Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Apollo 14 astronaut claims aliens HAVE made contact

Apollo 14 astronaut claims aliens HAVE made contact (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2008, 04:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
Verifiability.

That is all.

Just that.
Define verifiable. Is it something that you yourself can verify, or is it something that someone else can verify?
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2008, 05:16 PM
 
I remember Kevin would do the same thing you do in any discussion he had no hope in hell of ever "winning" on actual knowledge of the subject or reasoned arguments: He'd attempt to sidetrack into increasingly inane semantic arguments until people simply gave up in exasperation and he "won" by default.

I have no problem granting you the same courtesy even before you pull this one off:

One can't argue with a horse.

G'day, sir.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2008, 05:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
Not at all...by your definition, ET do exist because there have been observed, seen, firsthand, reports of ET and crafts. And there have been experiments by them on us as well as by us on them.

But answer my question...how many people must have observed something and what do their credentials have to be for it to become empirical evidence? Go on, answer.
The Virgin Mary has been observed, esen, firsthand, reported, and all that in a lot of people's omelettes too. Does that mean there's empirical proof that she was really there?

A lot of people have also claimed to have developed perpetual motion machines, despite their unwillingness or inability to demonstrate them in public or share their designs with real scientists. Does that prove empirically that perpetual motion machines exist?

Look, I'm on your side. I believe that alien life probably does exist, and intelligent alien life at that. I'm less certain that the reported sightings and experiments involving said life on and around Earth are true, but I don't rule it out. However there really is no verifiable evidence of such. Just because some people claim that there's a government conspiracy covering it up doesn't really mean that there is. I'm willing to entertain the possibility, and even to suspect that it's true, but the simple fact is there really is no good evidence for it. Pictures and videos can be doctored and faked, and the huge library of science fiction out there proves that we're more than capable of making these stories up.
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2008, 05:40 PM
 
I was coming to my point:

Somehow people have an easy time believing a bunch of scientists when the results fit with their beliefs. But when these sciences come up with something that doesn't fit with their beliefs, they're "crazy" and their observation couldn't possibly be empirical evidence.

Such is the case with my Greenland example where you guys put your trust in a bunch of people that tell you that Greenland exists and has such and such characteristics and is populated by x number of people. But when a few scientist astronauts that have observed ET crafts flying with them or seen them, it's "stupid nonsense", "not evidence", "phony baloney stories", "they're losing their marbles."
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2008, 05:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
I was coming to my point:

Somehow people have an easy time believing a bunch of scientists when the results fit with their beliefs. But when these sciences come up with something that doesn't fit with their beliefs, they're "crazy" and their observation couldn't possibly be empirical evidence.

Such is the case with my Greenland example where you guys put your trust in a bunch of people that tell you that Greenland exists and has such and such characteristics and is populated by x number of people. But when a few scientist astronauts that have observed ET crafts flying with them or seen them, it's "stupid nonsense", "not evidence", "phony baloney stories", "they're losing their marbles."
Reproducible and verifiable are the two key ideas you are missing here. ANYONE in the whole world, given the funds, can get on a plane and physically go to Greenland and observe for themselves that it does in fact exist and that people do live there.

Of course, I think your real question is about the nature of evidence-based beliefs and why some claims made (Greenland does exist) are believed even without first-hand evidence of the truth of the statement while other claims made (aliens do exist and are among us) are not believed without first-hand evidence of the truth of the statement. My answer would be that greater claims (people from another planet are here among us) require greater levels of proof to be believed without first-hand evidence.

What this is an example of is how strong we have a belief in the scientific method (i.e.: data gathered using methods that are reproducible by others and conclusions drawn that are verifiable by others) as being able to provide us with some level of truth that we don't have to verify for ourselves.

So, show us a way that all of us can, independent of one another, test the hypothesis that "aliens do exist". Show us the way that all of us, independent of one another, can verify the evidence for the existence of aliens. If you can submit your claims for the existence of aliens to the rigors of the scientific method and have the results be reproducible and verifiable then we take this discussions a step further.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2008, 06:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
So, show us a way that all of us can, independent of one another, test the hypothesis that "aliens do exist". Show us the way that all of us, independent of one another, can verify the evidence for the existence of aliens. If you can submit your claims for the existence of aliens to the rigors of the scientific method and have the results be reproducible and verifiable then we take this discussions a step further.
So everyone must be able to reproduce things for it to be verifiable? Seems like bullshit to me because I bet none of us here have a Hubble-like telescope in our house and nobody here has an electron microscope to play with. So most of us don't have the ability to "verify the evidence" of planets in our own solar system or evidence of microbial life or cells.

So I ask again, how many people does it take and what must their credentials be for some observed event to become empirical evidence? You say that ET life requires greater proof, well, how many scientists/astronauts/pilots should it take before the same observed phenomenon becomes true?

How many people did it take to prove that Greenland exists?
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2008, 07:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies View Post
Not all aliens are the same, Eriamjh.

There are good aliens, and there are evil aliens. The good aliens are secretly working with the governments of Earth to make the planet a better place; the evil aliens are hijacking our nuclear weapons in an attempt to destroy us all.

Why is this difficult to understand?
You've got it backwards. The good aliens are interfering with our nukes to prevent us from destroying ourselves and becoming a threat to the rest of the galaxy while the bad aliens are conspiring with our governments to create a united earth that will lend material support to their campaign of interstellar conquest.

Either that or they're all after our women.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2008, 07:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
I was coming to my point:

Somehow people have an easy time believing a bunch of scientists when the results fit with their beliefs. But when these sciences come up with something that doesn't fit with their beliefs, they're "crazy" and their observation couldn't possibly be empirical evidence.

Such is the case with my Greenland example where you guys put your trust in a bunch of people that tell you that Greenland exists and has such and such characteristics and is populated by x number of people. But when a few scientist astronauts that have observed ET crafts flying with them or seen them, it's "stupid nonsense", "not evidence", "phony baloney stories", "they're losing their marbles."
I've seen Greenland.
     
Lava Lamp Freak
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2008, 07:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
So everyone must be able to reproduce things for it to be verifiable? Seems like bullshit to me because I bet none of us here have a Hubble-like telescope in our house and nobody here has an electron microscope to play with. So most of us don't have the ability to "verify the evidence" of planets in our own solar system or evidence of microbial life or cells.

So I ask again, how many people does it take and what must their credentials be for some observed event to become empirical evidence? You say that ET life requires greater proof, well, how many scientists/astronauts/pilots should it take before the same observed phenomenon becomes true?

How many people did it take to prove that Greenland exists?
I understand what you are asking and I personally apply a different set of rules to proof of your existence versus proof of alien government conspiracies. I personally have no way to verify any of the things the UFO people are saying, but even they can't all agree with each other. Their stories contradict each other, so they can't all be accurate.

I don't think any number of people or who they are could convince me of any of these conspiracies. If someone tells me he is from Australia, I'll take his word for it considering the existence of Australia is not in question. If someone tells me he is privy to a secret world wide government conspiracy that has been ongoing for 60 years to hide the proof of ET presence on earth, he'll have to provide some sort of evidence that can be verified by multiple sources who are reputable and don't have an agenda.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2008, 12:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
So everyone must be able to reproduce things for it to be verifiable? Seems like bullshit to me because I bet none of us here have a Hubble-like telescope in our house and nobody here has an electron microscope to play with. So most of us don't have the ability to "verify the evidence" of planets in our own solar system or evidence of microbial life or cells.
You know, if you go outside on most any night and look up you can see a few planets. It's called naked-eye astronomy. No need for a big fancy machine to do that. (In fact, the Hubble is too *close* to the planets to see them with any degree of clarity. It's optics are tuned for looking at objects much, much further away than our little solar system.)

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
So I ask again, how many people does it take and what must their credentials be for some observed event to become empirical evidence? You say that ET life requires greater proof, well, how many scientists/astronauts/pilots should it take before the same observed phenomenon becomes true?
Reproducible and verifiable are words that need to be added to your vocabulary, my friend. I can reproduce someone's experiment of looking at the stars with my own eyes or a telescope. I can verify the existence of Greenland by going there if I want to. I can't verify someone's claim about UFO sightings without a similar context. If UFO sightings were like migratory animal sightings in that they appeared at a certain place on the planet at regular periods of time every year, then yes, their existence could be both verified and reproduced.

Again, you are asking us to just take someone's word for it. And the greater the claim, the greater the proof. Now, for something like microbial structures, we do have to put a lot of faith in someone's claims because very few of us have, or have access to, electron microscopes. But--this is where those two magic words (verifiable and reproducible) come in handy--someone's claims based on observations made with an electron microscope can be easily verified by someone else with an electron microscope. In addition, the experimental criteria used to make those observations can be reproduced.

Neither of these factors can be consistently and reliably met with claims to the existence of UFOs. Trust me, I believe they are out there--I have said this in other threads--but until I see one for myself or there is strong verifiable proof for me to believe I will continue to question the claims made by others.

We need a random sighting in a densely populated area with lots of people making claims to seeing the exact same thing and verifiable evidence--still and moving images from numerous un-related individuals would be useful--for people like you to be taken more seriously. I can assure you, the first time some alien ship lands in a major metropolitan area somewhere in the world, there will be locals with cameras, and tourists with cameras, and CCTV cameras from surrounding buildings, and news crews with cameras all there to capture the moment. And then you can come on here and say "I told you so." or "See, see. I was right.". But until then, you need to find a better way to support your claims, becase right now they don't provide enough un-controvertible evidence to support your claims.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2008, 12:25 AM
 
If aliens are in our midst, why are they always hiding from us? If they have such technology as would allow them to traverse to galaxy, but such benevolence to not attack us, why are they not making themselves known? How do they benefit from hiding from us, and how has human civilization benefited from having no knowledge of them for the past several thousand years?
     
Tiresias
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Korea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2008, 12:29 AM
 
^ It's a way of getting round the "anthropologist's dilemma" : your presence in the jungle alters the behavior of the tribe you are trying to study. These are intergalatic ecologists, in other words.

Can you prove I am wrong? No? I rest my case.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2008, 12:39 AM
 
Do you think they are working with Jobs on the multi-touch tablet project?
     
Tiresias
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Korea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2008, 12:54 AM
 
Yes. In contributing their superior technological expertise to the development of consumer electronics, the Grays are trying to redeem themselves for causing the 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration, as every schoolboy knows, were merely the automatons of an extraterrestrial experiment in long-distance mind-control that went horribly wrong.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2008, 02:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
Verifiability.

That is all.

Just that.
just for shits and giggles...


Verify that you actually exist, and aren't a figment of my imagination.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2008, 04:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
just for shits and giggles...


Verify that you actually exist, and aren't a figment of my imagination.
Fallacious argument (at least with regard to the subject here):

If you take it to that philosophical level, every argumentation becomes useless - for if *I* don't exist except as a figment of your imagination (and my existence can be verified as far as possible by meeting me in real life), why would aliens?
     
Tiresias
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Korea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2008, 05:50 AM
 
From aliens to solipsism.

Next topic: big foot and Cartesian dualism.
     
Guy Stone
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: House of music.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2008, 07:29 PM
 
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2008, 11:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Tiresias View Post
^ It's a way of getting round the "anthropologist's dilemma" : your presence in the jungle alters the behavior of the tribe you are trying to study. These are intergalatic ecologists, in other words.

Can you prove I am wrong? No? I rest my case.
Mark this day.

For once I completely agree with you.

Shocked?!?! No more than I am. No more than I am.
     
Tiresias
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Korea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2008, 12:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
For once I completely agree with you.
If you have hitherto been in the habit of disagreeing with me, Railroader, I haven't noticed.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2008, 08:09 PM
 
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2008, 10:05 PM
 
'I've been in military and intelligence circles, who know that beneath the surface of what has been public knowledge, yes - we have been visited. Reading the papers recently, it's been happening quite a bit.'
In other words, those spy guys have been stuffing his gullible brain with nonsense for years. He's not claiming first-hand knowledge.
     
moep  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2008, 08:16 AM
 
"There are alien bases on earth"

World renowned UFO researcher Timothy Good tells BBC WM about the UFO sightings wave gripping Britain, the government's secret liaisons with extraterrestrials and why a real 'Star Wars' might be coming.
Source: BBC & radio interview (use VLC)
"The road to success is dotted with the most tempting parking spaces."
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2008, 09:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
In other words, those spy guys have been stuffing his gullible brain with nonsense for years. He's not claiming first-hand knowledge.
It doesn't really matter if you believe Ed Mitchell or not. All of it will be revealed within our lifetime...probably sooner than later.

Of course, NASA, SETI and the US will keep denying it and US media will keep a lot of North America in the dark, and **** is probably going to hit the fan when a critical mass of people is getting mixed messages. Many people that deny the existence of ET crafts visiting our planet based on their trust of the US media and government will probably say "I knew it all along" when they finally learn the truth.

So in the end, it doesn't really matter. People will gradually know the truth despite the United States' best efforts to keep this secret to push their agenda on the world.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2008, 10:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
It doesn't really matter if you believe Ed Mitchell or not. All of it will be revealed within our lifetime...probably sooner than later.
What do you base your authoritative statement upon?

And will this be before or after the Second Coming of Christ?
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2008, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
What do you base your authoritative statement upon?
Sources that aren't controlled by US conglomerates. You're probably not interested in them since you thoroughly enjoy getting fisted by US and UK media.
     
Full-Auto
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicagoland area
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2008, 02:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
From his Wikipedia article:
How did he get into the space program being such a complete nut?
     
design219
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2008, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
You're probably not interested in them since you thoroughly enjoy getting fisted by US and UK media.
You know, I really don't understand how people get the idea the media is controlled. By anyone. I used to be a journalist, and I can tell you, journalists are the most uncontrollable people in the world. They don't take to being told what to do, and they sure as hell don't keep secrets.

The idea that all the members of the media are going to keep a secret is just nuts. Real proof of aliens would be the biggest scoop in the history of journalism.
__________________________________________________

My stupid iPhone game: Nesen Probe, it's rather old, annoying and pointless, but it's free.
Was free. Now it's gone. Never to be seen again.
Off to join its brother and sister apps that could not
keep up with the ever updating iOS. RIP Nesen Probe.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2008, 04:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
Sources that aren't controlled by US conglomerates. You're probably not interested in them since you thoroughly enjoy getting fisted by US and UK media.
Do you enjoy believing that I might be in the US or UK?
     
Atheist
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back in the Good Ole US of A
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2008, 04:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
Do you enjoy believing that I might be in the US or UK?
One of the classic flaws of conspiracy theorists. They forget there is more to the world than the United States. Obviously aliens wouldn't bother contacting humans elsewhere on the planet.
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2008, 06:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
Do you enjoy believing that I might be in the US or UK?
Well...you might be from Germany or living in Germany but I'm sure most your news comes from US/UK sources...if not, I feel sorry for you because you're actually getting unfiltered news and you're still showing ignorance to the highest degree.
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2008, 06:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by design219 View Post
You know, I really don't understand how people get the idea the media is controlled. By anyone. I used to be a journalist, and I can tell you, journalists are the most uncontrollable people in the world. They don't take to being told what to do, and they sure as hell don't keep secrets.

The idea that all the members of the media are going to keep a secret is just nuts. Real proof of aliens would be the biggest scoop in the history of journalism.
Uh huh...tell me more. This is very interesting.

Wait...blogging doesn't count as journalism, design219.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2008, 06:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
Well...you might be from Germany or living in Germany but I'm sure most your news comes from US/UK sources...if not, I feel sorry for you because you're actually getting unfiltered news and you're still showing ignorance to the highest degree.
Wow, not only do you think that there's some massive conspiracy controlling the media in the US and UK, but that it has no influence in Germany (or, presumably, other countries)?
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2008, 02:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by design219
You know, I really don't understand how people get the idea the media is controlled. By anyone. I used to be a journalist, and I can tell you, journalists are the most uncontrollable people in the world. They don't take to being told what to do, and they sure as hell don't keep secrets.

The idea that all the members of the media are going to keep a secret is just nuts. Real proof of aliens would be the biggest scoop in the history of journalism.
Used to be a journalist, when?

As I understand it, the field has changed a lot from how it used to be. Asking probing questions and investigating stories is actively discouraged in journalism classes. Ninety per cent of everything that appears in the UK media is unverified propaganda taken from the Press Association, who get it directly from the government.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2008, 02:28 AM
 
The government is the party responsible for the stories you see in the British media?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2008, 02:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
Well...you might be from Germany or living in Germany but I'm sure most your news comes from US/UK sources...if not, I feel sorry for you because you're actually getting unfiltered news and you're still showing ignorance to the highest degree.
Not only that, but I used to work for a news medium for six years, so I actually know fairly exactly where my news is coming from...

Oh well, at least I have a basic understanding of physics and how camera optics work, so I'm not a total loss.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2008, 04:59 AM
 
nm.
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2008, 08:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
Not only that, but I used to work for a news medium for six years, so I actually know fairly exactly where my news is coming from...

Oh well, at least I have a basic understanding of physics and how camera optics work, so I'm not a total loss.
Yeah...everyone's worked in journalism. Don't feel too special.

The editor-in-chief has the final word. And unless you have that position, you have little control of what gets published.

Unless you work with local media, where you may have more freedom to publish what you want, you have to publish what *they* want.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2008, 09:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
Yeah...everyone's worked in journalism. Don't feel too special.

The editor-in-chief has the final word. And unless you have that position, you have little control of what gets published.

Unless you work with local media, where you may have more freedom to publish what you want, you have to publish what *they* want.
Of course, if you've ever worked in the media, you know exactly what gets dropped, and what gets reported, since you're privy to the raw reports and topic spread *before* it's subjected to the editor-in-chief-decided topic focus.

BTW, your IP has been logged. My masters know you're onto them. They will be looking after you shortly.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2008, 09:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
Yeah...everyone's worked in journalism. Don't feel too special.
Most people I know haven't. How many years of journalism experience do you have at a newspaper of record?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2008, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Most people I know haven't.
O RLY?

How many years of journalism experience do you have at a newspaper of record?
6 billion years of experience.
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2008, 10:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
Of course, if you've ever worked in the media, you know exactly what gets dropped, and what gets reported, since you're privy to the raw reports and topic spread *before* it's subjected to the editor-in-chief-decided topic focus.

BTW, your IP has been logged. My masters know you're onto them. They will be looking after you shortly.
Awesome.
     
Lava Lamp Freak
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2008, 11:20 AM
 
Is the government allowing CNN and other press to post the story on Mitchell? Do they think he sounds crazy enough that no one will believe him?
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2008, 11:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
So everyone must be able to reproduce things for it to be verifiable? Seems like bullshit to me because I bet none of us here have a Hubble-like telescope in our house and nobody here has an electron microscope to play with. So most of us don't have the ability to "verify the evidence" of planets in our own solar system or evidence of microbial life or cells.

So I ask again, how many people does it take and what must their credentials be for some observed event to become empirical evidence? You say that ET life requires greater proof, well, how many scientists/astronauts/pilots should it take before the same observed phenomenon becomes true?
Horsey:

You were gone for a few days and when you returned you seemed to have forgotten our discussions about empirical evidence and how it can be verified and/or validated. Have you given up on that topic? I would still like to know how you think we can use verifiability and reproducibility to prove the existence of aliens.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2008, 01:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Horsey:

You were gone for a few days and when you returned you seemed to have forgotten our discussions about empirical evidence and how it can be verified and/or validated. Have you given up on that topic? I would still like to know how you think we can use verifiability and reproducibility to prove the existence of aliens.
I haven't...I asked a simple question and nobody answered it. I thought *you* and your friends had given up.

You even quote my question and never bother to answer it:

So I ask AGAIN, how many people does it take and what must their credentials be for some observed event to become empirical evidence? You say that ET life requires greater proof, well, how many scientists/astronauts/pilots should it take before the same observed phenomenon becomes true?

There are observed reports out there that count more than one witness. From more than one location. Verified by radar. This was not a one-time event. These reports are reproduced again. Every day. Multiple times a day. By Joe Normal as well as scientists, astronauts, pilots, meteorologist, astronomers, police officers.

So are you going to tell me that a bunch scientists that peer through a electron microscope to tell the world of their observations are more trustworthy than scientists, astronauts, pilots, meteorologist, astronomers that see a flying saucer or triangular craft with visual and radar data?

That's selective trust. And it's bullshit. You know it. Chuckit knows it. analogika knows it.

You only trust what fits in your system of beliefs. It's sad.
( Last edited by Horsepoo!!!; Jul 29, 2008 at 01:47 PM. )
     
f1000
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2008, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
ETs have had an increased interest in this planet when the first two A-bombs were dropped on Japan. Since then, not a single A-bomb was dropped. It was assumed that everyone became smart and decided to never drop another A-bomb ever again. But I'm not so sure. Nuke disarming by UFOs is not a localized event. They have been disarming nukes all over the globe.

IMO, they are making sure we never use another nuke again.
Nuclear weapons have been detonated hundreds of times, by over a half-dozen countries, since WWII. If aliens have been disarming nukes, they've been doing a lousy job of it.

Besides, the only time humans protect another species is to cultivate it. If aliens are indeed preventing us from nuking ourselves, maybe it's because they believe we taste better raw than well done?

     
f1000
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2008, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Full-Auto View Post
How did he get into the space program being such a complete nut?

The same way these two did:

     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2008, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by f1000 View Post
Nuclear weapons have been detonated hundreds of times, by over a half-dozen countries, since WWII. If aliens have been disarming nukes, they've been doing a lousy job of it.

Besides, the only time humans protect another species is to cultivate it. If aliens are indeed preventing us from nuking ourselves, maybe it's because they believe we taste better raw than well done?
Really? So you're saying that when people are trying to save endangered species they're really in it to cultivate it and eat them?

Have these nuclear devices been detonated to kill people? Come on, don't be shy...answer my question.
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2008, 02:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by f1000 View Post
The same way these two did:

So...are you admitting NASA is an incompetent organization?
     
Cthulhu
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2008, 02:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
6 billion years of experience.
n00b
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:48 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,