 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/26/2011 11:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
> It's not just ufologists and 'new age hippies' - it's pretty much anyone
> who believes something.
vi is clearly superior to emacs in most ways.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/25/2011 10:43 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> 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.
Suspicious doesn't mean wandering off the deep end into things for which
there *isn't* any logical conclusion though. And, the fact is, nothing
implies that alien space craft is a logical conclusion, for any of it.
Heck, one of the guys that writes some of those UFO books (and even
coauthored some, apparently), and thinks Lazard is real, comes into the
place where I work all the time. The guy is frakking crazier than the
Rorschach character in the movie Watchmen. There is literally nothing
the guy talks about that isn't part of some "conspiracy", and he thinks
*everyone else* is nuts for not seeing it. So... seriously, I have some
experience with the sort of people that actually write about UFOs, and
think that quantum levitation, space ships, crash sites, etc. are all
"real". They are classic cranks - if one implausible things is true, so
must 500 other equally implausible things, including the contradictory ones.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> What doesn't make sense would be "Every unexplained phenomenon is taken as
> evidence of alien space ships." :-) That's why I hate when people say "UFO"
> and mean "alien space ship."
Sometimes you just have to accept colloquialisms even when they are
*technically* inaccurate.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/26/2011 11:38 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.
>
Which is, of course, the problem with memory recall. Merely trying to
recall a memory has the effect of amplifying connections and
associations that reflect "prior" experience, and emotional attachments,
while undermining connections that do not, even if those less desirable
connections are the "correct" ones.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/25/2011 11:09 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> And that isn't just
>> opinion, its an entire field, called neuroscience.
>
> In which you're an expert? I doubt it.
Don't need to be. I know people that are. I have read things on the
subject, often, and none of it suggests, at all, that the sort of purely
anecdotal details behind 99% of the UFO phenomena is worth jack with
respect to it constituting "evidence" of anything at all.
> 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.
I have watched several series of the sort, and yeah, some places, and
even people, are verifiable, sort of. The problem is, so are places and
even people in the Bible, and its almost as silly to suggest that the
otherwise completely unsupportable assertions about UFOs and alien
bodies make *any* more sense than unsupported claims about the fall of
the walls of Jericho, or the even more idiotic claims about Exodus
(hint, in the later case the ***only*** evidence of anyone Semitic in
the area is from hundreds of years too early, and it was a group that
pushed out the locals, and for a time ***ruled*** Egypt, before being
ousted again, not slaves), etc.
The facts of places and people do not directly support, without other
evidence, of which there isn't any, the contentions of "what" happened,
or "what" they actually saw. And, again, since all you have it witness
testimony, and the vast majority of that has been established decades
*after* the events, its completely unreliable, nor is it even possible
at this point, with *any* technique you might imagine trying, to verify
which bits are merely things they imagined, and which ones they actually
witnessed. Human memory isn't a hard drive, or a photograph. Its more
like a bloody warehouse full of "parts" of photographs, and bits of
recorded media, with bits of string running between the filing cabinets,
to indicate, more or less, which one's relate to each other. If a string
slips, or gets connected wrong, or even you look in the wrong drawer,
the result is a complete bloody disaster.
The brain was never meant to be precise. It does you *no* good to be
afraid of one specific cat, if its more efficient to only remember size,
color, general shape, and big teeth, and put all that together into
some, "Big scary things to avoid", file. That you run across the same
cat and "recognize" it as the same thing is almost incidental. You could
just as easily run across a bear, and become convinced, by the same
memory, that it was a bear the first time too. Precisions isn't
something it does. With something like, "Yep, I definitely saw some
strange material I had never seen before.", there is *nothing* there to
build a conclusion from that excluded "space aliens", from "weather
balloons", for someone that sees it, as long as there is, then, or at
some point later, sufficient cause to conclude that "space aliens" is a
plausible source. And, its all down hill from there, as they say.
Same goes, even more so, for all the nuts since, that spend their time
"looking for" phenomena, every damn one of which either thinks UFOs
might exist, or do, or are intentionally looking for them, etc. Where is
there, "Its big and has teeth", memory going to take them, to swamp gas,
or military flairs, or alien space ships? Their going to look at the
damn bear, and assume that its been one, all along.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:10:42 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 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.
My inclusion/exclusion of topics has nothing to do with my position on
those claims. :)
> (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.)
There are those who believe in climate change not because they've applied
any rigor to it, but they have a "sense" that it's true even though they
haven't studied it personally. They "take it on faith" that the science/
scientists who support their point of view have done their homework.
That's no different than believing in UFOs because MUFON exists and they
say UFOs are real.
(Incidentally, "UFOs" - are real. I see things in the sky every day that
I can't identify - so for me, it is a flying object that's
unidentified. ;) )
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:50:38 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 11:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It's not just ufologists and 'new age hippies' - it's pretty much
>> anyone who believes something.
>
> vi is clearly superior to emacs in most ways.
LOL
I agree. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/26/2011 16:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
> (Incidentally, "UFOs" - are real. I see things in the sky every day that
> I can't identify - so for me, it is a flying object that's
> unidentified. ;) )
I remember the story of one lady who got on a jury after being asked if she
believed in UFOs and she said no. Later, she got kicked off the jury for
having firm convictions in aliens. Her excuse for lying? "I was asked if I
believe in UFOs, and no, I believe they've been identified as alien space
craft." :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/26/2011 13:56, Warp wrote:
> Sometimes you just have to accept colloquialisms even when they are
> *technically* inaccurate.
I know that. Unfortunately, I believe the people promoting the idea of alien
space craft are intentionally calling them "UFOs" instead of "flying
saucers" because it eliminates the only non-biased term to refer to the
topic at hand.
I.e., I dislike people calling space ships "UFOs" for the same reason I
dislike people saying "Evolution is only a theory": because they're doing it
on purpose to simply muddle the conversation to the point where you can no
longer debate clearly.
Not that I think that's what you were doing. I was more just making a
humorous observation. Not unlike a comment string I saw once that went
something like
1) We should all just switch to solar power.
2) And who will pay for that? Solar cells don't grow on trees, you know.
3) Well, technically....
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:54:45 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 16:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> (Incidentally, "UFOs" - are real. I see things in the sky every day
>> that I can't identify - so for me, it is a flying object that's
>> unidentified. ;) )
>
> I remember the story of one lady who got on a jury after being asked if
> she believed in UFOs and she said no. Later, she got kicked off the jury
> for having firm convictions in aliens. Her excuse for lying? "I was
> asked if I believe in UFOs, and no, I believe they've been identified as
> alien space craft." :-)
Interesting - but what was the case about?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
