UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, May 03, 2016

UFOs, UAP, and classic “flying saucer” cases….one more time

Julien [Hessdalen Lights] is fascinated by the idea that UFOs are really UAP, and maybe akin to the phenomenon from which he derives his online name.

And he has a valid reason for his interest; some UFO [UAP?] sightings are caused by observers (witnesses) seeing a strange, atmospheric light in the overhead.

In a response to a comment of his, with video, I wrote that I wasn’t particularly intrigued (interested) in overhead lights, no matter how odd they might be.

I’m entrenched in the “old school” thinking that some UFOs have shown a preference for thoughtful movement and have a tangibility that bespeaks metal or something like metal, and some apparently disgorge odd creatures or beings, if the witnesses are not insane or have their senses in order.

(I lump many of the creature episodes in an hallucinatory scenario, but the intelligent like maneuvering or metallic-like sheen, again, if the witnesses are compos mentis is indicative of something real but still bizarre.)

The idea of UFOs (or flying saucers) being the vanguard of extraterrestrial visitors is a preposterous idea for me: the Earth being such a backwater, insignificant planet, in the great cosmic scheme of things.

But I do allow that one or two sightings, over the millennia of reported sightings of odd things in the sky or on the ground, might be von Neumann-like probes of intelligent machines or artificial intelligent constructs – a matter I continue to pour forth here.

And let me say this about classic UFO cases/sightings via an analogy:

If you came home from dinner out or a vacation and found that marauders had visited your home or living space, I don’t think you’d set the incident aside, awaiting for a future or new visit.

You’d want to know who or what had invaded your space, yes?

Those who decry interest in classic UFO cases are wrong to bellyache about the concern some of us have about old flying saucer or UFO sightings/events.

This means that the Arnold sighting, Roswell, the Rhodes and Trent photos, Socorro and a plethora of other notable sightings in UFO lore are worthy of continued thought and investigation or conjecture.

So, whether UFOs are really UAP or even figments of the human imagination, they remain a curiosity for many of us, and are worthy of ongoing attention, despite the nagging plea of naysayers for us to move on.

RR

24 Comments:

  • Rich,

    The problem boils down to once an investigator has all of the facts [having eliminated hoaxers and mundane things being mistaken for something "other"] they haven't really proved anything except "something strange happened here". O.K. so something strange happened / was observed. Now what?

    We don't have a good enough a grip on what "reality" is to actually say what the cause of the phenomena was, how to detect it, or repeatably demonstrate how the phenomena was created.

    Unfortunately, most cases reported are not actually investigated with a mind to science-- Not even the Hessdalen Lights Project-- Apparently, [so far as I can tell] no one has taken any kind of electromagnetic field or electric field measurements when half of the proposed "solutions" have something to do with either electricity or EM fields but they sure did set up internet facing web cams!

    So many of the "important cases" have become mired in side issues [Is there a cover-up? Are witnesses actually reliable? Was so-and-so a hoaxer? Was that a "black project" test?]. That the original impact of the witness reports are lost or negated.

    I seem to remember a while back that Lance Moody tried to explain away a UFO that was observed by an experienced pilot [and the guy that got the SR-71 Blackbird off the ground] as a lenticular cloud. Totally disregarding what the pilot reported he had observed. Really? You can explain away the observations of an experienced pilot [with lots of flight time] being someone that has never flown? Really?

    My father witnessed a few of these odd events too but never bothered to "report" them as it would have gotten in the way of the "fun" of actually trying to do "science". He analysed a few and came up with results that were "different" than the UFO crowd. Sadly, most of that work was lost [you have all that I've found] . What remains are just fragments and stories which "hold no water" to the likes of the current UFO researchers or the skeptics [Let's not talk about the alleged "UFO hunters" who would say just about anything at all is a UFO if it gets their name in the news.].

    I recall recounting a "bad battery event" over at Randles' site which my Father wrote about and the story received the "He was an Idiot Witness" tag. Um, no, he wasn't, but I now understand why he never bothered to correspond with idiots. It wastes your time and prevents the idiots from barking up the wrong tree.

    I no longer bother to post at Randles' blog at all as it is a place where a specialist on Electro-magnetics can be called an idiot but people with no science qualifications [an eye doctor? a real estate salesman? a lawyer?] at all can be taken seriously. Really? The same can be applied to the skeptics. What exactly qualifies to actually "judge" these things?

    When you talk about UFOs, every idjit and their mother thinks they are qualified to open their mouth about things they know nothing about. Since I admit don't have any of the highfalutin' qualifications I'll just sit here and listen to the flow of conversation and be entertained.

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Tuesday, May 03, 2016  

  • Joel:

    One can't take the UFO topic seriously.

    It's a mystery -- a minor mystery (the better mystery has to do with the existence of God) -- that is open to foolish conjectures (such as mine) and goofy opinion from quidnuncs.

    It's a fun thing not a serious, philosophical, metaphysical thing.

    One should not get overworked about UFOs, most people applying benign neglect, which is the sensible thing to do.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 03, 2016  

  • RR:

    Once again, and I must call you on it, on just what basis do you arrive at the disparaging comment, I can't call it a conclusion, that:

    "the Earth being such a backwater, insignificant planet, in the great cosmic scheme of things."

    Until we find our betters we must accept our place as a sentient planet in an otherwise dead universe. We are allowed the hope for contact but lacking that we are here, questioning, searching and yet still alone. That, in an interesting way, actually makes us the center of the universe as we know it until discovery.

    Anything else is projection, I suggest your description is another element of your recent pessimism.

    I think your are a victim of the closed minded null people who purport to have all the answers with the claim that there is nothing unknown to be investigated.

    One need not be an advocate to be thoughtful and searching optimistically while questioning critically in our topic here.

    Respectively,

    BD

    By Blogger Bryan Daum, at Wednesday, May 04, 2016  

  • Joel:

    To be fair, the eye-doctor you refer to (presumably David Rudiak) would be qualified in physics to be able to practice his skills, wouldn't he? I assume California has laws as to who can and cannot practice as an optometrist.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, May 04, 2016  

  • Bryan:

    I know you believe that Earth is a special place and we, its inhabitants, a special creation, and you may be right.

    But I don't see it that way, so I hope you can put up with my "pessimism", until the matter is resolved, either in this life or the next.

    Rich

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, May 04, 2016  

  • @ CDA who wrote:

    "To be fair, the eye-doctor you refer to (presumably David Rudiak) would be qualified in physics to be able to practice his skills, wouldn't he?"

    Not really. Physics is not part of the 4-year clinical degree program offered in the US. It is one of many courses that, if chosen during a prior undergraduate degree, a person can electively take prior to applying to a school of optometry. To be certain, the optometry curriculum is clinically based and disease oriented, and does not cover topics such as electro-magnetics or electricity as defined by courses in say theoretical physics, quantum physics, applied physics, etc. If anything, I think an optometrist would be qualified to discuss vision defects and afflictions of the eye than can cause a person to think they have seen something when they have not - but the cognitive component would best be handled by a neurologist and psychiatrist. Of course we are discussing a certain optometrist who believes his OD degree qualifies him as an expert in everything.

    @ Bryan who wrote:

    "That, in an interesting way, actually makes us the center of the universe as we know it until discovery."

    I made this comment recently to a fellow on the "other" blog in response to a statement he wrote concerning humankind. He wrote man was not significant, nor the pinnacle of creation (ironically he is an evolutionist using creation for his defense) because advanced alien species have long since surpassed we tiny humans in technology and wisdom. Since we have no evidence of the aliens he boldly claims exist, I'm sticking with your point of view until proven otherwise.

    @ Joel who wrote:

    "Apparently, [so far as I can tell] no one has taken any kind of electromagnetic field or electric field measurements when half of the proposed "solutions" have something to do with either electricity or EM field."

    You may be correct about the measurements - I don't know. But I do agree that most of the believable cases deal with EM effects of some kind. Interestingly, as I have pointed out previously, paranormal ghost sights are also rife with EM effects measured by almost every ghost hunter. And yet no one connects the UFO phenomenon with apparitions despite the fact they both exhibit EM field effects. Is this significant or just coincidence? Entities who both seem to manipulate or effect the EM field? However I am one of those who supports the notion that many UFO sightings deal in black programs often displaying EM effects. This only because despite what ET proponents say, current science has demonstrated that the quantum flux can be manipulated by EM waves which seems to be at the center of how gravity works - and that gravity is the likely bonding element across the cosmos and the key to manipulating Einsteinium theory without breaking the laws of quantum physics. EM field propulsion systems being the black projects I am referring to which most skeptics and ETHers dismiss outright as "balderdash".

    By Blogger Brian Bell, at Wednesday, May 04, 2016  

  • Per Rich: "So, whether UFOs are really UAP or even figments of the human imagination, they remain a curiosity for many of us, and are worthy of ongoing attention, despite the nagging plea of naysayers for us to move on."

    Yes, from an observational point, I tend to agree. Since I've personally seen nothing physically to observe, I left with observing the one(s) making the reports, or observing those who provide a supportive comment on blogs such as yours, mine and others.

    In fairness, I reassess my own views from time to time. We all have our bias...do we not?

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, May 04, 2016  


  • Part 1 of 2
    @ CDA & Brian

    While I agree an eye doctor [note - this is not aimed at anyone] might have an understanding of the way in which the eye works and be very qualified to talk about human visual capabilities there is a 99.9 % chance he actually knows nothing of EM Fields, government black projects, the psychology of liars and charlatans, the science of aerodynamics and / or propulsion systems.

    The same could be said for other "part time" the other investigators / researchers in the UFO / unexplained phenomena fields. Just because they've talked about the same things for 20+ years does not make them any more credible they they were when they first started. Most of them have fallen victim to their "belief" that something is true but do not actually have solid evidence [or that the money / fame from being a UFO personality has become an end in itself].

    If you were to choose an investigator for getting to the bottom of an "UFO" type event would you choose an eye doctor / a salesman / a lawyer? Or would you want someone a little more qualified at least with some real qualifications to assess the observed events? Most of the Skeptic community [Not even the Iron Skeptic] are qualified to assess these things because of their bias toward a specific conclusion is always evident.

    So would you rather have an eye doctor or Jacques Vallee and Neil deGrass Tyson?

    What passes for UFO researchers in most cases are sloppy, tabloid / pulp science-fantasy writers... where is the science in "he said - she said - I believe"? Where are the measurements? Where are the assessments of those measurements?

    My father once told me that there were those in science that believed something "strange" was being observed in UFO events but none of it was really worth pouring one's career down the drain over. At one time he was an engineer building space science satellite experiment packages [EM and Electric Field] surrounded by various sorts of physicists who specialized in Plasma Physics, Electric Field properties and Electromagnetics.

    ETHers and some "UFO researchers" actually do suppress science in the field if it does not agree with their agenda. As an example, my father wrote a paper that MUFON refused to publish. The paper accepted witness reports as being "valid", assessed the reported EM effects, and drew conclusions that said, in effect, that the observed EM effects were not caused by an electromagnetic field or EM propagation because there is no way any kind of known form of electromagnetic field can do things like those which were reported [such as "car stoppage"].

    You can say they might be EM effects but you cannot say they were *caused* by an EM source. Contrary to what certain ETHers believe, there is no such thing as a "non-destructive EM Field ray gun". The way the physics of EM fields work out there cannot be such a thing. EMP and Microwaves are destructive to electronics and electrical devices. They cannot suppress electric current or electronic functionality and later have those functions return to full operational status.

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Wednesday, May 04, 2016  

  • part 2 of 2

    The only way for these events to occur, as reported, is something capable of actually changing the way "fundamental 'universal' constants" work. For the skeptic it is easier to believe it didn't happen that way [or at all] and for the ETHer this can't be the case because "ET is the magic fairy who can do anything they want". I'll leave it to others to decide what it might mean if 'universal constants" can be manipulated like they were variables. I know I am not qualified to make that assessment but that was my father's assessment.

    Most of the reactions to the paper I have seen since Rich posted it a while back [2014] on one of his blogs have been negative. Why? Simple, it flies in the face of what everybody in the UFO believers camp believes to be true. The problem is what they believe "just ain't so" unless they ignore the facts or the assessment of an expert in EM fields and EM effects.

    On the other hand, most of those who claim to be "skeptics" are no more qualified to assess these things than the believers. These "experts" [who mostly have degrees in fields unrelated in any way to anything relevant to what they are talking about] claim UFOs [etc] are all a "madness of the crowds" or "a psychiatric disorder" or that "it is all impossible" but want to fight with the "believers" over it. Why? What if these things are actually something real? No that's just too much...

    So, if there is no truth to any of this, then why bother to feed the believers "madness" by fighting with them or commenting on their "madness" at all? Don't feed the trolls. If one can assess that none of this has any basis in reality [what is the definition of real?] then why bother with it at all?

    At this point UFOs with their "researchers" and "skeptics" become a source of entertainment. A Midsummer Night's Dream comedy of errors for someone, like myself, that's cut the cable cord and can't watch "A Game of Thrones"

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Wednesday, May 04, 2016  

  • @ Joel who wrote:

    "I'll leave it to others to decide what it might mean if 'universal constants" can be manipulated like they were variables."

    Those others you refer to are out there and have already published studies in peer reviewed journals that some laws of physics can be manipulated by legitimate "workarounds" that do not defy the fundamental laws themselves.

    In other words the laws remain correct and constant, but have aspects that allow for what a laymen like myself calls a "loop hole".

    Unfortunately, like all professions, their is an ingrained school of thought - a paradigm that governs - and to advance ones career in that field one must play within the bounds of that paradigm or be ostracized.

    It's well known that aspects of established principles of electricity are not taught to engineers because their education is to prepare them for success in the mainstream paradigm where these principles are not used.

    That's why so much research in theoretical science continues to be rejected outright by the established scientific community (academy or guild).

    Too many people have called it "quits" to the possibilities science still offers having long since determined the laws governing all have already been established and their is no more to learn about them. No scientist or layman can stomach challenging Einsteinium theory or Darwinian evolution because these have become the fundamental truths which form the backbone of science in their respect disciplines.

    Why must we assume there can be no more geniuses like Einstein? Why must we stop there by assuming we know every law of science?

    My point is I believe and know of reputable and brilliant physicists who are considered by their peers to be on the very fringe of established science and therefore not credible. These people are likely "Einsteins" in their own right, but will never be given due consideration.

    While I do not rule out the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrials, I see no evidence (yet) that confirms they really exist or more importantly have traveled here.

    However, I see clear evidence that scientists outside the mainstream have been paid to engage in covert projects backed with unlimited funding to explore the edges of known science to find these "loopholes" I mentioned. Unfortunately not because of any interest in helping humanity, but rather to develop tools that ensure power in matters of national security.

    By Blogger Brian Bell, at Wednesday, May 04, 2016  

  • When the hysterical Barney yelled, "They're going to capture us!"

    Betty's almost comical retort was, "Like on the Twilight Zone?"

    Vickie said to Colby, "You gonna see a big man come out... and that man's gonna be Jesus."

    Betty Cash: "We thought it was the End of Time."


    Bryan says, "...there is nothing unknown to be investigated."

    The mere failure to identify cannot be the logical basis for a hypothetical unknown; unidentified cannot be an identity, it's an absurdity. Innumerable "UFO" stories, however extraordinary, are not significant.

    Over a century of wildly varying "UFO" reports has not produced evidence of any kind of real unknown, but that very same century of reports could be taken as evidence of a very real social delusion.

    That century of absence of evidence is very good evidence of a social delusion. That century of absence of evidence is congruent with a social delusion. That's the Null hypothesis:

    Everything is exactly as it always was, there just aren't any real "UFOs" of any kind and there never were.

    The entire history of the "UFO" myth exposes the IDEA as an evolving fiction: there is no thing to be known.

    The pseudoscience of ufxxlogy is a kind of journalism at which the most naturally talented and skillful writers excel.

    There is no "UFO" phenomenon; there is no science in pseudoscience.

    The best "UFO" reports are the most debunkable because they contain the most damning information. This is another expression of the Null hypothesis, the "Doppleganger factor:"

    No matter how extraordinary the flying-saucer fairy tale, there's always a much simpler completely mundane answer.

    Exciting tales of spaceships are more likely bright planets or reentering space junk; and the complete catalogue of such tales is much more likely to be an all-too-human myth than mask a real unknown.

    And the other 99% of "UFO" reports are debunkable because they are mere expressions of a latent "UFO" delusion in a population conditioned and entirely predisposed to a space-age myth.

    That is, they're composed of utter bunk! Human misperceptions of ordinary things through science-fiction infused narratives.

    Now, Bryan, that's the informed real-world consensus on the "UFO" topic going all the way back to the 1960s of Menzel and Oberg, Klass and Sheaffer.

    What do you have to add?

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, May 04, 2016  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger hessdalen lights, at Wednesday, May 04, 2016  

  • Julien.....you crack me up!

    Don't let Zoam get to you; he's just having fun with us UFO buffs.

    He's as absorbed, in reverse, as we are in obverse.

    No one can be so agitated by a topic without having some affection for it.

    As noted anthropologist Ashley Montagu had it: the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, May 04, 2016  

  • @Julien: Thanks for the laugh. I wish I had thought to do that sooner.

    @Brian: There is no way to slip around "fundamental 'Universal' constants". Either they are or they are not. If they are not then what we think we know about the universe is very, very wrong. As Zoam has pointed out this is clearly impossible after all we already know everything there is to know since the 1960s. Period.

    @Rich: Somebody was agitated in a post here? Really? That's clearly impossible. Nobody could get agitated listening to "Ya-da ya-da ya-da." or even saying "Ya-da ya-da ya-da." All this is just the same boring talk-talk about the same old religious stuff between atheists and believers. What would anyone get agitated about?

    I could understand if it was about G-d or something, but this materials science stuff? Nah. It's a Psycho-socially null hypothesis.

    I tell you tho' it is definitely getting boring around here. I mean who are you going to talk to if no one says anything meaningful? or intelligent? Really?

    Its always the same stuff: "Here. Listen to me. I'm right because I say I'm right and you can't prove me wrong." [imagine the thumbs in the ears with the "Na! Na! Na! I can't hear you!" to go with that or maybe beating the chest like King Kong] Ya know? You'd think they were channeling "The Donald"-- say something long enough and loud enough and it becomes true, right? And the Mexicans [or skeptics or believers, or agnostics, or Illegal Aliens] will pay for it.

    But you and I know it's not important if there is intelligent life "out there". At one time I thought that there was intelligent life here on this planet. How could I have been so mistaken? It's no wonder SETI has never heard anything... Those alien fellows must only talk to intelligent species. So if there is no intelligent life here, I gotta say: "So what?" I think I'll go stream a movie or something.

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Wednesday, May 04, 2016  

  • @ Joel who wrote:

    "There is no way to slip around fundamental 'Universal' constants, Either they are or they are not."

    Sorry, can't tell if this is pure cynicism or your actual thoughts. Either way you make no sense to me.

    Take a chill pill and cool off - UFOs and aliens are not an important enough topic to lose your composure over.

    It sounds to me you may also be living in a paradigm of your own making.

    By Blogger Brian Bell, at Thursday, May 05, 2016  

  • @ Brian:

    It's not cynicism. Bryan. Just a set of observations that cannot be rectified.

    There are two "universal constants" (m0 and e0) which are responsible for allowing current to flow through a conductor. When you drive a car, current lows through the wiring and fires spark plugs to drive the pistons in the engine. "car stoppages" as reported in the "old UFO reports", indicated that somehow that current flow was stopped. So far as is presently is known, m0 and e0 cannot be "changed" by *any* human technological means.

    Zoam will happily tell you that there are mundane reasons for all of those reports of car stoppages which can be summarized as the witnesses are deluded, and or ball lightning, and or bad batteries, and or moisture in the air. The list can go on and on but as Zoam has made clear not only is a "car stoppage" impossible, they did not happen because his Skeptical Gods (Menzel, Oberg, Klass, and Sheaffer) say so. [Hence the reference to "Na, Na, Na, I can't hear you!]

    OTOH, any number of ETHers will tell you that "stoppages" are the result of an "EM ray" or something which can perform this fete. The reason ET can do this is they are the "technologically advanced, magic fairies" (or the equivalent) and then claim that we can do this (or almost do this) with our current technology.

    On the third hand, the paper my father wrote [and Rich posted at one time] goes through the list of all of the reported EM effects and states while all of these events "as reported" have some kind of "EM effect", there is no known human technology that can stop a current flowing in a wire at a distance. It cannot be done. There is no EM field that can do that either.

    The only non-destructive method that current can be stopped, in a wire, at a distance is by changing the values of m0 and e0... but so far as present human understanding is concerned, m0 and e0 *must be* fixed values. There is no technology that can change those values or "get around them". The only human methods for stopping a car at a distance is either an EMP or a directed microwave. Both these methods are destructive and would prevent the car from functioning after they were used against the target vehicle. But that is not what has been reported in "stoppages".

    Now as I said, Zoam will happily tell you that doing something like that is impossible and all of those witnesses are either deluded or they are all liars. The ETHers seemed to believe [as you have previously noted] that ETs are just like those ones on Star Trek.

    One other odd thing about m0 and e0: Manipulating m0 and e0 would allow a vehicle / aircraft to move like the "reported" motions UFOs-- high speed 90 deg. turns without tearing the vehicle apart.

    Now Zoam will also tell you that all of that is impossible and I am anathema because I will not accept his Gods. OTOH I will not accept the Gods of the ETHers.

    An analogy: If skeptics were criminal prosecutors, *no one* would ever go to jail because all of the witness and physical evidence would be thrown out as inadmissible hearsay or the ravings of the insane. If Ethers were criminal prosecutors, *everyone* would be in jail because even bald faced lies would be admitted as being true.

    A rational person might think there was a "middle ground" but there is not. Over time this polarization has drained away the value that studying these phenomena might have held. Yet despite the pleading of Zoam that 'unidentified' is not an identity, UFO as an identity remains valid. 'Unidentified' and 'flying' are adjectives for 'object' which *is* an identity. That's basic English.

    So that leaves me in the position of either being "ironic" as I was in my last post to Rich [Imitating "The Donald"] or sitting back and laughing at the absurdity of trying to have a discussion where no actual communication can take place.

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Thursday, May 05, 2016  

  • Hey Julien!

    Same challenge to you as Bryan: What do you have to add? Tell us something that we don't know about this subject.

    I've demonstrated repeatedly that the subject is finite within reason; it is very possible to cover it completely, know its substance as well as can be known at any time but subject to review, and put the problem to bed--just as one can with any subject. The world's consensus is that the subject is utterly without consequence. And that determination, after a century of this paranoid delusion, says quite a lot.

    Real "UFOs" suffer from the Shyness factor: they're never around for skeptical inspection. But imagine for a moment that there were real "UFOs" for us to goggle. Imagine they were as common as clouds, as if they were some sort of natural wonder but no one knew what they were. Absurd, right? It's not a possible world. But it's not much different from what "UFO" believers imagine the world to be. The real world is nothing like that.

    Otherwise, all we get from the advocates of a "UFO" reality is ad hominem, straw-man, ad hominem, the Galileo gambit, resentment of achievement, rationality and science, and just every other logical fallacy and whining loser excuse. All worthless.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Thursday, May 05, 2016  

  • When "UFO" loons get completely desperate, they'll even argue over the meanings of words in a pathetic attempt to divert attention from the fact that they have no veracious evidence for their demonstrably false beliefs.

    >> UFO as an identity remains valid. 'Unidentified' and 'flying' are adjectives for 'object' which *is* an identity.<<

    Unidentified is an identity, huh? That's hilarious. Only in the world of upside-down kook logic is "NOT identified" an identity!

    It's not logical to posit identity based on a lack of identity. "Object" is very intentionally ambiguous. "UFO" is an abstract. It's an irrational, absurd abstract because none could ever exist in the world; as soon as one were produced it would be an "identified."

    But thanks for exposing exactly what you bring to these discussions: ZERO!

    What's a "UFO?" No one can say. If they could say, it wouldn't be a "UFO."

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Thursday, May 05, 2016  

  • Zoam...

    Don't get so hysterical. UFO is merely a meme, one of those transitory, abstract things, that induces commentary, even mad commentary. much as philosophers indulge in:

    Like that of the great scholastic Anselm: "that than which nothing greater can be conceived."

    Abstract ideas or epithets need not be real to be discussed, but you know that.

    You're just being Zaom.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, May 05, 2016  

  • @ Brian: Sorry to have misspelled your name. I would not want to be confused with someone else.


    @ Rich: It seems, using Zoam's rational, there is no use for "Zeros" since they are "place holders" have no inherent value as our great, masterful, ferrous skeptic has pointed out. Nor are we permitted to believe that "unidentified" or "flying" are adjectives. Nor that "object" is a descriptive noun. I imagine this is more of the "Humpty Dumpty" sort of definition of words and concepts-- making them mean what he wants them to mean.

    But, Rich, I didn't invent this terminology. Let's quote Wikipedia here, so we can get over the semantics:

    "The acronym "UFO" was coined by Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, who headed Project Blue Book, then the USAF's official investigation of UFOs. He wrote, "Obviously the term 'flying saucer' is misleading when applied to objects of every conceivable shape and performance. For this reason the military prefers the more general, if less colorful, name: unidentified flying objects. UFO (pronounced Yoo-foe) for short."

    I accept the fact that if Zoam were not consistently firing off ad hominim or irrational attacks he would not be Zoam. His act might even be considered a charming, old style comedy routine [Imagine Don Rickles taking Neil deGrasse Tyson's part in "Cosmos" -- saying "There is no *science* in pseudoscience!" (queue a Henny Youngman drum roll-- Bada - Bing!)].

    Just the sort of laugh I need. :-)

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Thursday, May 05, 2016  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger hessdalen lights, at Friday, May 06, 2016  

  • Right, Julien, it's mostly rhetorical, but not completely. What's your story?

    No one can "harm" my skepticism, I'm the Teflon Skeptic, the Bad Skeptic. (g)

    Why? People are looking for answers, and Scientific skeptics think that it's preferable for people to have informed reality-based answers rather than answers composed of fanciful myths and popular delusions. We're here to help. Thanks for asking!

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, May 06, 2016  

  • Joel quotes Ruppelt as if it somehow supports his nonsense when it actually does exactly the opposite: the abstract and ambiguous "UFO" removed the identity and so the reality from flying saucers.

    That's an historical fact. And it worked! The Robertson Report and Blue Book were public relations, even propaganda exercises--of a very necessary kind of course. It was the Cold War and a society might be manipulated by a delusion.

    But in Joel's upside-down world of kook logic where unidentified is an identity, anything could be true, and "UFOs" are a reality because of the definition of an acronym, "unidentified...."

    Assume the answer much, Joel? Or is this just a case of blithering idiocy? That's my guess. What's it like to have lived your entire life blinded by a pseudoscientific delusion?

    Nearly seventy years after Ray Palmer invented "flying saucers" to launch a boy's magazine Joel is still asking "what," when the proper question was always "why people make 'UFO' reports."

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Saturday, May 07, 2016  

  • Rich,

    I won't attempt to get into a semantic contest with Zoam. He insists he is right and I am wrong. He also apparently thinks that I'm some loony or as he would have it a "kook". Nor will I bother to address his ad hominum attacks. My Rabbi once told me to "Always argue with the Rabbi." but he also said "a wise man who argues with a fool is not wise." So if I am a fool and Zoam is so smart, as he believes, why is he spending anytime on me at all?

    So this brings a question to mind: if Zoam is right, why does Zoam bother spending so much time on this whole subject? If these conjectures which you post are all false, then why does he spend so much time attacking people who discuss them?

    Unlike Zoam, I don't need this field. I don't have a book or a blog where I push ideas to "make cash fast" or prove I am a genius or gain credibility with a clique of like-minded believers-- in the skeptical or ETHer religion.

    Next one may ask, if Zoam is right [as we all know he must be, bless his heart], "So what?" -- So what if Zoam is right? So what if these things are just mundane things that have been misunderstood? *Really* So what? None of this is important enough to get worked up over... As *Brian* rightly said to me the other day... So again one must ask why is Zoam spending so much time with this subject?

    Unlike some I don't have any need to beat my chest and say "I am right!" and frankly I don't much care if I'm wrong...

    And if I'm a Kook, so what? I've helped put NASA astronauts, Space Shuttles, and USAF satellites into orbit. What is Zoam's lifetime achievement? Swatting kooks in comments? Really? That is something to be proud of? I have nothing to lose exploring "what ifs?" or extrapolating ideas. At the same time, do not I feel the need to bully or verbally beat to a pulp those who having opinion which differ from mine.

    I'm not going to try to "defend" the things which were written by my father that you have posted including his resume. As I have said previously, most of the reader commentary to the MUFON article has been negative because it does not follow the "script" that ETHers insist is true nor does it necessarily accept what the Skeptics believe.

    Today would have been my father's 93rd birth day and I am pretty sure he'd think that a "pissing contest" over these things would have been a waste of time... especially with someone who is only a materials engineer and has no qualifications to talk about EM fields or EM field measurements. I'm certainly not going to argue about it because I know I'm not qualified to do so.

    I've read some of Zoam's blogs and some of it is clever stuff... but it seems invective and irrational zeal has replaced intelligence in the things he has posted here. Maybe it's time for him to find a new pastime. If he'd like to watch a good movie I'd suggest "The Fisher King" with Jeff Bridges and Robin Williams.

    In any case, I wish him luck in his future endeavors.

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Saturday, May 07, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home