A. J. Gevaerd, the editor of "Brazilian UFO Magazine" is what I would charitably call a crank. He once interviewed a guy in his magazine who claimed that Jesus is tied up in the UFO phenomenon — of course! — along with other things that would make my head all asplodey to write about.
A few months ago, he wanted to start a new research center to study UFOs, called the Carl Sagan Institute.
Now, I will give you a moment to make comical head-shaking noises and wipe your ears out with your fingers. Yes, he wanted to name his pseudoscientific center after Carl Sagan, one of the leading and most vocal critics of the UFO phenomenon.
Now, you might say to yourself, "Maybe Gevaerd will be critical and apply Sagan’s skepticism to the study of UFOs." Hope springs eternal! But then there is the inevitable fall, you realize, remembering that whole Jesus-returning-in-a-UFO thing above. Yeah. Oh, and in Gevaerd’s own words:
Many think that Sagan passed away without knowing the result of his search … But that is far from the truth. Sagan had a close relationship with north-american governmental agencies dedicated to the UFO phenomenon investigation, and even Joseph Allen Hynek, considered the father of Modern Ufology, guaranteed that Sagan had a profound knowledge about the alien presence on Earth.
OK, are we done arguing over this guy’s grip on reality? Yes. Yes, we are. Which is good, because this gets funnier.
Not surprisingly, Ann Druyan, Sagan’s widow, took a dim view of this eponymy. There are legal issues to be dealt with in using Sagan’s name… so what’s a UFOlogist to do?
Why, change the name, of course. It’s now called The Galileo Galilee Institute for Extraterrestrial Life Research. Besides the obvious travesty of using that name, and noting the weird use — I don’t remember Galileo talking very much about being abducted and having his butt probed — I have to add that the Church back then took an even dimmer view of this; they burned Giordano Bruno at the stake in part for his heretical writing about even the potential of alien worlds and life.
Oh, those wacky UFOlogists. Burning at the stake isn’t needed any more. That burning smell is their credibility.
Tip o’ the tin foil beanie to Kentaro Mori.
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:02 am
Jesus is tied up in the UFO phenomenon
Tied up? Quick! Mount a rescue mission! Interstellar holy war! WOOT!
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:23 am
In your face, causality!
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:30 am
Living through the 1970’s, there were plenty of theories that Jesus was an alien. Its just rehashing of an old idea.
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:32 am
The third prophecy of Fatima predicted this, you know. And everybody knows Pope John Paul II was an alien. Whatcha think those big pointy hats were covering? Methane tanks. Mm-hm.
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:35 am
If you think studying UFO is pseudoscientific, then you must also think seti is pseudoscientific.
UFOlogists look for proof of alien intelligent sending spacecraft to earth.
SETI looks for proof of alien intelligent sending radio signal to earth.
The “Carl Sagan Memorial Station” is proof that we send spacecraft into space (not very far). Will we never send anything to the nearest star?
Just because ufology is fill with wacky does not make is pseudoscientific, it just mean there are a lot of wacko around.
I also found you book “Death from the Skies!” on ereader.com and bought it for my Ipod touch.
Nelson from Canada.
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:37 am
How do you pronounce UFOlogy and UFOlogist? Is it U-F-O-logy and U-F-O-logist?
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:51 am
Jeremy,
I’ve heard it as U-F-ology, and U-F-ologist. I’ve also heard UF (pronounced youf)-ology.
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:56 am
I say Yoo-foh, you say Ooo-foh,
Oh, let’s call the whole thing off.
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:02 am
I remember something about this matter on that documentary “Men in Black”.
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:04 am
Why is it that UFO believers always seem to be so concerned about having their hineys probed? I think there’s a psychology PhD thesis in there somewhere…
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:05 am
Youfology, and you-fologist, or yoo-fology, and yoo-fologist.
The British seventies sci-fi show UFO was pronounced Yoo-fo
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:31 am
Neslon H, if that were true I’d be fine. But most UFOlogists are not looking for proof, they are holding up lots of fuzzy photos and saying this is evidence that aliens are coming to Earth and carving up cows. That’s not science.
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:35 am
wait, phil…so you’re saying that your local butcher is an alien?!?! but he makes such tasty steaks and burgers! Maybe aliens really DO come in peace!
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:45 am
dunno the IPA, but in american english i most often hear it pronounced “you-follow-jee”.
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:46 am
er, yeah, a bit late on that one….
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:49 am
Oh Carl Sagan, where are you when we need you?
Stupidity and superstition continue to reign supreme on this planet, and Phil can’t do it alone.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:03 am
@Nelson H,
While the premises are similar, the methods are far different. SETI is using real scientific equipment and the scientific method to search for signals that may or may not come from alien life.
UFO = Alien proponents by and large do not use real science in their search. Generally, they use anecdotal evidence, fuzzy pictures, and bad logic to support their ideas.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:11 am
@Nelson H
Bzzt!! Try again. SETI is using scientific methods to observe the cosmos in search of signs of possible extraterrestrial intelligence; UFOlogists point at any funny picture or anecdotal account of something strange and scream aliens. And when a UFOlogist is shown how their evidence is wrong, they ignore it, insisting that they really do have a UFO. Now this isn’t all of them mind you, and maybe not even most of them, but it describes the most vocal of the group. SETI is scientific; when evidence says they don’t have an alien signal, they discard it and try again. They don’t come from the direction that there are aliens so they are not predisposed to accept nonsense as fact.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:16 am
It’s one thing to search the galaxy for intelligent life and quite another to point at a fuzzy picture and say you’ve found it.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:20 am
Poor Carl Sagan (he is indirectly responsible for me meeting my wife :). He was an awesome man and his Cosmos series influenced me a lot when I watched it for the first time as a child. Oddly enough a lot of lunatics like to use poor Carl for their pseudoscience. There was a psychic that claimed to be talking to his ghost once. I sent an email to Ann Druyan back then to make sure this stops. She was kind enough to respond to me, actually. Anyway and now this! Sigh… Lunatics everywhere…
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:24 am
“The Galileo Galilei Institute for Extraterrestrial Life Research” - that’s a typical pseudo’s approach: wrap your nonsense in a Famous Name. It’s used all the time, when poeple make up a saying and attribute it to Einstein or Schweitzer. Why don’t they ever attribute them to T. T. Zugman?
PS: I heard your interview on Coast2Coast last night. Great show. Usually I can take only 4 or 5 minutes of that show before my head starts to hurt.
One thought regarding Gevaerd: can we say that he’s so far out on the proverbial limb that we can safely ignore him?
There’s an interesting sidelight regarding the use of peoples’ names. There’s a poster in movie theater lobbies regarding a song you can download. One of the people on the poster is Dale Earnhardt, Jr. His name is trademarked. (It has the “TM” symbol wherever it’s used.) I suppose that means that you can’t name your son Dale Jr if you’re the Earnhardt from Poughkeepsie.
And we’re not likely to see any “Dale Earnhardt, Jr Center for UFOlological Studies” any time soon.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:31 am
Couldn’t they find an early nutcase of their own to name their “institute” after?
The George Adamsky Institute of Aryans From Space
The Betty and Barney Hill Institute of Alien Abductions
The Ezekiel Institute of Flying Flaming Wheels
I am sure there are plenty more possibilities.
BTW, I heard BA on Coast To Coast AM last night. It was a great interview. Something interesting did occur. The whole IQ of the show took a dramatic upswing while BA was on. Don’t get me wrong–George Noory is an intelligent man. However, the callers seemed more interested in real science than the usual crapology broadcast there. Maybe they had special screeners just for the night.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:52 am
Dave,
Don’t forget
The Billy Meier Institute of Flying Garbage Can Lids
Cue Mikey Horn in 3. . . 2 . . . 1
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Just because someone is doing bad science, does not mean the branch of science is pseudoscientific.
People can twist any science for their own ends.
Keep in mind, not all scientist think seti is real science.
Nelson.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
John says: Living through the 1970’s, there were plenty of theories that Jesus was an alien.
John…your statement demonstrates that you don’t have a CLUE as to what a theory “is”.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Why doesn’t he call it
The Eric Cartman Institute for Extraterrestrial Life Research
Cartman used to have a probe… yes, we all know where he had it
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Living through the 1970’s, there were plenty of theories that Jesus was an alien.
Check out the film “Prince Of Darkness” by John Carpenter.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
@ZZMIKE: Trademark law is a little more complicated than that. It would depend on which specific goods Dale registered his trademark for. I would suspect without looking it up that it would cover, clothing and other common merchandising items. I am not aware of a trademark class which covers “first born males from Poughkeepsie”.
Further more, in the same way that anyone naturally called McDonald can open a restaurant, as long as it doesn’t try to make itself out to look like the well known fast food joint (why you would want to I’m not sure) it should be alright. I say should because you would probably still have to defend yourself in court but you have good grounds to not lose too badly.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
‘The British seventies sci-fi show UFO was pronounced Yoo-fo’
Was it?
Everyone I know called it U F O
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Yes it’s the arrogant sceptics vs the believers as usual. Why can’t you all just be sceptical without having to bash each other. People see strange unexplained things, yes that’s what ufos are, and yes they are documented. So stop arguing about the existence of something which can be absolutely anything, as it’s just pathetic.
Personally my opinion is I would be extremely surprised if we are the only intelligent species in the universe, and maybe even in our galaxy. And whilst if they ever visited I would be a little surprised, but not shocked, and so this attitude of taking the mickey out of little green men in general is also pathetic and childish.
Yes we can call the people who believe in anything tin-foil hat people, but I’m sure there’s also suitable names for the bashers of those people which is just as insulting. Be sceptical, but with an open-mind, even if you’ve seen a ufo, and for all other ufo sightings as well.
SETI involves analysing EM signals from space, that is science whether or not any signals can be ever be confirmed from another species. That’s because a scientific approach is being used, and data is being collected, therefore it is science. I don’t think anyone is in a position to state that this data is never going to be useful. When SETI tries to detect laser signals, there may even be unexpected by-product discovered, and to say that is impossible is as naive as saying the LHC is a waste of money.
And last of all if we can accept that ET is out there somewhere most likely, what’s wrong with trying to contact them? or at least even to discuss the consequences of contact? Since SETI is the search for ETI, which probably exists, how can anyone call this a pointless task. Maybe dangerous of course to the visitors more than us possibly, or even vice-versa, but I think for any scientist to dismiss SETI out of hand is definitely out of touch, and spends too much time in their own boring field of staring at something in a lab somewhere in a dark corner. That was an exaggeration of course, as most lab scientists do some amazing experiements with some great discoveries. One new discovery in Ohia is an almost 100% efficient solar cell. That might even solve our energy crisis.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I’m a different John who wrote the comment at 12.53 pm to the one earlier
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Yeah…those people in ohia are pretty darn smart.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Yes, it pretty much does.
No doubt. That’s not science’s fault, nor does it make bad science good.
Such as?
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Ignore that. I misread it.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I hate to point this out, Phil, but you make an unfortunate typo in the title: it should be Galileo Galilei, not Galilee. Though it’s understandable, considering how easy it is to confuse the religious and the pseudoscientific mindsets.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
You know, it’s a shame they didn’t follow Apple’s example of messing-with-the-Sagans followup and just call it the Butt-Head Institute:
http://www.petting-zoo.net/~deadbeef/archive/582.html
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Glad to see I’m not the only one to think it’d have made more sense for them to abuse poor Bruno’s name for this sillinanity.
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:08 pm
“Doublespeak (sometimes double talk) is language constructed to disguise or distort its actual meaning, often resulting in a communication bypass. Doublespeak may take the form of bald euphemisms (e.g., “downsizing” for layoffs) or deliberate ambiguity. Doublespeak is a disparaging label for any euphemistic term perceived to be uttered in bad faith.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_speak
In this case disguising crank pseudoscientific center with name of well known skeptic of such…because the skeptic in question *strongly suspected life outside our Eathling sphere.
*Note: There is a large difference between an alien microbe (or even an outworldy indiginous species that just figured how to start a fire) and something that flies in saucer like spacecraft that seems to defy all known physics.
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
@John the 1st:
“Yes it’s the arrogant sceptics vs the believers as usual. Why can’t you all just be sceptical without having to bash each other. ”
I don’t bash skeptics, only knuckleheads. And no rational person who comments on Phil’s blog has ever, to my knowledge, claimed UFOs don’t exist. What they have said repeatedly is that UFOs are not spacecraft piloted by alien beings from other planets! A rather important distinction, wouldn’t you say?
@ Everyone else:
Sorry for taking the bait.
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Kuhnigget:
I’d go a step further. Most people here wouldn’t claim that it is impossible for piloted extra-terrestrial craft to have visited the earth, or that such things might have been witnessed. Our complaint isn’t that the hypothesis is absurd: rather, no convincing evidence has been presented to support it.
There are reasonable people who investigate UFO phenomena, but the “alien visitors” proponents tend not to like their conclusions. Jim Oberg comes to mine.
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
It’s almost a pity that they didn’t stick with the original name. I would have enjoyed seeing them sued for …..Billions
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Why is it that these aliens let a few crazy people see their ships but they don’t land in front of the UN building and announce themselves?
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:27 pm
@Nelson H
Keep in mind, not all scientist think seti is real science.
I’m sure you can find a few who think it’s a waste, but I don’t think you could find any that say it’s not science.
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Phil, do you think anyone would complain if I beat them with a hardcover copy of The Demon-Haunted World?
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:34 pm
lol yea I meant Ohio. I’m not American so it’s a mistake I’m sure you can forgive.
kuhnigget said “I don’t bash skeptics, only knuckleheads. And no rational person who comments on Phil’s blog has ever, to my knowledge, claimed UFOs don’t exist”
OK whatever you call ‘em is irrelevant, there are people who bash believers and those who bash sceptics. And both are stupid!!! A scientific ufologist or an organisation such as mufon does not assume ufo’s are alien spacecraft. So when a so called sceptic bashes ufologists they are bashing even those who take a scientific approach, and those who believe in aliens bash all sceptics and are also stupid. There are those like me, who don’t bash anyone and just accept many sightings remain unexplained, and that is it. I’m afraid patheticness by people such as what Phil likes to impress on others such with this article and most others about ufos, and also patheticness by alien believers as well, just causes pointless arguments.
“What they have said repeatedly is that UFOs are not spacecraft piloted by alien beings from other planets! A rather important distinction, wouldn’t you say?
@ Everyone else:
Sorry for taking the bait.”"
Oh really you are saying that now when Phil has equated ufo to alien already on his blog, and now you feel you have the authority to change this. Do you see the idiocy of doing that now? And don’t feel sorry for responding to someone. Your condescending attitude only implies your patheticness even further. I am a man of science and yet you feel you should separate yourself just because I mention ufo’s exist and are unexplained. Does the fact that the newspapers pointlessly ridicule this fact make you uneasy. If it does, you should take a good look at yourself before trying to comment on here.
I quote Phil “Oh, those wacky UFOlogists.”
OK so generalisation is appropriate for him, but when an alien believer calls all sceptics closed-minded that generalisation is not appropriate. You cannot make that generalisation and neither can alien believers. I’ve warned about this idiocy before and yet he still thinks he can behave as irresponsible as that and get respect from everyone, but that is not so.
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:48 pm
And for someone who is obsessed about his new book so much so that he keeps posting blogs about it either needs to be less self-obsessed and pay more attention to aspects which he decides to blog about when he gets time to when he’s not writing about his book. Phil’s book might be interesting, but that doesn’t exclude any responsiblity he has towards other blogs he writes.
Phil says in a separate paragraph “Oh, those wacky UFOlogists. Burning at the stake isn’t needed any more. That burning smell is their credibility.”
What is the point of saying that? Constant bashing of scientific ufologists is just nonsense, which is what you’re doing here. You’re almost as much an idiot as the people who wear tin-foil hats and claim conspiracies around every corner!
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:12 pm
@ John:
Sorry you joined the debate late. Read through the many UFO topics on Dr. Phil’s blog and you will see sane, rational responses to “arguments” presented by less than rational ufologists.
.
“I am a man of science and yet you feel you should separate yourself just because I mention ufo’s exist and are unexplained.”
If you are a man of science and read English, you will note that I said no one has doubted that UFOs exist. Please correct your mistaken perception.
However…now you are adding that ufos “are unexplained?” Sorry, that’s simply not true. Most UFOs are explained. It’s just that the ufologists don’t like the explanations and ignore them. Not exactly rational, is it?
Again, refer to previous posts for all the pertinent arguments. They’ve been repeated quite a few times, usually to deaf ears.
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Ok, John,
See if you can grasp this concept: Unidentified flying objects do exist. To date, NONE (zero, zilch, nada) have ever been shown to be alien of origin. All UFO’s are weather balloons, unknown man-made aircraft, and/or completely terrestrial in origin.
So, anybody who says, “that Sagan had a profound knowledge about the alien presence on Earth,” is a quack.
People who believe that UFO’s are really aliens visiting earth, and have zero evidence to back up their claims, are just as whacked out as someone claiming Tinkerbell stole their socks, or pink elephants followed them home from the pub.
Just my opinion.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Ok kuhnigget, I didn’t say most UFOs are unexplained, it’s irrelevant how many are unexplained and I never said it had any relevance whatsoever. The fact that some remain unexplained is enough to say that a ufo phenomenon exists.
I can read English and stop with the pathetic condescending attitude as you’re know no more than anyone else about those unexplained sightings. I’m not arguing for the less than rational ufologists so stop with that nonsense.
Ok Greg I’ve listened to you before and yet you still shown your unwillingness to tackle what I’ve said, and you’re even attempting to be condescending as well.
Greg in Austin said “Unidentified flying objects do exist. To date, NONE (zero, zilch, nada) have ever been shown to be alien of origin. All UFO’s are weather balloons, unknown man-made aircraft, and/or completely terrestrial in origin.”
So what… where did I say they were alien in origin? You’re entitled to your opinion and yes you can say quite rightly there’s no evidence. I agree completely, but my opinion is different about alien visitation and that’s all it is, an opinion. So if you want to argue about an opinion you must have nothing better to do.
My main point after all is that real sceptics let themselves down by allowing themselves to generalise all ufologists, and assume they all believe in fantasies before using science to investigate any sighting. Which is of course not a correct assumption. And Phil has shown himself to do that here regardless of what others may say. This only invites discourse with so called believers, and is unproductive. Of course I’m right about that, that’s why you don’t wish to argue that point, and instead try and argue against something I didn’t even claim.
But one thing Greg, is that you don’t have a personal experience relating to Tinkerbell so unless you claim that personal experience then actually it is slightly less relevant to anyone else in general that she stole your pink socks which of course I’m sure you have plenty of at home. But yet you only relate to evidence with your analogy of course, but then again you’re probably not one to even be bothered about your personal experiences, and only care about what others have already proven.
And last of all Phil’s articles are about as pathetic as someone summing up every scientist as incompotent just because a few turn out to be so. And then sarcastically attacking science in general, which of course is stupid, and so is attacking ufology. And by ending a blog calling ufologists wacky is doing just so, and whether or not you like that he has done that, and is therefore accountable. Not only the deluded ufologists are accountable for their words but also the people who attack them are also accountable when they misrepresent what scientific ufology is about. And if you disagree that scientific ufology exists then you should check what mufon reports on and the reports they have done. Go on and show me where they have claimed aliens have landed in Stephenville for example in their report. I dare you to actually show me some evidence to support Phil’s attitude towards all of ufology, and prove once and for all that mufon has not been scientific towards ufo research. But of course you’re such a coward that you won’t even try, and instead will pick bits out of my comment, and try and change the meaning of the words and put everyone into a believer and sceptic (normal) person. Whereas actually there’s fools like you who claim to be real sceptics, but instead attack the whole area of ufology everytime you open your stupid mouth, and there’s the idiotic believers who you enjoy fighting with because your mind is so obsessed with winning that you feel the need to attack everyone. And then there’s sceptics as they should be, who don’t generalise all ufo sightings, and instead investigate each one individually using a strict scientific approach, i.e. mufon, and how I would investigate a sighting. These kind of people do more for ufology than your pathetic attempts could ever do. And whatever you say does not change that fact. So actually go ahead and keep being condescending and sarcastic towards everything to do with ufos as it’s you who may feel a complete and utter fool.
And no, if there turns out to never ever be any credible evidence for any of these ufos to be anything we can explain, then so what, at least I haven’t passed judgement on every potential sighting by relating all of ufology to crackpots, which Phil does everytime he opens his big mouth about this subject. And yes I’ve been keeping up to date with his articles for over a year, so I can comment exactly what my opinion is on that quite clearly.
And I expect you will say something stupid like “yes all of ufology is crackpot blah blah blah”, but before you do because you’re so predictable, I already set you a challenge to prove that mufon does not have a scientific approach as they claim to do, and therefore prove Phil’s general assertions that all of ufology is rubbish. If you cannot, then please shut up!
October 24th, 2008 at 12:53 am
“Check out the film “Prince Of Darkness” by John Carpenter.”
Darn - I almost rented that yesterday! What a wacky coincidence!
…
or is it???
October 24th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Um, John, Phil wasn’t bashing everyone who is interested in UFOs, or studies them, or thinks he’s seen one or thinks it would be really cool or quite terrifying if some UFOs turned out to be alien spacecraft. He was mocking one particular wingnut who assumes UFOs are alien spacecraft without a shred of evidence to back his claim, and the supporters of said wingnut.
Maybe you are counting Jim Oberg and Jim McGaha and Phil Klass as scientific ufologists. I don’t think any of them would regard themselves as targets of BA’s remarks.
By the way, are you aware that by resorting to a purely ad hominem attack, you’ve already lost the argument?
October 24th, 2008 at 1:26 am
Holy smokes about this “debate”!
It seems to me that the whole disagreement would never have occurred if people made their definitions explicit.
Clearly, most posters here mean “nutcase alien-visitation proponents” when they use the word “ufologist”. This makes sense in context because Phil’s article was about just such a nutcase and his institute.
Just as clearly, John has a more general definition, which covers the nutcases but also legitimate scientists investigating unidentified flying objects.
I think that everyone here will agree that there are flying objects that are unidentified (UFO’s).
Everyone also agrees that most of these UFO’s are later explained, which should cause a reclassification as weather-balloon, test rocket, LSD experience, etc.
Everyone agrees that there are scientists working for official agencies (e.g. the air force) and private institutions, as well as hobbyists, that analyze the data and formulate these explanations.
Everyone agrees that the remaining class of UFO’s *could* be of alien origin, but that there is no generally accepted proof of this.
Everyone agrees that further statements about alien UFO’s are assertions of belief or opinion, and are excellent points for conversation and entertainment, but that this isn’t science - the best we can do is use tools like Drake’s equation to try assign a likelihood of alien visitation.
Everyone agrees that anyone (scientist or non-scientist) who goes further and points at fuzzy pictures yelling about little green men is a nutcase.
Am I wrong?
If not - then what’s left to disagree about?
For further clarification - yes, Phil does seem to approach all “ufologists” as the nutcase variety. Since this is his blog and we all should know his background and opinions (after all, we can read about them right here!), we need to take that into account when he writes. OF COURSE he thinks there are legitimate scientists working on UFO cases - how else can he say that the UFO’s are all explained? So when he says something like “ufologists are wacky”, we know he’s referring to the nutty ones! I kinda doubt most “UFO scientists” would refer to themselves as “ufologists” - for no other reason than to distance themselves from the nuts - but I could be wrong.
So instead of filling the comments with long, arduous, and angry arguments about absolutely nothing, exercise some common sense and courtesy, take a deep breath, and explain your initial assumptions. If there is additional disagreement after that, fantastic! The argument may actually be productive!
*Yay!*
October 24th, 2008 at 1:36 am
@Reid
“Why is it that these aliens let a few crazy people see their ships but they don’t land in front of the UN building and announce themselves?”
Maybe they’ve seen The Day The Earth Stood Still and don’t fancy being shot?
October 24th, 2008 at 2:28 am
As far as I know, the word UFOlogist implies a belief in alien visitation. At least I’ve never heard of a UFOlogist who doesn’t. People who have studied the UFO phenomena and have come to the conclusion that there is no evidence of alien visitation refer to themselves as skeptics. The same goes for cryptozoologists.
@John
For someone who’s wrongly complaining about overgeneralizing a group of people, you seem to have no problem falsely overgeneralizing skeptics as arrogant and close minded.
there are people who bash believers and those who bash sceptics. And both are stupid!!!
That you fail to grasp the implications of this statement speaks volumes.
October 24th, 2008 at 3:34 am
“they burned Giordano Bruno at the stake in part for his heretical writing about even the potential of alien worlds and life.”
A _very_ little part. The major reasons why Bruno got torched had almost nothing to do with his (utterly incompetent) scientific speculations, being instead more to do with Papal-Spanish relations and the (not entirely unfounded, after Campanella) paranoia of Pope Clement VIII regarding crazy hermetic revolutionaries.
To paraphrase Terry Pratchett, Bruno wasn’t an early scientist, he was a late idiot.
October 24th, 2008 at 8:12 am
@TheWalruss,
Totally agree.
@John,
If you can stop with the personal attacks for one moment, and read what TheWalruss said, you might learn something.
I’ve said this before: I would love to see real physical evidence of aliens visiting Earth from another planet. So far, there has been none. Until there is real evidence, anyone who claims that they know aliens are here is at best imagining things, and at worst lying for a profit, and deserves the scrutiny they receive.
October 24th, 2008 at 8:22 am
“The Galileo Galilee Institute for Extraterrestrial Life Research”
Oh I wish that wasn’t a typo. Galileo of Galilee, Jesus of Nazareth, and Carl of… er… Saigon? They’re all in the UFO together. With Elvis.
The Walruss: not only are you The Walruss, you are also The Man. The Eggman, perhaps. Thanks you for some much-needed sanity.
October 24th, 2008 at 9:06 am
@ John:
To refresh your memory –
October 23, 9:34:
“I am a man of science and yet you feel you should separate yourself just because I mention ufo’s exist and are unexplained. ”
October 23, 11:20 pm:
“Ok kuhnigget, I didn’t say most UFOs are unexplained”
To be fair, no, you didn’t say most ufos are unexplained. You implied they all were unexplained.
But that must have been some other John making those contradictory statements, as I’m sure a man of science wouldn’t get so upset when people point out the obvious inconsistencies in their well-constructed arguments.
I hear me some woo a-comin.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:55 am
@ kuhnigget
Again you argue about irrelevant points which have nothing to do with my original point. For the record I did not imply what you claim and you cannot prove that either.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:56 am
The only woo-woo nonsense is from you kuhnigget
October 24th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Jose, I said there are sceptics who bash believers and believers who bash all sceptics. But I also said not all sceptics bash believers, so I’m NOT generalising the whole idea of scepticism. I’m sure we could break down the believers into further sub-categories, but I’m not going to waste my time doing something for you that you should have already done yourself.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:11 am
“For the record I did not imply what you claim and you cannot prove that either.”
Ohhhhkaaayyyyyy………
Have a nice day. Say hi to wonko.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:11 am
@John,
Could you in one sentence sum up your point? I can’t seem to gather it from all of your posts.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Yes, John, please do tell.
All snarkiness aside, please choose your words carefully and thoughtfully and tell us exactly what you mean. It will greatly help to make your case.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I’ve already left a comment, it’s on it’s way to you
October 24th, 2008 at 11:29 am
@John
I’m sure we could break down the believers into further sub-categories, but I’m not going to waste my time doing something for you that you should have already done yourself.
We’re already aware that not everybody in a given group is identical, and we don’t need some pompous fool to come here and rant about it like he’s making a point.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:34 am
You all remind me of a bunch of upper class freemasons. Kugnigget you made a false assertion and instead of having a bit of humility you would rather try and cover it up with sarcasm. I have already made my case kuhnigget and hopefully other people will see that and understand that I made a useful valid point, unlike your typical repeat yourself saying “there’s no evidence, there’s no evidence!” like a darlek tape recording. I am not interested in your approval, and I’m sure nobody else is either!
October 24th, 2008 at 11:39 am
@John,
Again, what is your point?
Is your point that we are all freemasons? That can’t be true.
Is your point that Kugnigget uses sarcasm in his posts? That is certainly true, but not at all a bad thing.
Is your point that you’ve already made a point but won’t repeat it? That seems odd.
Without getting all emotional and attacking other posters, can you please explain what it is you are trying to get across?
October 24th, 2008 at 11:40 am
@ Jose
You just can’t take it because you assused me of generalisation, and after carving your argument to pieces, your anger resorts to an irrelevant insult. It was your misunderstanding of my original comment that led to you feeling foolish. Try and at least insult someone with relevance to what they were talking about, otherwise you don’t even begin to show any kind of intelligence.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Greg, I posted earlier it’s not my fault it hasn’t gone thru’ moderation yet. And just because you don’t realise the importance of my point, does not make it any less relevant. Wait for it to come thru’ moderation before asking for me to explain my point again.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Okay, here we go again:
“Kugnigget you made a false assertion”
Please examine closely, John:
October 23, 9:34:
“I am a man of science and yet you feel you should separate yourself just because I mention ufo’s exist and are unexplained. ”
October 23, 11:20 pm:
“Ok kuhnigget, I didn’t say most UFOs are unexplained”
Now, tell me please how those two statements aren’t contradictory? “…ufo’s exist and are unexplained.” “I didn’t say most UFOs are unexplained.”
Do you see the problem here, John? Those are your words, not mine. If the words you choose don’t mean what you want them to, then how do you expect people to understand what it is you are trying to say?
Calm down, take a deep breath, release the anger, and clearly make your point.
October 24th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
@John,
I will await your post.
For the record, I never said your point was not important, only that I could not figure it out. You have made so many statements (including many personal attacks) that is difficult to understand your main point.
October 24th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
@John,
It appears your post was lost. Can you just repost it, perhaps without any links, to make sure it goes thru?
October 24th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
[i]You all remind me of a bunch of upper class freemasons. [/i]
No idea if I got the coding right…
@ John: Believer’s syndrome, supreme dislike for skeptics, bnandying about FreeMasons as a insult… you wouldn’t happen to be a member of AboveTopScret are you?
Believers like you give a already heavily embarrassed field of study a er… worse name.
@ the article:
Poor Sagan’s going to come after him on that one… this close to Halloween probably rise up, along with other skeptics and feast on their…
Well. Not brains. Not much there really and they seem to ahve gone bad…
Spleen maybe?
October 24th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
If you give the secret masonic handshake when you post, it will sail right through!
October 24th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Jimmy Bob, I don’t believe in aliens so what believers syndrome are you saying I have. I have an opinion that they may be visiting but I don’t know is the best answer I can give. That’s not a belief, it’s called speculation. Never heard of AboveTopSecret, is that some sort of code word you use.
Some of you are like upper class snobs because you try to act condescending towards others, and I said that was analogous to freemasonry. I didn’t call you freemasons directly.
It’s amazing how you don’t even understand a thing about ufos, and that’s the only embarrassment that’s apparent here.
October 24th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
@John
You just can’t take it because you assused me of generalisation, and after carving your argument to pieces, your anger resorts to an irrelevant insult. It was your misunderstanding of my original comment that led to you feeling foolish. Try and at least insult someone with relevance to what they were talking about, otherwise you don’t even begin to show any kind of intelligence.
First of all, nothing you could say would ever make me feel foolish. It may seem to you like you’re shredding holes in people’s arguments, but that’s only because you can’t remember what you wrote from one post to the next.
Secondly, you being a fool is not an irrelevant insult. It explains everything.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Jose, you said much earlier”For someone who’s wrongly complaining about overgeneralizing a group of people, you seem to have no problem falsely overgeneralizing skeptics as arrogant and close minded.
That you fail to grasp the implications of this statement speaks volumes.”
That’s where you were completely wrong in the first place, and then became insulted when I explained to you there were differences between different categories of sceptics and believers. So it’s obvious to me you were made to look a fool by your own mistake. And you’re right nothing I’ve said has made you look foolish, it’s you yourself that’s done it all on your own. And you accuse me of not remembering what I said after you did so yourself, now you look unbelievably silly.
Now let me get this clear I NEVER said all sceptics can be generalised as arrogant and close minded, but I did make it clear that some are.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Wow, there’s quite an echo on this here innertoob.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
@John
So you can’t remember what you say from post to post, and you can’t copy and paste without intentionally leaving out key portions either! Here’s that section as I wrote.
I didn’t think it would come to this, but since your being dishonest, I’ll break it down for you.
Part 1: You said “there are people who bash believers and those who bash sceptics. And both are stupid!!!”. There not just stupid, they’re three exclamation point stupid!!!
Part 2: You’re actively bashing skeptics, therefore you are ________!!!
October 24th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
October 24th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
heh heh… silence speaks volumes
October 24th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Oh, now I see.
John, you apparently just want to come here to call people names, and bash those who call UFOlogists names. Apparently we hurt your feelings, so you think its OK to attack everyone who questions you.
I thought perhaps you actually wanted to have an adult conversation about the topic of UFOs, or the use of Sagan’s and Galileo’s names. I guess not.
October 24th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I wasn’t the one who purportedly claimed all of a subject area to be crazy, and so I never said anything hurtful in comparison to the author of this blog. And not hurtful to me only hurtful to the many at mufon providing they even care, which I doubt.
October 24th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Jose, you still do not get it. My interpretation on a really basic level for you to understand is that there are sceptics who bash believers and believers who bash the sceptics. There are also sceptics who don’t bash believers and accept anything may be possible but agree we need evidence before validating any claims. Those can either be witnesses to a ufo and remain sceptical to what they saw, and other sightings. Those people are not always believers, even though they saw something unexplained. Last of all there are believers who claim to witness alien ships, and there’s the worse one’s who claim a conspiracy around every corner, and can be appropriately named tin-foil hat people.
And you took some of my quotes out of context, and regardless of whether your quotes were appropriately used my point still stands.
you said “Part 1: You said “there are people who bash believers and those who bash sceptics. And both are stupid!!!”. There not just stupid, they’re three exclamation point stupid!!!”
Phil is bashing believers, does that mean you think he’s stupid!!!
“Part 2: You’re actively bashing skeptics, therefore you are ________!!!”
No I’m not actively bashing sceptics, I’m bashing the type of sceptics who bash believers if you want it put that way. But I’d rather just say I’m pointing out that they’re a nuisance, as people see this as also bashing sceptics such as mufon which are part of ufology. Mufon doesn’t call anything an alien ship as it’s unscientific, and not part of their approach, unless of course that can ever be proven. Check out mufons website they call them part of ufology. I’m a witness who is also a sceptic, and I can even say people like Phil bash all ufo witness sceptics largely by implication. But this is not about me, it’s about how those incorrect attitudes affect organisations such as mufon that really matter.
October 24th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
“Mufon doesn’t call anything an alien ship as it’s unscientific, and not part of their approach”
I knew the truth would out, eventually.
John, there is a very prominent graphic right on top of the MUFON home page that shows flying saucers and bug-eyed aliens. This is on their “UFO event report map.” UFO event report map. See? UFO event. Get it? MUFON does so equate UFOs with space ships and aliens. It’s right there on their freaking web page, the one you asked everyone to look at.
So, as a man of science, I know you will conclude either A) you don’t know what you’re talking about and are very, very sorry for bothering everyone, B) you are lying, and will come up with yet another b.s. excuse for yourself, or C) space aliens changed the MUFON website immediately after you posted that statement.
Guess which one(s) I’m betting on?
October 24th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
John said, “I wasn’t the one who purportedly claimed all of a subject area to be crazy, and so I never said anything hurtful in comparison to the author of this blog.”
Are you the same John that said,
“Constant bashing of scientific ufologists is just nonsense, which is what you’re doing here. You’re almost as much an idiot as the people who wear tin-foil hats and claim conspiracies around every corner!”
“And last of all Phil’s articles are about as pathetic as someone summing up every scientist as incompotent just because a few turn out to be so. And then sarcastically attacking science in general, which of course is stupid, and so is attacking ufology. And by ending a blog calling ufologists wacky is doing just so, and whether or not you like that he has done that, and is therefore accountable.”
“And no, if there turns out to never ever be any credible evidence for any of these ufos to be anything we can explain, then so what, at least I haven’t passed judgement on every potential sighting by relating all of ufology to crackpots, which Phil does everytime he opens his big mouth about this subject.”
So, in your posts you have called Phil an idiot, pathetic, stupid, and you say he has a big mouth. In addition, you have called me and several others here idiotic, cowards, fools, freemasons, and upper class snobs.
I don’t know why you’ve decided to argue for “those wacky UFOlogists,” but I don’t think you’ve helped their case any. Try putting together a short, simple, coherent sentence or two, with some facts or evidence to back it up, and leave out the personal attacks. Maybe then we’ll be more likely to listen to you.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
or d) that’s only front page logos and/or an image/symbol to represent a ufo sighting, and you will not find an alien ship as their conclusion in any reports about investigated sightings, i.e. Stephenville sighting. Would you prefer they used a different image because it’s irrelevant what they place on the map, they could put an X but it won’t change the meaning. Sightings which are uploaded by the public onto their pages may contain claims of aliens but that’s the individual witness stating that, and not the organisation, much in the same way that the writer of this blog does not always share the same views as the blogees.
MUFON equates unexplained UFOs to unknown and the alien/saucer only symbolises a potential outcome but not a conclusion. It would be no different if they put santa claus or a toaster on the map. Get it!!!
October 24th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Yep it is pathetic for someone to bash people like he does, and not all ufologists are wacky. I’m not arguing for the wacky one’s, there’s no point in doing that.
The evidence is in Phil’s blogs, no more than that is needed. And the under-hand tactic of attacking the whole of ufology is much worse and shallow than any name-calling done by me or anyone else on this forum.
Greg, try and be less pretentious, you just quoted coherent sentences from me, and they are mostly true. Ok apart from the personal attacks then, but maybe some of them are justified since you’re hardly going to listen to anything regarding scientific ufology, as all of it is apparently nonsense in your opinion.
If you don’t get it that people argue for scientific ufology then you simply have no idea how much a personal experience does matter.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
OK, I’ve looked at the MUFON website, and I have this to say:
They “say” they are using scientific methods. However, they most certainly do believe some UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin. On their Frequently Asked Questions page, there are instructions for what to do if you see a UFO. The most relevant examples are:
“2. Be objective. Not every UFO is extraterrestrial, eliminate every other possibility (within your means) first. Only after that should you consider the possibility that what you saw might be a true UFO.”
9. Should you encounter some type extraterrestrial being associated with the craft be prepared to take evasive action to protect yourself.
So, obviously, MUFON’s purpose is to search not just for Unidentified Flying Objects, but for Extraterrestrial Objects. Personally, I say more power to them. If one of the thousands or millions of believers (some of whom are indeed crackpots) find real physical evidence one day, Hooray!
Regardless, until there is actual proof, I think its safe to say, in general, anyone who says they’ve seen (or know that there really are) aliens is either lying or has got their bolts cross-threaded.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
“Regardless, until there is actual proof, I think its safe to say, in general, anyone who says they’ve seen (or know that there really are) aliens is either lying or has got their bolts cross-threaded.”
Well now then it’s not an impossibility, so you can only speak in terms of what’s most likely, with such a large uncertainty.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
John said, “If you don’t get it that people argue for scientific ufology then you simply have no idea how much a personal experience does matter.”
Now, that may be the first rational thing you’ve said so far, and is something I can totally understand.
I agree that many people have witnessed things they cannot explain. They get very passionate, even highly defensive when discussing their experiences. Many of these people feel persecuted, ridiculed, and extremely frustrated when those around them refuse to take them seriously. Trust me, I can fully appreciate that.
Its actually the same reaction many rational scientists get when they try to discuss sciencey things with non-scientific folk, religious extremists and woo-wooists.
Now I understand where you are coming from, and maybe you can understand why some skeptics tend to get a little upset, too.
No worries, mate!
October 24th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
I agree, John. It is well within the range of possibility that Aliens exist, and could travel to Earth if they so choose. But the fact of the matter is, there is no reliable, testable physical evidence that such a thing has ever occurred.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look, which is why I find this topic so interesting. I’ve been a member of SETI at Home since 1999.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
What’s the fixation with slating MUFON and other organisations for saying they keep a look out for Extraterrestrial objects as well as saying they keep data on UFOs?
Do you not realise how much the mass media has influenced your embarrassment levels whenever anyone actually mentions the word “alien”, and I’m sure we all understand how the human mind operates to enough of an extent that we generally become accustomed into accepting what we call crackpot and what we may just call a bit unusual. So what if some people say they think aliens may be visiting, because they saw something highly unexplainable, there’s no need to victimise all of those people. Not all of them ask for recognition, and yet still get treated like tin-foil hat people that watch out for ufos all day. Do you not see how chilidish it has all become, and I find it shameful that very good intelligent people get drawn into this kind of mindset of feeling the necessity to laugh at witness claims on the grounds that they didn’t buy a bazooka and shoot down what they claimed to see. Yes laugh at those who have proven to be hoaxers, and those who make extremely wacky claims which have been proven to be utterly incorrect, but just leave those people alone who have done nothing to deserve any resentment. And generalised ufo bashing is bashing some witnesses and organisations like MUFON, and Phil is a regular entertainer to this.
What would any aliens that supposedly visited in the future think about those kinds of attitudes, it would make them turn around and go home I should expect.
I would also hope humans get as far as exploring nearby parts of our galaxy before we trash the earth completely. It’s not an impossibility using conventional means we have available to travel to closest nearby stars, and of course unmanned vessels could do the exploring beforehand. My opinion stands that I would be more surprised if we don’t see evidence of any such alien visitation events in the near future.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
OK, thanks I’m glad you understand where I was coming from.
October 24th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
“MUFON equates unexplained UFOs to unknown and the alien/saucer only symbolises a potential outcome but not a conclusion.”
Um. Oh-kayyyyy.
But surely these Men o’ Science wouldn’t want to bias any of those reports their soliciting, right? I mean, Men o’ Science who are interested in objectivity surely wouldn’t use symbols that clearly represent a forgone conclusion. Right? Because, of course, they wouldn’t want anyone to get the idea they’re promoting space aliens…being as they are, Men o’ Science.
Anyone who chose answer B, won the prize…a free DVD of a flying hubcap!
October 24th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
“So what if some people say they think aliens may be visiting, because they saw something highly unexplainable, there’s no need to victimise all of those people.”
I for one have no desire to victimize people who honestly don’t know what they saw. I would rather educate them about all the realistic and probable explanations for what they saw. That is what Dr. BA’s blog is all about, if you would only take off your indignation glasses for a while and read it with a mind that isn’t already predisposed to the “UFOs are aliens mindset” and conclude that everyone who doesn’t believe that is an idiot.
Look at your sentence quoted above. “…highly unexplainable.” Sorry, John. That is just not true. I have yet to see one UFO incident or report that did not have a very likely, very natural, perfectly Earthbound explanation for it. And to the contrary, I have never seen one, not a one, shred of evidence for alien spacecraft visiting us. Not one! Zilch! Nada! Yet UFO fans always jump to the conclusion that anything they don’t understand must be an alien space ship.
Please…I would really love to believe aliens are visiting the Earth. SHOW ME SOME EVIDENCE! And don’t confuse anecdotal “testimony” with evidence, because they are not the same. (As a Man o’ Science such as you well know.)
Nighty night….
October 25th, 2008 at 1:13 am
I want to make peace with you kuhnigget but you just don’t seem reasonable in your interpretation of mufon use of saucer symbols, and your obscene views that all witnesses are all believers in aliens. You fail to grasp that the fact that science does look for ET thru’ SETI, and this does not promote space aliens, whereas investigating ufos scientifically does. You only think there’s a difference between the two concepts because of the silly ridicule that is so pointlessly thrown around. Grow up, and stop bashing the whole idea of aliens visiting, it’s embarrassing to hear supposedly educated people like yourself behave immature.
you said “I for one have no desire to victimize people who honestly don’t know what they saw. I would rather educate them about all the realistic and probable explanations for what they saw. That is what Dr. BA’s blog is all about, ”
No you only attempt to trash any mention of aliens, and so does Phil. I know of all the earthly probably explanation and I’m sure a lot of others will as well, so you’re not really doing me any favours.
“predisposed to the “UFOs are aliens mindset” and conclude that everyone who doesn’t believe that is an idiot.”
Now you’ve got your typical bash a believer attitude, whereas it doesn’t even work on me as I’m not a believer. Change the style it’s getting too old.
you said “That is just not true. I have yet to see one UFO incident or report that did not have a very likely, very natural, perfectly Earthbound explanation for it.”
Maybe if you make up some data where data is unavailable for some sightings you can say that, but that wouldn’t be very scientific.
“Please…I would really love to believe aliens are visiting the Earth. SHOW ME SOME EVIDENCE! And don’t confuse anecdotal “testimony” with evidence, because they are not the same.”
Please don’t wind the tape back and repeat yourself again. I’ve heard enough.
October 25th, 2008 at 1:51 am
John said: Grow up, and stop bashing the whole idea of aliens visiting, it’s embarrassing to hear supposedly educated people like yourself behave immature.
I’m sorry John, but that is funny. That is only marginally more believable than saying you have fairies at the bottom of your garden. Just one piece of conclusive evidence and it ceases to be ridiculous. If and when the aliens arrive we will know about it.
October 25th, 2008 at 7:32 am
Please, Shane, go easy on John. He is Man of Science, remember.
John, if you weren’t so hysterically angry, I’d feel sorry for you. How one person can be so blissfully unaware of his own contradictions is astounding. Enjoy yourself. Keep up to date on all the important scientific work being done by the folks over at MUFON. I hope you live to see an alien spacecraft someday. Just don’t pop a blood vessel before the blessed event happens.
l’chaim!
[offers secret handshake]
October 25th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Shane, it’s not proof I’m saying I have and you are so full of yourself you don’t even realise it. I’m not trying to make anyone believe aliens are visiting, and I can say from my experiences that I have not met either fairies or aliens, but since any visiting ET would not be considerd supernaturnal I would have to call you a plank for comparing the two.
“If and when the aliens arrive we will know about it”
How do you know that? You’re making extraordinary claims there that they would be interested enough to talk to self-centred human beings such as yourself who find it fun to compare an ET to a fairy.
Kuhnigget I’m just angry at those who are blissfully unaware of their pathetic attitude towards sightings which just remain unexplained. And people do this all of the time on here. But you can continue doing so if you wish, it’s not really my concern anymore as I won’t let it bother me. It’s not contradicting yourself to try and at least show the potential of visitation some respect, and that’s all I’ve asked for. I’ve got better things to do, which are all infinitely more enjoyable than this, and so I will leave you to your bashings.
October 25th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
First, I take offense of you using the term Freemasons as a insult. I know many Freemasons, and the only time they are insultive is when the person had it coming.
Second, when it comes to UFO’s, I don’t believe I stated my beliefs.
‘Cause there definitely are unidentified flying objects, and, admittedly mostly entertainment on my part, I’ve kept mildly up to date on recent sightings and videos.
Unsurprisingly, most of them are bunk. Some are known fakes that keep getting rehashed, others are the fault of the camera, and take some serious analysis and research to be able to properly identify.
Then there is a five or so percentage that are unexplained. Now, these are also videos that are shot by home cameras or with a camera phone, and generally the quality is very poor.
Since anecdotal accounts and the videos are all the evidence that is reported and accepted, it makes arguing a case for UFO’s fairly difficult.
October 25th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Exactly, because the lack of data to analyse where if we had better equipment more data “should” be available, and not because all are proven to be hoaxes or misidentifications. Therefore ufologists are doing a purposeful job if they use better equipment to collect data.
October 25th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
@John
I have a question for you. Do you think people who are posting here have not approached the possibility of alien visitation from a scientific perspective?
Phil is bashing believers, does that mean you think he’s stupid!!!
No, I don’t think Phil is stupid, and I don’t agree with your original statement. I was just pointing out that according to your own silly logic, you called yourself stupid.
And you took some of my quotes out of context, and regardless of whether your quotes were appropriately used my point still stands.
No, you just can’t remember what you wrote. You keep flittering around and contradicting yourself. Is that because you’re taking your own comments out of context? In addition, you took a statement of mine and deliberately cut out a portion of it to make it sound like I said something I didn’t. Is that how good skeptics like you behave?
October 25th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
I’ve already dealt with the issue of cynics acting as though they are true sceptics, it’s time to move on. Time to stop calling people stupid Jose, as you’re making yourself look just like that.
October 26th, 2008 at 10:05 am
@John
How simply can I say it? I’ve called no one “stupid”, although I’ve been tempted. I simply pointed out that by your own reasoning, you called yourself “stupid”. You’ve also used the words arrogant, pathetic, childish, and obscene to refer to people or their ideas, so stop pretending you’re the one taking the high road.
October 26th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Jose, shut up, you are stupid. How’s that for you, eh?!
October 26th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Jose, shut up, you are stupid. How’s that for you, eh?!
Does that mean you finally understand? If so, I’ll be glad to shut up.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
No, José, he won’t understand. Heh…don’t you get it? He didn’t call you stupid. You called him stupid. The fact that “you are stupid” appeared underneath his name just means you are taking his words out of context. Why are you so stupid not to realize this? Mind you, I am not calling you stupid. It is stupid of you to think that. You must be stupid to think I called you stupid. How stupid could you not be for not knowing I did not call you what I called you when I didn’t call you that?
Gosh, it is tough to be a Man o’ Science.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:20 am
*explodes*
November 8th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
What a curious discussion.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Sometimes what seems strange has many faces.Take a look carefully and you will find out that one of chief contribuitors to Sagan´s Foundation is a man called Firmage.A brilliant man that at 28 had created an empire of billions of bucks.
Mr Firmage talks with aliens and spend a lot of money in researches that deal with the subject.
So!!!Why on earth one should go bananas about an ufologist who intends to honor Sagan?