Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by darksidZz, Apr 19, 2016.
In this context, anything observed that's not made by humankind should be a sufficient defintion.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I believe James touched on it in his excellent double post.
The difference between the pro UFO/Alien/ crowd and scientists or the scientific method, is that the pro Alien crowd, have closed the door on the matter: They are Aliens! They conduct weird medical experiments etc, period! No doubt about it!
Then the scientific method and scientists who after examining the mostly flimsy. blurry evidence, simply say its Unexplained, or Unidentified...
In saying that they also realise that one day in the future, that may change.
But as of today, the eleventh day of November, 2016, they remained Unexplained.
It is not sufficient definition of the " Natural World " at all .
Don't be shy, c'mon! Tell us your definition of the natural world. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I mean, essentially, the world of stuff - animals, people, atoms, galaxies - that kind of thing. As opposed to the world of imagination, or the world of human-created things (like literature, art, architecture, music, politics). Essentially, science involves making observations of testable or repeatable phenomena. Scientists do experiments and make careful observations of stuff. Scientists are interested in what makes this natural world tick - what are its basic constituents? How do they come together to make an animal, a brain, a mountain? How do they interact with one another? What causes lead from one thing to another?
How about you?
If it's a UFO video, we can be justifiably suspicious, certainly. There's such a long tradition of fakery there. And yes, we should be suspicious of some other videos too, especially certain "viral" ones, because - again - so many of those have notoriously turned out to be fakes.
More broadly, we should be skeptical of all media. None of it is guaranteed to be reliable, though some sources have proven themselves to be far more trustworthy than others.
Some of them are inaccurate, certainly. There's not a very big industry of faking science documentaries, as far as I'm aware, but maybe you have some examples? You probably have extensive "favorites" lists of woo from the hours you spend avidly absorbing that crap. It could be that you've occasionally stumbled on something scientific during your surfing.
Your advice to be wary of fakery in general is good, though I think you're probably exaggerating when you claim that everything is faked. It's probably mostly the woo that's fake.
You draw this conclusion because I'm aware that videos can be faked, do you?
Maybe I'm just a much quicker learner than you.
Well you have lead me to believe such given you only offer slide shows.
You are the expert so I ask can you come up with a decent video showing good resolution.
It can't be too hard if there is so much evidence as you say there is..
That is a terrible way to talk to do so says more about you than your attempt to assert I am somehow making things up.
I think such talk is poor form if you wish to talk to me please do so in a reasonable manner.
Is that too much to ask?
these experiments are Human created . Therefore Human perspective upon the Universe .
The Natural World is all living . every atom , quantum particle , every sub-quantum particle , down to the higgs particle.
Every single particle - molecule , has the potential to manifest life .
Natural does not merely mean living.
Stars are natural. Black holes are natural.
Yes. Science is a human enterprise that aims at giving us an informed perspective about the natural world.
Is that a problem for you?
Yes and no
It does stop at things that are not observable.
String theory is not part of the natural world.
God is not part of the natural world.
I would have thought that sorting thru to find something would be a useful exercise.
Do you want me to be honest or just roll over.
Seriously if you think the material you have offered is the best you can do say so...
If you think a movie of everything but the purported subject matter, not even a photo of the subject matter is going to make me roll over I say you are not sincere.
I have been sincere in seeking the truth yet all you do is present as someone who is trying to convince the forum that UFO folk are really really stupid.
Is that your game.
If it is not put up or shut up.
Just one movie, just one, showing the UFO, given that even years ago cameras were capable of decent resolution make sure the quality is reasonable.
If you can't do that OK but say so.
But do not think a slide show is what I want to see.
And forget I said I want new..just something with the UFO not aovie with flashes of this and that but no UFO...
Simple can you deliver.
If so do so but please don't rant about what I have already told you and that is I am a sceptic.
Why the performance when I ask for more having told you that.
Galaxies , Stars , Planets , Moons etc . are all part of the Natural World .
No..I'm not playing your game of moving the goalposts. Go play with someone else. I'm done taking you seriously.
I will take that as you have no video.
Thank you for a most enjoyable game.
Sorry you had to lose but it was the penalties that caused your lose.
You can kick the ball all over but the object of the game is to score a goal or two.
You can't say you have something in the box if you can't deliver.
The game is not poker bluffing does not cut it.
But given the news I am getting here I can understand why you have given up. D day has arrived it seems.
Thanks again I enjoyed this thread.
Hmmmm.......MR videos nowadays don't mean much ; unless they were before video manipulation . or unless they are extrodinary resolution .
A thought from Sherlock Holmes
3: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever...
"You will not apply my precept," he said, shaking his head. "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. When, then, did he come?"
The Sign of the Four, ch. 6 (1890)
Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of the Four (Doubleday p. 111)
By not reading fiction one does not have to look the characters in a book of fiction for wisdom...wait was Sherlock a real person.
I don't know I will read up on Sherlock seeing you cite him as offering good advice River.
I will get back to you after I do a little reading...
Sherlock Holmes (/ˈʃɜːrlɒk ˈhoʊmz/) is a fictional private detective created by British author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Known as a "consulting detective" in the stories, Holmes is known for a proficiency with observation, forensic science, and logical reasoning that borders on the fantastic, which he employs when investigating cases for a wide variety of clients, includingScotland Yard.
There you go a fictional character.
I don't think its a great idea to put your faith in a fictional character River.
Now you see the author has made you believe something he just made up and had a fictional character say it.
You got sold s pup there river.
Still you must have thought the idea was rather a wild generalization... I know you knew and you wanted to see who you could trap.
Well not me.
You are just too clever River and I bet s lot of folk would go along with the proposition because it sounded as if someone famous said it.
Separate names with a comma.