21 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Er….what is it he’s blowing the whistle on exactly?

 

 

More like backing up the Barber stuff.

This psychic  stuff is hard to believe. 

"REALITY CHECK"?

That combination of words on an internet site sets warning bells off in my head.

Is that man a Vet? Or a Veteran? I'm assuming the latter. If the former then I'll definitely watch it.

I'd quite like to see a Veterinary Doctor tell us about his UFO encounters whilst birthing cows.

 

 

 

Edited January 25, 20251 yr by TrafficPilot

15 minutes ago, TrafficPilot said:

I'd quite like to see a Veterinary Doctor tell us about his UFO encounters whilst birthing cows.

Why not? We've had a barber and a baker.

James Herriot's "All Creatures Great And Small" series is good veterinary, but a bit light on UFOs.  Worth a read if you haven't seen it yet.

27 minutes ago, martin-w said:

This psychic stuff is hard to believe. 

Getting a little out there, isn't it? What's up with that?

Hook

36 minutes ago, LHookins said:

Why not? We've had a barber and a baker

And a butcher and candlestick maker.

40 minutes ago, LHookins said:

Getting a little out there, isn't it? What's up with that?

 

Yeah, I think they lose credibility when they get into the "summoning aliens" with mind power, stuff. 

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

Yeah, I think they lose credibility when they get into the "summoning aliens" with mind power, stuff. 

I recommend you do a little research. 

The psychic and weird stuff has been associated with the UFO phenomenon for a very long time. Many of the most credentialed researchers in the field acknowledge it (Vallee, Hynek etc). 

It's just not usually brought up for the exact reason you're demonstrating. 

 

Here's a fun thought exercise:

It's been well established that ridicule and stigma have been used as a tool in academia, the scientific community and society at large, to discredit the UFO subject for decades. 

 

Now, given the above...... Which topic has more ridicule and stigma attached to it?

UFOs or psychic phenomena? 

Just a thought... 

 

Cheers, 

DB

1 hour ago, DaviiB said:

It's been well established that ridicule and stigma have been used as a tool in academia, the scientific community and society at large, to discredit the UFO subject for decades. 

?

I see very little sign of 'Academia' and the scientific community ridiculing or stigmatising anyone. It's very true that the UFO subject has been largely ignored for decades as the scientific method relies on physical evidence.

  This whole debate is noteworthy for a complete lack of any physical evidence.

 

 

 

 

I reckon if UFO's do land on Earth they'll contain Aliens (proper ones like in the fabulous Alien film from 1979). Then we'll all be melted by their acid blood. Only Ridley Scott would survive the invasion. 

Yes I'm an "Alien" super-fan😶‍🌫️

 

 

 

6 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

8 hours ago, DaviiB said:

It's been well established that ridicule and stigma have been used as a tool in academia, the scientific community and society at large, to discredit the UFO subject for decades. 

?

I see very little sign of 'Academia' and the scientific community ridiculing or stigmatising anyone.

Dr Avi Loeb (the Harvard Astrophysicist and Cosmologist) would likely disagree with this assessment. 

Take a look at the amount of..... pressure?..... he faced from within academia and the scientific community just trying to collect data on the phenomenon for the purpose of research. You know..... for the scientific method. And that was only in the last few years, after the stigma started to go away post-2017.

For the record, that search has produced some physical evidence. 

His analysis of the anomalous data related to Oumuamua (shiny extra-solar object that came cruising through the solar system recently) is also noteworthy. 

To see what took place pre-2017, have a look at what happened to Dr John Mack, the head of the Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, when he started studying experiencers of the phenomenon. 

I only chose these two examples because they were both very well respected scientists at a prestigious institution. 

If you bother to look, you will find countless other examples of academics being ridiculed, or losing funding for daring to look in this direction.

That is called stigma. 

 

 

6 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

This whole debate is noteworthy for a complete lack of any physical evidence

That's also completely incorrect. 

Photographs, videos, radar data, material samples, radiological data, physical imprints, medical reports (among other things), all exist, and have been analyzed. 

 

The mantra that "there is no evidence" has been repeated so much its starting to sound like a cult motto. Unfortunately, repeating it doesn't make it true.

There are scientists out in the field today with multi-sensor rigs collecting data on anomalous objects. Academic papers have already been written and more are coming, yet there are some who "refuse to even look through the telescope". 

 

As a sidenote, the scientific method is pretty good at analyzing things that are predictable, repeatable, controllable or otherwise easily observable (except for photons passing through a double slit). <<physics joke. 

Problems arise if you're trying to analyze something that is smarter than you and/or doesn't want to be observed.... like a photon (<<secondary physics joke) . It may also be operating through a medium which we don't have the right tools to observe. In that case the data you're likely to get will be in trace amounts, unrepeatable, sporadic, or otherwise inconclusive.....doesnt make the phenomenon less real. 

 

DB

Edited January 26, 20251 yr by DaviiB

39 minutes ago, DaviiB said:

 

That's also completely incorrect. 

Photographs, videos, radar data, material samples, radiological data, physical imprints, medical reports (among other things), all exist, and have been analyzed. 

 

The mantra that "there is no evidence" has been repeated so much its starting to sound like a cult motto. Unfortunately, repeating it doesn't make it true.

 

So…no physical evidence whatsoever.

Photos, videos, ‘imprints’ lol, are not physical evidence.

What material samples are there? Have they been analysed by the people who found them or their friends and acquaintances  by any chance?

The fossilised Peruvian aliens would be an excellent example of this sort of ‘analysis’.

Dr. Avi Loeb’s claims have failed to pass the test of peer review because they’re largely nonsense.

This is much, much more about how technology has brought us to that “everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes” point.

Anyone is now able to broadcast any old tosh.

All that is needed is a Smart phone.

8 hours ago, DaviiB said:

Photographs, videos, radar data, material samples, radiological data, physical imprints

 

Photgraps can be faked. I know, I'm a former professional. 

 

Videos can be faked. And many videos that are claimed to be alien craft are simply out of focusc stars that turn into round orbs (circles of confusion in photography) or satalites or misidentified aircraft.

What radar data? There are CLAIMS that radar data exist but that it's being withheld. 

Material samples are CLAIMED to exist.

Don't get me wrong, I'm convinced something unusual is going on and has been for a long time, but human beings are easily fooled, so we need objective empirical evidence, not out of focus stars or objects thrown in the air or possible photoshop manipulation. Some interesting photographs exist, but they are far from definitively proving alien visitation.

You told me to do some research... well, I'm 67 and was first exposed to UFO books in the early 70's, before the Internet existed, and I don't know how old you are but it might have been before you were born. My father was fascinated with UFO's and the paranormal, so yes, I know about the UFO psychic connection CLAIMS.

Again, humans are easily fooled. For example the Gimble ATFLIR video... lots of claims of weird, physics defying "rotation" when in reality it was simply the glare that was rotating due to the activity of the pods de-rotation mechanism. Something I've seen multiple times as a photographer and can easily be demonstrated with a mobile phone, a greasy lens, and a bright light.

We may indeed be or have been visited by Aliens, but true, empirical, definitive evidence is not available to the public. And may or may not be present behind closed doors.

And now another backing up the whistle-blower.

 

 

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

We may indeed be or have been visited by Aliens, but true, empirical, definitive evidence is not available to the public. And may or may not be present behind closed doors.

What exactly would qualify as definitive evidence? 

1 hour ago, DaviiB said:

What exactly would qualify as definitive evidence? 

 

6 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

LOL. Welp, that's a pretty tall order. We might be S.O.L. 

We live in a world where anything can be faked, and anyone can lie.

This is a crude analogy, but if you're in a building filling up with smoke at an alarming rate, it's getting hot, and there are more and more people shouting "fire", you could say that smoke machines exist, HVAC systems malfunction, and people can lie... so you wait until you see fire for yourself.

Now, this is imperfect for a number of reasons, chiefly because it is well established that fire exists (duh), and it's less of a reach to believe that smoke is caused by fire but the logic is the same.....

The point is, how much smoke, what amount of heat (data and indirect evidence), and how many people yelling fire (UFO), does it take before a person believes that the building's on fire without seeing the fire for themselves? 

I wager that it will be different for every person and may hinge on preconceived ideas of what's possible or likely. 

Note that at the moment, there is no prize for being correct, and no loss incurred for being wrong (on either end of the spectrum) unless you're making a living from it

 

DB