@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I and 3 other people around me saw 100 feet over our heads a slow moving triangular vehicle float over our heads and disappear behind some rooftops without making a sound. However you decide to rationalize that, it's wrong. The point is I don't. I believe you are convinced of what you thought you saw. It's yours to own. I've seen some strange stuff in my life too. Perhaps that's why you think I'm not listening as I commented on the 'UFO phenomena' in general without specifically critiquiting your personal experience.

There's plenty of former government employees who will tell you it's not a 'phenomenon'.... http://www.disclosureproject.org/

@Lou

While there may be government employees who say X that doesn't mean X is true. Remember there is also LOTS of disclosed US documentation that UFOs were used to cover up airplane, missile, and rocket events. Other nations, definitely USSR, used the same sort of subterfuge. Such as this event over Norway. There's certainly been a bunch of mundane events, such as seeing venus and thinking it's a UFO, where people are confused.

I go back to the vast majority of 'UFO' events are evidenced by human, natural causes, or some mixture. There's a small handful of events that aren't as well evidenced. As such it's unfair to draw any conclusion as it'd not be based by evidence but instead emotion and gut feel of the observer. These remain as Unidentified. We can't claim LGM when again we don't know they are LGM.

On a personal note I think meeting aliens would be very cool. Who knows if it'd be positive, eg sharing, or negative, eg enslavement. Either way it would certainly be world changing.

Last edited by BrianK on 27-Sep-2011 at 12:28 PM.

@BrianK

So you are choosing to ignore all the Gordon Cooper interviews then, I see...

@Lou

Quote:

So you are choosing to ignore all the Gordon Cooper interviews then, I see...

Nope, just like any claim I'm asking for evidence. Statements are admissions but not guarantees of evidence. If we give Gordon Cooper's statements an acceptablity w/o collaborating evidence we'd be giving him more weight due to authority. This argument from authority fallacy is a problem. Thus, to help eliminate that we need collaborating evidence. IMO we research Gordon's claims but it would be wrong to accept them w/o fact checking. And that fact checking is fairly impossible as Gordon claims the government promptly covered up the incident and stole all the photos. At most I can say Gordon said he saw something and we have no evidence that he did or did not.

Again this doesn't ignore what he said but insteads asks for more support to help eliminate the problem of accepting an 'authority' w/o review.

Also, Gordon can only comment on the couple he said he saw. This doesn't change the case that the vast majority of UFO events are man-made or natural causes with the case of misidentification by the observer.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: So you are choosing to ignore all the Gordon Cooper interviews then, I see... Nope, just like any claim I'm asking for evidence. Statements are admissions but not guarantees of evidence. If we give Gordon Cooper's statements an acceptablity w/o collaborating evidence we'd be giving him more weight due to authority. This argument from authority fallacy is a problem. Thus, to help eliminate that we need collaborating evidence. IMO we research Gordon's claims but it would be wrong to accept them w/o fact checking. And that fact checking is fairly impossible as Gordon claims the government promptly covered up the incident and stole all the photos. At most I can say Gordon said he saw something and we have no evidence that he did or did not. Again this doesn't ignore what he said but insteads asks for more support to help eliminate the problem of accepting an 'authority' w/o review. Also, Gordon can only comment on the couple he said he saw. This doesn't change the case that the vast majority of UFO events are man-made or natural causes with the case of misidentification by the observer.

If I told you my name is Lou, you'd probably ask to see my ID then from there want to compare it to 100(or more) other IDs from the same state I'm from.

I'm suprised you believe you are even really here...

@Nimrod,

See, science does try to prove or disprove every useless assertion:
http://news.yahoo.com/scientist-sky-confirms-shining-moon-behind-frankenstein-224125429.html

@Lou

Quote:

my name is Lou, you'd probably ask to see my ID then from there want to compare it to 100(or more) other IDs from the same state I'm from.

I find it a bit interesting in your very next post you did what I've been requesting.

The case of an authority, Mary Shelley, was fact checked with evidence, of lunar cycles and weather patterns, to understand if her description was a flight of fancy or true. Here we accepted the idea postulated by the authority and sussed out the truth through using evidence. There isn't anything different in the example of a pilot who sees a UFO. This is the same case of an authority, a pilot, that needs to be checked with evidence to undrestand if his description was a light of fancy or the truth.

In the particular case of Gordon we have the excuse of evidence not existing because of the government cover up. We can't fact check with that as it's not evidence. It's heresay supporting heresay. At some point one must introduce evidence on which to weed out we're not jumping to a conclusion by trusting Gordon's title.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: my name is Lou, you'd probably ask to see my ID then from there want to compare it to 100(or more) other IDs from the same state I'm from. I find it a bit interesting in your very next post you did what I've been requesting. The case of an authority, Mary Shelley, was fact checked with evidence, of lunar cycles and weather patterns, to understand if her description was a flight of fancy or true. Here we accepted the idea postulated by the authority and sussed out the truth through using evidence. There isn't anything different in the example of a pilot who sees a UFO. This is the same case of an authority, a pilot, that needs to be checked with evidence to undrestand if his description was a light of fancy or the truth. In the particular case of Gordon we have the excuse of evidence not existing because of the government cover up. We can't fact check with that as it's not evidence. It's heresay supporting heresay. At some point one must introduce evidence on which to weed out we're not jumping to a conclusion by trusting Gordon's title.

And my point is that she was right despite people not believing her for hundreds of years...

BrianK, you strike me as having a blindspot:
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/ufo_hypothesis.pdf
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/ufo_ic_blind_spot.pdf

Last edited by Lou on 27-Sep-2011 at 06:06 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 27-Sep-2011 at 05:51 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

And my point is that she was right despite people not believing her for hundreds of years...

Since external evidence was not available to validate her statement. I'd argue those not believing her were just as wrong as those that believed her. In both cases the person made a judgement call based upon authority of Mary. Those who enjoyed and liked Mary favor the truth option. Those that didn't like Mary favor the false option. -- Neither of those people had external collaborating evidence to facilitate and make a fair logical conclusion. Sure one was right and one was wrong. But, that was simply a matter of dumb luck based on favorism and was not based in understanding. Now that collaborating evidence is available this lends greatly to the Mary was telling truth choice. Choosing this path is now less based on gut favortism and more on an improved understanding of the possible events at play.

Quote:

BrianK, you strike me as having a blindspot:

I'd say my 'blind spot' is I'm much less comfortable with saying the gut is always right and more comfortable saying multiple channels of collaborating evidence is a better indication.

I don't see many of the hypothesis.pdf applying. I certainly never said 'all' events. I've accepted that most have been able to be explained by non-alien causes. And those claimed to be aliens are much worse, often not at all, evidenced outside the observer.

I find the blind_spot.pdf curious. Certainly people are shocked by new things. This I've agreed to and that's why we need collaborating evidence to validate the viewer. In each case (take #8 for instance) the Americans made decisions based on gut reactions. They didn't get the evidence, which the soviets had, of the missles. This sort of thing backs up what I'm saying. It's with better evidence of the situation that we're better able to understand it's true implications.

BTW - one he missed is the US dropping the bomb on Japan. At first Japan decided this bomb was so nearly impossible the USA only had 1 atomic weapon. They didn't evidence this through intelligence. Their 'gut reaction' was wrong. They kept fighting and this earned them a 2nd atomic drop. They reacted strongly in the opposite direction. They again didn't evidence their conclusion and used their gut. They figured if the US could afford to drop 2 atomic weapons that we must have built up a huge stockpile. With this decision Japan surrendered. .... Now this, of course, was what the Americans were hoping would happen. What do you think would have happened if Japan knew there wasn't an armada of nuclear weapons ready and the US had shot their two and it would be months, if not a year, before enough materials would be mined and refined for a 3rd drop? EVIDENCE is important to conclusion.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou BTW - one he missed is the US dropping the bomb on Japan. At first Japan decided this bomb was so nearly impossible the USA only had 1 atomic weapon. They didn't evidence this through intelligence. Their 'gut reaction' was wrong. They kept fighting and this earned them a 2nd atomic drop. They reacted strongly in the opposite direction. They again didn't evidence their conclusion and used their gut. They figured if the US could afford to drop 2 atomic weapons that we must have built up a huge stockpile. With this decision Japan surrendered. .... Now this, of course, was what the Americans were hoping would happen. What do you think would have happened if Japan knew there wasn't an armada of nuclear weapons ready and the US had shot their two and it would be months, if not a year, before enough materials would be mined and refined for a 3rd drop? EVIDENCE is important to conclusion.

I think you are missing the point about being blindsided by the existence of extra-terrestrials on our planet....blindspot was mentioned in the first pdf. I linked both because it shows that the NSA is not blindsided...now you on the otherhand...

Oh and since my first ufo memories are from my early childhood while living on the Azores, as an adult, I was better prepared...

Last edited by Lou on 27-Sep-2011 at 07:48 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

I think you are missing the point about being blindsided by the existence of extra-terrestrials on our planet....blindspot was mentioned in the first pdf. I linked both because it shows that the NSA is not blindsided...now you on the otherhand...

I thought my previous post covered this but perhaps not. There's a subtleness here that I'm trying to describe.

First, is the group of believers that accept someone saw something and that something is a UFO. They accepted the heresay at face value. They failed to find collaborating evidence. If their conclusion is correct it's only through dumb luck.

Second, is the group of blindspotters that deny someone saw a UFO. They deny the heresay at face value. They failed to find collaborting evidence. If their conclusion is correct it's only through dumb luck.

Third (what I promote) is a group that accepts someone saw something and claim that something to be a UFO. This group gathers evidence that collaborates the truth of the situation. As per the example in the document this group isn't blindsided. Instead because they collaborated factual evidence they find the UFO isn't a UFO but instead a cigar shapped aeroship filled with Nazis.

Going back to UFO phenomena when the question is asked what evidenced UFOs we have we look at the work done to suss out the truth of the observer. The vast majority (about 95%) are cases of misidentification. Like the above the observer said they saw a UFO but it was a cigar box filled with Nazis. The rest, a small minority, are one's that are 'insufficent data to make a conclusion'. The remainder, 0, are an observed and evidenced UFO sighting. While we may expect in the future to see a similar pattern this shouldn't discount that someday we might have an evidenced alien visitor. The odds of this are probably difficult to determine but might have relation to the Drake equation.

Last edited by BrianK on 27-Sep-2011 at 10:09 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I think you are missing the point about being blindsided by the existence of extra-terrestrials on our planet....blindspot was mentioned in the first pdf. I linked both because it shows that the NSA is not blindsided...now you on the otherhand... I thought my previous post covered this but perhaps not. There's a subtleness here that I'm trying to describe. First, is the group of believers that accept someone saw something and that something is a UFO. They accepted the heresay at face value. They failed to find collaborating evidence. If their conclusion is correct it's only through dumb luck. Second, is the group of blindspotters that deny someone saw a UFO. They deny the heresay at face value. They failed to find collaborting evidence. If their conclusion is correct it's only through dumb luck. Third (what I promote) is a group that accepts someone saw something and claim that something to be a UFO. This group gathers evidence that collaborates the truth of the situation. As per the example in the document this group isn't blindsided. Instead because they collaborated factual evidence they find the UFO isn't a UFO but instead a cigar shapped aeroship filled with Nazis. Going back to UFO phenomena when the question is asked what evidenced UFOs we have we look at the work done to suss out the truth of the observer. The vast majority (about 95%) are cases of misidentification. Like the above the observer said they saw a UFO but it was a cigar box filled with Nazis. The rest, a small minority, are one's that are 'insufficent data to make a conclusion'. The remainder, 0, are an observed and evidenced UFO sighting. While we may expect in the future to see a similar pattern this shouldn't discount that someday we might have an evidenced alien visitor. The odds of this are probably difficult to determine but might have relation to the Drake equation.

What about a 4th group that accepts that throughout recorded history and in ancient texts that these things have been happening. Realizes that the technology of these beings is far more advanced than ours. Realizes that most of the time they try not to disturb us but occassionally may want to run an experiment and does so while minimizing the disturbance to the natural habitat of the lower species? What about that group BrianK?

Last edited by Lou on 28-Sep-2011 at 12:31 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

What about a 4th group that accepts that throughout recorded history and in ancient texts that these things have been happening.

This is really a case of the the first set I described. The people that believe so much that they fail to evidence the observations before drawing their conclusion. They give authority to the book and haven't fact checked with collaborating evidence. Again they may be correct but if they are it's a matter of luck. They leapt to the conclusion based upon faith of the writer's truthfulness of the story. Again this is like those who believe Mary Shelley without checking the lunar cycle and weather to help support why her story is true. I would classify this as another case of the first example I laid out.

Personally, I find it sad that we haven't found alien technology in some ancient ruins. It'd be very cool to have a neighbor that intermittently drops by for a spot of tea.

Oh getting back to the Elenin faithists. The first 2 out of 3 days of darkness were sunny and warm here.

Last edited by BrianK on 28-Sep-2011 at 02:14 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: What about a 4th group that accepts that throughout recorded history and in ancient texts that these things have been happening. This is really a case of the the first set I described. The people that believe so much that they fail to evidence the observations before drawing their conclusion. They give authority to the book and haven't fact checked with collaborating evidence. Again they may be correct but if they are it's a matter of luck. They leapt to the conclusion based upon faith of the writer's truthfulness of the story. Again this is like those who believe Mary Shelley without checking the lunar cycle and weather to help support why her story is true. I would classify this first group as ones with a conclusion based upon faith. Personally, I find it sad that we haven't found alien technology in some ancient ruins. It'd be very cool to have a neighbor that intermittently drops by for a spot of tea. Oh getting back to the Elenin faithists. The first 2 out of 3 days of darkness were sunny and warm here.

Well, first of all, I have argued many times that the megalithic structures of ancient times could not have been built by mearly sticks, string and sweat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfFRFPJbsHM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUjYsOXm3IA&feature=related
The great pyramid is not a tomb like pudnits like a poster in this thread would have you believe, there was never any saccaphagus in it. Advanced alien technology from the past would have probably beamed microwave radiation around the globe where ever needed using satellites that they have since salvaged. Also, much of ancient times is still buried. When individual ooparts are found like the Baghdad battery thousands of years later, pudnits say it didn't make enough power in it's present condition but in reality you can base it's power on it's present condition... Ofcourse there are more interesting things like the manna machine...there is also the Ramayana writings. Also, much of the ancient world is still buried. Every desert shows signs of nuclear explosions as if there was some war in the ancient past. Even biblical (read: sumerian) texts referring to Sodom and Gamore describe such events.

So we every ancient culture claiming(documenting) to make contact with people from the stars. We have accounts throughout history of ufos and more recently the abduction phenomenon. We have former government employees making statements confirming the existence of extra-terrestrial visitation. Government documents showing preparation for alien cultural interaction...

Eye witnesses are good enough for a court of law but not good enough for a court of BrianK. All, I can say to someone like you is that you should probably go dig up your birth certificate to make sure you are who you think you are because without proof positive you can never really be sure that you are indeed BrianK...

@Lou

Quote:

Well, first of all, I have argued many times that the megalithic structures of ancient times could not have been built by mearly sticks, string and sweat.

The fact that you keep making this claim does not make it true.

Quote:

The great pyramid is not a tomb like pudnits like a poster in this thread would have you believe, there was never any saccaphagus in it. Advanced alien technology from the past would have probably beamed microwave radiation around the globe where ever needed using satellites that they have since salvaged.

But there is photographic evidence taken as the tombs were being opened that show the sarcophagi. Not to mention plenty of that vaunted eyewitness evidence you claim to believe so strongly.

And I would ask you to explain how this advanced microwave technology somehow left no radioactive isotopic trace whatsoever, but you've made it clear that you are a radioactivity denialist as well as a gravity denier, so there's really no point, is there?

Quote:

When individual ooparts are found like the Baghdad battery thousands of years later, pudnits say it didn't make enough power in it's present condition but in reality you can base it's power on it's present condition... Ofcourse there are more interesting things like the manna machine...there is also the Ramayana writings.

Mistranslated writings twisted to fit stories by pathological liars.

The Baghdad 'battery' was used to electroplate gold foil onto silver objects. That's all that it could possibly have been used for, because that's all it can generate enough energy to achieve. And you can't just claim 'it used to be different' without any evidence for that.

You seem to like courts, so I'll explain your method of 'archaeology' in court-ish terms. Your judge is coming up with a verdict based on gut-feeling before the trial begins, during which it is the prosecution's job to find, invent or twist whatever evidence there might be to prove that verdict. There is no defence, because the judge considered infallible.

I'm sure you wouldn't like to live under that legal system, so why are you trying to impose that level of madness on science?

And another wheeze, the manna machine. A magic machine to make algae, right?



Quote:

Every desert shows signs of nuclear explosions as if there was some war in the ancient past.

We've been over this one before as well.

You have stuff-all geological knowledge, and your source has stuff-all geological knowledge. I happen to know what sand fused by a nuclear explosion looks like. And I can tell you, there are no such fused sands anywhere outside of the known sites of twentieth century nuclear testing, with the exception of the shocked quartz pertaining to large bolide impacts in the geological past.

That's geological past, so think millions of years, don't just reach for your fraudulently mistranslated Sumerian to try to 'prove me wrong'.

Quote:

So we every ancient culture claiming(documenting) to make contact with people from the stars.

No we don't.

We have lies peddled by greedy hacks with books to sell, looking to make a fast buck from gullible fools.

Quote:

We have accounts throughout history of ufos and more recently the abduction phenomenon.

If I might be so frankly rude as to suggest my honest opinion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination#Cause

Take your pick.

Quote:

We have former government employees making statements confirming the existence of extra-terrestrial visitation.

Do we really.

If the governments of the world really wanted this sort of thing kept quiet, do you not think that your sources would have met with a quiet end out of public view by now?

Since its an American former-government source we're concerned about, let's think about how the United States has been handling other troublesome cases lately. Raid followed by a hasty sea burial was the favoured method in a certain recent case I'm sure we're all familiar with. Or, since it is former government employees we're talking about, perhaps the recent wikileaks arrests provide a more plausible blueprint for what would happen to this Gordon fellow, were he actually spilling the highly classified beans.

Or there's the good old standby, the 'traffic accident'. Or any number of other ways a troublesome voice might be silenced. Or, for those of a squeamish but rich disposition, the dissenting former employee could simply be bribed into silence.

But we don't see any of that happening to these former government employees. I wonder why? Could it be because they don't actually know anything, and are just spinning a story to sell books and get interviews on TV?

Quote:

Government documents showing preparation for alien cultural interaction...

Even assuming you're right, which you're not, but for the sake of argument let's go with it... so what?

Quote:

Eye witnesses are good enough for a court of law but not good enough for a court of BrianK.

Indeed, eyewitnesses are good enough for the court of Lou, but only when they agree with Lou.

All those eyewitnesses who saw the sarcophagus being opened, who saw that the contents of the Egyptian pyramid tombs were statues, jewelry and luxury goods, not advanced technology, all the eyewitnesses who have seen that their UFO is in fact Venus, or the Moon, or just a plane...

None of those eyewitnesses count, because they disprove Lou. And that can't be right, can it?

Of course it can.

Last edited by T-J on 28-Sep-2011 at 09:08 PM.

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou [quote]The fact that you keep making this claim does not make it true.

The fact that you deny it doesn't make it false.
End of story...

@Lou

No, the fact that all the evidence shows it to be wrong makes it false.

End of story.

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou No, the fact that all the evidence shows it to be wrong makes it false. End of story.

The facts? Unless you have a time machine and can take me there, your facts are speculation.

End of story.

@Lou

That cuts both ways, Lou.

Fire up the DeLorean and show me the space aliens. But of course you can't, so your theory fails. It isn't even 'speculation', which I suppose is your word for 'rational conclusion based on the evidence presented'.

End of story.


@thread

I do wonder what kind of legal system Judge Lou would run: 'Not guilty? Clearly speculation, hang him anyway!'

@Lou

Quote:

Well, first of all, I have argued many times that the megalithic structures of ancient times could not have been built by mearly sticks, string and sweat.

Again we're looking not just for arguments but validated evidence. The above statement ends up being one conjecture used to support another conjecture. You now have two conjectures to evidence. AND, you now have a relationship betweening the two to prove. Not doing so results in magnifing the problem, not resolving.

As for the Giza Power plant. Let me cite from the webpage of the 1998 book. Though the power plant theory may explain every characteristic and noted phenomena found within the Great Pyramid, without actually replicating its function WOW! Again what we have here is the case of conjecture without validated evidence. How much stronger this could be if the author built small models retainting an exact scale and materials and did some measures. Does the ion count really end up higher as conjectured? Do Microwaves really result, as conjectured? Again you have piled on conjecture not evidence.

And yes the Bible describes Soddom and Gormorrah. I know it well. A fairly sad story of a father willing to whore out his daughter and later commits incest. Just because such a story exists doesn't mean aliens did it. I hope you can imagine how a comet or asteriod entering the atmosphere and splitting to pieces would rain hellfire on a town. This need not be alien nuclear weapons. What's the truth? Again evidence the conclusion not hope you choose the right answer. Let's find 'soddom' and see what materials are there. Matter cannot be converted to energy without some loss and therefore, evidence.

Quote:

Eye witnesses are good enough for a court of law but not good enough for a court of BrianK

Not really. The better cases are evidenced. Fingerprints, weapons, samples of blood, DNA, the babycam, etc. Along with eyewitnesses. In many of the cases you mention you didn't have eye witnesses. You had heresay where person X believes the eye witnesses in Egypt would have seen the pyramid as a battery.

The 'documentation from the stars' is questionable. How about the various religions that have a punishment for souls underground. Take, for example, Orpheus who went into a cave to get to hades and retrieve his love. -- How many caves exist where we can bring back our dead relatives? Just because it's written doesn't mean that its a true representation of reality. They clearly wrote their beliefs in Gods, you might call aliens. You must evidence that the 'God' was truly an alien and not a construct.

Last edited by BrianK on 29-Sep-2011 at 04:26 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 29-Sep-2011 at 02:45 AM.