|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - LDV81
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12
1
« on: June 01, 2024, 19:46 »
I guess you also draw your knowledge about the history of ancient Rome, Greece or World War I from "falsifiable experiments".
these are matters of HISTORY, not scientific theories - a one time event, non-repeateatable, and not subject to the scientific method - but even here, discussions are based on FACTS, not unsupported theories about Jewish space lasers as the cause of forest fires.
Ha ha, you dig your own grave. Things said by Grusch, like the alleged Magenta crash in 1933 and subsequent crash retrievals, are EXACTLY THAT: non-repeatable events!!! Even individual UFO incidents (e.g. the Nimitz incident) are that: EVENTS. I am not saying at this point that what Grusch says must be true. I am not taking a position, I am just curious and want more info. They might be factual events or alleged events - but in their nature they are just that: events, whether true or misrepresented. Just like events from the history of ancient Greece. Grusch is a serious professional tasked with this investigation by the US government. It was his job. He gave his testimony under oath. The Inspector General deemed the classified evidence provided by Grusch to be "credible". Grusch's superior and another admiral confirmed his claims. The investigation is ONGOING in the Congress. These are FACTS! Therefore, your demands for repeatable "falsifiable experiments" in the context of Grusch's testimony are complete BS and simply DISHONEST!Apparently, part of the Congress wants much more transparency in this subject, while the other part wants to prevent transparency at all cost and blocked the Schumer amendment. These are ALL FACTS! Why would more transparency be bad and sweeping the thing under the carpet good? Was Grusch in the position to gain such knowledge? If we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that the claims are true, then yes - due to the nature of his work and having all the necessary clearances, he absolutely was in the position to acquire such knowledge. It was his job. He is not another Bob Lazar. The Nimitz incident is a factual EVENT, confirmed by witnesses and sensor data. You may interpret that EVENT as you want, just don't demand some "experiments" about it.
2
« on: June 01, 2024, 15:51 »
Where do you find the truth and facts, when most of the UAP information is mistaken, mis-identification or made up fabrications and distortions. How's that for science. Lets have some evidence to back the claims. I'd go for that.
Claims need proof.
...
- There is no proof of dark matter. And yet the mainstream accepts it. It was invented to prop up the prevalent model of the universe. But a working model, even if it fits the data, is not the same as proof. To understand what "proof" is, check how Pythagorean theorem is proven (spoiler: not by testing dozens of triangles).
So, dark matter was hypothesized in order to explain observations (data) within the assumed laws of physics. It could be right, I am not saying anything. Without dark matter/dark energy we have a gigantic anomaly within the current paradigm.
...
you lack (or ignore) an understanding of the scientific method - dark matter & energy - no one claims there's any proof - but you yourself acknowledge current data is explained by such a hypotheses. unlike pseudo-sciece like ufology, real science proposes models and then designs falsifiable experiments to confirm, reject or improve the hypothesis.
instead of presenting actual facts and testable hypotheses, ufo cultists rely on personal attacks against their skeptics,
I guess you also draw your knowledge about the history of ancient Rome, Greece or World War I from "falsifiable experiments". When you are presented facts, then you are stunned and resort to insults or crude, hardly funny jokes. You don't want any proof for things that are unproven but are consistent with your belief system and your dogmas. You don't have any courage to offer a competitive hypothesis or contribute something constructive. You simply try to discredit all those who tackle the subject in one way or another. You don't qualify as a skeptic. You are not interested in transparency at all. You don't seek the truth, you just stick to your dogmas. That is pseudo-skepticism / scientism. You are very biased, possibly as a result of decades-long brainwashing and disinformation. I don't think you have good will and integrity. Discussion with you is an intellectually underwhelming activity, it is similar to talking to an islamist or a trumpist.
3
« on: May 30, 2024, 17:06 »
Where do you find the truth and facts, when most of the UAP information is mistaken, mis-identification or made up fabrications and distortions. How's that for science. Lets have some evidence to back the claims. I'd go for that.
Then press your Congressmen to support the UAP Disclosure Act 2.0!https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1d4e7c1/rep_robert_garcia_proposes_uap_disclosure_act_20/https://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/GARCRO_115_xml240529153551283.pdfNobody owes you any "proof", as a hypothesis doesn't require a proof. You may continue to believe in swamp gas stories, if you want. But some interesting information might be revealed, if the act is passed. And ask yourself, why was there such a strong opposition to the Schumer's amendment and more transparency. And ask yourself also why is there again bipartisan interest in transparency about something that is allegedly fake or natural phenomena...
4
« on: May 30, 2024, 16:52 »
Why? Do you know what it is that makes it so important? We don't know. Show me the facts.
For a start, watch the video with prof. Knuth to understand the energy implications of the Nimitz incident.
5
« on: May 30, 2024, 16:46 »
Where do you find the truth and facts, when most of the UAP information is mistaken, mis-identification or made up fabrications and distortions. How's that for science. Lets have some evidence to back the claims. I'd go for that.
Claims need proof.
You do have some facts for a start. - decades of stigmatization and lies from the government - swamp gas and similar stories - it is a fact - the change of tune in 2017 is a fact - the videos and data released by the Pentagon are a fact and they are only the tip of the iceberg - most cases and videos have not been released (probably we haven't seen the juicy ones yet) And now watch that bloody video with Prof. Knuth in which he talks about scientific implications based ONLY the acknowledged sensor data from the Nimitz incident and current understanding of physics. ONLY FACTS! "Claims need proof." - OK, let's see: - You have ZERO proof that physical matter can achieve consciousness and perceive qualia. But you probably believe in it like in the gospel, because the mainstream was told to believe in it. - There is no proof of dark matter. And yet the mainstream accepts it. It was invented to prop up the prevalent model of the universe. But a working model, even if it fits the data, is not the same as proof. To understand what "proof" is, check how Pythagorean theorem is proven (spoiler: not by testing dozens of triangles). So, dark matter was hypothesized in order to explain observations (data) within the assumed laws of physics. It could be right, I am not saying anything. Without dark matter/dark energy we have a gigantic anomaly within the current paradigm. Now, we also have a gigantic anomaly even if we just stick to the confirmed Nimitz incident backed with sensor data and our current mainstream physics and tech. You need some hypothesis to explain it. You don't start with a proof! You start with one or multiple hypotheses and try to prove or refute them. And no, it was not swamp gas and not a weather balloon. Clowns and pseudo-skeptics like deGrasse-Tyson would like to sweep the anomaly under the carpet. Scientists, like prof. Knuth, talk about facts, data and implications.
6
« on: May 30, 2024, 16:13 »
Grusch claimed that "the U.S. federal government maintains a secretive UFO (or UAP) recovery and reverse engineering program and that it is in possession of "non-human" spacecraft along with their "dead pilots"."
Non-Human, dead pilots. What would that be? 
Non-human is a broader term than alien (extraterrestrial). The term may include: - ultraterrestrial: https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2024/01/uaps-and-non-human-intelligence-what-is.html- extraterrestrial (alien) - interdimensional (whatever that means)... check the books and life of Robert Monroe to gain new perspectives - creators of the hypothetical simulation and their avatars It might be even a combination of multiple hypotheses. I am completely agnostic about them. I want to know what is behind it. And I don't buy "swamp gas" lies.
7
« on: May 30, 2024, 16:01 »
Maybe no one knows? How can they disclose the answers, if "they" have no answers.
Ha... Retired Admiral Gallaudet, who does seem to have some insider knowledge (or at least is in the position to have insider knowledge), just said "MOST of the intelligence community doesn't know". That is interesting, because it COULD imply that there are some who do know something or even more than something. https://new.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1d4666l/tim_gallaudet_says_most_of_the_intelligence/Grusch testified under oath that the knowledge is extremely compartmentalized. From history: the work on the Manhattan Project was also very compartmentalized with very few people knowing the full scope of the project. And yet it was real. Timothy Gallaudet is who he claims to be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Gallaudet
8
« on: May 30, 2024, 15:47 »
Facts? we dont need no stinkin facts!
Speak for yourself!
9
« on: May 29, 2024, 12:29 »
The question is: what is going on?
UAPs are what they are, but the alien claims, are neither testable nor falsifiable, so UFO/UAP Alien Visitors, what they are or aren't, does not fall within empirical study. Scientific skepticism regards it as pseudoscience.
Lacking a way to study or confirm or deny, will lead to real science to be skeptical and avoid embracing something, without proof. The believers have a personalized, based on meaningful coincidences, conjecture and some very creative, but unsupported, always changing evidence.
Another way of describing pseudoscience is, the lunch counter buffet type of science. They only take what they want and ignore anything that doesn't agree with their preconceived belief system.
Lets look at some basics. UAPs or UFOs are what they are. Unidentified. The definition is the description and a fact. There's nothing, no proof or evidence that UAP equals Aliens. They are not one in the same as is assumed. There's a leap of logic in assuming that UAPs are caused by alien visitors and not some natural event, or simple misidentified natural phenomena.
What's going on is personal belief vs basic science, with the believers using faulty logic and poor scientific method to claim, to have come to some valid conclusion. In another way, the UFO people have more of a religion system, than scientific system. If they believe something, it's true. Anyone who denies or doubts, is attacked and demonized.
The essential flaw is, how evidence is collected, while excluding anything that doesn't fit, denying skeptical questions, and censoring opposing views or facts. The other side of that flawed "science", is only including data that fits the theory, selected agenda and what supports the claims.
Bottom line: the claims in favor of Aliens, who are visiting in UFOs are are neither testable nor falsifiable. No one can prove they don't exist, and there's no way to test the selective evidence for truth, when most of it is made up or invented.
You build a straw man and then you burn it. I don't have any beliefs when it comes to UFOs. But obviously, the phenomenon is real and I am freaking curious to know what is behind it and I would like to find it out. "some natural event, or simple misidentified natural phenomena" - and that is your belief system. Swamp gas qualifies as a "natural phenomenon" and it is a famous lie presented by the US government decades ago. Things have changed since then, but some people are still stuck in the past. Swamp-gas believers. In my book, pseudo-scientists are those who lack curiosity and want to sweep the anomaly under the carpet because it conflicts with their worldview. This is Prof. Kevin Knuth doing real science based on publicly available sensor data provided by the Pentagon: https://youtu.be/HlYwktOj75A?t=356That is a real scientist doing real science based on the data he has received from official / credible sources. People who appear in the media pretending to be scientists, but lacking curiosity and wanting to sweep the anomaly under the carpet or ridiculing it are just clowns and not real scientists. You want evidence or more data? Did you ask your representative to support the Schumer amendment? Why was there such a strong lobby against it, if there is nothing peculiar about the phenomenon? I assume you're a physicalist, and in that case you have built your whole worldview on an assumption without any evidence/proof whatsoever. It is just when it comes to UFOs, you would like to have immediate access to classified info from people like Grusch or Nell. And for what it's worth, Grusch did provide some classified info/evidence to Inspector General, who in turn deemed it credible. For crying out loud, stop bringing up those aliens. We have an unexplained phenomenon, with multiple hypotheses proposed. In many cases, natural explanations simply don't make sense. And swamp gas was complete BS. Disinformation from the side of the US government. Is it conceivable that some people in the US government know more about the phenomenon? Yes, it is conceivable. People like Nell will not present "evidence" to you or me, because it is not his job, he doesn't care if you and I believe him and he does not report to you or me. He reports to people higher in the command chain, and apparently those people are ok with what he has said and don't consider him a lunatic or a "believer". A lunatic in his position would probably be quickly fired. If it comes to a disclosure at some point, it might look just like that. High-ranked people from the government might say things like Nell and share what they know and what they don't know. The phenomenon is real, it is not new, it could potentially be of the most important things in human history. It is not swamp gas. I would like to find out what's behind it. It could be important. A few people probably know more about it than the mainstream. You have a belief system, I would simply like to find out what is behind the phenomenon. There is an anomaly. I don't want it to be swept under the carpet for the convenience of people who might experience an ontological shock.
10
« on: May 24, 2024, 18:38 »
Recent talk with Colonel Karl Nell at the SALT conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpl0FrdJWfsThe audience of the SALT conference is NOT average folk, or mainstream media. The audience is highly influential people. Who is Colonel Karl Nell and excerpts from his resume: https://new.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cxpsvj/a_reminder_of_who_colonel_karl_nell_is_who_his/Karl Nell does not play in the same league as, let's say, S. Greer or B. Lazar. Current employer: United States Army Futures Command Past employers include Northrop Grumman and Lockheed, which some people believe know a little bit more about UAPs. In the chain of command, Nell is currently only 4 levels below Joe Biden himself. It is possible that what he said had been consulted with the Biden administration. What is the likelihood of someone in Nell's position telling fairy tales at a conference like SALT? Meanwhile, AARO will be audited by the Government Accountability Office. Apparently, some people got fed up with Kirkpatrick's shenanigans. The question is: what is going on?
11
« on: January 19, 2024, 09:56 »
An interesting analysis of the situation by Bernardo Kastrup: https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2024/01/uaps-and-non-human-intelligence-what-is.htmlAs usually, Bernardo is very interested in parsimony. However, there is no guarantee that parsimony will lead to the truth. Still, an interesting hypothesis, an intersting point of view and a very balanced article. It might also be one of multiple aspects of the phenomenon. Bernardo had consulted the essay with such people as e.g. Garry Nolan and Hal Puthoff.
12
« on: January 17, 2024, 13:36 »
Yes it is whatabout. Your history the mythology the beliefs the fantasy science fiction is all flawed, lies, fables, fakes and not science. What about that? Talk about escaping the question, you divert and don't answer. What about all the fakes and debunked stories for over 60 years. And your pal Lowls doesn't answer anything, he just turns into Donald Trump and starts spewing personal attacks, trying to bully anyone who disagrees. How childish.
If you want it all to be about Grush and parallel planes, that's fine. But you have to excuse me for pointing out, UFOs and Aliens have attracted a large set of liars and nut cases. Religious doomsday cults that ended in suicide. End of the world, with the aliens coming down to save us.
Whatabout the history and the false claims. That's a fair question to ask.
1. You repeatedly, and with premeditation, use whataboutism, which is a logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism2. You build a straw man, and then you burn it, which is another logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man3. When confronted with facts, you go berserk and spit out vitriol in an act resembling religious fanaticism. Destroying the chessboard when you are losing. You don't bring any constructive arguments of your own to the discussion. Zero positive contribution to the subject. You just claim that it is all fraud and lies and all people dealing with the phenomenon are frauds - because some might have been - when there is absolutely no causal relationship between those people and what is happening now with Grusch's claims. Therefore I must conclude that you don't display any good will and don't seem to be interested in finding out the truth about the phenomenon. And as a result of that, participating in a conversation with you is intellectually a very underwhelming activity. You don't even know what my personal views about the nature of the phenomenon are, because your fanaticism doesn't allow the possibility of explanations that are contrary to your belief system. And in this thread, I did try to see the phenomenon from multiple angles - including a possibility of a psyop. Viewing an issue from multiple sides and considering various explanations requires good will, and as I wrote above - I don't think you have it.
13
« on: January 16, 2024, 12:03 »
I wrote to the forum, not to you. Maybe you can tell me, what do you think of Bob Lazar, Billy Meier, Ed Walters, George Adamski, David Icke, Jonathan Reed, and Steven Greer? How about Roswell, Ray Santilli and the alien autopsy? Or are you only going with Grusch from now on and ignoring the long history of fakes and frauds.
As I said, please work on your logical reasoning skills. What you present here is a classic case of whataboutism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhataboutismMaybe some, or all, of those people were frauds, maybe there were some nuggets of truth in their claims, I honestly don't know. Some are suspicious. But whatever they claimed is absolutely irrelevant to the person of Grusch. They don't matter. All it takes is one single confirmed case and the whole denialism crumbles like a house of cards. Grusch is an investigator tasked with this job by the US government. He did present evidence to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community - Thomas Monheim. Based on that evidence he briefed Congressmen about his findings. Coming out of the briefing, they said " Grusch's claims have merit", " Grusch is legit". These are facts, for crying out loud. Another fact is that a lobby in the House fought hard (and won) against the Schumer amendment, which had been passed earlier in the Senate. It is logical to assume that there is some struggle in the circles of power; some are for disclosure, others are against it. Now, can I say with 100% certainty that what Grusch claims is true? No, I cannot, because I have no means to verify that information myself. And that is OK. But if you think that Grusch doesn't say the truth, the IGIC told lies to the Congress Committe, then you must deal with one very serious question and that question is: W*T*F is going on???Escaping that question is intellectual laziness and mediocrity. If you think that there is something suspicious going behind the curtain, then there you go: that is a conspiracy theory, too.
14
« on: January 14, 2024, 18:47 »
There is a very big sway towards interdimensional. It seems to be being bandied about more and more. I'm not there on that one but it is concerning to see it more and more. Just another race seems inevitable but one or many that can open portals or doorways into our world seems incorrect.
From Northrop Grumman:
https://now.northropgrumman.com/do-doors-to-interdimensional-travel-exist
Background information from Wikipedia for those who don't know Northrop Grumman:
Northrop Grumman Corporation is an American multinational aerospace and defense technology company. With 95,000 employees and an annual revenue in excess of $30 billion, it is one of the world's largest weapons manufacturers and military technology providers.
now here's a red herring! - if you bothered to, look at the 'about' page you'd find The content on this site doesnt necessarily reflect the views of Northrop Grumman.
and the actual article just reviews current thinking about the POSSIBILITY, and that's for gravitational influences, not wormholes or blackhole transports
nothing new here & no connectin with UFO
Oh, for crying out loud, linking to a page doesn't necessarily mean endorsement. As the inter-dimensional hypothesis had been mentioned, I thought it was interesting that people writing for Northrop Grumman contemplate such ideas. The inter-dimensional hypothesis in the context of UFOs may mean several things. But exploring such possibilities requires leaving Plato's Cave, or rejecting the blue pill. And instead of nitpicking, you might also address the gigantic elephant in the room, which is Friday's briefing with Inspector General.
15
« on: January 14, 2024, 09:32 »
Another phony pseudoscience story is deflated. Pop go the aliens.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/they-are-not-aliens-peru-officials-debunk-claims-that-figures-are-extraterrestrials/ar-AA1mTjPM?OCID=ansmsnnews11
"The conclusion is simple: they are dolls assembled with bones of animals from this planet, with modern synthetic glues, therefore they were not assembled during pre-Hispanic times," Estrada said. "They are not extraterrestrials; they are not aliens."
In the light of the recent events, that story and your post are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT and uninteresting. Red herring.
In other news, yesterday it didn't snow in Morocco.
I thought you would be against lies, deception and coverup. Instead you try to defend the science fiction fantasy, fake news about alien bodies. This is over but another claim or fake will replace it. There are no alien corpses, no photos, no evidence, every. It is completely relevant to the UFO alien cult that will believe any trash fake news and spread it like it's real. Don't you have any integrity or standards in your search for the truth?
I suggest you sharpen your reading-with-understanding skills and work on logical reasoning. You have built a strawman and now you are burning it. Where did I write that the mummies were real? Did any of the serious people working in the field (Nolan, Elizondo, Grusch, Mellon, Coulthard) even picked up the story? No, they avoided it, perhaps because they knew it was a distraction. Who cares about the dolls when there is Grusch? "in the light of recent events" = an investigator working for the US government had made some very serious and specific claims about a cover-up and more. On Friday, the Inspector General informed the Congress Committee about his findings based on the evidence provided to him by Grusch. After the briefing, Congressmen said "Grusch is legit", "Grusch's claims have merit". And that is the real story, not some mummies. The briefing is a FACT. It is a scandal that many mainstream media chose to cover the mummies and remained silent about the implications of the briefing. You pick some facts that fit into your denialist worldview and choose not to see the real story. You have swallowed the red herring that most likely was thrown to the denialist crowd as a distraction. Bon apptit.
16
« on: January 13, 2024, 18:34 »
There is a very big sway towards interdimensional. It seems to be being bandied about more and more. I'm not there on that one but it is concerning to see it more and more. Just another race seems inevitable but one or many that can open portals or doorways into our world seems incorrect.
From Northrop Grumman: https://now.northropgrumman.com/do-doors-to-interdimensional-travel-existBackground information from Wikipedia for those who don't know Northrop Grumman: Northrop Grumman Corporation is an American multinational aerospace and defense technology company. With 95,000 employees and an annual revenue in excess of $30 billion, it is one of the world's largest weapons manufacturers and military technology providers.
18
« on: January 13, 2024, 14:07 »
....
I assume that "many of Grusch's claims have merit" is an understatement, due to the fact that the info is classified. If even some of Grusch's claims were true, then it is really big. If what Grusch said was BS, I don't think they would be dealing with it the way they are doing it.
...
there are many reasons info is classified. first the use of classified has metastasized, and many dox being declassified should never have been so, but there are also concerns that info would disclose security capabilities, etc. dox repeating info published by major newspapers & blogs have also been classified.
conclusion - classification does not imply conspiracy to hide results or even dox having significant new info.
That is not the point. I see the statement "many of Grusch's claims have merit" as a likely understatement. As the briefing was in a SCIF, they are probably not allowed to discuss it in detail. Saying "pretty much everything that Grusch said is true" would reveal too much, and Moskovitz was not allowed to do so. So, a general statement like that, without going into details, is actually pretty big, especially as they will definitely continue to investigate the matter. Perhaps they have got names and addresses and were presented evidence. If it was BS, it would have been simply dismissed and the case would have been closed. The heck, even if only some part of Grusch's claims are true, it is a gamechanger, and the denialist worldview crumbles like a house of cards.
19
« on: January 12, 2024, 15:03 »
After the SCIF, Burchett says "Grusch is legit": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEQNq0HkyFcRep. Moskovitz: "Based on what we heard many of Grusch claims have merit!"https://twitter.com/JaredEMoskowitz/status/1745852400630456618Rep. Luna: Grusch never said extraterrestrial, he said interdimensional. There is a movement to prevent us from finding out more information https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/194zbl8/rep_luna_grusch_never_said_extraterrestrial_he/Have they been briefed about "something that doesn't exist"? Or are we pretty darn close to the actual disclosure? 1966 - Hynek receives a phone call from the government and is forced to lie to the public that the sightings were "swamp gas". Hynek was a skeptic who became a believer after his research 2017 - Pentagon confirms that some UAPs are real, not hallucinations and not hoaxes. And not "swamp gas". 2023 - Grusch says there is a reverse-engineering program, there are NHI and that has been going on for many decades 2024 - Inspector General must have seen the evidence provided by Grusch, Congressmen are presented information from the IG and say that Grusch is not a lunatic or a liar THESE ARE FACTS. There is a point of origin: "the lie about swamp gas" - and there is a direction in which new events unfold - based on that trajectory we can try to extrapolate where the story is heading. I picked the point of origin arbitrarily - but that event confirms that the government really knew something more and tried to cover it up. I assume that "many of Grusch's claims have merit" is an understatement, due to the fact that the info is classified. If even some of Grusch's claims were true, then it is really big. If what Grusch said was BS, I don't think they would be dealing with it the way they are doing it. I suppose the denialist worldview is about to crumble like a house of cards. Perhaps things will get "woo"...
20
« on: September 25, 2023, 15:27 »
any theory destroyed by 1 black swan was a poor theory to start with. scientists wouldn't make a statement such as 'there are no black swans' and you have yet to give an actual scientific example from the modern world
The phenomenon of terminal lucidity could potentially be a black swan for the materialist idea that the mind and consciousness are generated by the brain. And as such, for the whole materialist paradigm. Unless materialists come up with an explanation in the future, it probably is a black swan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_lucidityhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20010032/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36160593/
21
« on: September 25, 2023, 15:13 »
Hundreds of years ago, some people in Europe claimed that black swans were not possible - without having explored the whole of the Earth. That was arrogant.
So you say, yet so far you have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that ANYONE, let alone a scientist of any repute, EVER said anything like that.
The phrase "black swan" derives from a Latin expression; its oldest known occurrence is from the 2nd-century Roman poet Juvenal's characterization in his Satire VI of something being "rara avis in terris nigroque simillima cygno" ("a rare bird in the lands and very much like a black swan").[4]: 165 [5][6] When the phrase was coined, the black swan was presumed not to exist. The importance of the metaphor lies in its analogy to the fragility of any system of thought. A set of conclusions is potentially undone once any of its fundamental postulates is disproved. In this case, the observation of a single black swan would be the undoing of the logic of any system of thought, as well as any reasoning that followed from that underlying logic.
Juvenal's phrase was a common expression in 16th century London as a statement of impossibility.[7] The London expression derives from the Old World presumption that all swans must be white because all historical records of swans reported that they had white feathers.[8] In that context, a black swan was impossible or at least nonexistent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
22
« on: September 25, 2023, 09:25 »
In fact, I am a believer in black swans. I just saw a pair of them a few days ago in a zoo.
I do not believe in swans abducting people, though. So, show me comparable evidence for extraterrestial involvement in the "UFO phenomenon" and I'll become a believer there, too.
Dude, I couldn't care less about what you believe in. I am not proselytizing anyone. As a matter of fact, 'believe' is a very dangerous word. I don't "believe" in any hypothesis regarding the origin of UFOs. I just acknowledge them as potential explanations. I like to listen to people who have been researching the subject for very long. Some seem more credible and knowledgeable than others. And I think it is stupid to discard and discredit all of them as fraudsters. Hundreds of years ago, some people in Europe claimed that black swans were not possible - without having explored the whole of the Earth. That was arrogant. Right now, people claim that it is not possible that NHIs are behind UFOs - without having explored the Universe or understanding the nature of reality. Different centuries, the same kind of arrogance. Sometimes, you need to reason like Sherlock Holmes - if you eliminate possibilities one by one - whatever is left will be true, no matter how unlikely it seems at first. If you cannot eliminate certain explanations with available knowledge - it sucks, but it sometimes happens and you just need to be patient.
23
« on: September 24, 2023, 15:37 »
But this was then a general statements about the swans observed so far and did not exclude the possibility that black swans may be discovered elsewhere.
If someone theorized about black adult swans in 17th century Europe, than they spoke about something that had not yet been observed, but might well exist, according to the knowledge of the time.
So I hope you see the difference to the UFO theories today. They not only make claims that have not yet been proven true, but may well be true, but they make claims that are very unlikely to be true. Just like swans spewing fire or abducting people.
No, you don't get the metaphor, you're just trying to convolute it. For what it's worth, our knowledge of the Universe and the wider reality is not much greater than the knowledge of the Earth's fauna in 17th century Europe. " claims that are very unlikely to be true" - unlikely within our very limited (mainstream) understanding of reality? You just assume that the UFO phenomenon doesn't involve non-human intelligence, reject all kinds of proposed hypotheses, and yet you cannot formulate any other sensible hypothesis. Pure denial and nothing alternative to contribute. A black-swan event is a single event that completely destroys a theory or a worldview. And therefore, denialism is an intellectually risky position, because it can be destroyed by such a single black-swan event.
24
« on: September 24, 2023, 15:12 »
which critics here have said alien visits MUST be false? instead we ask for some actual evidence -- the results so far are that a few reports re UNEXPLAINED.
1. It is my impression that all denialists active here reject the possibility of alien visits. Let's reverse the question then: which denialists here entertain the possibility of alien visits? But: when you say "alien" (in the sense 'extraterrestrial') - it is already an assumption and an interpretation. If you listen to serious people who have been researching this subject for long, e.g. Valle or Nolan - they generally don't make that assumption anymore. In fact, they moved away from the extraterrestrial hypothesis. 2. Demanding 'evidence' in a forum like this is ridiculous and unfair. Do you expect somebody to leak some classified Pentagon, Lockheed, Raytheon documents in Microstockgroup (assuming such documents exist)? That is nonsense. You need to realize where we come from and where we are now, regarding the subject. Anyone with thinking skills and true interest in the subject will know that a lot has changed since 2017. That year seems to have been a pivotal moment. The phenomenon was officially acknowledged, even though there was no official interpretation. And then the Elizondo guy appeared on the scene, dropping "breadcrumbs", as he calls the information that he is allowed to share. Is it plausible that some compelling evidence and details are classified and there are factions opposing the disclosure? I think it is plausible. Plausible doesn't mean it is certain, but it very well could be true. Imagine going to a muslim country and present them "evidence" that everything what they believe in is false. You would not make it out alive and it would create a gigantic mess. Now, this thread paradoxically shows why releasing compelling evidence to the public may be problematic. Only mentioning the subject has pushed several participants to ridicule the subject, and to demand that the subject is swept under the carpet because it is nonsense, not real, fantasy, etc. These people did not propose any alternative explanations, any hypotheses which could be defended. I think right now all we can do is try to connect the dots, or Elizondo's "breadcrumbs". Something weird is definitely going on and it is perfectly fine to make speculations and formulate hypotheses. But ridiculing other's hypotheses and not provide anything alternative is lame and pathetic. You do have reports of experiencers and researchers. You don't need to believe all of them. Some are known hoaxers, some are not credible. You can try to assess their credibility and seriousness on an individual level. You can try to verify the facts or even go with a gut feeling. But discrediting all of them a priori is lame - it is a white-swan bias. Do I think Elizondo is credible? I think he is either credible or one of the best actors in the world. Could he be part of some psyops? I cannot exclude such a possibility, but nevertheless, he does have very interesting things to say. And I do think that he has seen things. At the moment, it really looks like there are attempts to disclose something, whatever it is. And there are pro-disclosure and anti-disclosure factions within the US government. Instead sweeping the subject under the carpet, you can try to connect the dots for yourself, come up with your own hypothesis and not bash people who dare to talk about the subject.
25
« on: September 24, 2023, 14:08 »
Denialism is also a form of religious fanticism. It has nothing to do with science. The foundation of science is curiosity. Without curiosity you can't have science, so denialists should not pretend to be pro-science. People like Garry Nolan or Avi Loeb do science. And science at the highest level, for that matter. They certainly don't lack curiosity.
Denialism is basically a white-swan theory.
https://mythsexplained.substack.com/p/all-swans-are-white
Denialists will try to discredit and ridicule all people and reports that are contrary to their beliefs. No matter what, any kind of reports of black swans must be false, because black swans are not possible. In this forum, it has grown to a religious fanaticism.
But all it takes is a single black-swan event, and a white-swan worldview crumbles like a house of cards.
Who has ever formulated a "white-swan thoery"?
Even if we ignore the fact that young swans are generally not white, I doubt that any scientist has ever formulated something that goes beyond:
All swans that we know of are white as adults.
This does not exclude the possibility that other swan species may be black or that some mutation might cause an adult swan to be grey or black.
So, I have to ask you: who has ever stated anything like:
"Swans in other colors than white are not possible"
Do you understand the concept of a metaphor? Once again: https://mythsexplained.substack.com/p/all-swans-are-white
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
