'No evidence' for extraterrestrials, says White House,....

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by phlogistician, Nov 8, 2011.

1. GeoffPCaput gerat lupinumValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,087
True: personal experience is personal experience. It lends a religious quality to the discussion, sometimes. Nonetheless, it's hard to deny, in a weird way: the guy wasn't a crackpot so near as I could tell (scientific meeting) and seems to be well-respected. He could still just be wrong, of course.

3. AriochValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,274
@GeoffP --

Everyone is subject to delusions and hallucinations.

5. joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,910
Suspect all you want, but that is not proof. And now you are back to illogical arguements. So what does a confirmed unrelated hoax have to do with this incident? Nothing.
And just exactly what induced this shock? Did the shock occur before the observed event or after it? Then there is the small matter of other observers. You are desperately grasping.
So you are saying that the Air Force personnel involved in the event, didn't know what they were talking about? And you are telling me that you could build a supersonic verticle takeoff aircraft - without wings. Now if that were true, you would be a very rich individual. Because that technology does not yet exist. And governments spent decades and billions of dollars developing winged vertical takeoff aircraft beginging in the 80's. The facts are Ramora, a credible wittness by all accounts, observed an event that cannot be explained away by the technology of the time and even now.

In order to believe your account for which you have zero evidence, Zamora would have had to be in a state of shock before he observed the event. And your claims about being able to build something similar in your garage is just arrrogance and ignorance speaking.

I don't think you are going to have to worry about taking extra classes because no matter how much you know, you are not going to be able to effectively use the information. You will not be able to innovate and connect the dots, because your biases are obviously impeding your ability to reason.

Group think never innovated anything.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of a straw man my young friend. And a course in logic might be of some assistance as well as you keep making illogical arguements (e.g. your first paragraph, there have been other unrelated hoaxes, crop circles, so this UFO observation must be also regardless of the facts).

If you doubt that this case truely boggled the people at Project Blue Book, then where is your supporting evidence? Oh that's right, you don't have any - just as in each of your previous posts. So let's looking at what you are doing. You are ignoring evidence and replacing it with your personal biases and supposition. You have zero facts and even less reason.

You are never going to get anywhere in science doing the the group think thing -ignoring evidence and reason in preference for an emotional bias.

7. AriochValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,274
@joe --

A straw man argument is a deliberate caricature of an opposing argument set up with the intention of being easy to win against. I have not done that once.

As for the evidence you want, give me a few days to turn some shit up. You seem to be willing to give your guys decades to find evidence(seeing as they haven't found any yet).

8. joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,910
LOL, yeah. I sure hope you sign up for a class in logic. No that is not the definition of a straw man. And you have used the straw man along with other fallacies many times in this thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

"A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2] Generally, the straw man is a highly exaggerated[citation needed] or over-simplified version of the opponent's original statement, which has been distorted to the point of absurdity. This exaggerated or distorted statement is thus easily argued against, but is a misrepresentation of the opponent's actual statement." - Wikipedia

I gave you a specific Project Blue Book incident that could not be explained by The United States government and has not been solved by anyone in the subsequent 40 plus years. And you pull a bunch of preposterous stuff out of the aether and claim to solve it with zero evidence and even less reasoning. That is not how science works my friend.

I await your evidence and a better story.

9. phlogisticianBannedBanned

Messages:
10,342

I looked for one that was blurry and out of focus to make it more convincing to a woo woo, but couldn't find one! ROFL!

10. GustavBannedBanned

Messages:
12,575
obviously photoshopped

ROFL+LMAO

11. AriochValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,274
@joe --

When did I claim I solved it? I offered up a very plausible explanation. Nothing in that report other than the reported speed were outside of the ability of the technology of the time to produce, and the speed can be accounted for due to the state of shock that Zamora admitted he was in(hence the stumbling around he described himself doing). As for what caused the state of shock, could it have been seeing the thing itself? People merely hearing about the attacks on 9/11 went into shock, any truly unexpected event can cause one to enter a state of shock. It doesn't matter whether it happened before, during, or after(altering the memory, another thing which has been proven to happen in the human brain).

A hoax plus shock explains everything, even the other observers(none of whom noted the speed). Do I have physical evidence that shock is what caused the sensory distortion? No, I can't. However it is the best explanation that fits the evidence, it's certainly a lot better than aliens, hell, positing that god did it would be just as bad as saying aliens did it. Given the available explanations, this one is the best.

--------

I notice that you like to skirt your burden of proof as well. Saying "oh there are unexplained accounts" doesn't prove your argument, it's mere semantics. Why don't you provide some evidence.

And if you're going to accuse me of making straw man arguments then at least have the decency to point out where I did so. Please include the post number when you do so. If you don't then I'll have no choice but to report you for character assassination.

12. joepistoleDeacon BluesValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,910
Oh yes you did, you went further and said gee that was easy. And no you did not offer up a plausible explanation. The US government admitted that it could not offer a plausible explanation. What you did is what you have consistently done throughout this thread - do a turd dump and ignore the facts of the case.

So you are now saying, in 1964 the US government had a verticle take off craft that flew at supersonic speeds with out wings? Hell we don't even have that today. And as previously pointed out to you, it was not until the late 80's and 90's that the British and US governments introduced winged verticle take off aircraft. You had previously claimed you could do this in your garage. A claim that ignores current reality not to mention the technology of almost 50 years ago when pocket calculators didn't exist.

Your theory is that Zamora was in a state of shock, but you have yet to prove it. And I asked you previously, and which you have not answered, what cause this shock you are advocating? Your explanation flies in the face of the known physical laws of this universe. In our universe cause preceeds effect. In your explanation, effect preceeds cause.

Did any of those folks you reference see the things Zamora reported? Did any of those people reinvent history? I was shocked as I think the world was when I saw what happened on 9/11 but here is the thing, I didn't nor did anyone else go around and start hallucinating. In order for your idea to be correct and comparison relevant, we would have all had to go around hallucinating for a period of time. That is not what happened. And your idea, just does not hold up even in a light breeze.
You don't have any evidence that seeing what Zamora did would cause hallucinations and memory defects. If you could put together a coherent logical story that would explain the Zamora incident, then I would agree. But you have not, nor has anyone since the incident occured in 1964. And is there evidence of a hoax? Did Project Blue Book (which had a distinct anti-UFO bias) find any evidence of a hoax? NO. So there you are again, with out a shred of evidence to support any of your claims. Do you have proof Zamora reinvented history? No you don't. Project Blue Book found him to be a very credible wittness. Did Project Blue Book say it was proof positive of an alien encounter? Did I say that? No I didn't. That is you creating another straw man. And if you took the time to do you homework, you would have known that other people saw the object Zamora wittnessed.

The best explanation is that this remains unexplained. Just because you cannot explain something, it does not mean you have to invent something and distort and ignore reality in the process. Two no one is saying that aliens were involved here - that is you creating another straw man. The arguement is that this incident has not been explained and remains unsolved. You yield to your biases rather than look at the incident objectively.

--------
LOL, just where I failed to provide proof? I gave you an example of a UFO incident that has not been explained. I proved my point. You have not proven yours. Go ahead and report me for "character assassination". Because I have done no such thing (not to mention I don't think there is any such rule here at Sciforums), and I think that is very clear. I have just pointed out your use of illogical arguements and that your claims are short on facts and evidence. I have even given you the definitation of a straw man arguement. I suggest you look at your posts and go back and tell me were you used illogical arguements. I have previously pointed out those arguements as you made them - no need to do it again.

You have proven what I have been saying all along. People like you, the anti-alien nothing to see here crowd, have to ignore evidence in order for them to come to their conclusions regarding the UFO phenomena. The pro-alien crowd need to create facts not in evidence in order to sustain their position on the matter - something you have done in an attempt to discredit a credible observation. A realistic, an objective position on the issue of UFO's is to say that it is a phenomena that cannot yet be fully and adequately explained. There may be aliens visiting us. And aliens may not be visiting us. At best, the evidence is inconclusive. And there is little doubt that the UFO field is vexed with a bunch of kooks predominately on the pro-alien side of the fence.

Sometimes the right answer is, I/we don't know. Sometimes the evidence is inconclusive as it is with UFO's. And that is ok. One of the points that I have been trying repeatedly to get through to you on, is that you should not become a victim of your biases. It is not easy. But if you can manage your biases rather than they managing you, your life will be much more productive. And if you can manage your biases, you just may be the person who solves world hunger. But you will never solve world hunger if you are going to summarily dismiss things you don't understand or do not want to understand (e.g. psychology, UFO's).

Listen grasshopper and learn:

"Master Po: Close your eyes. What do you hear?
Young Caine: I hear the water, I hear the birds.
Po: Do you hear your own heartbeat?
Caine: No.
Po: Do you hear the grasshopper which is at your feet?
Caine: Old man, how is it that you hear these things?
Po: Young man, how is it that you do not?[4]" - Wikipedia, Kung Fu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu_(TV_series)

Last edited: Nov 14, 2011
13. Boris2Valued Senior Member

Messages:
1,106
you should come to australia, it's all we've bloody got here.

Messages:
12,575
15. GeoffPCaput gerat lupinumValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,087
Does everyone have them?

16. The EsotericistGetting the message to GarciaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,119

click to listen

Really want the truth? Like, the truth from a NASA scientist?
Norman Bergrun
This is the real truth here. This is the stuff the establishment doesn't want you to know about. You can't find this guy mentioned on Wikipedia, even though he is relatively famous in a certain community. For a while, his site was plagued with Trojan horses and viruses. I won't go there, I'll go to other sites to get the information. His book is out of print, and sells for an astronomical amount of \$.

http://www.amazon.com/Ring-makers-Saturn-Norman-R-Bergrun/dp/0946270333

http://www.ringmakersofsaturn.com/

http://www.segnidalcielo.it/astronavi%20saturno5.jpg
Pictures taken by the Hubble Space Telescope in 1996

Norman Bergrun had undertaken a detailed study of images from NASA's space probes Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 related images of Saturn's rings. He discovered how the rings are formed by electromagnetic radiation emerging from gigantic vehicles (EMV) and that these are controlled by a form of extraterrestrial intelligence.

That's all I know. IMO it's obtuse to believe there isn't more going on than we can see. Someone buy this book by these scholars and tell me what's going on. For some reason, my library doesn't have it, and I can't get it via inter-electronic library loan.

17. GustavBannedBanned

Messages:
12,575
you can have the pdf for......your first born

18. AriochValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,274
@GeoffP --

Usually at some point in their life, yes. Occasionally someone will sneak by and die without having a hallucination, but those are outliers in the data set now that infant mortality is down to historic lows(hopefully dropping to zero at some point in the future), unless we weren't counting those. Some people are more prone to such experiences than others are, and circumstance has a large role to play as well(I'm not overly prone to hallucination but I've experience many in my life due to trauma and shock), but the human brain is always subject to both hallucination and memory revision.

In fact the latter is something that each of us do unconsciously every day of our lives. Hence why I don't exactly take eyewitness testimony at face value, I actually understand why and how it's flawed.

19. The EsotericistGetting the message to GarciaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,119
Thanks, you're a good friend.

Last edited: Nov 15, 2011
20. GustavBannedBanned

Messages:
12,575

visual and auditory hallucinations are fairly common during the onset of sleep cycles. at other times, auditory is more common ("did you call me?") than visuals but both are rare

mass hallucinations are bullshit, barring a shared vector (ergot poisoning) it is the power of suggestion that is at play.

always take apa stats with a grain of salt. as far as they are concerned, we all are neurotic schizoids that have to be medicated for our own good

21. GeoffPCaput gerat lupinumValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,087
I appreciate that people do have hallucinations, but citing them to reject UFO observations is speculative. If unexplained before hallucinations are invoked, they remain so afterwards, barring evidence of comorbid mental symptoms.

Well, there's something to be said for this.

Messages:
2,274
23. GustavBannedBanned

Messages:
12,575
a non sequiter par excellence