Proof UFOs are Not for Idiots

R

Rif

Registered Senior Member
For those of you who believe UFOs are not real and that the evidence would never interest a top scientist I challenge you to go here.
http://www.ufoskeptic.org/

First read this scientist credentials. Next read what he has to say about UFO's. Then read his experiences with above top secret people. If you have a curious but open mind I think you'll mind will be opened even futhur.


Next: If you don't believe after that your don't want to believe.


rif
 
Rif

Bernard Haisch has been linked to a number of crank sites for his theories on free energy.

http://www.calphysics.org/

First read this scientist credentials.

Simply because he has credentials does not entertain the notion he might not be a crackpot.

Next read what he has to say about UFO's.

Nothing of value there. Bernard admits:

My estimation of the probable reality of the subject puts me somewhere between the majority rejectionist view of the mainstream scientific community and the majority accepting view of the general public (depending on how the issue is presented in opinion polls).
Click to expand...

In other words, he is neither here nor there, but somewhere in the middle, depending on how public opinion polls sway him.

Then read his experiences with above top secret people.

His evaluation is reasonable. Quoth Bernard:

My credibility filter is a function of several parameters such as my own knowledge of physical laws, state of technology and history of its origin, some personal experience with government agencies and security classification systems, but mostly the filter is tuned to the questions: Which people have I learned over the years to be trustworthy, sensible and knowledgeable? How would they be in a position to know the things they do? Why and to what extent would they tell me anything, even based on long-time friendship? Do they have anything to gain by telling stories or making claims? What consistency and convergence is there among various people's claimed information?
Click to expand...

It would appear that Bernard really wants to believe in UFO phenomena. His biggest problem however, is hard evidence, which to date, does not exist.

Next: If you don't believe after that your don't want to believe.

On the contrary, most scientists would like to believe there are other forms of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. In fact, most scientists would give their eyetooth for the opportunity to exhibit to the world hard evidence of extraterrestrial beings. Its not a matter of believing or disbelieving, it is a matter of evidence.

That said, let us return to your title heading:

Proof UFOs are Not for Idiots

That would be a correct assumption however, if one were to link UFO phenomena to alien visitations as evidence, the title heading should be revised to not include the word "Not."
 
I've heard about this



Anyway, its not for idiots, its for all you smrt guys who can accept the truth:D
 
I'm glad you can speak for most scientist. What did you take a poll. As far as one of the quotes from him you make about opinion pools it's obvious to me he was being scarcastic.
Once again you show you are a debunker by attacking some of his views on energy as being crackpot. Our credentials only important when they come from scientist that are "Scientifically Correct"
This scientist is a man of high intelligence who cretiques mainstream science and it's hollier than tho attitude. He also proves to me at least that the claims of most mainsteam scientist that they are sceptical is nothing short of a bold face lie and that what they really are are closed minded bigots that will not give this field the study and funding it has needed for because they have boxed themselves in.
Because the man is a free thinker and dosn't bow down to what he is suppose to believe you minimize his credentials. I think he has more on the ball then, Oberg, Klass, and the debunkers who stoop to voodo science, and character attacks when they a our stumpt and can't explain a UFO case.

I don't worry though more and more scientist are starting to take notice. Those that havn't woudn't believe it if they did land on the white house lawn.
rif
PS Thanks for proven to me once again that debunkers attack the man not what he stands for.
 
It is interesting that from the clandestine intelligence world perspective the scientific community, for all of its technical and theoretical sophistication, is viewed as remarkably naive in certain respects. We scientists tend to think that we know better than anyone else what is possible and what is impossible, and that we of all people could surely not be kept in the dark for very long. Over the course of time I have learned how it would indeed be possible to maintain decades-long secrecy on this topic and why this might be justified, concepts I myself once dismissed.
Click to expand...

I like this guy Bernard Haisch already!
 
I believe many scientist can't fathom the idea that something this astounding could be happening and they would not know about it. So rather then take a serious look at it they dismiss it out of hand without a careful look. Those that do look and have and open mind are startled to find substance to these claims.

This scientist is a skeptic but one with an open mind and finds after looking there is something to it. They can't attack his credentials so they attack him. But someone important even to mainstream science must have thought he was on the ball or he would have not :
1. Publushed 120 papers in the top Science journals
2. Was a member and headed several NASA teams
3. Was in Who's Who's in 1998 and again in Science and Enginering.
And on and on and on.
Suddenly he becomes a crackpot because he doesn't tow the "Scienctifically Correct" banner.
Think about it. Does that sound like science or religion.
rif
 
I think you will find the scientific community as a whole carries something of a wolfpack mentality. Though claiming enlightenment, the community in fact thought polices each other. They do this across the board in all fields.

Why, you must ask? It's obvious... the scientific community has some power over the masses now. They can only exercise control if they function collectively.
 
Thank you for the response. I agree. Many times I hear how a person must apply the scientific method to any problem. But I ask this?
Many debunkers do not apply the scientific method. What they do is this.

If it can be explained their explanation is the explanation even though it does not fit all the well documented facts of the case.

If it can't be explained then the witnesses are mistaken.

If it can't be explained by misreprentation then the witnesses are liers or frauds.

Under those types of guidelines it would be impossible for any research to be conducted on events that couldn't be controlled in a lab.

Now scienceitst many times allows sloppy science to proceed when it is in their benfit. The black wing moth was used to prove natural selection is a prime example turned out to be bad science.

The explanation of atmospheric phenonanon to explain the 1952 DC UFO fly over case turned to fly against most of the facts in that case and was force fed by an astronomer to the press not a meterologist.

When scientist scream out how the media is the cause of all this phsudoscience being valludated I counter; It is not the media it is scienctist and the use of debunking and character attacks that has brought this about.
They have not use the skepptics tools to prove or disprove. They have underestemated the majorities intelligence to know a scam when they see one. They have left a bad taste in the mouths of people such as myself who have witness something extrodanary and know-Know it's not a weather baloon or venus.

Those(scientist and lay people alike) who want debunking as the last word would believe anything said not matter how much of it slaps the face of common sense and objective thinking. So they go their merry way and sleep soundly. The rest of us who once held science in great esteem go away wonder what has happened to our world and search for truth no matter how hard that truth may be to swollow.

I quote: Bernard Haisch
"While some of the individuals read in on deep black programs may be among the smartest on the planet, so are many scientists. (I do have a bit of a prejudice here.) If deep puzzles exist, why are the vast capabilities and talents of the mainstream scientific community not brought to bear on them?"

My answer to that is control. If mainstream science was ever let in on what may be going on then the govenment would loose all control over this.
One thing I have to say for scienctist is that once they are proven wronge on a old belief system watch how fast and though they go to work to find out how this new belief system works.

rif
 
The crop circles, cattle mutilations and UFO's are things different from everyday life and every scientist in the world knows about them and has an opinion on them. Mr. Haisch's website is designed to bring more of them out of the closet, so to speak.
 
Mr. Haisch's website is designed to bring more of them out of the closet, so to speak.

As well, it is designed to perpetuate irrational concepts such as UFO phenomena being used as evidence for alien visitations. In this case, Mr. Haisch's credentials are used as argument from authority.

Please remember, Velikovsky, Arp, Van Flandern all have "credentials."
 
There is nothing irrational about the alien visitation concept. The only irrational idea is that we have all the answers and if we can't explain it by human technology it is impossible. We are aliens and we have visited other planets.

But what you have just said proves beyond any doubt that closed minds with large egos will never solve this phenonanon Because:

If I start from a place and say this is impossible. It will always be impossible(at least for me).

If I say this is irrational then it does not deserve a look. Of course if I don't look I can't see.

Damit credentials do mean somthing. I can't believe they only mean something if they agree with the mainstream. They mean a hell of a lot. And these close minded people who be-little anyone who disagrees with their bran of science are a disgrace to free thought and imagination which is the cornorstone of advanced science.
I think the bigots of science are starting to run scared. I think the greatist tenets of science will win out. I think the corragous amoung the scientific community will start to look scientifically at the explanations and tactics these debunkers have uses and say. "This is not what science is suppose to be. Truth does not need to be protected with voodo science and character attacks."

rif
 
Rif

There is nothing irrational about the alien visitation concept.

To the irrational mind, that is correct.

We are aliens and we have visited other planets.

Really ? Which planets ?

The rest of your post for the most part resembles typical crackpot rant. Please refrain if you desire to continue this discussion.
 
Rif,
If you are going to believe one scientist because of his credentials, you cannot rule out the opinions of other scientists who differ in opinion, they have credentials as well. There is no firm agreement on this topic by scientists because there is no evidence either way - you can't prove or disprove the existence of extraterrestrial life. Scientists don't always speak in fact - they have opinions just like other people do.
 
Q,

I wasn't aware that Arp was engaged in the Alien phenomena debate. Could you direct me to some pertinent information, please?
 
John

I didn't say Arp was engaged in alien phenomena. His name was simply referenced along with other crackpots who sport credentials.
 
We have sent probes to other planets and in less the 30 years since we went into space. We have even sent a probe out of our solar system. As far as others scientist have their differing. I have no problem with that. My post was based on the gigle factor and how the media and scientist treat any one who thinks there may be some substance to UFO.
Like the person who dismissed this forurm and wanted to discuss "important issues". Or the debunker who dismissed this scientist credentials and labled him a crackpot. If you wish to have different views at least respect the other persons veiw. Not me. I'm just a lay person. But if a sciencetist reports that some in the govenment have related they have handled aliens techonology and the person has one hell of a resume to dismiss him out of hand is the worst kind of prejudice. If scienctist use cohersion to force other scientist who regard curtain subjects as important or lable them, then true science has taken a back seat. UFOs have always had a percentage of cases that defy explanation. Some of the most documented cases with the most credible witnesses have been shown to have real substance. Yes it doesn't prove they are from another planet, however if there was one in a million chance they are alien and for some reason they are evoiding us, it is a subject worthy of investagation with the best tools we have now. The reason this is not being done. Scientist will call anyone a "crackpot" who even entertains this subject as being an important one and basically if they don't recant their profession in the mainstreem is over any research money is gone.

rif
 
Rif

We have sent probes to other planets and in less the 30 years since we went into space. We have even sent a probe out of our solar system

Therefore, your statement:

We are aliens and we have visited other planets.

...was little more than misrepresented sensationalism with a heaping dollop of pompous windbaggedness.

I'm just a lay person.

:rolleyes:

Some of the most documented cases with the most credible witnesses have been shown to have real substance. Yes it doesn't prove they are from another planet, however if there was one in a million chance they are alien and for some reason they are evoiding us, it is a subject worthy of investagation with the best tools we have now.

Yeah sure, let's throw money at every UFO nutcase who admits their story is the one in a million. However, if you were to present some hard evidence of alien technology, there would be an endless supply of money to pursue whatever venture you wish.

The reason this is not being done. Scientist will call anyone a "crackpot" who even entertains this subject as being an important one and basically if they don't recant their profession in the mainstreem is over any research money is gone.

Nope. The reason is because no hard evidence exists of alien technology. It's really that simple. All one has to do is provide evidence. Is that so difficult ? :D
 
Last edited:
In modern theories of biological evolution, a lack of evidence is sometimes accepted as proof enough. Stephen J. Gould's model of Punctuated Equilibrium predicts that no intermidiate fossils will be found in the record of the kind Darwin insisted it would find. In other words, a lack of proof proves his case.\

Is that kind of thinking unacceptable for me but acceptable for Stephen J. Gould?
 
Punctuated equilibrium is an evolutionary theory advocated by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.

What is punctuated equilibrium?

Evolution occurs in a stepladder fashion, with fits and burst of development (morphological change). Such bursts are followed by long periods of stasis. These periods of stasis may last for millions of years. This contrasts with Darwin’s original theory, which offered that evolution was a gradual process that led to the perfection of species.

http://www2.carthage.edu/~danschow/creatgrpabs.htm

Interesting reads on PE:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

http://www.skeptic.com/01.3.prothero-punc-eq.html

http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/PE.html


:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top