tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post5980380541383962739..comments2024-03-18T09:56:00.685-07:00Comments on Bad UFOs: Skepticism, UFOs, and The Universe: Arizona's Amazing Telepathic Flying Triangle on Discovery CanadaRobert Sheafferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15324537021429419111noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-3705296251151769672021-09-21T12:59:01.828-07:002021-09-21T12:59:01.828-07:00Regarding the question of how so many people could...Regarding the question of how so many people could have the same misinterpretation of a group of lights into a large craft WITH lights, recent satellite reentries that create fireball swarms have serendipitously generated exactly the same misperceptions among witnesses all around the world, of any age or culture or profession, as proven here:<br />Witness Reactions to Fireball Swarms from Satellite Reentries.<br />https://web.archive.org/web/20210121051500/http://jamesoberg.com/ufo/fireball.pdfJimOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14320277948525739714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-32249706086325720912017-12-02T07:40:18.423-08:002017-12-02T07:40:18.423-08:00Why should the DoD organize such "shows"...Why should the DoD organize such "shows"?<br />And do not forget Trick/Trip (?) Johnson and his family.<br />He is a jumbo pilot (he says this UFO was 1-2 miles big), and he (and hie family) has hear a voice in his head(s).<br />"No fear, this is just a demonstration"(or similar)...Tobias Clarenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02353237576420915852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-28010282761663540122017-12-01T18:59:05.596-08:002017-12-01T18:59:05.596-08:00I like the skepticism, but anyone who has truly re...I like the skepticism, but anyone who has truly researched this incident knows there were multiple boomerang crafts in the skies that night from Henderson,NV - Phoenix,AZ - Tucson,AZ. DOD LAND is just south of phx all the way to the border, and pepole can't seem to get the concept that the military has advanced reconnaissance craft/ufos. Contact me for further infohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01304992810750063290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-56861071936754815372016-07-16T03:03:27.103-07:002016-07-16T03:03:27.103-07:00@ zoamchomsky
"Psychologist Susan Clancy wri...@ zoamchomsky<br /><br />"Psychologist Susan Clancy writes..."<br /><br />She is a Psychologist, not a (natural) scientist!<br />Is it impossible, that a special modulated EM field can induce voices in the human brain?!<br /><br />Look at transcranial magnetic stimulation "tms".<br />You induce a strong magnetic (em) field, for example as an impulse, and the test person can hear a noise/sound/"flash".<br />That's real.<br /><br />The first radio broadcasts were produced by strong artificial lightnings. Very loud "bangs" at "Poldhu" (UK), audible to the next town.<br />Between the antennas of the receiver arose little flashes.<br /><br />Bangs, like the "bang" in a human brain, when you induce a strong EM impulse.<br /><br />The following step in radio transmissions are tones (Morse), and the next step was modulated voice.<br /><br />The Human Brain is not a "miracle", a "wonder", it is "wetware". A biological computer.<br /><br />When you put a cell phone on an amplifier, then induced the sending phone audible noise in the device.<br />Just as an EM pulse in the human brain.<br />You can also induce speech and sound in an amplifier.<br />Or plug a "telephone pickup coil" at a line out socket.<br />You can induce a signal in a speaker etc..<br />Basically, this "telephone pickup coil" is a small version of the coils are used to induce energy in a human brain.<br /><br />The human brain is full of unshielded "signal cables".<br /><br /><br /><br />It may sound fantastic, but the brain sends out very weak signals.<br />Like any electronic device.<br />Yes, veeery weak signals. But with veeery advanced and sensitive receiver technology, it is not excluded, that these signals can be received and analyzed.<br />Yes, wireless "Mind Reading".<br />Look at the actual experiments with electrodes at the head. It is actually possible, to make imaginated or heared Words or music audible.<br />Very unclear, but this is the beginning. You can guess the melody, the test person is hearing by headphones.<br />Why not wireless?!<br />"Scary"? This is not an permissible argument against it.<br /><br /><br />Yes, usually tin foil hat users are "nutty", but the idea behind that is not illogical.<br />Whether helping downwardly open foil, is another matter.<br />Better a thin grounded metal net around the entire body ;-) .Tobias Clarenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02353237576420915852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-55694994260345909222016-07-15T11:34:37.680-07:002016-07-15T11:34:37.680-07:00He had seen Airplanes with his Dobson telescope?
A...He had seen Airplanes with his Dobson telescope?<br />And he can not make Photos?<br />Is that more credible than aliens?<br /><br />Also even just a statement of a single person.<br /><br />Why would he tell the truth?<br />But all other lie?<br />Back to Johnson and his family.<br />Had all acoustic hallucinations?<br />Very unlikely.<br />And he said he could see a continuous structure between the lights (as it hovered very low).<br />He was / is an airline pilot!<br /><br /><br />And he said he could see a continuous structure between the lights.<br />As it hovered very low over the settlement and his front yard.<br />Also quiet aircraft generate noise. And they have a minimum speed.<br /><br />The best evidence, an axiom is the Westall incident:<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1CBouzER5oTobias Clarenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02353237576420915852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-21032913818100280802015-03-03T09:28:21.264-08:002015-03-03T09:28:21.264-08:00The Phoenix Lights returned in 2007, despite the c...The Phoenix Lights returned in 2007, despite the claims of some that they were not seen again: http://www.ktar.com/?sid=369585&nid=6<br />Robert Sheafferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15324537021429419111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-88367781356829610272014-03-29T04:28:52.838-07:002014-03-29T04:28:52.838-07:00"This type of thinking is comparable to a med..."This type of thinking is comparable to a medieval priest trying to figure out how the Internet works - or even more thought provoking, just what the fk the Internet is? "<br />Actually, no it's not. In fact, it's an awful analogy. You are claiming that people know, they are going on record, and that it's being investigated scientifically- just not by everyone yet. You say there's evidence from "countless cases". None of these apply to the Internet in Medieval times. <br /><br />mark, you're supplying the ammunition. I can only reply in terms I think you'll make sense of. <br />"Not unlike a parent allowing a teen to confront and overcome problems for themselves for their own benefit, and for the conservation of any unique characteristics? "<br />That's anthropomorphism. Furthermore, how does that reconcile with abductions, people being humiliated and scarred and living with nightmares? Is that how a parent allows a teen to overcome its problems?<br />jozzcooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10346278013676621644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-80636046343344185132014-03-06T15:16:12.787-08:002014-03-06T15:16:12.787-08:00You've created the coincidence, Jozzcooper. Th...You've created the coincidence, Jozzcooper. There is no coincidence. There doesn't have to be a 21st century answer for every unknownable question you propose. Don't concern yourself with anthropomorphic issues of how they got here or 'how much study into the anatomy they would have to have done'. This type of thinking is comparable to a medieval priest trying to figure out how the Internet works - or even more thought provoking, just what the fk the Internet is? How it could possibly be a real thing? Or in what realm it must exist in, in being non physical or apparently invisible, even mystical.<br /><br />Seriously mate, show some humility<br /><br />You don't realize it yet, though, there are major assumptions at the heart of what you hold as fact, status quo or realistic. It is for this reason you have trouble rationalizing an ET reality. <br /><br />There are no coincidences. Just hundreds of qualified people in the know, in respected positions of democratically appointed power who have gone on the record to say "I can say it's a fact that we're being engaged by ET's and it is being covered up" "we've got countless cases of corroborated ground and air radar with ground and air witnesses etc etc etc etc"<br /><br />The evidence exists so blatantly. However, it must first defeat the human condition before it can be openly surveyed by science. Jozzcooper, your intellectual perspective is a perpetuation of the road block, the human condition of believe based perception - we see only what we must and nothing more. <br /><br />Please consider the statements below.<br /><br />Photographs CAN be faked, therefore all inconvenient Photographs MUST be faked<br /><br />Eyewitnesses CAN be mistaken, therefore all inconvenient eyewitnesses MUST be mistaken<br /><br />Mark McFarlanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16513458957267040420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-8229584723716019702014-02-21T16:52:07.731-08:002014-02-21T16:52:07.731-08:00So close, so very close. You had your finger on it...So close, so very close. You had your finger on it even, when you said holistic. That's exactly what i was driving at- to look not at one facet and explain it away, then another and another, but to look at the whole view.<br /><br />Here's an example.<br />Say you had an employee who showed up for work 4 hours late. <br />Why didn't you call?<br />-my phone died.<br />What happened?<br />-I ran out of gas<br />It took you that long?<br />-no, then i had a flat tire.<br />That's still a long time<br />-well, then my car went into a ditch<br />Is that all?<br />-no, I had to help a stranded motorist.<br />And so on and so on. Any one explanation is plausible. There comes a point when the explanations, taken as a whole, strain one's credulity. <br /><br />The same can be said for believing in UFOs as alien craft. If you piecemeal it, you can psyche yourself out to buy into it, but say to yourself 'Ok, this is unlikely and this and this. That much coincidence won't work.'<br /><br />Other worlds are too far away, and travel too slow<br />-they're really advanced<br />They still have to follow physical laws<br />-they're really advanced<br />It would take immense energy, certainly more than the some little blob of light can store<br />-umm<br />What of all the "great cases" that have been satisfactorily explained?<br />-There are new ones all the time<br />Where do they go to rest and refuel?<br />-ummm<br />Why do these advanced craft crash?<br />-they're being shot down with lasers<br />Why?<br />-no idea<br />Why are they brightly lit if they don't want to show themselves?<br />-'cuz they're UFOs<br />What about all the abductions?<br />-not sure<br />How much study do people this advanced need of the human reproductive system?<br />-a lot, apparently<br />But the government knows about them?<br />-yes<br />All of the governments?<br />-yes, but they let the US call the shots, even the ones that hate the US passionately<br />So they are slowly introducing themselves?<br />-yes, only to a select few million people in military, government, and civilian life worldwide <br />To develop and grow?<br />-yes, and to prove their good intentions, they shoot down planes from time to time, and abduct people<br />They only want people to know about them when ready?<br />-yes<br />Can you give us an example of who's ready?<br />-chiefly paranoid conspiracy theorists and fantasy-prone individuals who attend things like UFO congresses.<br />Things have gotten better with their help, though?<br />-absolutely. Well, ok, not at all- far worse really. I could go on for days about all the missteps humans have made despite being under the aegis of the aliens.<br /><br />This was tongue-in-cheek, obviously, but you get the idea. How much coincidence is too much? How much should UFO believers have to explain away before they start to question the whole thing? perhaps we can flip that one statement around- we need to allow the UFO believers to confront the truth when they're ready. They can do it. So can you.jozzcooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10346278013676621644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-14304285910646774802014-02-18T03:31:36.298-08:002014-02-18T03:31:36.298-08:00Jozzcooper, thanks for your engaging and considere...Jozzcooper, thanks for your engaging and considered response<br /><br />To speculate for the benefit of explanation and understanding, the ET hypothesis, as an holistic theory, apparently provides a united answer for many of the ambiguous anomalies found throughout science, history and particularly modern politics. The ET Hypothesis makes for an intriguingly fitting story. That being said, skeptics take the position that a fabricated reality can be molded and manipulated to fill the gaps of any unfulfilled mystery. <br /><br />I don't 'believe' that ET's are engaging the human race, and I am philosophically comfortable with the idea that we're completely alone in this vast and eternally mysterious universe - Im an open book - However, as my fundamental belief is that we're likely not alone, I consider the ET hypothesis a very real possibility. Here's why<br /><br />Working from the established probability that intelligent sentient others exist somewhere in the universe, we now take another step forward<br /><br />"Besides everyday concerns like food, fuel, and a place to park, how about the blindingly obvious one, namely, how did they know we were out here? Really think about that"<br /> <br />To be frank, these questions proceed the requirement of necessity. Allow me to speculate - if they're sophisticated enough to overcome the magnitude of problems married to interstellar, or perhaps, intergalactic travel, certainly we can rest assured they have conquered problems as basic as 'where to take a dump'.<br />That being said, the question of how they knew we were here is a deep and thought provoking one. However, I'd suggest that such a problem is also easily defeated. The James Web Space telescope (scheduled for launch 2018) will be able to peer through the atmospheric components of exo planets searching for signs of life at any scale. Basically, if our infant tech has provided us with a means to detect life from remote distances, the question of how ET's could know of our presence quickly becomes somewhat of a non-issue.<br /><br />"Furthermore, what's the prevailing theory on why they'd be visiting? Observation? Then it may not be a good idea to fly in large, brightly lit formations. Hostile? We'd be well aware if that were the case. Peaceful ambassadors perhaps. They might want to land at the U.N. and wave a tentacle or something. Over sixty years of sightings and we're still at square one. What's the logical answer here?"<br /> <br />Think about it. Explore a fictitious extrapolation of reality. I find it a totally immature and anthropogenic fallacy to ask why ET's do not land on the White house lawn.<br />The prevailing theory is they're thoughtfully and sensitively making their presence known slowly, so as to allow us to confront the truth when we're prepared to. Clearly some people are not ready. So they seem to know what they're doing. <br />Perhaps, we are a classified as a delicate infant civilization by the ET's, and it is understood that we must develope and grow within the confines of our sovereign individuality. Not unlike a parent allowing a teen to confront and overcome problems for themselves for their own benefit, and for the conservation of any unique characteristics? Perhaps, they appreciate to a very wise extent, how important it is to allow a large, delicate and complex social system, as is found on earth, to slowly find ET rather than forcing such a paradigm shifting reality upon it. Who knows?<br /><br />If the ET hypothesis is correct, they have on many occasions intervened for our own benefit. So they're apparently supervising us to some extent. Perhaps, deliberately showing themselves here and there, waiting for our governments to openly reveal their presence?<br /><br />I appreciate if people choose to refute the evidence available. But to refute the ET narrative with an underwhelming and frankly unimaginable philosophical view point, I find it surprising, particularly coming from a seemingly intelligent person such as yourself, Jozzcooper<br /><br /><br /><br />Mark McFarlanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16513458957267040420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-26083050449358204672014-02-13T00:30:32.641-08:002014-02-13T00:30:32.641-08:00Mark McFarlane February 12, 2014 at 5:30 PM:
"...<b>Mark McFarlane February 12, 2014 at 5:30 PM</b>:<br /><i>"Papageno<br /><br />It isn't a mystery. Michio Kaku, Hal Puthof etc and etc and etc"</i><br /><br />Then it should not be too hard for you to summarize the scientific arguments that they put forward and that you find so compelling.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>"There a heap of well known qualified specialist who entertain these ideas with realistic consideration. Not sure why you requested a list?"</i><br /><br />Because I want to know what you are talking about.<br /><br /><br /><i>"The fact you believe there is no evidence tells me you are at least mildly retarded"</i><br /><br />Then it should not be too hard for you to actually present the evidence, instead of wasting space and time with name-calling.<br /><br /><br /><i>"In response to the rest of your nonsensical flappering, is say"</i><br /><br />Please be specific: what is nonsense and why.<br />If you dismiss so quickly what I write, it should not be too hard for you to present a compelling scientific argument, that does not boil down to wishful thinking and unsupported speculation.<br /><br /><i>"<br />http://m.youtube.com/user/csetiweb/videos?sort=dd&shelf_index=0&view=0&desktop_uri=%2Fuser%2Fcsetiweb%2Fvideos%3Fshelf_index%3D0%26view%3D0%26sort%3Ddd <br /><br />Cheers"</i><br /><br />Since when is science done by youtube videos?<br />Would you be willing to have surgery done by a guy who 'learned' it from youtube?<br /><br />papagenohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12865776641731039806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-51434469568937502642014-02-12T23:41:22.099-08:002014-02-12T23:41:22.099-08:00Good to hear from you, Mark.
Your remarks are a g...Good to hear from you, Mark.<br /><br />Your remarks are a good example of my point, that we can't agree on what science has told us- hence my appeal to logic.<br /><br />If you're of the mind that UFOs are, or could be, alien craft, perhaps you'd like to weigh in on those questions I posed earlier.<br /><br />Besides everyday concerns like food, fuel, and a place to park, how about the blindingly obvious one, namely, how did they know we were out here? Really think about that. <br /><br />Furthermore, what's the prevailing theory on why they'd be visiting? Observation? Then it may not be a good idea to fly in large, brightly lit formations. Hostile? We'd be well aware if that were the case. Peaceful ambassadors perhaps. They might want to land at the U.N. and wave a tentacle or something. Over sixty years of sightings and we're still at square one. What's the logical answer here?<br /><br />No one nullifies interstellar travel based on travel limitations. Hard-Science science fiction and speculative fiction authors have been coming up with things like generational spaceships for decades. Distance is simply one part of the equation. Taken as a whole, with all of the component parts put through the filter of common sense, skeptics find no merit in the idea of UFOs being alien craft. People can believe what they want, but I predict that we'll know no more than we do now in another sixty years.<br /><br />The anecdote about the computer guy is interesting, and fairly telling. He was wrong and must have known it rather quickly. That's where the comparison runs into trouble. If we still used those same computers until some breakthrough in 2013, it might make sense to point out that most everyone in the industry was wrong all that time. Instead, computer technology races ahead towards its logical limit (that of human perception). In a similar vein, another poster mentions that we went from powered flight to landing on the Moon in 65 years. 43 years later, and computers are immensely more powerful and are carried around in pockets, while the space program seems to be hitting a wall. What ever happened to the flying cars they said we'd have in the 21st century? <br /><br />Is it realistic to think aliens are here without anything definite to show for it? Or sea serpents or yeti or dragons? Perhaps no more realistic than to try to change the mind of one who believes in them. jozzcooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10346278013676621644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-88705408009525613102014-02-12T17:30:14.574-08:002014-02-12T17:30:14.574-08:00Papageno
It isn't a mystery. Michio Kaku, Hal...Papageno<br /><br />It isn't a mystery. Michio Kaku, Hal Puthof etc and etc and etc<br /><br />There a heap of well known qualified specialist who entertain these ideas with realistic consideration. Not sure why you requested a list?<br /><br />The fact you believe there is no evidence tells me you are at least mildly retarded<br /><br />In response to the rest of your nonsensical flappering, is say<br /><br />http://m.youtube.com/user/csetiweb/videos?sort=dd&shelf_index=0&view=0&desktop_uri=%2Fuser%2Fcsetiweb%2Fvideos%3Fshelf_index%3D0%26view%3D0%26sort%3Ddd<br /><br />Cheers<br />Mark McFarlanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16513458957267040420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-28466527945765310242014-02-12T04:33:42.682-08:002014-02-12T04:33:42.682-08:00Is this the same Sharon that you disagreed with ab...Is this the same Sharon that you disagreed with about "Earthquake Lights"?<br />A phenomenon that will probably be pushed more into the limelight as more "manmade" earthquakes appear globally, & the irridescent clouds that form from the electromagnetic waves passing through them are denied as the real cause.<br />Again our friends at the USAF are to be believed "Owning the Weather by 2020" or DoD Cohen's statement about generating earthquakes. Project Cloverleaf or the "Welsbach Patent" describing adding micron sized Al particules to jet fuel. STADIS 450 is MANDATORY in jet fuel & contains Barium salts!<br />Sorry Zoam, but this is all documented evidence of Chemtrails & the reason is to maximize HAARP waves> earthquakes,hurricanes & weather modification.<br />So if we cant trust Sharon on earthquake lights, why should we trust her on the Paracas skulls?<br />Elongating the skull by deforming should not increase the brain capacity by 25%>period! Genetics will eventually prove DNA manipulation.<br />I was in fits of laughter watching the film "Expelled", when evolution diehard ,Richard Dawkings(The God Delusion) could only produce "Directed Panspermia" as the start of "Life" on this planet.<br />So Intelligent Design Deniers(Micheal Shermer included) believe in evolution,as long as it was brought here by Aliens?<br /><br />I suggest that maybe the Aliens & UFOs have never left the EARTH!<br />There is multiple videos of UFOs plunging into that volcano in Mexico.<br />Peurto Rico has long been rumoured to have an underwater UFO base.<br />We know more about our solar system than what we have explored at the deepest depths of our oceans.<br />But this aside, intergalactic travel might be as simple as catching a bus in the future. It only took 65yrs from the first powered flight by the Wright Bros till landing on the moon with the Apollo missions. A fact that seems to be too easily forgotten by a lot of people that visit this site.....<br />Were we helped? Von Braun said we were.<br /><br />As for Drake> dont get me started!<br />This is the man that gave us the Drake Equation, that the possibility of life in our galaxy alone is a definite.<br />The same man when questioned about the Arecibo reply in front of the Chibolton radar telescope tried to laugh it off with ridicule.<br />It is such a shame that the worlds scientists are under the yoke of money, & hidden agendas & compliance with the status quo!deanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867076217070227180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-64156364294464117822014-02-12T04:04:13.404-08:002014-02-12T04:04:13.404-08:00Mark McFarlane February 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM:
"...<b>Mark McFarlane February 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM</b>:<br /><i>"[...]<br /><br />The point im putting forward, essentially, is that we can't simply pretend to know what is reasonable probable millions of years in the future. So Anyone who nullifies the ET hypotheses on the basis of restricted travel is, at the very best, having a massive guess, and in the least, presuming to know what they simply cannot. What becomes ironic is the ignorance which these 'self styled scientists' employ at the heart of their theories"</i><br /><br />How do you know that it cannot be Santa Claus or the Flying SPaghetti Monster?<br /><br /><br /><b>Mark McFarlane February 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM</b>:<br /><i>"But lets not presume humans are the lone sentient beings of the universe, because that is probably the most ridiculous of all ideas.<br />I do understand and often support the anthropic principal, though, I believe science has shown us enough, to safely say, we are almost definitely not alone in the universe"</i><br /><br />No, the only way to show that we are definitely not the only sentient beings in the Universe, is <b>actually finding</b> other sentient beings. Speculating about the possibility is not evidence.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Mark McFarlane February 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM</b>:<br /><i>"Are we now saying the human race won't, at some point in the not too distant future, at least attempt this? How can we pretend the idea of a starfaring civilization is completely out of the picture? I suppose holding this view makes it easier to dismiss the ET narrative, doesn't it?"</i><br /><br />Ignoring the reality of the difficulties of interstellar travel makes it easier to 'be open' to the possibility of ET visitation. But that does not make the difficulties go away.<br /><br /><br /><b>Mark McFarlane February 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM</b>:<br /><i>"nstead of attempting to predict the future or things we cannot know, let's just go with an open minded view of outcomes and likelihoods based on what we know, current science"</i><br /><br />And what we know makes it very unlikely that UFO-related phenomena are caused by sentient beings from other parts of the Universe. No amount of 'open-mindedness' and wishful thinking will magically turn into actual, physical evidencepapagenohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12865776641731039806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-31311429780874051862014-02-12T04:03:41.837-08:002014-02-12T04:03:41.837-08:00Mark McFarlane February 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM:
"...<b>Mark McFarlane February 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM</b>:<br /><i>"It's becoming a favourite remark on here, a buzz phrase. The only weight it holds is applied under highly debatable terms, and funnily enough, there are many qualified scientists around the world who support the assertions I put forward on here. So perhaps, it's not all as unscientific as some on here would have themselves and others believe."</i><br /><br />Please name some of these scientists and show us that their support for you assertions are based on scientific arguments and not on personal and subjective beliefs.<br /><br /><br /><b>Mark McFarlane February 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM</b>:<br /><i>"The problem becomes one of distance in space and time. In my opinion, and the opinion of plenty of modern physicist is, this problem is very much a 20-21st century problem."</i><br /><br />Please name a few of these modern physicists. Maybe you could summarize for us with some detail the scientific arguments they use to support their opinion.<br /><br /><br /><b>Mark McFarlane February 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM</b>:<br /><i>"Faster than light travel does not require one to break the laws of relativity. As im sure we've all heard, bending space and time is a theoretical possibility and not all that farfetched."</i><br /><br />Except that all speculations about it require very, very large quantities of energy or 'exotic matter', and the bending cannot propagate faster than light anyway.<br /><br /><br /><b>Mark McFarlane February 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM</b>:<br /><i>"There are also a host of other frontier ideas relating to faster than light travel. We are in our technological infancy. So let's show some humility and imagination when presuming to rule out ET visitation on that basis. It is a hopelessly desperate and negative position to take. Though, not unlike most assertions of the 'terrestrial hypothesis'."</i><br /><br />ET visitation is soundly ruled out because there is no evidence for it, and the distances involved make interstellar travel very difficult and impractical.<br /><br />Using your standards, we cannot rule out Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.papagenohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12865776641731039806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-15462507401265041142014-02-11T14:59:04.704-08:002014-02-11T14:59:04.704-08:00"Science isn't working so perhaps another..."Science isn't working so perhaps another tactic"<br /><br />It's becoming a favourite remark on here, a buzz phrase. The only weight it holds is applied under highly debatable terms, and funnily enough, there are many qualified scientists around the world who support the assertions I put forward on here. So perhaps, it's not all as unscientific as some on here would have themselves and others believe.<br /><br />"The most important statement to consider is "something that is not only implausible in the extreme but effectively impossible". We know that interstellar travel would take so long that there isn't a point. They can't get here from there, in other words. If we are to discuss things scientifically, that much has to be understood."<br /><br />I completely refute the statement. The problem becomes one of distance in space and time. In my opinion, and the opinion of plenty of modern physicist is, this problem is very much a 20-21st century problem. Faster than light travel does not require one to break the laws of relativity. As im sure we've all heard, bending space and time is a theoretical possibility and not all that farfetched. There are also a host of other frontier ideas relating to faster than light travel. We are in our technological infancy. So let's show some humility and imagination when presuming to rule out ET visitation on that basis. It is a hopelessly desperate and negative position to take. Though, not unlike most assertions of the 'terrestrial hypothesis'. <br /><br />Im always reminded of the scientists (who's name escapes me) who in the 60's declared that computers would get no smaller and we had reached the limit to which we could refine our technology. It is not a lack of intellect which lead him to that conclusion, merely a lack of measured imagination. He held some misconceived notion that conservative boundaries of imagination was the most accurate and probable means of predicting the future - almost predict a 'real world future' based on the parameters of the current 'real world'. Im sorry, but that's just not the nature of the world we experience. ET cynics are making the exact same mistakes as this guy. Just way too narrow minded (I dont intend to insult)<br /><br />The point im putting forward, essentially, is that we can't simply pretend to know what is reasonable probable millions of years in the future. So Anyone who nullifies the ET hypotheses on the basis of restricted travel is, at the very best, having a massive guess, and in the least, presuming to know what they simply cannot. What becomes ironic is the ignorance which these 'self styled scientists' employ at the heart of their theories - Drake<br /><br />"Projecting a human scheme onto the Galaxy of random cosmic violence and populating it with starfaring ETs isn't a fact."<br /><br />No, it's not a fact. But lets not presume humans are the lone sentient beings of the universe, because that is probably the most ridiculous of all ideas. <br />I do understand and often support the anthropic principal, though, I believe science has shown us enough, to safely say, we are almost definitely not alone in the universe<br /><br />"much less become the advanced starfaring civilizations of science fiction-inspired imaginings and pop-culture delusions."<br /><br />Ah huh... Are we now saying the human race won't, at some point in the not too distant future, at least attempt this? How can we pretend the idea of a starfaring civilization is completely out of the picture? I suppose holding this view makes it easier to dismiss the ET narrative, doesn't it?<br /><br />Instead of attempting to predict the future or things we cannot know, let's just go with an open minded view of outcomes and likelihoods based on what we know, current scienceMark McFarlanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16513458957267040420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-4418091770952915102014-02-11T10:11:15.598-08:002014-02-11T10:11:15.598-08:00|| [the "UFO" myth and delusion] is cont...|| [the "UFO" myth and delusion] is contradicted by the real world fact that the universe is an infinite entity apparently perfectly suited to act as a nursery for life.||<br /><br />Projecting a human scheme onto the Galaxy of random cosmic violence and populating it with starfaring ETs isn't a fact. The Galaxy could be filled with innumerable examples of simple to highly evolved biology and there not be one other sentient creature. And even if multiple examples of sentient creatures existed, it may be impossible for any one to overcome the physical barriers to interstellar travel, much less become the advanced starfaring civilizations of science fiction-inspired imaginings and pop-culture delusions. And even then, if there were, it doesn't mean any of these hypothetical ET are visiting Earth. It's all one big <i>non sequitur</i> and a false premise for the nonsense that follows:<br /><br />|| It actually makes less sense to protect the terrestrial doctrine, than it does to simply admit that there could possibly be ET's engaging the human race.||<br /><br />No, repeatedly ignoring the real-world facts of the matter and appealing to ignorance, employing half-baked sophistry, hypotheticals and rhetorical challenges is worthless because it does nothing but expose the speaker as an irrational Believer in a myth, and it will never make "UFO" fantasies any more real.<br /><br />|| Im happy for either to be true. And in absence of a definite answer, I remain open to both. Thats science right?||<br /><br />No, the mindless repetition of muddleheaded wishful-thinking "UFO" subculture false beliefs is not science. There is no veracious evidence that Earth is being visited by ET, so there aren't any real ET "UFOs" haunting Earth's stratosphere. <br />zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-63890913106824522902014-02-11T08:40:08.865-08:002014-02-11T08:40:08.865-08:00Mark, it's a bit off-topic considering what we...Mark, it's a bit off-topic considering what we are discussing here. Sharon Hill has already dealt with this claim in Doubtful News:<br />http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/02/foerster-pye-and-ketchum-collaborate-paracas-elongated-skull-exposed-its/<br /><br />Robert Sheafferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15324537021429419111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-80286509667102975492014-02-11T06:38:49.991-08:002014-02-11T06:38:49.991-08:00Hmmm (drums fingers together) science isn't wo...Hmmm (drums fingers together) science isn't working so perhaps another tactic.<br /><br />Greetings Mark,<br />At the risk of sounding heavy-handed, I will say that is not science, insofar as it ignores what science tells us, its 'doctrine', if you will.<br /><br />The most important statement to consider is "something that is not only implausible in the extreme but effectively impossible". We know that interstellar travel would take so long that there isn't a point. They can't get here from there, in other words. If we are to discuss things scientifically, that much has to be understood. <br /><br />Whether or not the "universe is an infinite entity apparently perfectly suited to act as a nursery for life" has no bearing on it. As Frank Drake said, at best we'd only be able to talk to other intelligences.<br /><br />OK, enough of that. <br />Let's move to the realm of common sense.<br />I'm not even sure there's a consensus among UFO proponents as to what the position is. <br /><br />We have the UFOs are spaceships folks,<br />the New Agers who say they're angels, etc.,<br />contactees, <br />abductionists,<br />the ancient aliens crowd, <br />and the list goes on.<br /><br />If they're actual ships, where do they land when the work day is over? Where do they keep their fuel depots? Parts must be a real problem this far out. Food, water, and sanitation are major concerns 50,000 years from home.<br /><br />Abduction may have seemed like the next logical step at the time, but come on. <br />'Well, it took an incredible number of lifetimes, but we arrived. Our people may be long extinct. It's a lonely feeling. What's our first agenda?'<br />'Says here to levitate some of the intelligent lifeforms out of their windows and probe them with this (holds up a sinister instrument).'<br />'That's stupid.'<br />'Then you look at the directions...'<br /><br />Ancient aliens runs into a wall of implausibility, not least of which is that humans supposedly considered them gods, but now they content themselves with simple fly-bys. <br /><br />The thing that gets me is remarks like "there could possibly be ET's engaging the human race". They aren't engaging the human race. Some claim to contact 'other intelligences' and a fair number of folks think that they can identify unidentified lights in the sky. <br /><br />They aren't engaging me, nor any skeptic. Really, it's only very few humans. Mostly it's nebulous claims that the world's governments are in communication with them, storing them, etc. Why do you think someone like that wouldn't expand the contact? <br /><br />Use logic. Why remain open to "effectively impossible" ideas? Why not instead say 'show me'? Ask for real evidence. Ask questions like 'does anyone honestly believe that the governments of the world have all agreed on this cover-up'? That's what it would take. If even one wasn't on board, the jig would be up.jozzcooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10346278013676621644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-3708301962248864162014-02-11T02:53:29.108-08:002014-02-11T02:53:29.108-08:00Mr Sheaffer,
Any chance we could hold a discussio...Mr Sheaffer,<br /><br />Any chance we could hold a discussion on this little development?<br /> <br />http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/initial-dna-analysis-paracas-elongated-skull-released-incredible<br /><br />I appreciate that it doesn't appease the standard of vulnerability you seem to prefer within the stories chosen for discussion. Though it certainly qualifies as controversial, and we are fortunately not having to rely on hear say. Just the science of genetics..<br /><br />I am extremely interested in watching the angle taken by the cult figures of the 'terrestrial religion' <br />Mark McFarlanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16513458957267040420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-20333799081192945072014-02-10T18:57:18.684-08:002014-02-10T18:57:18.684-08:00"Psychologist Susan Clancy writes in Abducted..."Psychologist Susan Clancy writes in Abducted that such false beliefs about the world are a “blend of fantasy-proneness, memory distortion, culturally available scripts, sleep hallucinations, and scientific illiteracy." Yes, I'd say that sums it up. Clancy says that she is speaking as a scientist about what is most likely in the world, and not as a partisan in a debate about something that is not only implausible in the extreme but effectively impossible."<br /><br />She nailed it.. If you subscribe to the narrative that none of the evidence presented to the contrary is legitimate - It is a carefully formed analysis grounded in the doctrine that there must be 'real world' alternative to the UFO fairy tale. Under those terms, she couldn't be more right. It is seriously accurate and it makes as good a logical argument as can be deduced from this conjected controversy. <br /><br />However, that doctrine is contradicted by the real world fact that the universe is an infinite entity apparently perfectly suited to act as a nursery for life. <br /><br />It actually makes less sense to protect the terrestrial doctrine, than it does to simply admit that there could possibly be ET's engaging the human race. <br /><br />Im happy for either to be true. And in absence of a definite answer, I remain open to both. Thats science right?<br />Mark McFarlanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16513458957267040420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-67592172817011951542014-02-10T18:33:41.086-08:002014-02-10T18:33:41.086-08:00Why would anyone assume that telepathic communicat...Why would anyone assume that telepathic communication is being projected by a nuts and bolts UFO? If there is communication between entities, the true details are surely yet unknown<br /><br />Dr Steven Greer claims to have a documented history of premeditated contact, summoned by telepathic intention, since the early 90's. And even he only ever "speculates" exactly who or what is responding. <br /><br />The only provable result is that there is a response, albeit, often subtle and ambiguous. But a response nonetheless<br /><br />Anyone who wants an example can venture to his website to view the catalogue of examples; videos, pictures etc<br /><br />And anyone who thinks im wrong should smoke some DMT - wait 25 minutes and then revise their entire lifes collection of understanding and knowledge LOLMark McFarlanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16513458957267040420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-69924332277146462132014-02-09T14:29:01.851-08:002014-02-09T14:29:01.851-08:00Robert, that book is at present on my desk in fron...Robert, that book is at present on my desk in front of me ;)jozzcooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10346278013676621644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8104600450225406597.post-19737006080032876622014-02-09T10:22:29.716-08:002014-02-09T10:22:29.716-08:00jozzcooper, I deal with the supposed 'alien sp...jozzcooper, I deal with the supposed 'alien space probe message' of Duncan Lunan in my book UFO Sightings (chapter 12). Like most such claims, it doesn't hold up when you look at it more closely. Like the Fish Map. the supposed Epsilon Bootis Star Map isn't really quite right, and it takes some "fudging" to make it look right.Robert Sheafferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15324537021429419111noreply@blogger.com