This could be a Biiiig blow to skeptics...

reply to post by venividivici


............and there you have it. Thank you venividivici for demonstrating my point. Venividivici [dang, your handle is hard to type ] has pointed out a parameter that would be classified as "otherworldly" or "extraterrestrail", but not necessarily "alien". Goodonya. You summed up in a few short words what I was trying to express.

Meanwhile, we'll all keep looking and reading and sifting through the data...... and who knows? It could easily be Venifidivici [now I'm on a roll] who finds the critical clues. A true skeptic will accept the true or even profound perponderance of probability, when presented.

reply to post by ufo reality


I'm very excited to see this one. However, for most skeptics I just don't see this as a 'blow'. To me, since I do have some healthy skepticism myself, I believe any validation of ET visits or tech would be welcomed by the majority of skeptics. The 'skeptics' I feel would actually take this as a blow would be the religious types that would see their faith take a huge blow. Since of course, we humans are the crux of all existence and Gods great creation. There just CAN'T be something else out there like us or even better than us (HEAVY SARCASM).

Looking forward to the show.

www.youtube.com... (BOB WHITE PART STARTS AT APPROX 1:20 MARK. OBJECT WAS FOUND IN 1985!)

Bob White has had heart problems, so I'm glad he finally got what he's been looking for since 1985. Results...


[edit on 4-5-2009 by ufo reality]

Originally posted by argentus


True skeptics are our friends, as they insist upon criteria and measurable parameters and keep us on the scientific path.

Without them, we would be dancing in a world of constant input without challenge, and they make our information and our evidence better.

True sceptics are like wolves .

Just as wolves can improve the gene pool of their prey species over time by culling genetically inferior specimens , such as the slow, the weak and the sickly .
True sceptics chase down the mal-formed , lame ideas often eating them alive . but ultimately its to the long term benefit of, the pool of ideas.





I`m looking forward to hearing more .

[edit on 4-5-2009 by UmbraSumus]

I'm not too confident anything that comes on that UFO hunters show will blow anybody's mind. The old guy with the hat and glasses is just plain nuts. He makes the DUMBEST connections (I mean really, did you hear some of the crud coming out of his mouth on the last episode, lol?).

Speaking as a "skeptic" I will not take offense to being "blown away", lol. Hell, I want to be blown away and will be the first person to sing from the rafters that I was blown away.

Which ever the guy is with the hat and sunglasses ruins the show’s chances of giving any credible information. No matter how solid or plausible an answer he is given he reaches to the depths the twilight zone to prove his point. Only after repeatedly being told he is wrong does he ever say may be it’s this or that. I will watch the show as I have watched all of them. They haven’t shown anything yet to make a believer out of me and it’s unlikely with there track record and the way they investigate they ever will.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by Ant4AU]

Originally posted by venividivici
meteor?

Why does it have to be intelligently designed?

If it is the object I'm thinking of then it looks natural to me.

If it is from space then it could be a chunk off a meteor and not from a spaceship like you imply.

I'm a skeptic, but if it is confirmed "not of this world" then I'm still not convinced there are ET's

My thoughts exactly.
Proof that it is extraterrestrial in origin is a far cry from proof that it came from an extraterrestrial spacecraft.
Proof that it came from an extraterrestrial spacecraft isn't proof that the spacecraft wasn't necessarily made on earth, spent some time in orbit being irradiated etc and then falling back to earth causing it to undergo who knows what kind of material transformation.

Argentus makes some very valid points about how 'believers' should adjust their interpretations of 'skeptics' and dispense with the animosity because like he references Carl Sagan's take on it; just because we demand more doesn't mean we are unwilling to see the truth for what it is.
On the contrary, one who believes on blind faith or a gut feeling might do well to take note of the validity in such a position.

...and around and around we go...

I'm going to make a vision quest to glean a prophecy for you from the future, and tell you what happens. In my left hand I carry an abalone shell to scrape the whispers from the winds. In my right hand I carry a raven feather - which shall give flight to my spirit - so that I may transcend above. In my pocket I carry a bible, because apparently you can claim all kinds of crazy nonsense, but nobody in America will believe you until you say you can correlate your crazy stories to their crazy stories.

Ahem.

The show is going to do jack squat to prove anything to prove anything about anything about Alien visitation - and those who boast this broadcast as being the "smoking gun" that puts skeptics in their place will be ridiculed and mocked at great entertainment value by the skeptics when the evidence indicates that it's absolutely nothing but a means of selling the gullible an 30 mintuies of television programming. But maybe... just maybe... we can find something to question and speculate on just before the show ends, so you don't walk away feeling like you were completely ripped off. Make up your own mind, because we sure as hell ain't gonna put our credibility on the line by actually endorsing this. Be wise and heed my prophecy's message. There will be doubters to my mysticism, yet they are as fools and jealous of their mortal bound shackles. You shall know this by the truth of my prophecy when it comes to pass. In the time before the airing, a great multitude shall sit astride the boundary of acceptance, as a row of Shroddinger's Cats. Do not be fooled by these false hearts. They shall make highly interpretable claims of both objectivity and belief, yet string their words as delicately as a june snow so as to remain in a state of mental superposition. Strongly in favor of whichever future transpires to ensure their claim on the bragging rights as though a personal vindication, yet also dubious of the claim so as to cover their own tail. The wave form shall collapse as the show airs, and you shall see the truth of my words.

Despite my obvious and bad parody, how do you know I'm not really using magic and spiritual energies to talk to cosmic entities - thus making viable prophecy of the future? Why not just accept my claim and believe? It MIGHT be true! I have heard crazier things here before.

Of course, I didn't use magic - and Of course, the show will do absolutely nothing to vindicate the believers in abduction. How can I be so confident? I'm merely using observations of reality, a bit of logic, and extrapolating. First off, if this was anything to make the skeptics eat their words in any way, it would be BIG news. Way, way, way bigger than some pissant show like UFO hunters. They wouldn't be able to hide the findings, nor would they want to. They'd publish their findings in the peer review literature, get vindicated, and go for the Nobel Prize. They would value the importance of such a discovery to the future of mankind and withhold any data -ONLY- until after confirmation so as to avoid the debacle which would ensue if further testing proved them wrong on such an important issue after making a positive assertion.

They would NOT give exclusive rights to broadcast the discovery to a show like UFOhunters if they assigned any shred of importance to their academic credibility. Why? Because the very title of the show itself indicates the strong taint of bias towards a particular series of findings. This is very fundamental disconnect between science and pseudoscience. Pseudoscience (and often arm-chair conspiracy theorists) all too often start with a conclusion and try to "Prove" their theory correct. This is a fallacy, and it opens up your "research" to a wide array of misinterpretations. This is why you so many lose connections often holding these theories together, and multiple different authors telling multiple varying versions of increasingly mutating and converging theories. Even among the most well known and professionally researched theories like the JFK assassination, you'll find all kinds of different versions of events and evidence the author, through the lens of bias, misinterprets to support his conclusion.

On the other hand, Science is a process of disproving. Rather than go from narrow to infinite possibilities, science takes infinite possibilities and uses what we know to be true about the evidence to narrow things down. Keep in mind there are infinite possibilities which may exist, no matter how well established a scientific theory is - it will NEVER be proven. We we always and forever be subject "Our most complete understanding".

While one may perceive a weakness in the position of accepting a "best current understanding" or comfortable strength in the perception of "Proving" - consider the juxtaposition of the human condition in times dominated by pseudoscience or superstition in search of an answer among the infinite (The Dark Ages) - and the current human condition in an age of disproving the infinite using what we know to be true about the evidence (The Enlightenment up to today)

Understand that even if you think a skeptic might be overlooking possible truths due to a lack of evidence, for the skeptic it's a rational cost vs. risk analysis. What are the dangers you expose yourself to by possibly overlooking a certain truth, vs. what are the dangers you expose yourself to by accepting multitudes of various and often conflicting untruths, falsehoods, and misconceptions just so you don't happen to miss that one nugget of actual truth. In physically relatable terms - say there's a fairly expensive cut diamond in the back of a dump truck of putrid garbage. How do you go about searching for it? Do you use a workable definition of what a diamond is? It's characteristics can be considered evidence. You pick up a boot. Diamonds are generally not the size of boots. We also know diamonds are hard substances, but a boot is maleable in your hands. It's always possible that you COULD BE WRONG, but it's a safe assumption for the time being to discard the boot as trash. You can go on... a banana peel, a soiled diaper, a newspaper, etc. You may end up with several organized piles - and only keep the pile which most closely fit the description of a diamond. You might have two stones in the smallest pile - one diamond, one zirconium. They look identical, but you may have to discover more about the qualities of a diamond before you can be reasonably sure you have the right one. And of course, after you're done, you sort the pile again to double check. Then you have someone else who knows about diamonds to sort it out. (Reproducible tests and Peer Review)

A pseudoscientific view (and a line of logic I seem to see a lot of from some members here in the call for open-mindedness) would require one to accept all of the garbage as all possibly diamonds. You never know, they JUST MIGHT ALL BE. Perhaps the garbage stinks a bit, or your arms get tired of carrying it around (in reference to the mental gymnastics to avoid contradictions and apologetics oft employed). You realize you can't get rid of all of it, because you might be throwing out the diamond. So you may employ a bit of the above example's methodology to make educated guesses. The soiled diaper definitely goes out the window (reptilians). However, you've always liked blue... and you don't know everything about diamonds... so there's a few blue stones that somewhat resemble diamonds, but they're blue... so you keep them anyhow. There's a thin blue piece of glass with some sharp edges - it looks nice, so you keep it, because you never know - it might be a diamond. (In reference to the taint of bias, whether intentional or subconscious)

This is all extremely crude, but I really think it's important that people understand the basic concept of a methodology for understanding and why many skeptics are skeptics... and why we sometimes ridicule people who smell like garbage.

reply to post by justsomeboreddude


Um blinking your eyes more does not mean mental illness! I am so sick of people saying this false lie. I asked my own doctor about this and he said it's not true in any way. I AM bi-polar which IS a mental illness and I dont blink my eyes anymore than anyone else.

Side note...I will be looking forward to this episode. Cant wait to see what they say about this metal.

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
reply to post by justsomeboreddude

 

Um blinking your eyes more does not mean mental illness! I am so sick of people saying this false lie. I asked my own doctor about this and he said it's not true in any way. I AM bi-polar which IS a mental illness and I dont blink my eyes anymore than anyone else.

Side note...I will be looking forward to this episode. Cant wait to see what they say about this metal.

I didnt mean everyone with mental illness blinks their eyes a bunch. But here is some evidence you might want to discuss with your Dr. He might need to take a refresher course.

eye blinking and mental illness

reply to post by Lasheic


I'm a bit off subject, but it's an important attempt at clarification.

UFOhunters... ah, well another reason why I say that nobody would use UFOHunters as a source for disclosing such profound revelation is because the History Channel is an entertainment channel. There's a seemingly unaccounted for misconception here for many people. Just because they have an "Educational" angle to their station, and a "History" angle on that, means absolutely nothing and adds no credibility to what you see there. They are for entertainment first and foremost. If they can inform, ok, but it's not a requirement - nor is there a strong pressure for accuracy or accountability in the statements they broadcast. If they are not there to entertain, then ask yourself, why do they show programs about modern loggers, ice road truckers, and manufacturing - when they could be showing the history of those jobs? Why is it that the vast majority of the time when they do have a program pertaining to history - it's general of a war or a piece relating to a recent popular movie or tragic a world event? They're selling you something.

Now, considering the History Channel's bias towards selling things to viewers? See above. They know that maybe, just maybe, you're carrying around a blue piece of glass - and they can entice you with a show that suggests some new research may reveal that bits of blue broken glass are really diamonds.

Oh, and a side note: Many people, including myself, often site publications such as New Scientist as a source. I generally don't have a problem with this, so long as the poster knows that New Scientist isn't a scientific journal, and it's publications are not peer-reviewed, even if they do detail peer-reviewed papers. New Scientist is generally fairly good as a source, because they serve an important function of briefly covering the most important findings across multiple fields - so that researchers can be alerted to important or stories that don't directly relate to their own field. So their niche is important to protect for them, and the only thing which protects them is their own credibility. HOWEVER, they also serve as a liaison between science and the public - so they do slant their publications in wording and what to present with public appeal in mind. Because of this, they've been accused a few times of rampant speculation and misleading articles. It's been called "Scientific Pornography" by some scientists for this reason.

There's a few key characteristics which define it as such that I've found, and I hope a viable demonstration of my thought process. First off, it's not specialized. Scientific Journals are HIGHLY compartmentalized to specific fields of study because there is so much information to take into account in each field that to become an expert in all sciences would be practically impossible. Most scientists are well educated across multiple subjects, but not enough to really keep pace with the people actively working and studying those fields. There's plenty of examples of Physicists not fully understanding Biology, or Cosmologists not knowing much about Paleontology. This is a trick disingenuous creationists have sometimes employed, asking a question about "Stellar Evolution" to a Geneticist.

And again, it's the niche that New Scientist fills, which leads me to my next red flag. The articles do not resemble typical peer-reviewed scientific publications. There's a lot of lingo and professional speak in peer-reviewed papers. They don't pull any punches when it comes to using accurate and exact terms specific to that field - and if you can't keep up or understand the terminology of the field, you have no business critiquing it for errors. That's a job for peers who know what the hell they're talking about, not Joe Blow. New Scientist breaks down discoveries into "layman's terms" using colloquial language. It's not as specified and accurate, but you get a workable concept of it even if you're not familiar in the field.

Because reality works as a cohesive whole, discoveries in one field may profound affect research in a generally unrelated field. Such as Geology and Cosmology. Now expecting everyone in science to have a expert level grasp of all fields is impractical and impossible - so their function allows complex ideas to broken down into simple concepts which can be understood and transmitted far easier - so that scientists can recognize when research in another field may have impact on their own - and thus contact that lab for clarification, expansion, collaboration, etc.

Lastly (because I'm bored and if you're still reading you're probably bored to) - you don't have to pay per paper in New Scientist the way you do for current scientific journals. Although you can pay for subscriptions to both a Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal and Print-Stand magazine like New Scientist - you'll notice that the subscription rates are much higher for Peer Review literature. I really suspect that some people might suggest that this is to keep information out of the hands of the public. This is incorrect. The reason for this is that Peer Review journals do not rely heavily on advertising revenue for their operation. This one of many measures taken in an effort to remove bias - because if they are a significant portion of your funding, they hold leverage over what you publish by threat of cutting the purse strings and seeking other publications. By minimizing advertisement income to supplementary rather than mandatory, there is less of a chance that a conflict of interest or suspected conflict of interest will stall research. So YOU end up absorbing part of the cost of ensuring integrity. Understand that they also employ a larger and more specialized staff than editorial journals - as they must maintain a board of qualified and active peers to review and fact check any submission for errors before it's voted on for approval.

I may be wrong, over-reaching, or have my own misconceptions. I do not intend for this to be a comprehensive textbook example of "The Skeptic Mind" or "The Scientific Method" - this is merely and mostly intended to show a glimpse of some of the stuff that runs through my head when analyzing information for accuracy - with two main examples: A generally trusted source like New Scientist, and what I consider an untrustworthy source - UFOHunters as well as some rational for why.

I don't wish to imply that my methodology is the only workable, because I know mine is susceptible to error. I tend to skim over texts looking for keywords and patterns that indicate what I've come to identify as being associated with both accurate, honest but incorrect, and flat out disingenuous information... and whether or not I should waste my time, look into it further, or bother refuting it.

At any rate, in closing, for some of the reasons I've mentioned above - I feel pretty safe in estimating the format for a cable-network TV show on an entertainment channel will not be "on the scene" as something so profound to humanity as the evidence necessary to positively say "We are being visited" is revealed. Not to mention why it's foolish to boast that it will in any way stifle the skeptics or vindicate a pseudoscientific standpoint.

If there is any semblance of the scientific process at all shown in that program (and it's generally not, because TV and real Academia don't mix well) it may simply confirm the presence of a new alloy we were previously unaware of... and that's it. That's all science could allow them to say. It COULD BE A DISCLOSURE BLOWOUT - but I've seen this dog and pony show before, and it never... ever... ever... turns out that way.

So I stand by my magic prophecy. And if it's right... it'll PROVE that I could tell the future and am magical.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by Lasheic]

Originally posted by dariousg
reply to post by ufo reality

 

I'm very excited to see this one. However, for most skeptics I just don't see this as a 'blow'. To me, since I do have some healthy skepticism myself, I believe any validation of ET visits or tech would be welcomed by the majority of skeptics. The 'skeptics' I feel would actually take this as a blow would be the religious types that would see their faith take a huge blow. Since of course, we humans are the crux of all existence and Gods great creation. There just CAN'T be something else out there like us or even better than us (HEAVY SARCASM).

Looking forward to the show.

I'd like to see the verse that says that! Maybe i've seen it and forgotten the verse, but what i don't have time to forget is that non-religious people all over presume to know the minds of the religious without being part of the group! For a lot of religious people, things are more complicated than that. But, still, it all comes down to where god proclaims humans as the sole creation of the universe. In fact, the existence of angels itself is a simple example of other creation. If you're so smart, point out the example to them so that they can see that it doesn't contradict their relgion. That'd be nice.

reply to post by Lasheic


That is with respect, a terrible analogy... Given most skeptics refuse to believe there is a diamond in the rubbish heap so don't even bother ever looking for it. even if, someone says they think they might have seen evidence of a diamond in the rubbish heap. it's obviously a mis identification because you already *know* there are no diamonds there.

See, diamonds cannot be produced by compaction in rubbish dumps, so it would be pointless looking for them and only a fool would discard one in a dump so the chances of it happening are so far beyond calculation as to be pointless worrying about..

This is fantastic!

How this show has already been debunked before it airs. An incredible feat by the local sceptics here at ATS.

Comments about how someone acts or what they wear or how much they blink. Or how about what channel this show is on, it is entertainment afterall, so it cannot possibly be real or produce any credible evidence.
Nevermind that every show on TV is for entertainment no matter the channel. I am pretty sure most mags are also for entertainment albeit some may have a very narrow audience, but still entertainment, so....

Now I have never seen this show before, it is not on tv where I am. So, I cannot comment on its history or content. But, I thank all of you for saving me the trouble of seeking it out in some form.

reply to post by PowerSlave


You are welcome. We aim to serve the ATS community to the best of our ability. I will make you a video of the last 5 minutes where they summarize they didnt find anything really, but they were pretty darn close. That will save you the other 55 minutes to do something that doesnt lower your IQ by 10 points.

Also, I am glad you came on to defend a show you have never seen before that is almost as good as us debunking it before it airs. I feel a real bond growing between us.

Something rather interesting...The "Jane Goldman Investigates" episode that features this object has been removed from Youtube, for violation of copyright, however, every other episode in the series is still there and openly available..

reply to post by justsomeboreddude

Also, I am glad you came on to defend a show you have never seen before that is almost as good as us debunking it before it airs. I feel a real bond growing between us.

Not quite,

You have obviously missed the point, no worries.

I'm going to assume they didn't discover anything earth shattering. Seeing as how the show is recorded, edited and then shown.

If they discovered something mind altering don't you think they would have yelled to the heavens the day they found out?

Forget wanting good ratings. They would be the most famous people in the world if they found absolute evidence of life outside our planet. There would be no need to wait until their show has played.

I'm glad John's finally getting to this.

The Bob White object has been a big deal for a few people over at the blackvault for several years. I'm sure Larry C. Is going to be on the show, or at least behind the scenes.

See, there was a 100+ page topic about this over at the old BV but with the new site and all new forums all of the old posts are deleted which is a pretty big bummer because there was a ton of information in those threads.

Anyway, if John does this the right way I expect to be very pleased. The good thing about John is that he's still kid enough to dream.

Wonder how one would explain Rhyolite 38

The Falcon needs no clearance some say.

It sees in another dimension altogether.

Any ideas where it comes from and what it's used for?

It's much stronger than a diamond and more valuable than any mineral on Earth though the Earth's gold reserves are impressive for a planet.

It's late, I'll carry on now.

'Good' night/day.

Either way.


[edit on 5-5-2009 by Perseus Apex]