September 6, 2015 — Walter Bosley with Goggs Mackay

[Brians238]

Breakaway civilizations and secret space programs make for compelling stories. But the enjoyment of the story should not prevent us from asking the "Who hauls the trash?" questions that Jacques Vallee rightly saw as critical to evaluating any such claims. Any breakaway civilization would still be dependent in some fashion on this planet's raw materials and manufacturing capabilities. Their activities, either in the past or presently, would leave readily identifiable fingerprints environmentally (waste, manufacturing plants, mining operations, etc.), that could not be easily hidden. I would argue that there is little evidence to support the conjecture that breakaway civilizations of the kind discussed exist.

As to the secret space program and a pre-Apollo 11 landing, again, there would be clear evidence. The "signature" of the 3rd stage of a Saturn IV performing a TLI burn is unmistakable and there would have been many reports of such an anomalous phenomenon from amateur and professional skywatchers from around the world. Even if we discount radar hits as likely to be covered by secrecy laws, evidence of communications would certainly have been picked up by professional radio observatories which monitor many frequencies (e.g., Jodrell Bank and Russian space missions) and also possibly by amateurs. The argument that these early missions used other frequencies or other communication methods (such as scrambling, for example) shows a significant lack of knowledge of how parts are manufactured, tested and approved for spaceflight (i.e., it's a long, complex, and very expensive process).

 

[Randall]

Breakaway civilizations and secret space programs make for compelling stories. But the enjoyment of the story should not prevent us from asking the "Who hauls the trash?" questions that Jacques Vallee rightly saw as critical to evaluating any such claims. Any breakaway civilization would still be dependent in some fashion on this planet's raw materials and manufacturing capabilities. Their activities, either in the past or presently, would leave readily identifiable fingerprints environmentally (waste, manufacturing plants, mining operations, etc.), that could not be easily hidden. I would argue that there is little evidence to support the conjecture that breakaway civilizations of the kind discussed exist.

As to the secret space program and a pre-Apollo 11 landing, again, there would be clear evidence. The "signature" of the 3rd stage of a Saturn IV performing a TLI burn is unmistakable and there would have been many reports of such an anomalous phenomenon from amateur and professional skywatchers from around the world. Even if we discount radar hits as likely to be covered by secrecy laws, evidence of communications would certainly have been picked up by professional radio observatories which monitor many frequencies (e.g., Jodrell Bank and Russian space missions) and also possibly by amateurs. The argument that these early missions used other frequencies or other communication methods (such as scrambling, for example) shows a significant lack of knowledge of how parts are manufactured, tested and approved for spaceflight (i.e., it's a long, complex, and very expensive process).

Well put. Very grounded in logic and reason, and I certainly hope to see more of your posts in the future .

 

[Walter Bosley]

Breakaway civilizations and secret space programs make for compelling stories. But the enjoyment of the story should not prevent us from asking the "Who hauls the trash?" questions that Jacques Vallee rightly saw as critical to evaluating any such claims. Any breakaway civilization would still be dependent in some fashion on this planet's raw materials and manufacturing capabilities. Their activities, either in the past or presently, would leave readily identifiable fingerprints environmentally (waste, manufacturing plants, mining operations, etc.), that could not be easily hidden. I would argue that there is little evidence to support the conjecture that breakaway civilizations of the kind discussed exist.

As to the secret space program and a pre-Apollo 11 landing, again, there would be clear evidence. The "signature" of the 3rd stage of a Saturn IV performing a TLI burn is unmistakable and there would have been many reports of such an anomalous phenomenon from amateur and professional skywatchers from around the world. Even if we discount radar hits as likely to be covered by secrecy laws, evidence of communications would certainly have been picked up by professional radio observatories which monitor many frequencies (e.g., Jodrell Bank and Russian space missions) and also possibly by amateurs. The argument that these early missions used other frequencies or other communication methods (such as scrambling, for example) shows a significant lack of knowledge of how parts are manufactured, tested and approved for spaceflight (i.e., it's a long, complex, and very expensive process).

Of course, it doesn't address the likelihood that such a breakaway that could accomplish the things proponents suggest would certainly be capable of dealing with all the above. Also, some of the major environmental things you point out would be done off-planet.
As logical as your argument is, it doesn't really win the debate because it does not acknowledge that your initial presumptions could be not entirely the way things are.
Remember, we're talking about a group that has -- for sake of the discussion if nothing else -- successfully acheived its independence over the course of two centuries. I see your points, too, but I say the breakaways trumped them a long time ago.

And who says they still haven't left behind fingerprints? Those fingerprints are why researchers have even suspected they exist. No one is saying they're invisible, we're saying they're apart and cloaked in various ways.

 

[Brians238]

As my old professor used to say, "Science is no respecter of illusions."

 

[Walter Bosley]

As my old professor used to say, "Science is no respecter of illusions."

Except its own

 

[Brians238]

"Science is not a priesthood passing down wisdom. It is the only human pursuit that succeeds because it is uncertain. It is uncertain of itself. It challenges itself. There are no universal truths in science. That's the key to its success. It's a framework of how we currently think the world works. It is a way--as best as we can-of interrogating nature to try and understand it." Brain Cox. My take--it's not perfect, but it's the best we have. First rule of science, "First, do not fool yourself." Second rule" "You are the easiest person to fool."

Best,

Brian

 

[Walter Bosley]

"Science is not a priesthood passing down wisdom. It is the only human pursuit that succeeds because it is uncertain. It is uncertain of itself. It challenges itself. There are no universal truths in science. That's the key to its success. It's a framework of how we currently think the world works. It is a way--as best as we can-of interrogating nature to try and understand it." Brain Cox. My take--it's not perfect, but it's the best we have. First rule of science, "First, do not fool yourself." Second rule" "You are the easiest person to fool."

Best,

Brian

So therefore no consideration of a possibility is valid unless it adheres to your criteria and method...?

The good thing about your position is that clearly we needn't be encumbered by your further participation in any future discussions motivated by our different perspective on the issue, correct?

 

[Brians238]

Well--that depends. If you want to throw rational inquiry out of the window and replace it with some sort of individual belief system, then I suspect you'll spend a lot of time talking to yourself

 

[Walter Bosley]

I'm just saying you should let yourself have some damned fun, Brian. The foundations of science are not going to shake down all about your perception of reality simply because some folks in an internet forum, or in a few books here and there, are enjoying some speculation. I think we are all adults who went to school. We know about science, dear boy. Still we like to have a little fun considering things outside that box you find so pretty. You're welcome to join in the fun, but being a contrarian martinet is so Beta, don't you think?

 

[Walter Bosley]

Well--that depends. If you want to throw rational inquiry out of the window and replace it with some sort of individual belief system, then I suspect you'll spend a lot of time talking to yourself

'Rational inquiry'?? In this forum? And isn't that subjective anyway?

What's wrong, Brian? Is your wife not home from work yet?

 

[Brians238]

I wondered when the ad hominems would start. I agree that discussion and speculation can be fun, but frankly, if it veers off into unverifiable fantasy, there doesn't seem to be much point to it. Of course, if you want to talk about it as folklore or fiction, that's fun, no doubt. But that is not going on here, I suspect. But I apologize if the call to reality rains on your little parade. Have fun and don't worry about who hauls the trash. Very 1970's n'est-ce pas?

Peace.

 

[Brians238]

No--I'm not home! How'd life in Mom's basement?

 

[Walter Bosley]

Your ninth inning appearance to pontificate that scientific method trumps all is not ad hominem?? Au contraire.

Oh, and by the way, you should take the time to read all the posts when you enter in the ninth inning. Some of your issues have already been addressed in the conversation. Just a tip.

I wondered when the ad hominems would start. I agree that discussion and speculation can be fun, but frankly, if it veers off into unverifiable fantasy, there doesn't seem to be much point to it. Of course, if you want to talk about it as folklore or fiction, that's fun, no doubt. But that is not going on here, I suspect. But I apologize if the call to reality rains on your little parade. Have fun and don't worry about who hauls the trash. Very 1970's n'est-ce pas?

Peace.

 

[Walter Bosley]

No--I'm not home! How'd life in Mom's basement?

He's a science whiz but he can't spell.

 

[Brians238]

Cheap shot, my friend; never made a typo? Methinks I have the measure of the man...

 

[Walter Bosley]

Bye bye, you win, I'm so wrong.

 

[Walter Bosley]

For the record, I became dismissive and weary of you only because you jumped into a conversation rather late and essentially when it was already over. We had already addressed much of what you brought up, which you'd have possibly addressed differently had you merely scrolled through first. Also, I just generally think it's interesting for the science whip to come out in a forum that is supposedly dedicated to a discussion on the paranormal and UFOs and stuff like that. I mean, really? Don't you think that once we've crossed that line that outside-the-strict-rule-of-scientific-law speculation and daydreaming should be expected? Most of us come here for the very thing you were putting down as 'illusion'. And we know what we're engaging in, we're not stupid. We don't need a referee or a 'voice of wisdom'. So, no offense but your entry was a bit stale.

 

[Brians238]

As in any forum, points may be made several times from different perspectives. My purpose was not offend or upset you (or anyone else), but to just talk about some ways to test the veracity of the claim that there are breakaway civilizations. Of course, it is entirely possible that such civilizations have evolved to the point where they can essentially erase all evidence of their existence, in which case they share much in common with metaphysical phenomena and the question of their existence cannot be tested. My goal is not to present myself as an authority and my apologies if I came off that way. I'm just raising the questions I would like to have answered as someone who looks at the world from a particular perspective. Others have different viewpoints and that is what I come here to enjoy.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

What's wrong, Brian? Is your wife not home from work yet?

Not cool, Walter! Everyone, please stick to the subjects—not bait the posters... Thanks

 

[Walter Bosley]

Not cool, Walter! Everyone, please stick to the subjects—not bait the posters... Thanks

FYI: Referencing or implying that one's theories are 'illusions', even if in a quote, is baiting.
I merely returned fire.

But that skirmish is over as Brian and I have come to terms.