UFO COVER-UP EVIDENCE...

In sci.astro Ron Miller wrote:

The old, tired litany of the frustrated pseudoscientist. "If a scientist
refuses to even consider my patently goofy notions, they must be true."

Just which "patently goofy" notions are you attempting to attribute to
me? I do not recall putting forth any such. (with the possible exception
of my ideas on the Red Shift)

What in the world makes you think that UFOs have *not* been looked into by
mainstream science? They have, and every single time anything resembling
evidence has been found utterly wanting. It ain't up to the scientists to
prove anything. You think UFOs are spacecraft piloted by aliens? Well, then,
you prove it.

I believe the term "utterly wanting" is a bit of an overstatement.
What was it, something like a third of the Bluebook cases
remained "unexplained"? Sure, the Condon report found evidence
"utterly wanting", but did you read the minority dissent by the
portion of the project staff that strongly disagreed with the
findings. The point is not which group of scientists is correct,
the point is at least they were acting like scientists and
gathering data and trying to understand it. Are these people
therefore kooks?

And you are correct it isn't up to scientists to "prove"
anything. But it is for them to try to understand the
world in which we live. To rope off certain areas with
ridicule as "off limits" hardly seems scientific to me.
The question is not what I or any other serious observer
"thinks" is the basis of the phenomena. I'm not trying
here to "prove" anybody's theory. My point is simply that
such theorizing and discussion is good science and a priori
rejection of the topic is a pitiful excuse for science.

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!

I've got you beat there, for I have seen a good twister, AND THEY CAN BE PROVEN,
no iF's And's or Butt's about it and when you have one take a jump right over
your head and you look up into it, you'll never forget it either. But in all my
years of night sky viewing, even with just Bino's, I've never seen a craft from
another world. And the ONLY way you and your kind are going to be belived is to
have one land right in the middle of a city for all to see it. Otherwise it's
nothing, not even a good sci-fi story with warp drives or jump gates or even
stargates!


--
"In this universe the night was falling,the shadows were lengthening
towards an east that would not know another dawn.
But elsewhere the stars were still young and the light of morning
lingered: and along the path he once had followed, man would one day go
again."

Arthur C. Clarke, The City & The Stars

SIAR
www.starlords.org
Freelance Writers Shop
http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Ad World
http://adworld.netfirms.com

wrote in message ...
In sci.astro Starlord wrote:
To start off with, I've been in many areas where there was suppost to e a
lot of
ufo stuff going on. Not once have I ever seen something that I couldn't
figure
out what is was.

To start off with, I've been in lots of storms and high winds
and bad weather and I've NEVER ONCE personally viewed a tornado!
Sure I've seen the Hollywood movies with the cow being sucked
up and all, but that was just make believe. I really think
this whole tornado thing needs a serious debunking!

second, unlike star trek and other sci-fi, the speed of light IS the speed
limit.

Um, according your your puny, primative earthling science, perhaps!

3rd, I've spend a many of nights out with my scopes and have yet to see a
ufo.

I think this is the same as your number one.

and the biggest thing, IF there where as many ufo's as the ufoers say there
is
every day, the ufo's would have to have a station in earth orbit to act as a
ufo
flight controler.

Are going to attempt to "prove the negative" that they don't?

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/03

I've got you beat there, for I have seen a good twister, AND THEY CAN BE PROVEN,
no iF's And's or Butt's about it and when you have one take a jump right over
your head and you look up into it, you'll never forget it either. But in all my
years of night sky viewing, even with just Bino's, I've never seen a craft from
another world. And the ONLY way you and your kind are going to be belived is to
have one land right in the middle of a city for all to see it. Otherwise it's
nothing, not even a good sci-fi story with warp drives or jump gates or even
stargates!


--
"In this universe the night was falling,the shadows were lengthening
towards an east that would not know another dawn.
But elsewhere the stars were still young and the light of morning
lingered: and along the path he once had followed, man would one day go
again."

Arthur C. Clarke, The City & The Stars

SIAR
www.starlords.org
Freelance Writers Shop
http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Ad World
http://adworld.netfirms.com

wrote in message ...
In sci.astro Starlord wrote:
To start off with, I've been in many areas where there was suppost to e a
lot of
ufo stuff going on. Not once have I ever seen something that I couldn't
figure
out what is was.

To start off with, I've been in lots of storms and high winds
and bad weather and I've NEVER ONCE personally viewed a tornado!
Sure I've seen the Hollywood movies with the cow being sucked
up and all, but that was just make believe. I really think
this whole tornado thing needs a serious debunking!

second, unlike star trek and other sci-fi, the speed of light IS the speed
limit.

Um, according your your puny, primative earthling science, perhaps!

3rd, I've spend a many of nights out with my scopes and have yet to see a
ufo.

I think this is the same as your number one.

and the biggest thing, IF there where as many ufo's as the ufoers say there
is
every day, the ufo's would have to have a station in earth orbit to act as a
ufo
flight controler.

Are going to attempt to "prove the negative" that they don't?

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/03

wrote in message ...
In sci.astro Ron Miller wrote:

The old, tired litany of the frustrated pseudoscientist. "If a scientist
refuses to even consider my patently goofy notions, they must be true."

Just which "patently goofy" notions are you attempting to attribute to
me? I do not recall putting forth any such. (with the possible exception
of my ideas on the Red Shift)

Did I mention your name?

What in the world makes you think that UFOs have *not* been looked into
by
mainstream science? They have, and every single time anything resembling
evidence has been found utterly wanting. It ain't up to the scientists
to
prove anything. You think UFOs are spacecraft piloted by aliens? Well,
then,
you prove it.

I believe the term "utterly wanting" is a bit of an overstatement.
What was it, something like a third of the Bluebook cases
remained "unexplained"? Sure, the Condon report found evidence
"utterly wanting", but did you read the minority dissent by the
portion of the project staff that strongly disagreed with the
findings. The point is not which group of scientists is correct,
the point is at least they were acting like scientists and
gathering data and trying to understand it. Are these people
therefore kooks?

You are confusing "unexplained" with "unexplainable".

And you are correct it isn't up to scientists to "prove"
anything. But it is for them to try to understand the
world in which we live. To rope off certain areas with
ridicule as "off limits" hardly seems scientific to me.

It's the people who persist in insisting that discredited theories,
unsupported ideas and anecdotal "evidence" are on an equal par with theories
that are well-supported by evidence and experiment. Just because some farmer
comes running in from the north forty claiming he's seen a UFO run off with
one of his cows or some blue-haired spinster claims to be in contact with
aliens from the planet Moomaw doesn't mean that scientists should just throw
up their hands and say, "Well, damn, I guess that means I need to throw
everything I know out the old window."

As I keep saying, not all theories are equal. Just because someone comes up
with what seems to be a bright idea doesn't automatically put it on the same
par with, say, evolution or the Big Bang.

RM

wrote in message ...
In sci.astro Ron Miller wrote:

The old, tired litany of the frustrated pseudoscientist. "If a scientist
refuses to even consider my patently goofy notions, they must be true."

Just which "patently goofy" notions are you attempting to attribute to
me? I do not recall putting forth any such. (with the possible exception
of my ideas on the Red Shift)

Did I mention your name?

What in the world makes you think that UFOs have *not* been looked into
by
mainstream science? They have, and every single time anything resembling
evidence has been found utterly wanting. It ain't up to the scientists
to
prove anything. You think UFOs are spacecraft piloted by aliens? Well,
then,
you prove it.

I believe the term "utterly wanting" is a bit of an overstatement.
What was it, something like a third of the Bluebook cases
remained "unexplained"? Sure, the Condon report found evidence
"utterly wanting", but did you read the minority dissent by the
portion of the project staff that strongly disagreed with the
findings. The point is not which group of scientists is correct,
the point is at least they were acting like scientists and
gathering data and trying to understand it. Are these people
therefore kooks?

You are confusing "unexplained" with "unexplainable".

And you are correct it isn't up to scientists to "prove"
anything. But it is for them to try to understand the
world in which we live. To rope off certain areas with
ridicule as "off limits" hardly seems scientific to me.

It's the people who persist in insisting that discredited theories,
unsupported ideas and anecdotal "evidence" are on an equal par with theories
that are well-supported by evidence and experiment. Just because some farmer
comes running in from the north forty claiming he's seen a UFO run off with
one of his cows or some blue-haired spinster claims to be in contact with
aliens from the planet Moomaw doesn't mean that scientists should just throw
up their hands and say, "Well, damn, I guess that means I need to throw
everything I know out the old window."

As I keep saying, not all theories are equal. Just because someone comes up
with what seems to be a bright idea doesn't automatically put it on the same
par with, say, evolution or the Big Bang.

RM

In sci.astro Starlord wrote:
I've got you beat there, for I have seen a good twister, AND THEY CAN BE PROVEN,
no iF's And's or Butt's about it and when you have one take a jump right over
your head and you look up into it, you'll never forget it either. But in all my
years of night sky viewing, even with just Bino's, I've never seen a craft from
another world. And the ONLY way you and your kind are going to be belived is to
have one land right in the middle of a city for all to see it. Otherwise it's
nothing, not even a good sci-fi story with warp drives or jump gates or even
stargates!

You make my point for me! You SAY you've seen a twister, but
"everyone" knows you are a "loon". You spin this great yarn,
but I repeat, *I've* never personally seen one! You show me
one and totally explain to me exactly how they work and THEN
maybe then I might be convinced. But as for now,
large numbers of respected authorities have NEVER personally
seen a twister. We are not going to waste are time looking
into this crap. You say there is proof, but we see no reason
whatever to bother with this crap! Our minds are closed,
the matter is settled! ...do you see my point here?

And just what exaclty do you think is "my kind"? You totally
ignore the fact that I have NOT made any statements what-so-ever
about UFOs being "ships driven by aliens" or "traveling
faster than light"! These are YOUR strawmen! Why don't you
just flat out declare that unless I explain and demonstrate
a "warp drive" for you, your mind will remain totally closed?
Seems like a "reasonable' position to me.

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!

In sci.astro Starlord wrote:
I've got you beat there, for I have seen a good twister, AND THEY CAN BE PROVEN,
no iF's And's or Butt's about it and when you have one take a jump right over
your head and you look up into it, you'll never forget it either. But in all my
years of night sky viewing, even with just Bino's, I've never seen a craft from
another world. And the ONLY way you and your kind are going to be belived is to
have one land right in the middle of a city for all to see it. Otherwise it's
nothing, not even a good sci-fi story with warp drives or jump gates or even
stargates!

You make my point for me! You SAY you've seen a twister, but
"everyone" knows you are a "loon". You spin this great yarn,
but I repeat, *I've* never personally seen one! You show me
one and totally explain to me exactly how they work and THEN
maybe then I might be convinced. But as for now,
large numbers of respected authorities have NEVER personally
seen a twister. We are not going to waste are time looking
into this crap. You say there is proof, but we see no reason
whatever to bother with this crap! Our minds are closed,
the matter is settled! ...do you see my point here?

And just what exaclty do you think is "my kind"? You totally
ignore the fact that I have NOT made any statements what-so-ever
about UFOs being "ships driven by aliens" or "traveling
faster than light"! These are YOUR strawmen! Why don't you
just flat out declare that unless I explain and demonstrate
a "warp drive" for you, your mind will remain totally closed?
Seems like a "reasonable' position to me.

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!

In sci.astro Ron Miller wrote:

You are confusing "unexplained" with "unexplainable".

Lots of things once thought "unexplainable" later became explained!

It's the people who persist in insisting that discredited theories,
unsupported ideas and anecdotal "evidence" are on an equal par with theories
that are well-supported by evidence and experiment.

Of course all science "evidence" is in a sense is anecdotal. And as
I previously pointed out. Some science, because of the nature
of the subject matter has to rely on anecdotal evidence. Not
every phenomenon can be set up in a precise experimental measurement.

Just because some farmer
comes running in from the north forty claiming he's seen a UFO run off with
one of his cows or some blue-haired spinster claims to be in contact with
aliens from the planet Moomaw doesn't mean that scientists should just throw
up their hands and say, "Well, damn, I guess that means I need to throw
everything I know out the old window."

Nobody here is saying they should. But what I AM saying is that the
farmer and the spinster ARE datapoints. It may very well be that
the stories are datapoints more in psychology than astrophysics,
but they ARE data of SOME kind! And what happens when instead
of one or two data points, you start to find many and it's not
just "farmers" and "spinsters" but astronauts, police, military
officers, presidents of the United States etc. STILL not reason
enough to "throw everything out the window", sure, but I'd have
to call that data something that is starting to look interesting!

As I keep saying, not all theories are equal. Just because someone comes up
with what seems to be a bright idea doesn't automatically put it on the same
par with, say, evolution or the Big Bang.

And you are right. If I think some data looks interesting or
want to investigate some phenomena that facinates me, that
surely doesn't mean that EVERY scientist is required to be
interested in it. Nor does the mere fact there is an investgation
mean one is throwing all past theories away. But the point I keep
making is why does traditional science find it so necessary
to ridicule any such investigation? Why are such investigations
prohibited with threats of failure to advance or loss
of funding? Why are totally unsubstantiatied charges
of mental defects in the investigator immediately forthcoming?

It's one thing to yawn, pick your teeth, and say, "we think
you are barking up the wrong tree, but knock yourself out",
and quite another to threaten to drum an investigator out of
the scientific priesthood unless they immediately recant
their heresy. I guess we are a bit more refined now but
still have our ways of burning heretics at the stake.

PS. And by the way, I don't "believe" in the Big Bang!
www.hypersphere.us ...just call me a loon!

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!

In sci.astro Ron Miller wrote:

You are confusing "unexplained" with "unexplainable".

Lots of things once thought "unexplainable" later became explained!

It's the people who persist in insisting that discredited theories,
unsupported ideas and anecdotal "evidence" are on an equal par with theories
that are well-supported by evidence and experiment.

Of course all science "evidence" is in a sense is anecdotal. And as
I previously pointed out. Some science, because of the nature
of the subject matter has to rely on anecdotal evidence. Not
every phenomenon can be set up in a precise experimental measurement.

Just because some farmer
comes running in from the north forty claiming he's seen a UFO run off with
one of his cows or some blue-haired spinster claims to be in contact with
aliens from the planet Moomaw doesn't mean that scientists should just throw
up their hands and say, "Well, damn, I guess that means I need to throw
everything I know out the old window."

Nobody here is saying they should. But what I AM saying is that the
farmer and the spinster ARE datapoints. It may very well be that
the stories are datapoints more in psychology than astrophysics,
but they ARE data of SOME kind! And what happens when instead
of one or two data points, you start to find many and it's not
just "farmers" and "spinsters" but astronauts, police, military
officers, presidents of the United States etc. STILL not reason
enough to "throw everything out the window", sure, but I'd have
to call that data something that is starting to look interesting!

As I keep saying, not all theories are equal. Just because someone comes up
with what seems to be a bright idea doesn't automatically put it on the same
par with, say, evolution or the Big Bang.

And you are right. If I think some data looks interesting or
want to investigate some phenomena that facinates me, that
surely doesn't mean that EVERY scientist is required to be
interested in it. Nor does the mere fact there is an investgation
mean one is throwing all past theories away. But the point I keep
making is why does traditional science find it so necessary
to ridicule any such investigation? Why are such investigations
prohibited with threats of failure to advance or loss
of funding? Why are totally unsubstantiatied charges
of mental defects in the investigator immediately forthcoming?

It's one thing to yawn, pick your teeth, and say, "we think
you are barking up the wrong tree, but knock yourself out",
and quite another to threaten to drum an investigator out of
the scientific priesthood unless they immediately recant
their heresy. I guess we are a bit more refined now but
still have our ways of burning heretics at the stake.

PS. And by the way, I don't "believe" in the Big Bang!
www.hypersphere.us ...just call me a loon!

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!

In article , wrote:

Why don't you
just flat out declare that unless I explain and demonstrate
a "warp drive" for you, your mind will remain totally closed?
Seems like a "reasonable' position to me.

You think faster than light transportation is a reality, yet at the
same time you think quantum mechanics is bunk. I think I know where
the problem is.


-=-=-=-=-