Official Comment Count: 1,026,572
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
It seems obvious to me that the notion of God has never been anything but a kind of ideal projection, a reflection upward of the human personality, and that theology never has been and never can be anything but a more and more purified mythology.
[Alfred F. Loisy, "My Duel with the Vatican"]
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Origin of life | Main | Altenberg meeting next week: expect evolution to simply evolve slightly »
Category: Skepticism • Weirdness
Posted on: July 5, 2008 1:49 PM, by PZ Myers
One of the splendid people I met in Denver told me about her attendance at a bizarre lecture a few months ago — and she sent me a link to her summary. If you want to experience a second hand glimmering of Native American woo, with UFOs, magic origins, transparent white people, anti-evolution, and quantum physics, there you go.
Comments
The next L Ron Hubbard?
Posted by: MB | July 5, 2008 1:55 PM
But where do sasquatch fit into this?
Posted by: jpf | July 5, 2008 2:14 PM
How about "Rainbow Jelly Brains" or "Brains In The Ass, Ash In the Belfry". Religionists think UFOers are nuts, they in turn think goddists are full of shit, and the mental telepathers is going to levitate them all to cloud-cuckoo land. Of course,if there is nothing on cable, what better form of entertainment than the whole bunch calling each other nuts!
Posted by: Holbach | July 5, 2008 2:17 PM
hmmmm... whatever happened to the california drones.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 5, 2008 2:25 PM
Not necessarily.
Posted by: jpf | July 5, 2008 2:27 PM
I've pointed this out in other forums, but I'm really tired of woosters using "quantum physics" as a catch-all for what they themselves don't understand. It seems that laypeople, by and large, have somehow gotten the misunderstanding that quantum physics is "mysterious." True, the philosophical implications are difficult to understand, but the basic theory behind it is remarkably solid, even if counter-intuitive and unsettling in its implications. We don't know everything about quantum physics, but we don't know everything about anything. It's just not fair to throw woo on quantum theory all the time. Why not onto string theory, just for a change, or even orbital dynamics (or is that last one just astrology)?
Posted by: Christopher Granade | July 5, 2008 2:28 PM
Don't know. But, what about PIGMIES + DWARFS!?!
Posted by: Capital Dan | July 5, 2008 2:31 PM
Speaking of Native American woo, I read recently that mamy Native Americans in the southwest refuse to participate in genetic studies. Why? Because ascertaining their historic migrations in this way might contravene their creation myths.
Does this sound familiar at all?
Posted by: Olorin | July 5, 2008 2:41 PM
jpf @ 5 Okay, they're both still nuts! What a rendering of abject insanity that site is!
Posted by: Holbach | July 5, 2008 2:41 PM
If there's strings, WHO'S PULLING THEM!?
Posted by: jpf | July 5, 2008 2:42 PM
@#9 That was just a random site. There's a whole subculture of "UFOS ARE DEMONIC! IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE!" out there.
Posted by: jpf | July 5, 2008 2:45 PM
Wasn't this an episode of Voyager? Oh yes, this one...
http://stvoy.epguides.info/?ID=460
Posted by: Mena | July 5, 2008 2:47 PM
Christopher Granade @ 6 How does one apply philosophical implications to quantum physics? It is physically existent or it isn't, and from what we know so far it is alive and well as quantum theory. To ascribe philosophy to this theory almost smacks of religious implications, and of that I will have nothing to do with. One is cosmic in origin, the other is unnecessary application.
Posted by: Holbach | July 5, 2008 3:11 PM
Ufology has sure changed, but not for the better. That's an odd thing to be saying, but I miss the old fashioned UFO fanatics who had pictures and diagrams and theoretical engineering designs. The old ufology was evidence-based. Yeah, all the evidence turned out to be total crap (either faked or misunderstood), but fun-loving wackos like Stanton Friedman were out to prove something. I was at one of his lectures back in the early 1970s when he was showing off his "reverse-engineered" designs of flying saucer propulsion systems. It was not entirely persuasive, but it was fun and intriguing.
The ubiquity of camera phones and what-not has driven the notion of solid-object UFOs out of public discourse. (Perhaps the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.) UFOs have been reimagined as psychic manifestations and trans-dimensional ghosts. The less tangible version is more amenable to lengthy New Age analysis without fear of disproof. No evidence? No problem! Speculate away! Woo woo!
It's really quite depressing and not at all entertaining to a child of the Space Age (with rocket ships! and sf novels and movies!). Klaatu barada nikto, guys!
Posted by: Zeno | July 5, 2008 3:12 PM
I'd like to know when, how and why white folks stopped being transparent. Also, what did the children of racially mixed parents look like? If Blacks were blue and Asians were green, would a mixed Black-Asian child be aqua?
Posted by: JoJo | July 5, 2008 3:18 PM
Christopher Granade #6
Leave it to quantum phycilosopher Jewel (yes, that Jewel for you string theory research needs:
Why, it depends by what she means by alchemical, of course. Newton believed in alchemy, therefore Jewel=Newton. And we all know Newton was too clever for pop music!
Posted by: andyo | July 5, 2008 3:21 PM
My theory: too much coffee.
Posted by: Zeno | July 5, 2008 3:30 PM
They seem to have left out the Underpants Gnomes.
Posted by: Bill the Cat | July 5, 2008 3:45 PM
I wonder if we had luminescent properties when we were transparent. That would be kinda cool.
I wonder what impact transparent people would have on the porn industry. After all, no porn, no internets. It's the wankers that underwrite teh internets.
Its boggling my mind like too many quantums.
Posted by: scooter | July 5, 2008 3:48 PM
jpf: In the Old Testament, surely UFOs would just be Fs.
Posted by: Peter Mc | July 5, 2008 5:03 PM
People, people, people. I do not see what is so hard to understand here. We do not have 100% of all the fossils of every branch and twig in the evolutionary tree of everything that ever lived. That means Gaps! I'm a show me, don't interpolate for me guy. Plus, I regrettably did not take biology in college, so there are many things about biology I do not understand..how genes really work, alleles, phenotypes, etc. Nor do I have all the data from biologists so-called, that I am unqualified to interpret. Nor am I personally able to conceive of processes taking millions of years. The only possible common sense explanation that follows is that evolution is in deep trouble and there is a Creator/Designer/Redeemer (who loves you!).
The tie-in is this. There is ample evidence given by scholars over many years that when the Israelites had the Exodus from Egypt, a cloud or fire pillar guided them. Well, we know God is not a pillar of fire. The only explanation left is a U.F.O. God was using aliens in His mysterious ways. (Just to preempt.never mind the lack of archaeological evidence for the Exodus, your faith is being tested....ummm...until evidence is found). Also, it is pretty much beyond doubt now that the transfiguration of Jesus was a U.F.O. encounter. The only real question is whether or not Moses and Elijah were actually aliens or guests. Angels, demons, djinns, are all aliens used by God, although some evidence suggests that some of them could be spirit beings. Figures seen in ancient drawings that kind of look like modern astronauts can be nothing other than aliens.
Plus, it makes sense that white people were transparent. I mean it it not hard to understand that transparency is simply lack of reflection (that's a scientific term) with light passing through or wrapping around (probably a quantum mechanical effect, having to do with black holes, Hawking evaporation, and photon tunneling). It is also pretty common knowledge that white people lost this ability when the one ring was burned in the volcano. There were at least 3 documentaries about this.
Now..loose ends!!! Evolution due to gene splicers from planet X sounds pretty cool and mysterious. So, I'm trying to figure out how to work this in. Isn't science great!?
Posted by: TimJ | July 5, 2008 5:12 PM
scooter,
Invisibility would a great boon to pr0n industry. It's already quite popular to circumvent Japanese cencorship. Link NOT SAFE FOR WORK!
Posted by: Sili | July 5, 2008 5:22 PM
My ancestors were *green*?
Oh, man! That explains sooo much! That's why I feel such sympathetic affinity for my stir-fried in a giant WOK bok choy!
This brain ride is making me wanna throw up. Lemme off, please.
Posted by: Inky | July 5, 2008 5:54 PM
@13, Holbach: I think you misunderstood me, though I suppose I wasn't the clearest. What I meant is more along the lines of Bell's Inequality meaning that some of the more counter-intuitive features of quantum mechanics are inherent, and not simply that "we don't understand enough."
Moreover, our idea of locality has changed somewhat as a result of the Bell Inequality and the Aspect experiment. Entanglement doesn't let you communicate faster than light in any way, but it does lead to "spooky action at a distance," which is unsettling to some very intelligent people (though it is not at all unsettling to some other very intelligent people).
It seems to me that those of a mystical bent (like Jewel, for example-- I shutter to think that she's from my home state!) latch onto any little utterance like "spooky action at a distance" or "God does not play dice with the universe" to immediately justify whatever inane bastardization of the theory they want. Frankly, it annoys me, and justifying ufology with this kind of handwaving nonsense is particularly annoying. I guess, though, it's only fair, since biologists have ID, since statisticians have insane priors in Bayesian reasoning, mathematicians have crank proofs of all sorts of open problems and computer scientists have P = NP cranks.
Posted by: Christopher Granade | July 5, 2008 6:08 PM
some times I despair at the shear volume of the varieties of unreality that people are drawn to believe in. The level of fear and isolation is overwhelming making so many of us vulnerable to frauds, charlatans and the Insane.
Posted by: uncle frogy | July 5, 2008 6:23 PM
Zeno at #14 wrote:
"Ufology has sure changed, but not for the better. That's an odd thing to be saying, but I miss the old fashioned UFO fanatics who had pictures and diagrams and theoretical engineering designs. The old ufology was evidence-based."
You obviously know *nothing* about UFOs. All of the UFO researchers I am aware of base their conclusions on the evidence.
Zeno wrote:
"Yeah, all the evidence turned out to be total crap (either faked or misunderstood),..."
Care to cite some examples?
Zeno:
"...but fun-loving wackos like Stanton Friedman were out to prove something.
I love it. Anyone you disagree with is a wacko. Have you ever read any of Friedman's books?
Zeno:
"UFOs have been reimagined as psychic manifestations and trans-dimensional ghosts."
Carl Jung wrote a book in *1958* about UFOs as possible psychic manifestations. 1958! Where have you been?
Zeno:
"The less tangible version is more amenable to lengthy New Age analysis without fear of disproof. No evidence? No problem! Speculate away! Woo woo!"
I would be curious to know what books (if any)on UFOs you have actually read.
Posted by: gleaner63 | July 5, 2008 6:37 PM
Ah! you've hooked one (gleaner63@26), PZ! Lay out the kook bait and they can never resist for long!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 5, 2008 6:40 PM
#26
UFO turned out to be the moon
Google is your friend.
Posted by: JoJo | July 5, 2008 6:43 PM
I just recently watched Cosmos again, which had the re-enactment of the Betty and Barney Hill case. That, along with this and the other posting about UFO-followers, reminded me of this rigorous analysis of that event, from Making Light:
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/009378.html
There's even a picture of the
UFOIdentified Object.Posted by: Owlmirror | July 5, 2008 6:51 PM
Nick Gotts at #27,
Well Nick, If I'm a "kook", then you're a boot licker. Why not tell us about all the hours you've spent looking at the UFO question? Oh, that's right, you don't have to, because you already know;
"I had started out as an outright"debumker", taking great joy in what seemed at first to be puzzling cases. UFO groups were all "crackpots and visionaries." My transformation was gradual but by the late sixtiesit was complete. Today I would not spend one further momenton the subject of UFOs if I didn't seriously feel that the phenonenon is real..."
-Dr. J. Allen Hynek
Now Nick, let me guess. Dr. Hynek is a kook, right? And you have a high school diploma, but we can disregard Dr. Hynek's research but trust everything you say about UFOs, right?
Posted by: gleaner63 | July 5, 2008 6:55 PM
JoJo at #26,
Well, of course some UFOs are misidentified objects. But are you suggesting all of them are?
Posted by: gleaner63 | July 5, 2008 7:02 PM
Owlmirror at #29,
"I recently watched Cosmos again...which had the reeanactment of the Betty and Barney Hill case..."
You need to do some updated reading...Friedman's new book about the Hill case has been out less than a year. Have you read it? Also, Carl Sagan was a famous "debunker", although he did no original research into the subject. As proof of Sagan's kookiness, he thought there may have been complex life on Mars before the Viking missions...
Posted by: gleaner63 | July 5, 2008 7:07 PM
@#26
Links on how people misidentify various stuff as being alien UFOs: 0, 1 and 2
Posted by: SEF | July 5, 2008 7:11 PM
@ #5: I'm greatly disappointed in those whackballs. There are plenty of real holy UFOs in the Bible. I don't know why they had to make some up.
Vanity of Vanities, sayeth the Preacher's Kid: All is Vanity.
Posted by: Witch Tyler, madlolscientist and leader of the Pedants' Revolt | July 5, 2008 7:15 PM
SEF at #26,
Thanks for the links, I will read them in full when I get time. It's important to read both sides of the question and that is one of the points I've been trying to make here. It seems apparent that a lot of people who assign UFOs to the "kook" category simply will not read the other side (pro-UFO). Methinks this would be to upsetting to some, better to stick with Shermer and the gang and we can all rest easier that these guys are doing their homework.
Here is a quote from one of the links you gave me:
"If real alien spacecraft were whizzing around in orbit they would rapidly be noticed by amateur satellite spotters and defense radars."
Couple of questions. If these were in fact alien spaceships with the tech to get here from another world, wouldn't it be possible for them to have some sort of stealth capability? And secondly, how does this gentleman know that defense radars have not spotted UFOs? Does he have a security clearance for NORAD? There's no way anybody here would have access to those records.
Posted by: gleaner63 | July 5, 2008 7:25 PM
@#34 I actually have a 1974 copy of The Spaceships of Ezekiel by Josef F. Blumrich on my shelf. It has this wonderful technical mock up of what the ship looked like, including four landing feet with helecopter blades and mechanical arms built in.
Posted by: jpf | July 5, 2008 7:26 PM
Quantum physics, string theory, links to intelligent design....sheesh, doesn't anybody just get a good old fashioned anal probing anymore.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | July 5, 2008 7:27 PM
gleaner63,
Whose boots do you suppose I'm licking? I could profess belief in flying saucers from tomorrow on, and it would harm my career not a jot - it would just be seen as a harmless eccentricity. PZ's, perhaps? He has no power to punish me, beyond banning me from the blog, and no power to reward me. As it happens I know a little about flying saucers, as a regular reader of Fortean Times. I'm not going to waste my time ploughing through interminable and tedious tomes on the subject. If aliens were here, they'd either make themselves known, or have technologies sufficiently beyond our own to stay undetected. The "evidence" exactly resembles, in its form, that for telepathy, ghosts, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster - whenever one piece of evidence is debunked, there's always another that will finally prove the sceptics wrong. Even when the evidence of fraud is clear, the believers invent fantastic explanations for why the fraudsters falsely admitted their fraud. The government, or scientists, or whoever, is always engaged in a conspiracy to hide THE TRUTH.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 5, 2008 7:37 PM
gleaner63 @ 26, 30, 31 I wish Philip J. Klass were alive and a guest on this site for just one session. He would made mincemeat of you, Hynek, and all the other UFO cretins. You do know who Philip J. Klass was, don't you?
Posted by: Holbach | July 5, 2008 7:39 PM
But the logical jump from "I don't know what that is" to "aliens from other planets are visiting" (or, for that matter, that "the government is testing secret weapons") is formally the same as the creo's leap from "I don't see how X could have evolved" to "Goddidit."
And oh, yeah, that Carl Sagan sure was a kook, wasn't he?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 5, 2008 7:42 PM
I had to scan and post some of The Spaceships of Ezekiel. Here's the cover and a diagram of mechanical arm and control rockets. A NASA engineer confirms it: Roboarms are in the Bible!
Posted by: jpf | July 5, 2008 7:45 PM
Ed Ruppelt, Aime Michel, Frank Edwards, Donald Keyhoe,etc. I've met Friedman, Hynek and others over the years. Read this stuff since the 50's. If you immerse your head into this, it all seems so very real. I know the frustrating feelings that if only people knew what you knew... Valee's later writings began to question more than accept. Remember, most of this stuff is third-hand repeated stories at best.I've interviewed people who claimed to have seen things. Mostly lights at night. Some, even some friends, I realized had serious mental problems. And yes, the other-dimension rabbit is often pulled out-of-the-hat. Friedman was too gullible.Recent writers have just made up crap.
Posted by: baryogenesis | July 5, 2008 7:47 PM
Holbach at #39,
Every UFO "nut" knows Phillip J. Klass. He's debated Stanton Friedman. He was editor of an aviation magazine. He may have coined the tern "avionics". He was king of the debunkers. I now of at least one book he wrote; "UFOs: The Public Deceived". He was on ABC's Nightline some years ago opposite Stanton Freidman. But I rmember one famous quote from Klass when debating a UFO researcher; "Mr Klass, how many of the Roswell witnesses have you interveiwed?" Klass answered, "none". Klass was a good guy, just deluded.
Posted by: gleaner63 | July 5, 2008 7:47 PM
gleaner63,
First of all, you asked "Care to cite some examples?" So I spent all of two minutes googling "UFO evidence." On the first search page was a news story from yesterday with a story about a UFO that wasn't.
Secondly, there are such things as UFOs. Some objects in the sky are seen and not identified. But the chances of them being extra-terrestrial ships sent by extra-terrestrial beings are between slim and none.
Lastly, the people at this blog tend to be rationalists. If you want to make claims about UFOs, it's up to you to prove them. Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof.
P.S. I have to ask for a citation for your comment "As proof of Sagan's kookiness, he thought there may have been complex life on Mars before the Viking missions..." I'd like some verifiable evidence that Sagan said such a thing before 1976. The last notable astronomer to make such claims was Percival Lowell, who died in 1916.
Posted by: JoJo | July 5, 2008 7:50 PM
I just remembered another wonderful site I discovered last month: Flying Chariot Ministries, which includes not only UFOs but giants, the connection between Nazis and the Church, and the truth about Golems. What makes it even stranger is that the guy who runs it is (I think) some sort of Messianic Scottish Jew (you can buy "The world's only Official Jewish Tartan" from him).
Posted by: jpf | July 5, 2008 8:02 PM
Ask and you shall receive!
Posted by: Zeno | July 5, 2008 8:10 PM
gleaner63 @ 43 I never interviewed a UFO retard either; if I had, would that lend credence to that bullshit? I never interviewed a god either, but this still makes it's existence imaginary, though millions of people swear by it's existence with imaginary sightings. You unstable people are so standard; if your wacko theories are ridiculed by reason and debunked by non-existence, you are on the defensive with irrational self-defense and other non-sensical crap which makes your position all the more insane and ridiculous. Choose another line of irrational seeking, like the tooth fairy.
Posted by: Holbach | July 5, 2008 8:14 PM
Zeno
Was having a shite morning and that cheered me up immensely. Hilarious, thanks.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | July 5, 2008 8:17 PM
Just tell them they are the secret Dean drive starfleet that Ike built. Then walk away.
Posted by: Tim | July 5, 2008 8:18 PM
JoJo at #44 said:
"First of all, you asked "Care to cite some examples?" So I spent all of two minutes googling "UFO evidence." On the first search page was a news story from yesterday with a story about a UFO that wasn't."
No disagreement here. The question was that since one UFO can be easil explained, do ALL of them fall into the same category?
JoJo:
"Secondly, there are such things as UFOs. Some objects in the sky are seen and not identified. But the chances of them being extra-terrestrial ships sent by extra-terrestrial beings are between slim and none."
Why are the chances between slim and none?
JoJo:
"Lastly, the people at this blog tend to be rationalists."
Rationalists dont make claims about subjects they know little or nothing about.
JoJo:
"If you want to make claims about UFOs, it's up to you to prove them."
What proof do you require? We have eyewitness testimony, landing marks, radar plots, etc...
JoJo:
"Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof."
Unfortunately for you that standard of evidence exists only in the heads of "rationalists" like you and Carl Sagan. I am aware of no such standard as it applies in a US court of law, are you? You only need evidence.
JoJo:
"P.S. I have to ask for a citation for your comment "As proof of Sagan's kookiness, he thought there may have been complex life on Mars before the Viking missions..." I'd like some verifiable evidence that Sagan said such a thing before 1976. The last notable astronomer to make such claims was Percival Lowell, who died in 1916."
And again, you would be completely wrong. I believe the book was simply titled "Life on Mars", or, it may have been Zubrin's book "Mission to Mars" (I read alot so sometimes the titles run together). If you are familiar with the Viking missions, then you know it was a very small spacecraft. There was a limited amount of room and the scientists had to decide what it could carry and what it couldn't. There were geologists on the team who thought that their experiments should get top priority, since, as everyone knew (except Sagan) Mars was a dead planet covered in rocks. Sagan however argued for the inclusion of a high speed camera, because, what if something "walked" by the lander at night and the regular camera missed it. I want to think Sagan used the term "purple blob" to describe said creature. A heated argument ensued, but Sagan got his camera, and someone else lost space on the lander because of it. So, Sagan was completely convinced that any life on mars would be of the microbial type, but perhaps somewhat advanced. Kooky enough? I will dig out the reference if it means that much to you.
Posted by: gleaner63 | July 5, 2008 8:19 PM
"sheesh, doesn't anybody just get a good old fashioned anal probing anymore"
Bride, ya gotta get these from a Republican senator nowadays- aliens slackin' off.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | July 5, 2008 8:33 PM
Holbach at #47:
"gleaner63 @ 43 I never interviewed a UFO retard either;"
Please keep in mind some portion of these "UFO retards" are jet fighter pilots, doctors, lawyers and astronomers"
Holbach:
"if I had, would that lend credence to that bullshit?
It would mean you are doing the research, which seems rational, not simply dismissing something because it doesn't fit neatly into your own worldview. Remember, Hynek only began to question his own beliefs when he began to interview people.
Holbach:
"I never interviewed a god either, but this still makes it's existence imaginary, though millions of people swear by it's existence with imaginary sightings. You unstable people are so standard; if your wacko theories "
You call people names, you thumb your nose at simply reading both sides of an issue, and your saying that I am wacked? Good lord
Holbach:
"are ridiculed by reason and debunked by non-existence, you are on the defensive with irrational self-defense and other non-sensical crap which makes your position all the more insane and ridiculous. Choose another line of irrational seeking, like the tooth fairy."
Maybe our definitions of "rational" are very different. You refuse to read; you call people retards who are better educated than you; you curse like a sailor (I am an ex-sailor so I should know), but you consider yourself rational?
Posted by: gleaner63 | July 5, 2008 8:33 PM
Bride, ya gotta get these from a Republican senator nowadays- aliens slackin' off.
Nah, from Republican Senators you get scat play.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 5, 2008 8:39 PM
gleaner63 @ 50 Why is it that these UFO's only show up in the shittiest of places with intelligences ranked with that of UFOlogists? Why is it Mississippi, southern Illinois and Indiana, and even then out in the swampy woods and unpopulated rural roads? And they are always in the night sky with always hazy blinking lights, sometimes a whole bank of them to prove the power of wattage! Why don't they land on the Sheep Meadow of Central Park in Manhattan, on the White House lawn, in front of the Pentagon, ot even in your front yard? And how come they don't land on your roof like Santa Claus(get it?) delivering cosmic wonders from another galaxy? It's all ensconced in that well worn saying, that if you believe in god, you can believe in anything. I don't believe in any gods; I sure as hell am not going to buy that UFO crap.
Posted by: Holbach | July 5, 2008 8:43 PM
Nick Gotts at #38
"Whose boots do you suppose I'm licking?"
I have no idea. If you hadn't called me a kook, I wouldn't have called you a boot licker.
Nick:
"I could profess belief in flying saucers from tomorrow on, and it would harm my career not a jot - it would just be seen as a harmless eccentricity. PZ's, perhaps? He has no power to punish me, beyond banning me from the blog..."
Given what passes for debate on this blog, no matter what you called me or anyone else, you won't get banned.
Nick:
"As it happens I know a little about flying saucers, as a regular reader of Fortean Times.
I agree with you here, you know a little...
Nick:
"I'm not going to waste my time ploughing through interminable and tedious tomes on the subject."
Remember that the next time you are arguing with a creationist and the *refuse* to read anything written by an evolutionist...
Nick:
"If aliens were here, they'd either make themselves known..."
Absolutely insane. Maybe they don't want to make themselves known
Nick:
"...or have technologies sufficiently beyond our own to stay undetected.
Agreed.
Nick:
"The "evidence" exactly resembles, in its form, that for telepathy, ghosts, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster -"
I take it your also an "internet expert" on these subjects as well.
Nick:
"whenever one piece of evidence is debunked, there's always another that will finally prove the sceptics wrong. Even when the evidence of fraud is clear, the believers invent fantastic explanations for why the fraudsters falsely admitted their fraud. The government, or scientists, or whoever, is always engaged in a conspiracy to hide THE TRUTH."
The right in this country has no monopoly on the word conspiracy. Every website I've ever seen about 911 being an inside job is owwned by a left-wing loon.
Posted by: gleaner63 | July 5, 2008 8:47 PM
Holbach at #54:
You asked why UFOs show up at (insert curse word)places like Mississppi, Illinois and Indiana. Well, personally, having lived in one of those states, my boss hailing from the latter, I don't think those places are all that bad. Tell me, what paradise do you come from?
Seriously though, neither of us has any method in which to detect the motives of an alien race. I can tell you one thing however. Having been born and raised on a farm in lowcountry SC, and sometimes driving a tractor at midnight in a 40 acre field with home two miles away through the woods (and a swamp and two creeks), if they aliens are in fact explorers/scientists as friedman has suggested, I wouls have been an easy target; not so much for city slickers. Maybe aliens are out there, maybe not, but it's cool to think about it...
Posted by: gleaner63 | July 5, 2008 8:56 PM
gleaner63 @52 Wow, you are more unbalanced than I can imagine! Actually, I can imagine anything from irrational people because they have teethed on religion which is the origin of all irrational thought. So, these UFO sighters are lawyers, doctors, astronomers, and even jet fighter pilots? So by dint of these professions they are immune from wacko ideas and their word is accepted as the truth? Here is an odd fact: why is it that priests and other religious morons of sheep authority never report seeing these imaginary objects? I know why but it will take too long to explain it and will only serve to make you all the more ridiculous. In a similiar analogy, I may be in the best of health, but I may also develop cancer. As those positions who sighted UFO's are not free of irrational nonsense, so am I not free of cancer. But the chance of me getting cancer far outstrip the chance of me or those wackos sighting a UFO. You are in a losing proposition here because there has never been actual visible or tangible proof of UFO's, and the intelligence of these sighters makes it all the more reason to treat it for what it is; wishful thinking and hoping that we are being visited by beings who probably have the better intelligence to steer clear of this wacko infested planet.
Posted by: Holbach | July 5, 2008 9:10 PM
I think that's the crux of the matter: "It's cool to think about it..."
Posted by: baryogenesis | July 5, 2008 9:20 PM
The right in this country has no monopoly on the word conspiracy. Every website I've ever seen about 911 being an inside job is owwned by a left-wing loon.
the operative word of course being "loon".
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 5, 2008 9:23 PM
Holbach at #57 states:
"Wow, you are more unbalanced than I can imagine!"
Maybe you just don't have much of an imagination:).
People who report UFOs don't seem to fall into any one category. And yes, there are doctors, lawyers and fighter pilots among them. If you are interested, the best book I have ever read on the subject is "The Hynek UFO Report" by "Dr." J. Allen Hynek. It's basically a catalog of the "best" reports. But what it rally points out is that the average UFO reporter is not a looney bird. As one example of which I have first-hand knowledge. My father saw a UFO in May of 1969. MY dad was a combat veteran of WWII, having logged 31 combat and three transport missions as a tail gunner on a B-24 liberator. He was very familiar with aircraft. He was also a 1950 graduate of Clemson Universiity. Not a dummy by any means.
DO religous people report UFOs? Certainly. One of the more famous cases involves a "religous" in Kelly-Hopkinsville, Kentucky. Interestingly, one of these reasons some debunkers thought this was a case of fraud was because of the faith of the reporters. By the way, my Dad was an outspoken atheist
You further state:
"You are in a losing proposition here because there has never been an actual visible or tangible proof of UFOs..."
There is quite a bit of "visible" evidence. It's up to you to believe it or reject it.
Holbach
"...and the intelligence of these sighters..."
You really have a tough time with this intelligence part, don't you? Is it because you simply can't believe anything out of you normal experiences? Tell me, how intelligent does one have to be to fly a jet fighter? When I was in the Navy, it was very difficult to get into the program. Some of the pilots I knew had advanced degrees in enginnering. They also had to be physically fit and the attrition rate was very high indeed. You don't put retards into 20 million dollar aircraft. SOme of these same pilots were later chosen for the astronau program. If you have the time, check out the backgrounds of the Apollo astronauts and space shuttle pilots. I don't know what profession you are in, but just judging by what you write (you write well, little on the angry side), I would say those pilots could match you on an IQ test.
Holbach:
"makes it all the more reason to treat it for what it is; wishful thinking and the hope that we are being visited by beings who probably have the better intelligence to steer clear of this wacko infested planet".
If I read you correctly, you accept an old universe, right? Somewhere bewteen 15 and 20 billions years old. You accept evolution, and evolution that is not guided by any outside agency. Why is it so hard to believe that in such a vast almost timeless universe other creatures could have evloved and may be visiting us?
Posted by: gleaner63 | July 5, 2008 9:41 PM
In regards to UFO. Plait has a post regarding the people confusing the moon with a UFO :)
Posted by: IBY | July 5, 2008 9:49 PM
baryogenesis at #58:
It is cool to think about it. I remember watching the original Twilight Zone when I was a kid (born in 1963). Silly as it sounds, a lot of the episodes made me curious about life elsewhere in the universe. And having a Dad who wasn't afraid to talk about such things...
Posted by: gleaner63 | July 5, 2008 9:49 PM
@gleaner
It is not the fact that there may be aliens, it is the fact that the best evidence for UFO has been blurry at best. Also, eyewitness stuffs are known to be very inaccurate in some cases, leading people to see weird things that are not there.
Posted by: IBY | July 5, 2008 9:54 PM
To make it clearer, there hasn't been good evidence of UFO sightings, not that there might not be intelligen life out there, because ther could be.
Posted by: IBY | July 5, 2008 9:56 PM
IBY at #61:
Not everyone is familiar with the night sky of course. The fact that most people now live in large urban areas, light pollution and just a general lack of education all contribute to this. Having been rasied on a 200 acre farm, we often worked well into the night and had a decent grasp of things in the sky...how I miss those days.
Posted by: gleaner63 | July 5, 2008 9:56 PM
"Why is it Mississippi, southern Illinois and Indiana, and even then out in the swampy woods and unpopulated rural roads?"
The answer to this question is simple, just look at the obesity statistics for the U.S. These areas tend to be inhabited by the heaviest Americans:
http://www.obesityinamerica.org/geographic.html
The fact that Middle America has been the equivalent of Wendy's for extraterrestrials has long been known to the One World Government, and the multinational corporations. In fact, in 1977, the bubblegum brand Bubblicious (Bubba-licious) was introduced by Cadbury Adams to desensitize the public to the fact that Bubba was indeed the main course for bug-eyed monsters, reptoids, blancmanges, and other extrasolarians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubblicious
Face it folks, we're delicious!
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | July 5, 2008 10:07 PM
gleaner63,
I am not going to do a line by line rebuttal of your comments as you did in post #50. Here are some general comments.
The chances of extra-terrestrials coming to Earth are vanishingly small. As a long-time science fiction reader, I wish this wasn't true, but it is. FTL travel would be required because the nearest star to the Sun is so far away it takes light, traveling at 300,000 km/sec, over four years to get here from there. But you knew that already.
You wrote "Rationalists dont make claims about subjects they know little or nothing about." There are some things, like the teapot in orbit around Mars, that are automatically suspect. UFOs fall into this category. You claim there are eyewitness testimonies, landing marks, radar plots, etc. There are also reports of a man rising from the dead some 2000 years ago, miraculous healings at Lourdes, and Marine sergeants dying in Iraq because George Bush coddles homosexuals (see Fred Phelps about this last one). My skepticism puts UFO landing marks on the same level as Phelps' inanities.
You said "I am aware of no such standard as it applies in a US court of law, are you? You only need evidence." I can go to court and say I'm Bill Gates' long-lost love child and so he should pay me for pain and suffering caused by an absent father. You and I both know that evidence would be laughed at. Evidence needs to be credible. Your evidence fails to meet this criteria.
In regards to your claim about Sagan, you offered "I believe the book was simply titled "Life on Mars", or, it may have been Zubrin's book "Mission to Mars" (I read alot so sometimes the titles run together)." So my request for a citation ends up being "possibly book A (presumably by Sagan but you didn't specify) or maybe book B by some guy I've never heard of." Sorry, you failed again.
Posted by: JoJo | July 5, 2008 10:07 PM
I have also talked to pilots who have seen strange things...this isn't proof of aliens. Granted it is a vast universe, and that there is an almost certain probability that life exists out there somewhere. Will we ever meet? Can the speed of light be conquered, let alone approached? Would alien races travel for generations to discover life on another world and then play hide-and-seek or peek-a-boo? Most of us would need more than "it would be cool" as evidence. Please try to separate sci-fi, wishful thinking, sightings of strange lights and people's anecdotal tales from the real world.
Posted by: baryogenesis | July 5, 2008 10:11 PM
JoJo at #67:
Thanks for your comments. A few general observations. When you say that you think that interstellar distances are a problem for visiting ETs, your making an awful big assumption that our present technology is the best there is. If aliens are thousands of years ahead of us, do you still think they'll be using chemical rockets?
On the issue owhat constitutes "good" or "acceptable" evidence: if you are familiar with US Courts, standards of evidence differ from state to state. I believe I asked before, but for you, what would constitute evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (a REAL standard of evidence) that aliens may be visiting the earth? If you answer this, I think it will be very telling on how you feel about this subject. As I am sure you are aware, in the last Trial of the Century, the OJ trial elicited quite a bit of opinion on both sides as to his possible guilt. On one side I heard comments that there was "no way" OJ did it. THis before the trial. Clearly, if a person ruled out Oj's guilt a priori, then *no* amount of evidence would be sufficient. ON the other hand, some convicted OJ before the trial based on a similar standard; "there's no way you'll ever convince me he didn't murder those people". Do you see the problem here? It's wasn't about the evidence at all; it was about protecting a deeply held belief.
ON the book about Carl Sagan; I had asked you that if you didn't trust me on what I said, I would dig out the book. Do you feel that Carl was just untouchable, and not capable of making mistakes? Sure, he was brilliant at what he did, but he wasn't perfect. I'll find the book, but it may take a few days.
Also, you've never heard of Robert Zubrin?
Posted by: gleaner63 | July 5, 2008 10:31 PM
baryogenesis writes at #68:
"Would alien races travel for generations to discover life on another world and then play hide and seek or peek-a -boo?"
What makes you think aliens would have to travel for generations to get here. Let's not be so smug to think we know all there is to know about propulsion systems. The second part of your questions assumes you know the motives of the aliens; you don't. If someone from Georgia can't understand someone from India, how much more improbable is it that we can even begin to understand the motives of an alien life form? Allow me to ask you the same question I asked an earlier poster; what evidence would convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that aliens are visiting the earth?
Posted by: gleaner63 | July 5, 2008 10:41 PM
gleaner63 @ 60 Oh but I do have an imagination, that is why I can imagine and know that you are of unsound mind,at least when it pertains to this nonsense. You are suggesting that I read Hynek's wacko book, perhaps to glean from it a tidbit of nonsense that I may have missed from the general wacko screed already written, to be written, and puked to irritation on the History and assorted quasi-fact channels? It's like telling me to read that much older book of insane nonsense, that dreck of all that religious nonsenses hinges on, the bible. I know what is contained in that dreck for the masses, and will no more waste my time in deadening my mind with that insane bullshit than I would read Hynek's and ilk similiar tome, but on a more cosmic bullshit. Your Dad was an outspoken atheist? So now you are trying to disgrace him with a path he was also wont to disparage? My profession? Shh, come closer, I don't want this to get out. I am really an alien in disguise from the Andromeda Galaxy, on one of the outer arms from the center, in an almost the same position as your earth. I am in this nondescript human form; heck, someone even told me that I look like the recently dead Jesse Helms, a human I am told was a religious cretin of a god that we have no knowledge of. We are so advanced over you that it has taken me a million light years to get here by using the energy of dark matter which you puny humans are still in the dark about. Dark, get it? That's a joke son! Anyway, I have no time to spend with you as I have to get down to Mississippi and stir up those good ole swamp boys and keep this alien bullshit alive.
Of course I believe that there is life elsewhere in the Universe, but the cosmos is so uncomprehendingly vast, with distances measured in light years, and that vastness and the energy, time, and materials reguired to effect a visit to us will never come I believe, in any humans lifetime, let alone our particular galaxy. You mentioned my writing as being on the angry side. If this topic were religion it would be a lot more angry. After all, UFO nuts do not pose the danger that demented religionists do. You may not harm or bother me, but I am repelled by all manner of irrational nonsense, and until we are visited by certified aliens, then you will be the object of ridicule almost on a par with religion, but not as subject to the most vicious of attacks.
Posted by: Holbac | July 5, 2008 10:44 PM
gleaner63 #69
What use are legal proceedings to verifying UFO evidence? Surely scientific analysis is more appropriate - or does that not work because the 'evidence' is so woefully unreliable?
The plural of anecdote is NOT data.
Posted by: btb | July 5, 2008 10:52 PM
Holbac at #71:
You keep bringing God and the Bible into this...I don't understand that. This has been, for the most part, a civil discussion about UFOs. Where in my posts have I said anything about God or the Bible?
Posted by: gleaner63 | July 5, 2008 10:53 PM
You know what? It's true that Klass wasn't very good. Aviation Week was good and he was very good at that. Ufo's? Only somewhat. He began by speculating that there was some sort of plasma phenomenom from hydro lines that explained a certain type of ufo sighting and did much speculating from a distance without the engagement of an interview or actual field work. In the long run though, it almost doesn't matter. It's all still too speculative, "mysterious" and wishful thinking. Where are all of those strange metallic bits that should be evidence that always seem to be stolen by a gov't agent....and on and on...? Sorry. Pfffft.
Posted by: baryogenesis | July 5, 2008 10:56 PM
Narrator: In A.D. 1947, Cold War was beginning.
Captain: What happen?
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the balloon.
Operator: We get signal.
Captain: What!
Operator: Main screen turn on.
Captain: It's you!
Aliens: How are you gentlemen?
Aliens: All your base are belong to us.
Captain: Can we just give you that one base in Nevada?
Posted by: JoJo | July 5, 2008 10:58 PM
btb at #72 said:
"Why use legal proceedings to verify UFO evidence? Surely scientific analysis is more appropraite-or does that not work because the evidence is so woefully unreliable?"
You need both. Eyewitness reports are part of the UFO evidence. What scientific analysis would you apply as to the integrity of the witness? Establishing the veracity of the witness is of vital importance. Legal precepts are one of the ways to do that. If someone is involved in a car wreck, witness testimony is crucial. While you can scientifically examine the wreckage, the science is not so precise that it can answer all of the questions about what happened. Almost eveyone in this thread has questioned the reliability of the witnesses in some fashion (wackos, rednecks, etc.).
Posted by: gleaner63 |