UFO Phenomenomen as a new cosmic view of mankind

[(Q)]

My Scientific training is vast. By the way,I am a PH.D.

Piled Higher and Deeper - yes, you sure know how to shovel it, Chucky.

 

[duendy]

meaning/TRANSLATED....'are you one us uuus, the gGGGGGGreat scientific community and those who are initiated into the Great Halls of reason and rationalism, and inellect, and empiricism........ORRRR (hand on forehead) one of those useless eaters!.... who go aroooound 'seeing' stuff that 'isn't there',,, and then having the AUDAAAAACITY to relate your observations and experiences without the auspicious membership offff theeee SCIEntiFIC BRoTHERRRHOOD!!!!!"

 

[Ophiolite]

Dear Friend :
My Scientific training is vast.I do not need to discuss it with a member of a forum who assumes some strange attitudes toward other members of this forum.

As I demonstrated in an earlier post I have been polite throughout. I have attacked your ideas only. You, on the other hand, have attacked me directly, calling me pedantic and arrogant. How then can you claim I 'have a strange attitude toward other members' ?

.By the way,I am a PH.D. in Chemistry.I also had a master degree in Physics and a minor in Chemical Engineering.I will definitely not discuss my real credentials with anyone here.They are mine and I earned them with a lot of sacrifice as to permit anyone to spit or doubt of them.

Who is doubting them? I simply asked what they were? You have repeated in several (perhaps all) of your posts that you are a scientist, with vast experience. It seems that you think this is relevant in some way to your argument. Thereofre it is relevant, and I think reasonable, to ask what those qualifications are. Thus had you been an expert say in the field of radar that would have been very interesting from the standpoint of those UFO sightings that have been accompanied by radar reflections, and those that had not.
I am not disputing your credentials. You might wish to consider that others may also have credentials, that they have also obtained with varying degrees of sacrifice. I rather doubt your own experience is unique.

Urban myth you said? No,what I said about scientists who denied the possibility of air/space travel is not an urban legend.Take your time as I did to convince yourself about it.

No. I am already convinced it is an urban myth. I am prepared to change my view in the face of evidence. That is the scientific method.
You are making the claim. It is up to you to prove it. Clearly you have read documents that attest to it as fact. I am asking you to provide references for these documents. That is the scientific method.
I will not accept this as fact simply because you say so, nor will I delve into the literature to find out the 'truth' of the matter. Neither of those approaches reflects the scientific method.
You have made a claim - now justify it please. Scientifically. As a scientist of vast experience this should not be a major challenge for you.

I am not here to be in struggle with anyone.What
I want is to expose my ideas as I read your ideas and express our opinions mutually.

Excellent. That is also why I am here. As a scientist you will be well aware that any and all ideas will be subject to vigorous and rigorous attacks by others. Indeed the most savage attacks should come from the originator of the idea and his supporters. If the ideas are sound they will withstand such attacks. That is the scientific method.
I intend to continue attacking each and every aspect of your arguments. That will either strengthen them, or show them to be flawed. Do you have some objection to this?

,but I understand that you have to be more considerate toward other human beings instead of treating them as ignorant or naive persons(I refer to the way that you treated Duendy).This definitely will give you a more appealing attitude and a more brilliant perspective to expose your ideas.

If I treat Duendy as an ignorant and naive person you may safely assume this is because I believe they are an ignorant and naive person. I reached this conclusion after several heated discussions over the course of several months.
They are an intelligent person. That is what infuriates me about their posts - and yes they do infuriate me at times. They have the intelligence to be so much better, but they wallow in self selected sea of ignorance. If you think that's harsh, you should see what Duendy thinks of me!
Incidentally, Duendy seemed to have disappeared from these forums for a while. My comments "Nice to see you back and spouting the same old nonsense" was a genuine statement of - I have no other word for it - affection.

 

[duendy]

Ophilolite?? i right behiiind you!!

since when have i been a 'they'?

ok, big shot answer me this, which i've already asked sskinwa;lker but he really DOESseem to have disappeared...

you and ther other 'scienceres' always want 'evidence evidence evidence' cause that is what science does...right?

you want metal? hat ewexactly would convince you, first question

secondly, what about VIDEO evidence thatsbeen checked by experts and can see no trickery. i am taking it you do not class this as substantial evidence even though the footage is recorded on technology which has grown out of the whole science thaaang. why not that evidence?

 

[Ophiolite]

Right. I converted you to a 'they' because I honestly couldn't remember whether you were male or female. The 'they' was an effort at neutrality. Strange though it may seem I don't actually want to offend you.

And yes, science does look for evidence. The best way I have of addressing this is by reposting something I wrote in response to a thread started by btimsah some time ago. I'll do it as a repost rather than a link because I would like it to have wider circulation: I think I did rather a good job with it and it does very accurately reflect my position on these matters.
btimsah said: "Can anyone explain why some of you are so fanatically "against" a UFO/ETI story? What is it that makes you want to destroy evidence of such a thing? Why do you feel compelled to do that? What is it that you're afraid will happen if such a thing is allowed to be claimed, if it's not challenged?"

I replied:
This is a fair question or suite of questions and deserves a fair response. Keep in mind that the motivations of those ‘opposing’ the evidence may vary, but I believe the following is a reasonable summary.

The debunkers or anti-UFO contingent are in the main scientists or persons with a scientific background. Their approach to the issue is therefore from a scientific perspective.

What is this scientific perspective? Let us set to one side for the moment the methodology of science and look instead at the passion of the scientist. It may seem odd to speak of emotion and logic in the same context, but remember that science is conducted by scientists who are decidedly human.

Why do scientists choose a career in the field of science? Ignoring those who fall into the career, or are mistakenly of the belief that scientists are highly paid, there is a single reason: curiosity. Good scientists much of the time, and great scientists perhaps almost all the time, are devoutly and vigorously curious. They observe something, anything, and they want to know the why and the when and the how of it. This can be a mild curiosity, over a minor event or phenomena that can be addressed by reference to the work of earlier scientists; or, it could be something that captures them for life; or, anything in between.

In pursuing that curiosity they are interested in one thing above all else – truth. They may have favourites among the hypotheses they first put forward by way of explanation, but the good scientist, the true scientist, will abandon these if the evidence weighs against them. And their readiness to do so is determined by two things: that passionate commitment to truth and the application of the scientific method.

There is a multiplicity of definitions of the scientific method. This description should be adequate for our purposes. Observe a phenomenon; consider possible explanations for it, formulate a hypothesis to account for it; make predictions based upon this hypothesis that may be tested by further observation, or experiment; proceed in this fashion until either the hypothesis is shown to be faulty, or is repeatedly and convincingly shown to match observations.

The good scientist, when passionately pursuing his ‘pet theory’ will attempt to prove it false, perhaps being more vigorous and rigorous in this pursuit than detractors of the theory. He will welcome attacks upon it for one of two reasons – they will fail because the evidence fails adequately to support them, or they will succeed for the opposite reason. In the latter case his theory is in tatters, but he can now resume his pursuit of truth in a new direction.

So how do these scientists or educated laymen with a scientific background approach UFO claims? An apposite question here is, “do they believe in alien extra-terrestrial intelligences?” There are likely to be a range of answers, but I would expect all to agree to the possibility of such life. Some will suspect that it is common, others, such as myself, that it is almost vanishingly rare.

Allow me to diverge to discuss my own view on ET’s for a moment. I am fifty six. For close to fifty of those years I have been fascinated by the possibility of alien life. I have read volume after volume at both ends of the spectrum, from Daniken to Sagan. You will understand, because I suspect you share these emotions with me, that I am desperate for us to get evidence of life out there. Microbes on Mars would be the biggest thing outwith my personal life I have experienced. Intelligent aliens would, to employ a cliché, blow my mind. I want this so badly I can smell it.

But I only want it if it is true. And to determine its truth I have to apply the scientific method. I have to be skeptical. I have to question. I have to accept simple explanations over complex.(You are probably tired of hearing of Occam’s razor.). I have to agree with Carl Sagan, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (Tired of hearing that one too, I imagine.)

That’s why the skeptics, or at least this sceptic, give you such a hard time. Not because we don’t want to believe, but because we do want to, but beyond that we want the truth, unvarnished and unaffected by how we would write the truth. Because we don’t write it, we only observe and interpret it. That is a grave responsibility and deserves to be treated as such.

 

[duendy]

hmmmm the 'noble scientist' theoryhuh?

cant you jest see him, unfettered by the demands of a corrupt system, stedfastedly striving fooor
the 'truth' ...tc. and you called ME naive? sheeesh....get reeeel

look. stop dividing people from 'scientists' as though only 'scientists' have te wherewithall to find out things. all of that attitude is elitist religionism..........

i a not slagging off science or scientists, but the oppressive attitude that only they know bst, thus treating 'non-scientists' like kids-who-should be seen and not heard


and Ophiliolite, i tend to intuit that our 'passion' for ETs is actually blinding you to the whole exploration about UFOs. Foor of you first set a premise that they 'must' be under ET control, then ANY given 'proofs' as in the way of video and photographic footage will straightaway dismissed b your preconceptions wont they? cause you will have already decided ETS CANNOT EXISTS CAUSE THERE IS NO 'EVIDENCE'.... doyou see the rub, dear sar...?

but what about man-MADE UFOs.....you know, SECRET, SUPPRESSED advanced technology. hypothesize THAT!

 

[Squeak22]

Duendy,

He's mearly pointing out that most of the people who are looking at UFO's are "OMFG LOOK IT'S ALIENS!"

Nobody here has said that UFO's aren't there. They are. What Skin and Ophiolite and I have pointed out is that these are most likely not alien spacecraft, but either atmospheric conditions we don't fully understand, or man made objects that are viewed by untrained observers that don't fully understand what they are seeing.

 

[duendy]

HI, well, no, actually, i dnt think you and them re saying what i am implying, which is..that the UFOs which many people do REALLY see as the are, are advanced technology created and driven by men, which has ben and is suppressed from public knowledge. orrr more specifically, obviously pople are being played with!....but that a propaganda has arisen that puts most of the public off the scent, because the revelation of, for example advanced tecno and free energy would be drastic for thepower weilers. so it would be plausible rthe idea that they would go to any lenghs for a major cover-up, and propaganda

But, i also am not making a religion out of THIS neither. altoug it could be true, and make sense, does this mean there are no ET crAFT?...

BUT it would make tings simpler that actual space raft exist, witout being also caufght up in such diverting propaganda.....get me?

 

[SkinWalker]

You and your security blanket of beliefs should have just "skipped beyond me," because you've made no sense at all.

 

[mouse]

1) belief in one's credence. translation: defending one's self-esteem. translation: belief in one's socially kosher security blanket

No. As Ophiolite described, science employs a methodology that questions itself, continuously. No scientist will claim to know the truth, but will tell you that he or she knows of a few models that describe the world in some degree of accuracy.

2) testable to the point of boredom. trite premises without contest or fault. predicable and comfortable and secure.

Hello. Of course you want testable premises. How can this be the object of sarcasm?

3) frat security blankets with special academic designer labels

Your metaphor aside, I've found it always a bit touching how some of the most brilliant minds i've ever had the pleasure to encounter, didn't seem to care much about their appearance.

4) secure schools of thoughts – snug, warm, soft, institutionalised.

Secure, snug, warm, soft? The reality of the day may very well be "publish or perish". Not that soft at all. Maybe it depends per university or discipline, but science can be very competitive.

5) self-esteem and fortified, and joining the school of institutionalised security blankets

What's wrong with institutions? You need them, you need their labs, their college rooms, their technical and social infrastructure. Being institutionalised only means that you are associated with one. Having a job, in a building stuffed with the latest technology and populated by people who like to figure out stuff, seems not a bad thing to me at all.

6) a security blanket that's shear-proof but good lord not of an institutionalised or normal fabric

Makes no sense to me.

7) where ever security blankets like to assemble. all well-ironed, well-folded, and preppy-tight.

Conferences, you mean? I have yet to see a conference where people gather and gaze up in the sky with flash lights waving in a symbolic nature.

8) picking out the mites, and brushing off the crumbs from each other's security blankets

Is this a metaphore on the scientific method again? If so, it's not very accurate. Brushing off crumbs does not equate to rigorously trying to disprove your colleague's theory.

9) the ultimate security blankets that will be bullet-proof and pseudoscience-repellant (lectures and guest university posts pay a pretty buck for further maintenance of security blanket

A scientific education is indeed the best method against pseudoscience.

10) security blankets that typically precede with "doctor" designation, preferably plaid knitted with blazoned monogram in gold thread. an award or two for one's efforts in maintaining one's security blanket sound and crisp wouldn't go amiss too

Doesn't work that way. Your degree is irrelevant. If you publish rubish, no one of your peers will spare you the criticism, because you happened to have finished a PhD.

 

[Stryder]

Perhaps the metaphore of a "Security Blanket" was that people build up their own secure understanding of things, and when they don't want to let go of the dogma of a fictional belief system it's because they feel insecure.

It's the same reasoning I believe thats suggested in Psychology and why certain people choose to surround themselves with their fictional dipictions as apposed to "dealing with the real world".

I would transponse my explaination to UFO belief systems however in doing so it would mearly prevoke those that would feel as if I was tugging at their insecurities.

 

[mouse]

You mean like Charliequimico?

No, not really. Why? Let's see what he began this thread with:

The interesting and mysterious ufo phenomenon is a world order phenomenon. By conservative calculations it is estimated that more than 100 million people around the world have seen ufo's during the last 60 years.

World order is mostly a geopolitical term, not one specifically meant to quantify a global phenomenon. That aside, he is giving a concrete number: 100 million people over the last 60 years. Surely, there must be a source, a survey, that reached this number. Why was it not referenced? That is, at least as far as I know, common practice in scientific articles.

Today we do not have an exact idea about the origins of this phenomenon

Oh, we have a good idea. Many of them may very well be explained, although the explanation may be quite mundane. It's safe to say that an untrained eye can not identify all that flies through the sky, while a trained one can make a better judgement and point out what is likely to be an airplane, an atmospheric condition, or something truly unknown. I suppose that the number of 100 million was reached by people who are largely untrained. So I assume that a significant portion of those 100 million sightings can be explained by a more trained observer. Now, for those that can not be explained we can not make any conclusions. That is what unexplained implies. We can not say whether they are alien crafts or anything else, because... we just wouldn't know.

but we know that maybe it is the expression of one or more intelligences that are observing mankind since ancient times.

(emphasis mine)

Maybe is the key word here. It may be that they are aliens, who may be observing mankind since ancient times. It's quite improbable, but it may be. It is, however, by no means an established fact.

The purpose and origin of these beings is unknown as it is the why it manifest to us.

Beings? I'm still at the point where we were discussing the origin of unexplained sightings. Why bother talking about the purpose of beings, if we have not established firmly that they are aliens in the first place.

We need a historical paradigm shift and a new cosmovision of man
and the cosmos to begin to understand the origin and modus operandi of the forces/intelligences that apparently alter and control all of the ufo phenomenon from an unknown point of the space-time.

First, let's make sure there is proof some that those sightings are alien in nature. Then we can speculate about our position in the universe.

From what I have read, this person didn't make an article which could hold up to peer review. He jumps to conclusions without a good case and makes no references where it would be logical to include them. He speculates about the outcome of erroneously assumed facts without giving any kind of motivation for those speculations. He may question established scientific paradigms, but he atttempted so without any usefull arguments.

Back to your post:

The universe doesn't revolve around the bitty contests modern man devises for himself, his approval, his self-confidence.

Indeed. And no one implied that it would.

Every time a probe or spaceship scoots out into the dark cosmos we inevitably will hear the science community scratching their heads and "proclaiming" something about "revision" and "major rewrite" and "oh" how "incredible" and unpredictable.

Probes are exploring the solar system's planets and moons so that we can expand our knowledge about them. Given that, it is no surprise that our understanding is altered by the observations they send back. It's usually the mission's objective to begin with. It's a good example of the way science is done. You make a theory, you send something up to check it out and you find out you may be wrong and your collegue at the other side of the world was right. Or even better, it may be something no one really expected. New theories are designed to accommodate for the new observations, and the process of verification starts again.

There's a lot more out there — and a lot more residing within the Homo sapiens psyche that will not bow to modern man's "self-knowledge".

Sure, there's a lot more to explore. No one would disagree with that. What, exactly, do you mean with man's "self-knowledge"?

 

[Ophiolite]

Those who feel they are on the outside of science seem wholly unaware that the only thing stopping them from being on the inside is to walk through the door. They don't even have to knock.

 

[SkinWalker]

Ophi, there are those for whom metaphor is a complete waste. Particularly those who are more interested in ad hominem display than intellectual discussion.

 

[mouse]

As a scientist I believe that we live in a strange world.

A world in which many mysteries are still unexplained.

It is like we live in a big haunted world.

Thus he immediately informs us that there's a lot more going on than the learned world will grasp.

Although i do not particulary agree with this choice of words, i do agree with the theme that we have indeed much to learn.

But skipping all that and onwards to his usage of the phrase "world order" (I'll confess that took me off guard) one feels obliged to reread his opener for clues.

It was not my intend to take you off guard, I started at his own quoted lines which seemed the central piece of his post.

Ah. Got it. He says: "science is as dogmatic as the religions" -- doctrinal, arrogant, organised, controlling. And I would add selfish to the lot too. Huh.

Dogmatic? Well, if any dogma persists it would be "be critical". I see no harm in that. Doctrinal? A synonym for dogmatic. Arrogant? That's a very individual attribute, i can't see how it can be applied to science in general. Organised? It has to be, how else can you get serious work done? Controlling? Controlling what or who? Selfish in what sense? Scientific articles are available for the public. Universities are, in general, open for any one able to follow the courses. I've to admit that in my country it becomes increasingly more difficult for students to get a sufficient grant, but that's a political issue rather than a scientific one.

However, it's obvious that there's more to that phrase than he cares to elaborate. If one is aware of the UFO phenomenon, and if one is aware of a tightly-knitted governing system that manages the geopolitical world, one can easily fill in the blanks: strange world, science, dogmatic, religion. World order.

You seem to imply some kind of global effort concerning the "UFO phenomenon". If so and if you are not European, I'll invite you to come over for a few years, and you'll realise that something as a well coordinated "global effort" is a contradiction.

In any case, you ended that paragraph with a string of nouns without any clear concrete connection.

Darling, when something is global, be sure that it will be dissected in the cool hallways of geopolitical fortresses.

Ok, let's agree to leave world politics out of it. Let's get down to what we can manage: a collection of sightings of which a portion may be unexplained. To indulge in speculations about governments dissecting (pun intended?) these matters in a cloud of secrecy, gives us no concrete results.

Concrete? How cheeky. No. He says: by conservative calculations, it is estimated...

Then i'm interested in those calculations.

Humdrum. This isn't kindergarten, you know. A hundred million is a vast enough number and suits me fine to convey the message of numerous sightings.

You accept this number, because it seems to suit the message you suppose it wants to convey? How circulary. How odd. I'd rather accept a number based on some sort of factual basis.

At this point, I've gotten bored.

You're, of course, completely free to stop this discussion and do something more up to your taste.

Some have permitted themselves to move on into the unknown already.

Well, I can assume the existence of Big Foot and from there on start speculating how this would change our views on the evolutionary tree of homonids. But, honestly, I fail to see the point in that exercise.

Try interrupting them. See? Simply because you are not getting your answers doesn't mean you can arrest them in their tracks, especially if they are experiencers.

I'm not out to "arrest them in their tracks". Not at all. I just point out where i'd like to have more concrete information.

But isn't that what you sceptics are boiling on about? Your angst at not being able to pin them?

What do you mean? I do not regard myself as a sceptic. I do hope i am curious enough to keep asking questions.

Correction: speculate about your position in the universe. Get it?

I fail to see how this should significantly change my attitude.

Got it?

Can't say that i do.

 

[Ophiolite]

Skinwalker, your jibe about metaphor being wasted on some appears to have struck home. The metaphor count from FTDS is approaching the number of UFOs I have seen!

DarkSea, my curiosity has few limits. What makes you think it does? Unbridled curiosity, however, is about as useful as an F1 car without a steering wheel.

 

[mouse]

How can I put it… you seek to slay the winged pegasus so as to feel privileged to call it a mule..

How poetic your description may be, my motivation for replying in this thread is hardly relevant to the topic on table.

 

[Oli]

There is a certain threshold beyond where you suspect you can not tread

That threshhold being the one between genuine inquiry and credulous acceptance of something not fully explained as proof of alien visitation and control?
Mea culpa!

 

[Fukushi]

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

this implies empirical observation of Flying craft, historical documents relaying the story of flying craft, cultural evidence such as the story of that african tribe that could decribe the actual starsystem where the alegdedly came from,...ect ect,..It's all out there, for everyone to see, you just have to be willing to look.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

There exist plenty of hypothesises that accurately describe the phenomenon of ufo's and their related subject such as abductions, mutilations, conspiracy's not to be misinterpreted as conspiracy theory's,...

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

Those predictions have been made public, they are just being dismissed for the sake of 'human welbeing'

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Backengineering has done exactely that, now it's just only secret to the public, and you know what they say about secrets don't you?

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

Thus all in all: The THEORY that ufo's and conspiracy's and even secrets do not exist, can therefore never be proved, only disproved.

The debunkers do have the wind in their sails,...they don't have to prove anything according to science, they can just disprove.