JMFahey, I vacillate between admiring your cool detachment from this thread as being nothing more than amusement for you and wondering if you have any self-awareness when you accuse people who disagree with you as trolling when it seems clear trolling is your objective.
How should I reconcile this?
I’m curious if any of the denialists (save a few, you know who you are) have actually consulted a book or recommended documentary on the subject of this thread before weighing in or at least *since* weighing in.
Last edited:
Empiricism, as a philosophical construct, is premised on homo-sapien interrogation of the world around itself. As a thought experiment, what do empiricist Homo sapiens imagine a phenomenon that eludes empiricism would look like? In other words, what would a phenomenon that eludes empirical study look like? How would we know and how could we recognize it?
Well, you answered "authentic" not yes or no.
And now, you jump to saying that agreeing that the footage is not faked, means it is a UFO!
You need to start getting clear and logical.
In actuality, that image has been well debunked. It's fair to say it's a real image - but not a UFO.
It seems to me that there is no confusion, perhaps you do not understand it because you analyze too much.
Anyway, my intention to generate some healthy controversy by seeing the result of a very simple survey no longer makes sense.
Your answer and other similar ones that are only intended to get the vehicle stuck in the mud, discourage the most enterprising.
Thanks for trying to lead me to kindergarten by the hand, but I haven't needed it in a long time.
Anyway, my intention to generate some healthy controversy by seeing the result of a very simple survey no longer makes sense.
Your answer and other similar ones that are only intended to get the vehicle stuck in the mud, discourage the most enterprising.
Thanks for trying to lead me to kindergarten by the hand, but I haven't needed it in a long time.
Last edited:
Sorry - but your posts were not clear.
But there were attempts to clarify what you meant, and some answers, with caveats to cover the potential for misunderstanding.
As I said, I don't doubt the original image is authentic, but what it shows isn't a mystery as far as I'm concerned.
Last edited:
You 'assume' too much! 😀
P.S. Why aren't you over here? https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/roo...form-drywall-sound-absorbers.html#post6720142
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Not to imply that I accept the label ‘denialist’ but I’ve looked at UFO ‘stuff’ in the past, mostly t.v. ‘Stuff’ and I’ve checked a few linked items since this (and the other) thread started. Most interesting for me were the us navy debunking video and Eric’s science paper (which I don’t subscribe to primarily because it eliminates the possibility of free choice, but also I find the science very questionable, but it deserves it’s own thread).
Like most, I recognize that people and their equipment have perceived ‘flying objects’ that have not been identified. My skepticism (a better label) is whether these are real solid objects (I doubt), and further my conviction that they are not alien beings due to a complete lack of credible evidence together with the highly improbable nature of it.
MORE controversy in this already too long 1500 post thread?
And which will easily reach 3000 with no results?
I suspect you didn´read it in full, your controversy has already been posted, answered, discussed and debunked some 10-20 times along it. At least.
Yes, so what? 🙂
As intriguing as looking at a Woodstock aerial picture (some 400.000 people in it) and saying: "wow! LOTS of unidentified people there"
Yes, so what?
As interesting as seeing grass grow or paint dry.
What would make it interesting would be having Aliens, extraterrestrial non Human beings visiting us, their ships and Technology, and a couple Months ago it SEEMED Army, Government, etc. were about to say/confess something about it, that´s what started this thread and the parallel one (same thing).
Since it all dissolved into a puff of smoke, "nothing to see here boys", interest dissappeared.
Discussing that "somebody" could have seen "something" he can´t explain is boring worthless and irrelevant, and NOT what this thread is about.
Personally I come here because I must keep my (mental) boxing skills fresh, specially during Covid lockdown with not much else to do and "nothing on TV" 😉 so at least I can find a couple free and willing sparrings who graciously oblige.
Otherwise I would get rusty quickly 😉
Did I mention it´s also FUN? 😱
EDIT:
Also:
Last edited:
"JM", I thoroughly enjoy your 'sparring matches'...some of your opponents are in way over their heads.
I'm utterly confounded at some here who still yearn to tear down the scientific process by injecting doubt, the moving of goalposts, a refusal of absolutism. I offered the 'theory of the spherical earth vs, fact of the spherical earth' as an example of the theory/fact division & the absurd idea that the two can be both, an example of obfuscation.
Only when a UFO flies & hovers silently for days & nights in Central Park NYC in broad daylight should we entertain the NOTION of such craft being alien in origin. Proof comes later when such a craft opens up to reveal its occupants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...
I'm utterly confounded at some here who still yearn to tear down the scientific process by injecting doubt, the moving of goalposts, a refusal of absolutism. I offered the 'theory of the spherical earth vs, fact of the spherical earth' as an example of the theory/fact division & the absurd idea that the two can be both, an example of obfuscation.
Only when a UFO flies & hovers silently for days & nights in Central Park NYC in broad daylight should we entertain the NOTION of such craft being alien in origin. Proof comes later when such a craft opens up to reveal its occupants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...
The NYT article from December 2017 is what generated much of the current crop of interest in the phenomenon. One of the forums I use to follow the topic, Twitter, is embroiled in a turf war between two camps; those whose interest reached a tipping point in December 2017 and think “disclosure” is coming and is being led by savior Lue Elizondo in one camp, and those who have been following the topic for a long while and are skeptical of everything associated with Lue Elizondo and his CIA crew in the other.
What’s funny is that the “disclosure is coming” camp tends to treat the phenomenon is if history started December 2017 and everything that came before is irrelevant.
The other camp is much more skeptical of the current UAP zeitgeist and urge a more proper, historical context for framing the present. People is this camp are treated no better than debunkers by the other camp, simply for pumping the brakes on the Elizondo worship.
Funny to try and reconcile awareness of this social media division with the conversation here.
What’s funny is that the “disclosure is coming” camp tends to treat the phenomenon is if history started December 2017 and everything that came before is irrelevant.
The other camp is much more skeptical of the current UAP zeitgeist and urge a more proper, historical context for framing the present. People is this camp are treated no better than debunkers by the other camp, simply for pumping the brakes on the Elizondo worship.
Funny to try and reconcile awareness of this social media division with the conversation here.
Last edited:
I'm kind of surprised that all the engineering and scientific types that congregate here aren't interested in the physics. This is not an assertion of mine that there is a way to make UFOs "go" but simply a rational discussion of what in physics could possibly change to allow UFOs to move the way they are described to move. Again, this is separate from believing visual and instrumented evidence showing how they move. At this point I leave that to individuals belief system. But wouldn't it be interesting to think about that?
We can argue all day long if the anecdotal evidence is true "in some cases". But I think the technical aspects of accomplishing the physics of that movement would be fascinating. Maybe those who don't believe any of the evidence for UFOs have also come to believe there is no way that physics can be adapted to include a subset of physics that includes that kind of movement of massive objects. But what if it could? What subset of physics can include that change without wrecking everything else we already know in physics?
That's an interesting question. And for those like Jan Didden, that say I'm already labeled as fringe for being associated with Puthoff and Haisch I'll say this. What I agreed with them about was their interest and writings about Twistor Theory before it was popular. It was never energy from the vacuum. You can't label someone on one aspect of their career. You can agree on some things and disagree vehemently with other things. I think people like things simple: "here's a crackpot and here's a serious scientist." Both crackpot ideas and excellent ideas however can coexist in the same person. It's everyone's job to not take shortcuts and say "this idea is good (or bad) because earlier that same person had a similar good (or bad) idea. People don't like to have to work that hard to make judgements about the ideas themselves. But that's the thing about life, you still have to do some of that hard work.
We can argue all day long if the anecdotal evidence is true "in some cases". But I think the technical aspects of accomplishing the physics of that movement would be fascinating. Maybe those who don't believe any of the evidence for UFOs have also come to believe there is no way that physics can be adapted to include a subset of physics that includes that kind of movement of massive objects. But what if it could? What subset of physics can include that change without wrecking everything else we already know in physics?
That's an interesting question. And for those like Jan Didden, that say I'm already labeled as fringe for being associated with Puthoff and Haisch I'll say this. What I agreed with them about was their interest and writings about Twistor Theory before it was popular. It was never energy from the vacuum. You can't label someone on one aspect of their career. You can agree on some things and disagree vehemently with other things. I think people like things simple: "here's a crackpot and here's a serious scientist." Both crackpot ideas and excellent ideas however can coexist in the same person. It's everyone's job to not take shortcuts and say "this idea is good (or bad) because earlier that same person had a similar good (or bad) idea. People don't like to have to work that hard to make judgements about the ideas themselves. But that's the thing about life, you still have to do some of that hard work.
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Indeed, you are not alone, Serious scientists have produced innumerable crackpot ideas too 😀
It is how things move fwd.
It is how things move fwd.
By standing on the shoulders of the crackpots before them?
Yours isn't an invalid point, I just hesitate to label any radically new idea as "crackpot."
Yours isn't an invalid point, I just hesitate to label any radically new idea as "crackpot."
I really believed that my failed survey idea might have sparked some general interest, but unfortunately I didn't manage to move the ammeter.
It is not understood why so much resistance, - at my age I am not in a position to sexually abuse anyone - but I think it would have given the following result:
95% of all the opinion-makers here would have marked YES (it is false) it is not a real image, and of course they would not have bothered to read the attached link that gives the details of it.
The remaining 5% would have thought it is NOT false, the image is real, although they cannot find any explanation about its origin, purpose, etc, etc)
They are the ones who think like me, we don't believe in ghosts, but there are, there are.
I'm sorry if it was something too childish of me! I promise not to do it anymore, I have already been admonished before, friend ......
Last edited:
You really didn't read the comments on your post that tried to be helpful did you? Or, as JMF said, any of the previous discourse on that image. And what has sexual abuse got to do with anything in this?
It was a joke.
Maybe I was missing an emoticon like this there: 😀
Now that I think about it, in your country, the men who play the bagpipes wear skirts, here the gauchos wear "panties"
In something we are alike !😉
LA BOMBACHA – El arcon de la historia Argentina
---------------------------------------------------
I did not read 1500 posts, it is true.
What changes that ? Nothing. I wanted to break the monotony and boredom of this thread with the failed poll, it didn't work out, so I'm definitely out.
Any questions, please PM.
Maybe I was missing an emoticon like this there: 😀
Now that I think about it, in your country, the men who play the bagpipes wear skirts, here the gauchos wear "panties"
In something we are alike !😉
LA BOMBACHA – El arcon de la historia Argentina
---------------------------------------------------
I did not read 1500 posts, it is true.
What changes that ? Nothing. I wanted to break the monotony and boredom of this thread with the failed poll, it didn't work out, so I'm definitely out.
Any questions, please PM.
Attachments
I would think that a completely new view of physics/quantum physics would be required to explain the behaviour of a true UFO.
The rapid acceleration attributed to UFOs suggests they are electromagnetic phenomena since electromagnetic forces are 10^42 to 10^44 times stronger than gravitational force.
However, a UFO acceleration in the order of 100 G is comparable to that of charged elementary particles in a linear particle accelerator and is not achievable by charged macroscopic bodies where the charge/mass ratio is always low.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.