Obama adviser John Podesta's biggest regret: Keeping America in dark about UFOs.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: BlueMule

I think it's just a test of convictions. When they're new they tend to be a little stiff. They just need some breaking in is all. Or its a superiority thing which could be deep seated. I don't take anything personally and in fact enjoy yanking a chain or two.
The thing to keep in mind is that some people really don't want to know, and will defend their position out of fear or self importance. We can't know which short of a few therapy sessions.
Myself, I'm not certain but the fence is wide and comfortable so I don't mind being here. I however don't discount everything. I consider it all. Some is complete bull and some carries more weight. If I wait for "testable evidence" I'll be left behind. Some things require personal experience that while valid isn't testable. In that case I say hey don't tell me what my experience is. You just can't possibly do that.

No one has told you what your experience has been. At least I haven't. However, when someone makes a claim of fact they place themselves in the camp of science because fact is the purview of science. The fault lies with the fact claimers who subject themselves to the scientific method and then, when they are unable to meet the standards of science to prove their claims of fact, cry foul.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Frith
Can this be considered proof of the U.S. government hiding UFO material in a cover-up conspiracy?

When you have a White House official saying this it has to have some type of weight in that regard.

There have been a few comments from government officials recently that have some monumental implications.

Anytime a person in a position to know the truth says "the public is being kept in the dark" or "I wish I could expose the truth", it means that there definitely is something very big being hidden and they are basically spilling the beans without saying enough to incur the wrath of whichever group deals with whistle blowers.

It doesn't necessarily mean that. It's a common disinformation technique used to create a false impression without presenting any evidence to support the false impression.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: Tangerine

You assume that an off world entity would have DNA that is completely different from anything on earth but everything in the universe is made up of the same stuff. Amino acids make up a life form. Don't you know that the DNA of a mouse and man is over 90% identical? OK we're both from the same planet but water on Europa is the same as water on earth. Amino acids found on meteors is the same building block that formed life on earth. Of course I don't have an alien to prove this but logic says that there would be little DNA difference. A bit of cosmology may help you to see .

No, I don't assume that. Lack of DNA would be as compelling as non-terrestrial DNA. I think you're confusing cosmology with a different field. But I thought you wanted to get off the materialist, empirical bandwagon and here you are back on it again.

a reply to: Tangerine

If I've misunderstood your position, I apologize. It's a tough position to make clear, I know. But you do sort of come across as a typical debunker. At least, in this thread. Outside of this thread I haven't read much of your posting, except a bit here and there, which has frankly rubbed me the wrong way. Not that you should care.

It sounds like you are taking the ET hypothesis to task through a rhetorical appeal to mainstream science. I take mainstream science to task. Our approaches are very different, I think.

👣

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

You're welcome to your opinion. But anyone who preaches about testable evidence doesn't understand the UFO phenomenon. I don't care what he's read.

👣

Jacques Vallee often talks about his frustration with that aspect of the phenomenon. UFO's are completely unpredictable therefore they can not be studied scientifically.

Right, and that is an aspect of liminality. We can get off the material empirical bandwagon by not making claims of fact that put the subject under the purview of science. Let's see how long before someone who claims they want to get off that bandwagon makes a claim of fact and puts the discussion right back in that rut.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Funny how testimony holds up in court . Granted mistakes have occurred in eyewitness testimony but it hadn't stopped people from being convicted by it. a reply to: Tangerine

The rules of science and the rules of law are not remotely the same. It's like comparing physics to hairstyling.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: debonkers

Oh forget it. There's evidence at crash sights, there's evidence in radar records, there's evidence on film but as to a repeatable scientific experiment it doesn't fit the bill so apparently the baby gets tossed with the bath water once again. I don't want to say anything against Tangerine so I'll leave it at "he's one tough cookie to please" ...

Here you are still in the realm of science.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
Yes, the people that insist that this is a purely physical phenomenon hold the topic back. Its the Friedman UFOlogy cult that wants to define the phenomenon. All they are interested in is labeling others that disagree with their views. There is much more to it than this. That's unfortunate.

I tend to agree. After contemplating the topic for several decades, I think that pure objectivism (not the Ayn Rand kind) has failed to produce any significant understanding of real UFOs. There's a strong personal, subjective component to the phenomenon that can't be dismissed regardless how difficult it is to incorporate into any serious scientific study. It has to do with how we collectively and individually perceive and try to define reality.

Unfortunately, a strictly nuts-and-bolts approach just can't do the job, because at this point we fundamentally don't even know how many or what kind of nuts and bolts we have to work with.

I agree. So let's get away from the materialist empirical claims of fact and go in a different direction.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Answer
Jacques Vallee often talks about his frustration with that aspect of the phenomenon. UFO's are completely unpredictable therefore they can not be studied scientifically.

UFO data can be studied scientifically, just like any social science data. Photos can be studied to a point. Traces can be studied in various ways.

But, no, you can't get a UFO to show up on cue and sit still for a good analysis. They show up fairly randomly, they don't look the same, and they don't do the same things. And photos and traces turn out to be pretty much crap that don't really tell you anything definitive.

The fact that we know this about UFOs, however, is kind of evidence in itself, and some generalized hypotheses can be derived from it.

The same can be said for Sasquatch.

It's frustrating when the only data available are from individual sightings and minor traces of (typically non-compelling) physical evidence.

That's true. I've long suspected that Sasquatch is not an entirely material being. But try bringing that up with Bigfoot enthusiasts. I've never met one who would even entertain the notion.

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: debonkers

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Anyone who wants information on UFOs just needs to google them and tons of information comes up.

Or just watch the History Channel or any channel. Its a good thing the government is to dumb to figure out how keep all this highly classified information from getting out.

Ironically, don't you mean "too dumb"?

I have to ask. Are you Scfda? Your posts seem to be identical in just about every way. He stopped posting after a series of his posts got removed then you appeared. Sorry to bother you if you aren't. anyway, good one!

Is Scfda a name? I just get annoyed when people mix up "to" and "too", and "cite" "site" and "sight", and especially "there" and "their" and "they're". Drives me crazy, but I'm sure I've done it too.

On a more personal note if I may, I must say I do not entirely approve of your using a "steal your face" and the Europe '72 ice cream kid in your avatar. I acknowledge you have every right to pick your avatar, but you do a disservice by associating these extremely enlightened men with your personal denialist view. In my humble opinion, of course.

Knowing Phil and Bobby as I do, I can assure you they hold entirely opposite views than you do regarding alien contact. Their views are much closer to mine, if I may be so forward. I'm not asking you to change your views or your avatar, but your views are incompatible with theirs.

Denialist view? From where did that accusation come?

originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: Tangerine

If I've misunderstood your position, I apologize. It's a tough position to make clear, I know. But you do sort of come across as a typical debunker. At least, in this thread. Outside of this thread I haven't read much of your posting, except a bit here and there, which has frankly rubbed me the wrong way. Not that you should care.

It sounds like you are taking the ET hypothesis to task through a rhetorical appeal to mainstream science. I take mainstream science to task. Our approaches are very different, I think.

👣

Actually, I come across as a skeptic, which I am, not a debunker. I would much prefer to discuss UFOs in the context of liminality, trickster phenomena, mythology, etc. than science. I even bore myself talking about testable evidence. I just feel compelled to demand it when people make claims of fact.

originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: Tangerine

If I've misunderstood your position, I apologize. It's a tough position to make clear, I know. But you do sort of come across as a typical debunker. At least, in this thread. Outside of this thread I haven't read much of your posting, except a bit here and there, which has frankly rubbed me the wrong way. Not that you should care.

It sounds like you are taking the ET hypothesis to task through a rhetorical appeal to mainstream science. I take mainstream science to task. Our approaches are very different, I think.

👣

I have been taking the ET hypothesis to task. I agree with you that science is lacking when applied to some fields and UFOs are one of them. That's why I urge people to stop making claims of fact about UFOs because that ties them to science.

a reply to: Tangerine

Fair enough. Have fun with your boring urges. 😯

👣

originally posted by: Tangerine

I have been taking the ET hypothesis to task. I agree with you that science is lacking when applied to some fields and UFOs are one of them. That's why I urge people to stop making claims of fact about UFOs because that ties them to science.

I hear you.

But... people who advocate the ET hypothesis aren't usually aware of the fact that there is a middle ground between ET and swamp gas. So when you're urging people to become aware of their ties to science, you might want to go out of your way to make them aware of YOUR ties to mysticism.

👣

originally posted by: BlueMule

originally posted by: Tangerine

I have been taking the ET hypothesis to task. I agree with you that science is lacking when applied to some fields and UFOs are one of them. That's why I urge people to stop making claims of fact about UFOs because that ties them to science.

I hear you.

But... people who advocate the ET hypothesis aren't usually aware of the fact that there is a middle ground between ET and swamp gas. So when you're urging people to become aware of their ties to science, you might want to go out of your way to make them aware of YOUR ties to mysticism.

👣

I'm waiting for you to start that discussion about liminality. You brought it up so it would be appropriate for you to have the honor of kicking off the ball.

a reply to: Tangerine

I'm willing to discuss liminality as I see it. But I don't want to derail this thread anymore than it has been already. And I've already made my fair share of threads about mysticism and UFOs. So, if you make a thread, I'll participate.

👣

a reply to: BlueMule
I think this would be a good place for discussion:
Project Core

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: BlueMule

I think it's just a test of convictions. When they're new they tend to be a little stiff. They just need some breaking in is all. Or its a superiority thing which could be deep seated. I don't take anything personally and in fact enjoy yanking a chain or two.
The thing to keep in mind is that some people really don't want to know, and will defend their position out of fear or self importance. We can't know which short of a few therapy sessions.
Myself, I'm not certain but the fence is wide and comfortable so I don't mind being here. I however don't discount everything. I consider it all. Some is complete bull and some carries more weight. If I wait for "testable evidence" I'll be left behind. Some things require personal experience that while valid isn't testable. In that case I say hey don't tell me what my experience is. You just can't possibly do that.

No one has told you what your experience has been. At least I haven't. However, when someone makes a claim of fact they place themselves in the camp of science because fact is the purview of science. The fault lies with the fact claimers who subject themselves to the scientific method and then, when they are unable to meet the standards of science to prove their claims of fact, cry foul.

Oh no that's an if someone said that to me scenario. LOL guess it's to be expected we've been at odds this whole thread but no that wasn't a statement or response just a what if...
Peace

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I'll leave it up to Tangerine.

👣

a reply to: Tangerine

I don't know what more I can do other than repeat it again in hopes that, this time, you'll think carefully about it as you read it. Beliefs are never facts. Beliefs are based on faith in the absence of fact. As soon as testable evidence proves something, it ceases to be a belief and becomes a fact.

You really need to get off this 'testable evidence' malarkey. Its not working.

In the statement quoted above you assert, yet again, that testable evidence is required for something to be a fact. Your belief in the evidence is not necessary for it to be fact. And that point exactly - what if you, for whatever reason, do not believe the evidence? Or, what if the fact was a fact all along, including before your testable evidence proved it? The only thing that changed was your awareness of the testable evidence. The fact was the same before, during and after the evidence was presented. Your perception changes, the fact remains the same.

I suggest in the future you take up your argument with Schrodinger's cat.