SETI Institute chief offers his views on UFOs and alien visitors

[MrAnderson]

18 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

The fact is you are quoting an apocryphal meme.  None of the articles you have provided, can cite the 1895 statement.  The all fail at  iting their sources.

Post the original source and we can see the context.  Until then all you are doing is presenting a meme, and hoping others are as wilfully gullible as you.

So you are saying that the NewScientist article together with the articles from scienceworld.wolfram and Wikipedia are somehow pushing misinformation altogether?

Is there some nefarious reasons behind this or some strange conspiracy theory?

I don't have any responsibility to post the original source from 1895 or any other source that dates back to the 19th and 18th centuries or even earlier.

Do you think someone is gullible when reading the same information in a number of articles posted in the 20th and 21st century about an event that took place in the 19th century.

Take a look at how much you have corneted yourself with these disingenuous arguments of yours.

New scientist article

"The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers’ flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”, only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later. 

Even when Kelvin made his infamous statement, scientists and engineers were closing rapidly on the goal of heavier-than-air flight. People had been flying in balloons since the late eighteenth century, and by the late 1800s these were controllable. Several designs, such as Félix du Temple’s Monoplane, had also taken to the skies, if only briefly. So why the scepticism about heavier-than-air flight? 

The problem was set out in 1716 by the scientist and theologian Emanuel Swedenborg in an article describing a design for a flying machine. Swedenborg wrote: “It seems easier to talk of such a machine than to put it into actuality, for it requires greater force and less weight than exists in a human body"

 

And take a look how wrong they prove some posters who thought Kevin didn't say what he is reported to have said and that according to other posters he was the only person on the planet to have these views. It seems you 'skeptics' don't even agree @astrobeing on what to say to hold on to your unsubstantiated arguments.

If you haven't realised it astrobeing thought that Kelvin was the only person on this planet who thought that heavier than air travel was impossible. At least he accepts that he said it and that the links are legitimate.

The burden of proof is on you.

If it think that NewScientist is wrong write to them and refuted their article and try to suggest corrections.

Edited July 28 by MrAnderson

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, MrAnderson said:

So you are saying that the NewScientist article together with the articles from scienceworld.wolfram and Wikipedia are somehow pushing misinformation altogether?

Is there some nefarious reasons behind this or some strange conspiracy theory?

I don't have any responsibility to post the original source from 1895 or any other source that dates back to the 19th and 18th centuries or even earlier.

Do you think someone is gullible when reading the same information in a number of articles posted in the 20th and 21st century about an event that took place in the 19th century.

Take a look at how much you have corneted yourself with these disingenuous arguments of yours.

New scientist article

"The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers’ flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”, only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later. 

Even when Kelvin made his infamous statement, scientists and engineers were closing rapidly on the goal of heavier-than-air flight. People had been flying in balloons since the late eighteenth century, and by the late 1800s these were controllable. Several designs, such as Félix du Temple’s Monoplane, had also taken to the skies, if only briefly. So why the scepticism about heavier-than-air flight? 

The problem was set out in 1716 by the scientist and theologian Emanuel Swedenborg in an article describing a design for a flying machine. Swedenborg wrote: “It seems easier to talk of such a machine than to put it into actuality, for it requires greater force and less weight than exists in a human body"

 

And take a look how wrong they prove some posters who thought Kevin didn't say what he is reported to have said and that according to other posters he was the only person on the planet to have these views. It seems you 'skeptics' don't even agree @astrobeing on what to say to hold on to your unsubstantiated arguments.

If you haven't realised it astrobeing thought that Kelvin was the only person on this planet who thought that heavier than air travel was impossible. At least he accepts that he said it and that the links are legitimate.

The burden of proof is on you.

If it think that NewScientist is wrong write to them and refuted their article and try to suggest corrections.

Checking references is not disingenuous. 

The 1895 is apocrypha; ie, a meme.

The fabtasy of a nafarious conspiracy is a strawman you have built.

I think it's just lazy journalism.  That is common when the audience is gullible.

You are playing the part of gullible netizen - crowing that because something is on the internet, it must be true.  Your specious reasoning is laughable.

Edited July 29 by Golden Duck

[ChrLzs]

Quote

I don't have any responsibility to post the original source from 1895 or any other source

Actually, this forum sometimes does impose that as a requirement.  So you have a choice - either properly cite your claims or withdraw them and risk being reported or constrained to a single thread  .  And if you refuse, then you are open to being called for what you are.  We have that responsibility...

 

Which is, of course, what anyone with morality, honesty and the wish to properly debate, would do.  

And in this case... what the hell does the fact that scientists (NOT Science) sometimes get it wrong and then get corrected?

Science is self-correcting by its nature.  It, unlike you, welcomes and admits corrections - it is always open to new, better theories.  

Not the almost constant irrelevant tripe you are currently posting.

Edited July 29 by ChrLzs

[Golden Duck]

12 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Actually, this forum sometimes does impose that as a requirement.  So you have a choice - either properly cite your claims or withdraw them and risk being reported or constrained to a single thread  .  And if you refuse, then you are open to being called for what you are.  We have that responsibility...

 

Which is, of course, what anyone with morality, honesty and the wish to properly debate, would do.  

And in this case... what the hell does the fact that scientists (NOT Science) sometimes get it wrong and then get corrected?

Science is self-correcting by its nature.  It, unlike you, welcomes and admits corrections - it is always open to new, better theories.  

Not the almost constant irrelevant tripe you are currently posting.

Zetorian is trying to argue by analogy. Because the theories of flight (developed in 19C) were proven correct - the theories about FTL travel must be wrong.

[Essan]

So,if we accept that Kelvin stated that heavier than air flight is impossible, we must also accept that IF he had claimed faster than light travel was impossible, he might also be incorrect about that?    Cos, that's really all this heated* argument comes down to


* see what I did there

[Hazzard]

6 minutes ago, Essan said:

So,if we accept that Kelvin stated that heavier than air flight is impossible, we must also accept that IF he had claimed faster than light travel was impossible, he might also be incorrect about that?    Cos, that's really all this heated* argument comes down to


* see what I did there

Zetorians finest logic at work. 😄

[MrAnderson]

8 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Checking references is not disingenuous. 

The 1895 is apocrypha; ie, a meme.

The fabtasy of a nafarious conspiracy is a strawman you have built.

I think it's just lazy journalism.  That is common when the audience is gullible.

You are playing the part of gullible netizen - crowing that because something is on the internet, it must be true.  Your specious reasoning is laughable.

So lazy journalism is the other explanation you have given after dismissing the NewScientist article as well as the links from the Wikipedia and scienceworld.worlfram

As the burden of proof is on you then you may want to challenge all three of them and put forward your doubts.

Where is your evidence that they are lazy and they are pushing misinformation in relation to what Kelvin said. Having a personal opinion is fine but don't push it as a fact.

Something that everyone knows is on the internet and is reported by well respected scientific magazines such as the NewScientist. If you think they are wrong and you are right then it's all yours. Prove them wrong!

[MrAnderson]

39 minutes ago, Essan said:

So,if we accept that Kelvin stated that heavier than air flight is impossible, we must also accept that IF he had claimed faster than light travel was impossible, he might also be incorrect about that?    Cos, that's really all this heated* argument comes down to


* see what I did there

Whatever you accept or reject at least you need to base it to some sources. Duck presents his personal opinion without any link supporting it. On the other hand I have provided three links and one of the NewScientist reporting on a rather well known story.

If Duck has any evidence to show it's wrong then he can post it. Doubts are fine but it's nothing more than doubts.

[Golden Duck]

23 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

So lazy journalism is the other explanation you have given after dismissing the NewScientist article as well as the links from the Wikipedia and scienceworld.worlfram

As the burden of proof is on you then you may want to challenge all three of them and put forward your doubts.

Where is your evidence that they are lazy and they are pushing misinformation in relation to what Kelvin said. Having a personal opinion is fine but don't push it as a fact.

Something that everyone knows is on the internet and is reported by well respected scientific magazines such as the NewScientist. If you think they are wrong and you are right then it's all yours. Prove them wrong!

The article from Wolfram has a references section.  But the reference for the 1895 statrment is not included.  This is really basic first semester, first year stuff.  If you don't cite your sources correctly, at best,  you fail.  Alternatively, you could be facong academic misconduct. 

Anybody and everybody that has ever studied university knows this.

The anonymous article on Wolfram's website, is lazily incomplete in it's references.

You have demonstated the extent of your catfish course of conduct.

[Hazzard]

45 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

Whatever you accept or reject at least you need to base it to some sources.

Like you always do?

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

Enough with the bickering folks, all this divisive "us vs them" nonsense regarding skeptics/believers needs to stop.

[iAlrakis]

On 7/29/2024 at 12:17 PM, MrAnderson said:

... Duck presents his personal opinion without any link supporting it. On the other hand I have provided three links and one of the NewScientist reporting on a rather well known story...

You do realise that a personal opinion doesn't require reference material or proof, right?  

[Golden Duck]

42 minutes ago, iAlrakis said:

You do realise that a personal opinion doesn't require reference material or proof, right?  

It may be a personal opinion, but the observation Ibhave detailed raise a reasonable apprehension that the 1895 is apocryphal.

Zetorian is asking me to prove that something doesn't exist.  Of course, it is inreasonable to expect that I possess omniscience.  But, as we can see in their posts, we can't expect anything other than the unreasonable from Zetorian.

The simple request is to produce the entire 1895 statement to analyse the context of this single sentence that convinces the gullible. 

[godnodog]

On 7/29/2024 at 12:30 AM, MrAnderson said:

. People had been flying in balloons since the late eighteenth century, and by the late 1800s these were controllable.

oldest case I can remember is portuguese case of the"passarola" in early 1700s (between 1708-1720)

[MrAnderson]

1 hour ago, iAlrakis said:

You do realise that a personal opinion doesn't require reference material or proof, right?  

Yes, and that's what I have said always. It's when you present it as a fact things get complicated. I don't have a problem with personal opinions.

[iAlrakis]

17 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

Yes, and that's what I have said always. It's when you present it as a fact things get complicated. I don't have a problem with personal opinions.

fair enough.

[Hazzard]

18 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

 It's when you present it as a fact things get complicated. I don't have a problem with personal opinions.

Curious.  You dont seem to mind when Skyeagle does it??

Quite the opposite in fact... as you always like those posts!

[MrAnderson]

1 hour ago, Hazzard said:

Curious.  You dont seem to mind when Skyeagle does it??

Quite the opposite in fact... as you always like those posts!

He usually presents his personal opinion and someone's personal opinion is not a universal fact. Agree or disagree with him it's another story.

[MrAnderson]

19 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

It may be a personal opinion, but the observation Ibhave detailed raise a reasonable apprehension that the 1895 is apocryphal.

Zetorian is asking me to prove that something doesn't exist.  Of course, it is inreasonable to expect that I possess omniscience.  But, as we can see in their posts, we can't expect anything other than the unreasonable from Zetorian.

The simple request is to produce the entire 1895 statement to analyse the context of this single sentence that convinces the gullible. 

Don't call me with other names please.

If you try to say that the links I have provided don't say the truth or they have made false statements then the burden of proof is on you. Since you have expressed doubts on all links I have given including the New scientist, it's all on you now.

To remind you that prior to this you have said that Kelvin never said what is reported to have said. So this is the original claim (and again the burden of proof is on you).

Part of your post

"Kelvin didn't state flight was impossible.  You are wrong again.  You and I are probably uncertain whatvyou posted"

 

But a simple Google search gives the following (links in the previous page)

"Another example of his hubris is provided by his 1895 statement "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" (Australian Institute of Physics), followed by his 1896 statement, "I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning.."

Edited August 3 by MrAnderson

[Hazzard]

5 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

He usually presents his personal opinion and someone's personal opinion is not a universal fact. Agree or disagree with him it's another story.

Maybe you should try telling him that? 😄 

[MrAnderson]

49 minutes ago, Hazzard said:

Maybe you should try telling him that? 😄 

I ve told him in his thread.

[Dejarma]

2 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

He usually presents his personal opinion and someone's personal opinion is not a universal fact.

he comes across as someone who feels what he says is fact... or is a 'universal fact' different from a good ol' boring basic fact? i'm confused 🤷‍♂️

[MrAnderson]

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

he comes across as someone who feels what he says is fact... or is a 'universal fact' different from a good ol' boring basic fact? i'm confused 🤷‍♂️

It's your perception which could be wrong. Everyone here expresses personal opinions which can be backed by some logical discussions and links provided. That's all we can do in a forum like this.

[Dejarma]

1 hour ago, MrAnderson said:

It's your perception which could be wrong. Everyone here expresses personal opinions which can be backed by some logical discussions and links provided. That's all we can do in a forum like this.

You are right, my perception could be wrong. Who am I? I'm nobody, just someone with an opinion on the data provided- which is the same data we're all privy to.

Though some in here claim to know data I don't & base there arguments on that which of course is futile when trying to have, as you say: 'logical discussions' regarding this enigma.

The problem folk like your good self have is you don't listen to others... You want logical discussion I take it so read what I have to say here, take it in & try to understand:

When a high ranking X whatever starts telling stories about aliens on this planet; this is the important bit === by default It must be BS!!

Out of respect for their X position & X colleges they would say nothing, plus they would have signed the official secrets act which by law stops them RETIRED OR NOT!!

Take the fantasy glasses off for a minute & think about it- all due respect.

Peace, MrAnderson 

Dej...

 

[MrAnderson]

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

You are right, my perception could be wrong. Who am I? I'm nobody, just someone with an opinion on the data provided- which is the same data we're all privy to.

Though some in here claim to know data I don't & base there arguments on that which of course is futile when trying to have, as you say: 'logical discussions' regarding this enigma.

The problem folk like your good self have is you don't listen to others... You want logical discussion I take it so read what I have to say here, take it in & try to understand:

When a high ranking X whatever starts telling stories about aliens on this planet; this is the important bit === by default It must be BS!!

Out of respect for their X position & X colleges they would say nothing, plus they would have signed the official secrets act which by law stops them RETIRED OR NOT!!

Take the fantasy glasses off for a minute & think about it- all due respect.

Peace, MrAnderson 

Dej...

 

If it was only for a few stories then we wouldn't be having this conversation. The UFO phenomenon is not just stories and whistleblowers who decide to speak out. It's much more than that and everyone knows it. It's much more complex than anyone can think of.