Neil DeGrasse Tyson: ET and DNA

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Scdfa
And the aliens are counting on you to continue to dismiss witness accounts as "unreliable" or "anecdotal" or "unscientific". Their agenda depends on you doing exactly what you are doing. So congratulations.

And you know that is their 'agenda' how? They speak to you personally?

Yes, they have. Not vocally, but yes.

originally posted by: Scdfa

Yes, they have. Not vocally, but yes.

I see. So you expect me to take non-vocal messages (telepathy?) as fact?

It is very convenient for your argument to postulate receiving messages and direction in a medium you can never provide proof of use. It enables you to make any claims and assertions you like without recourse to substantiation.

Not really a fan of Neil. I didn't care for the new "Cosmos" at all. He looked like he was on drugs half the time, and the content seemed very watered down.

I actually went and re-watched the original Cosmos because I got so bored with the new one. WOW! Now Carl Sagan had it going on!

I do appreciate that he's getting kids excited about science, but I just don't find him to have that...."authority" about him that Carl Sagan did.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Scdfa

Yes, they have. Not vocally, but yes.

I see. So you expect me to take non-vocal messages (telepathy?) as fact?

It is very convenient for your argument to postulate receiving messages and direction in a medium you can never provide proof of use. It enables you to make any claims and assertions you like without recourse to substantiation.

No, I don't expect anything of you at all.

Yes, it is very convenient for my argument. But I'm not arguing. You asked me a question and I answered truthfully. That's all.

a reply to: Scdfa

You claim to have inside knowledge of an alien 'agenda' and claim I am falling prey to that agenda by challenging what people in this thread are posting as truth. The very fact that you have made that claim shows you have an expectation of engagement with your allegations.

What is to stop me from claiming that I am also in telepathic communication with aliens and they are telling me your telepathic communications are just a delusion while mine are authentic? It ends up turning into a space alien version of 'my dad can kick your dad's ass' game. Claims of telepathy are not proof of abduction or knowledge of plans in any way, shape or form.

a reply to: Scdfa
I am confused. Which part of my on topic post did you disagree with?
How do you distinguish between your invisible aliens and hallucinations?

I'm sensing some negative vibes bro.

I think Tyson was illustrating the total failure of Ufology investigation...his comment about stealing something from the alien craft is making a mockery of the whole culture.

The videos are completely out of context because in the first video posted by the OP and the topic of this thread DNA, he mentions numerous times how much more advanced they could be. Thus they wouldn't be stupid enough for the old, "Hey look over there!" and we steal the alien ashtray off the ship. So why even go there if it wasn't a jab?

The problem is, Tyson only believes that we would be slobbering apes or an ant colony compared to visiting ET.

Every single claim of a UFO or ET encounter has all been witness testimony, so therefor the scientific community says we have not been visited. Tyson would not be a scientist if he believed in the witness testimony. Also the claims from citizens don't seem to suite his beliefs when it comes to intelligent life in the Universe. As in alien abduction from Greys, DNA experiments, even UFO sightings by credible people.

The whole amateur astronomer claim seems a bit silly to me because that is a very very small community of people to compare to anyone who could see a UFO. I think Tyson has a little bit of journalism in himself with opinions like this.

The other thing I'd like to point out that the accumulation of witness testimony about ET visitation seems to suggest that we are slobbering apes to them. If they are visiting and all we have is witness testimony to the point where it can be scoffed at by the general public for decades as looking for the Easter Bunny; then I'd write that up as really really advanced ET. Their physical presence is so advanced, might not even be physical, that their existence is like a myth.

Now wouldn't that be the behavior of something with 1% more DNA than us? Where their children draw string theory with crayons and put it on the fridge and orchestrate symphonies with their xylophone?

If they can't be detected by our top scientists, then Tyson's theory of whom would be visiting us, is in fact visiting us! The problem is there is no evidence. Maybe the lack of physical evidence has made the scientific community come to the conclusion of how advanced visiting ET are/could be.

Maybe the scientific community is using that fact from Ufology to help them in science but gives Ufology zero credit. Example: we have been studying UFO's and alien abduction for over 50 years with no evidence, so if we are being visited, the ET would be far superior to us because they would be undetectable and we would be like an ant colony to them.

The fact that we have not had the campy b-movie style aliens visit us is quite telling that only super advanced ET would be visiting us and the difference between us and them is so overwhelming that we won't even be able to detect them!! That to me sounds like our current situation! It is also the opinion of the world's top scientist. Because Ufology has not produce a single piece of testable evidence, if we are to have visitors we wouldn't even know.

In this conclusion there is a subliminal message that believes in the UFO phenomenon to the point witness testimony has influenced people to think in the possibility of their claims and ET visitation in general. Ever since the first UFO sighting, people have wondered are we being visited. Some ancient cultures may have thought this all along.

Unless we have detected them and it's all covered up by the Government, we have very strong presumptions that we are being visited based off of witness testimony for generations and some may say centuries...if only we could produce evidence that would satisfy the scientific community to make it a fact. How could we produce or find the evidence if we are slobbering apes or a colony of ants?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Scdfa

You claim to have inside knowledge of an alien 'agenda' and claim I am falling prey to that agenda by challenging what people in this thread are posting as truth. The very fact that you have made that claim shows you have an expectation of engagement with your allegations.

What is to stop me from claiming that I am also in telepathic communication with aliens and they are telling me your telepathic communications are just a delusion while mine are authentic? It ends up turning into a space alien version of 'my dad can kick your dad's ass' game. Claims of telepathy are not proof of abduction or knowledge of plans in any way, shape or form.

No one is stopping you from claiming anything, true or false, if that is what you want to do. And I neither ask nor expect you to accept what I say, that is entirely up to you. But you asked me a question and I answered it truthfully, make of it what you will.

originally posted by: game over man
I think Tyson was illustrating the total failure of Ufology investigation...his comment about stealing something from the alien craft is making a mockery of the whole culture.

The videos are completely out of context because in the first video posted by the OP and the topic of this thread DNA, he mentions numerous times how much more advanced they could be. Thus they wouldn't be stupid enough for the old, "Hey look over there!" and we steal the alien ashtray off the ship. So why even go there if it wasn't a jab?

The problem is, Tyson only believes that we would be slobbering apes or an ant colony compared to visiting ET.

Every single claim of a UFO or ET encounter has all been witness testimony, so therefor the scientific community says we have not been visited. Tyson would not be a scientist if he believed in the witness testimony. Also the claims from citizens don't seem to suite his beliefs when it comes to intelligent life in the Universe. As in alien abduction from Greys, DNA experiments, even UFO sightings by credible people.

The whole amateur astronomer claim seems a bit silly to me because that is a very very small community of people to compare to anyone who could see a UFO. I think Tyson has a little bit of journalism in himself with opinions like this.

The other thing I'd like to point out that the accumulation of witness testimony about ET visitation seems to suggest that we are slobbering apes to them. If they are visiting and all we have is witness testimony to the point where it can be scoffed at by the general public for decades as looking for the Easter Bunny; then I'd write that up as really really advanced ET. Their physical presence is so advanced, might not even be physical, that their existence is like a myth.

Now wouldn't that be the behavior of something with 1% more DNA than us? Where their children draw string theory with crayons and put it on the fridge and orchestrate symphonies with their xylophone?

If they can't be detected by our top scientists, then Tyson's theory of whom would be visiting us, is in fact visiting us! The problem is there is no evidence. Maybe the lack of physical evidence has made the scientific community come to the conclusion of how advanced visiting ET are/could be.

Maybe the scientific community is using that fact from Ufology to help them in science but gives Ufology zero credit. Example: we have been studying UFO's and alien abduction for over 50 years with no evidence, so if we are being visited, the ET would be far superior to us because they would be undetectable and we would be like an ant colony to them.

The fact that we have not had the campy b-movie style aliens visit us is quite telling that only super advanced ET would be visiting us and the difference between us and them is so overwhelming that we won't even be able to detect them!! That to me sounds like our current situation! It is also the opinion of the world's top scientist. Because Ufology has not produce a single piece of testable evidence, if we are to have visitors we wouldn't even know.

In this conclusion there is a subliminal message that believes in the UFO phenomenon to the point witness testimony has influenced people to think in the possibility of their claims and ET visitation in general. Ever since the first UFO sighting, people have wondered are we being visited. Some ancient cultures may have thought this all along.

Unless we have detected them and it's all covered up by the Government, we have very strong presumptions that we are being visited based off of witness testimony for generations and some may say centuries...if only we could produce evidence that would satisfy the scientific community to make it a fact. How could we produce or find the evidence if we are slobbering apes or a colony of ants?

Science has failed you. Epic fail, one might say.

Some people put their faith in science as if it were their religion. Well, when it comes to this subject, that faith is unfounded.

Science will never find evidence if it refuses to look for evidence.

a reply to: Scdfa

How does science not look for evidence of ET or ET visitation? I would argue that they do....Hubble, Kepler, Mars Rover, Dawn, SETI just to name a few...With ET visitation, have we not recovered physical evidence from UFO landing sights? How do we know radiation is involved? How have we theoretically back engineered a UFO from witness claims? Have you ever looked up blue prints of a flying saucer?

We already know how to in theory build one but have never produce a single piece of physical evidence that alien space craft exists. Yes we haven't built one due to the costs, and discovery of exotic matter, but in theory we know how to make anti-gravity craft and deep space propulsion in theory. There are many scientific articles you can read about this, and a lot of the ideas came from both science fiction and UFO sightings, i.e. not making a sound, disappearing and reappearing out of space time, extreme high velocities, stopping on a dime, hovering, 90* turns, and emitting different colors (ionizing the air around the craft).

So there is definitely lots of scientific involvement, the problem is we can't go much further than what I mentioned above because all we have to go by is word of mouth. For now, in essence it's just a camp fire story, and a good one at that.

originally posted by: Scdfa

But you asked me a question and I answered it truthfully, make of it what you will.

I will consider it to be accurate, as personal truth is based on perception, when I have tangible evidence.

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa
I am confused. Which part of my on topic post did you disagree with?
How do you distinguish between your invisible aliens and hallucinations?

I'm sensing some negative vibes bro.

RETURN TO SENDER

So you dont have answer? Lets say you are at a dead show selling your crafts and freeloading off of whoever you can and then suddenly you are abducted. How do you distinguish between which reality you are in? Its rhetorical because you can't. There is nothing you have shared with anyone that shows that you can distinguish between what you think is physical reality and what isn't.

That is the issue. Everything you experience as reality can be hallucinated to. That is a fact. Without some tangible evidence to back up your claims, what you have is a story. Now that you have confessed your association with a band who's fans are known to hallucinate, where does that leave us? Why do you think there is an association with UFOs and aliens among those dirty people?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: tanka418

If you can, please detail the differences between "eye witness" and "empirical observation."

Verifiability.

LMAO!

No actually they are one and the same...

Eyewitness: someone who has knowledge about an event through first-hand experience via any of the senses.
Empirical: originating in or based on observation or experience

To say "empirical observation" is actually a wee bit redundant, since anything observed IS empirical.

But, as you can see there is no difference, except in your mind. ALL of science is based on this empirical paradigm, without the ability to observe with our senses we can learn absolutely nothing. Thus the "empirical" aspect becomes rather important.

The problem you have is more one of data acquisition, in that typically these "eyewitness" accounts are of a one shot event; never to be repeated...which does kind of trip up the scientific process. But, again, it is an issue of data acquisition, rather than reliability.

Further extending this line of thinking; it is likely your own laziness that prevents you from separating out the valid/useful data from what you would otherwise inappropriately dismiss.

What if WE finaly get to the point of
INTERstellar travels? Like "young" ftl travels.

What IF we as a semiintelligent species find
a planet, with a "lesser" inteligent species.
Would we abandon it, just because they are
not smart enough...??

Ofcource we cant base other species on our
own.. But we have to start somewere...

originally posted by: tanka418
LMAO!

No actually they are one and the same...

While you are busy laughing your ass off I suggest you recheck the definition instead of trying to play 'gotcha' which is rather juvenile:

em·pir·i·cal
(ĕm-pîr′ĭ-kəl)
adj.
1.
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.

b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

Let me know when any eyewitness account is provable.

But, as you can see there is no difference, except in your mind. ALL of science is based on this empirical paradigm, without the ability to observe with our senses we can learn absolutely nothing. Thus the "empirical" aspect becomes rather important.

See above. Observe and verify.

The problem you have is more one of data acquisition, in that typically these "eyewitness" accounts are of a one shot event; never to be repeated...which does kind of trip up the scientific process. But, again, it is an issue of data acquisition, rather than reliability.

The fact that you said it 'does kind of trip up the scientific process' supports what I am saying.

Further extending this line of thinking; it is likely your own laziness that prevents you from separating out the valid/useful data from what you would otherwise inappropriately dismiss.

No, lazy is claiming all these abductions occur with zero evidence and expecting people to take you legitimately.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
Except very few people these days and, as far as I see, nobody in this thread or in this forum has started that they think we are alone.

I'll jump in. We're alone until we find somebody else.

You can throw out numbers and talk about probabilities versus possibilities all you want. But hypothetical aliens don't really exist. If there's a real alien somewhere in a galaxy a hundred million light years away that we'll never know about or interact with, on a practical basis, they don't exist.

IF tree falls in the forest, and there is no one around to hear it; does it make a sound?

Ya know man...using modern physics I can prove that a sound was made, without needing to actually "hear" it, even IF I can't get specific about that actual unique sound that was obviously made.

Same applies to Extraterrestrials...I do not have to produce one to prove they exist!

The root of your fallacy - we know trees and forests exist, and we know that trees fall down - even in the forest.

Harte