|
|
|
Paulnib68
New Member
USA
28 Posts |
 Posted - 06/14/2002 : 03:10:14 [Permalink]
|
[/quote]
National Institute for Discovery Science in Las Vegas
http://www.nidsci.org/
Not actually Men in Black--more like Show Girls and Elvis Imitators in Black
[/quote]
Greers Disclosure Project.
Well, it was certainly hyped well. I received no less than three unsolicited e-mail advertisements regarding it. However, after almost a year in action it's safe to say it's another classic Greer farce. Mr. Greer did little to substantiate his claims he would prove beyond doubt there is a real cause for concern and that disclosure is imperative. Basically it appears to be very much like his earlier events only on a larger scale with a conglomeration of old and disparate reports and their authors in tow for support.
As was noted in a Times article, what was done was no more than argument from authority. The various witnesses brought forth to summarize their individual claims and state their willingness to testify will no doubt sway many unfamiliar with this tact. This was a classic case of reliance upon credulity. They are all professionals or military and therefore unquestionable right? As was noted in a Times article done when the project debuted, it's one huge argument from authority. Problem is though, none of them brought anything new or substantial to the table.
To gain the attention of Congress much more than bringing forth the authors of various claims to state them themselves would be required in this instance. It is already well known that individuals from all walks of life make reports of strange incidents. This is one of the obvious facts in ufology. Bringing them forth en masse and relying upon credulity to make their case before congress however is a complete waste of time. Considering that he has not followed proper procedure in submitting his request for hearings by the congressional oversight committee I doubt seriously his intentions anyways.
There are, as always it seems where Greer is concerned, those who apparently either wish him to get his facts straight or have no idea he was involving them in the first place. This itself calls into question his assertions of having over 400 credible witnesses willing to testify if only they had immunity from prosecution for violating their oaths to secrecy. Problem with that is, if true? They have already violated it and would be facing reprimand if not charges. Which would seem strange as not a single one has been. But then again the government is most likely hardly concerned with this debacle. But he has support from congressmen doesn't he? He claims affiliation with such high placed persons.
Persons such as Edgar Mitchell a former astronaut who says in regards to the project (Edgar Mitchell) Jack, et al: "The Washington Times (story) on UFO disclosure mentions my name as a witness for the Disclosure Project -- which I am not ...and have not been."
Also claimed was alliance with Sen. Robert Byrd who's staff says this, "We have no record of a meeting with (Greer), and he's not involved with the issue. There are a lot of things on his plate," said a Byrd staffer who refused to be identified. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., also was offered as a proponent. His staff said it would check but did not report back."
These are claimed key supporters when apparently they are not. Quite in keeping with Greers earlier antics to tell the truth.
Stephen Greer is a veteran of ufology. His claims have suffered the same fate as most in the field and in some cases he is arguably only seeking to sensationalize the issue and continue his acclaim within his own peer circles. He should know better by now. But apparently he has not learned or changed much at all.
In many instances individuals have expressed a concern for his apparent liberties taken with the truth. Back in the days where he used to charge by the head to show people how to call ufo's with flashlights it was shown he was in reality timing his nighttime ufo calling excursions with the overflights of satellites. This has been documented in more than one instance.
In another he claimed a successful trip in which close contact was made with aliens and that the group heard sounds similar to others heard near formations of crop circles. All patently ridiculous as was chronicled in an excerpt from a disgruntled followers videotape of the event. There were no aliens or ships and no alien sounds. Just an owl in the woods hooting and some satellites.
These and many more items strangely fail to make it to the ears of the media who are called to cover his sensational sounding events. And I doubt it would matter much anyways considering how strong the medias concern for the truth is when it comes to the paranormal.
This is a standard job And Greer is well versed in it's use. Make
claim, refuse to provide, or claim to be unable to provide, any
evidence, appeal to masses for belief based only upon your word. Let
the rest unfold as it will. Out of the general group you will end up
with a sizable amount willing to support you. Finally, bring in the
requests for cash. There are a whole slew of claims such as this held
in tow with Greer's D.P. What I have yet to see though is any
consideration of the incohesiveness all the material he has compiled
exhibits.
One person says aliens are friendly, another says not. One says we
have captured them, another says they approached us. One says they are
working with the government and another says we are back engeneering
their tech on our own. So who is right eh? How does this present a
convincing mass of data? It doesn't. Not only is it all only anecdotal
but it is also disparate and without cohesiveness as has been claimed
otherwise by Greer.
Also of interest is the conflicting positions of those who are
actually affiliated with the project. Nick Pope a long time proponent
of ufo study is cited as a supporter of disclosure. Yet in a recent
chat session had this to say.
Nick Pope at 2:20pm ET
"I'm not a great believer in some sinister, nebulous conspiracy. I
suspect that rather than having all the answers and covering them up,
governments are embarrassed by their woeful lack of knowledge and
information on this issue."
See how the whole thing falls apart under close scrutiny of the facts
surrounding it? It's simply another of Greer's misadventures in
ufology only this time, unlike his announcement that our military had
engaged aliens in open warfare, there is no one to pull him back
before it's too late.
But in the end only one item is really worthy of note here and you can believe any ears in congress this projects efforts may reach will note it right away. There is still no proof. Without it, the stories remain, unconvincing. At least the D.P. spam has stopped.
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/nib68/index.html">Skeptics Tricks</a> |
 |
|
|
Paulnib68
New Member
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2002 : 19:09:17 [Permalink]
|
***POOF***
They just don't last like they used to;)
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/nib68/index.html">Skeptics Tricks</a> |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2002 : 13:36:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
***POOF***
They just don't last like they used to;)
Does this mean that he's gone?
Ahem! Most all the science fictions that I've read which were about the opposite of this thread (--stories which were about the scenario where we humans were out there visiting planets which were possible candidates for our, human, colonization--) began with the initial exploration crew implementing the elimination of all the 'dangerous' local life forms.
(Some stories also included replacing the indigenous bacteria with Earthly bacteria so as to establish a benign environment for ultimate colonization by Terran colonists, their plants, and their livestock.)
This comment might seem irrelevant were it not for the fact that we have done a pretty good job of reducing most-all of our 'dangerous' lifeforms here on Earth to very small populations.
A "snack" for thought. :)
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2002 : 17:56:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Greers Disclosure Project.
...no more than argument from authority.... one huge argument from authority....
...Make claim.....appeal to masses for belief based only upon your word.
I'm glad to see that the word is getting out. The word, upon which I obsessively harp, is authority. It is a magic bullet for dealing with the paranormal plague.
Authority has every reason to fear the skeptic, for authority can rarely survive in the face of doubt.
-Robert Lindner
|
|
|
|
Paulnib68
New Member
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2002 : 18:46:55 [Permalink]
|
"
Ahem! Most all the science fictions that I've read which were about the opposite of this thread (--stories which were about the scenario where we humans were out there visiting planets which were possible candidates for our, human, colonization--) began with the initial exploration crew implementing the elimination of all the 'dangerous' local life forms."
What stories? I can't remember any off hand with this opening premise.
"This comment might seem irrelevant were it not for the fact that we have done a pretty good job of reducing most-all of our 'dangerous' lifeforms here on Earth to very small populations."
Meaning? Our growth has pushed them out of their native habitat and destroyed it to the point of driving some to extinction? Or we deliberately killed them off because we didn't like em and feared em?
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/nib68/index.html">Skeptics Tricks</a> |
|
|
|
Robert
New Member
Korea
21 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2002 : 05:40:01 [Permalink]
|
Looking out at all the stars..each presumably with its own solar system and set of planets... its obvious to me that we are not alone in the universe, and i personally believe it is very possible that aliens have visited this planet. I know that if Humans could travle to other solar systems we would visit other planets. It is also in my opinion nieve to believe that they could not be more advanced than our own species
|
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2003 : 11:45:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paulnib68quote:
Originally posted by  Computer Org
Ahem! Most all the science fictions that I've read which were about the opposite of this thread (--stories which were about the scenario where we humans were out there visiting planets which were possible candidates for our, human, colonization--) began with the initial exploration crew implementing the elimination of all the 'dangerous' local life forms."
What stories? I can't remember any off hand with this opening premise.
I admit that most SciFi TV-tales and movies don't include the prompt extermination of any indiges which might stand in the way of our (human) colonization. TV-tales, in fact, seem to include a "Prime Directive" that prohibits such expected activity.
However, I read books,--and the older genre at that (--back when Science Fiction put a lot of emphasis on "Science"). I have trouble thinking of one that didn't begin a planetary exploration with an eye to "making the planet safe for human habitation/colonization".
quote:
Paulnib68 continues, proceded by this quote:
Original posting from Computer Org
This comment might seem irrelevant were it not for the fact that we have done a pretty good job of reducing most-all of our 'dangerous' lifeforms here on Earth to very small populations.
Meaning? Our growth has pushed them out of their native habitat and destroyed it to the point of driving some to extinction? Or we deliberately killed them off because we didn't like em and feared em?
Skeptics Tricks
Meaning that we used to be very conservation oriented.
The European nobility maintained extensive "hunting preserves" which really meant large tracts of virginal forest which were left strictly for the wildlife. (How much can one King's hunting party kill? The real purpose was for conservation.)
Even today, as HUGE as the population of China is and has been for many centuries, China has the largest unplundered forests in the World: Conservation reigned in China since antiquity.
The same holds true for SouthEast Asia---it is only within the past few decades that the World's major jungle areas are being striped bare down to the dirt.
Hint! Hint!! Paulnib68!!! Take off your 'see-no-evil' blinders and put on a good pair of skeptic's glasses.  |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Arcanix_X
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2003 : 21:24:34 [Permalink]
|
| Ok, If you admit to space and time being infinite (and I hope Dave will not attack this theory here as well - go to the god poll to see the discussions), then it is impossible for them not to exist: infinity inculdes infinity - therefore there is an infinite number of inteligent life forms in space and chances are that an infinite part of them have technology that surpasses by far anything that we have ever dreamt of. It is also probable, that we are nothing more than the experiment of one of those species (although i don't like this theory... makes me feel used :) ). Otherwise, if we would do a probabilistic calculus with the current data available on our universe and the process of evolution, then the possibility of another inteligent life form "out there" is high enough for us to be certain of the existance of aliens. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2003 : 22:18:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Arcanix_X :
Ok, If you admit to space and time being infinite
Admit? Space and time are about 15 billion years old. Sorry. For what it's worth, that is a really long time, and the universe is very big.... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Arcanix_X
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2003 : 17:37:26 [Permalink]
|
| kil, you do not make your statement clear enough for me to understand if you agree to it or disagree. and if you say that they are finite please read the "battle" i had/have with dave w. in the god poll. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2003 : 19:45:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Arcanix_X :
kil, you do not make your statement clear enough for me to understand if you agree to it or disagree. and if you say that they are finite please read the "battle" i had/have with dave w. in the god poll.
I'm saying time and space are not infinite. Time and space started about 15 billion years ago. Therefore time and space are not infinite, however counter intuitive this may feel to you. We cannot know what came before, and we cant even assume there was a before. So we surly cant assume there was time or space before our universe came into existence. For us, our universe is all there is. So to admit that time and space are infinite is to admit to something that there is plenty of reason to doubt. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2003 : 19:56:18 [Permalink]
|
http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q294.html
Got that spot on, Kil. Here's a ditty from Ask the Astronomer. |
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2003 : 22:22:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
...We cannot know what came before, and we cant even assume there was a before.
To be fair, technically the first part of that statement isn't entirely true. While it's a given that we don't know now what came before the big bang, that's not to say that we cannot know, or will never know.
I know it may seem like a petty semantic quibble, but I believe it's important to acknowledge the evolving nature of science, and allow for the possibility of answers to questions that haven't even occured to us yet. After all, the history of mankind's knowledge is filled with examples of scientific innovators turning our understanding of the world upside down and inside out.
Perhaps someday another creative thinker will come along, like a certain lowly patent clerk we all know who daydreamed about free-falling through space. We may find ourselves with yet another entirely new way of looking at the universe, and even what lies beyond, if anything.
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2003 : 08:02:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paulnib68quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
Ahem! Most all the science fictions that I've read which were about the opposite of this thread (--stories which were about the scenario where we humans were out there visiting planets which were possible candidates for our, human, colonization--) began with the initial exploration crew implementing the elimination of all the 'dangerous' local life forms."
What stories? I can't remember any off hand with this opening premise.
I admit that most SciFi movies and TV-tales don't include the prompt extermination of any indiges which might stand in the way of our (human) colonization. TV-tales, in fact, seem to include a "Prime Directive" that prohibits such expected activity.
However, I read books,--and the older genre at that (--back when Science Fiction put a lot of emphasis on "Science"). I have trouble thinking of one that didn't begin a planetary exploration with an eye to "making the planet safe for human habitation/colonization".
quote:
Originally posted by PaulNib68quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
This comment might seem irrelevant were it not for the fact that we have done a pretty good job of reducing most-all of our 'dangerous' lifeforms here on Earth to very small populations.
Meaning? Our growth has pushed them out of their native habitat and destroyed it to the point of driving some to extinction? Or we deliberately killed them off because we didn't like em and feared em?
Skeptics Tricks
Meaning that we used to be very conservation oriented.
The European nobility maintained extensive "hunting preserves" which really meant large tracts of virginal forest which were left strictly for the wildlife. (How much can one King's hunting party kill? The real purpose was for conservation.)
Even today, as HUGE as the population of China is and has been for many centuries, China has the largest unplundered forests in the World: Conservation reigned in China since antiquity.
The same holds true for SouthEast Asia---it is only within the past few decades that the World's major jungle areas are being striped bare down to the dirt.
I confess, Paulnib68, that my analysis is of the type used by military men: You turn the war-table and try to view the situation from the opposite side.
In this thread the question is the existence of 'aliens'. One of the surest ways to answer that question is to see if anyone not from Earth is now on Earth. To do that, you have to ask "What might an off-Earth species be doing on Earth?" There are many possibilities, each of which would require a different type of searching procedure. However:- Remembering that it would take a HUGE expenditure of resources and that inter-stellar travel takes a very long time:
One reason an off-Earth species might be here, is that Earth could be a suitable planet for them to colonize. Fortunately, many science-fiction writers (--some of whom are/were actually scientists--) have already analyzed this problem, albeit from the viewpoint of a human colonization of a distant planet.
In military fashion, we "turn the tables" and see how scientists (in their science-fiction adventures) go about colonization.
Step 1:- Get rid of the 'dangerous' species indigenous to the new planet.
Turning the tables back around, we ask ourselves: "Are the 'dangerous' lifeforms of Earth being eliminated?" The answer is "Yes!!"
The follow-on question is: "Are humans eliminating the 'dangerous' lifeforms?" Now while the answer is obviously "yes", I suggest that HUMAN SOCIETIES through history have NOT eliminated the dangerous wildlife; that, in fact, we have historically preserved large tracts for all the indigenous wildlife, no matter how dangerous.
Now most assuredly here in the U.S., this has NOT been the case. On the other hand, we have only been in business here in North America for a few centuries. I suggest that WORLD-WIDE it has only been recent "Western" political and economic values and structures that have led to the decimation of 'dangerous' wildlife.
While I'm not disagreeing with your various possible reasons, what IS TRUE is that the scenario I've just described is EXACTLY what we would do if we had sent a small colonizing mission to an Earth-like planet which we wanted to own.
All this leads to a high probability that we, ourselves, right here on Earth, have among us a small colonizing force from some other planet (--or, Ahem, if you like, from an "alternative universe" ). |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2004 : 08:04:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paulnib68
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
"Unfair, unfair! It was, as I said, just an illustration. I used the word "bizarre"; I wound up with a big  to be sure that wasn't taken too seriously. Unfair!"
Oh no , it's quite fair, lets keep things in the proper context here. You never called it an illustration. You first said you thought your functionality approach was more profitable. This says to me that you think your following example has merit.
You then went on to say you "came across" a bizarre example of this and put forth a completely hypothetical supposition that aliens were already here and hiding from us.
How can this be profitable without the huge leap of faith required to first assume they are allready here. This to me means that you are getting the cart before the horse and not addressing the real question at all in the first place.
(Where are the aliens?)
Instead it appears as seeking to validate a belief that they are as I said, allready here.
(Why, they're here, and misdirecting our efforts to find them. Look within, not without.).
I agree it's bizarre. It's baseless assumption used in seeking to validate a preconcieved belief. Believers use it all the time. But you call it more profitable. How can you consider it so, unless you allready believe they are here?
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
"I think that "killing them" is the standard response from humanity to anything dangerous, suspicious, mysterious, or otherwise doubtful. We killed off almost all of our own large wildlife. We've killed off each other with astounding regularity--because they spoke a different language or because their noses were too long or because their chins, too small. We've done it from the eastern shores of the Pacific to the western shores of the Atlantic. We've done it in Africa and Australia and here in the Americas. We've done it in antiquity and within the past few years."
I consider this overgeneralizing and basically fingering the wrong culprits ie Danger, suspicion, doubt in order to support a subjective opinion implied as fact.
If something is dangerous to us then dealing with that danger in order to remove it or remove it's threat is an appropriate response. There is nothing wrong with protecting yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
"We killed off almost all of our own large wildlife."
Much animal life has gone into extinction because of us. Because we feared it or were distrustful of it? And so simply sought to wipe it out of existence so we wouldn't have to fear it any longer?
No, it is because of indiscriminate consumption. We find something we truly need, or want for purely selfish reasons, and we take it untill it can no longer provide. This has changed drasticaly over time though it still occurs on a smaller scale. We now spend immense amounts of time, energy, and money trying to replace and conserve and restore. This is what I alluded to when I said we have progressed and advanced.
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
"We've killed off each other with astounding regularity--because they spoke a different language or because their noses were too long or because their chins, too small."
This is again overgeneralisation on a massive scale.
We have some glaring examples in Hitler, and Milosevic, and others yes. And what was the worlds reaction to these? We sought to stop it. Why? Because the the majority of humanity does not approve of it and will fight against it. But to be brief, we kill much more often for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with racial prejudice. And we do not approve of it on the whole. I am not claiming it is conquered or does not exist. Only that it is not the norm and is not exemplary of our species. But you wish to cite only racial prejudice and exaggerate it's culpability as it is the most obvious and easily utilized reason applicable to your supposition. Btw, this is a commonly utilized supposition of believers also;)
As for suspicion.
Suspicion usually has some basis in fact. There may be precedent or experience which causes it. The level of suspicion is what determines our response. And being rational beings that we are, yes, not everyone is always rational and some aren't very often at all, suspicion would need a basis for us to be willing to act upon it. And we would generally need a whole lot of basis to be suspicious enough to take such drastic action as killing without provocation. Suspicion alone and of itself is not enough of a motivating factor.
(What is it Bob? Dunno but I don't like the looks of it. Better kill it)
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
"I think that being afraid of getting killed by modern mankind's governmental distrust is a very real fear."
I believe a more plausible state would be cautious not fearful. Being a spacefaring species capable of hiding among us undiscovered and also sabataging our efforts would mean they are at the very very least as advanced as we are. Therefore they would have to be capable of understanding our fears, concerns, and desires and how they affect us and dictate our actions. They may have cause for concern, but fear we may just kill them because we don't know what they are or they are different? That's just plain silly and illogical.
If this is the case then why are we looking for them? So we can freak out and go on a killing spree when we do find them?
You are overgeneralising by focusing only on isolated negative aspects of our societies and cultures and ignoring refuting evidence of change and our more consistent overall tendencies which are geared more towards benevolent existence. We kill yes. But we try just as hard if not harder to get along and tolerate others despite their differences.
There are limitless examples of this and to be honest I am not up to making this post any longer than I have to if I can avoid it.
Suffice to say, an alien intelligence would, as I described above, be easily able to discern just how little threat we really are on the whole. And the fact that we are looking for them means we are not worried about whether or not they will be nice to look at. We just want to know we are not alone. It's the biggest question facing mankind. And if we ever found we were not it would be reasonable to assume it would cause extreme excitement and happiness for a very large part of the world.
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
