On 10/25/2011 4:53 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Forgot to say, check the series 'UFO Files' and again, not everything is
> false not everyone/everything is true but some things are. Bob Lazard is
> a attention whore fake witness for example that does appear in the
> series but there are others that do offer truthful and objective
> indication of ET presence, I suggest you to re-read my post:
> news://news.povray.org:119/4e9f7644@news.povray.org you're assuming many
> wrongful things about my posts & myself when I explained how and why
> precisely to avoid people assuming things but you looks like you
> over-read it and did it anyway.

Funny, given that Lazard is one of the few people that can even be 
proven, based on the evidence, to even exist, instead of having been 
made up, by among others, Lazard, in some cases, its hardly helping the 
argument to claim that he is less credible than people that there are no 
records of, outside of the claims made that they where in fact "at" 
various places, like Roswell.

The ones you can verify, you get so much contradictory details, that its 
hardly clear at all what they did see, report, etc., at the time, never 
mind years later, after they had plenty of time to embellish. And 
***everyone*** embellishes. There is no person on earth, with the 
possible exception of some people with near perfect photographic 
memories, who doesn't construct every detail of what happened to them 
10. 20, etc. years prior, out of fragments, complete with modifications, 
distortions, and misremembered details. At best, some of us have 
friends, neighbors, and relatives that are also there, and *they* offer 
versions that mostly coincide, to the result is "close" to the original. 
Divorce someone of anyone they can talk to about it, then leave them 
decades to only construct their own narrative of events, from their own 
faulty recollections, and I would be surprised if they remembered 
"anything" accurately, which they didn't have clear reason to recall.

We know that even the act of recalling an event both "strengthens" that 
memory, but alters it at the same time. If you haven't had a reason to 
recall it at all, for decades, what does that do to it, when you try to 
recover it? It certainly can't be trustworthy. And that isn't just 
opinion, its an entire field, called neuroscience.

Post a reply to this message

No is not like that at all, you think you know everything about it and 
you don't, also who said I was trying to be "useful" with this info? 
Being cynical and speaking out of ignorance won't help you either.

The point being: there are indications of some things out there that are 
suspicious, and can't be explained but the logical conclusions are this 
and that... etc.

People are so cynical because they like to be in their comfort zone, so 
be it.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
>  And that isn't just
> opinion, its an entire field, called neuroscience.

In which you're an expert? I doubt it. I also doubt you have watched the 
series and verified the facts, I haven't verified all of them but the 
some main characters. Lazard worked at a secret facility but that's it, 
serious UFOlogists reject him as they have tried to verify his claims 
with him, he just wants the attention; his car has a plate MJ-1, if your 
life is in danger from Gov threats you're going to be announcing you 
worked at Majestic? lol what a joke. He even breaks the law selling 
illegal radioactive isotopes from time to time when he should be hiding.

You don't know everyone on Earth and what they do or not to affirm they 
ALL embellish, if a memory is strong enough you don't need to is always 
fresh for some reason even 40+ years I know this because I have met 
people that over time have said the same stories WITHOUT embellishment. 
Check the series and then make conclusions, you'll see now you're 
assuming too much.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> And because something can't be explained it 
> doesn't mean is not indication something is going on, you need to open 
> your mind to toher possibilities and stop that attitude "Give me facts 
> or give me death!", you're like the ignorant which hunters, only seeing 
> what you want to see, science and nothings else.

  Being open minded to alternatives does not mean automatically *accepting*
those alternatives. One should accept explanations only if there's sufficient
evidence for them, not just because someone came up with them.

  Believing something just because somebody tells you so is not
open-mindedness. It's gullibility.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Saul Luizaga<sau### [at] netscapenet>  wrote:
>> And because something can't be explained it
>> doesn't mean is not indication something is going on, you need to open
>> your mind to toher possibilities and stop that attitude "Give me facts
>> or give me death!", you're like the ignorant which hunters, only seeing
>> what you want to see, science and nothings else.
>
>    Being open minded to alternatives does not mean automatically *accepting*
> those alternatives. One should accept explanations only if there's sufficient
> evidence for them, not just because someone came up with them.
>
>    Believing something just because somebody tells you so is not
> open-mindedness. It's gullibility.
>
Why you misinterpret what I say? I'm not saying you must accept what I'm 
saying, I'm saying is logical to see that there are indications that 
there are things that seem to go beyond our everyday world, that 
probably will be explained in a future when we develop more technology.

Is not about is true or false, you should stop seeing things that way 
because this is not science, is a big gray area for now, but logic on 
the indications presented may be the most probable cause, that's it.

If you could see the series you'd see that respected physicists that do 
teach in universities talk about it, if fun to imagine the 
possibilities, and to be part of what others have lived as a 
extraordinary experience that marked their lives, risking and sometimes 
being ridiculed, but what choice they have? it was their experience and 
nothing can change that; if you see the series you'd understand better 
what I'm trying to say, because I don't believe everything either but 
some parts yes, others I doubt them and a few are not likely to me 
specially since I learned that some are complete hoaxes like Lazard.

Post a reply to this message

On 26/10/2011 5:06 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Why you misinterpret what I say? I'm not saying you must accept what I'm
> saying, I'm saying is logical to see that there are indications that
> there are things that seem to go beyond our everyday world, that
> probably will be explained in a future when we develop more technology.

Or

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Why you misinterpret what I say? I'm not saying you must accept what I'm 
> saying

  When you say "you're like the ignorant which hunters, only seeing what
you want to see, science and nothings else", it certainly sounds like you
adamantly want me to accept what you believe.

> I'm saying is logical to see that there are indications that 
> there are things that seem to go beyond our everyday world, that 
> probably will be explained in a future when we develop more technology.

  There certainly are things that go beyond our everyday world. However,
those are not the things you are talking about (in other words, you are
not talking about things like quantum mechanics, black holes, dark matter
and so on). What you are talking about is superstition and spurious
explanations of allegedly unexplained phenomena.

  The major problem with ufologists and new age hippies is that they *want*
to believe their superstitions and unjustified hypotheses even if that means
discarding completely plausible (and even fully demonstrable) natural earthly
explanations.

  The fact is that the vast majority of "sightings" can be easily explained
by uncommon (and sometimes even not that uncommon) weather phenomena,
misinterpretations of what is being seen, and other such psychological
things (this disregarding the cases of outright hoaxes and hallucinations).
Not only can they be explained, thay can actually be *demonstrated* in
practice (in other words, the exact same settings can be repeated under
controlled conditions). The psychology of the human mind with regard to
describing eyewitness accounts, and how much it can change over time and
from person to person, can also be (and has been repeatedly) demonstrated
in practice. Also all kinds of other affect behavioral factors (such as
confirmation bias, cherry-picking and so on) can be easily demonstrated.

  The problem with ufologists and new age hippies is that they outright
reject the naturalistic mundane explanations because they are not exciting.
It's much more exciting to think about UFOs, ghosts and whatnot.

  For example, if a NASA video taken in space shows small white moving
dots outside the shuttle's window, the ufologists will immediately claim
that they are UFOs. They will reject the explanation that they are actually
ice particles floating close to the shuttle (a phenomenon which is very
well understood) which may get expanded by bokeh effects (which is also
very well understood and easy to demonstrate, and it has been demonstrated
in practice). They will point out how some of the dots suddenly change
direction which, according to them, is impossible, and completely dismiss
the mundane explanation that the short bursts of the thrusters of the
shuttle cause them to change direction.

  Ice particles are boring, UFOs are exciting. That's why they want to
believe in the latter.

  Of course believing that the dots are UFOs is ridiculous. The astronauts
don't comment in any way about the swarm of UFOs all around them and NASA
doesn't seem to have any problem in publishing such videos. (Of course the
real explanation for both is that both the astronauts and the people at
NASA know that they are just ice particles and there's nothing odd about it.)

  Why believe in such nonsense? There are tons of really interesting and
exciting things in demonstrable science already. Why waste time in
superstition and old-wives tales? Personally I find astrophysics a much
more interesting topic than ufology.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:00:36 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   The major problem with ufologists and new age hippies is that they
>   *want*
> to believe their superstitions and unjustified hypotheses even if that
> means discarding completely plausible (and even fully demonstrable)
> natural earthly explanations.

It's even more involved than that - humans by their very nature are 
cognitively predisposed to accept as fact things that reinforce their 
beliefs, and to reject as being false things that challenge their beliefs.

It's not just ufologists and 'new age hippies' - it's pretty much anyone 
who believes something.  It's people who "believe" in climate change.  
It's people who "believe" the world is 6,000 years old.  It's people who 
believe the see ghosts, can contact spirits, or can communicate with the 
dead.

It's people who believe they have an eternal soul.

Those cognitive biases can be challenged, but only if the person having 
them is willing to do so.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> It's not just ufologists and 'new age hippies' - it's pretty much anyone 
> who believes something.  It's people who "believe" in climate change.  

  I really hope that wasn't meant to imply that you oppose the concept of
climate change.

  (I agree that you shouldn't believe scientific claims just because they
say so, but instead you should understand where those claims are coming
from and what their justification is, as well as understand how the
scientific method works and why it's different from superstition and
conspiracy theories. It's just that I'm not sure what you meant by the
above quote.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10/25/2011 10:09, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> On 10/22/2011 17:38, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> Yes, all the tricks: Transporters, holodecks, replicators & a lot of
>>> useful
>>> things for space exploration and every day use, why not?
>>
>> Why not *what*? Why not just invent these fictional devices without any
>> idea of how to go about doing so?
>>
>
> You missed the point.

Well, that would be why I'm asking. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message