My beef with ETI

[crazymikey]

2inquisitive, being rude to rude people is no biggie. You wanted to hear his ideas on how it should be run, when you barely know him. Alright, that's your personal matter. I won't intervene.

 

[larryhat]

2inquisitive:

Thanks for the clarification, I'm still flattered by the invitation.

Moderating a discussion like this looks like it takes two things:
a) Loads of time b) The patience of a saint.

Sadly, I don't have either. Thanks anyhow..

Best wishes - Larry

 

[coolmacguy]

Larry,

I think you would make an excellent moderator of this forum.

As one of the few people here who has done real research into this phenomenon for a long time, you would be a voice of reason among a sea of mere armchair theorists.

I am familiar with you from UFO Updates and I have always greatly respected the work of people like you in this field.

 

[coolmacguy]

According to the disclosure project there around 58 species visisting Earth.

I am highly skeptical of this. It comes solely from Sgt. Clifford Stone, who has proven himself in the past to be an unreliable witness. The public doesn't know much about Dr. Greer's poor witness selection or his past tendency to espouse wild claims.

This has clouded the Disclosure Project's possible message to the media and the public and unfortunately prevented many credible witnesses from being heard.

 

[crazymikey]

I am not highly skeptical of "58" I would expect there is more to be honest. I would, however, like some more confirmation of the "58" So far, I am only accepting one fact, and that is the existence of aliens visiting us. I however, have close to nothing on how many or which ones, so I dare not enter that territory.

 

[SkinWalker]

It's decisions like this that are indications that the Disclosure Project isn't operating with scientific methodology. Its primary credibility in this area seems to revolve around Steven Greer's "M.D." status and his ability to speak/argue well. To the latter, I give him his props... he appears to have a talent there.

Overall, the Disclosure Project seems to center around volume of data rather than quality. Hypothetically, If they were to begin a pruning of data, they would likely set an internal precedent or two that they might not wish to live up to. The "eyewitness," anecdotal testimony of some of their "witnesses" probably meets an ideal-type or is worded far too well to dismiss based on the lack of credibility established previously or elswhere of a witness. The vast majority of those that visit the Disclosure Project site aren't aware of these incosistencies/credibilty problems (if they do indeed exist) and a good story is a good story.

If that hypothetical is, indeed, what is occuring, what would be the motivation of the Disclosure Project if not truth?

 

[coolmacguy]

It's decisions like this that are indications that the Disclosure Project isn't operating with scientific methodology.

Sadly, you are correct about that.

Overall, the Disclosure Project seems to center around volume of data rather than quality.

There is both though. Many of the witness are highly credible military officers that have provided documentation and/or corroborating testimony of their stories. It is the few less credible people Greer has lumped in that will cause the whole bunch to suffer undue ridicule by association.

The vast majority of those that visit the Disclosure Project site aren't aware of these incosistencies/credibilty problems (if they do indeed exist) and a good story is a good story.

Yes but even if their methodology is not completely sound, that doesn't invalidate all their data. Many of the witnesses and documents they have presented are not new. Much of it has been researched independently by others over several decades. Their data needs to be examined by outside parties as well.

If that hypothetical is, indeed, what is occuring, what would be the motivation of the Disclosure Project if not truth?

In addition to Disclosure, Greer has tacked on political goals like banning space weapons and energy reforms. This excess baggage will only serve to blunt any message he wants to send, as many others have said.

 

[coolmacguy]

I am not highly skeptical of "58" I would expect there is more to be honest.

Just because it seems logical to you does not mean you should accept it's veracity if it comes from an unreliable source.

The worst mistake one can make in this arena is accepting all claims because they seem rational or likely.

Every claim needs to be judged and investigated independently.

 

[crazymikey]

I do not accept it Coolmacguy. I am saying, all I know, is that aliens are visiting us, and I am not going to risk my objectivity, by saying which, and how many. There are countless claims and cases I have not accepted, simply because, they had little evidence to support them.

 

[Persol]

I do not accept it Coolmacguy. I am saying, all I know, is that aliens are visiting us

And you 'know' this how? Perhaps you want to get around to answering those questions.

 

[coolmacguy]

And you 'know' this how? Perhaps you want to get around to answering those questions.

The historical record is replete with it, for at least the last 50 years, for anyone that cares to look.

Many gov. and military officials have acknowledged this fact publicly.

Enough people have reported personal encounters in sufficient detail and similarity that they cannot simply be dismissed as delusions or random hallucinations.

Declassified gov. documents show that this is the case, and that studies had been done that showed the objects being seen were real and that they represented no known terrestrial technology or craft.

As to who or what the "aliens" are, there is not a lot of data on that. I prefer to use the term "unknown intelligence." Because it is apparent that some intelligence is at work, apparently non-human from the descriptions, which possesses vastly superior technology.

 

[SkinWalker]

The historical record is replete with it, for at least the last 50 years, for anyone that cares to look.

And yet the historicity of aliens among us is lacking in anything but anecdote and descriptions of events that can as likely be spurious as not.

Many gov. and military officials have acknowledged this fact publicly.

It's interesting how the UFO/ETI movement in general is quick to dismiss "many gov. and military officials" as liars and deceivers until such time as one of them says something that supports their belief system, at which time an exception is made.

Enough people have reported personal encounters in sufficient detail and similarity that they cannot simply be dismissed as delusions or random hallucinations.

According to Patry and Pelletier (2001), who conducted a survey on UFOs and aliens, 48% of their sample believed in UFOs, 35% disbelieved. Only 33%, however, believed in alien abduction and only 2% of the sample thought that they had been abducted, which mirrors the results of the Roper poll on unusual personal experiences. I'd say that a 2% margin for mentally challenged in society is generously low so the figure is expected. The likeliest interpretation is that people are engaging in confirmation bias and consensus effect in their beliefs of UFO/ETI.

Declassified gov. documents show that this is the case, and that studies had been done that showed the objects being seen were real and that they represented no known terrestrial technology or craft.

Show it, don't tell it. That kind of real documentation would make Nightline or 60 minutes... not a website.

References


Patry, Alain L.; Pelletier, Luc G. (2001). Extraterrestrial Beliefs and Experiences: An Application of the Theory of Reasoned Action. The Journal of Social Psychology vol. 14:2 pp. 199-217.

Roper poll, cited in the above work.

 

[coolmacguy]

Show it, don't tell it. That kind of real documentation would make Nightline or 60 minutes... not a website.[/size]

Unfortunately, no it wouldn't.

But I am putting together a summary of what I have in response to Porfiry's request. I'll post it here sometime in the next few days.

 

[coolmacguy]

It's interesting how the UFO/ETI movement in general is quick to dismiss "many gov. and military officials" as liars and deceivers until such time as one of them says something that supports their belief system, at which time an exception is made.

That's because the stream official denials keeps postulating rather ridiculous explanations for the sightings that make no sense.

I'm not saying "alien spacecraft" is the only thing that does make sense, but these officials you refer to have not provided any reasonable explanations for many sightings. In effect, their lies are incredibly transparent.