UFOs revisited

"My big point is that the scientific method has been applied, by people far more qualified than anyone here to do so..."

Danny, you have accused me of being arrogant.

I respectfully submit that you are being vicariously and voyeristically arrogant.

You never did provide any relevant quotes to support your contentions of statements made by Stephan Hawkings.

I feel compelled to quote you again:

"I am certain my assertions would not pass even a high school science class teacher's requirements.
I am a tad lazy about such things."

From this thread:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=306645

I will not comment on Paul Hill, since I have not read his book. It may be some time before I do, since I think that there are more important things to spend what money I have upon. I will have to wait until it appears in the library.

I will not post a CV here. But I have spent the majority of my adult life learning and practising science, much of it in prestigious institutions. I have a few publications in peer reviewed journals, though not as many as Mr. Hill, I'm sure.

People who who find themselves in positions such as the late Mr. Hill's arrive there due to a combination of scientific/engineering accomplishment (which in some part depends upon chance and timing), hard work, interpersonal skills, lots of politics, manigerial skills, and sheer drive to be at the top at any cost. That doesn't mean that such a person has any greater handle on the scientific method than anyone else.

Without knowing everyone who posts on this thread, not to mention the late Mr. Hill, I think that your quoted assertion is quite preposterous, and indeed offensive.


I note that there is no shortage of scientists most honored for seminal contributions to their areas of expertise which were fully supported by empirical evidence, who proposed theories and speculations outside or even close to their areas of their area of expertise which have been discredited, or currently exist as controversial and largely unimportant eddies of science with a paucity of factual or experimental support.

Examples are, Heisenberg's speculations regarding crystals and living organisms, Linus Pauling's theories of massive doses of vitamin C, or Fred Hoyle's thoughts regarding the origin of life on Earth.

Buttressing one's own unsubstantiated beliefs or speculations with those of similar beliefs by others who happen to have made great strides in tangentially related though properly executed science or engineering does not change the fact the the issues in question remain unsubstantiated beliefs or speculations which could be and are made by anyone.

Everyone is human.
 
"Does anybody else notice that UFOs seem to change with the times..."

Well of course! Nobody drives the same vehicle today that they did 35 years ago - except Bill Martino.
 
Sorry Firkin, this is the thread were on right now, of you want to discuss some other thread, go post there.
IF you cant accept that one of the NASA HNIC's is more qualified than you at UFO science, then at some point we will have to crown you "omniscient human and god-emperor of the universe."
Offended ?
Please...
 
HOLD IT GUYS!

There are lots of big words being used in this thread that is WAY to big for my little pea brain. I was following along OK until the $64 words started showing up:
spewing derision
Click to expand...
vicariously and voyeristically arrogant
Click to expand...
seminal contributions
Click to expand...
(like in sex???:eek: )
paucity
Click to expand...
omniscient human
Click to expand...
Please just use words like arsehole, you suck, eat me, etc. I and the rest of the Jarhead world would greatly appreciate it. This is an interesting thread and I want to be able to keep up with the debate.

Thank you.

Semp
 
Oh Semper, you are such an expert at deflating big-headed *******s like me.

I will officially quit talking about UFOs if you guys all agree to eat a big plate of hot crow when my ship flies.
Deal ?
 
Hi Danny,

Ideally, scientific types should simply be persuaded by the evidence, so hopefully most of us who profess some training or experience in science would happily accept any good evidence about flying saucers.

Problem is, right now that evidence doesn't exist. Until it does, scientists have not only the right but indeed the obligation to be harshly skeptical. Only by maintaining severely high standards of critical thought can we presume any measure of confidence in our theories. The same is true of all forms of academic inquiry -- high standards, clear methodologies, and established limits give them a reliability that is lacking in any form of UFOlogy, including books by astronomers, flight engineers, etc.
 
Semper Fi said:
HOLD IT GUYS!

There are lots of big words being used in this thread that is WAY to big for my little pea brain. I was following along OK until the $64 words started showing up:
(like in sex???:eek: )

Please just use words like arsehole, you suck, eat me, etc. I and the rest of the Jarhead world would greatly appreciate it. This is an interesting thread and I want to be able to keep up with the debate.

Thank you.

Semp
Click to expand...

LMAO Semper!! :D Good one!
 
DannyinJapan said:
Oh Semper, you are such an expert at deflating big-headed *******s like me.

I will officially quit talking about UFOs if you guys all agree to eat a big plate of hot crow when my ship flies.
Deal ?
Click to expand...

I keep hoping they'll abduct me for breeding experiments but so far no luck :(
 
christcl said:
Does anybody else notice that UFOs seem to change with the times. Like a shot of a UFO from the 60s would look like something you'd expect from a 1960s sci-fi horror movie. And nowadays, more often than not, UFOs seem to get alot more hi tech looking like something from ID4 or Stargate SG1....
Makes me wonder and say hmmmmmm. Not trying to say I'm a skeptic, just maybe alot of them are hoaxes and some of them might be real
Click to expand...


"Bob" says that they are without form but our belief gives them form. He says something like" Our expectations give them shape. Where in the past they appeared as angels and demons, and then flying saucers, soon they will look like Pills and TV sets" ;)
 
"Bob" says that they are without form but our belief gives them form. He says something like" Our expectations give them shape. Where in the past they appeared as angels and demons, and then flying saucers, soon they will look like Pills and TV sets" ---HD

Its a pitty i haven't seen one before:( I think a UFO would look like a naked lady with a cold beer to me:D

~Jake
 
Ruel,
There is plenty of evidence.
Photos, radar recordings, radiated plants and soil, gear depressions, small pieces of metal such as MG26, an isotope that has not been refined on Earth, and there are probably much bigger pieces, but they are under lock and key.
 
Danny, I wish you'd come to terms with Firkin. He is simply one of the kindest, witty, interesting, and humble men around. He always shares and fields stupid questions. He enjoys speculation. Though lettered he has never given me that impression- of arrogance. He presents himself as a peer, the way learned and talented men do on this forum, of which there are very very many.

Firkin is not the head of NASA and has not claimed to be as smart as anyone nor is that his argument. If you go back to the start of this thread you list your opinion of the scientific approach and then drop it, not to be used in your subsequent quote of the Nasa guy. That isn't science, and even what Mr Nasa said is not 'proof' .

I happen to believe life on other planets but not in our solar system. It wouldn't entirely shock me to find some small life on Mars.

munk
 
Munk,
I know you and I trust you, but Firkin seems upset that I suggested that the Chief Scientist-Manager at NASA's Langley Research Center might be more qualified than he to discuss UFO's.

Yes, he did say he was offended about that.
(Noone else got offended, you notice)

I tried to make things better with Firkin, but it just doesn't seem to be working.

He quotes other threads, says he didnt read the book nor will he ever, but he's going to spew all over this thread anyway.
Paul Hill was at NASA/Mission Control for the better part of three decades, but Firkin brushes this aside, cause he just knows better...
"That doesn't mean that such a person has any greater handle ...blah blah blah."

Firkin has problems and I'm tired of it.Im just putting him on my ignore list, that should fix it.

Sorry Munk, please dont feel bad, you and I are the same as we always were.
(i hope)
 
Yes, you and I are fine. We are all of us men of good heart- get firkin off your ignore list and try again.

That's an order.

(like I really have any moral authority...but think about it)


Sometimes personalities rub wrong between two fine people. That's life. It's also true though, that when understanding is reached in those cases, it is all the sweeter.


munk
 
If this house is a mess when Mom and Dad come back from their trip...

there's gonna be trouble !!!! :grumpy: :grumpy: :grumpy:







Where do we come from?" She was instructed "France! Just keep telling them you come from France!"
 
Danny and Firkin--you suck, you arseholes! Eat me! :p (Wow, Semper Fi, it really works ;) ) I am fond of both of you guys, and I don't want to see you not speaking to each other over one of my favorite topics. Maybe you two should just agree to disagree on the topic of UFO's, because it's not really worth all the anger. Hell, nothing is.

Peace,

--Josh
 
"My big point is that the scientific method has been applied, by people far more qualified than anyone here to do so..."

Read the above again.

I'll try and adopt Semp's suggestion,

WTF qualifies Danny to summarily pronounce judgement on everyones' qualifications to apply the scientific method? Especially if he doesn't know who the hell they are or what they have done?

How can such an assertion be claimed to support an argument that something is done scientifically?

(Jarheads like acronyms, or at least use them a lot right?)

And I'm accused of claiming omniscience?

(oops, 'tis the best word to use there)

Holding a high-ranking position in a large, bureaucratic organisation, even one that does cutting edge work in science and engineering does not mean that one is automatically more qualified to apply the scientific method. That is one of many qualifications required by the job. The combination of qualifications is what is important.

Indeed one would expect that there would be many people better at one or a few of the things it requires to hold such a position, that lack some essential skill(s) that such a job requires.

I don't claim to have any particular qualifications in the areas of atmospheric or space flight, the engineering of same, atmospheric or space science, and certainly lack some of the others to manage a chunk of a large organisation like NASA.

I don't claim to be more qualified than Mr. Hill was at judging when the scientific method was applied, or applying it. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that I am any less qualified when it comes to judging when scientific methodology has been applied, or applying it.

I don't claim to know more than Mr. Hill about space travel, engineering, or what is popularly or secretly known about UFOs. Nor do I claim to know more than Danny about the numerous observations, or particular analyses of purported fragments of UFOs that are unclassified and abound in the popular literature.

What I claim is that Danny cannot possibly know or make a valid statement regarding everyone's qualifications to apply or evaluate scientific methodology. Nor even only mine, since all that he knows of me is what he has seen on this forum.

The "my dad is bigger than your dad" argument doesn't work in objective science. Since scientists are human it sometimes shows up because of human egos and politics. That's not science-- that's human flaws. We all have them.

Quote people out of context, or mis-quote them, in support of an argument, and I'll call you on it. Double if you mis-quote a scientist and say that adds "scientific" credence to your argument.

Claim that in a "scientific" discussion that contents of related threads are totally irrelevant to each other, and well called again. That's operating like a legal trial, if you want to do that, say so, but don't call it scientific.

Claim that properly executed scientific analysis of a metallic fragment or depression in the ground makes further speculations based upon those results science instead of speculation and I'll call you on that too.

A chain requires more than one sound link. Science requires all the links to be sound, and that many links join to other chains forming a net. New links are repeatedly tested. Sometimes new links raise questions about old links. A lot of testing is required if accepting a new link means discarding an old, well-tested one, especially if it means leaving a big hole in the net.

If someone claims something to be "scientific", then I will evaluate it through the lens of what I have learned doing and studying science. I really can't avoid viewing most things through that lens anyway.

It is interesting to speculate, and scientific facts and measurments have a place in limiting the range of speculation. The results obtained from the measurement are science, the speculation based upon those measurements is knowledgable speculation, but not science.

I see that this is probably a waste of time.
--that's the way it goes sometimes.

Maybe that naked lady with the beer will show up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top