientific.” Isn’t that so? Don’t presume that the details of what constitutes scientific evidence will escape me, please do try providing them anyway.

 

[by Moontanman] I used the word silly because you equated seeing a light in the sky as evidence of UFOs are alien space craft, I used the word silly because you saw a beam of light that traveled less than c, I used the word silly because you described an object accelerating away at more than c. If you can give some positive evidence that alien abductions are any more than waking dreams similar to if not identical to incubus and succubus dreams of antiquity I will with draw
"silly" from that context but so far you have failed to do so...

Would you care to provide a scientific explanation of what they might have been? Here’re my sightings of UFOs again:

• three (fuchsia, blue, and golden) huge lights on the positions of vertices of a triangle; they were completely stationary for at least fifteen minutes on a clear night.
• a brilliant light which reached a superluminal speed within a second or two from a completely stationary position in the sky on a very clear day. It left a trail of light that tapered off towards the location where it disappeared.
• a brilliant light which "jumped" from one place to another in the sky, and then disappeared on a completely overcast day.
• a dark spherical object with a "band" in the equatorial region with dots on the band, which was not a weather balloon from my search on the internet after sighting it.
• a thick brilliant beam of light travelling at a very high speed towards the ground, which I saw in the mountain. It made no sound as you would expect to hear if a huge meteorite fell to the ground.

Please feel free to provide scientific explanation as to what they were. Regarding the positive evidence of abduction by extraterrestrial beings, perhaps you did
not read all the posts in the thread. So here it is again:

Here is a book titled “The Aliens and the Scalpel” (which, as far as I know, is not available to download for free) by Dr. Roger Leir, a surgeon who has been extracting implants from abductees. When these implants were sent to independent laboratories, the results of their analysis proved to be of extraterrestrial nature. Here is a quote from the book:

Most of the metallurgy indicates that the structure of these objects has an extraterrestrial origin. If this is indeed the case, we will be able to conclude that some individuals with alien abduction histories have objects in their bodies of extraterrestrial origin. The composition of the objects includes metals whose isotopic ratios are
clearly extraterrestrial. Moreover, 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)

May I suggest at least not exercising “spin and dirty tricks” on abductees, if you cannot have compassion for them? You do not know what psychological traumas their abduction experiences have on them. Please do not rape them psychologically by playing “spin and dirty tricks” on them.

 

[by PeterJ] I would agree with Swansont and Moontanman about the need for a bit more science in the discussion.

Please see above.

 

[by PeterJ] Like many others you write, I cannot make any sense of this statement. I would have assumed that everybody in the world knows that anecdotal evidence is unreliable. The world would be a very different place it it wasn't. And the level of advancement of a technology is not the deciding factor in whether evidence for its existence must be anecdotal. Otherwise a rainforest indian would be unable to prove that the LHC exists.

Please see above for scientific, physical evidence of the Extraterrestrial Intervention. Also, “anecdotal evidence” is all people in general have. Do you expect them to do some lab experiments to see whether the lights and strange crafts remaining stationary, moving in erratic manners, or achieving superluminal speed in the sky were extraterrestrial spaceships? Could you propose how you’d go about providing a scientific proof, since you’ve also sighted UFOs? Scientific, physical evidence of the
Extraterrestrial Intervention does exist.

However, regardless, when people are seeing UFOs all over the world, some strange phenomenon is clearly occurring. While some people make those who speak of UFO/ET phenomenon seem absurd, if you ponder upon it for a while, isn’t it more absurd that people are disregarding and not speaking about the UFO/ET phenomenon when there are too many sightings and abductions incidences to ignore the phenomenon and dismissing them as “simply unexplainable” or “lack of data, so don’t explore further”?

 

[by PeterJ] UFO fanatics who insist that they are extraterrestrial on the basis of no evidence and who think that scientist are fools for not believing them - etc.

I’m not sure whether you meant to say so, or it is just a grammatical error, but “UFO fanatics” do not insist that they are extraterrestrial. Also, please refrain from exercising “spin and dirty tricks” on those who have sighted UFOs or speak of extraterrestrial beings. I do not think scientists are fools for not believing them. I think it is very difficult for people with strong beliefs, any strong beliefs, which seem to exclude the possibilities of the existence of intelligent life outside this world or visitation of intelligent beings from outer space, to accept the reality of the Extraterrestrial Intervention despite all the evidence that has been mounting over six decades now.

 

[by pwagen] Health Line Clinical Laboratories: When searching for this, it turns out there are more than one lab with this name. Had to check the actual book to find out it was the one in Burbank, which seems to have closed down. Maybe because of billing fraud.

International College of Surgeons: The person I contacted was kind enough to humor me with a response, saying they were to check their records, but he was
"quite confident that there are no records of such items". In line with the previous mod note, I'll refrain from naming them, but their contact information was readily available on their site.

National Institute for Discovery Science: Closed down. And this would not have been an unbiased source, as their main area was paranormal topics. http://en.wikipedia....scovery_Science

New Mexico Tech: Unfortunately, this is the one lab I was not able to get a response from. Darn it, I'm sure they would have been the ones to provide the real evidence!

 

Health Line Clinical Laboratories has been apparently closed down because of some false accusation of billing fraud. This is not the first time I have read of independent labs closing down. It seems that more and more independent laboratories are closing down. At any rate, what you would have found out from Health Line Clinical Laboratories would be a pathology report indicating that there were some small nerve bundles around the tissue sample surrounding the implants and that strangely there was a lack of inflammation.

Pwagen, I’m not sure which number you called to contact International College of Surgeons because I was not able to get a hold of anyone. Also, I’m not sure whom you asked what to get a response from the representative there that he was “quite confident that there are no records of such items.” Are you saying they had no records of tissue samples at such laboratories? That’s odd because I’d presume they would have tons of tissue samples. What you would have found out from this laboratory would be a pathology report indicating again no inflammation on the tissue and other biopsy reports.

Pwagen, I’m surprised that you would think NIDS would not be an unbiased source because they study anomalies. Their staff consisted of scientists who were willing to study anomalies including various topics other scientists would avoid rather than risking their career and reputation for. In order to attain scientific evidence of paranormal phenomenon, shouldn’t scientists actually embark on such study? Now you’re saying that because scientists worked on such topics, NIDS is a biased source? Do you guys want scientific evidence or not? NIDS, maybe the only organization known to the public that had the funding and willingness to approach anomalies including the UFO/ET phenomenon scientifically, apparently closed down due to many reasons including poor management, poor direction, poor hiring, insufficient funds, and public speculations and expectations, etc. It was founded by a billionaire Robert Bigelow. So, somehow, the first four reasons seem unlikely to me though it is only my speculation. In that case, there may be a nameless organization consisting of scientists who are actually studying paranormal phenomena scientifically - away from the public scrutiny and expectations. What you would have found out from the NIDS would be their communication with New Mexico Tech, etc.

I wouldn’t hold your breath if I were you, Pwagen, waiting for responses from The University of Texas at San Antonio or New Mexico Tech. I’ve found from my
experiences that research institutes are not likely to give you any definitive answers, if they contacted you at all. What you would have found out from the Univeristy of Texas at San Antonio would be metallurgy report indicating that part of the substances the implant was composed of was amorphous iron. New Mexico Tech had a small sample of the implants to determine the composition of the sample and sent back a report indicating that the substance had hard iron alloys which are found naturally in meteorite samples, except that it contained no nickel, while no iron meteorites contain less than five percent nickel. They did not know that the sample came from an implant from abductees' bodies that was engineered with precision, and thought it was perhaps a fragment of a larger meteorite. There was also a letter from Dr. Russell Vernon Clark with a conclusion of non-terrestrial isotopes.

So there you have it. However, again I pose the question: isn’t it extremely bizarre that these normal people would claim to have been abducted by extraterrestrials, and then wake up with anomalous scars or contusion and implants? These implants are not some trace substance, but engineered with precision and consist of substance whose isotope ratios are extraterrestrial? Just the fact that these people sprout out implants in the ankles, arms, necks, etc., is just mindboggling. Who put them in their bodies while they were sleeping?

Edited March 22, 2013 by ResistETIntervention

[pwagen]

The reports are in the last link I posted. Care to specify exactly where it confirms the items are extra terrestrial? Because the closest thing to that seems to be "could be extra terrestrial, BUT...".

 

THe reports are available to everybody reading this post, so stop twisting what they say.

[Ophiolite]

Nobody, in principle or otherwise, is capable of carrying out any investigation that “meets the threshold of being scientific” regarding the UFO phenomenon, except those who are directly privy to the information. But then those people are bound by non-disclosure agreement, are they not?

Nonsense. A network of automatic cameras, linked to radar systems, yet capable of direct control when required, monitored 24/7 from a central control, with access to pursuit aircraft to investigate any unidentified sightings would provide the range of quality information necessary to investgate properly.

 

Your remarks here seem to typify your approach: make blanket statements that are demonstrably wrong. I'm not sure what you hope to gain by such technique, but I assure you it will not serve to convince - rather the reverse.

[ResistETIntervention]

[pwagen] The reports are in the last link I posted. Care to specify exactly where it confirms the items are extra terrestrial? Because the closest thing to that seems to be "could be extra terrestrial, BUT...". THe reports are available to everybody reading this post, so stop twisting what they say.

I’m not sure which page you’re looking at. On page 222, Dr. Russell Vernon Clark wrote to Dr. Roger Leir, “It is possible, but not conclusively proven, that both the RR3 and 007KT samples show some isotopic ratios consistent with an extraterrestrial origin.” This is just one of the reports that were included in the book. Since the first edition of the book “The Aliens and the Scalpel” was published, he has done more extraction of implants in abductees’ bodies. However, you would also want to read the background of the abductees who have sighted UFOs or have had abduction experiences on multiple occasions, after which implants appeared in their bodies. Their sightings were much more vivid, clear, and from proximity than my sightings of UFOs from a distance. The appendix of the book only includes so many lab reports. However, the descriptions of these various tiny implants are also of interest: various shapes engineered in precision, unidentified strange oil sac within implants, the ability to change shapes or the ability to change state, the way they fluoresce, the way they are covered by some sort of strange, grayish biological substance, lack of inflammatory responses in the abductees’ bodies, etc.

 

So again, who put these implants in their bodies while they were sleeping?

 

 

[by Ophiolite] Nonsense. A network of automatic cameras, linked to radar systems, yet capable of direct control when required, monitored 24/7 from a central control, with access to pursuit aircraft to investigate any unidentified sightings would provide the range of quality information necessary to investgate properly. Your remarks here seem to typify your approach: make blanket statements that are demonstrably wrong. I'm not sure what you hope to gain by such technique, but I assure you it will not serve to convince - rather the reverse.

You didn’t bold-face the “except” part in my statement. And do you expect me to have access to all these equipment linked to radar system and the ability to monitor 24/7 from a central control? Again, only those people with high security clearance, who are bound by non-disclosure agreement, may have direct access to these devices and thus, such information. I don’t.

Edited March 22, 2013 by ResistETIntervention

[pwagen]

No, no, no, no and no! You're not getting away that easily. You said:

 

When these implants were sent to independent laboratories, the results of their analysis proved to be of extraterrestrial nature.

 

Again, which of the reports prove the samples are of extra terrestrial origin. Not "some radiometric results could indicate", but PROVES it. You said it yourself, now explain to everyone else.

 

The link leads to the first report from the book. You can scroll down for the rest.

[swansont]

Nobody, in principle or otherwise, is capable of carrying out any investigation that meets the threshold of being scientific regarding the UFO phenomenon, except those who are directly privy to the information. But then those people are bound by non-disclosure agreement, are they not?

This points to the underlying problem: you have a null hypothesis that ET visits are real, which is the opposite of science. Science does not proceed by assuming something is true and then looking only for evidence that supports the idea.

 

But I'll humor you for the moment and say this: since when has an NDA kept people from talking about really important things? Nobody has ever leaked classified information?

 

Let me ask you again what I asked four other people in this thread: what would you consider scientific or physical evidence regarding the UFO phenomenon and how would you go about attaining them? Should I catch and bring the light spots in the sky into a laboratory and see whether I could test it to prove that it was, indeed, an extraterrestrial spaceship, in order to meet the threshold of being scientific? That is unreasonable to ask of me, dont you think?

Astronomers manage to do science without bringing stars into the lab. People study earthquakes without bringing them into the lab.

Does that seem like an excuse to you?

Yes, it does.

If you want to be taken seriously regarding the phenomenon, you couldnt possibly ask me specifically to perform scientific experiments or provide scientific or physical evidence regarding the UFO phenomenon. Also, what rules are you referring to, and in what ways am I pleading for exceptions and special treatment?

You want the rules regarding the rigor of the process to be ignored. That's special treatment.

So again, what experiments, in principle, can be performed to prove this phenomenon? I do not know you, but you seem somewhat scientifically inclined, so let me ask you, swansont. What experiments can I perform to prove the phenomenon?

Ophiolite addressed this above. You could also put cameras in place to watch people who get repeatedly abducted, and/or put GPS transponders on them to track their movements. I can anticipate the excuses when these don't pan out, though.

 

 

The aliens knew we were monitoring so they avoided us. The aliens' advanced technology spoofed the equipment into not recording the event.

 

 

 

By the way, 1=(1/200,000)(1/10,0000)(1/5,000) is not an equation, for example. Also, the factors in the equation must include all possibilities that could ever exist in determining the probability and no factors must be irrelevant. I have explained in one of the posts above why each factor and the formula itself were unscientific and nonmathematical.

I gave you variables, which is an equation. Now if you make a mistake in the calculation, then that means the math is wrong, but it doesn't stop being math just because someone can't use a calculator. To borrow a phrase, I don't think nonmathematical means what you think it means.

 

I am not here to impress or intimidate anyone. I am here to raise awareness of the phenomenon. While raising awareness on the street, I noticed a certain pattern. It is said that about 80% of the world population believes that UFO/ET phenomenon is occurring in the world and about 5-10% of the world population is believed to have sighted UFOs. As the statistics indicates, I found that about 10-15% of the hundreds of people I spoke to have sighted UFOs. Indeed, about 80% to 90% of the people I spoke to were receptive of the notion: they have sighted UFOs, they know of people who have sighted UFOs, they feel that the phenomenon is occurring, etc. However, about 10% to 20% of them were adamantly in denial of the phenomenon despite the sightings of UFOs by many people. They were mostly science majors, psychology majors, or religious people. I know that peoples minds close when they have strong beliefs. Yet, the Extraterrestrial Intervention is real and it is affecting every single person in the world including those who cannot accept that reality. That is why I am here to raise awareness of the phenomenon. There is much to learn about the Extraterrestrial Intervention which could potentially have a very grave consequence to humanity. Yet, for some, becoming aware of the phenomenon and accepting its reality is the greatest obstacle for them.

 

Here's the thing: I am one of your 5-10% who have sighted a UFO. End of September, 2004, when I was driving into work, over Washington DC. I even took pictures from my moving car. Dark + moving means a longer exposure, so it's blurry. But it was a quite vivid sight.

 

 

 

Here's what I didn't do: claim this was an ET, just because I couldn't figure out what it was. I went into work and got on the internet and identified the UFO. It was a blimp being tested by the army. But I couldn't tell it was a blimp when I saw it. I couldn't tell how big it was, because I didn't know how close it was it looked far away, which would mean it was huge, but in reality I was only a mile or two away. Weirdly lit.

 

A simple lesson in how easy it is for our eyes to be tricked, how lousy eyewitness testimony is and why this does not meet the demand of science.

Here lies the problem. So many

peoples effort went into providing physical evidence that undoubtedly and irrefutably proves that extraterrestrial beings are present in the world carrying out some sinister activities covertly including abduction of human beings. Some of them are scientists who risked what other scientists wouldnt risk in order to provide us with some concrete physical evidence of the phenomenon. Youre now presented with scientific evidence and you even reject that with sarcasm. I have absolutely no affiliation with the author and I couldnt care less whether you purchased the book or not in terms of making profit for the author or the publisher. I was providing the information and the physical proofs of the phenomenon you guys asked for here. You can choose to remain ignorant, if you wish. However, you would be doing so at your peril. I do mean peril.

The author's claims overstate the results in the appendix of the book. Pure and simple.

 

I do believe model is not the same as the physical evidence. I thought everyone knew that models and predictions, specific or otherwise, are not scientific at all.

I think you would have to exclude scientists from the group who "knows" this. Making and testing models are an integral part of science.

[Klaynos]

Still with the jumping from may possible be of extra terrestrial origins to it was manufactured by EBEs. Even if it contained metal that you could prove matched meteorites would not mean it wasn't forged on earth after impact. Just look at inuit cutlery.

[Ophiolite]

You didn’t bold-face the “except” part in my statement.

Of course I didn't. That was a separate clause that has a connection with the first part and with reality only in your mind.

 

You asked:

And do you expect me to have access to all these equipment linked to radar system and the ability to monitor 24/7 from a central control?

 

Of course I do not expect you to have access to that equipment. But you had stated:

 

Nobody, in principle or otherwise, is capable of carrying out any investigation that meets the threshold of being scientific

 

Well, I have demonstrated that, in principle, it is possible. Would this be expensive? Yes, but very likely considerably less than the large Hadron collider or the ISS.

 

Will you please have the decency to admit that your statement was wrong?

 

 

Further, your statement regarding models and predictions not being part of science is, as pointed out by SwansonT, pure nonsense. Models and predictions are integral to the scientific method. Your statement confirms, if confirmation were needed, that you have no idea of the scientific method.

 

One of the ways in which this is evident is your sloppy writing. (I say it is sloppy - the less flattering interpretation is that it is deliberately deceptive.) Here is an example:

 

You state that There was also a letter from Dr. Russell Vernon Clark with a conclusion of non-terrestrial isotopes.

 

Wow! Non-terrestrial isotopes. Isotopes that simply don't exist on Earth. That's pretty clear cut. But what is actually said?

samples show some isotopic ratios consistent with an extraterrestrial origin

 

Do you understand that unique isotopes and a different isotope ratio are radically different things? Radically different. Do you understand that faced with such carelessness in writing (or such syncism) it becomes almost mandatory to doubt anything you say?

Edited March 22, 2013 by Ophiolite

[swansont]

If one accepts the eyewitness accounts of UFO sightings as evidence of ET visits, then one is compelled to also accept ghosts, fairies, bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. If you are willing to lower the bar to the level of "I can't gather proper evidence because ET is using advanced technology" then you have to accept magic and pretty much every mythology that ever existed as being true.

 

Science seeks to separate itself from such twaddle. Science demands objective data and rigor. You must be "that tall" to get in the door.

[PeterJ]

As Moontanman said, it's a shame that discussions of this fascinating topic have to always descend into such arguments. Surely we're not talking about what would be a scientific approach to these phenomena, but just what would be a common sense and sane approach. it cannot be sane to make assumptions and call them facts. End of.

[Moontanman]

I think it is reasonable to assert that our technology has passed the point that if we wanted to we could search for such craft/colonies inside our solar system. Such objects would have to radiate in the infra red quite strongly, assuming they use power and the laws of physics aren't being violated.

 

Military radar "supposedly" already tracks as many as 500 anomalous objects coming into the earths atmosphere and leaving the earths atmosphere every year, the ones leaving are unusual enough for me at least to ask "what are they?"

 

I think the evidence of photos, radar contacts and sightings, multiple independent observers and of trained observers, is enough to warrant such a search.

 

But blathering on endlessly about such things as abductions and fairies and elves are never going to be productive...

 

We need to actually search for evidence not debate the little bit of evidence we have forever...

[ydoaPs]

On page 222, Dr. Russell Vernon Clark wrote to Dr. Roger Leir, “It is possible, but not conclusively proven, that both the RR3 and 007KT samples show some isotopic ratios consistent with an extraterrestrial origin.”

So, they wrote that it is inconclusive that it is consistent with extraterrestrial origin? That sums up to a result of a whopping nothing. Since we don't have any examples of extraterrestrial tech, we can't say what their tech is like, so anything is consistent with it. Likewise, any material is consistent with extraterrestrial material.

 

Note that the report wasn't "It is possible, but not conclusively proven, that both the RR3 and 007KT samples show some isotopic ratios inconsistent with a terrestrial origin". That's better, but still not anything to write home about, since it explicitly says the results are inconclusive. So, what you want is a report that says "It is conclusively proven that both the RR3 and 007KT samples show some isotopic ratios inconsistent with a terrestrial origin". Once you get that, let us know. Actually, once you get that, make sure the person publishes their report so they can collect their Nobel prize.

 

As has been said above, your reading of that is incredibly overblown.

Here's the thing: I am one of your 5-10% who have sighted a UFO. End of September, 2004, when I was driving into work, over Washington DC. I even took pictures from my moving car. Dark + moving means a longer exposure, so it's blurry. But it was a quite vivid sight.

I've also seen strange lights in the sky. Like swansont, I live in an area where any aliens monitoring us would be interested in observing. I am at one of the better research facilities in the world (we were recently part of a team of facilities which created the smallest physically possible transitor). A few months back, I saw a huge orange light (about the apparent size of half of a dime held out at arm's reach) spontaneously appear in the sky as though it popped out of a hyperspace window or some other sci-fi spacetime "jump". This huge bright light moved silently for a bit and then broke up into several smaller bright lights which moved silently and then disappeared as suddenly as the initial light appeared.

 

Now, meteors that big make a lot of noise. In fact, on the night of the meteor explosion above Russia, one flew over my area and was so loud that inside with my headphones on it was as loud as a jet engine at fairly close range.

 

So, what was the bright like I saw? Most likely a meteor that broke up. BUT IT WAS SILENT, you say. Well, that just means it was probably farther away than it appeared (meaning it was even more impressively large and moving even more impressively quickly).

 

Going from "oooh, look at that light in the sky" to "IT MUST BE ALIENS" without any further evidence is never a warranted jump.

[Ophiolite]

We now have two persons on this thread who have seen UFOs and yet have avoided jumping to a concussion. Add me for a third. I've seen at least a handful. Most were identified before they went out of sight. The ones that were not differed only in minor detail to the ones that were identified. In short, nothing to see here; move along.