Skeptics are now trashing Astrophysicist Eric Davis because he talked about UFO's

Talk about predictable. You can be upset all you want and thump your chest because your faith is challenged by those who use critical thinking skills and not following their emotional whims. Aliens have nothing more than anecdotal evidence at best of their proof, funny same thing with angels.
Hmmmm.....

Predictable religious nut ignoring reality to see the world in their own little box.

a reply to: neoholographic

a reply to: neoholographic

My posts aren't for someone like yourself. They are for the sensible majority with better honed critical thinking skills reading this. That's if anyone can be bothered reading what you post.

I eagerly anticipate your 8000 word rebuttal.

a reply to: Lucidparadox

Your post just goes to prove that without politics being involved, me and you could probably sit around for hours and hours talking about the things we have in common that we both like. I'm right there with you, 100%, on your post.

a reply to: Rob808

Why does his opinion bother you, dude?

Anecdotal, fine. I've seen a UFO so I believe in them. If someone else doesn't, I don't really care. But there's definitely something out there, and what I saw was huge, had red lights circling around it, and hovered about 40' off of the ground making no sound at all. This was in the 80's when our technology was cruising along at 8 bit speed.

Is it the fact that Ezekiel spoke about something similar, in the Bible, that bothers you? I think it's pretty interesting regardless of where the word is read or things are seen.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: mirageman

Where did Davis say he briefed Members at a hearing? Did you read what you copied and pasted? It says this.

Mr. Davis said he also gave classified briefings on retrievals of unexplained objects to staff members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Oct. 21, 2019, and to staff members of the Senate Intelligence Committee two days later.

He gave a briefing to staff members. You don't hold a hearing to give a classified briefing to staff members.

You pseudoskeptics are so predictable. You can't debate the substance of what he's saying or his brilliant research so all you have done is try to attack his credibility. Do you pseudoskeptics think people are that stupid?

People on ATS are familiar with the same sorry tactics from the same pseudoskeptics in every thread.

Eric Davis is published in respected Journals, won awards for his papers and consulted the Pentagon on these matters and you and your pseudoskeptic bretheren want to quibble about a hearing that he never said took place. He said it was a classified meeting with staff. That's not the point though. The fact you're taking the time to search committee hearings is just asinine. Did you hear what he said?

Eric W. Davis, an astrophysicist who worked as a subcontractor and then a consultant for the Pentagon UFO program since 2007, said that, in some cases, examination of the materials had so far failed to determine their source and led him to conclude, “We couldn’t make it ourselves.”

AND YOU WANT TO QUIBBLE ABOUT COMMITTEE MEETINGS?? REALLY??

Again, do you think people are so stupid they will say, I'm just going to discount everything he says because mirageman posted Senate Committe Hearings om ATS?

You pseudoskeptics are ridiculous. The man is talking about materials that we couldn't make ourselves and “off-world vehicles not made on this earth” and you think people care that you don't know the difference between committee hearings and meeting with staff?

Look at some of the papers Davis wrote or contributed on.

Curvature Invariants for Lorentzian Traversable Wormholes

On Extracting Energy from the Quantum Vacuum

Testing a Quantum Inequality with a Meta-analysis of Data for Squeezed Light

Interstellar Travel by Means of Wormhole Induction Propulsion (WHIP)

www.researchgate.net...

Do you think people are so stupid that they will discount this groundbreaking news from a credible Astrophysicist and others because you post a schedule for Committee hearings? You and your pseudoskeptic bretheren do the same thing in each thread. Instead of debating the substance of what's being said you Google around the internet trying to find anything to avoid using your brain and actually debating the issues because you just want to bury your head in the sand and not think when it comes to these things.

EXCELLENT RESPONSE!!!!!

a reply to: mirageman

MM....In cased you missed it:

He gave a briefing to staff members. You don't hold a hearing to give a classified briefing to staff members.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: neoholographic

Never heard of the guy and I would never instantly discredit someone for having a discussion on the subject of UFOs.

But there are some obvious red flags scattered throughout your OP that indicate this man is either compromised and is actively engaging in disseminating propaganda, or he is too foolish/naive to know he’s toting an agenda.

He also says that he has recently given briefings to Pentagon officials regarding “off-world vehicles not made on this earth.”

So he “says” he’s given briefings. Ok, I can believe that. But if his assessment was anything other than “we simply cannot confirm that such sightings are of anything otherworldly,” then he’s a liar or a fool.

Unless someone has made the scientific discovery of the millennia, and I missed it, then last time I checked no “other worlds,” let alone other worldly craft, have been confirmed. It’s all pure speculation when the objects in the sky are unidentified.

Well said.

originally posted by: celltypespecific

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: mirageman

Where did Davis say he briefed Members at a hearing? Did you read what you copied and pasted? It says this.

Mr. Davis said he also gave classified briefings on retrievals of unexplained objects to staff members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Oct. 21, 2019, and to staff members of the Senate Intelligence Committee two days later.

He gave a briefing to staff members. You don't hold a hearing to give a classified briefing to staff members.

You pseudoskeptics are so predictable. You can't debate the substance of what he's saying or his brilliant research so all you have done is try to attack his credibility. Do you pseudoskeptics think people are that stupid?

People on ATS are familiar with the same sorry tactics from the same pseudoskeptics in every thread.

Eric Davis is published in respected Journals, won awards for his papers and consulted the Pentagon on these matters and you and your pseudoskeptic bretheren want to quibble about a hearing that he never said took place. He said it was a classified meeting with staff. That's not the point though. The fact you're taking the time to search committee hearings is just asinine. Did you hear what he said?

Eric W. Davis, an astrophysicist who worked as a subcontractor and then a consultant for the Pentagon UFO program since 2007, said that, in some cases, examination of the materials had so far failed to determine their source and led him to conclude, “We couldn’t make it ourselves.”

AND YOU WANT TO QUIBBLE ABOUT COMMITTEE MEETINGS?? REALLY??

Again, do you think people are so stupid they will say, I'm just going to discount everything he says because mirageman posted Senate Committe Hearings om ATS?

You pseudoskeptics are ridiculous. The man is talking about materials that we couldn't make ourselves and “off-world vehicles not made on this earth” and you think people care that you don't know the difference between committee hearings and meeting with staff?

Look at some of the papers Davis wrote or contributed on.

Curvature Invariants for Lorentzian Traversable Wormholes

On Extracting Energy from the Quantum Vacuum

Testing a Quantum Inequality with a Meta-analysis of Data for Squeezed Light

Interstellar Travel by Means of Wormhole Induction Propulsion (WHIP)

www.researchgate.net...

Do you think people are so stupid that they will discount this groundbreaking news from a credible Astrophysicist and others because you post a schedule for Committee hearings? You and your pseudoskeptic bretheren do the same thing in each thread. Instead of debating the substance of what's being said you Google around the internet trying to find anything to avoid using your brain and actually debating the issues because you just want to bury your head in the sand and not think when it comes to these things.

EXCELLENT RESPONSE!!!!!

Thanks.

Pseudoskeptics don't want to deal with the substance of what was said.

originally posted by: neoholographic
The argument from pseudoskeptics goes like this:

Eric Davis has a quirky idea on this subject so therefore I need to question his credibility. See how illogical that is? They can't refute what he's saying so they take one or two things and say you need to question his credibility. In other words, stop thinking about all of the great work he's done or don't read his papers because they can't refute any of those things.

It's illogical pseudoskepticism 101.

Here's an example.

My Brother's girlfriend is a Professor at a local College and she teaches Mathematics. She's also a big believer in Bigfoot. She loves any monster hunting shows and I don't agree with her on some things and we have fun debates on the subject.

Now, because she believes that Bigfoot is real and likes monster hunting shows, does this mean I should call up the College she's worked at for years and say she has no credibility and all of the great work she has done for your school should be totally erased and she should be fired!

Many scientists have what some would call ‘quirky ideas’. Even Newton and Einstein had them.
Attacking one’s scientific work or even worse, attacking someone personally because of it is bad skepticism.

The reverse, however, also doesn’t hold.
Using the brilliance of peer reviewed and accepted papers of a scientist to give credence to his or her quirky ideas is bad science. You wouldn’t defend Bigfoot just because your brother’s girlfriend is a brilliant scientists, would you?

Science should never depend on persons but always depend on DATA. That is what got us out of the Dark Ages.

Data that is published and peer reviewed. Scientists working for years in the shadows of classified programs are at risk to drift off in their own bubble. They may be able to convince staff members that are not knowledgeable in their field, but are they able to convince peer scientists?

As long as we cannot review the data that Eric Davies used in his briefings, there is no way to tell if anything he presented there had any substance.

As far as I know, the objects that have been studied so far might as well be slag from a sputtering chamber and are not very convincing. They came from an unknown source with a batch of mysterious metal pebbles that look remarkably like sputtering targets.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: neoholographic

‘Not made on this earth:’ Top-secret Pentagon UFO task force reportedly expected to reveal some findings

A good ratio of all meteorites found on Earth contain metals that cannot be made on Earth.
Why ?
They probably stemmed from a supernova somewhere.
Just like all material found on Earth

Nope.

Astrophysicist Eric W. Davis, who worked as a consultant for the Pentagon, says the Department of Defense has not discontinued its UFO program. Davis claims even though the DoD says the program’s been shut down, it hasn’t. And he’s still working for it. He also says that he has recently given briefings to Pentagon officials regarding “off-world vehicles not made on this earth.”

nerdist.com...

OFF WORLD VEHICLES NOT MADE ON THIS EARTH!

Vehicles not supernovas.

His briefing was classified. As such, you don't know what was in it.

The papers linked all involve means of conducting spaceflight. For all you know, his briefing could have been about assuming UFOs are alien then giving info on the various means they could use to get here.

Harte

originally posted by: Guest101

originally posted by: neoholographic
The argument from pseudoskeptics goes like this:

Eric Davis has a quirky idea on this subject so therefore I need to question his credibility. See how illogical that is? They can't refute what he's saying so they take one or two things and say you need to question his credibility. In other words, stop thinking about all of the great work he's done or don't read his papers because they can't refute any of those things.

It's illogical pseudoskepticism 101.

Here's an example.

My Brother's girlfriend is a Professor at a local College and she teaches Mathematics. She's also a big believer in Bigfoot. She loves any monster hunting shows and I don't agree with her on some things and we have fun debates on the subject.

Now, because she believes that Bigfoot is real and likes monster hunting shows, does this mean I should call up the College she's worked at for years and say she has no credibility and all of the great work she has done for your school should be totally erased and she should be fired!

Many scientists have what some would call ‘quirky ideas’. Even Newton and Einstein had them.
Attacking one’s scientific work or even worse, attacking someone personally because of it is bad skepticism.

The reverse, however, also doesn’t hold.
Using the brilliance of peer reviewed and accepted papers of a scientist to give credence to his or her quirky ideas is bad science. You wouldn’t defend Bigfoot just because your brother’s girlfriend is a brilliant scientists, would you?

Science should never depend on persons but always depend on DATA. That is what got us out of the Dark Ages.

Data that is published and peer reviewed. Scientists working for years in the shadows of classified programs are at risk to drift off in their own bubble. They may be able to convince staff members that are not knowledgeable in their field, but are they able to convince peer scientists?

As long as we cannot review the data that Eric Davies used in his briefings, there is no way to tell if anything he presented there had any substance.

As far as I know, the objects that have been studied so far might as well be slag from a sputtering chamber and are not very convincing. They came from an unknown source with a batch of mysterious metal pebbles that look remarkably like sputtering targets.

This makes no sense.

Of course I'm going to listen to Eric Davis before I listen to you or any other pseudokeptic.

Until I have reason not to, why wouldn't I give more weight to what Davis is saying?

1. He's consulted with the Pentagon on these issues.

2. He has won Awards for his peer reviewed papers.

3. His papers most deal with high level physics and how technology might be used in the future.

5. Nobody has refuted his claim in the NY Times. Nobody has come out and said he's lying.

So why should I listen to bias, illogical pseudoskeptics on a message board instead of Davis?

These same pseudoskeptics give weight to science and what scientist are saying in every category unless it's something that challenges their blind belief.

When Edgar Mitchell came out and started talking about U.F.O.'s, pseudoskeptics called him a senile old man. Edgar Mitchell can call the President or the Joint Chiefs of Staff and get them on the phone. He has access to information that others don't. So why wouldn't I give weight to what Edgar Mitchell is saying over illogical pseudoskeptics?

originally posted by: celltypespecific
a reply to: mirageman

MM....In cased you missed it:

He gave a briefing to staff members. You don't hold a hearing to give a classified briefing to staff members

Cellty in case you missed it!

The New York Times sneakily changed a paragraph without so much as a word once it became obvious that even classifed hearings were listed publicly on the web.

-----

Mr. Davis said he also gave classified briefings on retrievals of unexplained objects to staff members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Oct. 21, 2019, and to members of the Senate Intelligence Committee two days later.

Archive of NY Times - 23rd July 2020

To

....

Mr. Davis said he also gave classified briefings on retrievals of unexplained objects to staff members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Oct. 21, 2019, and to staff members of the Senate Intelligence Committee two days later.

NY Times now

All without any announcement of the correction at all.

These guys perpetuating this story keep screwing up..from day one with the Mylar Balloon poster to now with this! They keep getting caught out.



They only talk to a controlled circle of people and ensure their stories are questioned too heavily [obviously not as well controlledas they could be!]. Kean is associated with Mellon through UFOData. Davis is connected with Hal 'scientology' Puthoff. Another member of the TTSA board. A company where all of them are employed by the entertainment division.

Employees

As of May 31, 2020 we had seven employees at the company. All of our employees are employed by the Entertainment Division (TTS)

TTSA SEC Filings 2020

So these guys are in fact entertainers playing out a huge LARP for a reality TV show and we are all playing our part.

a reply to: mirageman
So what is the goal of this LARP? Why so much effort being put into such a mix of truth, falsity, real info, disinfo, and with the government involved? Will we eventually be getting “contact” and “disclosure”, but in terms that suit the United States Government, The Intelligence Community, and the MIC?

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Guest101

Many scientists have what some would call ‘quirky ideas’. Even Newton and Einstein had them.
Attacking one’s scientific work or even worse, attacking someone personally because of it is bad skepticism.

The reverse, however, also doesn’t hold.
Using the brilliance of peer reviewed and accepted papers of a scientist to give credence to his or her quirky ideas is bad science. You wouldn’t defend Bigfoot just because your brother’s girlfriend is a brilliant scientists, would you?

Science should never depend on persons but always depend on DATA. That is what got us out of the Dark Ages.

Data that is published and peer reviewed. Scientists working for years in the shadows of classified programs are at risk to drift off in their own bubble. They may be able to convince staff members that are not knowledgeable in their field, but are they able to convince peer scientists?

As long as we cannot review the data that Eric Davies used in his briefings, there is no way to tell if anything he presented there had any substance.

As far as I know, the objects that have been studied so far might as well be slag from a sputtering chamber and are not very convincing. They came from an unknown source with a batch of mysterious metal pebbles that look remarkably like sputtering targets.

Of course I'm going to listen to Eric Davis before I listen to you or any other pseudokeptic.

Until I have reason not to, why wouldn't I give more weight to what Davis is saying?

1. He's consulted with the Pentagon on these issues.

2. He has won Awards for his peer reviewed papers.

3. His papers most deal with high level physics and how technology might be used in the future.

5. Nobody has refuted his claim in the NY Times. Nobody has come out and said he's lying.

Of course you should listen to him … very carefully.

1. If Davis really has indisputable evidence of ET technology, he could publish it and win the next Nobel prize – the ultimate achievement for any scientist. So why doesn’t he? Maybe he knows deep down that his evidence will fall apart when it is scrutinized? Just like the three UAP video’s and `Art’s Parts’ have been torn apart by Metabunk?

2. He refers to Hal Puthoff as `my boss’ in the NY Post interviews.
Hal Puthof is a co-founder of TTSA, a company trying to attract $investors$ by promising they will `transition the transformative technologies behind UAP phenomena to wider applications of public benefit’.
So, they really need you to believe they own exotic UAP materials that give them a head start in R&D.


In the end, science is all about the DATA.

But you ain’t gettin’ any! I wonder why ..?

MAJOR BREAKING NEWS!!!

TTSA has done it again!!!! TTSA has been a godsend to Ufology.

Thank-you Chris Mellon and Lue Elizondo for your efforts despite the dubious efforts of several crackpots (they know who they are) .




WE HAVE A CRAFT BABY!!!!!

originally posted by: celltypespecific
MAJOR BREAKING NEWS!!!

TTSA has done it again!!!! TTSA has been a godsend to Ufology.

Thank-you Chris Mellon and Lue Elizondo for your efforts despite the dubious efforts of several crackpots (they know who they are) .

WE HAVE A CRAFT BABY!!!!!

You are like if Donald Trumps twitter and TTSA advertising had a baby.

a reply to: neoholographic

Do you have links to where he is trashed talked on? I didn't see that in your OP, only you claiming he was hated on.

Apparently Eric D is now saying he won't comment any further because the company he works for is saying he can't talk about this anymore. So that's convenient. This is like Lou saying he knows all kinds of stuff but can't say. I get it you have security clearance blah blah, but don't even hint at it if you aren't going to disclose. Just tell us what you are allowed to say.

"If you only knew what I know, just keep paying me and maybe I'll tell you someday."

These guys are starting to sound like politicians.

Eric Davis is working an intel op.

It is not a crime to mislead or lie to the New York Times.

It a crime however to leak classified information.

Use your brain.

originally posted by: coursecatalog
Eric Davis is working an intel op.

It is not a crime to mislead or lie to the New York Times.

It a crime however to leak classified information.

Use your brain.

Yea, it's hard not to wonder how many of these talking heads are dis info agents or have been fed dis info they are willfully spreading either through full cooperation or just ignorance. It's not at all a secret dis info is one of the CIA's biggest weapons.