Why is sciforums traffic so low now?

[Magical Realist]

Given the lousy track record, it is up to proponents of alien visitations etc to come up with evidence that is serious, i.e. properly corroborated and which cannot be peremptorily dismissed. It would be wonderful if there were some. And in fact things like the SETI project show that science is quite open to this sort of thing in principle. But not on the basis of crap evidence.

Spare us your pretentious objectivity and lies. I posted 18 well documented multiple witnessed cases in the "Why does the govt hide ufos" thread that you ignored and never once responded to. You even put me on ignore because you claimed you couldn't look at videos and had a hissy fit when I gave "too much" evidence. You contemptously called it the Gish Gallop. You are one of the worst examples of scientific objectivity on this subject one can imagine, summarily dismissing all ufo evidence as weak and crap and bullshit without even examining it. Yazata pegged you right--a biased idealogue who only seeks to protect his faithbased worldview that there's no such things as ufos. The worst part about this is that you do all this in the name of science, degrading the true spirit of that noble enterprise with irrational prejudices, petulant ridicule, and blatant confirmation bias.

 

[C C]

Back in the day resources and time WERE spent to explore the ufo phenomenon thru Project Sign and Project Blue Book and such esteemed scientists as James MacDonald and J Allen Hynek. These scientists and several panels reached conclusions that the ufo phenomenon was real and not caused by mundane factors, encouraging further study. Then the government suddenly pulled the plug on all this, and have done so to this day. Mainstream science since then , perhaps not coincidently, has simply parroted this attitude of their primary funders-in-chief.

Funding from the military and government agencies can make a big difference, which seems open-ended until somebody finally shuts off the pipeline (and most scientists / applicable experts want employment like anyone else, regardless of their personal views / preferences about _x_).

For many years the CIA financed the program STAR GATE, that tried to use controlled "remote viewing" as an intelligence gathering tool. In a documentary about it, I recollect a physicist at the end claiming that he was brought on board to assess how it was doing. He spoke as if he simply dismissed the whole affair as [a priori] crackpot from the start without much concern for examining results and data. The project was shut down. But online accounts of STAR GATE describe its closure resulting from a more drawn-out process of systematic evaluation which declared it a failure. In that web context I've yet to see a physicist even mentioned at the core of the latter investigation, so my forgetting of his name perhaps becomes irrelevant.

 

[paddoboy]

Magical Realist said: ↑
Back in the day resources and time WERE spent to explore the ufo phenomenon thru Project Sign and Project Blue Book and such esteemed scientists as James MacDonald and J Allen Hynek. These scientists and several panels reached conclusions that the ufo phenomenon was real and not caused by mundane factors, encouraging further study.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

That of course is not the same as saying that UFO's are of Alien origin, Interdimensional, or time travellers either.
It simply means they are UFO's and everyone apparently agrees with that fact.
So tell me MR, are you lying or just misinterpreting or just simply mistaken?

 

[Russ_Watters]

If we are talking about evidence for and against, what's the nature of the evidence against them? What we see here on Sciforums (not the last word on anything, admittedly) are lots of people responding to ufo reports (and reports of other extraordinary things) by speculating about what they think alternative mundane explanations for those reports might be. There's rarely any convincing evidence provided for those alternative speculations.

So the rhetorical pattern seems to be that if anyone can imagine a mundane explanation for a report, even if there's no tangible evidence for the speculation, then that particular report has been conclusively debunked. (And according to some, all similar reports along with it.)

That's pretty weak in my opinion. It might not be totally hopeless though, if the speculative mundane possibility has a much higher a-priori likelihood of being true. But that's probably going to be hard to establish and nobody has really tried to take a shot at it.

Put perhaps more simply than the others: you are assuming mirror image burdens of proof, but you know darn well the burdens of proof are anything but equal and opposite.

The extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Period. The mundane possible alternatives don't even need to be investigated. As you demonstrate (and MR likes to troll), flying saucer proponents latch onto discussion of alternatives with that false equivalence fallacy. The reality is that no one needs to propose an alternative: the burden of proof of the extraordinary claim is the same either way.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Given the lousy track record, it is up to proponents of alien visitations etc to come up with evidence that is serious, i.e. properly corroborated and which cannot be peremptorily dismissed. It would be wonderful if there were some.

It is probably worth noting here that I expect that all of the skeptics here would actually love it if aliens were found to be visiting Earth and also believe aliens are out there (if anyone disagrees, tell me).

This isn't just another example of a common lie of MR's, it is actually an important logical point: it means that unlike MR, etc. the rest of us are arguing against our preferred reality. That makes it logically impossible for us to suffer from the same confirmation bias MR, etc. display.

 

[Magical Realist]

The extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Period.

The pseudoskeptical lie par excellence. Quoted from infallible Saint Carl Sagan. Yep..must be a fact. In a pig's eye. All it is is an excuse to move the goalposts continually as to what counts as evidence. It relies heavily on the vague and always modifiable definition of "extraordinary evidence." Are multiple eyewitnessed accounts by pilots and police officers "extraordinary evidence?" Are radar confirmed and visually confirmed ufos "extraordinary evidence?" Are charred fragments of vegetation in a field where a ufo was seen to take off from "extraordinary evidence"? "Are microwave burns on the skin of eyewitnesses "extraordinary evidence"? You just never know WHAT extraordinary means for the pseudoskeptic. Hence their automatic dismissal of ALL evidence no matter what. "Jump higher little doggie. You haven't satisfied me yet." lol!

 

[Magical Realist]

It is probably worth noting here that I expect that all of the skeptics here would actually love it if aliens were found to be visiting Earth and also believe aliens are out there (if anyone disagrees, tell me).

This isn't just another example of a common lie of MR's, it is actually an important logical point: it means that unlike MR, etc. the rest of us are arguing against our preferred reality. That makes it logically impossible for us to suffer from the same confirmation bias MR, etc. display.

And ironically ufos don't even prove aliens are visiting earth. Sorry to dash your "hopes" for a new reality. lol!

 

[paddoboy]

It is probably worth noting here that I expect that all of the skeptics here would actually love it if aliens were found to be visiting Earth and also believe aliens are out there (if anyone disagrees, tell me).

This isn't just another example of a common lie of MR's, it is actually an important logical point: it means that unlike MR, etc. the rest of us are arguing against our preferred reality. That makes it logically impossible for us to suffer from the same confirmation bias MR, etc. display.

Totally agree! I would love to meet an Alien!
I'll add also that although time and distance are great barriers against any ET contact, the possibility of an advanced species having visited Earth in the past, is within the realms of possibility. But we have no evidence of such.
Also as I have said before to our two main proponents of alien visitations, after literally thousands of incidents by obviously advanced beings [whether time travellers, interdimensional travellers or just the vanilla flavoured Pointy headed alien, they literally still just flitter in and flitter out again, appearing to the gullibles and true believers, without at any time making themselves officially known. Then when we see that the same proponents of our pointy headed aliens are also in most cases, the same proponents of other unscientific events such as paranormal events, ghosts goblins, Bigfoot etc etc etc, and one can see the obvious problem.
Like our god bothering friends who also evangelistically attempt to deride science at every opportunity, they appear to be on a mission to help them sustain some inkling of credibility at least in their own minds, if nobody else's.

 

[Bells]

Let me see if I have this straight..

MR is now claiming that he's never argued and is not arguing that UFO's are proof of aliens visiting Earth? What was one line he used in this thread? Ah yes..

Another lie, which in fact I corrected you on already. I have NOT claimed they are aliens. I have only claimed they are intelligent beings operating craft that are beyond our technology. Period. End of story. They could be interdimensionals. They could be time travelers. They could be a species that lives under the oceans. Many possibilities see? No claims they are necessarily aliens.

He has not claimed they are aliens and he has only claimed they are intelligent beings operating craft that are beyond our technology..

So I decided to test this and I went back into MR's posting history, and I clicked on random posts. Literally, just closed my eyes and clicked.. Back in 2015 for example:

Saying something is unknown is a cop out. Science is in the business of explaining with theories and conjectures based on the facts. Refusing to do this isn't science. It's ideology and dogmaticism--the protection of a world view that is threatened by the presence of alien visitations. The very fact that ufos display certain common characteristics refutes the lie that they are all unknown. They aren't unknown. They exhibit all the characteristics of non-human craft piloted by alien beings. They share certain physical features. Here's some of the things we know about ufos:

http://www.openminds.tv/ufo-shapes/9117

Emphasis mine..

Last month, MR started yet another alien abduction thread..

What is clear right now is that we are witnessing intellectual dishonesty in a horrid form. Fighting to prove the existence of aliens visiting Earth while now declaring he isn't saying they are alien. Instead, MR now uses terms like, "non-human intelligences".. So he can safely say he has not said "aliens".. Frankly, the intellectual dishonesty on display here is staggering.

 

[DaveC426913]

What is clear right now is that we are witnessing intellectual dishonesty in a horrid form. Fighting to prove the existence of aliens visiting Earth while now declaring he isn't saying they are alien. Instead, MR now uses terms like, "non-human intelligences".. So he can safely say he has not said "aliens".. Frankly, the intellectual dishonesty on display here is staggering.

His claim is that if they are from another dimension, that means they're not alien.

See how much more plausible that is?
Now we don't have to posit intelligence coming from somewhere so implausible as a another star (they're very far away!) - all we have to posit is an entire other dimension overlapping ours.

And, since such an extraorindary claim need not be defended with extraordinary evidence, voila! cogito ergo est - I think, therefore it is true.

 

[Daecon]

Let me see if I have this straight..

MR is now claiming that he's never argued and is not arguing that UFO's are proof of aliens visiting Earth? What was one line he used in this thread? Ah yes..



He has not claimed they are aliens and he has only claimed they are intelligent beings operating craft that are beyond our technology..

So I decided to test this and I went back into MR's posting history, and I clicked on random posts. Literally, just closed my eyes and clicked.. Back in 2015 for example:



Emphasis mine..

Last month, MR started yet another alien abduction thread..

What is clear right now is that we are witnessing intellectual dishonesty in a horrid form. Fighting to prove the existence of aliens visiting Earth while now declaring he isn't saying they are alien. Instead, MR now uses terms like, "non-human intelligences".. So he can safely say he has not said "aliens".. Frankly, the intellectual dishonesty on display here is staggering.

It's Jan Ardena levels of pretzel-style semantic twisting and trickery.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Let me see if I have this straight..

MR is now claiming that he's never argued and is not arguing that UFO's are proof of aliens visiting Earth? What was one line he used in this thread? Ah yes..



He has not claimed they are aliens and he has only claimed they are intelligent beings operating craft that are beyond our technology..

So I decided to test this and I went back into MR's posting history, and I clicked on random posts. Literally, just closed my eyes and clicked.. Back in 2015 for example:



Emphasis mine..

Last month, MR started yet another alien abduction thread..

What is clear right now is that we are witnessing intellectual dishonesty in a horrid form. Fighting to prove the existence of aliens visiting Earth while now declaring he isn't saying they are alien. Instead, MR now uses terms like, "non-human intelligences".. So he can safely say he has not said "aliens".. Frankly, the intellectual dishonesty on display here is staggering.

Yeah, that's a new game for him. The weird thing is, it doesn't even matter. There's no hair to split because no one disagrees that "from other planets" isn't the only possible origin. He's been promoting aliens or whatever he wants to call them here for years, so no one is unclear about what he's after and trying to bait and switch the label serves no useful purpose: it's just something new for him to troll about.

 

[Russ_Watters]

MR traverses the forum in arcs or cycles, like a recurring meteor shower. It looks to me like he's flamed-out and is just angling for his next ban. Since the mods agree he's committed offenses, could we just grant him his wish please?

 

[Magical Realist]

Let me see if I have this straight..

MR is now claiming that he's never argued and is not arguing that UFO's are proof of aliens visiting Earth? What was one line he used in this thread? Ah yes..



He has not claimed they are aliens and he has only claimed they are intelligent beings operating craft that are beyond our technology..

So I decided to test this and I went back into MR's posting history, and I clicked on random posts. Literally, just closed my eyes and clicked.. Back in 2015 for example:



Emphasis mine..

Last month, MR started yet another alien abduction thread..

What is clear right now is that we are witnessing intellectual dishonesty in a horrid form. Fighting to prove the existence of aliens visiting Earth while now declaring he isn't saying they are alien. Instead, MR now uses terms like, "non-human intelligences".. So he can safely say he has not said "aliens".. Frankly, the intellectual dishonesty on display here is staggering.

I used to think maybe aliens. We can't exactly rule it out. But more likely they are some form of interdimensional/transhuman intelligence that is engineering human consciousness into a new phase of evolution. So much to learn. So much to discover! Live long and prosper.

"If they are not an advanced race from the future, are we dealing instead with a parallel universe, another dimension where there are other human races living, and where we may go at our expense, never to return to the present? From that mysterious universe, are higher beings projecting objects that can materialize and dematerialize at will? Are UFOS "windows" rather than "objects"?===Jacques Vallee

 

[Ophiolite]

What is clear right now is that we are witnessing intellectual dishonesty in a horrid form. Fighting to prove the existence of aliens visiting Earth while now declaring he isn't saying they are alien. Instead, MR now uses terms like, "non-human intelligences".. So he can safely say he has not said "aliens".. Frankly, the intellectual dishonesty on display here is staggering.

On this point I am going to defend MR. My thought process is thus:

Although words have defined meanings, many words have a range of meanings. More pointedly some words become invested with a personal slant that differs in some way, subtle or extreme, from the conventional meanings.

An example of the first sort, pertinent to this discussion, is the acronym UFO. To many people this equates to "alien spacecraft", to others it does indeed simply mean unidentified flying object. Some of you will recall the misunderstandings and arguments such a difference can generate.

I postulate that MR sees the word alien as relating specifically to entities from elsewhere in this universe and this time. In short, the conventional use of the word alien. I agree that time travelers, or beings from a parallel universe would fully fit the bill of one sense of the word alien. However, it does not follow that MR uses this meaning, or even perceives it to be reasonable.

Consequently, while his usage of alien may be confusing and frustrating, I do not believe it is conclusive evidence that he is - in this instance - displaying intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Bells]

On this point I am going to defend MR. My thought process is thus:

Although words have defined meanings, many words have a range of meanings. More pointedly some words become invested with a personal slant that differs in some way, subtle or extreme, from the conventional meanings.

An example of the first sort, pertinent to this discussion, is the acronym UFO. To many people this equates to "alien spacecraft", to others it does indeed simply mean unidentified flying object. Some of you will recall the misunderstandings and arguments such a difference can generate.

I postulate that MR sees the word alien as relating specifically to entities from elsewhere in this universe and this time. In short, the conventional use of the word alien. I agree that time travelers, or beings from a parallel universe would fully fit the bill of one sense of the word alien. However, it does not follow that MR uses this meaning, or even perceives it to be reasonable.

Consequently, while his usage of alien may be confusing and frustrating, I do not believe it is conclusive evidence that he is - in this instance - displaying intellectual dishonesty.

That would be because MR has decided to alter its meaning over the last few months. A few months ago, MR was arguing that they were aliens from out of space. By which I mean little green/grey men who are apparently visiting our planet and at times, kidnapping people for nefarious means. He only changed its meaning recently when challenged about how he knows they are aliens in the traditional sense. So he stopped using the word and started to employ different terms to describe what he saw as being the same thing so that he could call people out for employing the term "aliens", because he can then say he never said the word "aliens". He still slips up sometimes, such as the thread on alien abduction clearly demonstrates. Not to mention his very argument points to "aliens" (ie, live long and prosper) or people not of this Earth..

We have been playing this game for years. He's just moved the goal post. And frankly, to me, that is intellectual dishonesty in its worst form.

Perhaps he has come to the realisation that he cannot "enlighten the ignorant" if he's going on about little green/grey men in flying saucers which he has been doing for years now... So he moved the goal post, in the bid to make his message here more palatable. Sure, you might disagree, but I am fairly certain that a large portion of us aren't buying this new version of MR. The message is exactly the same, the meaning is exactly the same. He is just using different words that mean the exact same thing. But hey, he's managed to convince you, so that's good for him. I'm not buying it.

 

[Ophiolite]

But hey, he's managed to convince you, so that's good for him.

No, he hasn't convinced me. I have offered an alternative explanation for his behaviour. You know, like we offer alternative explanations for UFOs, other than alien spacecraft, including the mundane aircraft, Venus, hoaxes, meteors, etc.

He may or may not be intellectually dishonest. I have offered a plausible explanation for his behaviour that does not involve intellectual dishonesty. We rightly decry the absolute position that MR takes in regard to UFOs. So I decry an absolute declaration that he is intellectually dishonest when there is a plausible alternative. Any other position is at best unscientific and at worst hypocritical.

 

[Bells]

No, he hasn't convinced me. I have offered an alternative explanation for his behaviour. You know, like we offer alternative explanations for UFOs, other than alien spacecraft, including the mundane aircraft, Venus, hoaxes, meteors, etc.

He may or may not be intellectually dishonest. I have offered a plausible explanation for his behaviour that does not involve intellectual dishonesty. We rightly decry the absolute position that MR takes in regard to UFOs. So I decry an absolute declaration that he is intellectually dishonest when there is a plausible alternative. Any other position is at best unscientific and at worst hypocritical.

Then we can agree to disagree on that point. I have seen enough from MR, to know that this is just yet another ploy. And I say this as someone who has spent the last year or so fighting for him like a maniac.

I have seen all his plays, Sir. And I am not buying this one. You clearly disagree in regards to intellectual dishonesty and we all have our right to our opinion.

What I am seeing here, after years of similar pattern in regards to his views on UFO's and other subjects (such as ghosts, spirits, poltergeists, aliens, government conspiracies, immunisation) is intellectual dishonesty. When someone spends years arguing that aliens exists and when the pressure is put on for him to prove it, he changes the narrative and definition to ultra dimension human beings (or something alone those lines) from elsewhere, so that he can declare he never said they were aliens, when we all know what he means because of years and years of seeing say exactly what he means, that, in my opinion is intellectual dishonesty. It is moving the goal post and changing the narrative in the most dishonest way imaginable. And I am not buying the excuse you are making up for him in that regard. Sorry, but I'm not.

 

[Ophiolite]

I have seen all his plays, Sir. And I am not buying this one. You clearly disagree in regards to intellectual dishonesty and we all have our right to our opinion.

Before I make the same mistake I think you may be making, let me ask you - what do you think my opinion is in regard to MR and intellectual dishonesty?

 

[Daecon]

Before I make the same mistake I think you may be making, let me ask you - what do you think my opinion is in regard to MR and intellectual dishonesty?

I would say your opinion comes from a simple lack of experience with MR and his methods.