Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Derrick Pitts, Astronomer, Wants UFOs Studied


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#31    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 09 October 2012 - 01:32 AM

Lord Martin Rees is an ignoramus about UFOs.

*snip*

Edited by Saru, 09 October 2012 - 09:20 AM.
Removed non-topical images


#32    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,558 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 09 October 2012 - 01:51 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 09 October 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

I don't know what you're reading, but Lord Martin Rees said the exact same thing about UFOs in the other Huffington Post article.


"I think most astronomers would dismiss these," Rees said. "I dismiss them because if aliens had made the great effort to traverse interstellar distances to come here, they wouldn't just meet a few well-known cranks, make a few circles in corn fields and go away again."


Not only is that insulting, but it's purely and simply dumb and false.


http://www.huffingto...ref=mostpopular

I took that quote directly from the article referenced in the OP. This link.

Many astronomers say there's nothing of any scientific merit that could result in the study of UFOs.

Which as we can see is a play on words that results in a lie.

That is clearly the ETH, not UFO's or the also mentioned (in the article) UAP.

And Hynek said pretty much exactly the same thing, one could surmise Hynek was his inspiration.


I have come to support less and less the idea that UFOs are ‘nuts and bolts’ spacecraft from other worlds. There are just too many things going against this theory. To me, it seems ridiculous that super intelligences would travel great distances to do relatively stupid things like stop cars, collect soil samples, and frighten people. I think we must begin to re-examine the evidence. We must begin to look closer to home.

J. Allen Hynek

LINK

​Yet Hynek is reverred, and Rees is derided? How does that work?

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#33    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 09 October 2012 - 02:10 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 09 October 2012 - 01:51 AM, said:

I took that quote directly from the article referenced in the OP. This link.

Many astronomers say there's nothing of any scientific merit that could result in the study of UFOs.

Which as we can see is a play on words that results in a lie.

That is clearly the ETH, not UFO's or the also mentioned (in the article) UAP.




Yes, I got that quote from Rees in the very same article, where he says no astronomers should take UFO reports seriously, which is most definitely not something that Hynek ever would have said.  Just the opposite.


#34    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,558 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 09 October 2012 - 03:06 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 09 October 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

Lord Martin Rees is an ignoramus about UFOs.


Yet the man has not offerred his opinion on them? I am having trouble following you, Lord Rees has not mentioned the UFO phenomena at all, he is talking about the ETH. How can he be determined an ignoramus on something he has not offered an opinion of? The media made the leap from UFO to ETH, not Lord Rees.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#35    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,558 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 09 October 2012 - 03:14 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 09 October 2012 - 02:10 AM, said:

Yes, I got that quote from Rees in the very same article, where he says no astronomers should take UFO reports seriously, which is most definitely not something that Hynek ever would have said.  Just the opposite.


But that is what the article says, not Lord Rees, only the reporter has that opinion of Lord Rees, and it seems quite obvious that the reporter is a dimwit who does not recognise the difference between UFO and ETH. The quote is a link, if you follow it, only the ETH is discussed, even though UAP are referenced and it is not in any way the words of Rees. The fault lies not with Lord Rees, but a lousy reporter. It pains me to see people get paid to vomit garbage like this, when so many qualified people are looking for work. Lord Rees specifically states he does not believe backyard hick stories and crop circle claims, and to be quite frank, I cannot blame him. You yourself do not believe the more outrageous claims, and that is what is being referred to here by Lord Rees. For all you and I know, he may not even know the name Thomas Mantell.

As such, the above is a lie, and this can be proven by the very article it appears in. The paper makes the claim for Lord Rees, nobody else does. You will not find a quote referring to the UFO phenomena, only the ETH. We should not have to suffer such fools. And it strikes me that you are attacking the wrong person. Only the reporter makes the claims you have been protesting.

Edited by psyche101, 09 October 2012 - 03:15 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#36    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 09 October 2012 - 04:10 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 09 October 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

But that is what the article says, not Lord Rees, only the reporter has that opinion of Lord Rees, and it seems quite obvious that the reporter is a dimwit who does not .

As such, the above is a lie, and this can be proven by the very article it appears in. The paper makes the claim for Lord Rees, nobody else does. You will not find a quote referring to the UFO phenomena, only the ETH. We should not have to suffer such fools. And it strikes me that you are attacking the wrong person. Only the reporter makes the claims you have been protesting.


Well, you'll have to take that up with the Huffington Post then,l because he is quoted DIRECTLY in two articles as saying exactly what I posted--and even you posted it once!

*snip*

Edited by Saru, 09 October 2012 - 09:23 AM.
Removed non-topical images


#37    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,558 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 09 October 2012 - 04:44 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 09 October 2012 - 04:10 AM, said:

Well, you'll have to take that up with the Huffington Post then,l because he is quoted DIRECTLY in two articles as saying exactly what I posted--and even you posted it once!


How can he sound bad when the paper does the talking for him? Easy I suppose, he is at the mercy of the academic abilities of the reporter, which as we can see quite clearly in this article appear to be almost non existant.


I really do not think I should have to speak to the newspaper? They know they lied to sell headlines, I have posted more than once the ABC expose of the NT News, and how that paper was proven to be doing the same thing the Huffington post here is. And you saw their response! As I said, we should not have to suffer such fools, that is for the credulous.


I still do not follow you, what you posted was a quote about Crop Circles and pertaining to the ETH. You know as well as I do that the ETH and the UFO phenomena are two different things. It is more than clear the Rees never said a single thing about UFO's and what you posted does not change that, Lord Rees does not mention UFO's in the quote you posted either.


What both you and I have posted does not have a quote from Rees that mentions a UFO. Here it is:


Quote

"I think most astronomers would dismiss these," Rees said. "I dismiss them because if aliens had made the great effort to traverse interstellar distances to come here, they wouldn't just meet a few well-known cranks, make a few circles in corn fields and go away again."


How does that pertain to the UFO phenomena, and not the ETH? Where are the letters U, F and O?


Do you consider J Allen Hynek a buffoon for making an almost identical statement?


That statement is clearly pertaining to alien life, and does not so much as mention the UFO phenomena, which the article focuses on. He is referring to the crackpot stories, which you have also said definitely exists and feel you can "pick out" as non genuine and comprise the wilder claims. As such, I simply do not understand your position with Rees.  I do believe the article has mislead you, as indeed it was intended to do.


You say Rees is a Buffoon because the paper says he deos not believe in UFO's yet Rees never said that at all. If he has, may I please ask you to post the direct quote of Rees saying UFO's do not exist. Reading the article, I can see only the person who wrote the silly story put those words in Lord Rees mouth. Something I thought we all frown upon here?

I do not see how other personalities affect the inaccuracy of the article to be honest. I am only saddened that this reporter managed to fool others to bolstering what is only his personal opinion.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#38    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 09 October 2012 - 05:23 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 09 October 2012 - 04:44 AM, said:

What both you and I have posted does not have a quote from Rees that mentions a UFO. Here it is:

How does that pertain to the UFO phenomena, and not the ETH? Where are the letters U, F and O?

Do you consider J Allen Hynek a buffoon for making an almost identical statement?

You say Rees is a Buffoon because the paper says he deos not believe in UFO's yet Rees never said that at all. If he has, may I please ask you to post the direct quote of Rees saying UFO's do not exist. Reading the article, I can see only the person who wrote the silly story put those words in Lord Rees mouth. Something I thought we all frown upon here?

I do not see how other personalities affect the inaccuracy of the article to be honest. I am only saddened that this reporter managed to fool others to bolstering what is only his personal opinion.


I don't know what else to say about this subject, since he very clearly said that he didn't believe ETs were coming here in UFOs.  I just don't know how you're so sure that the reporters simply made up those quotes.

If you look up Rees you will also see that he has made some very different statements about this subject in the past.


#39    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,558 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 09 October 2012 - 10:17 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 09 October 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

I don't know what else to say about this subject, since he very clearly said that he didn't believe ETs were coming here in UFOs.  I just don't know how you're so sure that the reporters simply made up those quotes.

If you look up Rees you will also see that he has made some very different statements about this subject in the past.


I may have a slight advantage in having been made aware of Lord Rees contributions via the astronomy community, that is why I am a little stunned at the low level of reporting in this article. The article is worthy of Pravda, and Vanity Fair. It is a shame to see this paper drop to that level.


He did not say anything about UFO's at all, he never mentioned them in the article. He said only that he is unconvinced hat ET is here, he says ET could be here, but he canot see evidence to support that. Again, it is only the paper that makes the leap for him. He never uttered the letters U, F and O.

LINK - Royal astronomer: 'Aliens may be staring us in the face



“They could be staring us in the face and we just don’t recognise them. The problem is that we’re looking for something very much like us, assuming that they at least have something like the same mathematics and technology,” he said.

“I suspect there could be life and intelligence out there in forms we can’t conceive. Just as a chimpanzee can’t understand quantum theory, it could be there as aspects of reality that are beyond the capacity of our brains.”

Lord Rees used the conference in January, entitled The Detection of Extra-terrestrial Life and the Consequences for Science and Society, to ask whether the discovery of aliens would cause terror or delight on earth.


I gotta say, I think you have him all wrong. He is the sort of guy you want onside I reckon. The bolded above links to an audio file of the conference. I think the Huffington Post owes Lord Rees an apology.

Edited by psyche101, 09 October 2012 - 10:18 PM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#40    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    ... And, the Right Jack

  • Member
  • 2,836 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Boston US

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is knowing when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 09 October 2012 - 10:34 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 09 October 2012 - 01:24 AM, said:

Interesting subject Earl.

How long ago do you figure Pop 3 type stars were creating elements that could eventually form life? I.E, when do you think life could have first formed, alternatively, when do you think it was possible for the first building blocks of life to exist?

for the first 10 million years post big bang.

universe is about 13.75 years old.
our solar system is about 4.5 billion years old.

other star systems had plenty of time to evolve billions of years ahead of ours

"I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just saying I disagree with you" ~ Jeremy ~


#41    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,558 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 09 October 2012 - 11:33 PM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 09 October 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

for the first 10 million years post big bang.

universe is about 13.75 years old.
our solar system is about 4.5 billion years old.

other star systems had plenty of time to evolve billions of years ahead of ours

Gidday Mate.

Yes, agreed, but these were population 1 & 2 stars, no heavy elements existed. Planets were scare, life non-existant. There had to be a point in the Universe where it became possible for life to exist, the Universe has not been capable of supporting life for 14 billion years, that is my point.

At what point do you think Life arose, and what sort of a head start on out system would that particular instance have? And what part of space do you think life first arose in? With the Universe expanding  billions of years means we get very far apart. Do you think we all started in one spot and spread out from there, like our "out of Africa" hypothesis, or do you think it was like lights coming on across a city at dusk? Blinking into existence all over the shop?

Edited by psyche101, 09 October 2012 - 11:35 PM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#42    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 09 October 2012 - 11:37 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 09 October 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

I may have a slight advantage in having been made aware of Lord Rees contributions via the astronomy community, that is why I am a little stunned at the low level of reporting in this article. The article is worthy of Pravda, and Vanity Fair. It is a shame to see this paper drop to that level.


I gotta say, I think you have him all wrong. He is the sort of guy you want onside I reckon. The bolded above links to an audio file of the conference. I think the Huffington Post owes Lord Rees an apology.


I'm very leery of people like him, lest they turn out to be another H.P. Robertson or Edward Condon, yet another one of these government scientists with intelligence connections who simply pooh-pooh the whole subject in public, regardless of what they really know in private.  I can think of plenty of examples of scientists like those.


#43    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    ... And, the Right Jack

  • Member
  • 2,836 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Boston US

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is knowing when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 10 October 2012 - 12:05 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 09 October 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

Gidday Mate.

Yes, agreed, but these were population 1 & 2 stars, no heavy elements existed. Planets were scare, life non-existant. There had to be a point in the Universe where it became possible for life to exist, the Universe has not been capable of supporting life for 14 billion years, that is my point.

At what point do you think Life arose, and what sort of a head start on out system would that particular instance have? And what part of space do you think life first arose in? With the Universe expanding  billions of years means we get very far apart. Do you think we all started in one spot and spread out from there, like our "out of Africa" hypothesis, or do you think it was like lights coming on across a city at dusk? Blinking into existence all over the shop?

Hi psyche....

R U sure about that...? Here is what I get when I look -
"Population III stars are stars from the very earliest years of the Universe. They are stars with extremely low "metal" content." - and as I said before, they lasted about 10 million years, a virtual blink of the eye.

anyway, I have always favored the "blinking into existence all over the shop" theory but I do know there are many scientists that believe in the "coming out of africa" model, as it can be shown that substances *do* go from one planet to the next in any solar system and it is summized that debris carrying comets/asteroids can go from solar system to solar system and do likewise. But just because it *can* happen that way does not mean that is the way it happened.

If our solar system was formed and birthed life on one of its planets in about 4 billion years, I see no reason why life could not have evolved in other solar systems just as quickly, which means as far back as 9.5 billion years ago.

what is your opinion?

"I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just saying I disagree with you" ~ Jeremy ~


#44    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,558 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 10 October 2012 - 01:38 AM

View PostEarl.Of.Trumps, on 10 October 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

Hi psyche....

R U sure about that...? Here is what I get when I look -
"Population III stars are stars from the very earliest years of the Universe. They are stars with extremely low "metal" content." - and as I said before, they lasted about 10 million years, a virtual blink of the eye.

anyway, I have always favored the "blinking into existence all over the shop" theory but I do know there are many scientists that believe in the "coming out of africa" model, as it can be shown that substances *do* go from one planet to the next in any solar system and it is summized that debris carrying comets/asteroids can go from solar system to solar system and do likewise. But just because it *can* happen that way does not mean that is the way it happened.

If our solar system was formed and birthed life on one of its planets in about 4 billion years, I see no reason why life could not have evolved in other solar systems just as quickly, which means as far back as 9.5 billion years ago.

what is your opinion?

HI EOT

Sorry, you are right, I am always dyslexic when it comes to population stars, I get them face about every time.
But you are wrong about the pop III stars, the supernovae laten about 10 million years. The stars themselves, several hundred million years.  Otherwise, I'd pretty much agree that Iron was abundant enough 10 billion years ago to consider life beginning to take form. However, you mention evolution, how long do you think it took for life itself to evolve? How long do you think proto life might have needed to evolve into microorganisms, and then onto more complex creatures?

My opinion. (Concise version)
Considering the harsh conditions in the early universe, I suspect proto life might start forming into life maybe as soon as 4-6 billion years after the big bang? Then maybe another 2-4 billion years to look somewhat like life as we know it, then maybe another 2-4 billion years to attain what we would call intelligence? So my guess would be the first intelligence may have arisen as long as 5 billion years ago?

In my opinion, I also would favour the blinking on all over the place idea. Stars spread the blocks far and wide, there wold be species we never possibly could see out there no matter how fast you go. Building blocks for life are found throughout space.

Edited by psyche101, 10 October 2012 - 02:18 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#45    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,558 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 10 October 2012 - 02:16 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 09 October 2012 - 11:37 PM, said:

I'm very leery of people like him, lest they turn out to be another H.P. Robertson or Edward Condon, yet another one of these government scientists with intelligence connections who simply pooh-pooh the whole subject in public, regardless of what they really know in private.  I can think of plenty of examples of scientists like those.

I am more leery of the media. They have no accountability, no structure, nothing. They can say what ever they want, and usually do. Science suffers terribly at the chinese whispers of  the media circles. Or should I say media circus?

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users