Dr Brandenburg Show

[Sean Elifritz]

Yeah, it sucks when you have a guest like Stan the Man and all people can talk about is the first ten minutes of a two-hour show.

Oh, the Friedman interview? That one I did listen to. Well, global warming is an emotional issue for people just like politics or religion. It doesn't surprise me that listeners narrowed in on that segment of it. It's just one more example in a thousand that the global warming debate is about a lot of things, the least of which is science.

---------- Post added at 04:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:12 PM ----------

Btw, I noticed that this debate somehow turned over to Rendlesham. As far as that case goes I just can't believe it was the lighthouse. Maybe one guy could be that dumb, but that explanation demands an entire gaggle of retards without even one of them being intelligent enough to point out, "Hey, it's just a lighthouse." It also demands a large degree of fabrication that they all would have had to agree on since they claim to have seen more than a red, winking light; a beam that shot to their feet, an object that broke into 5 pieces, etc. If they really were fooled by a lighthouse then this goes beyond a simple mistake. They would all have to be liars as well and at that point the lighthouse is rendered a moot point anyway. The dishonesty would be the relevant part of it.

But I am now quite suspicions of Penniston. I've seen spots in documentaries where he's flipped through that little notebook and never did I see any binary codes. He keeps adding more and more to the story. At some point ya' gotta' say, "Enough!"

 

[Kieran]

Boys, boys, boys! Settle down a little. We're all critical thinkers here, OK? Being one of our sharpest critical thinkers, there is no way that Chris O'B. is going to let that hair-turning-white miracle stand as is. Chris will have done a little research by now and realizes that although there are physical reasons, maybe even stress about the paranormal, for hair to suddenly start growing out white, there is no mechanism for these changes to be propagated up the dead hair follicle into the part that already had pigment pretty much locked in. You'll see! What he meant to say was:

1. The roots of the lady's hair started coming in white after 7 days. We misinterpreted Chris's meaning.
2. The lady's hair had started falling out, so she resorted to using a white wig. Chris didn't notice.
3. All of the lady's non-white hair fell out at once, giving the impression that the whole bunch had turned white. Understandably, Chris was fooled, since the odds against this happening must be staggering.
4. The lady bleached her hair, something she had been planning to do anyway, and the stress just pushed her that last little bit. Chris misinterpreted the color change.
5. The lady went completely nuts and spray-painted her hair with white Rustoleum. Chris just called it like he saw it.
6. Tricksters did it. Game, set and match to Chris!

But, you know what? It doesn't matter here. Whatever explanation Chris chooses to put forward (even if he sticks to the original miracle) will be defended by many of the posters here. Come on, you know who you are! Stand by your man! Stand by the man who has stated on this forum that the concept of the Trickster makes as much sense as science. Not one of you took him to task for that. It almost doesn't matter what he says, many on this forum will hang on his every word. Whatever he chooses to report about the San Luis Valley will be taken as gospel by many of you. And believe this: there will be some mighty strange reports and photos and video coming out of the SLV in the very near future. The photos and video will not be conclusive, but the reports will be vivid and mind-boggling and totally unexplainable and oh so much fun to read, especially if there's a ghost of chance that they might really be true. I'm literally hugging myself with anticipation!

I know, Angelo, I'm being a dick again. Just can't help it. Nobody here ever addresses the obvious and it gets irritating. I'm feeling better now, though.

I can understand, why you have a hard time believing UFO's exist, I can understand, because you have never had an experience, that would change your viewpoint. I am perfectly happy with Skeptics disbelieving everything that gets posted on this forum. And that mankind has not been visited by another intelligence from elsewhere least not now. How can I argue, that you are wrong honestly that might shock you, but there is no real evidence for the existence of other sentient beings beside us. But the area however that escapes skeptics is, unregistered essentially objects that can fly-aerial objects, have been seen by people, from all walks of lives for over sixty years plus, and these objects don't act in a ways one expects or feels it should. I've no problem with science, it has designed and created lot of the technology we see before us today, at home and elsewhere and well at the end of the day, the people involved in science will have to figure this all out for us one day.

I think it is ludicrous objectionable been a witness to some unusual sightings, that you could dismiss a whole body of research into the UFO phenomenon.. How can you or anyone else after looking at the evidence, have such confictions about this subject as you do. The speculation we do is not wishful thinking MacDaddy, it thinking based on "Facts" that have happened, and have been noted and recorded since the 50's. Some of the out of the box thinking people in this field do. I'll go with you can be dangerous, but we have no choice. We have not received any answers from science, basically we are left to speculate away. I guess science might be afraid of not being able to answer the questions we do ask, so it just does not bother to even try.

The UFO phenomenon does not seem to give a shit, to what human science thinks or believes is happening. I don't buy into this space-brother crap for one moment too either. Where was the space brothers when man fought each other for land over certain disagreements and on and on. I think, MacDaddy of all places people to go to online, were people want to talk about these subjects, this forum is the right place for you been a Skeptic to come to. We are very willing to listen to opinions outside of this field, as long as there polite opinions. The language and tone in some of your messages is off putting, while your message might have plenty of substance to it, it not been looked at seriously, because some of the words you post are argumentative in tone. You've go to remember that when you begin typing your posting, be mindful of the message and how people will view it.

You'd mentioned before, you get a great kick of reading my posts fine nice to know I cheer you up, but the reason I don't listen to you and You slagged me off for believing in "Fairy Myths" well the fact is not all mainstream historians disagree that the Tuatha de Dannann never existed. If you took the time to even research it, you'd know that, but you argue against it on what knowledge I may ask! Be as that is, historians do have different take on the legends and what is claimed in them, but the fact the legends exist can not be disputed. The fact also some of the fairy- lore is similar to the stories talked about in modern ufology, is solely the reason why I bring it up in my discussions. You'll never see the correlations I do, because you come from a position of non-believe, again not your fault, but that is just the way it is unfortunately.

I like you might even take you up on that drink since you asked. I don't hate skeptical thinking, there is tons of bullshit stories in this field,as you are well-aware, and sometimes I do fall into the trap of believing more than I should, but I don't believe everything that comes my way. I think close to seventy per cent of the stories in Ufology are bullshit really I do, some of the stories utimately are pointing to a human explantation, but there is still a numbers of UFO cases that have yet to be explained or solved. I have no problem with you questioning the claims of what has been claimed. Nobody can and will be able to provide you the prove you seek or want. We'd be all doing different things now personally if the UFO phenomenon had answers and since other paranormal topics have lesser interest for me. I would probably not be around here much. Maybe I am lying not sure how I would feel if knew what the UFO phenomenon was?

I have no real-opinion of the womens hair turning white, personally if i heard about it i would check it out, if a doctor could confirm it happened and he was credible person and there was a medical record on file of this incident, then you could maybe believe it happened as claimed. With anything in this field check out the background of the person first, then go from there with your research into any weird reported event. Often there is hardly no background check of the person making the paranormal claim, it crazy it not done regularly by UFO- researchers, considering the claims been made often are so extraordinary. Personally I think Skeptics have a legitmate point, how you can trust eyewitness testimony, you can't, but just have to check it out is the source of the information worth a damn. Is the person or persons telling the story or stories credible.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

What the hell is that supposed to mean? If I don't take someone's word for it, I'm a debunker? I'm not proving anyone wrong, which is what a debunker does. And why is that a negative thing? I wish I was a true debunker outing fraudsters like Sylvia Browne. I'm not telling you what you should and shouldn't believe. If you think astrology has it's merits, good for you. I don't think it works.

Thanks

It means exactly what it says. You may think that you are a truly sceptical but every now and then you make statements or present people like the skepchick, who are so openly biased, and then proceed to say stuff like "..she's always great" which lends one to believe that you are a pseudsceptic. You should just own up to it. I don't care if you are. I have nothing against you personally. In fact if we met I think, other than our views on the paranorma,l we would get on really well. Lots of things in common. Music, art, computers.
It just seems obvious to me and others that you are extremely closed minded on a lot of subjects. Again, that's ok. It also seems like you have an agenda, like your heroes. To rid the world of what you perceive to be the bad science, pseudoscience and the lack of critical thinking.
I'm not the only one who has noticed this. Others here have made similar comments.
Look. It doesn't matter to me if you think that way. To each their own. But if you make sweeping pronouncements at any time, you will get pulled up on it. Just as you will pull me up on anything you think i have presented or said as bunk.
As for fraudsters like Sylvia Browne, I totally agree with you. But not everyone is a fraud.

---------- Post added at 11:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 AM ----------

mac you always make me laugh. you just took on the biggest nazi here and laid one upside his head. savy? i fully admit that i don't care which way something is spelled but his arogance was priceless! he can expell one or both of us but he cant undo his nazi rant. its there for all to see. i am still in the wings cheering you on babe.

I'm calling it. Lancemoody, MacDaddy and candlegirl are all the same person.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

It means exactly what it says. You may think that you are a truly sceptical but every now and then you make statements or present people like the skepchick, who are so openly biased, and then proceed to say stuff like "..she's always great" which lends one to believe that you are a pseudsceptic. You should just own up to it. I don't care if you are. I have nothing against you personally. In fact if we met I think, other than our views on the paranorma,l we would get on really well. Lots of things in common. Music, art, computers.
It just seems obvious to me and others that you are extremely closed minded on a lot of subjects. Again, that's ok. It also seems like you have an agenda, like your heroes. To rid the world of what you perceive to be the bad science, pseudoscience and the lack of critical thinking.
I'm not the only one who has noticed this. Others here have made similar comments.
Look. It doesn't matter to me if you think that way. To each their own. But if you make sweeping pronouncements at any time, you will get pulled up on it. Just as you will pull me up on anything you think i have presented or said as bunk.
As for fraudsters like Sylvia Browne, I totally agree with you. But not everyone is a fraud.

I have no agenda. I don't think Gene would have kept me as a moderator if he thought I did. Chris and I disagree on a lot of things, and we like to take shots at each other, and we can annoy each other, but I'm sure he would have axed me if he thought I was here to disrupt things. I am not. I'm here to offer a totally different point of view, to add a balance. I truly believe the things I say on this forum. In my mind, there's nothing paranormal about any of this stuff. That idea has not been proven wrong yet. Once it is, I'll gladly discuss the merits of psychic healers and ghosts with anyone. For now, I just can't because I truly don't think those things are possible.
I like to put my opinions on these topics out there because I used to believe in all of this stuff, but I have said that before. I changed my mind about a lot of it before I joined this forum, but I still clung to the idea that there was something to some of it (mostly UFOs). That's changed as well since I joined, and that's okay. I know that if something actually does come about of any merit in this field, someone will post about it. A good example is that psychologist that has found a link between future and the present that was discussed in another thread. ESP it isn't, but it's something that was thought of as impossible, and he's doing some interesting tests.
You don't need to like Rebbecca Watson (Skepchick), but I tend to agree with her about a lot of stuff. I don't care if you don't like what she has to say.

One last thing I want to add. I think our definition of "critical thinking" differs. I agree with the critical thinking skills outlined on wikipedia (no need to scoff at the source, I agree with the list):

The list of core critical thinking skills includes observation, interpretation, analysis, inference, evaluation, explanation and meta-cognition.
There is a reasonable level of consensus among experts that an individual or group engaged in strong critical thinking gives due consideration to:

• Evidence through observation
• Context of judgment
• Relevant criteria for making the judgment well
• Applicable methods or techniques for forming the judgment
• Applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the problem and the question at hand

I'm bored with the whole "skeptic/believer" debates that we seem to fall in to when ever someone questions the validity of a claim. We should be allowed to express an opinion on this site. If you state something as fact and someone says you are wrong, back it up if you want to continue the argument.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I'm bored with the whole "skeptic/believer" debates that we seem to fall in to when ever someone questions the validity of a claim. We should be allowed to express an opinion on this site. If you state something as fact and someone says you are wrong, back it up if you want to continue the argument.

You can express your opinion any time you want as can I or anybody else but don't expect people to always accept it casually and meekly. If you say something overtly biased or make sweeping pronouncements then be prepared to get taken to task for it. Don't go whining about the unfairness of it all . You bring much of it on yourself. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If i make a statement you don't agree with you are right there to jump on it and take me to task for it, as is your right. Don't whinge when someone does it to you.

As for critical thinking? Yes you are right except for one thing. Your critical thinking goes out the door if you are biased in your thinking on any given subject . Critical thinking by the methods you describe is okay if you go in to research or study with a completely open mind.

 

[stphrz]

Angelo: Any other perceived negatives you'd like to pick at? Google is your friend, look him up. It seems it doesn't matter who we get to come on the show, they will never live up to your lofty, idealized standards of excellence and decorum.

OK, I'll do your work for you:

John Brandenburg Ph.D.

John E. Brandenburg is a plasma physicist at Orbital Technologies in Madison Wisconsin, working on space plasma technologies and space propulsion. He also performed research on the MET(Microwave Electro-Thermal) plasma thruster for space propulsion, Rocket Plume-Regolith Interactions on the Moon and Mars, Vortex theory of Rocket engine design, and Kaluza-Klein theory of Field Unification for purposes of space propulsion. He also performed an architecture study for a Human Mars Mission using solar electric propulsion. Before coming to ORBITEC he was performing research on air plasmas and plasma propulsion at Florida Space Institute. He is a pioneer in creating electrodeless atmospheric pressure plasmas in air using microwaves. Before this he was at The Aerospace Corporation, where one of his duties was as principle investigator of the MET propulsion project.

Before coming to Aerospace corporation Dr. Brandenburg was a researcher at Research Support Instruments (RSI) where he specialized in making controlled laboratory plasmas for uses ranging from air plasmas for surface sterilization , Fusion research and the MET thruster. He also worked as an independent consultant on Space Missile Defense, Directed Energy Weapons, and space rocket plume phenomenology, and also at Mission Research Corporation and Sandia National Laboratories on plasmas for controlled fusion and similar topics.

He obtained his MS in Applied Science at University of California at Davis and his PhD in Theoretical Plasma Physics at the UC Davis extension campus at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore California. The Title of his Thesis was “A Theoretical Model of a Reversed Field Ion Layer Made of Monoenergetic Ions” and dealt with the magnetic confinement of plasmas for controlled nuclear fusion. Inspired by the Apollo missions to choose a career in Physics he has always been an avid fan of space exploration and science fiction.


The Refereed Publications of Dr. Brandenburg include:

1. Brandenburg, J.E. (2007) “The Value of the Gravitation Constant and its Relation
to Cosmic Electrodynamics,” IEEE Transactions On Plasma Science, Plasma
Cosmology Issue Vol. 35, No. 4., p845.

2. Brandenburg, J.E. Kline , J.F. , and Sullivan D.F. (2005) “The Microwave Electro-
Thermal (MET) Thruster Using Water As Propellant “ IEEE Transactions On
Plasma Science Vol. 33, No. 2. p776.

3. J. E. Brandenburg and John F. Kline, (1998) “Experimental Investigation of Large-
Volume PIA Plasmas at Atmospheric Pressure” IEEE Transactions on Plasma
Science, Vol. 26, 2. p145-149.

4. J.E. Brandenburg (1996) “Mars as the Parent Body of the CI Carbonaceous
Chondrites” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 23, 9, p961-964.

5. J.E. Brandenburg (1995) “ A Model Cosmology Based on Gravity Electro-
Magnetism Unification”, Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol 277, p133-144. (
also in “Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology” (1995) A. L. Peratt Editor , Kluwer
Academic Publishers)

6. J.E. Brandenburg (1995) “Constraints on the Martian Cratering Rate Based on the
SNC Meteorites and Implications for Mars Climatic History” earth Moon and
Planets 67: p35-45.

7. J. E. Brandenburg, (1994) “The MET ( Microwave Electro-Thermal )Thruster”,
Proceedings of the University of Utah Small Satellite Conference (1994)

10. J. E. Brandenburg (1992) “Unification of Gravity and Electromagnetism in the
Plasma Universe” IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science , Plasma Cosmology
Issue Vol 20, 6, p944.

11. J.E. Brandenburg, Vincent DiPietro, and Gregory Molenaar,(1991) “The Cydonian
Hypothesis” Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol 5. , 1, p 1-25,

12. J.E. Brandenburg (1990) “ A Theory of the Relaxation of Tokamak Discharges”,
Journal of Plasma Physics.Vol 43, part 2, p283.

13. J.E. Brandenburg and Richard F. Post(1986)“ Analytical Field reversed Equilibria
Derived from Self-consistent Particle Orbits, Part II” Nuclear Fusion 26, 1073.

14. J.E. Brandenburg and E. P. Lee, (1986) “A Model of Hose Instabilities in Rotating
Electron Beams” Phys. of Fluids, 43, 1501.

15. Richard F. Post and J.E. Brandenburg , (1981)“ Analytical Field reversed
Equilibria Derived from Self-consistent Particle Orbits, Part I” Nuclear Fusion
21,1633.

Thanks for this Chris.

It gives me pause to think Mr. Stanford may have some data that is relevant and revealing. Now there is at least one scientist of note that has sort of gone on record as being impressed with what he was shown. Dr. Brandenburg did state that the presentation of the data was informal.

Mr. Stanford still has not let go of the coconut (re: Jacques Vallee's coconut fallacy). He has only shown his data. He has yet to put it directly into the hands of anyone qualified to analyze it. This is something that needs to happen before it can be accepted or any conclusions drawn.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Mr. Stanford still has not let go of the coconut (re: Jacques Vallee's coconut fallacy). He has only shown his data. He has yet to put it directly into the hands of anyone qualified to analyze it. This is something that needs to happen before it can be accepted or any conclusions drawn.

That's a bit of an understatement but rest assured--I'm working on it.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

That's a bit of an understatement but rest assured--I'm working on it.

I'm looking forward to be proven wrong about my perception of what Ray Stanford has to show. It would be pretty incredible if what he has is as mind blowing as what he says.

Just in case it's read wrong: there is no sarcasm in what I wrote. I personally think he has nothing that hasn't been seen before (blurry film or photos), but if I'm wrong it will be amazing and it will change my mind about what people have been seeing in the sky.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Angelo,
Science does not hold all the answers and good to see your open minded to read

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Angelo,
Science does not hold all the answers and good to see your open minded to read

I'm not sure what you mean by science does not hold all the answers - what are the alternatives? In the end, to get a definitive answer of some kind for how something works, science needs to be used, no?
Science can't answer something as abstract as, "What is the meaning" of life, or love, or faith, etc, but it can answer, "What was that craft I saw flying in the sky?" Be it through photographic analysis or observation, the answer to what something definitively is, can only be found through science. And from what I understand, that's what Ray Standford is looking to do.

 

[Ron Collins]

I'm looking forward to be proven wrong about my perception of what Ray Stanford has to show. It would be pretty incredible if what he has is as mind blowing as what he says.

Just in case it's read wrong: there is no sarcasm in what I wrote. I personally think he has nothing that hasn't been seen before (blurry film or photos), but if I'm wrong it will be amazing and it will change my mind about what people have been seeing in the sky.

Whatever Stanford has Stanford will keep. Of that I am certain. I think he does have data. I am not going to get into why I believe that or my personal dealings with Ray. I think that ended as much due to personality and situational conflicts than anything. But I will say that I doubt seriously that any evidence he has will ever see the light of day. Certainly nothing anyone here would consider irrefutable. We will continue to be fed streams of nearly incomprehensible glimpses of what could be mountains of real data. Alas, we will never really know. AND, I think that is exactly the way Ray wants it.