Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
No there isn't. Mass hysterical common hallucinations? I'm afraid not.
Are You A Quack?
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
- Status
No there isn't. Mass hysterical common hallucinations? I'm afraid not.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Francis Ridge, UFO researcher, site coordinator, NICAP (National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena)
“The following is what makes UFOlogy worth pursuing and is not intended for the close-minded. We already have:
1) Millions of sightings worldwide and a hundred-thousand-plus sightings are on computer (UFOCAT).
2) 3,000-plus sightings from aircraft (Dr. Richard Haines).
3) 489 radar cases, many radar/visual (Dominique Weinstein); 363 radar cases, 76 as R/V (USAF records alone).
4) 5600 trace cases documented, 4104 involving UFO visual sightings (CUFOS).
5) Over 500 cases of E-M effects associated with UFO sightings (CUFOS) and 185 E-M cases documented involving UFOs near aircraft (Dr. Richard Haines).
6) Hundreds, if not thousands, of excellent close encounters by credible observers whose testimony in court would be taken at face value.
7) About 4,000 (701 originally) UNKNOWNS listed in Project Blue Book files.”
http://www.ufoevidence.org/NewSite/Papers/UFOQuotes.htm
“The following is what makes UFOlogy worth pursuing and is not intended for the close-minded. We already have:
1) Millions of sightings worldwide and a hundred-thousand-plus sightings are on computer (UFOCAT).
2) 3,000-plus sightings from aircraft (Dr. Richard Haines).
3) 489 radar cases, many radar/visual (Dominique Weinstein); 363 radar cases, 76 as R/V (USAF records alone).
4) 5600 trace cases documented, 4104 involving UFO visual sightings (CUFOS).
5) Over 500 cases of E-M effects associated with UFO sightings (CUFOS) and 185 E-M cases documented involving UFOs near aircraft (Dr. Richard Haines).
6) Hundreds, if not thousands, of excellent close encounters by credible observers whose testimony in court would be taken at face value.
7) About 4,000 (701 originally) UNKNOWNS listed in Project Blue Book files.”
http://www.ufoevidence.org/NewSite/Papers/UFOQuotes.htm
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
James McDonald, atmospheric physicist, leading UFO scientist in 1960’s– “UFOs: Extraterrestrial Probes?”
“On the basis of an intensive study of the UFO problem, I believe that the extraterrestrial-origin hypothesis must now be given extremely serious scientific attention….
…After a year of scrutiny of highly unconventional phenomena credibly reported from all parts of this country and [I believe] from most of the entire world, I have been driven to consider possibilities that I'd ordinarily not give a moment's thought to in my own personal brand of orthodoxy. It is the UFO evidence that slowly forces the diligent UFO student to seriously consider the extraterrestrial hypothesis - evidence that I can only describe as extraordinary in its total nature….
All over the globe persons in all walks of life, representing a wide range of educational and cultural backgrounds, are reporting, often in the face of unpleasant ridicule, sightings of objects that appear to be completely real objects yet have characteristics that match nothing about which we have present knowledge….
Hoax, fraud, and fabrication account for a few but, in terms of percentage, negligible numbers of UFO sightings. Misinterpreted meteorological and astronomical observations and the like do account for lots of poor UFO reports, but experienced investigators learn to recognize these almost at a glance and dismiss them from further attention…
It is the detailed, close-range sightings by persons whose reliability cannot be brought into serious question that carry great weight.
Pacing of aircraft and buzzing of cars by UFOs go on rather steadily. These cases so strongly suggest something vaguely resembling surveillance or reconnaissance that the student of the problem is forced to weigh the possibility that the UFOs are probes of some type engaged in something we would loosely call "observation."
There are many other categories of sightings suggesting the same tentative hypothesis. How can this be? There is, in my opinion, no sensible alternative to the utterly shocking hypothesis that the UFOs are extraterrestrial probes."-----http://www.ufoevidence.org/NewSite/Papers/UFOQuotes.htm
“On the basis of an intensive study of the UFO problem, I believe that the extraterrestrial-origin hypothesis must now be given extremely serious scientific attention….
…After a year of scrutiny of highly unconventional phenomena credibly reported from all parts of this country and [I believe] from most of the entire world, I have been driven to consider possibilities that I'd ordinarily not give a moment's thought to in my own personal brand of orthodoxy. It is the UFO evidence that slowly forces the diligent UFO student to seriously consider the extraterrestrial hypothesis - evidence that I can only describe as extraordinary in its total nature….
All over the globe persons in all walks of life, representing a wide range of educational and cultural backgrounds, are reporting, often in the face of unpleasant ridicule, sightings of objects that appear to be completely real objects yet have characteristics that match nothing about which we have present knowledge….
Hoax, fraud, and fabrication account for a few but, in terms of percentage, negligible numbers of UFO sightings. Misinterpreted meteorological and astronomical observations and the like do account for lots of poor UFO reports, but experienced investigators learn to recognize these almost at a glance and dismiss them from further attention…
It is the detailed, close-range sightings by persons whose reliability cannot be brought into serious question that carry great weight.
Pacing of aircraft and buzzing of cars by UFOs go on rather steadily. These cases so strongly suggest something vaguely resembling surveillance or reconnaissance that the student of the problem is forced to weigh the possibility that the UFOs are probes of some type engaged in something we would loosely call "observation."
There are many other categories of sightings suggesting the same tentative hypothesis. How can this be? There is, in my opinion, no sensible alternative to the utterly shocking hypothesis that the UFOs are extraterrestrial probes."-----http://www.ufoevidence.org/NewSite/Papers/UFOQuotes.htm
The question asked in the OP has most certainly been answered under the headings of Paranoia, Delusion/denial and grandiosity!
And the subsequent question I asked re the cap fitting has also been answered in the affirmative.
MR knows certainly that he and anyone else would be unable to distinguish any falling man made debris from a meteor shower or break up....the experts are unable to do it, and we can all rest assured that MR is just sprouting his usual biased nonsense.Obviously he is at this time on some sort of role and vindictive crusade with the sudden ressurrection of his paranormal nonsense in more than one thread, since I dared to post this thread and asked the question "are you a quack"?
and his intent in turning this thread into another useless mythical debate re UFO's and Aliens.The UFO and paranormal, supernatural brigade, are easily scientifically dismissed for what they are by most here and the scientific community in general.
Of greater concern I believe, is the more important issue re why this thread was posted is as per the question asked in the OP and the amount of non science rubbish and fabricated nonsense posted by some under the guise of science in the science sections.
One example as I mentioned before concerns a recent debacle re the Hulse Taylor Binary Pulsar discovery and the first indirect evidence of gravitational radiation, was incessantly argued as possibly being due to magnetic field interactions, despite links to many many professional papers that discussed all aspects and contingencies re orbital degradation in such systems.
Such reputable links that I often use, being basically a lay person, were inevitable written off by these said cranks and quacks as "pop science", a popular cop out used by these people.
There are other examples also where the same fabricated nonsense to supposedly invalidate and falsify existing accepted models also litter other scientific discussions, such as claims re redshift and the expanding universe, or simply the fact and implication that two of the greatest experiments this decade were fraudulent simply because they further validated the status quo and confirmed to greater degrees of certainty such things as the Lense Thirring Effect, gravitational radiation and BH's.
These are the more notable quacks/cranks etc that seem to be on some god driven mission to invalidate present day cosmology at every turn, while ignoring all the supportive evidence and all the professional papers supporting the status quo, while ignoring all requests to supply citations to support their crusade.
Thankfully some action has been taken but the rage by a couple of these individuals continues.
PhysBang
since logic isn't your strong suit and you're not well versed in basic english and/or science, i am gonna break this up a bit
and lets be perfectly clear about the "evidence"
for starters, the only one who's actually provided non-subjective evidence between us is me. keyword = non-subjective
lets get real for a minute:
you want to accept the philosophical regurgitation of a subjective belief about science because it suits your bias, whereas the evidence clearly shows that you're bias is completely wrong.
so lets look at the facts:
you assume that because there is a wide range of research methods there is no underlying methodology consistent to all scientific disciplines. this is evident by your argument from subjectivity and the philo ... so lets examine that for a moment:
Research methodology:
ok, so it looks like you're onto something and this is similar to your argument (and the philo BS link).... but wait, it also states there are core methods (oopsie for you)
can there be more "core methods"?
lets examine the word for a moment
methodology (or method): respectively
So, using small words and an actual dictionary (that lexicon that allows us to utilise words for communication), we can see that in order for something to have a method or methodology there must be:
a body of methods, rules or postulates employed by a discipline : a particular procedure or set of procedures
(there is more, but i think this gets a point across - whether you like it or not)
so lets look at science in general:
is there a method? - a resounding YES... but as you have said, it differs between specialties
BUT
is there anything in common with all scientific disciplines?
Hmmm... lets see:
they all:
make observations - yeah, yeah...
formulate hypothesis - uh-huh
develop testable predictions - these must rule out bias and subjectivity - so far we're doing good!
gather data to test predictions (observation, measurement, experimentation) - wow, we're on a roll
refine, alter, expand, or reject hypothesis - yep!
develop general theories - wow!
Hmm... WAIT
WAIT A MINUTE!
those are all a particular procedure or set of procedures common to all science
WOW
where the holy bat f*ck have i seen that before?
maybe it was.... here?
sakes alive... that would mean, by definition, that all scientific disciplines actually do have "a body of methods, rules, and postulates employed by [the] discipline" !!!!
wow... and yet you will likely argue this point because confirmation bias is one of the definitive characteristics of pseudoscience crackpots seeking self aggrandizement and validation or wanting to seem literate and educated.
so it really is simple, and it really is exactly like i stated it from the beginning: just because procedures differ between disciplines doesn't mean there isn't an underlying methodology common to all science
just because you want to believe doesn't mean it's true
so repeating your lie doesn't make it more true
PhysBang
1- just because reality doesn't conform to your wishes doesn't mean it aint real
2- WTF? so, a repeated situation that has the same repeated effect and is demonstrably repeated throughout history is not repeated because you simply say each event is not repeatable?
WTF are you smoking?
really... what?
actually, it does, and i just proved that by the last post, physbong
1- you have given no non-subjective evidence that refutes my claims or the evidence and references in my posts
2- i doubt seriously you've taken many courses on scientific methodology if you can't see an underlying commonality between all disciplines, so i must invoke RULE 37 and call you a blatant liar on that one
(unless you're a philo major... and then i will state: you argue like one. you think that just because you have a different opinion that there is just cause to believe reality just doesn't exist)
3- argument from authority without evidence - ya might as well be saying you're a toyota because you know where a garage is
and as i stated in the last post: if said "feature" is an underlying rule, postulate, procedure or method that is common to all, and i proved that one, then it is a definite methodology that is standard across the board
in addition... i didn't just prove it in the last post, i proved it in the beginning with the references/citations that you didn't read but scorned because their initial link was on a wiki page
also note: it aint subjective. it's reality.
nonsensical rhetoric
if it doesn't abide by the scientific method, it aint science
period
full stop
philo aint science
i think we can clearly see that i do uinderstand the links, references etc that i've used
problem isn't with me, bubba... it's either your lack of literacy or it's intentional bias
(or simply crackpottery - on your part, mind you... )
time for you to repeat a lie
again
there it is!
well... if you read my last post: i gave you at least 6
how about another one?
yup! a biggie!
except that i am not ignoring evidence. i am ignoring subjective evidence because it is, by definition, subjective to the individual. philo is subjective.period. full stop.
there isn't an argument there
if there was a way to constrain philosophy into a method that employed a mechanism to remove bias, it wouldn't be philo, it would be science!
where is another biggie lie...
there they are! you have't failed to make the cranks proud
so what you're saying is that if someone can't make a completely subjective argument that sounds better than yours, then it's quackery...
you feel that, so long as you can provide a single opinion that differs then it's legitimate and proves your point
it's the tactic of a quack
source material is important when proving a point. and a peer reviewed subjective argument is still a subjective argument
there aint no way around that one... it's not about authority, Dr or PhD, journals, belief or the number of references...hell, even zephyr has references! does that mean he has a legitimate point? nope. realitycheck also had references... does that mean he was correct? hell no it doesn't! ot only means that they provided what they felt was justification for their belief.
that is exactly what you did. confirmation bias.
you've just validated this journal study - http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075637
yeah, because absolutely no one ever called in a UFO sighting when the still classified F-117 flew ... you know, the big metallic strange looking triangle thingy that didn't look like any aircraft ever????
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Hey Truck Captain Stumpy I am surprised that bear had any fur left after you got your hands on him.
Alex
Alex
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Why?
Why should aliens (humans from the future) be taken any more seriously than Sasquatch, or any other hypothesis?
They have exactly the same evidential support, answer the exact same number of questions and leave the exact same same number of questions unanswered.
ROTFLMFAO
he was tasty too... but a little greasy
love your beard... i just had to trim mine.
scared the grandkids.
especially with a bear head on my noggin
LMFAO
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
You mean those big black triangular craft as big as a football field and witnessed by thousands moving slowly and silently at low altitude over Belgium and Phoenix in the early and mid 90's? THAT triangular craft? Right...that bore no resemblance to a fighter jet speeding overhead at high altitude.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
My young daughter won't let me cut mine. I cut it ten years ago but she said without it I looked too scarey.
I guess fluffy is best for her.
Alex
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Jumpin' Jehosephat Stumpy!
You win the Manliness Award. Everybody can go home now.
DaveC426913Jumpin' Jehosephat Stumpy!
You win the Manliness Award. Everybody can go home now.
LOL
for the record: the pic is not me, but it does resemble what i look like typically... in fact, most people who judge based on looks think i'm a violent sociopath biker gang-banger trying to steal their soul or something... regardless of my degree's. LOL
Xelasnave.1947
I used to keep clean for the military. on a dare i grew out my beard and the wife loved it.
given i spend a lot of time in the woods or around other trappers/trackers, she said it fits my personality better.
the longest i got was to my belly (stretched out - i have curly hair. i call it "facial pubes" LMFAO)
Magical Realist
that is called an ASSumption... at best it is an untested claim, but considering you're not able to bring any non-subjective evidence at all, it's likely a false claim.
especially WRT and about size. size is hard to determine without references (like sh*t up in the sky).
a C-5A looks small or large depending on the observer, and even traveling at 150plus knots, it looks like it's just "hanging" in the sky. even when landing... until it hits the ground and passes you. something that is empirical and testable (and repeatable). go to Dover AFB (or Ramstein AB, GE) and see for yourself.
plus, there is the whole argument from mass hysteria/delusion that i linked references to... you know, that actual non-subjective evidence link stuff that you can't actually replicate for your aliens and spacecraft?
tell ya what... just bring me a single piece of metal from an alien "UFO" and let me take it to a lab!
that will tell if it's terresterial or extraterrestrial
thanks
You are speaking of events where many people repeated the same claims. Or where it is claimed that many people repeated the same thing. This is different from these people actually having the same experiences. Given the extreme malleability of human memory and even perception, it is not surprising that people might make their claims similar to those of others.
That mysteriously left no photographic evidence in a world teeming with cameras? Reports made after the publication of what people should expect to see in the sky?
I thought it was ALF.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
"The Belgian UFO wave began in November 1989. The events of 29 November would be documented by no less than thirty different groups of witnesses, and three separate groups of police officers. All of the reports related a large object flying at low altitude. The craft was of a flat, triangular shape, with lights underneath. This giant craft did not make a sound as it slowly moved across the landscape of Belgium. There was free sharing of information as the Belgian populace tracked this craft as it moved from the town of Liege to the border of the Netherlands and Germany.[1]
The Belgian UFO wave peaked with the events of the night of 30–31 March 1990. On that night, unknown objects were tracked on radar, chased by two Belgian Air Force F-16s, photographed, and were sighted by an estimated 13,500 people on the ground – 2,600 of whom filed written statements describing in detail what they had seen.[2] Following the incident, the Belgian air force released a report detailing the events of that night."---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave
To people wanting to keep an open mind, you can also be annoying.
- Status