August 30th Episode with Karl Mamer

[Decker]

@MrChud

@Decker

I'm less interested in hearing you tell about all the compelling evidence you've uncovered than in seeing that evidence for myself. After decades of investigation, why haven't people in your field been able to move ufology inward from the fringes? If there's so much compelling evidence, you'd think this would be a natural progression.

Also, no one has questioned the reality of UFO sightings, only what those sightings mean. As has been previously noted by other posters in this thread, your insinuation otherwise shows a terrible lack of observational skills, despite your repeated assertions about your credentials.

Okay Sport, leaving the above aside, what have you done to advance the cause of science, rational thinking, and generally overall, inventing a new and better mousetrap?

Decker

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[Unky]

Some previous posters have referenced the existence of solid photographs or other types of evidence. Where are they? If the cases presented to Karl on The Paracast are some of the best, why are they so easy to pick apart?

Whenever you plan to start please let us know because no one has done this yet.

Shouldn't UFO believers in particular be able to list the truly compelling cases off the tops of their heads?

We do so often

And shouldn't the evidence for them be widely available and agreed upon?.

It is...So what exactly would you like to discuss?

AmSci,

It would be good if you would stay in this forum and give our members an opportunity to discuss some of the flaws in your logic. Consider the following:

Witnesses and equipment observe and record unknown object displaying behaviors/capabilities that indicate it is under intelligent control = A

Analysis of object's behavior/capabilities indicates object violates known physics or is inconsistent with aircraft development or manmade objects deployed into the atmosphere or space = B

The most acceptable conclusion is that object is associated with, created or controlled by, some type of non-human intelligence = C

A - B = C

This generalization is illustrated to produce an equation that defines the UFO problem and provides an abstract basis for the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH).

It also elegantly complies with Occam's Razor. Many skeptics disagree with this idea because they believe exotic solutions and simple explanations exist in opposition. The more variables (entities) you add, the farther you get from a simple explanation.

Debunkers spend most of their time attacking A or B, but when faced with facts and data they find difficult to refute they resign themselves to a final default fall-back position, which is, they claim there is no evidence for C. A good example of this happened recently on Larry King when Bill Nye was cornered by Robert Hastings and Bob Jacobs during their discussion of the Malmstrom AFB case 1967 and, the Vadenburg/Big Sur case 1964 . Realizing he was outmatched on A and B, Nye resigned himself to claiming there was no evidence for C.

Naturally, the equation works best when applied to the most evidential cases we have on record and requires properly functioning equipment, the absence of witness duplicity, etc.

I'd like to clarify the idea of C. One of the things seen most often in ufology is the frequency with which skeptics confuse the the idea of evidence for the ETH, with the idea of proof. Evidence is graded. The strength of a case is determined by the levels of evidence for something anomalous, or non-conventional; representative of A or B. Proof undeniable, is all or nothing. What constitutes proof of the ETH in ufology? Only two things:

1) A piece or a component of an alien craft that displays exotic properties such as unknown elements, fabrication, or technologies that demonstrably could not have been developed by human beings,

2) An alien body living or dead displaying unique biological properties,

3) Some people believe that a presidential announcement would qualify, but that isn't the truth. It would never ultimately be accepted without eventual support from either 1 or 2

Purists in science will not involve themselves in any investigations of this subject without 1 or 2. Conservative elements feel they cannot apply the scientific method to case evidence alone. In the absence of proof there is only evidence and ALL EVIDENCE no matter how strong can be attacked or diminished. This is the job of the debunker.

Speaking of which,

Ever since Phill Klass died skepti-bunkers have been faced with an escalating series of challenges because the community has not produced a viable successor that has displayed the necessary drive, energy and commitment that is required to review all of the case evidence and available data, interviews, etc. It is for this reason that proponents of the ETH have been so frustrated by the lack of preparation and ability displayed by critics who conduct these debates that they occasionally attempt to eject them from the debates altogether telling them come back when they are better prepared. Simply put, if you care about your position enough to go on television to debate it, you better damn well do your homework.

Klass was denigrated in many ways over the years, but any honest scientist or researcher that studies UFOs would be hard-pressed to say he was lazy. He cared enough about his position to go toe-to-toe with researchers on facts, data, and evidence. This lack of commitment has contributed greatly to the erosion of credibility in the skeptical community when it comes to the issue of UFOs.

I don't have the patience to keep looking, though I'd welcome any new evidence. Unverifiable claims, however, are useless to investigate due to their very nature.

This is laziness personified. If you continue to take the position that this isn't important enough to look into, but engage in arm-chair debates why it doesn't make sense because you think it can't. You no longer become a scientist, you become a priest.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

My name is Brian Thompson, and I'm the editor of AmateurScientist.org, where Karl Mamer posts. I'm afraid the length of this thread prevents me from responding to everyone individually, but here are a collection of thoughts to consider:

1. Skeptics don't have a vested interest in debunking claims about UFOs. Anyone who's ever associated with skeptics or been to a skeptics' conference like The Amazing Meeting can tell you the atmosphere is not unlike a comic book or sci-fi convention. Lots of slightly portly gentlemen in nerdy t-shirts. The occasional fanny pack. Plenty of Star Trek talk. In other words, most of us are nerds. We'd love to know aliens are visiting the earth or that strange intelligences are creating lights in the sky. If for no other reason, we'd love for these things to be true because that would be cool.

I used to be a believer myself, but I eventually grew frustrated with the lack of any compelling evidence to support anything other than a mundane explanation for these experiences. Too many photos, government documents, and alien implants turned out to collapse under scrutiny. Too many eyewitness stories changed and inflated over time. Too many scientific studies discredited regression hypnosis, which is much of the foundation for the abduction phenomenon. In short, too much disappointment.

The "skeptics" rarely research cases and rely heavily on second and third hand re-tellings to formulate their all encompassing conclusions. When did Amsci turn up at a UFO investigation and start talking to the people who had the first hand experience? So now your frustration leads you to dismiss the compelling cases along with the not so. I guess your lack of patience leads you to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

2. No one is saying all UFO experiences have a mundane explanation. Some can't be explained at all. But this isn't evidence for an extraterrestrial, extradimensional, or otherwise extraordinary explanation. This is simply because there isn't enough evidence to make any conclusion at all. If someone says he saw a UFO and has no pictures or documentation, he's not necessarily lying. But that kind of claim isn't falsifiable, so it's useless when debating the topic.

Then don't bring it up! You make the extraordinary claim that there is not enough evidence. Prove it! If i saw a "Unidentified Structured Flying Craft" hovering over my house during the daylight hours, prove to me that i didn't. You can't because you weren't there.!! At this point the "skeptics" attempt to explain it away with he must be suffering from the "Venus Swamp Gas Weather Balloon Syndrome".

4. Some of you have blasted Karl for not being familiar enough with the three UFO cases raised by the hosts of this show. This is a specious argument. For one thing, Karl wasn't told which cases would be discussed beforehand. For another, while some cases may be old hat to people deep into ufology, that's not the case for everyone else. As a former geek for all things "paranormal", I'm probably more familiar than most laypeople with UFO lore. I know a lot about cattle mutilations, Whitley Strieber, Gordon Cooper, the alien pancake incident (one of my favorites), and others, but there are thousands upon thousands of individual cases and an entire subculture built around them. No one can be up on all of them.

Regardless, Karl subsequently researched these cases and wrote about them on my site. I'm a little disturbed to see so few refutations of the points he raised as to how these cases were misrepresented to him and to how the evidence for them doesn't add up. Instead of laying into Karl for not being as engrossed in ufology as you, why not address his arguments since he's satisfied your demands for knowledge?

Why didn't he ask David or Gene what they would be discussing prior to the show being taped? What kind of questions did he think they would ask him? Does he even do any research at all into "famous" UFO cases or any at all? Simply put he was grossly under prepared for the interview and made himself look like a fool. He would have been better off saying "I don't Know".

5. Extraordinary claims do indeed require extraordinary evidence. If a friend told me he went to the grocery store and ran into an old flame, I wouldn't demand proof of this. It's something that's known to happen a lot, though it may not be a typical situation. But if he told me he went to the grocery store and saw a metal craft zipping soundlessly down the cereal aisle, I'd be right to question him further. This isn't the same as calling someone a liar or insisting that what they thought they saw is a trick of the mind. It's simply an acknowledgment of the fact that people are documented to lie or be fooled by the limits of their own perception all the time, while seeing UFOs is a much less common occurrence. There is no counter-claim to be proved by the skeptic. It's just a refusal to accept the extraordinary before the mundane is ruled out. It's an adherence to statistical probability.

That is right. But when a "skeptic" makes an equally extraordinary counter claim such as " it may have been ball lightning" (another debunking favorite) or such, i would like to see the proof of that possibility.

6. Finally, we come to the most damning question of all in the minds of skeptics. Where is all the evidence? There have been hundreds of thousands of UFO reports throughout history. Millions, even. And if you follow the Jacques Vallee school and lump in accounts of fairies, spirits, or sprites, you might be looking at claims in the billions. For the sake of argument, let's be conservative and say there are 5 million UFO reports out there. If only 1% of them had solid, irrefutable evidence to back them up, there would be 50,000 pieces of such evidence in the public record. While it may seem to be an argument in favor of the non-mundane nature of UFOs that there are so many accounts, the opposite is true if the numbers of those accounts keeps growing while the pool of reliable evidence remains so paltry.

If there are, say, 50,000 reports of UFO sightings in your hypothetical world then that would be at least an indication of something going on. Nobody is saying they have all or any of the answers. Perhaps when scientists are bold enough to step out and do some real resarch instead of being lamely put off by the "giggle\woo woo" factor portrayed by their peers, the media and the debunkers\skeptics we may get more solid proof.

Some previous posters have referenced the existence of solid photographs or other types of evidence. Where are they? If the cases presented to Karl on The Paracast are some of the best, why are they so easy to pick apart? Shouldn't UFO believers in particular be able to list the truly compelling cases off the tops of their heads? And shouldn't the evidence for them be widely available and agreed upon?

Perhaps there isn't any such evidence because the forces responsible for UFOs are too advanced or ethereal to leave traces of themselves behind. That's a possibility, but, once again, it's an unverifiable claim. And as such, it's a useless claim upon which to base a factual argument.

So by proposing that Kelly Johnson, Gordon Cooper and the multiple military eyewitnesses at Rendlesham didn't see what they saw (or felt re: Rendlesham) or weren't experienced by scientists or "skeptics" then they simply did not happen? And the integrity of each of the former is then called into question by debunkers who weren't even there.

 

[Apocalypto]

I used to be a believer myself, but I eventually grew frustrated with the lack of any compelling evidence to support anything other than a mundane explanation for these experiences.

Hello Brian. Now, let me stop you right there. Stop. Right there.

You "used to be a believer"? In what? What did you "believe in"? This is where unrealistic skeptics fall down. It's such a stupid statement that it's almost pitiful. Let me explain.

The following concept is not new. David Biedny has uttered this many times, in his own way. Others in the field have also effectively done so.

Let me make this perfectly clear:

THERE IS NOTHING TO BELIEVE IN, OR, CONVERSELY, TO DISBELIEVE.
​

It is simply not in the equation, folks. For example, look at this related statement: "I want to believe" Pure bullshit, it is. Those of you who have this thought in your head need to expel it immediately, and never let it return. Kill it. I'm not asking you to stop believing. Or wanting to believe. I'm not asking you to believe. I'm asking you to stop believing that believing or disbelieving is, in any way, shape or form, intelligent!

What do you believe in? Clouds? (Message to David: that one works well. Keep it up. Cars works as well.) Kids, look, these are clouds. They are, basically, just clouds. UFOs are tantamount to clouds. UFOs are things that fly around in the sky, that is all. There is nothing to believe in, and there is nothing to disbelieve.

Now, let's make no mistake. They are there. People see them. I believe that people see them, that much I believe. I also believe that they sometimes don't know exactly what they are seeing, but that they are certainly seeing something strange. In some cases, they may be seeing balloons and think that they are seeing "something from another world". Sure. That's silly.

But I also believe that, on occasion, highly intelligent people with EXCELLENT observational skills, highly relevant technical backgrounds have seen things that are not of this world. They looked, and saw, something which they had a very clear idea was not a human-made object.

Karl, Kelly Johnson doesn't know how to judge an anomalous object in the sky? Karl? Kelly Johnson?? You would probably say Beethoven isn't fit to be a judge on American Idol. Get a grip, bro.

Let's get back to those MILLIONS - Yes, MILLIONS of people who have seen UFOs throughout history... WELCOME TO LIFE, KIDS. THIS IS YOUR LIFE. NO ONE EVER SAID IT WOULD BE SIMPLE.... DID THEY? So what is simple about UFOs? Nothing. What is simple about life? Nothing. The shoe fits. I'll personally give $1 Million to the first person who can tell me why we are here. I will. I will notarize the document. I'm going public right here and now. You get $1 Million if you can tell us all why we are here. Just that one simple question, answered. NO ONE EVER SAID IT WOULD BE SIMPLE.... DID THEY? And it's not.

Don't continue to delude yourselves. Just run with this logic. I RARELY push an agenda this hard on people. I'm making an exception here. This interview with Karl whats his face has stirred a giant in me. He wasn't even aware of the details around UFO cases that Gene and David brought up! His authority on UFO cases is zero. I know more about those cases than him. Waste of time.

But Gene and David did a great job dealing with him. And I thank them. Once again, they did a great job.


Listen up:

REJECT THOSE WHO CALL THEMSELVES BELIEVERS AND NON-BELIEVERS IN THE AREA OF UFOS, FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS ARE IMMATERIAL AND WILL DO NOTHING TO MOVE OUR UNDERSTANDING FORWARD.
​

Let me say this, so people really dig where I'm coming from. At this stage in my life I would almost rather listen to an interview with a skeptic than a ufologist who, for example, believes in the ETH. Why? Because I've been reading books and studying and watching documentaries and blah, blah, blah on the subject of UFOs for so long that I really appreciate getting a balance of thought "from the other side" of the subject, the intelligent skeptic. In fact, let me take it a step further, it's not even the intelligent, well-studied skeptic I want to hear from. It's the intelligent, well-studied INDIVIDUAL, with no biases or lack of intellectual honesty, no hidden agenda and no bullshit fundamentalism. (once again, excellent point, David).

Karl isn't really a skeptic. He espouses a fundamentalism based on the fact that every single UFO case is due to human weakness in understanding any single aspect of life. And that is what I mean by my above statement "NO ONE EVER SAID IT WOULD BE SIMPLE.... DID THEY?" No, it's not simple. Life is complex.

Karl is one of those guys who laughed at the Wright Brothers. Now, it's true that what the Wright Brothers did was amazingly difficult. It's also true that I myself may not have believed that they would pull it off. An opinion poll during the time they were getting prepared for their first flight may have shown that more people than not didn't believe they could do it. But they did, regardless of the difficulty. Ergo, Karl was wrong.

Skeptics. There are really 2 kinds. The smart ones and the dumb ones. Most of the UFO material out there is created, written and produced by people who clearly lean towards the thinking that at least a small proportion of UFO cases represent some kind of "visitation" of some kind of "beings" from outside (as it were) of our world. It's great to hear an intelligent person casting doubt on those perceptions, basing their arguments on facts and good, solid knowledge of the cases in question.

And that's what's seriously missing from many UFO skeptics. Facts. We seem to always get more fact from the other side, the ufology side. Where are all the good skeptics? Where are the GOOD, SMART, EDUCATED guys who can work with the ufologists by giving them some good competition? For those of you who don't have these chops, leave your swamp gas and clouds at the door - and don't let it hit your ass on the way out!

Let us all stop believing. Let us all start knowing.
​

One last thing. The Paracast does not "woo".

 

[7 String]

Gene and Dave, Thanks for bring Karl on for a talk. I expected a BBQ but it was not needed because he was a "self baster" of sorts.
Don't get me wrong he's probably a nice enough guy, but Jesus Christ, how this guy can wipe his ass after he shits and actually know that he is done, is beyond me. There are skeptics, then there are the pie eyed believers. This guy is a "pie eyed skeptic". Truly a hybrid, great find....lol.
No matter the evidence no matter how f'n simple it was he uses "logic?" to unravel it..... Gnah...... Dave said it, he's all ready made up his mind, and it fits into this nice package. Bunch of babbling shit..... Wow! I'm glad he likes you guys and he gave the paracast a decent review. However, after hearing him and how narrow minded of a "skeptic" he is, his endorsements, good or bad mean nothing IMO. He's trying too damn hard to be a skeptic for the sake of being a skeptic. No rational thought, no objectivity, everything is blamed on the dumb old human perception.......

Great show!

~A

 

[conor]

@MrChud
@conor

On the contrary. I think shining a light of reason and reality enhances human experience.

My problem is this. Karl says that everybody is not beyond the tricks that the human mind can play upon them. True. Karl says that even experts are not beyond such tricks, such as a pilot. True, but to a different degree. Obviously a pilot has got better training and would know the difference between the planet venus (which Karl kept on bringing up - I've seen both the planet Venus and what I'd categorise as an Unidentified Flying Object and let me tell you there is a difference) and something which has definition, and is definitly not a trick of the light, but structured and extremely odd.

The problem is that Karl does not qualify his "falibility of the human mind" approach. It becomes a blanket response to all UFOs or unexplainable phenonema, and he doesn't qualify or treat cases on their own merit. All his answers were that people sometimes screw up. True. But flimsy basis for an argument.

Gene and David 1, Karl 0.

IMO Karl is not being a true skeptic, but a Skeptic with a capital "S". He is taking the popular stance of being the skeptic, he is choosing a side which calls itself the side of scepticism. But, in my experience, when someone chooses a side like that, the original meaning goes out the window, and blanket responses more akin to beliefs come to the fore. Thus "there can't be UFOs, that's just crazy" is more like the stance Karl seems to take rather than the stance "show me the evidence". He says that on the show, but more than that he retorts with how people are constant screw ups, or "they simply couldn't have seen this, so this is a bullshit reason why they didn't".

Side choosing is not just present in the realm of the capital "S" skeptics. There are too many crazies to count on this side of things.

Not to say that I am on any side, other than my own side.

 

[Gojira2006]

@PhantomAce
To use the most famous example, the Roswell myth falls apart upon casual examination. I've written about this in one of my columns. It's a perfect storm of sloppy reporting and outright fabrication. Same goes for the Phoenix Lights, crop circles, etc., etc. Can you give an example of a case you think is rock solid?

I don't want to be sarcastic, but really - You've neatly dispensed with the Roswell "myth" with your casual examination . . . ? You've just made the point for all of us who have lost patience with the skeptics who are so woefully (or should I say "woofully") misinformed . . . Not even the great Stanton Friedman (yes, he's a personal hero of mine) has not claimed to have dotted every "i" & crossed every "t" in the Roswell matter - & he's spent decades of more than just "casual" perusal of the evidence . . .

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I wrote the following directly to the coward AmSci who runs and hides it gets too hot to handle:

OK, here's the deal. You made a lot of points in your messages, but as soon as our members attempt to engage you in these discussions, you want to run away and hide. It's not a one-way street.

If you really want to discuss the issues of skepticism, belief, the paranormal and what not in a responsible fashion, we expect you to answer the hard questions, and not disappear when the going gets tough.

The choice is yours.

I don't expect he'll respond here or to me directly, but keep asking those questions anyway.

 

[Kieran]

Give AmSCI some evidence? That in a nutshell is AmSci argument.The evidence, at the moment is doubtful.

The phenomen, is not something we just pulled out of a hat one day 'and siad look at that.
The phenomen, has a history.

The phenomen, is described in ancient texts... even during a famous battle. Alexander the great, who conquered most of the known World with his soldiers... had a sighting of silver discs over the battlefield. It was recorded and written down.
If you want, google it, you get the information.

Ok i understand, why you might be doubtful if we only hand a handful of cases to look at for the evidence.

We dont, we have thousands of cases, maybe even more.. In a way, i see why skeptic's and debunkers have problems with the issue of ufos.

We have the

likes of lazar, Sparks, Salla causeing confusion with storys which do no service to the topic

.Plenty of Arguments, there for doubting the Case of Ufos. When you have individuals looking at ufos with no great depth.

I dont doubt ufos exist myself, but i see why the arguments by Skeptics are there

But, Surely, AmSci, you can see, if you are being honest with your thoughts that something indeed remarkable and unexplained is happening.

You exist dont you on the planet. You now you have an awareness of your surroundings. You now as Humans we have gone to the moon and sent probes to different planets.
Ok answer them in your head.... Think about that..We have only done that in 50 years.

We know notting (seriously notting)...to what is out outside our planet and what kind of life may exist and how advanced it is. We can not question, that something is impossible only based on our own human experience.

If you saw something that you could no explain more than once. What would you say then?... Is that evidence... This are QUESTIONS YOU CAN ONLY ANSWER BY YOURSELF.

 

[Xylo]

Fun episode to listen to, or at least I thought so.

Mr. Mamer isn't a skeptic, he's a deny-er. Plain and simple. When confronted with multiple witness cases, he ignored the multiples.

I'm not sure which is more entertaining, listening to Jim Sparks talk about his bladder holding capabilities or listening to Mr. Mamer deny logic and misinterpret Occam's razor. Either way they are both cut from two sides of the same cloth.

 

[Gojira2006]

You exist dont you on the planet. You now you have an awareness of your surroundings. You now as Humans we have gone to the moon and sent probes to different planets.
Ok answer them in your head.... Think about that..We have only done that in 50 years.

Exactly . . . It reminds me of Seth Shostak & Frank Drake - they believe(d) we pretty much know all there is to know about physics & stuff, & because we can't travel to Proxima Centauri or Sirius or the Andromeda Galaxy at this point in time, then it will be too difficult for anyone else, too, if they're out there . . . It's like when, in 1806, Zebulon Pike in the presence of the Peak that would eventually bear his name, wrote that because his party couldn't scale the mountain because they were ill-prepared to do so in the the type of weather that they encountered, he didn't believe anyone else would be able to, either . . . Well, tell that the people who go to the summit of Pikes Peak on a regular basis . . .

 

[Rocketsauce]

I'm diggin reading this thread. Some good points on both sides IMO.

IMO we are all different and have different standards when it comes to what we accept as our 'reality'. Some people accept everything they were told growing up (My wife!), some people will 'believe it' when I see it, some people need to read something in the New York times for it to be real (my dad!), some can read it on a fringe message board to believe it (sala!), etc....... But I think we can all agree, that somewhere there is an area somewhere in the middle that is more reasonable and honest than others.

Is there any 100% proof that UFO's are from another planet or dimension? No. Is there 100% proof that there are UFO's that are unexplained and defy what we think we know? Very very likely almost without a doubt . I think it's very safe to say that based on hearing about official radar data, testimony from highly credible informed people, official documentation, and the occassional anamolous photo or vid that can't be explained and matches a believable testimony. Of course if you've seen a UFO like David then these points are all void!

It seems to me that Amsci and his ilk are not convinced UFO's have anything but mundane explanations until their written up in a journal or they see it for themselves, that's fine with me, we all have different standards. I don't knock a 'Ill believe it when I see it' approach (even if someone contradicts themselves every day!! But I digress). But if that isn't your stance and you've really taken the time to look into the best cases (which like any subject will vary depending on who you talk with!) and are still skeptical and view your opinion as being the 'level headed' 'rational' or 'scientific' standard, I personally can't take anything else you say about any controvertial scientific area seriously...... Next!

What are some of the really full proof cases that are hard to argue any conventional explanation?

How about that case with the pilot in Iran?
The Maelstrom incident Salas talks about?
Even Stephensville with the radar data those civilian investigators were able to track down. Maybe if this story recieved a 10 page spread on the New York Times that would be enough to change some people's minds. Certainly there are a lot of cases that the more you look into, the more suspect they are. But it's nearly impossible to argue with some cases IMO.

How about the James Fox press conference? If you are intellectually honest you have to admit that these high level military people who are experts in their respective fields had encounters with the unknown and to dismiss all these accounts as being human error to me seems very arrogant and naive, not even worth really arguing.

By the way, as someone else pointed out, there is so much history and even news that people take as fact everyday, including Amsci, that is much less compelling than the sbest UFO evidence. There exists no proof today that my brother got his ass kicked in high school one night walking home from a movie theatre. But certainly he'll tell you about it and there were tons of witnesses there! Are we sure that Dick Cheney is a human and not an android from planet Xenon sent to destroy us? Show me the evidence!

 

[Gojira2006]

It seems to me that Amsci and his ilk are not convinced UFO's have anything but mundane explanations until their written up in a journal or they see it for themselves, that's fine with me, we all have different standards. I don't knock a 'Ill believe it when I see it' approach (even if someone contradicts themselves every day!! But I digress).

I understand your point, but the "'I'll believe it when I see it' approach," as you put it, is really a weak approach, as we then have to define what we mean when we say "see," as it really isn't self-evident . . . I've never seen a pion (or pi meson, as I guess they're also called), or a black hole, but I'm told by reputable scientists that they have a high degree of confidence that they exist (or in the case of black holes, something like them that exerts weird & wonderful influences on space-time), even though neither have been "seen" directly (if they have, please correct my lack of knowledge) . . . Now, why is a black hole anymore "believable" as a phenomenon, based on observation, than UFOs, which are based similarly on observation . . . ?

 

[Kieran]

Exactly . . . It reminds me of Seth Shostak & Frank Drake - they believe(d) we pretty much know all there is to know about physics & stuff, & because we can't travel to Proxima Centauri or Sirius or the Andromeda Galaxy at this point in time, then it will be too difficult for anyone else, too, if they're out there . . . It's like when, in 1806, Zebulon Pike in the presence of the Peak that would eventually bear his name, wrote that because his party couldn't scale the mountain because they were ill-prepared to do so in the the type of weather that they encountered, he didn't believe anyone else would be able to, either . . . Well, tell that the people who go to the summit of Pikes Peak on a regular basis . . .

Indeed, it is a tired old argument. We as humans were different in 17th century. We developed again in the 18th century another hundred years went by "19th century more change. Nobody even in the 1700s could have imagined this century. If you took someone from The 17th to The present day they would be shocked in what they saw.

(If they a saw a plane)..... "Ufo".... U...They couldnt identify it....F ..it was flying ..... object.... To that, person from the 17th 'it would look solid.

That would be far as there understanding would go withount explaining 'what it was. If you explained this to someone in the 17th withount bringing them to this century. Skeptics from that century, would probably think you were off your rocker and have you put into a medical instituion.

1000 YEARS FROM NOW. Just for Argument sakes. Say, We had the technology to leave the planet and explore. We came across a planet which was not as advanced as us. Would we contact them or just observe? What code of practice would we adopt . I wonder, being human would we take it over or actually befriend them?

Now, you have to think....Ufos must have an occupant, least to us We presume they have occupants one or more.What would they do? contact or just observe?

two options.

We now, how humans behave. We are usually aggressive or we are friendly..... The problem.... really with the ufo topic.... We now ufos exist.... But, why, are they here?

where are they comeing from? And why, have the ufo occupants not made contact were everyone can observe?. Well, i guess the ufo occupants can only answer all three.

 

[Gojira2006]

Indeed, it is a tired old argument. We as humans were different in 17th century. We developed again in the 18th century another hundred years went by "19th century more change. Nobody even in the 1700s could have imagined this century. If you took someone from The 17th to The present day they would be shocked in what they saw.

(If they a saw a plane)..... "Ufo".... U...They couldnt identify it....F ..it was flying ..... object.... To that, person from the 17th 'it would look solid.

That would be far as there understanding would go withount explaining 'what it was. If you explained this to someone in the 17th withount bringing them to this century. Skeptics from that century, would probably think you were off your rocker and have you put into a medical instituion.

I know that it's been said so many times before, but in 1903, the Wright Brothers flew their heavier-than-aircraft for the first time, for a distance of about 120 feet for 12 seconds . . . Just 66 years later, humanity landed a craft on the Moon, at an average distance of 238,857 miles & a trip that took almost four days one way . . . Put another way, my grandfather was born in 1907, & when he was old enough to go to school, the fastest he could get there was by horse & wagon, because his family wasn't wealthy enough to purchase a car at that time . . . A few decades later, he sat in his easy chair, watching Neil Armstrong's "giant leap" on a television, all of which never existed, or were barely imagined, except by the likes of Jules Verne & H.G. Wells, when he was learning his reading, writing, & arithmatic . . . So, what wonders will exist a hundred years in the future . . . ? None, if the lack of imagination on the part of the skeptics is any indication . . . I think that they're afraid - they're afraid to realize just how little, if anything, that we really know . . .

 

[Decker]

The July 1952 overflights of Washington DC, HUGE incident causing the Pentagon to hold the largest press briefing since the end of the Second World War. It absolutely happened. Something flew thru the Washington DC skies with impunity. The Air Force scambled jets to intercept the "unknowns", the unknowns left, the jets flew around empty skies then they left. This happened over 3 weekends.

January 1995, Major Skeptic Philip Klass appears on my radio show UFOs Tonite! and we end up discussing this case. Klass claims that the Air Force is so "uninterested" it takes them over an hour to scramble the jets to check the skies. I tell Phil that it is because local air bases in DC are being re-surfaced and jets have to be brought in by AF from Deleware. Where did I get this information from? Al Chop, who was then the AF civilian spokesman for the Air Force. Klass responded how?

Klass Clip
https://www.theparacast.com/darkmatters/KlassClip.mp3

Yes, our curious and intellectually honest skeptics.

Decker

 

[MrChud]

The July 1952 overflights of Washington DC, HUGE incident causing the Pentagon to hold the largest press briefing since the end of the Second World War. It absolutely happened. Something flew thru the Washington DC skies with impunity. The Air Force scambled jets to intercept the "unknowns", the unknowns left, the jets flew around empty skies then they left. This happened over 3 weekends.

January 1995, Major Skeptic Philip Klass appears on my radio show UFOs Tonite! and we end up discussing this case. Klass claims that the Air Force is so "uninterested" it takes them over an hour to scramble the jets to check the skies. I tell Phil that it is because local air bases in DC are being re-surfaced and jets have to be brought in by AF from Deleware. Where did I get this information from? Al Chop, who was then the AF civilian spokesman for the Air Force. Klass responded how?

Klass Clip
https://www.theparacast.com/darkmatters/KlassClip.mp3

Yes, our curious and intellectually honest skeptics.

Decker

Haha...thanks for that clip. No matter what you thought of Klass, he was quite the character. Btw, his curse seems to still hold true.

 

[PhantomAce]

Indeed, it is a tired old argument. We as humans were different in 17th century. We developed again in the 18th century another hundred years went by "19th century more change. Nobody even in the 1700s could have imagined this century. If you took someone from The 17th to The present day they would be shocked in what they saw.

Yes. I'm reminded of Clarkes 3rd law...."Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

That would be far as there understanding would go withount explaining 'what it was. If you explained this to someone in the 17th withount bringing them to this century. Skeptics from that century, would probably think you were off your rocker and have you put into a medical instituion.

Or more likely killed out right..burned at the stake.

 

[Gojira2006]

I tell Phil that it is because local air bases in DC are being re-surfaced and jets have to be brought in by AF from Deleware. Where did I get this information from? Al Chop, who was then the AF civilian spokesman for the Air Force. Klass responded how?

Klass Clip
https://www.theparacast.com/darkmatters/KlassClip.mp3

Yes, our curious and intellectually honest skeptics.

Decker

: Well, I for one felt totally inadequate after hearing Klass's Lincoln-esque rebuttal . . . :

 

[Illuminati0n]

The reality is, is that the millions upon millions of UFO sightings over the last centuary definently does not equate to millions upon millons of misinterpreted venus's and weather balloons. To say that it is a statistical improbabilty, infinitely stupid and a complete underestimation. If only 2% of cases are true then why be so skeptical and questioning?

His "flash memory" explanation for Cooper is totally rediculous and disrespectful. If you witness something like Cooper did, you dont just forget there was no sound. Its the "no sound" that makes the experience totally surreal and is a key part of the whole thing.

People with a line of thought like Karl need not pry any further into this subject, he obviously doesnt have the common sense to realise a left handed screwdriver is the same as a normal one. Nor does his logic surpass any of my 20 year old mates who just cant grasp the fact that "UFO" does not mean "Alien Piloted Spacecraft"

Case. F**king. Closed.