Your intent seemed pretty obvious to me. MR quoted something that said that conspiracy theories enable people to separate the forces of light from the forces of darkness. Then MR said that "scientific theories" do the same thing. You made the good point that there aren't any forces of darkness in science... excepting 'dark energy'. The grinning, winking emoticon made it clear that you weren't literally trying to equate physics' dark energy with the forces of evil. (I think that most of us would have known that anyway.) This is why I usually try to avoid any hint of 'humor' on the internet. Whenever I try to inject a little lightness into what I'm saying, people misinterpret, get angry and I get flamed.
Humor often uses fallacious statements, so I let your excuse slide as humor (not really fallacious... shrug okey dokey), when you describe it as an 'example', ignoring that this is the 'psychology' rather than 'physics and/or astronomy'. and asked an honest question of your exchange. In part because I had read your exchange. While not directed at MR, it is your first post in this thread (truncated). MR takes this stuff seriously. Though he is not humorless about it despite the abuse hes taken over several of his positions. 2nd post directed at MR (truncated) This one is very telling regarding your philosophical position regarding these claims; though there are plenty of jobs/character reasons for towing a particular line publicly: Are you one of the people implying irrational? And will you care to guarantee me that the 'rational' position is always the correct position? And are you so sure your not confusing rational with safe/groupthink/peer pressure? I mean, I know we sometimes have to pick and choose which limb we want to climb out onto. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Watch from 32:30 - 40:45 as they discuss the 'science' of project blue book. If your adventurous, keep watching as they describe the only scientist on proj blue book converts from skeptic to believer-in-further investigation, so much so; thats what he did on his own afterwards. And that is Col. Friend they interview, the Director of Proj. Blue Book 58 - 63 'splanin the direction he was expected to take with the 'science'. EDIT: I always liked Peter Jennings. He must have known he was dying of Lung cancer when he did this one. Nothing to lose.... The minot one is very fun. Pilots, B52 crews, etc mistaking Vega for a couple hundred foot long yellow UFO.... I know where Vega is in the sky near that latitude. I dont think a pilot, so inebriated/psychotic he thinks VEGA has stopped moving and let him make a turn, could LAND a B52 plane. but I am no pilot or sailor... maybe he could... So please reflect upon your quote below and watch the video above from 32:30 -40:45 and Please, Please tell me, yes, you were ridiculing MR rather than describing the above incident as VEGA the 'rational' explanation. Just saying Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! <-- humor here, back at ya From the OP: It kind of depends of what understanding you have of the events being facts and fiction. Which has nothing to do with aliens or such per say. So for over 70 years there's been a structural coverup of either the retreivals of crash ships or unknown objects in very strict airapace, this is done by the so called "cabal". The reason is because it's such delicate technology either retrived or in our airspace that the absolute silence will "fool" the public and other nations to not dive into the subject. It's obvious that these object does not use our conventional means of travel or fuel. ...
I need neither your blessing nor your patronising attitude. Nor was it an excuse, rather just an explanation. An example of what I disagreed with in MR's mirroring of a previous quote. But then, reading your latest response, you do seem to have a habit of pulling out single sentences and ignoring their context. Furthermore, this is not the "psychology" forum but rather "on the fringe" - specifically regarding ufos, ghosts and monsters. But since when is psychology immune from matters of science, as you would seem to want it? There was nothing honest about your question. You expressed it in a way that is tantamount to accusation of me ridiculing MR. Honest question, my arse! I am patently aware of how seriously MR takes all this. He and I have had many heated discussions about numerous things on the matter, and I don't agree with much of his take on the matter. But it is always done with respect, and often in good humour. It's a pity that doesn't seem to be something you're too familiar with. Ah, yes, another example of you taking a sentence out of context. But pray tell, what is my philosophical position? To me, what one deems rational or not is a subjective view. I can, and do, only speak for myself. But when people use the term pejoratively they do imply that the theorist is, in their view, being irrational in holding the theory as true. Some might hold irrationality to be objective, in which case they are saying the theorist is objectively irrational. No. There is no guarantee that can be given until something is proven. That is not how rationality works in the absence of proof: we merely accept/set the rational as the default view in such cases. At some point a given rational view may become the irrational view once additional information is received. I am quite sure, thanks. And you need to be sure that you really do want to climb the tree you are doing so. I have described no incident as being Vega. You are forcing someone else's view upon me as being my rational position. I would have thought from your efforts to try to educate me about rationality that you would be above such pathetic tactics. In response to the above incident - I would chalk it up as "I don't know" - that is my rational position. A UFO as in it seemed to be an Object, that was Flying (albeit close to the ground) and it was Unidentified. Nothing particularly extraordinary about that at all. It's only the interpretation of it being alien that seems to be extraordinary in this instance. Perhaps it was a secret military craft, such that the military wanted it hushed up, and so came up with some seemingly lame explanation. Who knows. Does it need further investigation? Why not. Good luck to them. I'm therefore not sure what point you're trying to make in all of this, other than to try to provoke me into an argument. You will find better trees to climb if that is your intention. But when you do, at least have the decency to actually read any comments they have made in due context. I honestly think you've had a bypass on that front. Call it a bugbear of mine, but please learn the difference between "your" and "you're". It's a small thing but will undoubtedly create a better impression on those who might take the time to read your posts.
For a moment I thought the entire forum had had a sense of humour bypass - my initial suspicion was roused when there weren't 1000's of "likes" flooding in for the comment!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But you have restored my faith. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Aye - something I'm learning here, it seems. A bit of humour injected and suddenly I'm all out to ridicule MR. Whodathunkit!
I don't believe that there's credible evidence that any extraterrestrial vehicle or artifact has ever been recovered. Stories about governments (typically the US government) possessing such things at secret bases (Area 51!) are certainly part of popular mythology and folklore though. If governments around the world really believed that ufos are alien spaceships, every ufo report would attract teams of investigators. There would be massive, heavily-funded programs to constantly observe the skies with all sorts of instruments. Things like Seti would be giant programs and money would be thrown at them. Manned space travel would be a major priority. Nations around the world would be cooperating far more than they are today and there would probably be an international Space Force with an emphasis on space defense, just in case. There are something like 200 national governments on Earth. Few of them come anywhere close to being unified internally. There are countless non-governmental organizations, some with considerable resources. So the idea that there is a small group of men with enough power and reach to control organizational behavior and the spread of information everywhere on the planet bears no resemblance to reality. It's far more reasonable to interpret the manifest disinterest that hundreds of governments around the world show towards the ufo phenomenon as straightforward evidence of their disinterest, than it is to interpret it as evidence of hidden interest along with a world-wide conspiracy to keep that interest secret for some unknown reason. I'm still struck by how the evolution of the ufo myth has become so alienated and dark, no longer focused on the supposed aliens at all, but refocused instead on distrust of our human leaders here on Earth.
You requested that I show where you were ridiculing MR so I did. Now you act all sanctimonious? Get over yourself. ur jist gunna haf ta git ovr it.
No, you didn't show anything of the sort. You showed snippets of responses taken out of context with the aim of showing something that otherwise isn't there. You claim to have asked the question honestly yet your efforts at dissecting my posts to paint a certain picture reveal otherwise. You accuse me of ridicule, have to be dishonest in your interpretation of the exchange in order to support your position, and then accuse me further when I dare to stand up for myself. You've effectively forfeited any right to being considered morally equal in this exchange such that there is no acting on my part required.
This personality-battle stuff is just hijacking the thread. I can't think of anyone here that deserves abuse less than Sarkus. He's one of the smartest and least offensive posters on Sciforums. To get things back on track, why not respond to my post #105?
The "disinterest'' of the govt is something that occurred only after the release of the Condon report and Project Blue Book. The very existence of these investigations in the 50's and 60's shows the military DID have interest in the UFO phenomenon at one time, but after they were all dismissed as meteors, the planet Venus, weather balloons, and swamp gas, no more attention was given to the subject. Unfortunately the phenomenon itself didn't stop after that. Many mass sightings and pilot encounters were reported from the 70's to the 90's and continue to this day. One wonders why the govt has separated itself from the phenomenon, even in spite of its clear occurrence to this day. The conspiracy to dismiss and make light of ufos is obvious with even the most cursory review of accounts. Why? Because it is an embarrassment to the military to not know who is in our airspace. I don't know if actual spacecraft have been recovered, but the continuous attempt to belittle and suppress the ufo phenomenon as something unworthy of investigation is very evident imo.
The question wasnt about whether there is credible evidence, the question is about whether there is an effort to suppress info regarding such things existence. From Wiki on Area 51: In July 2013, following an FOIA request filed in 2005, the CIA publicly acknowledged the existence of the base for the first time, declassifying documents detailing the history and purpose of Area 51... The site was acquired by the United States Air Force in 1955, primarily for the flight testing of the Lockheed U-2 aircraft. End Wiki snippet. So from 1955 to 2013 the CIA did not acknowledge the existence of... (doesnt matter if people knew it was there). And if such things exist (alien space travelers), the object of flight is to avoid crashing, so such incidents would hopefully be very rare (from an alien traveler perspective), but not impossible. Now a question for you. If you had to hide an alien machine, as a government agent, ie your job. Where would you put it? Reagan said such things also. And we do have the ISS, doing experiments all the time on the effects of space on plants/insects/etc so we are still spending money on traveling around at least our own solar system and the effects of such efforts on life, despite a segment of the population declaring interstellar travel out of the realm of people. Point being, they havent given up on the dream of people roaming to at least mars and I dont think they have given up on interstellar travel. Of those 200 nat. govs. how many of them are pursuing efforts to keep up with US/Russian military technology vs how many are content with US/Russian surplus? Limited by lack of tech/edu/funds for R&D. Point being even if all 200 nat. govs. were aware aliens existed, how many of them would see it as anything they could contribute to. oh... i dunno... And you mean the disinterest in civilian reports of UFOs right? I dont think this is an accurate generalization. There are people posting the newest UFO videos online, people actively scanning the skies hoping to glimpse something they cant explain, and seti@home has around 3 million people.
And you have evidence of the effort to suppress, rather than general lack of interest? Also, in order for there to be a suppression of info, that info actually has to exist in the first instance, right? So you have evidence that info actually exists? Where is the evidence that they had to hide anything? Just because somewhere is capable of storing alien technology away from the public eye does not in anyway lend credence to the existence of that tech, nor of any effort to suppress such information if indeed it even exists in the first instance. Why need they see it as something they could contribute to? Would a Chinese government, for example, whether or not they choose to contribute, not have seen it as a means to end religion in their country, given that extraterrestrial life could be used as an argument against the "special" place that humans might be seen to have (by some religions) within the universe? Would it not be a potential weapon against religion that the Chinese government would have so dearly loved to have had throughout the late 60s and early 70s? What Yazata alludes to seems a fairly reasonable generalisation to me. There are always going to be people watching the skies. There always were from the outset of the UFO phenomenon. But the evolution seems generally to be as described. The lack of credible information coming forth from governments on the existence of UFOs is no longer due to the UFOs simply not being extraterrestrial but due to a cover-up, and to conspiracy theories.
I didnt create the topic. Its not my question. So if you want to discuss the topic fine, but dont deflect it onto me.
No need to get defensive. Just consider the "you" as being addressed to the wider audience if it helps. A simple statement reflecting your own position on the matter would suffice - and perhaps in a friendly way? E.g. "Personally I don't, and I don't believe there is any, but..." or some such (if that is your view). That's generally how discussions work. Or if you have nothing to add, don't bother responding. This isn't a competition. For the last question, though, I'd still like your answer, if you don't mind: where is the evidence that they had to hide anything. You raised the notion that if one "had to hide an alien machine..." after all, which rather begs the question that there is something to hide.
There doesnt have to be evidence to speculate on Where you would hide something if it was your job to do so.
True, but there seemed to be an implication that the availability of a place to facilitate the hiding of something leant credence to that something existing. The two are mutually exclusive, I'm sure you'll agree? If you do then you must concur that the existence of Area 51 itself lends no credence to the notion that alien technology either exists or does not exist on this planet, and thus it merely adds irrational fuel to fires that are already within the mind of the theorist, for whatever reason they might be there (rational or not). If you disagree, then of what purpose was your question?
Maybe you should go back and read the OP and then see who brings up Area 51. It wasnt me. I was ongoing with the discussion at hand and you are trying to re-direct it towards your objective/desired purpose of discussion, which I am aware of and not particularly interested in. It is not irrational to think that Area 51 would be a good place to stash a crashed ufo. There is NOTHING irrational about imagining how a government could hide such a thing were it to happen. There is a difference in asking someone what they would do IF such things happened and it was their job to cover it up vs your attempts to assign me to a position, rather than discuss what the OP desired. You are still trying to make it personal.
Without reading this entire thread yes government covers up things, and not even for national security reasons but sometimes their own personal ones. God knows what we're in the dark about and has been forgotten in time. I personally and truly believe the first Rosewell report given was correct and the retraction was infact a coverup. I think it was a real alien craft and the government is lying for unknown reasons. No way of proving it even if someone from the government came forward you would still need to be there at the moment it happened to be totally sure it was real not disinformation, etc.
Why are you still being so defensive? Area 51 was raised by Yazata as an example of something within the folklore and mythology of alien UFOs, but you raised the question of where one might hide such things if it was their job to do so. That they may use Area 51 (or any other such site) for such storage is trivially true, and that fact is in and of itself irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of government cover-ups... Unless it (storage of such things) can be shown that it is more than just a capability and is an actuality. And I am also ongoing with the discussion, but you now seem to want to avoid any comeback on issues you have raised. You raised a question that is trivial to the matter at hand. The implication in the question seemed quite clear in that you were using the existence of capability to imply an actuality. Why is it wrong to raise an objection with that tactic? Why is it wrong to try to counter arguments made if I disagree with them? Is doing so seen by you as effort to "re-direct" the discussion away from something?? No one has said it is irrational to think that. Again, no one has said that such is irrational. I am assigning no position to you other than what your own words have already done. I am discussing what the OP desired. I am simply raising issue with the question you raised, as being trivial and ultimately irrelevant to the matter at hand. You are merely taking it personally, and in doing so you are causing what you claim. I have merely addressed what has been written, countering what I disagree with, and supporting what I agree with.
