'No evidence' for extraterrestrials, says White House,....
- Thread starter phlogistician
- Start date
Military base with a malfunctioning radar dish. I'm on the same weed as you are on!
Those guys that went up in the plane hoping to catch a glimpse of the UFO were terrified when it buzzed the aircraft, OK some of their nerves might have been a bit on edge! Wouldn't you be the same?
You have any proof Project Blue Book was "half assed"? No, of course you don't - just like all of your other claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book
Not really my problem, but it you are not willing to do the work, then you should not be making claims that you cannot support.
Repetition gets you no where here.
A lot of serious allegations, so where is your proof? Oh that is right, you have none.
Yes scientists have reviewed it. And in the scientific community, opinions are mixed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object#No_scientific_consensus
Some scientistist didn't believe in relativity. So what? History is full of scientists not seeing the forrest for the trees and becoming the victim of their congnative biases. So what does that prove?
LOL, I think I called it correctly.
Why am I not suprised by any of this?
Last edited:
hmm. How about one good reason why he should believe his brother-in-law?
I have to wonder if he even has a brother-in-law?
In fact, why the hell should we believe YOU? You spend your time giving speeches to insane people that spread lies.
That said, it was a very interesting story, geoffp..Thanks for sharing it.
@joe --
How about the fact that Project Blue Book was a military operation who's stated goal was the investigation, not of whether or not Aliens were visiting, but of whether or not something was a threat to our national security. They went into each and every investigation with the assumption that it was the Soviets and went from there. They weren't really trying to explain anything, just to ascertain if it was a threat. If that's not a half assed approach to an investigation(and it's demonstrably not a scientific approach) then nothing is.
If you need more evidence that Project Blue Book was half assed then just look in your own link(where my other evidence comes from as well) at Hynek's criticism. They obviously weren't following standard scientific procedure when it comes to investigations, which means that their findings are useless as evidence.
Wait, it's not your problem that you refuse to give me specific examples that you find to be unexplainable, instead demanding that I search through all reports ever made? How the hell does that work. You said that some of the events were unexplainable, I said that if you gave me specifics that I could almost certainly explain them, you then told me "read Blue Book" which is about as far from specific as you can get. How is this not your fault again? Perhaps you, with your obviously superior brain can dumb it down enough for a foolish individual such as myself to understand. Or you could keep avoiding your burden of proof like you cranks always do, it's really up to you.
My proof is contained in Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World, pick it up and read it(not very nice having a taste of your own medicine is it?).
Among scientists opinions are not really mixed, they pretty much agree that it's bunk, with physicists and cosmologists leading the way. You can't use a few outliers to establish a trend like this. Among psychiatrists opinions may be mixed, but most of psychiatry is pure bullshit anyways. So I really have no reason to accept what they say on the matter, especially when their argument is based on the strong emotions found within abductee accounts.
As for your link, it doesn't prove your point. All it really says is "there might be more observational data than we know", which is about the same as saying "it's in Blue Book, you just have to look.
Faulty comparison. There aren't enough points of commonality between the two for a valid comparison to be made. You could contrast them, but I don't think that would do well for your argument here.
Because they were working from incomplete data sets and seriously hampered by religious intrusion. Can you give us any indication(that isn't just saying "read Blue Book") that we're working from an incomplete data set, or are you just going to keep pulling shit out of your ass?
Now, are you ever going to do the work to support your conclusion and give me some specific examples? Or are you going to leave your burden of proof unfulfilled?
How about the fact that Project Blue Book was a military operation who's stated goal was the investigation, not of whether or not Aliens were visiting, but of whether or not something was a threat to our national security. They went into each and every investigation with the assumption that it was the Soviets and went from there. They weren't really trying to explain anything, just to ascertain if it was a threat. If that's not a half assed approach to an investigation(and it's demonstrably not a scientific approach) then nothing is.
If you need more evidence that Project Blue Book was half assed then just look in your own link(where my other evidence comes from as well) at Hynek's criticism. They obviously weren't following standard scientific procedure when it comes to investigations, which means that their findings are useless as evidence.
Wait, it's not your problem that you refuse to give me specific examples that you find to be unexplainable, instead demanding that I search through all reports ever made? How the hell does that work. You said that some of the events were unexplainable, I said that if you gave me specifics that I could almost certainly explain them, you then told me "read Blue Book" which is about as far from specific as you can get. How is this not your fault again? Perhaps you, with your obviously superior brain can dumb it down enough for a foolish individual such as myself to understand. Or you could keep avoiding your burden of proof like you cranks always do, it's really up to you.
My proof is contained in Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World, pick it up and read it(not very nice having a taste of your own medicine is it?).
Among scientists opinions are not really mixed, they pretty much agree that it's bunk, with physicists and cosmologists leading the way. You can't use a few outliers to establish a trend like this. Among psychiatrists opinions may be mixed, but most of psychiatry is pure bullshit anyways. So I really have no reason to accept what they say on the matter, especially when their argument is based on the strong emotions found within abductee accounts.
As for your link, it doesn't prove your point. All it really says is "there might be more observational data than we know", which is about the same as saying "it's in Blue Book, you just have to look.
Faulty comparison. There aren't enough points of commonality between the two for a valid comparison to be made. You could contrast them, but I don't think that would do well for your argument here.
Because they were working from incomplete data sets and seriously hampered by religious intrusion. Can you give us any indication(that isn't just saying "read Blue Book") that we're working from an incomplete data set, or are you just going to keep pulling shit out of your ass?
Now, are you ever going to do the work to support your conclusion and give me some specific examples? Or are you going to leave your burden of proof unfulfilled?
:shrug: Seemed sincere? The brother-in-law could be crazed, mind. This is one of those instances where my gut tells me to believe the messenger.
Well, again I cite his apparent sincerity. I'm not sure what he'd gain from making it up.
How dare you, Sir? I'll have you know that I only give speeches to insane people that make up lies on retainer. I don't just run around doing it for free, you know.Money. Now.
http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/sec-i.htm
We believe that the existing record and the results of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects of the University of Colorado, which are presented in detail in subsequent sections of this report, support the conclusions and recommendations which follow.
As indicated by its title, the emphasis of this study has been on attempting to learn from UFO reports anything that could be considered as adding to scientific knowledge. Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.
It has been argued that this lack of contribution to science is due to the fact that very little scientific effort has been put on the subject. We do not agree. We feel that the reason that there has been very little scientific study of the subject is that those scientists who are most directly concerned, astronomers, atmospheric physicists, chemists, and psychologists, having had ample opportunity to look into the matter, have individually decided that UFO phenomena do not offer a fruitful field in which to look for major scientific discoveries.
This conclusion is so important, and the public seems in general to have so little understanding of how scientists work, that some more comment on it seems desirable. Each person who sets out to make a career of scientific research, chooses a general field of broad specialization in which to acquire proficiency. Within that field he looks for specific fields in which to work. To do this he keeps abreast of the published scientific literature, attends scientific meetings, where reports on current progress are given, and energetically discusses his interests and those of his colleagues both face-to-face and by
correspondence with them. He is motivated by an active curiosity about nature and by a personal desire to make a contribution to science. He is constantly probing for error and incompleteness in the efforts that have been made in his fields of interest, and looking for new ideas about new ways to attack new problems. From this effort he arrives at personal decisions as to where his own effort can be most fruitful. These decisions are personal in the sense that he must estimate his own intellectual limitations, and the limitations inherent in the working situation in which he finds himself, including limits on the support of his work, or his involvement with other pre-existing scientific commitments. While individual errors of judgment may arise, it is generally not true that all of the scientists who are actively cultivating a given field of science are wrong for very long.
more at link.
We believe that the existing record and the results of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects of the University of Colorado, which are presented in detail in subsequent sections of this report, support the conclusions and recommendations which follow.
As indicated by its title, the emphasis of this study has been on attempting to learn from UFO reports anything that could be considered as adding to scientific knowledge. Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.
It has been argued that this lack of contribution to science is due to the fact that very little scientific effort has been put on the subject. We do not agree. We feel that the reason that there has been very little scientific study of the subject is that those scientists who are most directly concerned, astronomers, atmospheric physicists, chemists, and psychologists, having had ample opportunity to look into the matter, have individually decided that UFO phenomena do not offer a fruitful field in which to look for major scientific discoveries.
This conclusion is so important, and the public seems in general to have so little understanding of how scientists work, that some more comment on it seems desirable. Each person who sets out to make a career of scientific research, chooses a general field of broad specialization in which to acquire proficiency. Within that field he looks for specific fields in which to work. To do this he keeps abreast of the published scientific literature, attends scientific meetings, where reports on current progress are given, and energetically discusses his interests and those of his colleagues both face-to-face and by
correspondence with them. He is motivated by an active curiosity about nature and by a personal desire to make a contribution to science. He is constantly probing for error and incompleteness in the efforts that have been made in his fields of interest, and looking for new ideas about new ways to attack new problems. From this effort he arrives at personal decisions as to where his own effort can be most fruitful. These decisions are personal in the sense that he must estimate his own intellectual limitations, and the limitations inherent in the working situation in which he finds himself, including limits on the support of his work, or his involvement with other pre-existing scientific commitments. While individual errors of judgment may arise, it is generally not true that all of the scientists who are actively cultivating a given field of science are wrong for very long.
more at link.
I just love your charming knack of ignoring evidence and creating evidence to back your biases. If you are pursuing a career in science, it will be pretty lack luster. Because your cognative biases are interfering with your thinking.
This was previously provided to you and previously ignored:
"Project Blue Book was one of a series of systematic studies of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) conducted by the United States Air Force. Started in 1952, it was the second revival of such a study (the first two of its kind being Projects Sign and Grudge). A termination order was given for the study in December 1969, and all activity under its auspices ceased in January 1970.
Project Blue Book had two goals:
1.to determine if UFOs were a threat to national security, and
2.to scientifically analyze UFO-related data.
Thousands of UFO reports were collected, analyzed and filed. As the result of the Condon Report, which concluded there was nothing anomalous about UFOs, Project Blue Book was ordered shut down in December 1969 and the Air Force continues to provide the following summary of its investigations:
1.No UFO reported, investigated and evaluated by the Air Force was ever an indication of threat to our national security;
2.There was no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of modern scientific knowledge; and
3.There was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as "unidentified" were extraterrestrial vehicles.[1]
By the time Project Blue Book ended, it had collected 12,618 UFO reports, and concluded that most of them were misidentifications of natural phenomena (clouds, stars, etc.) or conventional aircraft. According to the National Reconnaissance Office a number of the reports could be explained by flights of the formerly secret reconnaissance planes U-2 and A-12.[2] A small percentage of UFO reports were classified as unexplained, even after stringent analysis. The UFO reports were archived and are available under the Freedom of Information Act, but names and other personal information of all witnesses have been changed." - Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book
Kinda of goes against your premise doesn't it.
You still have not proven your claim.Nice example of illogical thinking - creating a straw man. Your unwillingess to do the work necessary to back up your claims is not my issue. It is your issue. You were given very credible and specific examples. Your refusal to use that information is not my problem.
And if you are not willing to read Project Blue Book, the source material, then you really are not serious and letting your biases control your decision making.
Been there done that, I agree with Sagan's thesis advocating critical thinking which was the point of his book. The book was not about UFO's although he did use the phenomena as an example. My point is that skeptical thinking should not have a one way sign on it. It should be applied to every side. It should not be applied selectively.
Oh so you are speaking for all scientists now? Where is your proof. You seem to like living in a world with out proofs and full of biases. It is obvious you have a bias against psychiatrists. A rather dangerous bias at that. Science is getting pretty good at understanding and manipulating human behavior. I make a very good living exploiting human biases in the financial markets every day.
Oh, and just what is my point?
No it is not a faulty comparison. It is a fact, that time and time again "scientists" have been victims of their biases. The topic is different, but the decision making is very much the same. And you my young friend are missing the forrest for the trees.
Excuses. We live in an incomplete data set. I don't really understand your point, if you have any. And what is religion, but just another bias. Here is a fact my young friend, you are human. And you are very biased. The fact that you are unable or unwilling to accept this aspect of your humanity puts you in peril.
We have data and then we have decision making. The two are very different, you seem not be able to see the difference.
I have given you examples. Your unwillingess to do the required homework is not my problem. If you are not willing to do the homework as appears to be the case, then what makes you think you can solve something the US government with all of its resources was unable to do?
Last edited:
It is exactly your fault. I asked for specific examples and you throw the entirety of Project Blue Book at me, like that means anything. If you're not going to provide me with specifics, like you claimed you did when you asked me to review thousands of individual cases(which is demonstrably not specific) then at least have the integrity to admit it.
With regards to your claims about my character, it's time to put up or shut up. Either show, with links, where I've been intellectually dishonest or drop it. I've already addressed all of your criticisms in this thread so either source up or STFU.
With regards to your claims about my character, it's time to put up or shut up. Either show, with links, where I've been intellectually dishonest or drop it. I've already addressed all of your criticisms in this thread so either source up or STFU.
No you have not addressed my criticisms. You have responded with a series of illogical arguements (straw men).
Alright, I will give you some help. But you need to be serious and give some thought to this and not just pop off the first thing that come into your head.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Zamora
Last edited:
Good question. I suppose it might comfort people who believe everything their governments say or cannot think of reasons a government might suppress such information.
Well, there's a hypothesis....
people who believe that (at least some) UFOs are alien technology believe this because their lives are boring and yearn for something exciting. And it is a potentially falsifiable hypothesis and I can even think of ways to begin doing the research. But note, here we have a belief in advance of any such research. Or this person is a psychic and can just 'tell' what these people have as lives and the causal pattern in their brains related to this.
yes, if we went to another planet where there was life, we wouldn't collect their genetic chemicals.
This is really just a waste of my time..Which is exactly what I told two friends that got laser scanned by a giant flying pyramid ..Ya know, quit blubbering and produce a body already.
Money. Now.
Sounds real horror show. Never an empty seat. Imagine what you could charge if you could arrive in an black anti-gravity pyramid with sweet rims.
Anyway I read through this old thing and noticed that Condon in all six pages never asserts that there is "NO EVIDENCE" as the White House is now quoted saying.
Rather it states that IOW, the resources are better spent elsewhere.Course I'm sure one could feel a bit outwitted chasing shadows for years.
hmm.I just thought of a great reality TV show idea. A one off that no one would forget. It ends with the host in either Guantanamo or a straight jacket..Where did that Pincho fella get off to?..I need cast members.
Last edited:
@joe --
Well from the account listed in the link I suspect a hoax(there have been thousands of confirmed hoaxes including nearly all crop circles). The only anomaly in that explanation is the apparent speed, but given Zamora's obvious state of shock that's easily put down to human error. The apparent lack of sound can be accredited to shock as well(I know first hand that a state of shock can cause temporary deafness, from first hand experience).
Hell, I could probably build something that would produce an almost identical effect, the only thing I would have real difficulty replicating would be the supposed speed of the object, other than that it sounds like something a first year engineering student could build in his garage(I should know, my friend built a nuke in his first year).
While this may have "truly boggled" people at Project Blue Book(though I doubt it did), who were admittedly mostly interested in whether or not something was a threat to national security, and who were(in Hynek's own words) not pursuing investigations in a scientific manner, there really isn't anything that's difficult to explain here.
I thought that you were going to give me a hard one.
PS: I haven't caricatured any of your arguments, not once. So there have been no straw man arguments. Kindly either demonstrate this claim to be true or retract it as a lie.
Well from the account listed in the link I suspect a hoax(there have been thousands of confirmed hoaxes including nearly all crop circles). The only anomaly in that explanation is the apparent speed, but given Zamora's obvious state of shock that's easily put down to human error. The apparent lack of sound can be accredited to shock as well(I know first hand that a state of shock can cause temporary deafness, from first hand experience).
Hell, I could probably build something that would produce an almost identical effect, the only thing I would have real difficulty replicating would be the supposed speed of the object, other than that it sounds like something a first year engineering student could build in his garage(I should know, my friend built a nuke in his first year).
While this may have "truly boggled" people at Project Blue Book(though I doubt it did), who were admittedly mostly interested in whether or not something was a threat to national security, and who were(in Hynek's own words) not pursuing investigations in a scientific manner, there really isn't anything that's difficult to explain here.
I thought that you were going to give me a hard one.
PS: I haven't caricatured any of your arguments, not once. So there have been no straw man arguments. Kindly either demonstrate this claim to be true or retract it as a lie.
Conversely, I worked with a bunch of Astronomers, and down the hall was the Earth Observation Department. Also, as part of my job, I maintained some tracking software that had formerly been classified, and eventually, through an unrelated avenue, met one of the guys that developed it.
Nobody at any of these places had ever detected a UFO.
Oh, and I'm an Air Force brat, and none of the pilots I ever met had seen one either.
But it falls back down on what people classify as a UFO. Some people see Venus, which isn't flying, and it gets called a UFO. Some people see stars, or clouds, which don't fly either. I really don't like the term UFO.