UFO study finds no sign of aliens

[Ophiolite]

Can you tell me where I go to get these payments. I mean it seems unfair that I am debunking your arguments and I'm not getting paid for it. Apparently everyone else is. How come I have been singled out to do it for nothing?

 

[Communist Hamster]

Yes Geoffp, I have photographic evidence to support my theory on manmade top secret flying saucers... but you let any bought off "expert" look at my photographs and he will lie out his ass to cover up the truth.

Let's see these pictures then. We are not paid to debunk rubbish, we do it for fun. In the event that your pictures are not rubbish then we will take serious interest in your theory.

 

[Oli]

In fact, were we to go farther, we could equally say that the scientific process - not in principle, but as applied, just as eyewitness statements - is based on hearsay as well.

It could be said, of course. But the point of science is that the method of obtaining the results can be done by anyone (although of course if you want to borrow my 30 km-diameter large hadron collider please give me a week's notice ).
If you dispute the official value for g, for example, the books show the methods used to obtain that value so you can check it.
Yes people do take the word of researchers (which is subject to distortion, intentional or not) usually without checking. And that could be regarded as accepting eye-witness statements at face value.
It's the open-ness of the methodology that keeps science "honest".

 

[GeoffP]

Well...the methodology is open to anyone. Get a camera and a tent, and congratulations! you're a UFOlogist. It's functionally no different from me checking out mountain deer in a valley lek and saying I see about 40, and that their genotypes are such and such. My point is that eyewitness accounts are not without value, unless we take all independent observation as necessarily dubious. One might say that scientists operate on a higher ethical standard. One might say that, anyway.

 

[Oli]

Well...the methodology is open to anyone. Get a camera and a tent, and congratulations! you're a UFOlogist.

Which shows that UFOlogy isn't a science because using the same methods does not produce the same results.
You are a loony because your photo shows a Venusian type 15 with inbuilt anti-matter drive whereas I am genuine because my photo shows that it's really an advanced gravitomagentic drone from Betelgeuse.
No, agreed, eye witness testiomony is not without some value. But many factors contribute to its reliability or otherwise - personal involvement, hidden agendas, mood etc. Not all of which can be discerned when receiving their statements.

 

[GeoffP]

But you're talking about measuring an essentially 'naturalistic' phenomenon. I can't get precisely the same deer feeding at the same time either, but it doesn't mean that ecological feeding patterns aren't correctly parameterized. Assuming that UFOs are from little green men, we're talking about randomly incident encounters with living organisms - and no living organism behaves quite like a physics problem, no matter how much easier it would be for the question if it did. It doesn't mean that the phenomenon is invalid.

However I do quite agree that someone going as far as arguing over whether a photo shows a Venusian type 15 with the interior antimatter drive, or the advanced gravitomagnetic Betelgeusian drone would properly be considered loony.

I mean, come on: everyone knows the Venusian 15 went out of production 10 or 12 eons ago. They don't even stock the 16 on Ragus Prime these days. =(

 

[Oli]

Errm okay. As for deer feeding (it's all wrong anyway - I know what deer eat and when. They eat the expensive junk they sell to kids for deer and they eat until mum and dad run out of money) there's full taxonomy of foodstuffs etc. And the minutiae are agreed upon by the guys who that sort of thing - and the overall pattern is tracked (I assume, not something I've thought about). Deer ALWYS eat this, SOMETIMES eat this, NEVER eat this, WILL eat this if X isn't available, etc.
And someone else can go out and validate or invalidate the findings. Someone who published that deer type Z ONLY eat plant type B can immediately be exposed as a fraud by one contradictory observation, someone who claims that deer NEVER eat can be shown a fraud with minimal thought (I hope!) etc. etc.
UFOlogy is all contradiction - it has no taxonomy, no "common ground" (every damn UFO book I've ever read disagrees with every other on nearly everything, shape, method of propulsion, construction material, manoeuverability (one book claims they can ONLY turn in 15 degree increments ) up to and including the idea that "they're from out there"). Where to start? Why bother?

I mean, come on: everyone knows the Venusian 15 went out of production 10 or 12 eons ago.

You forgot about the limited edition re-issue for retro-style rich boy collectors, check your latest catalogue.

 

[glenn239]

And after the case is closed I doubt that anyone actually follows up on whether they lied (or were mistaken) or not. Courts are a social and legal process and have very little to do with science (even when calling expert witnesses).

So you’re suggesting that the legal system is disinterested in returning accurate verdicts? That the courts are subsequently indifferent to the possibility that witnesses have lied, and that this might have prejudiced a case? Interesting. I was under the impression that the system strives for exactly the opposite, and that of 1000 cases, maybe 800 or 900 are decided in the proper fashion.

A question on ‘scientific’ process – what specific physical characteristics of an alleged UFO sighting do you feel offers at least a starting point for laboratory testing? That is to say, other than a statistical doctrine of eyewitness reliability (presumably developed from an existing database), what scientific methodology do you feel is appropriate to measure an alleged phenomenon that tends to leave no physical evidence? For example, in the past I’ve suggested that medical science might in the future be able to break the deadlock through the ability to directly access a patient’s memory and examine the raw feed without the ‘filter’ of the witnesses’ spin. What’s your take on where the starting point is?

 

[GeoffP]

Errm okay. As for deer feeding (it's all wrong anyway - I know what deer eat and when. They eat the expensive junk they sell to kids for deer and they eat until mum and dad run out of money) there's full taxonomy of foodstuffs etc. And the minutiae are agreed upon by the guys who that sort of thing - and the overall pattern is tracked (I assume, not something I've thought about). Deer ALWYS eat this, SOMETIMES eat this, NEVER eat this, WILL eat this if X isn't available, etc.

Yes and no - deer are sometimes examined in the face of limited possibilities for feeding. What might they eat if they had a fuller range of foodstuffs? Who knows? Deer lick salt from roadsides, which is something no nutritionist thought they'd do until a few years ago.

And someone else can go out and validate or invalidate the findings. Someone who published that deer type Z ONLY eat plant type B can immediately be exposed as a fraud by one contradictory observation, someone who claims that deer NEVER eat can be shown a fraud with minimal thought (I hope!) etc. etc.

Or perhaps the rarity of the observation might provide false assumptions about the nature of deer feeding. Deer might eat very strange stuff indeed when we're not looking - birds, for instance. Do deer eat birds?

UFOlogy is all contradiction - it has no taxonomy, no "common ground" (every damn UFO book I've ever read disagrees with every other on nearly everything, shape, method of propulsion, construction material, manoeuverability (one book claims they can ONLY turn in 15 degree increments ) up to and including the idea that "they're from out there"). Where to start? Why bother?

Where to start! Why to bother! Good lord, man! - it's the unknown! The great blackness beyond! The place on our maps that says "Dragones lyve heare - goe ye nae farther"! The place that asks the questions:

"Are we alone in the universe?"

and:

"Can I get funded for this radiotelescope?"

The ultimate answer to existence, the universe and everything! Assuming you reject the otherwise reasonable answer of "42".

Or perhaps it's less significant than that.

Anyway, the point is that it's a very interesting question to me and a variety of other people.


Now, IF aliens were indeed 'real', we would indeed be stuck wondering what in hell they were, precisely, and I imagine the only question we could answer would be that they were from "out there...somewhere". But - if they are real - this wouldn't be an unacceptable hypothesis at the moment. Without capturing an alien craft (and subjecting THEM to alien probes for a change! see how they bloody like it!) and accepting visual evidence (or even landing evidence, if you like) we'd necessarily be forced to say

"Well, they're probably not from here, but we don't know where they're from. That's all we know. Can we get more funding in this round please?"

This wouldn't be at all different from how 'primitive' societies (meaning no insult to those of you from primitive societies; i.e. Australia) would view the arrival strange caravels from Europe. They would see a great thing floating on the water - as if "hovering" there! - making strange noises - a bizarre creaking and flapping sound - with giant white rectangular shapes - some strange new propulsive system that makes use of local physical forces, no doubt - and people wearing strange stretchy clothing and bizarre suits of metal. Those seeing it might well be scoffed at by other tribesmen -

"They did what to you, Slippery Anus?" [cringe] "BWAHAHAHA!"

- but their primitive (apologies to Australians) descriptions would suit their abilities to describe the phenomenon. They might suppose any number of things about the inhabitants of these strange, disturbing craft, all (unlikely) or none (much more likely) of which might be true.

(Actually the above comparison vis-a-vis alien visitation makes me a little nervous, if only for the reason that shortly after the strange metal-wearing visitors appeared, people got repressed. Doesn't bode well. If you're not here for something, then why did you drop in? You want our what?)

Personally, I'd much much rather be in that field than the one I'm in now. The opportunity to really get after a difficult question, a possibly unsolvable one!! Now THAT's something I could really get into. Genetics is deadly dull. Too bad there's no money in it. Ah well. Let's face it though: if we're handing out money for radiotelescopes in the search for extraterrestrial life and sending out probes and radio signals, we should probably be checking the front door to see if anyone's dropped by yet.

Little green man: "Hello? I got your message. Anyone home?"

Us: "Can't you see we're busy searching for extraterrestrial life? Sod off, you non-existent little gits."

You forgot about the limited edition re-issue for retro-style rich boy collectors, check your latest catalogue.

Well who cares what toffs drive? I vastly prefer the Type 8A with the -7100s BC fins. Who says last decimillenium has gone out of style?



[A subnote - apologies for the anal probing humour.

Of all the things that I could potentially accept about aliens and their quirky little ways, I have to admit that I would utterly reject the notion that anyone has been anally probed by any alien for any reason. I don't want to offend anyone, but it seems a little more likely that it's a manifestation of subconsious homosexual angst. Anyway, it's my understanding that all possible increases in scientific knowledge to be gained from anal probing have already been collected in Australia - Geoff]

 

[Ophiolite]

Deer might eat very strange stuff indeed when we're not looking - birds, for instance. Do deer eat birds?

This question is an especially good one as it matches the question as to whether or not UFOs, as alien craft, exist.

In the case of the deer we can easily determine they do not eat birds by examining their droppings for avian bones. These are not found.

In the case of alien spacecraft, a similar exmination of the shit published on the subject produces a similar result. They do not exist.

 

[GeoffP]

This question is an especially good one as it matches the question as to whether or not UFOs, as alien craft, exist.

In the case of the deer we can easily determine they do not eat birds by examining their droppings for avian bones. These are not found.

Oh, I've no doubt there'd be no bird bits in droppings. Avian bones are so small as to be quite easily digestible by humans too.

However, sometimes systems are a little more complex than initially expected. To wit - and sticking with the deer example - I give you this little-known but highly disturbing link:

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=870952003

"Rum health diet drives deer to snack on chicks"

Still sure that naturalist observation is so simple? Assumptions springing from lack of knowledge tend to get biased: either up, or down, but biased. I did like the "shit" joke, though.

 

[GeoffP]

Let me propose another point here, without trying to unfairly sway the argument:

If space is just so damned limitless and vast, then by Sagan's calculation (and I don't suppose you'd impeach the man who coined the phrase "bil-yons and bil-yons" of stars) it is a mathematical...ugh, well not fact per se, more of a...proof? Still not good...function! there we are!...that there is intelligent life elsewhere in our amazing and expanding universe. Some reasonable proportion (on some reasonable distribution...Poisson, anyone? meh) of those intelligent buggers must have discovered space flight and must have space craft. Now, since I don't have to hand ultimately the list of the parameters - and frankly since some of them must by definition be unknown - it's hard to say whether any of them really would pass the "threshold scale" for the development of such tech (and, again: on what underlying distribution? Gaussian? who knows?) but the mathematical likelihood is there. From that point, one simply has to try and reason out how many - if any - of these groups might have developed FTL or something better (again, total unknowns, regrettably) and then how many might have detected our little globe (unknown function, but probably related to the exponential expansion of radio signal limited by its attenuation in space) and/or have bumped into Voyager and decided that humans looked "sentient" and/or "yummy". I'm no physicist, but if you had FTL travel I suppose with all that relativistic nonsense or whatever you might make a general tour of every bright star with an oxygen/water signature (which physicists devoutly inform me is detectable from the wobble of its photons, and not at all influenced by the shake tractor-trailers roaring down I-90), arriving before you started because of relativity and bang! presto! Bob's your mother's brood-mate.

Or whatever. Sunday afternoon; too lazy to care.

 

[Ophiolite]

I did like the "shit" joke, though.

Thank you. It was the rasion d'etre for my post.

 

[MetaKron]

I take it that everyone knows what "rum" means in that context? Kind of funny that there is an alcoholic beverage whose name is a word that is used as a synonym for "bloody awful." I suppose that the term "grog" probably means "I want to puke."

I think that it is most obvious that aliens would not anal-probe humans, and that may turn out to be the biggest reasons why the idea that they won't is wrong. Aliens will do alien things that if we reverse-engineer them, we will understand them in our own terms. There are all sorts of obsessive behaviors in Earth's cultures that do not seem rational on the surface. When you look deeper they are outright nuts but at least there is an explanation. Can anal-probing other races become so acceptable to another sentient species that they don't understand what is wrong with it, that those who don't believe in it are thought to be irrational? I definitely think so.

 

[GeoffP]

...have we now moved to a debate on the ethics of anal-probing?

 

[MetaKron]

Not ethics at all. If aliens did in fact adopt the habit of probing anuses wherever they went, it might or might not make sense to us if we heard the explanation. There are a lot of things that humans do that defy explanation, like worshipping before an icon that depicts their savior being tortured to death. After that irrationality anal probing becomes easier to take.

In other words it doesn't have to make sense to us to actually happen. The argument that they just wouldn't because they are an advanced race is not a good one. A huge number of people on this planet believe in animals and people possessed by the devil. Some of them are allowed to drive cars and own computers. We haven't been getting better, either. Some of this irrationality is as usual forced on us by an insane government. There's a big surprise.

So if they do exist and they do probe, maybe it is an irrational custom or maybe someone just got a shit job assigned to them by an insane idiot in middle management in their corporation. Either possibility makes this kind of thing possible.

 

[invert_nexus]

Maybe anal probes are their way of saying hi and they're greatly disappointed in the barbarity of our species for not probing back...


Or. What were they called in the Hitchhiker's Guide? The guys that came to backwater planets and put fake antennas on their heads and walked around making beeping noises and such?
Beepers?

Maybe they're just joshin' us...

 

[MetaKron]

We already know what a human sense of humor is like, too. Some of it seems more like weird obsession.

 

[Novacane]

I don't think an intelligent super-advanced group of aliens from another solar system would want to travel a hundred light years or so just do 'anal probes' on humans. Politicians maybe.

 

[Avatar]

They could be aliens on a political mission. /sneers