UFO Rights & Wrongs
As pretty much anyone and everyone within Ufology will be aware, there are many theories beyond the extra-terrestrial one to explain the UFO presence on our planet, including time-travelers, demonic entities, hoaxes, misidentification, inter-dimensional visitors, cryptoterrestrials of the type that Mac Tonnies is searching for, and secret “government projects”.
But it is without the extra-terrestrial hypothesis that still dominates the minds of those who see something truly anomalous at the heart of the UFO puzzle.
In a new post, Paul Kimball says:
“Of all the non-terrestrial theories that have been offered to explain the UFO phenomenon, the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) has always seemed the most plausible one to me. I don’t
think it’s been proved, but I think it’s a better bet than the others on offer when one looks at the evidence, and the science. The evidence seems to indicate that at least some UFO cases
represent a non - human intelligence at work.”
Paul is also refreshingly critical of some aspects of this avenue of Ufology, and those that adhere to it, however - as you’ll see by clicking here and reading the rest of his post.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, June 18th, 2008 at 2:18 pm and is filed under UFOlogy. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit BlinkList Google Ma.gnolia StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Help
- Related News Stories:
- British Police Unveil UFO Drone »
- A Fortean Interview »
- Underground Bases (Pt.1) »
- The UFO Allies »
- No One Publishing UFO Books Anymore »
- Flying Saucer Music #31 »
- Saucers and Special Branch »
- Steiger on Atlantis »
|
Jun 18 2008 
June 18th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
“The ETH supporters may well have it right about aliens being here… but they are almost certainly wrong when it comes to the how, and why, of that presence. If you doubt that conclusion, ask yourself this question - when it comes time for humanity to travel to the stars (as opposed to the Moon or Mars), many hundreds or thousands of years hence, what will we look like as a species, and how would we view another species that we may find on some distant planet that is at our current level of technology? Does anyone really think we would care, anymore than we care about those ants crawling around in our backyard?”
Maybe we won’t care… or maybe, just maybe, in order to reach that level of advancement and survive for such a tremendous amount of time, the first thing to do is to develop a deep sense of respect for ALL living things, and acknowledge the connection between all life in the cosmos; in short, to stop thinking in terms of “us” and “them”, but get rid of the illusion of the ego, and be ONE with all.
Just my 2 cents. Namaste
June 18th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
“Of all the non-terrestrial theories that have been offered to explain the UFO phenomenon, the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH)…I don’t think it’s been proved”
Newsflash: The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis has not been proved — not even close.
“The evidence seems to indicate…”
As we all to often have experienced for ourselves, not everything is always what it seems. In order to know reality as it actually is instead of what it “seems” like, you need to go out and independently verify it for yourself. A “Well, it was here a moment ago, trust me”, does not cut it, but that is exactly what every UFO storytale has been a case of so far.
So what kind of “evidence” are we talking about here? Any ol’ kind of evidence? There is all kinds of evidence for all kinds of things but not all evidence is acceptable and proper evidence. And what is acceptable and proper evidence in a court of law is not even remotely close to what is acceptable and proper scientific evidence. A minimal amount of research demonstrates that when it comes to acceptable and proper SCIENTIFIC evidence of ETs and UFOs, there is none whatsoever.
“What I call ‘Keyhoe-ian’ ufology…is out-of-date, and badly out-of-touch with modern science”
Then why are you the only one who still uses it as a basis for your arguments? A little friendly advice here: try using MODERN scientific arguments in place of strawman arguments next time around, and see where that gets you.
“As Michio Kaku stated in the video I posted here earlier today, we would be to them as ants are to us - beneath their notice”
But only if you think like an arrogant human, like you or Michio Kaku do, but what if they don’t think or reason like an arrogant human does?
“An organism that thinks only in themes of its own survival will invariably destroy its environment and, as we are learning from bitter experience, will thus destroy itself”.
As we humans have been demonstrating for many years now, we have been only thinking of ourselves for the last 13,000 years — everything else is expendable and everything else must adapt to our way of life. There is talk of going “green”, but that is all it is — talk. Obviously a species intelligent enough to traverse light years of space would be a species that learned to not destroy itself and it’s environment; a species that would not want to spread to another part of the galaxy like a plague; a species that would try be as green as possible so as to minimize their impact on the environments they visit. Maybe the visitors are so hard to find because whereas humans are hoping to put a 7-11 on every corner of the Universe, the ETs believe that all life depends on all other life, and in a natural balance, so ants would be very important to them and therefore, they would be so green that they would invisibly blend in with their and our environments.
“If the truth behind the UFO phenomenon is…”
There are no ifs about it, the truth behind the UFO phenomenon is unknown. Anything beyond that truism is — as you would call it — noise.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
“A minimal amount of research demonstrates that when it comes to acceptable and proper SCIENTIFIC evidence of ETs and UFOs, there is none whatsoever.”
The key word in here is “minimal”, which is obviously the extent of your “research” - or else you wouldn’t make such a ridiculous, absolutist statement.
But given what I’ve seen from you here in the past, I expect no less… and no more.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
“That’s the real signal in all of this. Everything else is just noise.”
Yeah I was just reading neuroscience John R. Smythies’ work through Science Citation Index. He was referenced in John Geiger’s book “Chapel of Extreme Experience” about Bryon Gysin’s “dream machine” — a strobe light to produce theta scintillating visual sensations while your eyes are closed.
Anyway so Smythies’ does the same for neuroscience as what you, Kimball, do for “ufology.” Smythies’ own research was an extension of earlier olfactory bulb studies, proving that, in fact, the brain works on what he calls “AM” functions — amplitude modification.
So it’s not what the signal is — there is no “one-to-one” map of brain to “mind” perceptions (even though this continues to be the mainstream science “nuts and bolts” view). Instead the same neuron synapses are used for different sensations so that the same smell activated after a second smell, will now use different neurons. The synapse connections are constantly changing every tenth of a second.
In other words what’s a “signal” and what’s “noise” is based on nonlinear statistics — what science calls “quantum chaos.” They need supercomputers to model this stuff but actual “reality” is too complex (for example the mind of the planet — the Amazon rainforest).
Of course if you get into analyzing what signal and noise means via amplitude, frequency, phase-shift — from a fundamentally nonlinear, non-deterministic framework then on a logically level it’s proven that science itself is just another “dream machine.”
That’s what my blogbook is about: http://www.mothershiplanding.blogspot.com
June 18th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Sage: A minimal amount of research demonstrates that when it comes to acceptable and proper SCIENTIFIC evidence of ETs and UFOs, there is none whatsoever.
Paul: The key word in here is “minimal”, which is obviously the extent of your “research” - or else you wouldn’t make such a ridiculous, absolutist statement.
Just because I am embarrassing you in front of the whole world by exposing your ignorance, is no reason to become hostile. I was referring to minimal research by people like you in general, and here you are again, proving my point all the more. Thank you! I mean, your comment means so much to us, coming from someone that all he had to do was list one or two actual facts to prove me wrong, but he couldn’t even list just one.
Maybe the key word here is “minimal” and judging from the complete and total lack of any scientific facts on your own website, you either have minimal facts or you don’t even know what one is yet — you could prove me wrong on that one too, but I doubt it. Just pick yourself up off the floor, and come back fighting, but make sure you bring some actual facts along with you next time or you might find yourself on the floor again.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Whatever turns your crank, “Sage”, and makes you feel better - rading your stuff always makes me laugh.
You’re the one making the absolutist statements, as always, so why don’t you try backing your stuff up for a change. Deconstruct the RB47 case, and explain to all of us mere mortals why that case would not be of interest to science, as something worth looking into.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Well I think Sage’s real concern here is your secret belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I’ll second Paul’s challenge in his last paragraph, Sage. All I’ve seen
from you in the past, even when the
original article is on a specific case
are variations on (1)”You’re all delusional” or (2) “There is no evidence”. By contrast, Paul’s latest
piece, on the Mantell case is a good
model of investigative journalism, and
I have to say I find that preferable to
your regular outpouring of vitriol.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
“You’re the one making the absolutist statements”
The truth hurts, doesn’t it? When it comes to acceptable and proper SCIENTIFIC evidence of ETs and UFOs, there is none whatsoever. You are supplying us with the “whatsoever” part…again and again. Aren’t you getting tired of me making you look so stupid?
June 19th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
“I’ll second Paul’s challenge in his last paragraph, Sage”
Piece of cake…
Paul: Deconstruct the RB47 case, and explain to all of us mere mortals why that case would not be of interest to science
Objection your honor. The issue is not whether RB47 would be of interest to science, the issue is whether my claim that “when it comes to acceptable and proper SCIENTIFIC evidence of ETs and UFOs, there is none whatsoever” is a “ridiculous, absolutist statement”. So the real question is, does the RB47 case have any acceptable and proper SCIENTIFIC evidence of ETs and UFOs, and the answer is, “There is none whatsoever”.
That was Paul’s dodge and evade for his counterclaim, because he knows — we all know — he has no acceptable and proper SCIENTIFIC evidence of ETs and UFOs, none whatsoever. Absolutist statements are the easiest statements in the world to disprove: simply show us an exception. That fact that Paul could not even do this simplest and most obvious of tasks for my absolutist statement is evidence for his last two posts, is evidence he has no clue what he is talking about when it comes to UFOs or science.
“By contrast, Paul’s latest piece, on the Mantell case is a good model of investigative journalism”
“Investigative journalism” is not the same thing as “proper scientific investigation”, so be careful not to confuse one with the other…oops! Too late!
June 19th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
“Well I think Sage’s real concern here is your secret belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster”
Think again. It is not a secret and by contributing a nonlinear response to this thread, you are increasing the noise level instead of the increasing the signal level.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
I know your ears hang low but can you throw them over your shoulder?
June 20th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Clever rhetoric isn’t science, either
“Sage”. And that is all you’ve offered,
besides deliberate,( and pedestrian)
insults.
You are no scientist. You are simply a
rather pathetic crank.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
When it comes to acceptable and proper SCIENTIFIC evidence of ETs and UFOs, there is none whatsoever.
So please explain how replying with silly New Age pseudoscience or childish ad hominem attacks against ME instead of against THE ARGUMENT GIVEN, is going to provide any proper scientific evidence whatsoever, of ETs and UFOs?
By not providing any evidence whatsoever and by trying to change the subject from ETs and UFOs to “What I think about the Sage”, you are only proving none of you can be taken seriously. If any one of you intellectually cowardly little old ladies wanted to start being a man about it for once, why couldn’t you just admit that I am right — neither you nor anyone else has any acceptable and proper SCIENTIFIC evidence of ETs and UFOs, whatsoever! This fact is so obvious anyway, hence the reason you would resort to such childishly transparent dodge and evade tactics, but what harm could there be from being honest to begin with? By doing otherwise, all you are doing is giving UFOlogy a bad name, but I am beginning to think that maybe UFOlogy deserves to have a bad name — you have earned it for them!
PS — Anytime the subject here changes to THEE RB47 *CASE* (Notice how is always called “case” and not “cases”, Paul? So that kind of make believe strawmen won’t cut it, just in case you decide to get a hankering to use it), I would glad to comment on the ludicrousness of that one fairytale any time. I just hope all of you won’t be such sore losers then too.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
“If any one of you intellectually cowardly little old ladies wanted to start being a man about it for once, why couldn’t you just admit that I am right”
So glad to notice that you’re showing better form than the rest by refraining of ad-hominem attacks yourself, Sage
PS: I agree with what you wrote waaaaaay earlier about man’s arrogance and that “a species intelligent enough to traverse light years of space would be a species that learned to not destroy itself and it’s environment”. When you stick to giving meaningful discussions instead of seeing things as a win-lose competition, your comments are really worth reading.
Have a good weekend.
June 21st, 2008 at 5:55 pm
“So glad to notice that you’re showing better form than the rest by refraining of ad-hominem attacks yourself, Sage”
I’m not trying to be better, that’s impossible, what I am doing is called “tit-for-tat”, and it isn’t ad-hominem because none of my arguments RELY on those “attacks” for my arguments to stand on their own. On the other hand, the people I am trying to have a civilized discussion with ARE basing their arguments on ad-hominem, which is a logical fallacy. For example, two arguments given here were: “I am not contributing to the noise level here because you are a donkey” and “Your argument has been well documented to be incorrect, and to prove it I am going to call you ridiculous and absolutist”. A logically proper and honest argument from either of those two would have been more along the lines of, “I am not contributing to the noise level here because what I claimed is relevent and important to the issue directly under dicussion as I will logically demonstrate as follows…” or “Your argument has been well documented to be incorrect, and to prove it I am going to post some of that documentation”.
“When you stick to giving meaningful discussions instead of seeing things as a win-lose competition, your comments are really worth reading”
To some people but not the people that really count. Don’t take me wrong though. What I mean is that the doctor needs to tend to those who are sick, not to those who are well, and you are not sick…or at least not as sick as the others :^)
“Have a good weekend”
Have a great weekend yourself too.