SkinWalker said:
Here is all the evidence one needs about the Roswell incident.
http://roswellproof.homestead.com/
ABC News primetime special on UFOs
- Thread starter Wolfboy
- Start date
Here is all the evidence one needs about the Roswell incident.
http://roswellproof.homestead.com/
Agitprop said:
If something does not interact with us or our instruments and, as such, is not measurable nor derivable, then we can not make any statement about it.
Why should we make models about things which we can not measure, thus not verify?
Why should the choice be between a scientific angle and a more politically expidient angle?
Last edited:
Mouse,There is a blizzard of information of the highest quality, from highly credible witnesses, that ufos have been tracked on radar by civilian and military establishments, but I'm not going to get into a "yes there is", "no, there isn't" argument with you. As far as I'm concerned your response doesn't address my question at all. You may as well have posted, "Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah". Please don't bother me with drivel. I'm here for an honest discussion. Thank you.
While you light your candle to illuminate the darkness of "superstition and hoax" with one hand, don't turn off the kleig lights of deeper understanding.
While you light your candle to illuminate the darkness of "superstition and hoax" with one hand, don't turn off the kleig lights of deeper understanding.
Agitprop said:
How does above quotation relate to:
Agitprop said:
You seem to be stating that there is evidence out there, as one can argue that a print-out of a radar's log would be a good starting point. Yet, you also suppose that physical evidence is (or can be) deliberately withheld. So, those who are responsible for withholding information are, supposedly, not doing their job correctly?
Ok. Your question seems to be:
To which my response is: neither ignore, nor develop a theoretical framework if that framework has no means of being verified. By the way, serious attempts to detect alien life are undertaken; extra-ordinary expensive probes have been sent to Mars to look for it. Thus, the issue is not ignored as you seem to suggest.
Could you explain why it is in huminaty's best interest to develop a framework from, as you put it, a politically more expedient angle?
I did not feel i was being dishonest. At what point did i lie to you?
Mouse, My original post about a lack of physical evidence, was conjectural. If you reread it, you'll see. I've mixed conjecture with what I see as the reality of the issue and probably haven't made that clear enough.
My original question? Let me word it differently, for clarity:
This is how the hard science community should be approached, if they are holding out for samples of e.t. landing gear or an e.t. body.
Even if there was no physical evidence, the idea that intelligent life could be in our airspace, has to be considered. We should be developing theoretical frameworks to deal, negotiate, communicate with a highly intelligent race from elsewhere.
When and if we begin to develop these frameworks, we have to account for the fact that we may be the primary objects of study and therefore the standard criteria of what constitutes evidence, may have to be adjusted. Large chunks of physical evidence are likely to be withheld or just not possible to attain.
If we find ourselves in the midst of a crisis where we are about to be impacted collectively as a species we would have to take some kind of action, even if it's just to mentally prepare. In this case, expediency is required. We may not be able to acquire the evidence in time to formulate a plan of action.
Extraterrestrial intelligence is the first instance of a phenomenon that mixes what you would call pure science with strong aspects of a covert intelligence operation, where the scientists are being studied, and perhaps manipulated by a higher intelligence. A most unsettling possibility.
Now, Mouse, I'll grant you this---This is an area where hoaxes can and do proliferate, as trickery is basic to human nature. It's also an arena that is rife for a revival of superstition. This unsettles me as much as you, I'm sure. That's why it's so important that science somehow keep an upper hand here. If mainstream science dismiss UFOs as a silly subject, fit only for the addled minds of the New Age community, there is a real danger that we will enter a dark ages of superstition here, by default.
The very worst thing would be if the subject became so politicized and emptied of science, that it was treated purely as an intelligence problem and came under the control of men like James Jesus Angleton of the CIA, who become hopelessly paranoid.
Sorry if I sounded snotty in my previous post, but I've given this subject a great deal of thought as a political analyst and am trying to wake up the scientific community.
My original question? Let me word it differently, for clarity:
This is how the hard science community should be approached, if they are holding out for samples of e.t. landing gear or an e.t. body.
Even if there was no physical evidence, the idea that intelligent life could be in our airspace, has to be considered. We should be developing theoretical frameworks to deal, negotiate, communicate with a highly intelligent race from elsewhere.
When and if we begin to develop these frameworks, we have to account for the fact that we may be the primary objects of study and therefore the standard criteria of what constitutes evidence, may have to be adjusted. Large chunks of physical evidence are likely to be withheld or just not possible to attain.
If we find ourselves in the midst of a crisis where we are about to be impacted collectively as a species we would have to take some kind of action, even if it's just to mentally prepare. In this case, expediency is required. We may not be able to acquire the evidence in time to formulate a plan of action.
Extraterrestrial intelligence is the first instance of a phenomenon that mixes what you would call pure science with strong aspects of a covert intelligence operation, where the scientists are being studied, and perhaps manipulated by a higher intelligence. A most unsettling possibility.
Now, Mouse, I'll grant you this---This is an area where hoaxes can and do proliferate, as trickery is basic to human nature. It's also an arena that is rife for a revival of superstition. This unsettles me as much as you, I'm sure. That's why it's so important that science somehow keep an upper hand here. If mainstream science dismiss UFOs as a silly subject, fit only for the addled minds of the New Age community, there is a real danger that we will enter a dark ages of superstition here, by default.
The very worst thing would be if the subject became so politicized and emptied of science, that it was treated purely as an intelligence problem and came under the control of men like James Jesus Angleton of the CIA, who become hopelessly paranoid.
Sorry if I sounded snotty in my previous post, but I've given this subject a great deal of thought as a political analyst and am trying to wake up the scientific community.
Politicizing the mythological phenomenon of UFOs, to which I'm referring to the alien spacecraft/ETI component, would not serve science or politics.
One might as well politicize channelling, tarot, or remote viewing.
You say there's a "blizzard of information of the highest quality," which is a patently false statement. If it were true, then the UFO phenomenon would be a science unto itself instead of a new age fascination.
What information does exist is non-conclusive, spurious, or urban legend. The anecdotal claims of witnesses are very often marred with confirmation bias, misidentification, and lack of sufficient data -not to mention out-right hoax.
There exists nothing substancial to politicize. If you want to analyze the political implications of pseudoscience, you would better serve the public by waking them up to the deleterious affect politics is having on progress in areas of stem cell research, genetics, HIV/AIDS, etc.
One might as well politicize channelling, tarot, or remote viewing.
You say there's a "blizzard of information of the highest quality," which is a patently false statement. If it were true, then the UFO phenomenon would be a science unto itself instead of a new age fascination.
What information does exist is non-conclusive, spurious, or urban legend. The anecdotal claims of witnesses are very often marred with confirmation bias, misidentification, and lack of sufficient data -not to mention out-right hoax.
There exists nothing substancial to politicize. If you want to analyze the political implications of pseudoscience, you would better serve the public by waking them up to the deleterious affect politics is having on progress in areas of stem cell research, genetics, HIV/AIDS, etc.
Skinwalker, There IS a blizzard of physical evidence, held behind the giggle curtain. That's a curtain that debunkers have a vested interest in avoiding, and where the real gold lies.
As far as politicizing ufos, my point was, for the third time...Isolating ufos to the rubber room of psuedo science, or superstion, is unadvisable. It is a subject that has to be viewed from a scientific and political perspective, simultaneously. Both perspectives can act as a check and balance on the excesses or limitations of the other, while providing a more sophisticated appreciation of the nature of the phenomenon. If a person is unable to grasp the subtlety of these statements, I'm not here to argue with them. I'm here to have a rational discussion with those who are more conceptually sophisticated. Thank you for your attempts though.
I'll post appropriate links, should anyone wish to view them. If not, I'm not wasting my time.
As far as politicizing ufos, my point was, for the third time...Isolating ufos to the rubber room of psuedo science, or superstion, is unadvisable. It is a subject that has to be viewed from a scientific and political perspective, simultaneously. Both perspectives can act as a check and balance on the excesses or limitations of the other, while providing a more sophisticated appreciation of the nature of the phenomenon. If a person is unable to grasp the subtlety of these statements, I'm not here to argue with them. I'm here to have a rational discussion with those who are more conceptually sophisticated. Thank you for your attempts though.
I'll post appropriate links, should anyone wish to view them. If not, I'm not wasting my time.
Agitprop said:
Ahh... the 'giggle' curtain. Is there any physical evidence that is useful enough to examine? Or test?
Agitprop said:
And what authority, precisely, vests the interests of debunkers? I'm just curious.
Agitprop said:
No, sir. It appears unavoidable. Not because of anything that scientists and researchers do, but because of that which so-called ufologists do. That there are things that fly and are unidentified is obvious. That any of these things are worth investigating to any expense is another thing alltogether. Who wants to invest research money to identify insects, weather anomolies, aircraft, etc. and to what end? There simply isn't enough evidence to suggest that there is anything that warrants the expense and effort of actual research.
Agitprop said:
Political perspectives are useless and marred with bias by nature. Scientific perspective would be nice, provided there was any viable and testable evidence. Produce that, and an investigation would doubtless get underway.
Skinwalker, What would you consider useful physical evidence?
Here's the scenario I forsee. I would provide credible links about ufos showing up on radar, but then the criteria for physical evidence would automatically ratchet up a notch and the link I provided would be dismissed. Then, evidence of a craft, along with a missing chunk of debris would be required. If I could somehow produce highly credible evidence for that, you'd need a body. It's a sucker's game I won't be involved in unless I get the sense the person I'm in communication with is seeking to learn, not ridicule. So go ahead, beg me, or forget it.
And by the way, sir, I am a woman.
Here's the scenario I forsee. I would provide credible links about ufos showing up on radar, but then the criteria for physical evidence would automatically ratchet up a notch and the link I provided would be dismissed. Then, evidence of a craft, along with a missing chunk of debris would be required. If I could somehow produce highly credible evidence for that, you'd need a body. It's a sucker's game I won't be involved in unless I get the sense the person I'm in communication with is seeking to learn, not ridicule. So go ahead, beg me, or forget it.
And by the way, sir, I am a woman.
Agitprop said:
There's no "notch" of physical evidence. Either it can be tested or it cannot. If tested, either it will pass or fail.
For radar reports, I'd be interested in those that are accompanied by analyses which rule out anomalous propagation, refractive index (Bragg) scattering, particulate (rayleigh) scattering, etc. If you have such evidence, particularly if presented in a format that discusses methodology of the investigators as well as results and conclusions, I would love to see it.
Agitprop said:
If the "evidence" is piss-poor and doesn't hold up to even rudimentary scrutiny, then I'm sure whatever criticisms you read will be considered "ridicule." That's as it is with all who practice pseudoscience, while those that actually practice science view criticism as a method and means to refine data.
Agitprop said:
Does it matter in the least what my perception of your gender is?
Agitprop said:
Excellent comments. All of your posts.
But, I must warn you ahead of time. You're wasting your time here. Especially with Skinwalker. He has no interest in hearing any of the evidence, and is hell bent on debunking any evidence, and those who provide it. He's heard the radar evidence from Belgium. He's heard the military/civilian pilot reports, he's heard it all. His mind is made up.
I happen to agree with much of what you've posted. The evidence is there, and needs to have the 'Ridicule factor' removed so it can be discussed and studied by the scientific community. Unfortunately, we're not there yet, and for most scientist, giving this subject a realistic thought, is boardering on career suicide. There has been some movement in the right direction though. I think we're slowly being indoctrinated to the reality of it all. Water on Mars.... likelihood of existing life on Mars..... 100 of planets discovered outside our solar system. It's going to take some time though to remove the ridicule factor that they've so successfully created.
I rarely post on these boards because frankly, there is little intelligent discussion on the topic here. If it isn't rediculous rocks being indentified as martian lizards, it's genuine evidence being mocked simply because of its subject matter. But, if more individuals like yourself were to frequent the board, I may visit more often.
But, trust me. Don't waste your time with Skinwalker. He has an agenda and spends the majority of his waking hours fighting for that agenda. Very sad actually.
VRob said:
Exposing pseudoscience in a manner that the casual or anonymous lurker can actual get usable information to develop critical thinking skills is never a waste of time. I've heard[/i] the Belgan "radar evidence," but I've yet to see it, particularly with regard to the analyses I've mentioned above.
VRob said:
Sticks, stones. Perhaps if you'd actually devote some effort into intelligent discussion instead of talking about how "sad" it is to have someone disagree with you, you might find it less of a waste of time. If you're going to post here, then post here. If not, go away. But what's "sad" is that when you do decide to post, you often do so in an intelligent well thought out manner. It's often wrong, but well-thought out.
VRob, Your comments on Skinwalker are interesting. We can post around him. I've found on other forums I've frequented that as long as a poster maintains a certain standard of quality, with regard to links and comments, there's no need to be drawn into witless nattering matches with "true believers" in officially sanctioned versions of reality. And of course it's pointless to argue with those who have an agenda. Posters with a conflict of interest can just debate with themselves, for all I care. Seeing as they see themselves as excellent arguers, they should be able to pull it off, like the true master-debaters, they are.
VRob, Have you read or seen the Salas Malmstrom missile base information?
VRob, Have you read or seen the Salas Malmstrom missile base information?
Agitprop said:
No I haven't. Or at least I don't recognize the base.
I look into it and give you my thoughts. You don't have a link do you? Otherwise, I'm sure I can find it on my own.
I agree with your comments. I usually ignore certain individuals, but there are times when I've been drawn into discussions I later regret.
Salas Malmstrom incident:
Yes, I had heard of that incident. Like I thought, I did not recognize the base name.
IMO, this is an example of very credible evidence. Does it prove anything....? Of course not, but it is only a tiny fraction of the evidence available that does not adhere to any known explanations. The incident did occur, there were multiple witnesses who can, and have, verified what took place. The missiles were disarmed. All of them. And the Air Force could not duplicate the incident without direct manipulation through the system(monitor keyboard).
Now, a debunker will assume this was deliberately done by the officer at the controls. He also somehow managed to create a radar blip, and convince his fellow servicemen to go along with the story he created. Even convinced one of the guards to injury himself, or another guard.
What I found interesting, was that the incident was investigated by Boeing???
Yes, I had heard of that incident. Like I thought, I did not recognize the base name.
IMO, this is an example of very credible evidence. Does it prove anything....? Of course not, but it is only a tiny fraction of the evidence available that does not adhere to any known explanations. The incident did occur, there were multiple witnesses who can, and have, verified what took place. The missiles were disarmed. All of them. And the Air Force could not duplicate the incident without direct manipulation through the system(monitor keyboard).
Now, a debunker will assume this was deliberately done by the officer at the controls. He also somehow managed to create a radar blip, and convince his fellow servicemen to go along with the story he created. Even convinced one of the guards to injury himself, or another guard.
What I found interesting, was that the incident was investigated by Boeing???
Agitprop said:
You say that it has to be considered. Why? Given our limited resources of research, I would rather see them spent on the prevention of more evident threats such as flu epidemics.
Yet, for the sake of argument, let's imagine that those frameworks are going to be developed; how do you propose to go about this? We have no way of building a solid framework, because we have nothing solid to build it upon. It would all be, by definition, mere speculation. Now, how can you determine which theoretical framework is the better, if you have nothing to validate it with?
How are models based on a shaky ground, attempting to cope with something we have never encountered before, going to help us in a crisis of such a magnitude? Again, are our efforts not better allocated in current research facilities, searching for ways to increase our understanding of the universe using proven methodology?
A most unsettling possibility, but also a very improbable one.
Superstition is the absence of critical and logical thinking. We better combat it by improving our educational systems.
VRob, What most people don't know about the ABC show is Jennings and company had several hours of tape on Robert Salas and the Malmstrom incident ,but, at the last minute, decided not to include it. Their explanation? ...They couldn't draw a parallel between the ufo hovering over the base, with the shutdown of the missiles at exactly the same time. Hilarious. I read it. From the same people who reported the WMD in Iraq story, unquestioningly, we all of a sudden have journalistic standards so high and so tight, daylight couldn't get through. Amusing.
Mouse, Nice try. Not up to my usual standards for response. Sorry-Better luck next time.
Mouse, Nice try. Not up to my usual standards for response. Sorry-Better luck next time.
Agitprop said:
Which is as I prefer it. In fact, if you would, click on my user name in the upper right of this post then click on "Add SkinWalker to your Ignore List." As I've pointed out, my agenda isn't to convince the religious believers of UFOs, Tarot, remote viewing, ghosts, etc. of their 'false gods,' it's to offer an opposing, critical, and scientific perspective to the lurker and anonymous guest of the Pseudoscience sub-forum of sciforums.
In order to meet that agenda, I'll interject whenever I see spurious "evidence" of psuedoscientific thought.
Agitprop said:
Combine the natural tendency for witnesses to embellish a good story with the possibility that Salas needs attention, add the fact that nearly every secure site -particularly nuclear- was probed to test/improve or identify physical security issues, and you get wonderful mythology surrounding UFOs. It helps when you have radar anomalies, which to those not familiar with radar operation, will sound like "hard" evidence.
It's clear that something occurred at these missile sites. It definately isn't clear that they were "alien spacecraft" or "flying saucers."
What is most interesting about this and other similar cases is the power that belief and the desire to believe can have among the general public. Every bit of evidence related to the Malmstrom UFO events of the 1960s and later in the 1970s are dependent upon anecdote. Anecdotal account hardly equates to "conducting scientific investigation."