Show Me A Sceptic That Does Not Believe In Aliens

reply to post by Salt of the Earth


"It's not vacuum. It's aether, and quite heavy, heavy enough to hold the stars and planets in their orbits. "

Welcome to the 14th century, Salty One.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Salt of the Earth

 

I know asking for evidence is a major crime here. That's one of the reasons I do it. The other would be that if you are ever going to get the respect for this field that you crave, you're going to have do a lot better at being critical of evidence provided and learn to eliminate the nonsense.

Yes there's a whole heap'n pile of crap evidence out there. We don't disagree on that point. However if the '56 Bentwaters case looks as good as it does we need movement on this issue now.

I do not want to see the study of UFOs elevated to the status of a whole area of science (ufology). It's completely unnecessary. There simply needs to be a group somewhere studying this (secret or otherwise). There are serious defense implications and if the USAF is sticking their collective heads in the sand over this ... we really could be truly f*'ed.

reply to post by Xtraeme


"Yes there's a whole heap'n pile of crap evidence out there. We don't disagree on that point. However if the '56 Bentwaters case looks as good as it does we need movement on this issue now."

The difference here is I see *most* of the evidence of Bentwaters as crap evidence, principally the hearsay evidence. The best UFO cases are so very weak.

"I do not want to see the study of UFOs elevated to the status of a whole area of science (ufology)."

You're succeeding, then. Congratulations. But I do find it strange that ufologists are demanding respect, complaining about not getting it, and then refusing to help make it a credible science. What up wit' dat?

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

The difference here is I see *most* of the evidence of Bentwaters as crap evidence, principally the hearsay evidence. The best UFO cases are so very weak.

Okay in your non-expert opinion (ignoring expert analysis McDonald, Thayer, Hynek, Condon Committee, AIAA, etc) which of it is crap and why?

I'm going to keep asking you this until you finally produce an answer.

But I do find it strange that ufologists are demanding respect, complaining about not getting it, and then refusing to help make it a credible science. What up wit' dat?

Perhaps because most people interested in the subject aren't scientists? Or they lack a formal college education? I think many good-intentioned people have overreached and done more harm than good in the process.

As far as declaring ufology a field of study, that's like declaring, "I want to create a new science to study anything perceptibly out of the ordinary." It's too broad and unfocused. That's why it should simply be a research group, until more properties are known.

reply to post by Xtraeme


"Okay in your non-expert opinion (ignoring expert analysis McDonald, Thayer, Hynek, Condon Committee, AIAA, etc) which of it is crap and why?"

I explained that, "hearsay evidence". Do try to read a post before commenting on it.

Okay, then, if you don't want to put the work into making ufology respectable, don't complain when you don't get respect. Simple system.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

"Okay in your non-expert opinion (ignoring expert analysis McDonald, Thayer, Hynek, Condon Committee, AIAA, etc) which of it is crap and why?"

I explained that, "hearsay evidence". Do try to read a post before commenting on it.

Okay, then, if you don't want to put the work into making ufology respectable, don't complain when you don't get respect. Simple system.

I do understand the desire for wanting something that's deductive (as do I) what you're unwilling to admit is that corroborating air / ground radar and visible light anomalies at those particular locations doesn't happen (go read Menkello's work - this is a deductive principle). That's why this case made it all the way before the AIAA, the Condon Study. It is a genuine unknown.

You have one unknown that suggests intelligence and what makes more sense, let the tin-foil hat people study the subject or continue to run something like Blue Book till more is known?

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by Xtraeme


"You have one unknown that suggests intelligence and what makes more sense, let the tin-foil hat people study the subject or continue to run something like Blue Book till more is known?"

You have self-defined intelligence there. You've made a leap that requires support. What support do you have?

I don't object to people studying the subject, I just find it droll that people claim to have studied the subject when they've simply read material that says "Yeah, it was intelligent, no doubt about that" and make up their minds without trying to be sure that the original information was correct and that it was interpreted carefully and thoughtfully. Impulse control is woefully lacking from this field.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

You have self-defined intelligence there. You've made a leap that requires support. What support do you have?

Numerous corroborating ground radar / air radar, two visuals, one air lock on, and all of this evidencing primary returns from behind the Venom as it performed evasive maneuvers.

Even if that doesn't indicate evidence of intelligence in your book (which I would like an explanation for) the original question still stands because clearly there was something affecting the pilots wet-ware, their hardware, and ground radar stations. All of this ended up causing a rather large ruckus for the UK and the US. That alone makes it a problem that could have serious repercussions in a wartime situation.

So the original question still stands minus intelligence, which you objected to, "You have one unknown. What makes more sense, let the tin-foil hat people study the subject or continue to run something like Blue Book till more is known?"

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by Xtraeme


"So the original question still stands minus intelligence, which you objected to, "You have one unknown. What makes more sense, let the tin-foil hat people study the subject or continue to run something like Blue Book till more is known?"

Overly simplistic. The question is, do ufologists want credibility? They certainly whine about not getting it. THEN they complain when people ask them to try to attain it. "Too much work!"

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

"So the original question still stands minus intelligence, which you objected to, "You have one unknown. What makes more sense, let the tin-foil hat people study the subject or continue to run something like Blue Book till more is known?"

Overly simplistic. The question is, do ufologists want credibility? They certainly whine about not getting it. THEN they complain when people ask them to try to attain it. "Too much work!"

What ufologists want is immaterial. A lack of functional ground radar, air radar, and addled airborne pilots is clearly an issue in a wartime situation. That makes it a USAF problem. They never found resolution on that issue and its on the record that it happened. What matters is bringing resolution to the issue.

So I ask again from a military perspective, "You have one unknown. What makes more sense, let the tin-foil hat people study the subject or continue to run something like Blue Book till more is known?"

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by Xtraeme


"So I ask again from a military perspective what makes more sense, "You have one unknown. What makes more sense, let the tin-foil hat people study the subject or continue to run something like Blue Book till more is known?""

False dichotomy. It's not an either-or situation. First, the tin-foil hat people don't need my permission to study the subject. Second, the military really does have better things to do than study every goofy case that comes along.

Say, here's an idea! Why not get a credible ufology program going? One that uses rigorous scientific disciplines to work out the issues? Oh, that's right, "too much work."

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

"So I ask again from a military perspective what makes more sense, "You have one unknown. What makes more sense, let the tin-foil hat people study the subject or continue to run something like Blue Book till more is known?""

Second, the military really does have better things to do than study every goofy case that comes along.

Wow, just wow. If it's broken don't fix it?

I really don't think it is a false dichotomy. The military has a choice. Ignore the issue, which is on record as having been a major ordeal for SAC, or bring resolution. You're arguing that it's okay not to.

Say, here's an idea! Why not get a credible ufology program going? One that uses rigorous scientific disciplines to work out the issues? Oh, that's right, "too much work."

Why waste time doing the work myself when I can concoct a way to make the military do the job it's already paid to do?

reply to post by Xtraeme


"Wow, just wow. If it's broken don't fix it?"

If it's not their job, why give it to them? You wouldn't trust the results anyway, so why should they bother.

I really don't think it is a false dichotomy. The military has a choice. Ignore the issue, which is on record as having been a major ordeal for SAC, or bring resolution. You're arguing that it's okay not to."

The military has more than one choice, the default being do what they get paid to do, "kill people and break things."

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

"Wow, just wow. If it's broken don't fix it?"

If it's not their job, why give it to them? You wouldn't trust the results anyway, so why should they bother.

You're making an assumption there. If they involved academia (rather than just having a few outside scientific consultants) I would be more than happy with whatever results came forward.

The military has more than one choice, the default being do what they get paid to do, "kill people and break things."

Good one. Maybe they should hire an outside contractor to do the job then? Boeing, say? Lockheed? MIT? Or a blending of external contractors and academia?

reply to post by Xtraeme


"You're making an assumption there. If they involved academia (rather than just having a few outside scientific consultants) I would be more than happy with whatever results came forward."

I doubt that very much. If the results didn't please the ufology community, they'd be ignored. The results to date provide ample evidence for that, as you should know. And that, again, is the problem. Ufology needs to grow up.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

I doubt that very much. If the results didn't please the ufology community, they'd be ignored. The results to date provide ample evidence for that, as you should know. And that, again, is the problem. Ufology needs to grow up.

I can't speak for everyone and I could care less about the ufology community. As far as I'm concerned as long as there are unknowns that cause military radar / visual hiccups there needs to be an investigation in play.

Thank you for debating with me Gawdzilla. I appreciate it

reply to post by Xtraeme


"I can't speak for everyone and I could care less about the ufology community. As far as I'm concerned as long as there are unknowns that cause military radar / visual hiccups there needs to be an investigation in play."

I do care about the ufology community. I would love to see proof for alien visitation. But I really feel that such would get lost in the "noise" of the current state of affairs. We need to move from being a faith-based initiative to be being a hard science. That won't happen while we're running on faith.

"Thank you for debating with me Gawdzilla. I appreciate it "

A good "fight" is fun.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

I do care about the ufology community. I would love to see proof for alien visitation. But I really feel that such would get lost in the "noise" of the current state of affairs. We need to move from being a faith-based initiative to be being a hard science. That won't happen while we're running on faith.

Huh so your whole schtick is to scare away the rubbish?

A good "fight" is fun.

Dang straight

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by Xtraeme


My reason for being here is to encourage more coherent and rational thinking about this topic. I've been a fan of scifi since 1962 and this is an offshoot of that. However, science fiction remains fiction, albeit my favorite kind, and ufology will remain fiction until we demand better evidence to support the premise.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

My reason for being here is to encourage more coherent and rational thinking about this topic. I've been a fan of scifi since 1962 and this is an offshoot of that. However, science fiction remains fiction, albeit my favorite kind, and ufology will remain fiction until we demand better evidence to support the premise.

I agree. Can't say I've had as many years in the research department, but 15 years back or so I read Streiber's Communion, assuming it would provide a good representative sampling of UFO culture, I fled in horror. I have a very low threshold for paranormal crap and even to this day when I hear "ufology" it parses through my head as "foo'ology."

Sadly I don't think ufology is salvageable.