UFO Debunkers: Irrational, Uninformed and Ignorant

[boomerang]

I regard Lazar not so much as a genuine ufo witness as a genuine enigma. His being used as a disinfo tool seems the most likely explanation. But who knows?

There are indeed people out there who seem to have real but utterly indefinable ties with black projects. I used to work with such a person. Based on what this person told me (and many others) he/she had indeed spent time at "The Labs" in some capacity. The person himself/herself was a living enigma and I doubt even best friends knew much more.

So yeah--I can believe that Lazar either did or believes he did participate in something exotic. Are easily discredited people chosen for certain types of jobs in these places? Could well be.

 

[starise]

From my knowledge of secret government programs and bases, in order to get into one of these in the first place you agree with the fallout if you should ever divulge anything going on there. It wouldn't stop at loosing your right nut.....I believe there are thugs in charge of this enforcement. I am of the persuasion that something would be slipped into your milk at home if you even hinted at telling about what you did. Things like this tend to be conveniently swept under the carpet. If it looks like you died of natural causes who would question it? Yapping about a national secret is tantamount to treason or at least some can see it that way.

The mere fact that Lazar is still sucking oxygen is testament to something being a little awry, so I fall in with the idea that he is being used in some way that benefits rather than detracts from what is happening,or that nothing is happening and they leave him around to talk because it benefits their agenda.

 

[Muadib]

From my knowledge of secret government programs and bases, in order to get into one of these in the first place you agree with the fallout if you should ever divulge anything going on there. It wouldn't stop at loosing your right nut.....I believe there are thugs in charge of this enforcement. I am of the persuasion that something would be slipped into your milk at home if you even hinted at telling about what you did. Things like this tend to be conveniently swept under the carpet. If it looks like you died of natural causes who would question it? Yapping about a national secret is tantamount to treason or at least some can see it that way.

The mere fact that Lazar is still sucking oxygen is testament to something being a little awry, so I fall in with the idea that he is being used in some way that benefits rather than detracts from what is happening,or that nothing is happening and they leave him around to talk because it benefits their agenda.

On one level I agree with you, however, I think it's perhaps a little paranoid to think the government just goes around knocking people off willy nilly for spilling classified information. You definitely sign your rights away when you sign those security agreements, but we can look at the whole Wikileaks scandal and see someone who did divulge some very damaging classified information, Bradley Manning, and yet he's still alive, though I definitely wouldn't say he's doing well. If the government is involved in killing everyone who spills classified information then Julian Asange should be dead as well, but he's also alive and kicking, he's not even locked up. They definitely went out of their way to make his life a living hell though and you can see some elements of that in the story of Lazar to a lesser degree, perhaps. I think the fact that he isn't now locked up and never was says that he's probably involved in spreading some kind of government disinfo, the question is why?

 

[Frank Stalter]

Real Genuine video!Look at 33.40. Look at the HI FI system!

This is a very entertaining piece of video and I like the job Bob does here. Can't say how much truth is in it, but it's awfully interesting and Bob takes his time and tells his story. Better to hear things from the original source.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

In terms of Govts killing people over spilt secrets, I can believe it, but only for the most grave of leaks. UFOs and nuclear secrets would definitely be in that category. Consider it akin to high treason, which still has the death penalty in many countries who no longer have judicial executions.

A reason someone might be killed also is that (in the govts eyes), due process of law only gives someone intent on selling secrets, ample time to continue to run their mouth.

If anyone thinks this is too much like fiction to believe in our modern, 'free' societies, I always think like this: If you agree your government might choose to go to war over natural resources, then when they decide to do that, they absolutely know -and plan - to lose X percent of servicepeople. They are willing to sacrifice good, honest, honourable citizens for possible political or economic gain. That might be thousands upon thousands of people who committed no crime. So if one single person appears to be putting a whole nation's nuclear secrets up for sale to a foreign power, I can see absolutely no barrier to a kill order.

 

[Ron Collins]

Although you might be positive that Lazar has an 8th graders understanding of physics, I recently heard Dr. John Brandenburg give his opinion of Lazar's understanding of physics. You can hear this for yourself on his most recent interview on Don Ecker's Dark Matters Radio (a few weeks ago). Dr. Brandenburg stated he didn't have a problem with Lazar's testimony and nothing he said was scientifically incorrect. I don't know what your personal scientific qualifications are but Dr. Brandenburg has his Ph.D in plasma physics.

Well, I would say that the good doctor needs to listen to a bit more of what Lazar is actually saying. I'll offer a few examples and supply some links.


The best layman's deconstruction of Lazarian physics comes from Dr. David L. Morgan. Dr. Morgan is a Particle Physicist.
Bob Lazar Critique
Here are a few highlights.

Lazar:

The fact that gravity is a wave has caused mainstream scientists to surmise numerous sub-atomic particles which don't actually exist and this has caused great complexity and confusion in the study of particle physics.

Dr. Morgan:

As a particle physicist, I must say that I have NO IDEA what he is talking about here. Surmising particles that don't exist? I can't think of a single particle whose existence has been postulated as a result of gravitational theories. Perhaps the graviton is one, but that’s about it.

Lazar:

Gravity A is what is currently being labeled as the "strong nuclear force" in mainstream physics ...

Dr. Morgan:

This is the place where Lazar begins to get him self in real trouble. As it is understood now, the strong nuclear force has NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAVITY. Such a statement shows either a complete lack of understanding of the physics of the Standard Model of particle interactions, or a BLATANT attempt at deception. The equations and coupling strengths which describe the two forces are totally different and unrelated. The strong force couples only to quarks and gluons. The gravitational force couples to all particles with mass. The strong force is extremely short range. The range of gravity is infinite. The gravitational coupling constant is orders of magnitude smaller than that of the strong interaction. There is NO BASIS for using the word "gravity" to describe the strong interaction IN ANY WAY.

If Mr. Lazar has formulated a NEW model in which the two forces are really the same, then he has unified gravity with the other three forces of nature, and he should publish it now and collect his Nobel Prize. If he DOES NOT have such a new theory then his statement here is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

It's not good enough to just call the strong interaction "gravity A wave". You've got to demonstrate that it actually has SOMETHING to do with gravity if you're going to attach that name to it! The words by themselves are meaningless. I want to see some equations. Otherwise, this statement is not only wrong, but utterly incomprehensible.

Lazar:

The most important attribute of these heavier, stable elements is that the gravity A wave is so abundant that it actually extends past the perimeter of the atom. These heavier, stable elements literally have their own gravity A field around them...

No naturally occurring atoms on earth have enough protons and neutrons for the cumulative gravity A wave to extend past the perimeter of the atom...

Dr. Morgan:

Since Mr. Lazar has already identified this gravity A wave with the nuclear force, he is essentially claiming that the nuclear force of element 115 extends beyond the limits of the "115-ium" atom. (I'm tempted to call it Lazarium...and somewhat surprised that he doesn't!!) This is simply not possible, given the known properties of the nuclear force. The past 50 years of probing the nucleus have taught us that the range of the nuclear force is VERY short, and protons and neutrons only feel the pull of their nearest neighbors in a nucleus. Because of this fact, the nuclear force extends out to about the same distance away from a nucleus NO MATTER HOW MASSIVE THE NUCLEUS IS. This fact is fundamental to the science of nuclear physics.

Once again, if Mr. Lazar has a NEW MODEL of the nuclear interaction which explains the properties and decay rates of known nuclei...which can predict the abundances of elements synthesized in the Big Bang...which can describe all of the properties of nuclear reactions which take place inside of stars...all as well as our current theories do all of these things (which is VERY well!) then he should publish it and collect his Nobel Prize. If not, then once again his statements make NO SENSE in the light of everything that we know about nuclear interactions.

And Lastly....

Lazar:

The power source is a reactor. Inside the reactor, element 115 is bombarded with a proton, which plugs into the nucleus of the 115 atom and becomes element 116, which immediately decays and releases or radiates small amounts of anti-matter. The anti-matter is released in a vacuum into a tuned tube, which keeps it from reacting with the matter that surrounds it. It is then directed toward the gaseous matter target at the end of the tube. The matter, which in this case is the gas, and the anti-matter, collide and annihilate totally converting to energy. The heat from this reaction is converted into electrical energy in a near one hundred percent efficient thermoelectric generator.

Dr. Morgan:

Lots of impressive sounding stuff about reactors and bombarding with protons and all that. But read it again. Antimatter and matter are converted into energy. Fine. But where does the antimatter come from? From element 115 when it is "bombarded with a proton" by the ship's reactor. Hmmm. And just exactly HOW MUCH energy would your reactor have to put into each proton to have it create an antiproton?? Well, exactly the mass energy of an antiproton! And how much energy do you get back out when the antiproton annihilates? EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT YOU PUT INTO CREATING IT!!


(Actually, you can't just make an antiproton by itself, you have to make a proton/anti-proton pair. So your reactor needs to put in 2 "protons-worth" of mass-energy into each proton in the beam.)

If you have to MAKE your own antimatter on board, your system produces NO NET ENERGY AT ALL!! You put 2 protons worth of energy in, and you get 2 protons worth of energy out! In fact, the BEST this system could do would be to make ZERO energy, but in fact, it would more likely USE far more energy than it would make.

Here are some links about what some others have to say on the Lazar issue.
Analysis by Dr. Edward Halerewicz Jr.
Stanton Friedman - Nuclear Physicist
UFO Truth
The Living Moon - A good insight into the paradoxical nature of the Lazar story


I have not listened to what Dr. Brandenburg said on DMR. I will do that this weekend, but I can tell you that there is nothing that lazar says that indicates he has anything approaching an in depth understanding of any aspect of scientifically recognized Physics. In fact he is caught just spewing nonsense every time he opens his pie hole. We know he is not educated from either MIT nor CalTech. We also know that he was enrolled in a freakin' community college at the same time he was supposedly going to MIT. Guys that go to MIT do not enroll in crappy southern California community colleges. They just don't. This guy is a liar. He isn't even a particularly good liar. You need to take off the gullible googles for a few minutes and objectively think about this. Look at everything and then ask yourself what exactly about this story is convincing and why.

 

[withoutlimits09]

The self-referential way that paranormal believers support their case is hilarious.

Brandenburg has no problem with Lazar.

So?

I could name several problems I have with Brandenberg (have him tell you the story of Napoleon and the sphinx's nose sometime).

Lance

Brandenburg has his PH.D in physics, and Lazar's claims rest heavily on this topic. Therefore, it seems as though Brandenburg has the expertise and the scholarship behind him to make such a call, it in reality, it isn't that hilarious. Now, I don't know his qualifications as they relate to the Sphinx's nose...

 

[Ron Collins]

Brandenburg has his PH.D in physics, and Lazar's claims rest heavily on this topic. Therefore, it seems as though Brandenburg has the expertise and the scholarship behind him to make such a call, it in reality, it isn't that hilarious. Now, I don't know his qualifications as they relate to the Sphinx's nose...

Please read my above post. I offer the opinions of three physicists to counter your one.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I asked Don Ecker if Lazar had ever taken a polygraph about his claims. Apparently he had, and was found to be truthful.

Now, I've no idea how reliable these things actually are - they are absolutely NOT used in UK legal processes at all (but that means nothing).

I am interested though to know if someone can convince themselves they are telling the truth when they are not? Could that be the case if indeed Lazar 'Passed' a polygraph?

I've always said that I don't think Lazar is lying 100% but I believe maybe he did fix the copy machines at Groom Lake or something and made up the rest - but there is something fishy about it all (and I don't mean it was all made up by Lazar) - perhaps he is official disinfo?

 

[ProphetofOccam]

I'm late to the game here, and I just kind of want to get back to the generality of the original post.

That article by the skeptic is bad. We'll all agree on that.

However, I feel the original post relates to the whole science vs. anti-science thing. I think it relates to why there are "dubunkers," in the first place.

If you are a skeptic, or you have an inclination to skeptical thought, chances are good that you have a, at least, slightly pragmatic world view. Statistically speaking, and I wont bother to make any up, I'd think that pragmatically minded folks get the majority, if not all, of their understanding of the universe from conventional science, its associated method, and secondary materials making reference to both. That being true, it takes but a gentle nudge to go from "skeptic" to active "debunker" -- I know, as I was once a douche in a forum, much like this one, trying to beat down the will of the true believers with charts and formulas and other shit nobody cares about. It's just difficult for someone with pragmatically oriented cosmic perception to gel their psychological state of being with some of the concepts and practices that are commonplace, and often championed, within the paranormal scene.

In this case, considering UFO's, a lot of the pragmatic laws of science are broken in the non-government written materials supported and referenced by sections of the paranormal community. For example, to science, a UFO is a real phenomenon; it is a thing that someone, or several someones, saw in the sky that can't be explained by relevant people, with relevant knowledge, using the relevant tools of the science-based disciplines -- the end. To the UFO community, that seems to evolve beyond that into a thing that someone, or several someones, saw in the sky that can't be explained by relevant people, with relevant knowledge, using relevant tools of the science-based discplines, because it's an INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED INTERDIMENTIONAL ALIEN GOVERNMENT COVERUP CRAFT FROM THE FUTURE WITH INTENTIONS AND PURPOSE!

I'm not saying that everyone in the community adheres to that entire idea, or even any of those particular ideas. What I'm saying is, if you entertain any notion in regards to what these objects are beyond "a thing that has been seen in the sky that defies explanation," you have waved goodbye to science and hello to speculative fiction, in every possible sense of the term. The pragmatic nature of science disallows for untestable, immeasurable concepts to be entertained -- even theoretical physics requires evidence, hard testing and mathematical measure to allow for certain concepts to be entertained.

Those types of assumptions, presented as information, drive hardlined skeptics insane. It makes them immediately classify everything in arguments and research built around those concepts silly and thoughtless. As a result, they feel that it's not important to look at all the details -- other qualified people already looked at those details and arrived at a conclusion -- before they launch into an attack consisting of exactly why a phenomena has no basis in reality. In other words, "you are not using the rules and methods of science to draw your conclusions in the argument, the argument I'm having is science based, everything you say is automatically disqualified and here's why you're wrong."

As a person making an argument from science, there is no excuse for incomplete or inaccurate research, even if you feel the data has no basis in science. You review the data and you break that down in your argument -- always. However, those types of people, like the "true believers" on the other side of the fence, aren't interested in a proper debate, they're interested in the tooth and nail, no-holds-barred defense of an ideology that they feel, consciously or subconsciously, defines a big part of who they are.

 

[Randall]

... As a person making an argument from science, there is no excuse for incomplete or inaccurate research, even if you feel the data has no basis in science. You review the data and you break that down in your argument -- always. However, those types of people, like the "true believers" on the other side of the fence, aren't interested in a proper debate, they're interested in the tooth and nail, no-holds-barred defense of an ideology that they feel, consciously or subconsciously, defines a big part of who they are.

Perhaps we need to better define what we mean by a "proper debate". For example, the process of critical thinking may or may not involve scientific evidence. But does that mean that it cannot help advance our understanding? I think not. Science is a valuable tool, but ( speaking of being pragmatic ) if all our decisions and evaluations were dependent upon scientific consensus prior to taking action, we'd have a much tougher time getting anything done. The fact is that things can be materially and objectively real without having first been approved by scientists. So rigging a debate to require that the only their evidence is valid is not in my view a "proper debate".

A proper debate should include any evidence that can advance us toward the truth. In this regard there are principles that are based in proven science that can be applied to problems in a general sense. There are also logical and philosophical considerations. When these things are added up, they can provide sufficient non-scientific evidence to make belief in something reasonable. When it comes to UFOs, I tend to think that I would be of this view whether I had seen one myself or not. However having seen one, I am as personally as certain as anyone can be. Does that make my belief in UFOs a "big part" of who I am? You bet it does. What people experience is a big part of what makes anyone who they are. But also like you mentioned at the start, it's not merely the experience itself. How our experiences are evaluated, and how we relate to other people also makes up a big part of our persona. Does that make my worldview an "ideology"? Probably. But so what? Scientific technocracy is also an ideology, and I'm not so sure it would be the best solution for the way everything should be done. Does that make me "anti-science"? No.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

It just depends on the agreed upon parameters of the debate. If the debate is a scientific debate, the only kind these guys are going to allow, then everything is going to have to be run through the rigors of the method.

I have no standards of debate because I believe the debate, in and of itself, is insane. I'm pretty ignostic about anything that falls beyond the reach of science, so the concept of debating those things makes little sense, to me. I didn't always feel that way, but I just claim temporary insanity. (Gun to my head, I personally don't believe it's even possible for something to fall beyond the reach of science, by the nature of the discipline, and reasons beyond measure or direct evidence often have to be created to allow for something to do as much).

Day to day scientific reference wouldn't really factor in to it. Though, pretty much everything we do has already been analyzed at one point or another. Not all of it is understood, but it's been studied -- that leaves room for a lot of reference.

I think i may have also been misunderstood. I don't think anyone would deny that UFO's exist; science recognizes this. The reason the debunkers exist, and the reason scientists have, on occasion, verbally discounted the entire phenomenon out of hand, is the speculative aspect of the scene that has grown around UFO's. When a scientist, or someone who otherwise knows better, says, "UFO's don't exist," what they mean is "We have no reason to believe that anyone has ever seen an alien space craft." They don't have reason to believe it, that much is true -- you can't run tests or otherwise review eyewitness testimony. No matter how hard or how often you listen to a story, your hard data remains at zero -- that's why they don't matter to science beyond a place to begin looking for evidence. As a stand-alone phenomenon, though, science accepts that there are unexplained phenomena, of some manner, that appear in the skies from time to time.

And YOU are not anti-science until you cross the boundary between "I saw an object" and "I saw an object, and think I may know what I saw." All means and measures used to make such a determination are baseless, mostly because we're dealing with an unidentified phenomenon. There is no referential basis for attempting to break down the behaviour, appearance, or characteristics of an unidentified phenomenon. One CAN make observations and draw conclusions based on known phenomenon, but there is no good reason to do that. Simply knowing that what one saw "behaved like an intelligently controlled craft," doesn't mean that there aren't as-of-yet unknown natural phenomena that also behave in a manner that is reminiscent of intelligently controlled craft. The moment a person makes the leap beyond an observation of the unknown into the untestable hypothesis regarding the unknown, that person has stepped away from science.

Believing in the existence of unexplained airborne phenomena doesn't make someone's position "anti-science." Believing that they know what the phenomena are based on their untestable observations makes someone's position "anti-science."

Does something need to be argued and tested within the bounds of science to be proven true? For me? Yes. For others? Probably not. That goes back to what I was saying in another post about the animosity that exists, even within the community, regarding the different ways that people know of to analyze evidence.

It is the same root of that "evidence confusion" animosity that breeds zealous debunkers. That's all I was really getting at. The debunkers are playing a different game than the guys they're debating, and it pisses them off when those guys "break the rules."

 

[Randall]

... And YOU are not anti-science until you cross the boundary between "I saw an object" and "I saw an object, and think I may know what I saw." All means and measures used to make such a determination are baseless, mostly because we're dealing with an unidentified phenomenon. There is no referential basis for attempting to break down the behaviour, appearance, or characteristics of an unidentified phenomenon. One CAN make observations and draw conclusions based on known phenomenon, but there is no good reason to do that. Simply knowing that what one saw "behaved like an intelligently controlled craft," doesn't mean that there aren't as-of-yet unknown natural phenomena that also behave in a manner that is reminiscent of intelligently controlled craft. The moment a person makes the leap beyond an observation of the unknown into the untestable hypothesis regarding the unknown, that person has stepped away from science ...

Virtually all our emotional and sensory experience is something subjective and its sum total is not comprehensible in any strictly scientifically quantifiable way, yet we also know that it is an inescapable and vital part of our life experience without which we could accomplish almost nothing ( including science ). Coupled with our ability to reason, these abilities give us plenty of reasons on a daily basis to make accurate decisions including ones like, "I saw an object, and think I may know what I saw." In fact we go much further than that and simply assume that most of the time what we think we see is what is actually there, and that process has worked so well for us over the millennia that it has facilitated our evolution into what we are now. And this process has no doubt also involved countless examples of previously unidentified things. So it isn't reasonable that after literally billions and billions of examples that have led us to where we are today, for science to suddenly step in during the last tenth of a second of this process and declare it invalid because it doesn't meet the "rigors of the scientific method".

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Virtually all our emotional and sensory experience is something subjective and its sum total is not comprehensible in any strictly scientifically quantifiable way

Agree to disagree, I suppose. A huge chunk of how those mechanisms work and function together is well studied and largely understood. Where we have to agree to disagree is whether or not we're satisfied with what the scientific community has to say about it. There are certainly parts of it that aren't entirely understood, but hypotheses regarding these things are ultimately testable and measurable -- we just aren't done with that portion. The ability to vet a hypotheses against working models of the known principals and forces of the perceptible universe, however small or mundane, is the distinction that sets science apart from the other modes of study one can engage in to investigate phenomena. If a hypothesis can't be vetted within those terms, then it's not a scientific hypothesis.

The question we've come upon, several times, is whether or not that matters.

yet we also know that it is an inescapable and vital part of our life experience without which we could accomplish almost nothing ( including science/

I can see how people arrive at this conclusion. I've encountered it many times during raids on the forums when I was a regular over at Atheist.net. In my experience, there is no real way to discuss this without it unraveling into a debate, but I'll try.

Science goes beyond the senses to make observation. Science uses tools to process data, which we otherwise would be unable to detect, into information we are capable of perceiving. Math is one of these tools, but I am also speaking of chemicals and physical, technological devices. Science isn't empirical in a common sense way. Science doesn't believe in common sense. In science, all must be vetted; further, all must be vetted beyond the limitation of the five senses, by whatever relevant means, and the resulting data must then be converted into a system of data that can be processed by the senses. This is why we know of things like viruses, DNA sequences, super novas, jet streams, tectonic plates, and on and on. These things are not readily observable by the five sense, but they are detectable by mechanisms and procedures that can turn the imperceptible data into something a human being can process. Science doesn't work the way every day experience and perception works -- it just doesn't -- if it did, we wouldn't really know most of what we know beyond what we can touch, taste, smell, hear and see with the naked senses.

Coupled with our ability to reason, these abilities give us plenty of reasons on a daily basis to make accurate decisions including ones like, "I saw an object, and think I may know what I saw." In fact we go much further than that and simply assume that most of the time what we think we see is what is actually there,

Again, you're talking about common sense reasoning, which is science kryptonite. Common sense, as an idea, is the antithesis to the scientific method.

The common sense method is hypothesis --> presumption based on personal experience --> conclusion.

The scientific method is hypothesis --> control-based experimentation --> re-evaluation, weighing data against working models --> revised hypothesis --> control-based experimentation --> confirmation, weighing data against working models --> peer-review, including non-biased, second and third-party, control-based experimentation --> re-evaluation, weighing data against new working models and/or missed information --> working theory/new working model --> continued experimentation

These two concepts aren't in the same ballpark, in regards to what we're talking about.

Again, though, it comes down to how important you think science is in these types of situations. We seem to part ways philosophically when it comes to this.

and that process has worked so well for us over the millennia that it has facilitated our evolution into what we are now.

Which, after having discovered that fact, science has made strides to overcome. It's the very reason the scientific method exists -- our evolution-based, common sense deductions are weak tools in determining "truth." Science is well aware that, up until now, we've never had any use for such types of "truth."

And this process has no doubt also involved countless examples of previously unidentified things. So it isn't reasonable that after literally billions and billions of examples that have led us to where we are today, for science to suddenly step in during the last tenth of a second of this process and declare it invalid because it doesn't meet the "rigors of the scientific method".

But it is, for all the reasons you've just expressed.

If we based our knowledge of the universe on the things we were only able to discern using exclusively the common sense deriving tools that evolution gave us, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Our ancestors had no need for these "truths," as I've said. They were largely satisfied with just making shit up, based on common sense observation (see: Creationism), and calling it a day. To reiterate, science doesn't believe in common sense.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Let me prologue that with the fact that i have no idea what you saw. I haven't yet come across your experience in the personal experiences folder. If you'd link me to it, if it's there, I'd be happy to read it.

Certainly, there are some boundaries that are probably safe to cross. If someone sees an object that: A) they know beyond a shadow of a doubt is actually an object based on how it appears to interact with known objects, and B) has perceptible components that can be readily compared to components of known air/space vehicles, it may not be a leap to say "I saw an object in the sky. It appeared to have components of these vehicles that are known to me." Still, taking that a step further and saying, "I saw an object in the sky. It appeared to be a spacecraft," is a leap that takes the conversation outside of a scientific context.

If someone sees a light in the sky that appears to behave as though it is intelligently controlled, there are no conclusions that can be drawn. For starters, it's an object wholly unknown to the observer. Since the observer has never seen a craft that would be capable of what is being perceived, the observer can't reasonably claim to understand the behaviour of such an object when under the control of an intelligence. There are way too many assumptions being made to reach that conclusion.

That's really the meat of what we're talking about.

 

[Randall]

Agree to disagree, I suppose. A huge chunk of how those mechanisms work and function together is well studied and largely understood ..

Understanding how the "mechanisms work and function" isn't the kind of understanding I'm talking about. I'm talking about the experiences that the physical processes give rise to. For example, an appreciation for tragedy or humor isn't something that can be "understood" scientifically. It can only truly be understood by experiencing it directly. The same goes for any sensory experience. A scientist can look at all the rods and cones in the eye and neurons in the visual cortex all they want and they'll never "see" what that person experienced. So there is no "agree to disagree" on that point. It's just not scientifically possible.

Science goes beyond the senses to make observation. Science uses tools to process data, which we otherwise would be unable to detect, into information we are capable of perceiving. Math is one of these tools, but I am also speaking of chemicals and physical, technological devices. Science isn't empirical in a common sense way. Science doesn't believe in common sense. In science, all must be vetted; further, all must be vetted beyond the limitation of the five senses, by whatever relevant means, and the resulting data must then be converted into a system of data that can be processed by the senses. This is why we know of things like viruses, DNA sequences, super novas, jet streams, tectonic plates, and on and on. These things are not readily observable by the five sense, but they are detectable by mechanisms and procedures that can turn the imperceptible data into something a human being can process. Science doesn't work the way every day experience and perception works -- it just doesn't -- if it did, we wouldn't really know most of what we know beyond what we can touch, taste, smell, hear and see with the naked senses.

Almost ... except I'll remind you about the part you mentioned up at the top, "A huge chunk of how those mechanisms work and function together is well studied and largely understood." You are correct that when something is perceptible on a physical level through a specific type of sensory stimulus, that the process is largely understood. For example we know the properties and limitations of human vision and that is how we can make prescription lenses. We know that when we see something it is caused by the emission or reflection of photons from its surface. The vast majority of the time when that happens, it means that there is a surface of some kind emitting or reflecting photons. The rest of the time our intelligence helps us discern the ambiguities.

You are also correct that tools can be useful. However adding a tool like a video camera or lens into the mix between our own direct line of sight and the object can also introduce errors and other artifacts. It is a third component made of other components each of which raises the probability of error or failure. It's only been more recently that the dynamic range of cameras has come close to matching the ability of human visual perception in a live real time setting. So while it's true that human beings have limitations, within our parameters we are far more remarkable than the typical skeptics give us credit for. They'd have us believe we're all bumbling fools who couldn't ties our own shoelaces unless they invented Velcro for us ( although admittedly, when it comes to some people, that does make me wonder ).

Again, you're talking about common sense reasoning, which is science kryptonite. Common sense, as an idea, is the antithesis to the scientific method. The common sense method is hypothesis --> presumption based on personal experience --> conclusion.

The scientific method is hypothesis --> control-based experimentation --> re-evaluation, weighing data against working models --> revised hypothesis --> control-based experimentation --> confirmation, weighing data against working models --> peer-review, including non-biased, second and third-party, control-based experimentation --> re-evaluation, weighing data against new working models and/or missed information --> working theory/new working model --> continued experimentation

These two concepts aren't in the same ballpark, in regards to what we're talking about.

Again, though, it comes down to how important you think science is in these types of situations. We seem to part ways philosophically when it comes to this.

So what exactly are we talking about. I'm talking about what makes it reasonable to believe something is true, and my claim is that science isn't the only tool for doing that. I think the process of critical thinking does a better job, because not only can it use science when science is applicable, it applies a scientific method like process ( not dissimilar to the process you described above - see this model ) to other issues and evidence that is not recognized by mainstream science. In other words it has all the advantages of science plus some.

Which, after having discovered that fact, science has made strides to overcome. It's the very reason the scientific method exists -- our evolution-based, common sense deductions are weak tools in determining "truth." Science is well aware that, up until now, we've never had any use for such types of "truth."

I have no idea how you justify the above. Our daily experiences and decisions are made up of thousands of small common sense deductions that lead to thousands of small truths, without the knowledge of which we simply couldn't function at all, let alone do science. As for "types of truth". In my view there are only objective and subjective truths. When we see something, every common sense and scientific bit of evidence we have suggests that there is an overwhelming probability that what we see is actually there and not simply an illusion. However even in the case of illusions, we have intelligence enough to deduce many of the exceptions on the spot. Sure there are a few cases that are going to get the better of us, but lining up a bunch of examples to show us where our limits of perception fail does nothing to change the fact that those particular engineered illusions are very rare.

If we based our knowledge of the universe on the things we were only able to discern using exclusively the common sense deriving tools that evolution gave us, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Our ancestors had no need for these "truths," as I've said. They were largely satisfied with just making shit up, based on common sense observation (see: Creationism), and calling it a day. To reiterate, science doesn't believe in common sense.

Making stuff up for the sake of story telling or political propaganda isn't the same as observing for the purpose of discerning the truth. The ancients made use of observations and philosophy to deduce with reasonable precision such things as distances, including the circumference of the Earth and the coming and goings of seasons based on the positions of stars. The ancients were also supposedly just as intelligent as we are, only lacking sufficient information. That information was slowly acquired over time through observation ... in fact the scientific method is dependent on empirical evidence ... evidence that can be perceived by the senses and made sense of by our brain.

 

[Randall]

Let me prologue that with the fact that i have no idea what you saw. I haven't yet come across your experience in the personal experiences folder. If you'd link me to it, if it's there, I'd be happy to read it.

Certainly, there are some boundaries that are probably safe to cross. If someone sees an object that: A) they know beyond a shadow of a doubt is actually an object based on how it appears to interact with known objects, and B) has perceptible components that can be readily compared to components of known air/space vehicles, it may not be a leap to say "I saw an object in the sky. It appeared to have components of these vehicles that are known to me." Still, taking that a step further and saying, "I saw an object in the sky. It appeared to be a spacecraft," is a leap that takes the conversation outside of a scientific context.

If someone sees a light in the sky that appears to behave as though it is intelligently controlled, there are no conclusions that can be drawn. For starters, it's an object wholly unknown to the observer. Since the observer has never seen a craft that would be capable of what is being perceived, the observer can't reasonably claim to understand the behaviour of such an object when under the control of an intelligence. There are way too many assumptions being made to reach that conclusion.

That's really the meat of what we're talking about.

I think you are only partially correct. Even if an observer has never before seen a craft capable of what is being perceived, the observer can still reasonably claim to understand at least some of the behaviour of such an object. For example, the UFO I ( we ) saw had the ability to fly through the air in close proximity to the terrain, land, take off, hover, perform precision maneuvers in the air, stop instantly, and accelerate at incredible speed. Random natural phenomena e.g. ball lightning do not explain this behavior and no Earthly technology could match its performance then ( 1975 ), and probably not even now. It was seen at the same time more than once on the same evening by myself and two friends. The last sighting I experienced alone because my two friends had fallen asleep. I saw it a total of 4 times while completely wide awake and unimpaired.

The object itself was a glowing bluish white sphere seen at a distance of about 3 Km, the core of which appeared to be about as wide as the length of a small car like a VW Beetle. Distances and speeds were calculable from known landmarks and plotted on a map. Given the various facets of this sighting, the likelihood of misperceptions, hoaxes, or hallucinations is vanishingly small. Typically at this point all the skeptics can do is claim I am hoaxing the sighting itself, and I've been accused of that. However in my view, it isn't reasonable to accuse people of hoaxing something unless there is some evidence of a hoax. Still, that doesn't stop some debunkers from claiming every unexplainable case is a lie, no matter how unreasonable that stance becomes due to the thousands of witnesses who have reported similar things.

Where I agree with you is that from the observation alone ( and the vast majoity of UFO sightings in general ), there is no way to claim with reasonable certainty that the UFO is a spacecraft. I didn't see it in space or come from space or exit into space. However when I use the word UFO, I use it unreservedly to mean "alien craft" or the "object that is the subject of a UFO report or investigation". The word "alien" does not necessitate ET, but it does suggest from beyond our known civilization, which in this case I believe is entirely reasonable. Beyond that we can use critical thinking to suggest a "most likely" scenario. When we follow through with that process, I don't see how anything else but ET is the most reasonable explanation.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

I don't really want our conversation to turn into a debate. Mostly because it would be nonsensical, due to this basic clash of our respective world-views:

In my view there are only objective and subjective truths.

We definitely disagree. Given that very basic disagreement -- the inability to define the terms for truth -- we can literally never have a debate regarding the truth of any matter. We did learn more about the way each other think, and that's always a good deal.

As for your sighting, I, again, would never be interested in debating the legitimacy of a sighting. My personal issue with your statement, and what I think people like myself would see as a problem, is your absolute statements regarding what it was "capable of," and the distances of an airborne phenomenon when viewed from the ground by the naked-eye. I could elaborate on those issues, but I don't see any reason it'd be necessary. I am just stating that in response to your "all the skeptics can say is. . .(paraphrase)" commentary.

As a skeptic, I don't see any reason to think that you saw nothing. Neither do I have any reason to think that you didn't see exactly what you described. As I'm sure you can guess by what's been covered, I feel I have reason to doubt that any conclusions could be drawn, regarding the profound nature of the phenomenon, based on your observations.

Through that lens, you saw an aerial phenomenon that appeared to physically resemble a blue orb or sphere. The blue sphere appeared to emit light, as if glowing. The blue sphere appeared to move, from one location to the next, while airborne, in a manner the likes of which you could not relate to any other aerial phenomena you were aware of at the time. These movements seemingly included right angle directional change, perpendicular to and parallel along the horizon line, and hard stops.

To an honest skeptic, that's all fine; it's the very definition of UFO. It's an unidentifiable, airborne phenomenon (though, a lot of people feel that even "object" is presuming to know too much, in most cases). To the dishonest skeptic, presuming your are "hoaxing" or "lying" is perfectly fine procedure -- even though it undermines the very nature of the method they claim to follow.

 

[Randall]

I don't really want our conversation to turn into a debate. Mostly because it would be nonsensical, due to this basic clash of our respective world-views:

So far as I'm concerned we're having a friendly discussion and elements of debate are OK with me because a respectful debate can help to advance us toward the truth. We might even learn how to greater appreciate our "respective world-views". So don't worry. If it seems to get a little tense, I'm not going to start vomiting green ectoplasm. I enjoy our exchanges here a lot because you make really good points and aren't mocking and disrespectful. It is very refreshing

We definitely disagree. Given that very basic disagreement -- the inability to define the terms for truth -- we can literally never have a debate regarding the truth of any matter. We did learn more about the way each other think, and that's always a good deal.

I don't think we've really discussed the concept of truth in enough detail to be sure we actually disagree. The core view of what constitutes truth that I subscribe to is generally called the Correspondence Theory of Truth. That being that if the subject of a proposition corresponds to the actual situation, we can say the circumstance is true. There are several varieties of this theory, and mine follows the branch where there is the assumption that there are objective realities ( a material universe exists beyond the bounds of our material selves ) and subjective ( or abstract ) realities ( our subjective experience of our personal existence, including our internal thoughts, ideas and feelings ). These two contexts have various levels of interplay that can get a bit complex, but are generally divided along the lines between the abstract and the material. If your view of truth is something substantially different than that, perhaps you would like to share ( briefly ).

As for your sighting, I, again, would never be interested in debating the legitimacy of a sighting. My personal issue with your statement, and what I think people like myself would see as a problem, is your absolute statements regarding what it was "capable of," and the distances of an airborne phenomenon when viewed from the ground by the naked-eye. I could elaborate on those issues, but I don't see any reason it'd be necessary. I am just stating that in response to your "all the skeptics can say is. . .(paraphrase)" commentary.

Some of my statements are absolute, but only in a general sense. There are logical reasons based on the parameters of the observations for making them. These parameters make calculations possible that are well within any tolerances necessary to support the statements made. If you want details, go ahead and ask. I'm sure I've already considered them and can provide a reasonable explanation.

As a skeptic, I don't see any reason to think that you saw nothing. Neither do I have any reason to think that you didn't see exactly what you described. As I'm sure you can guess by what's been covered, I feel I have reason to doubt that any conclusions could be drawn, regarding the profound nature of the phenomenon, based on your observations.

It's the nature of skeptics to doubt. I respect that. I offer insufficient evidence for any third party to be able to base their own beliefs on my sighting alone. After all I could be lying. The thing is, how many times are we going to claim that seemingly honest, sane, healthy, intelligent people are lying before we finally realize that doing so isn't reasonable anymore? We've already discussed our scientific understanding of the stimulus response and how human perception, although capable of error, is reliable enough to draw reasonable conclusions most of the time. So what it boils down to for me, is that even if I hadn't seen a UFO myself, and I couldn't pinpoint with any certainty exactly which sighting is true, I believe it's reasonable given all the reports that at least some of them are true, which makes it reasonable to believe that UFOs ( alien craft ) are probably real.

Through that lens, you saw an aerial phenomenon that appeared to physically resemble a blue orb or sphere. The blue sphere appeared to emit light, as if glowing. The blue sphere appeared to move, from one location to the next, while airborne, in a manner the likes of which you could not relate to any other aerial phenomena you were aware of at the time. These movements seemingly included right angle directional change, perpendicular movement along the horizon line, and hard stops.

To an honest skeptic, that's all fine; it's the very definition of UFO. It's an unidentifiable, airborne phenomenon (though, a lot of people feel that even "object" is presuming to know too much, in most cases). To the dishonest skeptic, presuming your are "hoaxing" or "lying" is perfectly fine procedure -- even though it undermines the very nature of the method they claim to follow.

Most of the maneuvers were actually curves. The hard stops were when it stopped instantly after performing the precision maneuvers ( a quadruple lemniscate ). After stopping it hovered momentarily, and then descended straight down into the forest floor. The ascent and descent from the hovering position were the only straight lines ( vertical ) that it made. Its departure seemed fairly straight ( horizontal ), but because it followed the valley north below the surrounding peaks, it probably needed to make some small course adjustments that I wasn't able to discern in the very short time it took to travel beyond my view ( about 1 second ).

 

[dyingsun]

Do you actually sleep, ufology ? Just wondering ..