Lord Martin Rees: Aliens Fascinate Everyone, But Only Kooks See UFOs

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I wouldn't willingly go to a place full of armed people with itchy trigger fingers who kill each other over imaginary currency either.




posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I have always held the perception that the apparent lack of open or direct contact by any ET intelligence visiting earth has one solid foundation to build on and that this very plausible possibility has been right under our noses all along and that is one of an "OBSERVATIONAL AGENDA" with minimal or no direct open contact.First they were observed from afar, then their curiosity led them to direct observations of the worlds aviation or air craft technological capabilities , hence UFO dog fights with ET observational probe crafts, missile launch interferences ect. Makes a lot of sense WHY no open direct contact has yet manifested to date.
edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by mbkennel
 
What if I told you MULTIPLE radar receivers reported the SAME results almost simultaneously in several instances, would you still feel to hold onto that theory?

And please, don't tell me they are all being spoofed.



They might all be spoofed.

Do you not think that Boeing Phantom Works have ever thought of the multiple emitter configuration?



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
I have always held the perception that the apparent lack of open or direct contact by any ET intelligence visiting earth has one solid foundation to build on and that this very plausible possibility has been right under our noses all along and that is one of an "OBSERVATIONAL AGENDA" with minimal or no direct open contact.First they were observed from afar, then their curiosity led them to direct observations of the worlds aviation or air craft technological capabilities , hence UFO dog fights with ET observational probe crafts, missile launch interferences ect. Makes a lot of sense WHY no open direct contact has yet manifested to date.
edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)


Personally, I feel that once ET gets more directly interventionist than passive orbital probes---and the description above is more than that---it is their responsibility to negotiate terms with humans regarding regulation of their activities. They know full well that had they decided to do so, they could. They haven't. They haven't bothered to find out what would constitute an appropriate level of contact and human attitudes thereof either. Space brothers, my posterior.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
"Meet a few known cranks, make some crop circles and leave..." Well that is kind of a disrespectful and rude condescending comment. The fact that we have been visited but have no evidence means nothing. We are traveling deep into the universe via observations and recordings from satellites.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Well, when James McGaha was on Larry King Live, he cited the lighthouse for the Rendlesham Forest sightings, even though the lighthouse had a shield installed to prevent the light from shining into the forest before it first started operation and has never operated without that shield in place.

For the Phoenix Lights case, of course he attributed it to flares, even though the flare drop was an hour and a half after the event.

The better debunkers don't use those arguments, because they know they don't hold up.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
It's an old study, but the facts don't bear Rees out.

"Abstract-Refereed journals, to which scientists turn for their reliable information,
carry virtually no information on the UFO problem. Does this imply
that scientists have no views and no thoughts on the subject, or that all scientists
consider it insignificant? Does it imply that scientists have no reports to
submit comparable with UFO reports published in newspapers and popular
books? The purpose of this 1977 survey of American astronomers was to answer
these questions."

www.scientificexploration.org...



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Lord Martin Rees has it all wrong. It's not "kooks" that see UFOs. According to Stephen Hawking, it's "cranks and weirdos".



Classic post.


I'm sure both Stephen Hawkings and Lord Rees are pretty remarkable men in their chosen fields but when it comes to the UFO subject they're just plain ignorant.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
The UFO thing is kind of outside the area of science because you can't really study it very well. You can't do an experiment or go out and get a UFO to bring back to the lab.

There's no doubt in mainstream science anyone who studies or talks about UFOs isn't really taken seriously. But it's getting better the scientific community is starting to laugh less and listen more and it's not as much of a complete nutter subject as it once was.

There are skeptics who will outright dismiss everything and say basically anything they can think of. Some of the explanations I've heard are more fantastic than some of the incidents themselves.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
With far too many post here dealing with alien Moon bases or anomalies, NASA feed UFOs, UFOs around the Sun, Mars anomalies and UFOs, crop circles, YouTube UFOs, abduction stories, etc... Do you think if Lord Martin Rees or Steven Hawking came to this forum, it would change their mind as to UFO enthusiasts being kooks and weirdos? The subject can't be taken seriously because of all these strange claims and this forum is one example of that. I think including everyone in the visual sighting of a UFO as "weirdos" is wrong, but, if you believe UFOs are here and from another world (by means of your own research, someone else's scientific research, or your own sighting), you give the possibility to every other UFO connected claim. If you believe they are in our atmosphere, logic would say they could be abducting people, making crop circles, be on the Moon and Mars and have bases there, dissecting cows or any of the other odd claims. The entire world of the weird and kooky open up once you believe. Some could be real, some made up. How would you know if you're basing your initial UFO belief on.... a belief?

Let's say the subject is taken seriously, as with J Allen Hynek. He's someone from 30+ years ago that routinely gets quoted and is used as the scientific, intelligent argument in favor of UFOs being something other than man-made. He listens to stories, studies any video, pictures or data and comes to the conclusion that in his OPINION, UFOs can't be from earth. Does it make it any more of a fact? Of course not. All it does is add some type of credibility in the eyes of the people that believe. It does nothing for the people, like myself, who don't believe. Using someone with high credentials in a scientific field, is not going to "convert" or wake up those who don't believe, just from his or her opinion. It takes far more than that, which is what is should take for such an "extraordinary claim".



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimTSpock

The UFO thing is kind of outside the area of science because you can't really study it very well. You can't do an experiment or go out and get a UFO to bring back to the lab.


No, but you can quantify and study aspects like electromagnetic interference effects, radar/visual evidence, ground trace evidence etc.. there are some good examples below but many others out there,


FIFTY-SIX AIRCRAFT PILOT SIGHTlNGS INVOLVING ELECTROMAGNETIC EFFECTS

Stephenville UFO (pdf file)

Minot Air Force Base UFO


If a person can´t use the scientific method to study the UFO phenomenon then what method are they supposed to use?

There´s some relevant statements about the subject at the thread below but I think the first one does a good job of dealing with the endemic UFO ignorance within mainstream science:



"Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments' observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view (prejudice) works against the presentation of relevant data."

Peter A. Sturrock, "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.1, No.1, 1987

Science and the failure to investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena





Originally posted by JimTSpock

There are skeptics who will outright dismiss everything and say basically anything they can think of. Some of the explanations I've heard are more fantastic than some of the incidents themselves.


Therre´s a name for people like that and it´s not ´skeptics´.

Cheers.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Big yawn and sigh from me!
Go to any hospital in the land and trust me they are already amongst us.
I have seen them. To say it like a mild version of 'V' is an inderstatement.
I had a complete breadown over what I saw and am now getting counselling.
I don't know where I fit into all this, but I can spot them a mile off.
One of them showed me the door as his colleague was about to google ' sleep paralysis'.
I looked back and the Doctor concerned was pacing up and down.
The other Doctor looked very embarrassed for me as he didn't know why the other one acted in that way, but I did!



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
It irks me that I know they are wrong ...

Makes me lose a bit of hope in humanity if the supposed "best and brightest" can be so blatantly incorrect.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


I am not a grass lol, but I can name the hospitals in London.
Try any of the big teaching hospitals.
They look like any other human, but check out the eyes.I can't stay on this subject for long as I get a bit tearful.
I now know they have been with me all my life, since I was a child. I worked it out myself, by my own experiences throughout my life.
All started at St Georges at Hyde park corner in the 60's.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12


If a person can´t use the scientific method to study the UFO phenomenon then what method are they supposed to use?



Common sense, their own judgement. Most of us aren't professional scientists and don't know how to use scientific method correctly. As the quote in your post says the subject isn't taken very seriously by the scientific community so the use of normal scientific method of submitting material to journals for review is difficult. It certainly is a very unique subject.


That is also an excellent question. You could use historical method to study the subject. Study the subject as a historian rather than a scientist.
Maybe the UFO subject is more of a historical subject than a scientific one because there isn't much for science to study and most of the material is accounts after the fact just like history.
edit on 3-10-2012 by JimTSpock because: Added stuff.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Ok ok ok!! Hold on, heres my citation.
"There is debunkers, and theres ego wankers ... "

Most scientist we heard from are mostly ego wankers.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by eagleeye2
 


You aren't wrong there. Bastards are still trying to convince me its all in my head.
They are so smug about it too. They really think we are stupid or delusional or attention seeking!!
Err.. I don't thinks so. For one thing I have better things to think about and do with my time.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpoq47
Well, when James McGaha was on Larry King Live, he cited the lighthouse for the Rendlesham Forest sightings, even though the lighthouse had a shield installed to prevent the light from shining into the forest before it first started operation and has never operated without that shield in place.

For the Phoenix Lights case, of course he attributed it to flares, even though the flare drop was an hour and a half after the event.

The better debunkers don't use those arguments, because they know they don't hold up.



I remember that show. My favorite part was McGaha's response to a Phoenix witness who took part in the program when she noted that the shape in between the lights was blocking out the stars and then re-revealing them as it drifted overhead. Astronomer McGaha countered this information with:

"Are you qualified to identify stars?"



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
With far too many post here dealing with alien Moon bases or anomalies, NASA feed UFOs, UFOs around the Sun, Mars anomalies and UFOs, crop circles, YouTube UFOs, abduction stories, etc... Do you think if Lord Martin Rees or Steven Hawking came to this forum, it would change their mind as to UFO enthusiasts being kooks and weirdos? The subject can't be taken seriously because of all these strange claims and this forum is one example of that.


I don't think it would change their mind. In fact, using ATS as one's primary source of information on the subject would probably lead to just such misinformed opinions as those of Lord Martin Rees and Stephen Hawking. However, the core of the subject can be taken seriously despite all of the garbage surrounding it if one makes an effort to distinguish between the various degrees of reliability of the information that is often lumped together under the heading of "UFOs".


I think including everyone in the visual sighting of a UFO as "weirdos" is wrong, but, if you believe UFOs are here and from another world (by means of your own research, someone else's scientific research, or your own sighting), you give the possibility to every other UFO connected claim.


It's not necessary to posit the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs in order to accept the likelihood of their mere existence. Nor does acceptance of the ETH as a possible explanation for some UFO reports compel one to accept every "UFO-connected" claim regardless of its reliability.


If you believe they are in our atmosphere, logic would say they could be abducting people, making crop circles, be on the Moon and Mars and have bases there, dissecting cows or any of the other odd claims. The entire world of the weird and kooky open up once you believe. Some could be real, some made up. How would you know if you're basing your initial UFO belief on.... a belief?


You evaluate the information on its own merits.


Let's say the subject is taken seriously, as with J Allen Hynek. He's someone from 30+ years ago that routinely gets quoted and is used as the scientific, intelligent argument in favor of UFOs being something other than man-made. He listens to stories, studies any video, pictures or data and comes to the conclusion that in his OPINION, UFOs can't be from earth. Does it make it any more of a fact? Of course not.


I don't think that's an accurate representation of Dr. Hynek's opinion, but you are right that one person's opinion does not change the factual status of a proposition (unless the proposition happens to be about that person's opinion). The value of Hynek's writing is not rooted primarily in his opinion of the subject but rather in his extensive involvement with UFO "witnesses" and his intelligent, articulate and informed explication of the facts related to the reports they make.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker

I don't think it would change their mind. In fact, using ATS as one's primary source of information on the subject would probably lead to just such misinformed opinions as those of Lord Martin Rees and Stephen Hawking. However, the core of the subject can be taken seriously despite all of the garbage surrounding it if one makes an effort to distinguish between the various degrees of reliability of the information that is often lumped together under the heading of "UFOs".


I'm sure both men have at least seen some cases beyond the ridiculous type of claims. There continues to be an attitude with some here, that everyone that's skeptical, just aren't familiar with the "credible" cases. That all we see are the weirdo cases. They seem to think if we only read these credible cases, it would change our minds or make the UFO-ET connection a little more plausible. Or, if there was an intelligent spokesman today, we would take notice. That's not going to happen. We're talking about what would be the most incredible discovery in human history, a superior intelligent life visiting earth from another world. Not discovering a new type of bird or insect.


It's not necessary to posit the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs in order to accept the likelihood of their mere existence. Nor does acceptance of the ETH as a possible explanation for some UFO reports compel one to accept every "UFO-connected" claim regardless of its reliability.


There is a direct connection between your "acceptance of ETH as a possible explanation for some UFO reports" and accepting other UFO claim possibilities. I never said you have to accept every claim regardless of it's reliability. That's an unreasonable assumption and one you could conveniently dismiss, as you did. But the fact is, you can't dismiss and would have to focus on some of the claims based on your methodology. One that gives a plausible explanation to something that has absolutely never given us an ounce of anything tangible and real. Prove they're outside of our atmosphere before thinking they're in it.


I don't think that's an accurate representation of Dr. Hynek's opinion, but you are right that one person's opinion does not change the factual status of a proposition (unless the proposition happens to be about that person's opinion). The value of Hynek's writing is not rooted primarily in his opinion of the subject but rather in his extensive involvement with UFO "witnesses" and his intelligent, articulate and informed explication of the facts related to the reports they make.

You're right, I misspoke in reference to Hynek's opinion in regards to ETH. He in fact spoke against the extraterrestrial hypothesis, giving 7 reasons he couldn't accept it. The main argument being interstellar travel being impractical and the immense amount of energy required.





top topics
 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join