4734 replies to this topic

[zoser]

1963, on 12 October 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

What do you make of the video Boony?...Do you think that it could be an example of that 'atmospheric-plasma' that we discussed?
Or could this film be something just as simple as a reflection on a glass window from behind the cameraman?

I must say that the account of the sighting/filming given by Tim and his daughter Brandy, sounds sincere enough....but the 'object' in the clip itself doesn't seem quite real to me. And the smaller 'orbs' [as someone described them] look like a couple of pigeons darting around the scene in my opinion....But then as always,..I could be way off the mark!...what do you think ?

Cheers buddy.

You mean he hoaxed it?  He was outside looking at the the thing with his daughter!  What do you classify as real when looking at UFO footage?  Please clarify.

[Hazzard]

zoser, on 12 October 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:

Didn't really answer anything.  No worries Haz; just about to have a bite to eat then I'll post some information about it.

Shocker,...

[Lilly]

zoser, on 12 October 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

Which throws into question the cultural version of the scientific principle which seems based on nothing real at all, but rather is a place to hide for closed un-trusting minds.

Could you extrapolate about what you see as "the cultural version of the scientific principle"?

Also, if the evidence is lacking why should I trust that what others are telling me is the truth? People are notoriously bad in this regard. People frequently conclude things, see things, believe in things based on speculation, fantasy, wish fulfillment. religious fervor etc. We humans just aren't that good at being unbiased observers/thinkers. The scientific method simply provides the guideline for us to rationally gather knowledge.

Edited by Lilly, 13 October 2012 - 10:33 AM.
spelling

[zoser]

Lilly, on 13 October 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

Could you extrapolate about what you see as "the cultural version of the scientific principle"?

Also, if the evidence is lacking why should I trust that what others are telling me is the truth? People are notoriously bad in this regard. People frequently conclude things, see things, believe in things based on speculation, fantasy, wish fulfillment. religious fervor etc. We humans just aren't that good at being unbiased observers/thinkers. The scientific method simply provides the guideline for us to rationally gather knowledge.

Whose scientific method?  That's the point.  Adherents of classic science band this phrase around as if it is written in some bible that all are familiar with and comply to.  What I am trying to say is that is a monumental assumption.  

I'm not one of these people either that advocates the cliche 'truth is relative'.  It's clearly not.  

The problem I have regarding the phrase 'scientific truth' as banded about on this forum is:

(1) It's undefined.  
(2) It seems only to constitute UFO's landing on the White House lawn or in someone's back garden.
(3) It gets used as a peg to hang one's coat of denial on.  

Do see that if (2) happens there will still be those that are still in heavy denial and claim that it's the Russians doing.  That's the point; no proof is good enough.

That's why collecting incidents, cross checking details, and looking for correlation is the best way.

Scientific method is like the myth of Atlantis; everyone seems sure it exists but no one can actually find it.

[Lilly]

Science doesn't claim to find "the truth". The scientific method proposes and tests hypotheses. There's full awareness that future evidence may cause refinement/revision/rejection of any hypothesis (even theories).

Basically, the scientific method offers us a manner in which to look critically at things, to subject our ideas to falsification, to search for viable evidence, to examine and question before coming to any conclusions.

This is summed up nicely by Carl Sagan in what he called a method for "baloney detection"

http://www.planetfor...fl/baloney.html

[TheMacGuffin]

Lilly, on 13 October 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

Science doesn't claim to find "the truth". The scientific method proposes and tests hypotheses. There's full awareness that future evidence may cause refinement/revision/rejection of any hypothesis (even theories).

Basically, the scientific method offers us a manner in which to look critically at things, to subject our ideas to falsification, to search for viable evidence, to examine and question before coming to any conclusions.

This is summed up nicely by Carl Sagan in what he called a method for "baloney detection"

http://www.planetfor...fl/baloney.html

What if I were to say that Carl Sagan knew a lot more about ETs and UFOs than he "shared" with the public and most of his colleagues?

He wasn't the only one.  LOL

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 13 October 2012 - 03:03 PM.

[booNyzarC]

TheMacGuffin, on 13 October 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

What if I were to say that Carl Sagan knew a lot more about ETs and UFOs than he "shared" with the public and most of his colleagues?

He wasn't the only one.  LOL

What if you were?  It would carry just about as much weight as any other unsubstantiated claim, which is to say; none at all.

[TheMacGuffin]

booNyzarC, on 13 October 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

What if you were?  It would carry just about as much weight as any other unsubstantiated claim, which is to say; none at all.

How sure are you about that?  Are you 100% sure that I am wrong about what I'm saying?

Do you think I'm just 100% wrong about everything I've said on here?  How sure are you, Boon?

[booNyzarC]

TheMacGuffin, on 13 October 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

How sure are you about that?  Are you 100% sure that I am wrong about what I'm saying?

Do you think I'm just 100% wrong about everything I've said on here?  How sure are you, Boon?

Did I say even one thing about you being wrong McG?  Please read it again.  I didn't say anything about you being wrong.

What I implied is that by making such a statement, you would be making an unsubstantiated claim.  That is all.

If you made the statement and included verifiable evidence in support of the statement, it would be a different story.

Do you see the difference?

[synchronomy]

TheMacGuffin, on 13 October 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

What if I were to say that Carl Sagan knew a lot more about ETs and UFOs than he "shared" with the public and most of his colleagues?

He wasn't the only one.  LOL

Yes Sagan new a lot more.
I had a friend years ago who spent some time working with him and he claimed that Sagan's personal belief and knowledge was different from what he portrayed publicly because he was funded heavily by acedemia...that's the case for many scientists. That is Universities and private/government research groups etc.  Since his views were widely accepted by the public, he had to be damn careful what he said or he could lose his funding by losing his credibility.  To be on the safe side he took the firm stance of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".
Some have claimed over the years that this made him a paid disinformationist.  Not at all true.  He was a scientist trying to earn a living and had to protect his income.
By saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", he was indirectly inferring ...."go get the proof, it's out there somewhere".
His great novel "Contact" details a scenerio in which we make contact via interdimensional means.  Although it was published as fiction, it wasn't far off from Sagan's beliefs.

[TheMacGuffin]

booNyzarC, on 13 October 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

Did I say even one thing about you being wrong McG?  Please read it again.  I didn't say anything about you being wrong.

What I implied is that by making such a statement, you would be making an unsubstantiated claim.  That is all.

If you made the statement and included verifiable evidence in support of the statement, it would be a different story.

Do you see the difference?

Long ago, in a 1965 newspaper article, Carl Sagan was referred to as "an adviser on ET life for the Armed Services", which comes a lot closer to the truth than most people realize.

http://www.google.co...2ME-YpuBYYtfi3g



Now he did introduce a great deal of information to the public about this subject, but by no means everything he knew.


Do you see what I'm saying, Boon?

[TheMacGuffin]

synchronomy, on 13 October 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

Yes Sagan new a lot more.
I had a friend years ago who spent some time working with him and he claimed that Sagan's personal belief and knowledge was different from what he portrayed publicly because he was funded heavily by acedemia...that's the case for many scientists. That is Universities and private/government research groups etc.  Since his views were widely accepted by the public, he had to be damn careful what he said or he could lose his funding by losing his credibility.  To be on the safe side he took the firm stance of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

I would say that Sagan was involved in the classified UFO and ET investigation going back to the time when he was a young scientists, just starting out, as that 1965 newspaper article indicates.

He did share some information with the public and his colleagues, but not everything.  I mean, was he going to say that SETI itself started out as a military program long before the public was aware of it, and that as usual in these things that classified program was much larger and older than the public version?

Hell, they knew that UFOs were coming in from space as soon as radar was invented that could detect things that high--way back in the 1940s.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 13 October 2012 - 03:52 PM.

[TheMacGuffin]

synchronomy, on 13 October 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

Yes Sagan new a lot more.
Some have claimed over the years that this made him a paid disinformationist.  Not at all true.  He was a scientist trying to earn a living and had to protect his income.
By saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", he was indirectly inferring ...."go get the proof, it's out there somewhere".
His great novel "Contact" details a scenerio in which we make contact via interdimensional means.  Although it was published as fiction, it wasn't far off from Sagan's beliefs.

Maybe he meant to say "get the proof declassified because I've already seen some of it", as an adviser on ET life to the military.  One of many such "advisers" I'm sure.

[synchronomy]

TheMacGuffin, on 13 October 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

Maybe he meant to say "get the proof declassified because I've already seen some of it", as an adviser on ET life to the military.  One of many such "advisers" I'm sure.

I agree.  I could get more specific about what I heard about Sagan, but I'm not going to because it's the old "a guy told me that new him once" stories.  I believe what I heard to be true.  It's one of those technology/knowledge claims that are "indistinguishable from magic" as they say.
I'm not going to post details simply because I don't have proof and the debunkers here will pounce on me like "buzzards on a gutwagon"...lol.
I've probably said enough anyway...I better go and put on my flamesuit!

Edited by synchronomy, 13 October 2012 - 04:17 PM.

[TheMacGuffin]

synchronomy, on 13 October 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

I agree.  I could get more specific about what I heard about Sagan, but I'm not going to because it's the old "a guy told me that new him once" stories.  I believe what I heard to be true.  It's one of those technology/knowledge claims that are "indistinguishable from magic" as they say.
I'm not going to post details simply because I don't have proof and the debunkers here will pounce on me like "buzzards on a gutwagon"...lol.
I've probably said enough anyway...I better go and put on my flamesuit!

They always pounce on me, saying I never have any evidence, but I have proved them wrong a couple thousand times.  I can do so any time I choose.