posted by RRRGroup at
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Daniel writes: "Not worth a moment's consideration, yet you must have given it more than a few moments consideration or you would not be commenting here."No, that just doesn't follow, Daniel. You're confused; "so remotely implausible that it's all but impossible and not worth even a moment's consideration" obviously refers to the time spent determining the image was not that of an "alien"--not the time spent explaining why it's not, could not be, and what it most probably is.Understand the difference now? And if that factual answer doesn't help you, call "not worth even a moment's consideration" rhetorical, but it's still about the act of first viewing the reproduction of the slide--not the discussions that follow. How could any rational English speaker confuse and so misunderstand that?I doubt very much that any real ET resembles in any way the fictional generic "alien" created by over a century of science-fiction, mass media and folklore. So one look at even a poor reproduction of one slide was enough to determine that it was not "alien" and that it was most probably a mummified child. We've seen this kind of thing before.Someone found these slides and thought, "I can present these mummy slides in a 'Roswell alien body' context and make money." That's called a hoax. And that's all there is to this story, someone making an extraordinarily stupid claim. I'd be perfectly happy to see this "slides" nonsense disappear, but the big reveal is still a month away so that's not going to happen. And other skeptics probably think this "slides" fiasco will become a club with which they will beat incorrigible believers over their heads for years to come. They're welcomed to that, but that's not for me. The "slides" are a diversion, a true sideshow attraction; and there are many more substantive tools with which to pound false "UFO" beliefs to pieces. "Your phoney rational mask has hereby been stripped from you. Revealed in your own words."No, your irrational misinterpretation has no relevance to what I plainly said. And your hysterical pronouncement is way over the top for a simple misinterpretation."Learn how to truly be a rational human being by not paying any attention to matters that you (supposedly) consider to have no value."No, Dan, that doesn't sound like a prescription for rationality at all. It sounds like a prescription for withdrawing from the world and knowing nothing. A many good intelligent, highly educated people spend a great deal of time debunking things we know are utter rubbish, the pseudosciences, we're called Scientific skeptics.Dan, your confused comment reminds me of one recently that asked: "If you think it's all a myth and delusion, why do you know so much about it?" Funny, huh? Failing to grasp the obvious is a hallmark of cranks, kooks and loons.And another guy recently tried to tell me I wasn't a real skeptic, until I showed him that he didn't really understand what Scientific skepticism is. It comes with the territory, explaining what is often obvious and exploding false beliefs.Now, what's your beef, Dan?
By zoamchomsky, at Sunday, March 29, 2015
"Scientific skepticism"I will tell you Zoamy, "scientific skepticism" is swill. Any discipline that needs to put the descriptor "scientific" before the discipline's name is either political o ideological doctrine or pseudoscientific trash (which is the exact case of the scientific skepticism). Real scientific disciplines like biology, chemistry, physics, geology, etc. really don't need the prename "scientific".The pseudo-psychologists and pseudo-sociologists practicing the scientific skepticism on UFOs are nothing but charlatans and weirdoes.
By Don Maor, at Sunday, March 29, 2015
Hello all,I recall the English translation + additional things + further reading of José's article:http://www.blueblurrylines.com/2015/03/is-this-mummy-famous-alien-in-roswell.htmlBest Regards,Gilles
By Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, March 30, 2015
Don,The term "scientific skepticism" isn't really a formal terminolog or discipline . Skepticism really is all about urging folks to use critical thinking in their approach to offbeat topics. Some folks add on the scientific prefix to sort of clarify things. The scientific part should be understood but often isn't. Sadly, almost every true believer I have ever spoken with starts by saying how they are skeptics. But their subsequent story usually reveals in spades that they aren't. When our local skeptical group was deciding on a name, they came up with The Association for Rational Thought. I always hated that because it soundsed sort of kooky so I sort of agree that the term Scientiifc skepticism could be seen that way.Regardless of the name, I hope we can all agree that the basic precepts are sound. Lance
By Lance, at Monday, March 30, 2015
All of the slanted verbiage on either side of the skeptical \ belief fence misses the mark as there is no physical corpse of an alien nor of a duplicate and prosaic mummy, hence no case can be "won" by either side.The debate over images, associations, identifiers and the characters of those involved in it's promotion are a social media past time, nothing more and nothing less.The inability to think of the entire intractable phenomenon outside of the ET box has resulted in this focus on the thinnest of social veneers. Its obvious that opinions are a dime a dozen over a empty grave.It's a dialog frozen in time.
By Bruce Duensing, at Monday, March 30, 2015
Hi Bruce,You create a false equivalency, I think.While I am hopeful that we find the true source of the figure in the slides once we get a fair look at them, If the thing ends up looking no more alien than it does now in the low resolution images, then it isn't really required to find the exact source to dismiss the idea that it depicts an alien. If it continues to look in general like a human corpse, there is no reason to suppose that it is not, The pretense that the two sides are on equal footing is specious....the promoters need overwhelming evidence for their supposition.Lance
The engagement of both sides in relation to a phantom image is telling and while we may disagree on the value in any vestment in this latest cycle of circumstantial rumor, time will answer that question and my own suspicion will be based on the probabilities a simple image will suffice for either side, which is negligible. Of course this is a game of hearts and minds in terms of a evangelical motivation of conversion.or affirmation over what constitutes an image of a religious reliquary.And to whom is this effort directed? In the end, it will be a parable worthy of the Maltese Falcon or Treasure of The Sierra Madre.That is not to say anyone is insincere or without justification in their minds..who am I to say?Personally, I think it matters little in this life one way or the other to me except as a trifle ballooned to a mountain which is interesting to observe from afar.
Bruce:I do agree that it is actual, tangible, bodies that matter to science, not mere photographic images. This whole 'ET visiting earth' concept is far too important to be left to two slides or a concocted movie.Where are the actual bodies, and why after nearly 7 decades cannot we see them for ourselves?The usual response is that they have to be kept under strict secrecy. In which case no photographs ought to have been allowed. And if someone (whoever it was) has managed to get a quick illicit photo of the said ET, why on earth has it taken so long to come to light? Just think of the search for ET that has been going on all this time while the said slides were supposedly stashed away, unavailable to scientists. A preposterous notion. Science will laugh this whole charade off. With luck it will be the last ever attempt to fool the public over this Roswell ET tale.But I wouldn't bank on it!
By cda, at Monday, March 30, 2015
CDAMy comment was not to denigrate Lance's efforts nor Paul Kimball's or anyone else who has pragmatism on their side. My point of view is that their energy and fine investigative work will be for naught as Mark Twain once said, facts have nothing to do with public opinion.That is while I asked who they were attempting to point their evangelicalism at, Just the simple fact that this shaggy dog story still has legs says more than the absence of a shred of evidence says to the contrary speaks volumes about the public. It has and will always be so as Twain said; "All I know is what I read in the newspaper"I see it as a lost cause yet a noble one to tilt at this windmill. No one will thank them on the way to the Roswell souvenir stand.
Bruce habitually forgets that in science and skepticism the Null hypothesis for any extraordinary assertion is always winning until it's falsified.Is it in any way plausible that the image depicts a dead alien?Given the image--in a history of ridiculous "UFO" hoaxed images--it's so remotely unlikely that it isn't worth more than a moment's consideration.Now, let someone show otherwise, falsify that negative determination, assertion--the Null hypothesis.Until they do, Bruce, that's how it stands. All claims about it are not equal. The extraordinary must be proven to alter the world.
By zoamchomsky, at Monday, March 30, 2015
Personally I think some folks like drama and \ or being a player by inserting themselves in the story line and some do some hard boiled investigative work over a fly in the ointment, or a pet corn they love to flail. Over exactly what? This Venus flytrap eats skeptics as well as the devout democratically as neither one has anything to do with the absence of any facts and the general public either does not care or conveniently ignores their absence in the pursuit of the miraculous to make the public's day less humdrum or miserable.It's always been this way and neither you or I have any say in the matter that turns any tides on their tracks. I say follow your muse, just don't expect your opinion to carry the day.
Oh, I see now, Bruce.Yes, you are probably right...but if we locate the EXACT source (which I am hopeful for) it might carry some weight especially if we can get the word out quickly.Regardless, I think (knowing what I know now) that the reputations of the involved hucksters will be fully destroyed (again for some of them) . And maybe we won't be bothered with their nonsense for a while. But I could be wrong...which would be exciting, too!Lance
LanceI hope you are right and I wish you well. That being said, even if you are successful in terms of the current charade I suspect this story will be spun onto eternity if there is no corpse alien or otherwise. I am certain you know that anyway. As far as the public is concerned, that's another story. Unfortunately, there is little profit in the truth versus titillation in "the vast wasteland" The public was raised and fed on junk food and it would astonish me if all of it vanished overnight. Although the original yarn has been blown to bits, it has gone on to a eternal afterlife...in a post literacy universe of internet conspiracy slanted websites. I wouldnt be the least surprised if they said you worked for the CIA. ( Sigh)
It's not a contest of beliefs.It's a hoax, like any other in the history of the "UFO" myth.It doesn't matter one whit what is the public perception, or what hucksters and militant believers insist despite its obvious falsity and worthlessness.The truth value of all "UFO" stories is zero, the subject of the "UFO" myth is a non-issue until one story falsifies the Null hypothesis. The "slides" hoax is very obviously not the one.What happens in the flying-saucer funhouse otherwise is meaningless.
Zoam: You wrote: "A many good (sic) intelligent, highly educated people spend a great deal of time debunking things we know are utter rubbish, the pseudosciences, we're called Scientific skeptics."Since you seem to be claiming for yourself the mantle of "intelligent Scientific skeptic" I wonder if you could briefly describe your credentials? For example, what is your I.Q.? In exactly what field or fields of science did you earn your University degrees? From which universities? What was your thesis topic? At which University or Research Institution do you work? Please explain your main contributions to your chosen field or fields of science, perhaps giving the title of your most recent publication? Exactly which scientific research methods do you use in writing your responses here?
By Larry, at Monday, March 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by the author.
Zoam, please, you can't put forward the null hypothesis and at the same time label everything a hoax.Is that what you call scientific skepticism? I call that "rabies."
By Terry the Censor, at Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Larry;Scientific skepticism doesn't require one being a scientist. As you should know since a great many well-known, even famous skeptics are obviously not scientists.Even if I were a scientist, this sort of silly ufoologist trick is exactly why I have remained anonymous online for decades. As if one has to be a scientist to possess the good sense and critical thinking skills required for Scientific skepticism.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
By zoamchomsky, at Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Terry;I didn't label "everything a hoax." I said the slides were "a hoax, like any other [hoax] in the history of the "UFO" myth.Clear, now?But even if every "UFO" story ever were indeed a hoax, I could still very well and correctly posit the Null hypothesis as the explanation for that totality of reports.That's exactly what the Null hypothesis for "UFO" reports is!Call it whatever your half-baked or verbal hair-splitting sort of "skepticism" likes. To be generous, you seem to address everyday "play skeptic" practice while I'm most always addressing the historical totality of "UFO" reports--the Null and PSH--and theory. Science begins with the Null hypothesis; and so the Null hypothesis is a fundamental expression of Scientific skepticism.Whatever sort of "UFO" report is thrown against the left wall of the Null hypothesis and its nature positively determined, the Null hypothesis stands.The detritus of over a century of "UFO" reports that composes the "UFO" myth lies at the foot of the wall--with one real-world explanation, the Null hypothesis.
Zoam & Terry:What would it take to persuade either of you that UFOs are visiting ET craft?This is the sort of question Arthur C. Clarke once posed. Different people have different standards of acceptance of what science describes as 'unexplained'. Presumably either wreckage and/or bodies that scientific examination confirmed was 'not of this earth' would suffice to convince you (as it would me), but even then there may be elements of doubt, and the scientists doing the analysis may themselves have differing degrees of doubt. Moreover, it might take many months to be certain.Recall the case with meteorites 200 years ago. Eventually, after lots of sightings and reports, scientists HAD to accept that rocks did fall from the sky. But it took quite a while. (Forget how long).So it is still conceivable that the same COULD happen with UFOs. And I am a skeptic too!The only thing we can all agree on is that it will NOT happen in the case of those slides. That whole affair is a monumental comedy (or is it a tragedy for some?).
By cda, at Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Zoam wrote: “Scientific skepticism doesn't require one being a scientist. …. Even if I were a scientist, this sort of silly ufoologist trick is exactly why I have remained anonymous online for decades. As if one has to be a scientist to possess the good sense and critical thinking skills required for Scientific skepticism.”Zoam: First, I’ll take that as confirmation of my speculation that you have no scientific competence. Second, thank you for clearing up my misconception—namely, the misconception that I should expect “Scientific Skepticism” to have some relationship to Science or Scientists. My bad. After reading your ravings and the Wikipedia entry you referred me to, I can see that there is no such relationship. Instead, it appears that the adjective “Scientific” was appended to “Skepticism” merely for the positive effect it would presumably have on recruitment and on your self image. You might just as easily have chosen “Mega-“ or “Turbo-“. From what I can see, and unlike the process of becoming a scientist/engineer, there is no particular screening process based on merit to become a “Scientific Skeptic” (although it appears that being a stage magician helps). No, it looks to me like any random street lunatic can wake up some morning and decide to be a “Scientific Skeptic”, send in 25 bucks to the Grand Ipissimus, get back the secret decoder ring, and be in business in no time at all. That’s a nice little religion you’ve got going there, and if it gives you comfort, then I guess it’s serving its intended purpose. I just wish you didn’t feel you have to prosletyze so much; it makes you a pain in the ass.
By Larry, at Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Probably not the quote, cda, but: "One theory which can no longer be taken very seriously is that UFOs are interstellar spaceships."-- ARTHUR C. CLARKE, New York Times, Jul. 27, 1975More, with which you and I most probably agree, athttp://drdavidclarke.co.uk/about/arthur-c-clarke-on-ufos/1. An idea I once entertained but might account for so very few reports that it's of no import.2. Agreed!3. Agreed! A point I've made repeatedly for decades in "UFO" discussions: There has been 24/7 global surveillance for decades and we haven't detected even one ET spacecraft."We will all know it if ET ever arrives."What DPS satellites have detected--instead of "fastwalkers"--are many of the millions of Earth-impacting and atmosphere-skirting minor Earth-crossing asteroids.Another Space Age mermaid explained! (g)
By zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, April 01, 2015
Hello,1) It is a pity Bragalia's comments have been erased :( They made my day...Tony confessed 6 persons in this Earth have had full rezo of the slides, or 3 following A. Dew... (a polemic /detail inside the saga, but the devil often is among the details)...Wow, what a team and experts having shared the slides for analysis to reach such a conclusion of this magnitude^^It is easy to find/speculate who are such men! "Men of the situation" to this modern myth! Not experts, or agnostics, as already pointed in my article.But enough to "expertise", to conclude and decide, "not from our Earth!" "Alien, Roswell Alien"...Well, that's ufology, after all...Sacred Tony and slides promoters! :)I didn't expect what you were able to do more after my 2010 book to promoting the myth, what will be new, but you did it!Clap clap!2) Tony is affraid/worry IF-sic- we have the slides. But well, if we had, we have had reached the same conclusion than them, no? Because the slides very convincing, AKA alien! No?Why is Tony so worry if we had the slides? Answer: he is not convinced by the slides himself and/or the slides not convincing ;)Regards,Gilles.
By Gilles Fernandez, at Wednesday, April 01, 2015
[Tony B] "is not convinced by the slides himself and/or the slides not convincing ;)"I'll go with "slides not convincing" --even to himself! (g)
Funny stuff, Larry! But I really don't know why you bother since it doesn't help you in any way. It just paints you as a flying-saucer believing nutter whose rhetorical devices include:Ignore the obvious; question and redefine the meanings of well understood words; ad hominem; upside-down logic; straw-man; ridicule; blame the skeptics; projection; indirectly appeal to your own self-styled "scientific" authority; and so on.Who on any of these blogs that we frequent is a real scientist, Larry? I don't know of one. Please name the scientist here who isn't a flying-saucer nutter, which disqualifies him from acting as a real scientist on the "UFO" non-issue.As if opinions on the "UFO" non-issue required that one be a scientist.Refuting your bogus claims in order:Not being a scientist doesn't mean one has no "scientific" competence. The "UFO" myth is not science!It's called "Scientific skepticism" because its first and fundamental principle is the Null hypothesis.The consensus worldview is known as "Scientific realism." By Larry's bad "logic" we'd all have to be scientists to share in the consensus worldview. Neither Scientific realism or Scientific skepticism are "religions."That's just Internet "UFO" crank talk, Larry. You're better than that, aren't you?Larry and some others, Daniel Transit, would like to pretend that the "UFO" myth was solely their domain, and that more rational, skeptical others should go away.How fragile their beliefs must be that they are so threatened by skeptical scrutiny.I love it, Larry! You guys are so afflicted by the paranoid conspiratorial heebie-jeebies that you don't even need me!(LOL)Now falsify the Null hypothesis for "UFO" reports. Or you could simply admit that the ETH is the "least likely" explanation for why people make what we call "UFO" reports, and that the Null hypothesis and the PSH are the best explanations for over a century of a mass media created and perpetuated collective delusion.Best, Zoam
Opinions don't require science and an opinion by a scientist is called a theory. What I can observe that in one sense of Zoam's psycho-social opinion, he is deeply embedded in that spectrum somewhat constituted as a rainbow of theoretical opinions stuck in the same glue as everyone else, aside from his fire and brimstone umbrage based on other opinions..like a perfect circle has been closed....all revolving around an axis of ennui...and so it goes for another day in internet land.
By Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, April 02, 2015
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile