Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Ex-NASA scientist claims that UFOs are real


Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Why don't you actually do that? Take the incident you find most intriguing and present your best case on why-on the balance of probabilities, or whatever standard of proof you prefer-ET is more plausible than an earthly explanation. 

I'd love to.., but I don't have a comparison. Perhaps you'd like to help us out. What do you think your hypothesis would be?

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Fila said:

I'd love to.., but I don't have a comparison. Perhaps you'd like to help us out. What do you think your hypothesis would be?

Comparison with what? You assert you could argue ETH is more credible than whatever alternative is proposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Golden Duck said:

Comparison with what? You assert you could argue ETH is more credible than whatever alternative is proposed.

What do you think your hypothesis would be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Fila said:

What do you think your hypothesis would be?

Why can't you back up your assertion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Golden Duck said:

Why can't you back up your assertion?

I'd love to.., but I don't have a comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fila said:

I'd love to.., but I don't have a comparison.

I think you're starting to "troll".

You are repeatedly refusing to back up your assertion.  It raises the apprehension that you can't. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I think you're starting to "troll".

You are repeatedly refusing to back up your assertion.  It raises the apprehension that you can't. 

If you present me with something I can compare my hypothesis to..,  I will. Until then.., I cannot compare mine to yours.., because I don't know what yours is. I would be wasting my time and yours by guessing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fila said:

If you present me with something I can compare my hypothesis to..,  I will. Until then.., I cannot compare mine to yours.., because I don't know what yours is. I would be wasting my time and yours by guessing.

Your assert that ETH is more credible than Not ETH. You already describef the comparison you're seeking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Golden Duck said:

Your assert that ETH is more credible than Not ETH. You already describef the comparison you're seeking. 

You hypothesise that UFOs are not ET. Is this correct?

What is this based on? Can you provide a rationale and an example? How is can this hypothesis be tested and replicated? (falsifiability and testability)

A hypothesis is usually written in the form of an if/then statement, for example if UFOs are ET.., then X.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fila said:

You hypothesise that UFOs are not ET. Is this correct?

What is this based on? Can you provide a rationale and an example? How is can this hypothesis be tested and replicated? (falsifiability and testability)

A hypothesis is usually written in the form of an if/then statement, for example if UFOs are ET.., then X.

You made the assertion that ETH is more credible than any alternative.  You can't back it up. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You made the assertion that ETH is more credible than any alternative.  You can't back it up. 

I know exactly what I said. You don't need to keep repeating it as if that changes anything.

If you cannot present an alternative.., then all I can do is guess your hypothesis.., and the details surrounding it. Which I have basically done when raising this point with Alien Origins here https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/319297-ex-nasa-scientist-claims-that-ufos-are-real/?do=findComment&comment=6488796

If you seriously believe my interpretation is accurate.., then I will commence. But please don't come back saying "Nah.., that's now what I would do at all" because your answer now.., will be my only reply to you regarding this issue. Please choose carefully.

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Fila said:

I know exactly what I said. You don't need to keep repeating it as if that changes anything.

If you cannot present an alternative.., then all I can do is guess your hypothesis.., and the details surrounding it. Which I have basically done when raising this point with Alien Origins here https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/319297-ex-nasa-scientist-claims-that-ufos-are-real/?do=findComment&comment=6488796

If you seriously believe my interpretation is accurate.., then I will commence. But please don't come back saying "Nah.., that's now what I would do at all" because your answer now.., will be my only reply to you regarding this issue. Please choose carefully.

Or you can just stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

Hitchens Razor.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Or you can just stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

Hitchens Razor.

If you read my post.., I said I could argue against the latter.., whatever it is.. followed by my interpretation. I have no option but to take this as your official stance on how you look into UFOs. Do you accept these conditions before I waste a lot of my time explaining why its not a feasible hypothesis.

I am only explaining this once. I don't have the time to spoon feed my point to you.., bit by bit. I HIGHLY recommend attempting your own hypothesis.., to see my point that you really cannot. Alien Origins got it instantly.

There is no shifting of proof. I am asking for clarification.

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Or you can just stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

Hitchens Razor.

Lol.

While anecdotes don't lend themselves to scientific study, there is a widely accepted academic hypothesis already.

The phenomena amounts to "People claim to see strange craft that are beyond earthly technology and are therefore piloted by aliens".

The facts indicate that every resolved incidence of such so far has been explainable in one of three ways ie. mistake, hoax, delusion.

Hypothesis- "the ufo phenomena (as defined above) is the result of human mistake, hoax or delusion".

It's not a bad hypothesis. There also has been published mainstream academic studies that support this, and have been posted in various threads. It has 0 that would discredit it. All we can do is be open to the possibility it could be wrong.

Edited by Horta
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Horta said:

I think you're right.

This poster claimed in another thread that he is doing a study on attitudes to ufo's. Though rather than be up front about it, which could have seen people genuinely wish to help, he only volunteered this much in an emotional based vitriol. The vagueness, inability to separate natural phenomena from "craft" and generally obtuse nature of posting looks like trolling for what is possibly a high school project.

Feel free to jump in anytime.., and discuss the topics. Don't let a little kid outsmart you.

Genuinely help? Tell me.., what would have changed? Your acting ability.., that's all.

If you look back from the beginning.., up until 2 weeks ago.., I have been civil and asking everyone to work together. Your opinion means nothing against facts.

Vagueness? Are you kidding me? Double standards much? I don't see you pulling up your team mates on this.., bias is so rank here.

Inability to separate natural phenomena from "craft"? What the hell are you on about? Please back this up.

Edited by Fila
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

I am not a scoffer....I am somewhere between skeptic and believer...So I have no defense on being a scoffer because I don't see myself as one...Scoffers totally reject the entire UFO phenomena as I understand it..

A scoffer is anyone that rejects evidence and acts  in a dismissive manner.  Many believers are scoffers. They are dismissive without reason because the facts are against their position. A scoffer can be on either side of an argument. There is a poster that is extremely dismissive of anything that rejects their claim that there are aliens all over the place and so many visiting Earth. They make all sorts of claims and have not a single piece of evidence. They are a strong believer and are also a scoffer. All sides of an argument can have scoffers.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Horta said:

While anecdotes don't lend themselves to scientific study, there is a widely accepted academic hypothesis already.

What is this? Can you please go into details. You accuse me of being vague.

51 minutes ago, Horta said:

The phenomena amounts to "People claim to see strange craft that are beyond earthly technology and are therefore piloted by aliens".

That is one theory.., yes. I am not a believer.., but I don't go out of my way to stop them testing their hypothesis. What you are doing is psychologically strange. Very interesting actually.

51 minutes ago, Horta said:

The facts indicate that every resolved incidence of such so far has been explainable in one of three ways ie. mistake, hoax, delusion.

lol, every resolved incidence has been explained. I can't argue against that.

But there are still plenty of unresolved cases, yea?

51 minutes ago, Horta said:

Hypothesis- "the ufo phenomena is the result of human mistake, hoax or delusion".

Thanks Horta. I can work with that. How can this be tested and verified? (Remember to consider credible cases with radar returns etc. UFOs that are still unexplained). Can this be replicated? How do you prove someone didn't see ball lightning? How do you prove it was an hallucination, or real?

51 minutes ago, Horta said:

It's not a bad hypothesis. There also has been published mainstream academic studies that support this, and have been posted in various threads. It has 0 that would discredit it. All we can do is be open to the possibility it could be wrong.

Make that 0 a 2.., cause you just questioned it yourself as possibly being wrong. But you don't. Which is kinda my point.

Everyone (including pro ETH peeps) is a "believer" in their own hypothesis. So much.., that they don't bother questioning it.., or testing it.., or confirming it. So much time and energy is spent telling scoffers to "wake up and see the truth", when people require evidence. So much time wasted telling believers to "get proof".., when you won't do it either (not to mention the witness evidence paradox)

 

Edited by Fila
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to the statements of this once NASA related scientist, he seems to have nothing more than wishful thinking. In fact, his NASA experience does not seem to have anything to do with his wishful thinking.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Fila said:

If you read my post.., I said I could argue against the latter.., whatever it is.. followed by my interpretation. I have no option but to take this as your official stance on how you look into UFOs. Do you accept these conditions before I waste a lot of my time explaining why its not a feasible hypothesis.

I am only explaining this once. I don't have the time to spoon feed my point to you.., bit by bit. I HIGHLY recommend attempting your own hypothesis.., to see my point that you really cannot. Alien Origins got it instantly.

There is no shifting of proof. I am asking for clarification.

You know how interpreted your assertion. I don't see you saying I've misunderstood you.

I don't agree you need an alternative hypothesis. It sounds like you want to start "eliminating the impossible" or at least rendering every alternative to ET as less probable. IMO this an unreasonably onerous approach.

Ulitimately, you've been asked to back up your assertion the best you can. You seem reluctant.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Going back to the statements of this once NASA related scientist, he seems to have nothing more than wishful thinking. In fact, his NASA experience does not seem to have anything to do with his wishful thinking.

The information he does have such as the RADAR returns don't show any UFO ever leaving, or entering earths atmosphere. There is no correlation between space and UFOs. It doesn't seem a big ask that these so called whistleblowers and UFOlogists make that connection before deciding that UFOs have anything at all to do with space. 

Wishful thinking is certain an apt description. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

The information he does have such as the RADAR returns don't show any UFO ever leaving, or entering earths atmosphere. There is no correlation between space and UFOs. It doesn't seem a big ask that these so called whistleblowers and UFOlogists make that connection before deciding that UFOs have anything at all to do with space. 

That depends on the type of radar being used, as most have limits in range and perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

The article from the man himself

https://theconversation.com/are-we-alone-the-question-is-worthy-of-serious-scientific-study-98843

I get a weird sense of deja vu reading this,:ph34r:

Im honestly surprised he didn't go into great depth on Roswell it seems to be the only bit of dodgy UFOlogy that he missed over the last 50 years, ever other failed argument is in there. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2018 at 9:45 PM, ChrLzs said:

I'm really, really sick of people misusing the term UFO.  Especially people who should know better.

Like ChaosRose I wonder why he's EX-nasa?  (No, actually I don't.)

And I note there are several here saying the gubmint is covering up evidence...  Can I ask, is this all part of a big MIB operation where they immediately find and kill off any witnesses?
OR,
are these little ET-UFO-drivers really really careful to only do their thing where ONLY the government can see what they're up to?  That's nice of them...

It's one or the other, you deep thinkers you... 

Neither... obviously

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

The article from the man himself

https://theconversation.com/are-we-alone-the-question-is-worthy-of-serious-scientific-study-98843

I get a weird sense of deja vu reading this,:ph34r:

Similar apologetics that we get from people like Meldrum, Sheldrake and any number of creation "scientists". 

If it's worth studying scientifically, what would be stopping him?

Is he too busy rebuking science for not studying it, to go and study it lol?

Why doesn't he get busy with his alien theory, gleaned from his scientific study?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.