Debunking is the rational process of analysing the available evidence, so how can it be jumping to conclusions.
The interview stands on it own. If it doesn't convince you fine. But you have to read it to have any intellectual standing in this disagreement. I put a lot of effort into making the concepts clear, much more than I can do here while the peanut gallery is blowing spitwads and with no accountability.
I'd like to understand why the lenses of the peoples' eyes seeing these objects see them clearly but the lenses of the cameras blur them. 😎
I am sure a bird can be identified by radar. Not hard at all. Did you question that yourself?
It's amusing to me the reaction here. There's an apocryphal story that when European explorers first came to the Americas in their large ships traveling on the oceans that the natives had a lot of cognitive dissonance. The story goes that they couldn't see the ships even though they were right in front of them. It was just too far out of their world view to accept it.
I don't know if it's just a myth but it seems consistent with attitudes I see here. I'm sure there were some natives that were more open minded and marveled at the ships. But I bet the majority knew subconsciously that it meant there was some technically superior civilizations on their doorstep. It was too threatening to their conscious minds so they went into denial. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
I don't know if it's just a myth but it seems consistent with attitudes I see here. I'm sure there were some natives that were more open minded and marveled at the ships. But I bet the majority knew subconsciously that it meant there was some technically superior civilizations on their doorstep. It was too threatening to their conscious minds so they went into denial. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Well, I honestly don't expect anyone to believe my story, because I know how people usually react towards discussing such topics.
After all, they are wild, unusual, hair-brained stories, right?
And you don't really know the validity of them, nor the state of mind of the person telling such stories.
This is natural human nature, of course.
Discussing UFO's naturally make eyes roll, make people laugh, scepticism etc.
This was a "one time thing" from the late 1960's that I experienced, that's all.
I also had "floaters" a couple times.
First time it was scary, because I thought I would be stuck with it forever, but then one day it was not there any more.
Later occassions I didn´t worry much and it/they eventually disappeared.
I bet it would explain quite a bit UFOs.
Ya know, when BigUn made that post, the first thing I thought was he was humorously decribing floaters!
So you actually believe this 'could' be true and the present denial is an alternatively reciprocal but identical preconception? So you must suppose there was ongoing debate and chatter among the natives regarding the frequent sightings among them of large sea going vessels and whether they were real or just a hoax...and then ..low and behold, they finally appeared to all, right? Or did the natives in denial remain blind to the newcomers' presence?
So the aliens 'could' be here among us but us deniers can't handle the truth and are blind to their presence, right? The privileged open minded few with tin foil hats can see them clear as day, huh.
That's what I thought!
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I have read the links and the interview and it has given me a much better understanding of your participation in this thread. I jumped on you because I thought you were being flippant when you stated that magnetic fields can ionize the air and I am pretty sure that they can not.
However, after reading the interview I get a sense that you are very serious about your world view of science, this is not a trivial topic. I see you have pulled together many different aspects of physics and have earnestly spent time to form your own understanding of them and how they relate to each other. And these are things you hold strong beliefs about.
One thing does pop out from the article:
If I understand the linked interview, you believe the universe is deterministic, for example in your interview you posit that all events from the big bang cause all subsequent events, points in space having memory of past events, there being no uncertainty in events and states (although highly complex). This implies that our futures are fixed by all the past events (leading back to the big bang) and hence we have no control over our futures, no freedom to choose etc. Determinism has been a big debate in physics in the past, maybe worth some additional research.
Last edited:
No. Although the decisions we make are our own, they're a forgone conclusion. What came first...7 15 4
oops 😱
oops 😱
Thanks for the more serious reply. I appreciate it. I do believe in a more deterministic universe but I don't think it lets us off the hook. For instance I believe selfishness and lack of empathy are qualities one can overcome. I think everything is the result of preexisting conditions but we can choose to ignore very very subtle cues in the universe that would lead to better decisions. Many preexisting biases can be overcome with work.
For instance, in Nazi Germany many of the Germans "chose" to not put themselves in the shoes of the Jewish people. They were being selfish and egotistical and consciously ignoring the information they were getting from the universe that all people have to be judged individually on the total sum of how that individual thinks and behaves. Even though I'm of German descent I have no sympathy whatever for people of my age who had parents that were Nazis but refused to confront them about it.
For instance, in Nazi Germany many of the Germans "chose" to not put themselves in the shoes of the Jewish people. They were being selfish and egotistical and consciously ignoring the information they were getting from the universe that all people have to be judged individually on the total sum of how that individual thinks and behaves. Even though I'm of German descent I have no sympathy whatever for people of my age who had parents that were Nazis but refused to confront them about it.
I’m not saying you can’t find folks who believe ETs are piloting UFOs that you could argue with, I’m saying UFOs and visits by ET are separate claims and should be treated as such.
Anytime the UFO subject gets mainstream media attention, random wet-eared skeptics (I don’t necessarily mean anyone on this forum) come out of the woodwork and earnestly read from the same tired script as if they were Prometheus bringing the fire and light of reason to the delusional masses. It would be amusing if these skeptics weren’t typically so insultingly uninformed in the topic at hand.
One might think that a astronomer appointed as lead scientific consultant to a public relations campaign with the goal of debunking UFO reports would grow more certain of the non-existence of UFOs as each of the cases was queued up and systemically debunked. But that’s not what happened. J. Allen Hynek became less certain that each and every case could be explained away as misidentified prosaic phenomena. He reasoned that if only 1% of UFO reports were genuinely unexplainable then there was some reality to the phenomenon after all. His public turnabout on the phenomenon was embarrassing for the government so in 1969 a kangaroo committee was commissioned to put an end to Project Blue Book and officially delegitimize the topic. To that end, the Condon Committee was successful.
I share Hynek’s belief.
I wonder why skeptics even bother making debunking arguments in the first place, as anything they say rests on the premise that the least likely thing in the universe is a (seeming) defiance of the laws of physics. This is yet another belief.
Yes, but it's not possible. I soon realized after stating that the universe is deterministic that people would try to use that idea as an excuse for bad behavior. It's no excuse because there is always the information available to chose the right path. If one choses to ignore that information because it's inconvenient then that needs to be called out. What better example than to use my own genetic line to show I'm not singling out some group that is "other".
There's nothing to investigate because there is essentially no evidence of ET riding a bicycle or blurry photographs being alien spacecraft.
It would be also helpful if the mainstream media stops peddling fear, uncertainty and doubt towards their own self interests.
Astronomers have been looking at the skies for centuries, there's nothing to report that can't be explained by science.
Time travelling aliens in a flying saucer is a stretch of the imagination, sceptics use scientific inquiry and rational thinking to derive plausible answers in the same manner the US Navy videos were debunked.
Why do you insist on conflating UFOs with ETs? This is after it’s been pointed out to you multiple times that the argument for ET is not the one being made. If you cannot argue a claim without misconstruing the counterclaim, you cannot argue the claim period.
Credible, clear photographs do exist. The problem is that to a very special segment of the population, they can’t be real because nothing can defy the laws of physics so therefore they must be hoaxes. You see how this works?
I’m probably more familiar with the Mick West videos you’ve posted than you yourself are. If they were as impressive as you think they are then I would not be here discussing this in the first place.
I know this is a humbling thought, but try not to conflate scientific inquiry being carried out in the most ideal, perfect sense and scientific inquiry being carried out by humans with some of the worst flaws and tendencies as the rest of us.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.