Aliens Exist - Newsweek August 31, 2009

reply to post by yeti101


It's more this kind of talk that gets me:

"Bottom line? No dice." - Seth Shostak
From the same article you quoted.

Here's the link:
www.bigear.org...

My whole point on Shostak is that he is dismissive of the possibility. He even makes it sound absurd in his radio interviews.

In this article cited above, Gray does not come to the conclusions that Shostak surmises. It's Shostak's interpretation of Gray's study.

And he thinks:
"Bottom line? No dice."

and based on what?:
""no signals resembling the Ohio State Wow were detected""

Well I call that dismissing a theory without evidence to contradict the theory.

When Shostak comes on the air, I see a pattern, and can foresee a hit-piece on UFO research. Same as with Jim Oberg.

It seems I'm not the only one to notice this pattern.

If the pattern changes, I'll be pleased, but I really don't expect it to...

-WFA

"To keep our funding we need to keep ourselves at arms' distance from the UFO community." - Seth Shostak

Source:
www.space.com...

"Most of the money for UFO research is private, of course, but the money in SETI is private also. But I see people more willing to investigate UFO sightings and so forth than SETI. The total SETI budget in the US is on the order of 4-to-5 million dollars. We have talked to people who have offered large sums of money who are primarily motivated by their interest in UFOs. But we actually don't get too much of that money because we say this is not that." - Seth Shostak

This one REALLY Bothers me:
"Yes, because I personally don't think they are here. So there really is a difference. If aliens have been visiting the Earth for 50 years, you would think that it would not be so hard to convince a lot of people that that was true. It's convinced 50 percent of the American public, but it's convinced very few academics. As an astronomer friend said to me, if I thought there was a one percent chance any of that was true, I'd spend 100 percent of my time on it. In other words, if the evidence were the least bit compelling, you'd have lots of academics working on it because it's very interesting. To me that says that the evidence is weak from the scientist's perspective. Whereas if we pick up a signal-it's not anecdotal-you may or may not believe it, but immediately what will happen is that anybody with a big antenna will try and prove us wrong. And either they will prove us wrong, or they will prove us right. But there will be very little doubt about it."

-Seth Shostak

Because he then goes on to INSTILL DOUBT in the Wow signal, through subsequent articles discounting the ET Theory.

But that's just my perspective.

-WFA

And he thinks: "Bottom line? No dice."
and based on what?:
""no signals resembling the Ohio State Wow were detected"

Well I call that dismissing a theory without evidence to contradict the theory

No he's not dismissing the possibilty. Only saying that without a repeat detection you cannot definitely claim it was of ET origin. He's saying the evidence must be better before you can say that.

And on the part of donations from ufo buffs. Why doesnt the ufo community or ufologists do something with it? SETI are busy doing their thing and it takes up all their time.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by yeti101]

Originally posted by Nick_X
What is your take on the media now starting to come around about face? TPTB losing their grip? Or slowly trickling more information out for us to feed on??

Well, if you believe what Ian Xel Lungold says about the Mayan calendar, TPTB probably don't have a choice...

Google Video Link

reply to post by yeti101


I suppose you're right in that regard, he does not dismiss the possibility, not directly.

What I find he DOES do (as cited above) is to ridicule the possibility.

This is a more passive means of dismissing the possibility, however it is another way of achieving the same thing.

Let me also be clear, I have no problem with SETI searching for Radio Signals from Space, nor do I have a problem with UFO research being conducted outside of SETI.

What I have a problem with is Shostak's continuing attacks on the UFO research community. Classifying them as pseudo-scientists. Frankly what I've laid out for you in this thread is an assertion, a theory. That is not unscientific. I've tested the theory against the available evidence. That is not unscientific. I've drawn no definitive conclusions, outside the fact that my theory fits with the observable evidence. That is not unscientific.

Shostak groups the UFO research community together, treating amateurs and professionals alike. He ignores the fact that real science is being conducted in this field, and asserts that ONLY through Radio SETI will we ever have a definitive answer. He then goes on to ridicule scientists who theorize that the Wow signal was ET in origin.

His categorization (on national radio and television I might add) of UFO researchers being 'unscientific' is frankly not based in truth.

Hynek, Freedman, Warren, Maccabee, and myself would strongly disagree with his generalized assertions in this regard, just to name a few.

Apparently Arby also takes this stance (Arby is sitting on your side of the aisle here, if I'm not mistaken...)

There is a thread here at ATS about it, that we're both participating in...

Methinks I'm not the only one who notices this pattern of behavior from Shostak.

The 'unscientific' name slinging needs to come to an end, for the UFO research community to be taken seriously in the mainstream media.

-WFA

I saw this. among the repeticious 'CLASSIFIED' he talks of, 'flesh eating' 'enormous size and other worldly strengths', 'our darkest nightmares'

Listen to Rep.John Haller comment 'Jesus' as he reads.

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar


heres an interesting clip showing how ufologists are too eager to come to the conclusion they desire. I dont think they make the best objective investigators.

reply to post by yeti101


How does this account for the serious scientists I mentioned in my last post?

Stanton Friedman for example, or Hynek, or Maccabee, etc.?

Generalization is not the best technique to utilize in my perspective, when your intent is to appear fair and rational. (I'm speaking of Shostak here, and your previous post).

Why not simply admit that just like in Radio Astronomy, or any other field, there are pros out there, and there are amateurs. And the pros are worth listening to and taking seriously?

How hard is that?

Shostak you out there? We give you props for SETI, how about treating serious UFO researchers with the same extended courtesy?

Perhaps Arby is right, and Shostak is changing his tune...

As I stated above, I certainly hope so. It would be a fair and rational change of tune, to a non-discordant key.

-WFA