Since the name of this Blog is Bad UFOs, it seems to me that anything whose name ends with "Bad" ought to have "UFOs" following it. (How many such names are there, anyway?) So in the spirit of Halloween, we now bring you: Breaking Bad UFOs. You can think of it, I suppose, as either "Breaking Bad" UFOs, or else Breaking "Bad UFOs."
 |
| If Walt doesn't get you, that UFO will! |
 |
| Oh, no! The Mexican Cartel has built a spy drone! |
 |
| Jesse doesn't believe in UFOs, so he's looking the other way. |
 |
| Look out, Walt! That little bastard is going to steal your cash! |
 |
| Neither rain, nor snow, nor alien invaders, stays these drug dealers from their appointed rounds. |
 |
| The boys meet up with a new distributor - Mars needs methamphetamines! |
 |
| The Martians didn't like it. |
"Say my name."
ReplyDeletethis should be entitled GOODcomedy. thank goodness History did not produce the show....or there would really have been aliens, and possibly Bigfoot, in the show.
ReplyDeleteUuP 115 Element 115 talked about by Bob Lazaar in 89, now a new edition on the periodic table, but only a few atoms for a few miiliseconds & they still cant make it stable since its discovery in 2004 !! > Ununpentium
ReplyDeleteUuP > Un-unpublishable. No wonder US has such a drug problem with the likes of "50 cent" & Breaking Bad showing how to get rich quick being a dealer. Or the CIA (clandestine immoral americans) paying Afghan President Karzai millions in cash in plastic bags(NY times) to promote US agenda & turn a blind eye to opium production, which by the way has returned to its highest crop yield since 2000, when Taliban outlawed it(against muslim religion). But they need it for black ops!
I'm dumbfounded why NASA is reducing its scale of operations & why it has never returned to the moon?
Is there a secret project called "Solar Warden"?
Ronald Reagan was talking about Star Wars in the 80's & how the world might unite under threat from an alien invasion?
Why still use WW2 Nazi technology > rockets, when Richard Branson is going to use piggy-back jetison near upper atmosphere for commercial space joyflights.
The Shuttle is retired, so how will payloads be delivered if the NASA team dont have a vehicle?
Is this the reason UK hacker Gary McKinnon is wanted for finding "non-terrestial officers " & non-navy ships?
Are these part of the "Solar Warden" fleet?
This might explain those "Psyop Patches" related to space.
Even if this technology didnt come from UFOs, surely the USAAF has advanced considerably in 50yrs to have a space capable vehicle that doesnt rely on Rocket Propulsion, maybe that "newly found" UuP 115.............
Ununproduceable !! Barium? Uranium? Bad USAF......
There's a new movie out: Bad UFOs Grandpa
ReplyDeleteMore well-known flicks:
The Good, the Bad UFos, and the Ugly
Bad UFOs News Bears
Bad UFOs Santa
Bad UFOs Company
and Big Bad UFOs Mama
Speaking of "bad UFOs" I've noticed that the cable/satellite networks keep touting the Roswell and the Rendlesham Forest events as the best cases for the reality of "alien visitation." But here's the question to consider: what (human) nation on Earth would have the motive and the technology to spy on American/British atomic weapon sites? Answer: the Soviet Union (the USSR). If, in fact, there were actual air/space craft involved in both incidents, then the most likely nation involved would have been communist Russia--this country, though very poor, did have some excellent aerospace engineers. Anyway, I thought I would add my speculation to that of zillions of other, for whatever it might be worth.
ReplyDeleteWOW
DeleteThere you have it! Finally a devout cynic finally proposing the simple probability that a UFO report could actually have been a real craft! What a profound transformation indeed.
Transpower, I don't want to inflate your ego any larger than it may already be, but you are on the cutting edge of your movement, you know? Ol' mate Sheaffer and Zoamchomsky have been at war for decades trying every which way to propose alternative non-tangible explanations. Why didn't they ever consider that a UFO could simply be a terrestrial piece of technology?
Well, im sure if we ask them, they will return fire with the rationalisation of speculative explanations, such as; Fog gas, swamp monkeys, insects caught in the lense of the pilots glasses, the planet Jupiter reflecting sunlight from the sun within regular time signatures, or maybe theyre having conscious halucinations?... yada yada yada
But what they can never do is be heard to condone the notion that real craft, whether trrrestrial or otherwise, are the cause of the reports. Because I suppose, that would be lending credibility to the conspiracy, even if so vaguely
The Advanced Technology hypothesis is nothing new; it's simply implausible.
DeleteDuring American Airship Mania of 1896-97
"It was popularly believed that the mystery airships were the product of some genius inventor not ready to make knowledge of his creation public. Thomas Edison was so widely speculated to be the mind behind the alleged airships that in 1897 he 'was forced to issue a strongly worded statement' denying his responsibility."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_airship
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhy do skeptics always choose the most implausible assumptions on which to form their criticisms I.e. "some genius inventor"
DeleteAnd why do they, consistently and deliberately, compare apples with oranges? How and why does it make any sense, at all, to quote the 'American airship mania' of 1896-7 in a petty and misleading effort to, by loose comparison, discredit the 'terrestrial technology hypothesis' for Rendelshem Forrest? Can somebody give a simple answer as to why that happens?
No reasonable or informed person would credit the development of revolutionary mystery airships to one single person. So why does Zoamchomsky choose that as a point of criticism? Surely, the reasonable person presumes that such a claim is self-deficient. And if there was any truth at all to the 'terrestr technology hypothesis', standard military guidelines dictate that we shouldn't expect to know anything about it, at least for many years from now
That said, there is no evidence that im aware of to even suggest the secret development of 'super craft'. In my view, the extra-terrestrial hypothesis holds more substance, which isn't too much
Back to the point, how does recounting 100 yr old uninformed speculation around Edison provide any value in response to the Rendelshem Forrest incident? In any public arena where something unusual takes place, its inevitable to find people thinking unwisely. To me it seems pointless and unnecessary to point that out. Of course, it's because there is no real evidence to support Zoamchomsky's position, other than the 'real world' 'common sense' premise which appears as a common theme. It is a fractured and prejudicial ideology. Not something to support implausibility, as Zoamchomsky believes
Mark McFarlane:
DeleteFinally a devout cynic finally proposing the simple probability that a UFO report could actually have been a real craft! What a profound transformation indeed.
Are you saying that no UFO reports have ever been explained as the misidentification of an airplane, rocket or satellite?
http://badufos.blogspot.de/2010/11/mystery-missile-launch-near-los-angeles.html
http://badufos.blogspot.de/2011/06/more-night-vision-ufos-squadron-of-ufos.html
http://badufos.blogspot.de/2012/01/rb-47-encounter-of-1957-ufologys-best.html
http://badufos.blogspot.de/2012/04/top-ten-ufo-case-yukon-canada-1996.html
Mark McFarlane:
Transpower, I don't want to inflate your ego any larger than it may already be, but you are on the cutting edge of your movement, you know? Ol' mate Sheaffer and Zoamchomsky have been at war for decades trying every which way to propose alternative non-tangible explanations. Why didn't they ever consider that a UFO could simply be a terrestrial piece of technology?
Maybe you should check the links I gave you. They clearly refute your assertion that "terrestrial" has not been proposed as possible explanation for some UFO reports.
Mark McFarlane:
Well, im sure if we ask them, they will return fire with the rationalisation of speculative explanations, such as; Fog gas, swamp monkeys, insects caught in the lense of the pilots glasses, the planet Jupiter reflecting sunlight from the sun within regular time signatures, or maybe theyre having conscious halucinations?... yada yada yada
Talk about double standards....
In another comment you complained about people putting words in your mouth. And yet, here you are doing exactly that.
Mark McFarlane:
But what they can never do is be heard to condone the notion that real craft, whether trrrestrial or otherwise, are the cause of the reports. Because I suppose, that would be lending credibility to the conspiracy, even if so vaguely
:rollseyes:
"Why didn't they ever consider that a UFO could simply be a terrestrial piece of technology?"
DeleteMark, why are you still beating your dead (antiscientific) horse?
Your ridiculous post and accusations aren't limited to Rendlesham so neither is my response. The earthly Advanced Technology hypothesis was central to mass media-manufactured Airship mania, and it was the most popular explanation for why people make "UFO" reports up until 1950, three years into flying-saucer hysteria.
So we're well aware of the ATH, it just has never been the best explanation for the mass of "UFO" reports or the "UFO" myth and delusion. The airship quotation is evidence of all the above.
Nothing about Rendlesham requires the ATH. A Soviet booster reentry sparked "UFO" reports across southern England, a meteor and two nights of wild-goose chasing through the forest over fields towards the lighthouse, a bit of calculated hoaxing and confabulation explain the mundane events there well enough to any rational person. It's a good example of how a "UFO" fairy tale is pieced together and enhanced over decades by mystery mongers.
Are you saying that no UFO reports have ever been explained as the misidentification of an airplane, rocket or satellite?
DeleteAh no. Not at all. It's an obvious fact that reports can be, and often are attributed to Aircraft etc..
I was, of course, pointing out that 'skeptics' will conveniently proclaim by choice when particular explanations are possible and when they're not.
I.e. The 'skeptics' debunk the Rendelshem Forrest incident with any list of unrealistic, improbable, implausible suggestions before ever suggesting the likes of 'unknown terrestrial aircraft',
Suggestions include; Hallucinations, misidentified planets, stars, lighthouse flicker, low hovering helicopters and swamp monkey's.
Let's get to the truth of this issue. Witnesses are either lying or they saw a real metalic craft of some kind.
If one is proper in their attempt to explain what was reported, they should start by better appropriating their explanations to the details reported by the witnesses. They allegedly saw an odd craft, settled on ground and at very short distance. Call me crazy but the skeptics just don't believe the stories
Zoam, there is no confirmation that the Rendle-sham meteor sighting was a Russian rocket booster, or any other man-made object. Most likely it was just a bolide.
DeleteMark McFarlane:
Delete"Ah no. Not at all. It's an obvious fact that reports can be, and often are attributed to Aircraft etc..
I was, of course, pointing out that 'skeptics' will conveniently proclaim by choice when particular explanations are possible and when they're not. "
Are you saying that the choice of possible explanations for UFO reports is arbitrary and not based on plausibility?
Can you give some examples?
Also, in the light of the links I provided, are you going to retract your assertion that "Why didn't they [Sheaffer and Zoamchomsky] ever consider that a UFO could simply be a terrestrial piece of technology?" ?
Mark McFarlane:
"I.e. The 'skeptics' debunk the Rendelshem Forrest incident with any list of unrealistic, improbable, implausible suggestions before ever suggesting the likes of 'unknown terrestrial aircraft'"
'Unknown [whatever]' is not an explanation, it is the absence of explanation. You can attribute to 'it' whatever characteristics you need to fit a UFO report.
This is no different from the god-of-the-gaps excuse used by creationists.
And how do I know that your characterization of the possible explanations by 'skeptics' is not arbitrary?
Mark McFarlane:
"Suggestions include; Hallucinations, misidentified planets, stars, lighthouse flicker, low hovering helicopters and swamp monkey's."
Can you give me references to these explanations?
Or is this a case where you put words into other people's mouths?
Mark McFarlane:
"Let's get to the truth of this issue. Witnesses are either lying or they saw a real metalic craft of some kind. "
Ohhhh, UFOlogists love this strawman!
Apparently they cannot wrap they heads around the fact that people may be honestly mistaken. They cannot seem to grasp the idea that the actual observation and the interpretation of it are two different things.
And you are again putting words into people's mouths: the 'skeptics' do not follow your black-and-white (mis)characterization.
It is an experimentally established fact that witness testimony is not perfect, and that is what 'skeptics' point out when examining UFO reports.
'Skeptics' are aware that witnesses may be mistaken, and yet completely honest and sincere. During the recollection of the observation, they can mix their interpretation with the actual observation without being aware of it. That does not make them liars, simply human.
But the UFOlogists, and you here, want people to take UFO reports, i.e. observation and interpretation mixed together, at face value.
You seem to resent people that examine the reports critically, but instead of trying to understand their position, you put words into their mouths and mischaracterize their position.
Now, this is close-minded!
The truth is, the witnesses think they saw a metallic craft. But you don't seem interested in examining this issue critically.
Mark McFarlane:
"If one is proper in their attempt to explain what was reported, they should start by better appropriating their explanations to the details reported by the witnesses."
Maybe you should be a good example and not use strawmen to dismiss out of hand the arguments of 'skeptics'.
Mark McFarlane:
"They allegedly saw an odd craft, settled on ground and at very short distance. Call me crazy but the skeptics just don't believe the stories"
'Skeptic' do not want to believe, they want evidence.
Robert; No, not RendleSham events proper, not the meteor, but the "UFO" small-group-scare stage-setting reentry of the Cosmos 749 booster.
Delete"At 21.07 on the evening of 1980 December 25 (i.e. a mere six hours before the supposed UFO landing in Rendlesham Forest) the Russian Cosmos 749 rocket re-entered over north-west Europe and was widely reported as a UFO. News reports of these sightings on national radio that night could have put the idea of UFO activity into the minds of the airmen at RAF Woodbridge, but there is no evidence that this re-entry had any direct connection with the later events in Rendlesham Forest."
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham6.htm
I'll start with a disclaimer.
DeleteI do not believe the assertions of the ET hypothesis. What may appear as partisanship towards the ETH, is simply my vendetta against the arrogance of 'common sense' belief, or the arrogance of those who believe their prejudices are separate from belief, or those who are so arrogant to believe their opinions, observations and thoughts are fundamentally absent of prejudice. It's a crime against civilized thought to use the objectivity of science as a misrepresentation of one's own subjective interpretation. The UFO debate is but a stage on which people unknowingly outlay their prejudices.
Most reports CAN be scientifically dismantled and clarified, but those cases are not the reason we're here. They do not represent the existence of alleged craft, they represent the existence of a mass media driven, cultural delusion. The only reason we're here, is due to the basic and mysterious fact, that the circumstances of a small portion of reports do not allow for useful scientific analysis and are therefore lowered into the chaotic realm of ambiguity, conjecture and basic human prejudices.
Papageno,
I haven't observed the sites you linked. In admission, I couldn't be bothered, I don't have the time to comb and argue and so ill take your word that I was incorrect on that assertion. Thanks for pointing that out.
Every thing else you wrote, I fundamentally and passionately disagree with. Your assertions hold a greater degree of prejudice and presumption than most 'educated' people. (I take it you're educated?)
I want to point them all out (5 or so), but Im just not convinced that it's not a complete waste of time. I recall the last conversation we had was ridden with circumstantial assumptions and heaps of other annoying shlt. So im just going to respond to the one comment which most insulted my sense of logic.
Papageno:
DeleteOhhhh, UFOlogists love this strawman!
Apparently they cannot wrap they heads around the fact that people may be honestly mistaken. They cannot seem to grasp the idea that the actual observation and the interpretation of it are two different things.
No, Papageno, Im afraid that I fkn love this strawman. Which ironically, brings me to explain the misconception you have unwittingly employed to arrive at your conclusion.
Observation and interpretation are indeed two separate things. Where logic and reason begin to allude you is in the variation of value they hold and the way in which we determine that value. I appreciate the idea that we cannot rely on human observation and I know interpretation is even more shakey.
However, when we have a reported sighting of the type and value of that as was reported at Rendle-sham Forrest, how does your prejudicial, narrow little mind manage to twist the values of observation and interpretation, to such an extent, that even coming within metres of an object and observing it for an extended period, you rationalize observation and interpretation to be obsolete or fallible? As if the witnesses were blind and retarded. Particularly when the observations were made by more than one person.
These aren't lights in the distance pal, your 'human deficiencies' hypothesis, although interesting and true in most cases, DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS REPORT. That's part of why it's worth discussing.
So, as I had stated, it's apparent to me that you used a false interpretation of 'value' to uphold your attempt to apply strawman, when in turn, all you were doing was highlighting the rigid and simplistic routine of the cynical mind - It's not science, or even correct rational your using, so stop pretending.
It's clear, prejudice is the motive and 'science' is the weapon of choice. 'Skeptics' use evidence to support/confirm their beliefs.
What now? Were they lying? Were they hallucinating? Or did they actually observe, at length and in clear frontal detail, a real physical craft? If we are discussing what was reported, I suggest we have little choice other than to accept the report on its merrit - something very curious, mysterious occurred that night. It doesn't have to be aliens guys, settle down soldiers.
Not everything in our world must fit within the confines of our accepted 'real world' experience. It's not a fool who can open their mind, ever so slightly, to accommodate that truth.
Before you attack me as a true believer and the like, I refer you to my disclaimer.
"Not everything in our world must fit within the confines of our accepted 'real world' experience. It's not a fool who can open their mind, ever so slightly, to accommodate that truth."
DeleteGosh, Mark, that could be the preface to your book, "Antiscience: My Life of Belief in New Age Nonsense."
LOL
Speaking of fantasies:
"Not everything in our world must fit within the confines of our accepted 'real world' experience." Non sequitur
From what one real world do you imagine any other?
On what basis do you conclude that some part of the world is inaccessible to you?
They're called "fantasies," Mark. When people imagine things that aren't a part of the real world, they're fantasies!
Think about those questions. See how foolish your nonsense is? You're all about uncritical evangelical antiscientific belief and not much else.
"It's not a fool who can open their mind, ever so slightly, to accommodate that truth."
No, only a fool would believe there's "truth" in nonsense.
"I refer you to my disclaimer."
More worthless nonsense. Appealing to his own BS....
Mark; It's exactly as Papageno says, Scientific skeptics want evidence, and draw their conclusions based on all the available evidence and time-tested reason--not wishful-thinking desires, popular or personal biases. Skeptics are hyper-critical Scientific realists--not the blinkered crusty old armchair naysayers you pretend. The evidence and logic of the skeptical conclusion is public and accessible to all, no one is selling a point of view but honest inquiry and no one demands belief.
DeleteSimply because some extraordinary claim might be barely possible, doesn't make it plausible. There are innumerable extraordinary claims that can never be true. If you want to be taken seriously, drop this phony "'UFO' believer vs skeptic" argument and consider where all the evidence leads: the idea "Real UFOs" is a failed hypothesis, only revived by ad hocs, the very definition of pseudoscience.
So quit the worthless "blame the Skeptics" game (which only paints you as an antiscientific crank) and make whatever case you think you have for real "UFOs" of any kind. Here, it's so simple: Falsify the Null Hypothesis for "UFO" reports; demonstrate that there are "Real UFOs" of any kind. See the problem, Mark?
"Let's get to the truth of this issue. Witnesses are either lying or they saw a real metalic craft of some kind." False dilemma
DeleteIn his 1980 statement soon after the event Cabansag wrote, "We got to a vantage point where we could determine that what we were chasing was only a beacon light off in the distance.” And Burroughs' statement agrees, "We could see a beacon going around so we went towards it. We followed it for about two miles before we could [see] it was coming from a light house."
So the truth of the issue is a third choice: Reality--not a possibility--but reality. It was a lighthouse, whose beacon flashed at exactly the same interval as Halt's "UFO" on tape. The very same lighthouse that Halt's fails to mention observing on his tape because he has misidentified the lighthouse as a flashing "UFO."
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham2c.htm
"Let's get to the truth of this issue. Witnesses are either lying or they saw a real metalic craft of some kind." False dilemma"
DeleteHow is it a false dilemma? (Laughs)
We're discussing the reports. There is no room for any of the speculative BS that 'skeptics' love to apply for effect. These guys claim they were close enough to touch the craft for an extended period. So there can be no reasonable hypothesis of misidentification. It either happened, or it didn't. What is so confusing about that? Just ridiculous.
You've chosen one section of a tape, conveniently cherry picked from an entire body of evidence; radar recordings, ground marking, radioactivity markers, multiple eye witness. But essentially, you choose to IGNORE the evidence which contradict your terms of belief, which is, the Rendle-shem incident was merely a misidentification of a lighthouse. C'mon Zoamchomsky, that is at best a rudimentary oversimplification of alleged events.
There may have, amongst the mayhem of that night, been periods of confusion and misidentification as was apparently demonstrated by that part of the tape, but that doesn't mean that the bulk of the reported incidence (over 2 nights) is simply explained away. Its a nonsensical position to take. Your interpretation is wholly contradicted by the rest of the body of evidence. Though, don't let the larger picture of evidence and the first hand opinions of the witnesses get in the way of your computer chair proclamation. It's the height of arrogance and the practice of ignorance. But according to you, its science.
By all means please continue to 'unravel' my assertions with your ingenious two-word generalized phrases -false dilemma? please. The only false dilemma is the one which convinces you that you can ignore the pieces of the reports which you CANNOT explain away.
What's so wrong with your story that you feel destined to cherry pick only the 'favourable' elements of the report. If you actually had any scientific integrity you would naturally look to acknowledge and debunk the most controversial aspects of the report, not the parts which are clarified by the statements of the witnesses, which you personally quoted.
I think it's fair to say, on this forum and many others, skepticism has become the art of selective manipulation of information for the benefit and the creation of favourable 'evidence'
"Mark; It's exactly as Papageno says, Scientific skeptics want evidence, and draw their conclusions based on all the available evidence and time-tested reason--not wishful-thinking desires, popular or personal biases. Skeptics are hyper-critical Scientific realists--not the blinkered crusty old armchair naysayers you pretend. "
DeleteTalk about appealing to one's own BS!
I agree with your summation of skeptics, by and large. However, the behaviours of 'skeptics' in this forum doesn't reflect those values to the degree which you believe. Hence my disillusionment.
You, like most other cynics, have convinced yourselves that you represent science. If you represented the clarity and objectivity of proper science why do you shy away from discussing the more controversial aspects within the body of evidence? You only represent your own religion - under no circumstances can there be truth to the UFO phenomenon.
If im wrong, explain how multiple officers came within metres of a "glowing metalic craft" for an extended period? If you believe they're fabricating a story, just say so. Because you cannot have your cake and eat it too, by proclaiming that science has debunked the report, while not having accounted for the essential anomaly. And if you think they've made it up, then admit to yourselves that you do not represent science, but a prejudicial position of 'real world' belief aaaand cynicism.
Just for your information. A REAL scientist would say something like this: There is little or no useful evidence to determine whether these events, in a actually took place, in a broad sense. I therefore, remain objective in my assessment, approach and attitude in deducing truth from the reports. Due to the lack of empirical evidence, I cannot speculate either way as to the likelihood of proposed scenarios.
You guys have been relentlessly banging on about it being a BS delusion. Can you perceive the difference between prejudice and science in this issue?
Like I've been saying, whatever you like to practice is fine by me. Just don't pass it off as something more astute, credible or righteous
"So quit the worthless "blame the Skeptics" game (which only paints you as an antiscientific crank) and make whatever case you think you have for real "UFOs" of any kind. Here, it's so simple: Falsify the Null Hypothesis for "UFO" reports; demonstrate that there are "Real UFOs" of any kind. See the problem, Mark?"
Firstly, I have falsified the Null Hypothesis, on a few counts so far. However, you discount and won't accept my terms, as I can discount and refuse yours. It's futile really, to the extent that at the core of our interpretation, we're trying to navigate a conflict of ambiguous arguments. Let's be honest, its something like one belief against another. Only we both claim not be bound to belief.. Are you thinking yet?
Look, I'm saying that I find it a reasonable proposition that empirical evidence is not available. I find it conceivable that there could exist a phenomenon but only circumstantial evidence to support it. That to me, is not so outrageous. And it seems that you require damning, repeatable, physical empirical evidence before you will concede. I understand and appreciate that. It's a proper scientific approach, but not necessarily one absent of prejudice and belief. These are the motives, and science is the action.
What insults me is the age old behaviour of, going in search of evidence to reaffirm previously held prejudices or beliefs. As opposed to using science as it was designed to operate; going in search of evidence to discover truth or clarify open and unfastened suspicions.
Finally, Zoamchomsky, why don't we keep this nice and simple, for the obvious benefits to all. What are your thoughts on the outlandish claims made by the former officers, concerning the contact with the metalic craft? Honestly, what's your take?
Mark McFarlane:
Delete"I'll start with a disclaimer.
I do not believe the assertions of the ET hypothesis. What may appear as partisanship towards the ETH, is simply my vendetta against the arrogance of 'common sense' belief, or the arrogance of those who believe their prejudices are separate from belief, or those who are so arrogant to believe their opinions, observations and thoughts are fundamentally absent of prejudice. It's a crime against civilized thought to use the objectivity of science as a misrepresentation of one's own subjective interpretation. The UFO debate is but a stage on which people unknowingly outlay their prejudices."
Indeed: your prejudice is obvious when you put words into other people's mouths and misrepresent their work.
Mark McFarlane:
"Most reports CAN be scientifically dismantled and clarified, but those cases are not the reason we're here. They do not represent the existence of alleged craft, they represent the existence of a mass media driven, cultural delusion. The only reason we're here, is due to the basic and mysterious fact, that the circumstances of a small portion of reports do not allow for useful scientific analysis and are therefore lowered into the chaotic realm of ambiguity, conjecture and basic human prejudices."
Please, do not presume you can speak for everybody here.
-----------------------
Mark McFarlane:
"Papageno,
I haven't observed the sites you linked. In admission, I couldn't be bothered, I don't have the time to comb and argue and so ill take your word that I was incorrect on that assertion. Thanks for pointing that out."
You are welcome.
But are you not bothered that you made unfounded assertions?
How can we hope to discuss something, if I have to double-check on my own what you claim?
Mark McFarlane:
"Every thing else you wrote, I fundamentally and passionately disagree with. Your assertions hold a greater degree of prejudice and presumption than most 'educated' people. (I take it you're educated?)"
I am trying to be prejudiced in favor of reality.
Mark McFarlane:
"I want to point them all out (5 or so), but Im just not convinced that it's not a complete waste of time. I recall the last conversation we had was ridden with circumstantial assumptions and heaps of other annoying shlt. So im just going to respond to the one comment which most insulted my sense of logic."
So, you are just going to ignore whatever is inconvenient for you.
Are you going to withdraw the assertions you made, but are not willing to defend with actual evidence?
Mark McFarlane:
Delete"No, Papageno, Im afraid that I fkn love this strawman. Which ironically, brings me to explain the misconception you have unwittingly employed to arrive at your conclusion.
Observation and interpretation are indeed two separate things. Where logic and reason begin to allude you is in the variation of value they hold and the way in which we determine that value. I appreciate the idea that we cannot rely on human observation and I know interpretation is even more shakey."
Please explain to us how you determine their value.
Mark McFarlane:
"However, when we have a reported sighting of the type and value of that as was reported at Rendle-sham Forrest, how does your prejudicial, narrow little mind manage to twist the values of observation and interpretation, to such an extent, that even coming within metres of an object and observing it for an extended period, you rationalize observation and interpretation to be obsolete or fallible? As if the witnesses were blind and retarded. Particularly when the observations were made by more than one person."
Basically, you are asking: "Why are you not taking the accounts at face value?"
The question you should be asking yourself is: "Why should I take the accounts at face value?"
Mark McFarlane:
"These aren't lights in the distance pal, your 'human deficiencies' hypothesis, although interesting and true in most cases, DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS REPORT. That's part of why it's worth discussing."
Please, give us references to the specific report you are discussing.
Mark McFarlane:
"So, as I had stated, it's apparent to me that you used a false interpretation of 'value' to uphold your attempt to apply strawman, when in turn, all you were doing was highlighting the rigid and simplistic routine of the cynical mind - It's not science, or even correct rational your using, so stop pretending."
:rollseyes:
Mark McFarlane:
"It's clear, prejudice is the motive and 'science' is the weapon of choice. 'Skeptics' use evidence to support/confirm their beliefs."
"The UFO debate is but a stage on which people unknowingly outlay their prejudices."
Your prejudice is clearly showing.
Mark McFarlane:
"What now? Were they lying? Were they hallucinating? Or did they actually observe, at length and in clear frontal detail, a real physical craft? If we are discussing what was reported, I suggest we have little choice other than to accept the report on its merrit - something very curious, mysterious occurred that night. It doesn't have to be aliens guys, settle down soldiers."
When are you going to provide a reference to these reports.
I want to know what sources you used.
Mark McFarlane:
"Not everything in our world must fit within the confines of our accepted 'real world' experience. It's not a fool who can open their mind, ever so slightly, to accommodate that truth."
You are not opening your mind, when you refuse to discuss things that are inconvenient for you.
Mark McFarlane:
"Before you attack me as a true believer and the like, I refer you to my disclaimer."
You disclaimer is not a shield to deflect criticism from your claims.
The only one who has attacked other persons (instead of their arguments) is you (for example, "your prejudicial, narrow little mind").
Here, it's so simple: Falsify the Null Hypothesis for "UFO" reports; demonstrate that there are "Real UFOs" of any kind. See the problem, Mark?
Delete"I have falsified the Null Hypothesis, on a few counts so far."
Got any evidence we can see to support that ridiculous claim, Mark? Or does it only exist in the personal antiscientific-contrarian fantasy world you inhabit? You see, here in the real world where most of us live, it's a fact that there aren't any "Real UFOs" of any kind because if there were, it would be one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. Have you made this discovery? Of course Not!
You naively presented the long-debunked RendleSham as an unsolved False Dilemma when the real-world fact of the matter is that the two best witnesses POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED the primary "UFO" stimulus as the Orfordness Lighthouse during the event! Local police had investigated twice and found nothing. Base personnel--including the Base Commander who observed from his location--said that it was just a lot of nonsense; and Ian Ridpath has debunked it thoroughly.
And though it has been as thoroughly debunked as the above, you continue to present your fundamentally misconceived, utterly irrational antiscientic fantasies and so your "UFO" beliefs as being equal to true claims--facts--about the world. Your ridiculous fantasies, just because you believe "they could be true," aren't even worth considering, and are in no way equal to demonstrable fact. Your new-age contrarianism gets you nothing except being labeled as a crank.
Hahaha wow, Zoamchomsky, new low!
DeleteWhen reading your posts im being reminded of a character who jams his hands on his ears whilst holding his eyes shut screaming nonsensical profanities, as though anything is better than relating to the idea that you could be incorrect to some degree. Haha. Strange behaviour... No wait, it's science ay?
What's the point. I've asked plain questions and received no honest answers. Just more of the same self-serving protectionist aggression, introversion and restricted thought.
In 2018 the James Webb Space telescope is scheduled to be launched into orbit. Its job is to peer through the atmospheric composition of near by exo exoplanets.
I reckon there's a strong likelihood they'll be sniffing out life all over the place. It's gonna be very interesting to observe the small changes in sentiment 'skeptics' will allow to kreep into their religious disposition.
Papageno,
DeleteThank you for your totally reasonable and considered response. I'll definitely respond at length.
Like I've endlessly attempted to communicate, I'm not convinced that you're wrong or right. It's logical miscommunication, selective ignorance and prejudicial preferences on both 'sides' which separate us. The similarities are a rejection of false assumption and a search for truth. We've just gotta be careful not to become fixed in 'certainty'. It's a very naive and arrogant philosophy. Not unlike Einsteins belief that "god does not play dice" statement. Which we now know to be most likely wrong, given our knowledge of quantum reality.
It's a trap for those who hold no value in, and have no respect for, the infinite nature of information and subjective deduction. A trap for those who have such unquestionable faith in their own mind, they fall blind to the world as it may well be.
Max Plank once said "science progresses funeral by funeral"
That is one of the most insightful, honest and self reflected statements ever made by a man 'in the industry'. And if you think that statement doesn't apply to every single piece of established science, you've misunderstood him.
Mark McFarlane:
Delete"Like I've endlessly attempted to communicate, I'm not convinced that you're wrong or right. It's logical miscommunication, selective ignorance and prejudicial preferences on both 'sides' which separate us."
Please, do not project your failings on me.
Mark McFarlane:
"The similarities are a rejection of false assumption and a search for truth."
I do not think you are interested in the truth.
You sound more like those creationists trying to use the "Teach the controversy" nonsense to wedge their way into the schools.
Mark McFarlane:
"We've just gotta be careful not to become fixed in 'certainty'. It's a very naive and arrogant philosophy."
Do not confuse confidence with arrogance.
The fact that we can engineer machines and systems that allow people like you to spout their nonsense in public, is one of the good reasons for being confident in our scientific findings.
It is naive to think that science cannot make statements with confidence, and your statements reek of the "But scientists are not 100.000% sure!" hogwash that anti-science crackpots like to use.
Mark McFarlane:
"Not unlike Einsteins belief that "god does not play dice" statement. Which we now know to be most likely wrong, given our knowledge of quantum reality."
Despite his personal dislike of the most common interpretation of quantum theory, Einstein accepted it as a scientific theory capable of describing the real world better than previous theories, although he insisted it was not complete. And he certainly did not buy into the "science is arrogant" nonsense you are spouting.
Mark McFarlane:
"It's a trap for those who hold no value in, and have no respect for, the infinite nature of information and subjective deduction. A trap for those who have such unquestionable faith in their own mind, they fall blind to the world as it may well be."
That we do not know everything does not mean that we do not know anything.
If scientists did not think that there is more out there, there would not be any basic research.
What you are saying is just the usual old new-agey appeal to "There is more between heaven and earth..." hogwash, that crackpots spew when they cannot provide evidence for their nonsense. These crackpots project onto scientists their own attitude of faith, and do not realize that scientists do not need to believe to reach a conclusion and be confident in it.
The people spouting this nonsense are blind to the world as it is. And they pat themselves on the back for being "open-minded", but they do not realize that they trapped in their fantasy.
Mark McFarlane:
"Max Plank once said "science progresses funeral by funeral""
Name dropping and out-of-context quotes do not make your claims any more founded in reality.
Mark McFarlane:
"That is one of the most insightful, honest and self reflected statements ever made by a man 'in the industry'. And if you think that statement doesn't apply to every single piece of established science, you've misunderstood him."
The apple falls to the ground when I let it go and it does not care at all what Planck said and what you think you understood.
When Planck started his work on the black-body radiation, his aim was to give thermodynamics a foundation in electromagnetic theory. The second law of thermodynamics had been turned from strict law of nature -- like Newton's law for gravity and Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic fields-- into a statistical law. By using electromagnetic theory as a foundation for thermodynamics, he wanted to turn the second into a strict law of nature again: a single piece of established science.
And while science progresses, ufology is stuck in its pseudoscientific ways.
You guys just don't get it. You think you understand me and my mind and use it to form justification in 'confirming' all these characterizations.
DeleteFirstly, the pivot of your criticism is the assumption that I am trying to prove, that what cannot be disproven, must hold weight with what can be proven. Incorrect. I agree with you. Only you have twisted the meaning of my words.
That is NOT my position. However, zoam and yourself feed off it and continue to misinterpret my words as carrying notions of faith and pseudoscience... im trying to clarify the reasons why we think and believe what we do. Not prove the existence of aliens. So why do you carry on with the characterisations?
Nice and simple for you blokes. My position is, it is not reasonably possible, and is not justified by scientific evidence, to believe (be certain) that under no circumstances can there be truth to the phenomenon.
Yes. I agree that science has the right to assert that it is a false conspiracy.
But how can you guys sit there and be so invested in your own own egocentric, protectionist view of the world, to the extent that you IGNORE the almost inevitable implications living within a universe with structures and grandeur so favorable ti life. It's probably a reality that we live in a universe sprawling with life. And if that's true, then guess what else is probably true.
It's just not a ridiculous notion to suggest we are under observation. It's just not.
It's ridiculous to be devoted to that idea, as many ufologist are. But to passionately cchse scientific rationalizations to protect the doctrine that; UFO's are simply a delusion, is in my opinion, not the most virtuous, intelligent or wise position to take on this issue
That's what you guys are doing. It's ridiculous and it screams religious behaviour.
I agree that the real world science does not support the idea that aliens are here, but it certainly supports the notion that they're out there.
You guys are setting yourselves up for a very big fall, not because your 'following the evidence' but because you're ignoring the bits of evidence which paint the opposite story
Wake up
Mark McFarlane:
Delete"You guys just don't get it. You think you understand me and my mind and use it to form justification in 'confirming' all these characterizations."
We understand very well -- and have demonstrated -- that you make unsupported claims.
Mark McFarlane:
"Firstly, the pivot of your criticism is the assumption that I am trying to prove, that what cannot be disproven, must hold weight with what can be proven. Incorrect. I agree with you. Only you have twisted the meaning of my words."
If you have been misunderstood, then you have only yourself to blame.
I asked you to provide references to your sources several days ago, but you still have not done so. Instead of getting to the point, you spew a lot of hot air about your "philosophical" position, which boils down to "we do not know everything, therefore everything is possible".
I explained to you how that position is naive and unscientific, and you respond with more hot air, whining about how nobody understands you. A reply that is particularly hypocritical, because you passed judgement on 'skeptics' that did not agree with your childish 'philosophy'.
Mark McFarlane:
"That is NOT my position. However, zoam and yourself feed off it and continue to misinterpret my words as carrying notions of faith and pseudoscience... im trying to clarify the reasons why we think and believe what we do. Not prove the existence of aliens. So why do you carry on with the characterisations?"
Who is "we" here? Do you still think you can speak for somebody else besides yourself?
It is clear why you think and believe what you do.
Reality is hard to understand, so it is comforting to take refuge in a fantasy world that you think you understand. Instead of doing the hard work of learning how the real world works, you take the shortcut to an imaginary world that does take effort to learn and understand.
Just like the creationists shouting "god did it!" in answer to a question.
Mark McFarlane:
"Nice and simple for you blokes. My position is, it is not reasonably possible, and is not justified by scientific evidence, to believe (be certain) that under no circumstances can there be truth to the phenomenon."
What phenomenon are you talking about? Please be specific.
Mark McFarlane:
"Yes. I agree that science has the right to assert that it is a false conspiracy."
What are you talking about here?
Please explain specifically, without your usual generic hogwash.
Mark McFarlane:
Delete"But how can you guys sit there and be so invested in your own own egocentric, protectionist view of the world, to the extent that you IGNORE the almost inevitable implications living within a universe with structures and grandeur so favorable ti life. It's probably a reality that we live in a universe sprawling with life. And if that's true, then guess what else is probably true."
Translation: "We do not know everything, therefore everything is possible".
Wrong and utterly ignorant of the real world, as shown by our ability to engineer the computer and the communication infrastructure you are using.
Mark McFarlane:
"It's just not a ridiculous notion to suggest we are under observation. It's just not."
Just asserting something, does not make it true.
It does not matter how strongly you believe that you can fly: if you jump out of a window, you will fall to ground.
Mark McFarlane:
"It's ridiculous to be devoted to that idea, as many ufologist are. But to passionately cchse scientific rationalizations to protect the doctrine that; UFO's are simply a delusion, is in my opinion, not the most virtuous, intelligent or wise position to take on this issue"
Please stop putting words into other people's mouth.
This is just the usual strawman ufologist like to use to mischaracterize 'skeptics.' The fact that you are using it, just proves that you cannot refute the actual arguments of 'skeptics'.
Mark McFarlane:
"That's what you guys are doing. It's ridiculous and it screams religious behaviour."
You are the one using the same fallacies as creationists.
Mark McFarlane:
"I agree that the real world science does not support the idea that aliens are here, but it certainly supports the notion that they're out there."
But that is not the matter in question.
We are dealing with UFO reports on Earth, not whether there might be life out there.
Mark McFarlane:
"You guys are setting yourselves up for a very big fall, not because your 'following the evidence' but because you're ignoring the bits of evidence which paint the opposite story
Wake up "
Spare us the empty rhetoric.
It is time to put your money where your big mouth is.
Please show us very, very specifically what "bits of evidence" you are talking about.
In answer to Zoam's statement:
Delete"If there were ever any real UFOs of any kind, the whole world would know it"
Mark wrote:
"Haha guess what? The whole world does know, that's why we're on a blog discussing it."
Yet, Mark also wrote this:
"I do not believe Aliens exist,
nor do I agree that there is any evidence to substantiate a conspiracy
or sustain the attention of a reasonable mind."
and this:
"Im a scientific skeptic who is open to all reasonable likelihood.
I appreciate the facts of the real world and my disposition
is one which agrees that the phenomenon is merely a human delusion."
We seemed to be getting somewhere until this, from Mark:
"It's just not a ridiculous notion to suggest we are under observation. It's just not."
and finally, this:
"You guys are setting yourselves up for a very big fall,
not because your 'following the evidence' but because you're ignoring the bits of evidence which paint the opposite story
Wake up "
Now, I find it interesting that someone who can say
"nor do I agree that there is any evidence to substantiate a conspiracy
or sustain the attention of a reasonable mind"
can insist
"you're ignoring the bits of evidence which paint the opposite story".
This is what Spock might call expressing multiple attitudes simultaneously.
I call it waffling.
Thanks for pointing that out Jozzcooper.
DeleteYou've created an opportunity for me to clarify exactly what most of these simpleton, including yourself, simply fail to understand. Why can't those statements be mutually inclusive? In no statement do I either RULE OUT or state a belief of either, the existence of real alien craft, or contrastingly, the idea that it is a fact real alien craft do not exist.
I think it's stupid for any to believe that an alien presence is fact. There is no evidence to justify that position. By the same token, to say it is fact that we are not under observation is just a fallacious. Given what we know about the nature of life and the universe, how could anyone ever pretend that is a fact which they can rely on?
All I have ever tired to convey is that we shouldn't be close minded. It's completely unwarranted.
The 'skeptics' on this site and others are closed minded, and all they are interested in doing is cherry picking the parts of evidence available to us, simply for the benefit of reaffirming what they think is right, scientific, real world, whatever you want to call it.
They're not open to the relative likelihood that it frankly could be real and that speaks for itself
Mark McFarlane:
Delete"You've created an opportunity for me to clarify exactly what most of these simpleton, including yourself, simply fail to understand."
For somebody who complained about personal attacks, you sure like to make yourslef against others.
Mark McFarlane:
" Why can't those statements be mutually inclusive? In no statement do I either RULE OUT or state a belief of either, the existence of real alien craft, or contrastingly, the idea that it is a fact real alien craft do not exist."
And this incompatible with search for truth.
You are trying to pass off your laziness for open-mindedness, but your attitude will not yield any truth because there is no research.
Mark McFarlane:
"I think it's stupid for any to believe that an alien presence is fact. There is no evidence to justify that position. By the same token, to say it is fact that we are not under observation is just a fallacious. Given what we know about the nature of life and the universe, how could anyone ever pretend that is a fact which they can rely on?"
You are just to lazy to make an effort to reach a conclusion.
Mark McFarlane:
"All I have ever tired to convey is that we shouldn't be close minded. It's completely unwarranted."
Actually, your mind is closed to the possibility that a conclusion can be reached.
At least a skeptic's mind can be changed by evidence. But for you, there is no argument or evidence that can make your apathetic position change: that's close-mindedness.
Mark McFarlane:
"The 'skeptics' on this site and others are closed minded, and all they are interested in doing is cherry picking the parts of evidence available to us, simply for the benefit of reaffirming what they think is right, scientific, real world, whatever you want to call it."
You keep repeating this claim, and yet you cannot be bothered to provide any evidence. Apparently you are just too lazy and prefer judging other from your cosy armchair.
Mark McFarlane:
"They're not open to the relative likelihood that it frankly could be real and that speaks for itself"
With the amount of hot air you have been blowing here, I could travel the world in a balloon.
The fact that you have not provided any evidence whatsoever, speaks for your laziness.
That would be simpletons, Mark. It's worth a chuckle when people do that.
DeleteAs to the rest, let me help out.
In the first example, you tell Zoam that the world does know there are real UFOs.
That's a fairly definite position.
Just to clarify, for the benefit of my fellow simpletons, since Zoam knows there are things people misidentify, this refers to "flying saucers".
OK, but in the next set of quotes, you say you don't believe in them, nor is there evidence to waste one's time on. Furthermore, you're disposed to agree that it's merely a delusion. This means that "what the whole world knows" is a delusion.
You can see how one might think these statements are incompatible.
It's not ridiculous to suggest we're under observation. We don't have any evidence and it's probably a delusion, but that doesn't make it far-fetched.
The coup-de-grace is the line about us setting ourselves up for a big fall. We're ignoring evidence. Is this the same evidence that won't sustain a reasonable mind?
Obviously, those statements can't fit together. You knew that. You like to consider yourself impartial, but I doubt that's the case.
Based on what I've read from you, I think you're, if not a credulous believer, a person who thinks we're being visited. Some of the disclaimers you toss out sound like damage control when you get too caught up in the whole idea.
One thing worthy of mention is that it's a mistake to think skeptics would "take a fall" if aliens did present themselves. Heck, skeptics would be the most excited bunch of all.
Antiscientists will employ any device however irrational in desperate attempts to make their paranormalist new-age nonsense immune to criticism and so keep their anti-realist spiritualist baloney under consideration. It's all they've got!
Deletehttp://www.debunker.com/texts/inquisit.html
"...the crackpot's true aim is somewhat broader than apparent at first glance. Talk of paradigms, [quantum woo,] comparisons to Galileo, etc, may suggest a general dislike of the scientific method and of what the crackpot considers the scientific establishment. When the crackpot disputes some well-known scientific result, he mainly desires not just to disprove that result, but to take scientists in general down a peg. He argues many nonscientific positions not because he strongly believes particular ones, but rather because he holds an antiscience meta-position; to him, his argument is about scientists' ability to determine truth, not about specific truths." — Ken Arromdee
from Russell Turpin's "Characterization of Quack Theories"
http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/BillInfo/Quack.html
Bad UFOs? Don't get me started.
ReplyDeleteI hate UFOs. Yeah, I said it. Does that make me a bad person?
What has a UFO done for me lately? Nothing!
Those Jesus-hatin' little green buggers flying' around in our skies without a care in the world and ain't contributin' nothin' to society, let alone pay taxes. Those lazy bugged-eye basterds are just leaching off our airspace!
And they're filthy too with 'em leavin' radiation droppings everywhere they land. Ever smell a UFO? They stink to high heaven, like foul smellin' rotten eggs or a burnt Lean cuisine frozen TV dinner. It's enough to make ya puke.
Yeah, I hate UFOs, just like my ol' Pappy. He was abducted once, did ya know that? Yup, he was taken by a UFO on a fishin' trip. WTF? What low-life space-monkey abducts a man when he's FISHIN' ???
I tell ya, Pappy wasn't the same after that. Rubbin' his behind every five seconds. He couldn't sit for a week!
If one those nasty thing lands on my trailer I'm goin' to open a can of whoop-ass. Mess with me and you mess with whole trailer park.
I got a garden hose and I know how to use it.
As far as I'm concerned, the only good UFO is a DEBUNKED UFO!
Debunk 'em, I say, debunk 'em ALL!
Jesus hatin communist Russians, Tax avoiding trailer trash, Big Mama's & ol' Pappy's, & false flag waving patriots ready to whoop-ass alien butt????
ReplyDeleteLooks like those chemtrails,GMO foods, flouride in the water & the brainwashing by TV has been working.....
America's most wanted> McKinnon, Manning, Assange , Snowden
Telling the truth is unpatriotic. God Bless America ! (great film)
Hello from germany: Man kann sich erfolgreich gegen Alien & UFO-Terror schützen -> "Hilfe bei Entführungen durch Ausseridische" http://xn--alienentfhrung-stoppen-0lc.de
ReplyDelete"Help against abduction from aliens"
Delete"One can successfully protect against Alien & UFO Terror"
Stoppen-sie das Aliendinge?
And can you protect against "Die Entführung aus dem Serail"?