This is what I want to see.
Are you talking about panspermia? That's not a done deal. There is some evidence that it happened, like amino acids found on meteorites. But no scientist believes with certainty that it explains abiogenesis.
That's the lens I look at stuff with - an academic lens. So if you have anything like that, I'd like to see it.
Because the “if” in the above quote is a big one; one I felt worth pursuing. As for the “science” part, well we have a chicken-and-egg scenario and at the end of the day, science tends to go where the money is. One of the reasons I gave up on pursuing archaeology as a career; it’s mostly begging for money.
What is this claim you keep bringing up and who made it?
The question on who made it.
The following is what you did on the other UFO related thread.
You couldn't come up with a single quote of my claim. So much for being easy. You are just doing the rinse & repeat on this thread. 🙄
Didn't Fravor claim what he saw was "not of this world"? Unless Fravor himself was also not of this world when he saw it, then it was most assuredly of this world.
OK, "Fast Eddie" seems to be at a "Ten" of the scale...as is "JM Fahley", a "Ten" with a ferver...
"Brinkman" seems towards the "Ones", or twos...the notation of "science goes where the money is", is indicative of the "conspiracy" bent.
Dare any one want to pigeon-hole themselves as such?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick....
"Brinkman" seems towards the "Ones", or twos...the notation of "science goes where the money is", is indicative of the "conspiracy" bent.
Dare any one want to pigeon-hole themselves as such?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick....
Oh really now. We're going to pretend that nobody ever claimed to see UFO. Really.
How about the claims of Paul and Evelyn Trent? They claimed to have photographed a UFO. It's a famous photograph. But we're going to pretend like nobody here has ever seen it. OK. .🙄
So I don't think they're lying or insincere. I neither believe nor disbelieve their claims. That's it.
One might think that with three working gravitational wave detectors of incredible sensitivity there might have been some anomalous signals detected especially craft ploughing through space time.
BTA there are folks working on electro-gravitics that claim LIGO, LHC, etc. are elaborate hoaxes.
The “science is my religion” people are too scared to question their beliefs. They need to frame their conversations around their own particular litany. “Proof” is provided by referring to completely unproven scientific theories without any physical evidence whatsoever, as is the case for life on other planets, or theories that they know are incomplete, as is the case for their refutation of FTL travel. Justification based on unproven or incomplete theories is fine if it bolsters their argument. They consider this being scientific. Ignoring huge amounts of first hand reports and telemetry that doesn’t fit their world view is also scientific. When you come to the table scared and sweaty, with your mind already made up, you don’t add anything to the conversation.
Theories are necessary and help us move forward, but theories are not the same as truths or hard evidence. References to academia are also not facts or hard evidence. Where is the evidence that life is rare in the universe? For people with such an emotional attachment to theories without evidence, your need for evidence in other areas is laughable.
Theories are necessary and help us move forward, but theories are not the same as truths or hard evidence. References to academia are also not facts or hard evidence. Where is the evidence that life is rare in the universe? For people with such an emotional attachment to theories without evidence, your need for evidence in other areas is laughable.
What is the link between UFO/UAP and "life is rare in the universe"?
Apparently, no one here made that connection, except those dastardly deniers.
Apparently, no one here made that connection, except those dastardly deniers.
This post, sadly, represents much that is wrong with science denialism. FTL, UFO's, unsubstantiated telemetry reports, visual sightings of lights all linked to aliens are fantasies until physical proof is presented.
Claiming theories are not hard facts is fair enough, but then be prepared to offer some alternative. What do you say about relativity and the fact that FTL will require ENORMOUS energy levels? You discard these theories, but offer no scientifically testable hypothesis as an alternative.
Again, you are simply discarding what science is telling you because it doesn't fit with your world view aka beliefs. We simply need facts in order to establish if alien visitation has in fact occurred - a piece of an alien craft, an alien body and Anders Sandberg says, a clear photograph given the fact there are about 3 billion smart phones on the planet with decent cameras. Nothing more, nothing less. just a simple bit of irrefutable evidence.
People keep mentioning the ubiquity of cell phones and I can see the point, however, most folks with their cell phones out are staring down, at their phones.
I saw something in the sky i tried to photograph with my phone a few years back. It looked absolutely horrible which is why I’ve never even bothered to share it.
I saw something in the sky i tried to photograph with my phone a few years back. It looked absolutely horrible which is why I’ve never even bothered to share it.
WHICH new information?
You have provided NONE.
(Hint: new information means something backed by PROOF, new DATA if you wish).
None of that offered.
I would expect if aliens existed, they would have landed somewhere and in close enough proximity to be photographed in high res. What have they got to fear from us? They are millions of yrs ahead of us, we are like ants so why would they sneak around?
Pseudo?
Don´t mince words, call it FULL-skepticism, meaning "I want to see to believe".
Nothing more, nothing less.
And since there is nothing to see, measure, weigh, stress, chemically analyze, etc. , it will remain that way until PROVEN otherwise.
I am fully open to PROOF, sadly it called sick and didn´t come today 😛
By the way, I guess I am not the only one thinking so.
You certainly don´t believe we are here for the high intellectual level discussions, do you?
Who cares? 😕
You hit the nail in the head 😉
Wow! You finally noticed it.
Yes, guilty as charged.
For more details, see my answers above 😀
I also watch standup comedy in my coffee breaks, some of it VERY funny.
That said, this thread has its moments too 😛
You-don´t-get-it, do you?
I´m now and then reading and answering this thread because it´s FUNNY
, at least for me.I am working; now and then I stop , grab a cup of coffee and browse Forums.
When I see "UFO" in the thread list, I smile, "let´s see what nonsense the zealots are trying to pass on today" 😛
You never disappoint me 😀
FWIW in my earlier coffee break I watched:
Bike locks should be illegal. Kellen Erskine - Full Special - YouTube
Very funny, I recommend it.
Doubly so to bitter zealots, who might relax a little once in a while.
I am a firm believer in science. You approach the science with an agenda and force what you call science to match your preexisting world view. You are the one discarding science to fit your world view. When only a theory is available to support your world view, you discard your requirement for evidence. When the theory is known to be incomplete, you still use it to prove things that it doesn't adequately address. You do this while calling others "science deniers".
"Claiming theories are not hard facts is fair enough, but then be prepared to offer some alternative. What do you say about relativity and the fact that FTL will require ENORMOUS energy levels? You discard these theories, but offer no scientifically testable hypothesis as an alternative."
Fact? I am not a physicist, but I know that you can't apply a known to be incomplete theory to something it doesn't necessarily address. The current incomplete theory says that "FTL will require ENORMOUS energy levels". You say there isn't another way to achieve FTL travel because a known to be incomplete theory says it's not possible, and you say this without any hard evidence. New hypotheses are being worked on as we speak. This work is being done because the theory is known to be incomplete. I am confident that science will figure it out eventually, and a new theory will be developed that will allow us to supplant the old ones.
Sorry, but using "science denialism" to paint others while you play fast and loose with science to fit your agenda is unacceptable.
No thanks. I’ll call it what it is instead.
This is demonstrably untrue as chemical analysis of alleged debris has already happened and there is a write-up that has been submitted for peer review. This is all old news in this thread. This is why people have a hard time taking you seriously (see above link).
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.