Neil DeGrasse Tyson: ET and DNA

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Back to the OP video, I usually agree with Tyson, but I think his argument about aliens not being interested in communicating with us is a little over the top. I think we are very interested in trying to communicate with other life forms like chimps, dogs, cats, dolphins, whales, etc. Researchers study whale songs trying to figure out their meaning, and the TV show Sea Quest shows one sci-fi view of a computerized translator converting dolphin language to English, which tells me somebody thought conversing with dolphins would be an interesting thing to do.

So yes some aliens might be many times smarter than us but I wouldn't presume that means they aren't interested in communicating with us. It might be as interesting for them to figure out what we are saying as it is for them to try to figure out what their toddler is saying, using Tyson's alien toddler example.

Not to mention if ET is traveling our galaxy or the universe, the act alone shows the curiosity and desire of a species wanting to study life outside of their own. That, or ET looking for a planet to overtake and inhabit.

I think another poorly thought out statement is Michio Kaku's:
"Imagine walking down a country road, and meeting an ant hill. Do we go down to the ants and say, 'I bring you trinkets. I bring you beads. I give you nuclear energy and biotechnology. Take me to your leader?' Or we have the urge to step on a few of them??"

Along with your point of a natural curiosity, if ants were outwardly attempting to communicate with a species other than their own (as humans have actively been doing for years with ET) there's no way a higher species wouldn't be curious.

originally posted by: Scdfa

When it comes to the subject of UFOs and especially alien contact, Neil 'Disgrace' Tyson is a fool. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's just part of the institutionalized cover-up, but when he speaks in this clip about stealing something from an alien ship, it calls his intelligence into question.

I won't bother to point out how absurd his proposal is, for an abductee to steal something from an alien ship, you did a great job of that already. But such a suggestion is so utterly ridiculous that I do tend to think he's being disingenuous.

Either way, I think it would be fair to say that Mike Tyson understands UFOs and aliens better than Neil Degrasse Tyson.

These are physical accounts with physical beings that apparently are as fallible as humans. That's evident by the claimed crashes of these craft. How is it unreasonable to request physical evidence when it's claimed to happen many multiple times? I've pointed this out before, Travis Walton said he picked up an object during his abduction as a weapon to protect himself. There's the opportunity.
Requiring no physical evidence works great for people steeped in a belief. It doesn't work for people searching for definitive evidence of something that's claimed to be physically happening for decades.

He said "ashtray".

That's a foolish thing to say, and he has said it repeatedly. Ashtray. He knows it sounds ridiculous, and by by doing so, Tyson is encouraging people to think alien abductions are ridiculous. Let's hear HIM discuss the Travis Walton case in the same detailed way YOU just did. He won't, because the Travis Walton case is a serious event, and Tyson is intentionally avoiding any serious discussion regarding alien abductions.

Next time he's asked, he'll say ashtray again. And it will get a laugh from the audience, again. That's how disinformation works.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Scdfa
You insist someone SHOW you an alien? And how exactly would that work? I'd love to hear how you would expect that scenario to happen, please enlighten us. I'm sure top people are working on that for you right now. Top people!

The scenario is this. Somebody claims that there are absolutely aliens that really exist and that aren't just a product of wishful thinking or wishful statistics. Okay. I haven't heard of any, but apparently they must be referring to some specific aliens they've had some kind of personal encounter with that proved it to them. So if they've had this encounter, then it must be at least possible to interact with them in some way. I would just like to have that same encounter if they can arrange it. If they can't, you can see why I might be skeptical. I can claim Jesus Christ is my roommate, too. You believe it, right? I don't have to show you.

But I'll even make it easier. I don't even have to see the aliens. Just show me one tiny bit of independently verifiable proof of them, and I'll be satisfied. Just a tiny little thing that a neutral third party would say is proof positive.

How much easier can I make it?

I don't recall the Air Force scrambling jets to chase Jesus Christ for the last seventy years. Do you?

Oh, and you'd like it if someone arranged it so the aliens would abduct you.

Well, I wouldn't wish that on anybody. If you did some research on the subject, you probably wouldn't either. Yes, knowing is an incredible thing, but knowledge like that comes at a heavy price.

He never said how can you not believe in UFOs... he said extraterrestrial life, he's actually a pretty big nonbeliever when it comes to UFOs
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Scdfa

So what do you believe? X scientist (read: disinfo agent) stands up and makes a mockery of the phenomena and skeptics/debunkers/non-believers gather 'round and kowtow to what he says and this somehow further validates for us that we aren't being visited? We're weak minded minions void of any independent thought and seek the voice of someone educated in the field of science to verify and satisfy our non-belief? Now that would be ridiculous. I think the weak minded fare better on the side that believe and buy into anecdotal evidence- i.e. fantastical UFO and abduction stories, unsubstantiated government coverups- conspiracies- disinformation, UFO/alien biased TV shows and websites, etc.

I find believers in this phenomena are the ones that do very cursory and surface investigation, while the other side actually studies the cases at the same time demanding real evidence. That's how it should be for any claim. It's easy and takes little effort to hear a story and take it at face value. It's hard to research a claim in depth.

Double post

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

it's not that cut and dry. i believe ets exist and have been interacting with and hurting/repairing/tinkering with humans for thousands of years. but i also like neil degrasse tyson's gregarious approach and interesting perspective

originally posted by: Scdfa
Ashtray? So there are ashtrays on alien ships? Is that actually your plan? Please keep us posted as things progress. Thanks in advance.

It happens to be a euphemism. You would have caught the reference if you bothered to watch the video.

originally posted by: undo
i'm going with the idea that, if people are abducted and know that they are being abducted, that ETs would have contingency plans for most possible scenarios (like people trying to take artifacts from the ship).

So in that case we are forced to go with wholly unreliable eye witness accounts.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

it's not that cut and dry. i believe ets exist and have been interacting with and hurting/repairing/tinkering with humans for thousands of years. but i also like neil degrasse tyson's gregarious approach and interesting perspective

"Belief" is the key word there. There is absolutely nothing wrong with believing or experiencing. The real issue is forcing personal beliefs into everyone else's personal beliefs. Comments like "I am here to raise awareness of the reality of ET" are problematic if not obnoxious. I do find your perspective refreshing though.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: undo
i'm going with the idea that, if people are abducted and know that they are being abducted, that ETs would have contingency plans for most possible scenarios (like people trying to take artifacts from the ship).

So in that case we are forced to go with wholly unreliable eye witness accounts.

If you can, please detail the differences between "eye witness" and "empirical observation."

originally posted by: tanka418

If you can, please detail the differences between "eye witness" and "empirical observation."

Verifiability.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: undo
i'm going with the idea that, if people are abducted and know that they are being abducted, that ETs would have contingency plans for most possible scenarios (like people trying to take artifacts from the ship).

So in that case we are forced to go with wholly unreliable eye witness accounts.

If you can, please detail the differences between "eye witness" and "empirical observation."

Subjective vs. Objective

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: Scdfa

So what do you believe? X scientist (read: disinfo agent) stands up and makes a mockery of the phenomena and skeptics/debunkers/non-believers gather 'round and kowtow to what he says and this somehow further validates for us that we aren't being visited? We're weak minded minions void of any independent thought and seek the voice of someone educated in the field of science to verify and satisfy our non-belief? Now that would be ridiculous. I think the weak minded fare better on the side that believe and buy into anecdotal evidence- i.e. fantastical UFO and abduction stories, unsubstantiated government coverups- conspiracies- disinformation, UFO/alien biased TV shows and websites, etc.

I find believers in this phenomena are the ones that do very cursory and surface investigation, while the other side actually studies the cases at the same time demanding real evidence. That's how it should be for any claim. It's easy and takes little effort to hear a story and take it at face value. It's hard to research a claim in depth.

Good thing the people of Boston didn't "demand real evidence" from Paul Revere before taking his "anecdotal claims" seriously.

You're giving far too much credit to the vast majority of debunkers and skeptics, who are basically just in the way at this point.

If they can only face the issue by demands of proof achieved through the scientific method, let's see you put some pressure on whatever scientific organization you consider legitimate to do just that. Get on the phone, start a petition, write your congressmen and scientists.

But that would take more effort than demanding proof from an alien abductee in a chatroom, wouldn't it?

And you ask what do I believe? Nothing. I have known alien contact to be a fact since 1966, through direct, first-hand experience. No need for "belief" of alien contact, either you are aware it is fact, or you are not yet aware it is fact.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: undo
i'm going with the idea that, if people are abducted and know that they are being abducted, that ETs would have contingency plans for most possible scenarios (like people trying to take artifacts from the ship).

So in that case we are forced to go with wholly unreliable eye witness accounts.

Yes. That's pretty much the situation.

And the aliens are counting on you to continue to dismiss witness accounts as "unreliable" or "anecdotal" or "unscientific". Their agenda depends on you doing exactly what you are doing. So congratulations.

a reply to: Scdfa
People have been having direct first hand accounts of all sorts of things. Do you believe those are facts to? And why should anyone believe you? Obviously you could be making it up. And its not like you have a track record for being honest.

Here are some facts
People hallucinate
People lie
People will believe in anything

I could just as easily say that I have bigfoot licked up in my basement but you can't see him because he is invisible.

originally posted by: Scdfa
And the aliens are counting on you to continue to dismiss witness accounts as "unreliable" or "anecdotal" or "unscientific". Their agenda depends on you doing exactly what you are doing. So congratulations.

And you know that is their 'agenda' how? They speak to you personally?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

it's not that cut and dry. i believe ets exist and have been interacting with and hurting/repairing/tinkering with humans for thousands of years. but i also like neil degrasse tyson's gregarious approach and interesting perspective

"Belief" is the key word there. There is absolutely nothing wrong with believing or experiencing. The real issue is forcing personal beliefs into everyone else's personal beliefs. Comments like "I am here to raise awareness of the reality of ET" are problematic if not obnoxious. I do find your perspective refreshing though.

Don't equate your personal "belief" that aliens are not here with my first-hand knowledge that aliens are indeed here. Our understanding of the issue in not equal.

And, yes, I am here to raise awareness of the reality of alien contact. Nothing "problematic" or "obnoxious" about that, unless you'd rather cling to a falsehood that learn you have been incorrect. Learning should always be a positive experience, knowledge is power, after all.

originally posted by: Scdfa
Oh, and you'd like it if someone arranged it so the aliens would abduct you.
Well, I wouldn't wish that on anybody. If you did some research on the subject, you probably wouldn't either. Yes, knowing is an incredible thing, but knowledge like that comes at a heavy price.

Who said anything about abduction? If these things actually exist, and they're capable of interacting with people, then just SHOW ME. Show me something solid and provable and undeniably alien. If these things truly exist, it's not an unreasonable thing to ask.

Otherwise, I'm afraid all I have is hearsay and speculation and people telling me that sheer numbers of planets automatically mean more life. Like somehow just having a certain number of planets organizes chemicals into self-replicating and self-aware creatures.