NPR Blog: Where's The Evidence For Alien Visits To Earth?

NPR Blog:
I Want To Believe, But Where's The Evidence For Alien Visits To Earth?
by Marcelo Gleiser
Article link:
www.npr.org...

Stan reacts to Gleiser's NPR blog post:
www.ufoupdateslist.com...

not sure what the topic is here
as you have not expressed any thoughts or ideas
just a couple of links....

IMO doods blog is all about getting attention
to plug his book on creationism ....
what better way to do catch your eye
than to mention ALIENS

seems to be the latest tactic for these
wanna be blogger/authors

Ats

reply to post by uforadio
Howdy G, interesting article.

The fact is that no radio signals, no sample of alien technology, no truly real sighting of a UFO that couldn't be explained with far simpler arguments involving atmospheric disturbances, weather balloons or just plain aircraft in funny visibility conditions, have been registered.

Gleiser's being a lazy SOB in this paragraph and shows no evidence whatsoever of having checked his facts. 'Truly real sightings of UFOs' have been documented by scientists, astronomers and his own military and government! He'd know this, if he'd spent a second looking.

Stan's response to the List is practically a 'copy and paste' from just about any reply he makes nowadays. He always manages to squeeze in a book promotion. I absolutely loved the Shough replies in the Hanebau thread from a couple of weeks ago. Comedy gold and a Master-Class of informed intellect over silliness and wishful thinking!

reply to post by uforadio

It's a shame the comment section is closed. I would have liked to add,

Herr Physicist,

I find it amazing that the good doctor is able with a few keystrokes to dismiss out of hand cases like the '56 Lakenheath-Bentwaters incident and the '57 RB-47 incident. Statements like the one that follows,

"The fact is that no radio signals, no sample of alien technology, no truly real sighting of a UFO that couldn't be explained with far simpler arguments involving atmospheric disturbances, weather balloons or just plain aircraft in funny visibility conditions, have been registered."

Are an example of ignorance of the highest order. I take it senior atmospheric physicist James E. McDonald, a man probably far more familiar with the atmosphere than our theoretical physicist friend Marcelo Gleiser, was in error to suggest something of a highly anomalous nature was evident in reviewing these cases. Perhaps this explains why Dr. McDonald as well as physicists like Gordon Thayer and Edward Condon were unable to come up with a reasonable explanation for these incidents as amply documented in the US funded Condon Report.

"In conclusion, although conventional or natural explanations certainly cannot be ruled out, the probability of such seems low in this case and the probability that at least one genuine UFO was involved appears fairly high."
[Edward U. Condon, Ph.D. (1969). Daniel S. Gillmor. ed (html). Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects. University of Colorado: Bantam Books. p.256]

But as the good doctor has instructed us, "... no truly real sighting of a UFO that couldn't be explained with far simpler arguments involving atmospheric disturbances, weather balloons or just plain aircraft in funny visibility conditions, have been registered."

Shall I laugh in your face now or later? I suggest seeking peer-review before publishing in the future. Or at least attempt a literature search. As it stands this op-ed get an "F" for fallacious.

Unimpressed,
-X

reply to post by Xtraeme
You could throw in a Tombaugh or Sturrock too.

Report on a Survey of the Membership of the American Astronomical Society Concerning the UFO Problem: Part 1

Clyde Tombaugh, Mars, and UFOs

reply to post by Kandinsky

Indeed, the real academic paperwork is there! That's what infuriates me. I have several friends who teach at various universities and they know better than to author these sort of inflammatory op-eds. It creates a false sense of "truth" for the average person. Which makes me wonder ... do people like Gleiser really not know there's a real literature base by respected individuals documenting strange things? Because he's right when he says, "Who more than a scientist — who has devoted his/her life to the study of the universe and of life — would love to have conclusive evidence of intelligent life elsewhere? That would be truly amazing!" All my friends and colleagues I've discussed this with understand that the meat and potatoes of UFOs is in understanding transient phenomena. Gleiser is perpetuating a myth that objectively new macroscopic transient phenomena don't exist. This is not only ludicrous ‒ it's self-defeating. Science, like the intelligence community, needs it leads wherever it can find them.

reply to post by uforadio

no truly real sighting of a UFO that couldn't be explained with far simpler arguments involving atmospheric disturbances, weather balloons or just plain aircraft in funny visibility conditions, have been registered.

Absolutely uninformed. This statement is demonstrably false, and that fact has enormous repercussions on this guy's argument. People should really try to refrain from expounding on topics with which they obviously do not have even a passing familiarity. Thumbs down.

Oh come on now, as our own forum moderator greeneyedleo points out in the thread "The Last Official Piece of Evidence...-

"...Day after day I become more disenfranchised with the stuff that is out there being presented as "ufo/alien" evidence. While I believe there are unexplainable and unidentified things up there in the skies....I see nothing that points to some alien origin that we all tend to think of. But I keep reading and watching. Maybe someday something will turn me.....although I tend to lean a bit more towards the supernatural then some little creature from Mars or some other planet (but I think that is a whole 'nother topic in itself)...."

See there? There is nothing that points to some alien origin.

Nothing to see here folks, now move along.

Marcelo Gleiser has simply declared what he believes to be the truth and ignored everything that may contradict his view.

I hope nobody is surprised by this type of anti-conspiracy theory opinion in the media. Its the standard line and always will be.

There is nothing that any UFO buff could show him that would change his mind. Pointless to try.

reply to post by Xtraeme

Which makes me wonder ... do people like Gleiser really not know there's a real literature base by respected individuals documenting strange things? Because he's right when he says, "Who more than a scientist — who has devoted his/her life to the study of the universe and of life — would love to have conclusive evidence of intelligent life elsewhere? That would be truly amazing!"

It's always going to be a suspicion I guess. A couple of my friends (one an industrial chemist) find the whole shebang ridiculous and share Gleiser's views. Not knowing my own interest, it's informative to see that the certainty and ridicule can actually be formed without any agenda or motivation. If Gleiser's certainty is similarly ossified, he already knows that the real literature is a tissue of misidentifications written by the gullible. In that knowledge...why would he waste time looking!?


reply to post by A51Watcher
The difference is that GEL has read about the subject for several years and then offered her opinion. Gleiser hasn't read anything at all and speaks in definitives.

The fact that she hasn't concluded *alien* isn't unusual; several well-known UFO researchers also lean in the paranormal direction. As for the implications to her moderation? I've no complaints. On another website, a moderator leans towards the csicop approach and he's still a good Mod. In this way, what a Mod concludes from the evidence (or lack of) isn't, by extension, a comment on their moderation.

I've a passing knowledge of the subject/material and haven't been able to form a conclusion. The phenomena seems to have a built-in uncertainty that makes conclusions problematic.

reply to post by Kandinsky

Not knowing my own interest, it's informative to see that the certainty and ridicule can actually be formed without any agenda or motivation.

Heh. I always test the waters with friends by making off-the-cuff comments as the conversation wends its way into political topics. With Canadians I proffer, "Did you know your former Defense Secretary Paul Hellyer actively promotes UFO research?" The reactions are priceless. Bear in mind I only know ten or so canucks, but roughly 9 out of 10 feel obligated to distance themselves, "Must be his age. *twirling finger next to their head* Most Canadians don't believe in any of that stuff."

Once they've had their chance to speak I slip in a few unexpected remarks, "Would you be surprised to know the United States Air Force studied the subject for 20+ years?" Usually after saying this the persons body language begins to change from a defensive posture to a slack sense of uncertainty and they get this quizzical look about them. Assuming the person continues to show an interest, I'll throw out a few other factoids. Afterwards it's not uncommon to hear, "I always wondered if there wasn't anything to all those stories. My (insert familial relation) mentioned seeing something pretty weird once out in (random location)."

I find this utterly fascinating. That people on the whole seem to behave in such a way that they give the answer they think is appropriate for the social context. Upon deeper questioning however they tend to show greater interest as long as they feel there's no disincentive or potential of being ostracized for holding a fringe interest. It says a lot about how humans work. I think two words sum it up rather nicely, "group think."

I disagree with both of those blogs.

Yes, there is evidence of Unidentified Flying Objects.

No, there is not any evidence linking Unidentified Flying Objects to "Aliens".

UFOs could be "Aliens" but so far there is no proof.

reply to post by Xtraeme

I find it utterly fascinating that people on the whole seem to behave in such a way that they give the answer they think is appropriate for the social context. Upon deeper questioning however they tend to show greater interest as long as they feel there's no disincentive of being ostracized for holding a fringe interest. It says a lot about how humans work. I think two words sum it up rather nicely, "group think."

This is something I've recently come to accept. It stretches in all directions too, with some members coagulating around the most improbable 'sources/insiders' and defending their 'truth.' They can trot out a list of characters, known frauds, that is breathtaking and eye-popping.

Another perspective is that whatever the enigma is, or is not, it certainly illuminates the psychology of both ourselves and others. I'm not sure of much, but I do enjoy the conversation! Unlike yourself, my interest remains mine and rarely sees the light of day in real life...sometimes frustrating, but it's okay.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

This is something I've recently come to accept. It stretches in all directions too,

Dead on the money! I probably spend more time debating myself than I do anyone else.

Unlike yourself, my interest remains mine and rarely sees the light of day in real life...sometimes frustrating, but it's okay.

It's a tough topic to broach. A pretty sure fire way to talk about it in completely platonic terms is to discuss transient phenomena like TLEs, TLPs, and other oddities. In this way UFOs get lumped in as just another curio.

reply to post by Xtraeme
Oddly enough, the subject just never arises. Women, football, music, work and kids...same old stuff as anywhere else. The UFO enigma doesn't rate very highly for maybe 99.99999% of the world's population.

Whatever draws us to it is quite puzzling when the world has so many other distractions to offer.

reply to post by Kandinsky

That covers most of it! I guess I'm a bit forceful in the sense that I need new people to test my arguments on. Also I find the subject utterly fascinating. Which is kind of funny considering I originally had the attitude, "UFOs are a bunch of nonsense!" The only reason I became interested in all this was because a college friend from way back, who's an artist, was a huge conspiracy nut. In an attempt to save him from becoming a paranoid schizophrenic, I made it my personal goal to debunk all his misconceived notions of how reality works. I had a pretty good record! Not to mention it was a lot of fun trying to come up with new angles to explain away his pet theories. For about a year or so I was able to destroy almost everything threw at me. He must have hated me for it. But lo' and behold, through persistence alone, he eventually stumbled on a case I simply couldn't explain. That's when I spoke with friends in aviation, academia, and still came up empty handed. At that point I realized I had made a huge error in judgment thinking that all the material could easily be dismissed. And furthermore concluded that if the cases were as odd they appeared it was something that desperately needed to be studied.

Moral of the story: everyone needs at least one conspiracy friend!