Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 79 to 91 of 105
  1. #79
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    17,960
    "Actually, no, since Galileo was fully capable of actually DEMONSTRATING his claims. Unlike you."

    Exactly my point!

    Even if a flying saucer crashed into your house, you still wouldn't believe it.
    Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.

    Theodore Roosevelt

  2. #80
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    4,388
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    I never said anyone was wrong, simply that all we have is heresay.

    Science conducts its work using standards for a reason. And that reason is that if we don't, then literally *anything* that man can dream up can potentially become a "fact".

    Heresay also presents us with things like ghosts and many conspiracy theories. You are not alone in believing in things that follow no standard.
    Military reports are not heresay, not to mention that one military person actually touched the craft. If your going to make comments, at least read the report. And I suppose the report that one craft hovering over the base, shut down the nuclear missles launcher was a dream...

    If you dont want to consider what our miltary reports as factual, there is no point of discussing this subject with you.

    Roy


    Roy
    "The perfect Totalitarian State is one where the political bosses, and their army of managers, control a population of slaves, who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude"

  3. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,656
    Quote Originally Posted by royc View Post
    Military reports are not heresay, not to mention that one military person actually touched the craft. If your going to make comments, at least read the report. And I suppose the report that one craft hovering over the base, shut down the nuclear missles launcher was a dream...

    If you dont want to consider what our miltary reports as factual, there is no point of discussing this subject with you.

    Roy


    Roy
    My dictionary defines hearsay as "an unverified claim". Note that one's opinion on the validity of the source is not relevent. What IS relevent is verification. So, if you'd like to verify those claims for us now, you can instantly turn it in to non-hearsay!
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  4. #82
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,656
    Quote Originally Posted by coolwhip View Post
    How bout this article?

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...IESvz48aXzc_WQ

    A NASA scientist, Richard Hoover Ph.D., of the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, published a paper Saturday in the Journal of Cosmology which claims that alien bacteria have been positively identified in meteorites. Fox News was given the story as an exclusive, and the announcement set off celebrations by some, and a fire-storm of criticism by others.


    Close up view of one of the fossilized bacteria from the meteorite.
    Fox News, a very unusual publication for the release of scientific findings, fairly enough gave equal light to both sides of the sensational story. Hoover’s recent paper on the subject is not his first, he has published very similar findings in a number of papers over more than a decade.

    Meteorite

    In a nutshell: Hoover broke open a crumbly, rare meteorite called a carbonaceous chondrite, the interior of which revealed microscopic fossils of bacteria including mineralized cyanobacteria, common blue green algae. Many of the bacteria can be classified and some are unknown. The Fox article quotes Hoover as saying, “The exciting thing is that they are in many cases recognizable and can be associated very closely with the generic species here on earth. There are some that are just very strange and don’t look like anything that I’ve been able to identify, and I’ve shown them to many other experts that have also come up stumped.”


    In an earlier paper from 2004 on the same subject, Hoover wrote: “Many of the forms have the correct size of trichomes and sheaths, and exhibit complex morphology, branching, and other features, such as the presence of germlings, heterocysts, apical cells, akinetes, and hormogonia that permit them to be recognized and their taxonomy established in accordance with the characteristics set forth in Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology.”


    A view of the abundance of forms fond in the meteorite.
    Bacteria from Space
    Detractors claim he is fooling himself into seeing things that aren’t there, or that the things he sees are bacteria that contaminated the meteorite sample over the last 100 years of handling. Hoover’s response is to show that chemical analysis demonstrates that all the proper elements found in life, in the proper proportion, are found in the microbe samples. Key to his argument is that one element is missing: nitrogen. Nitrogen is found in all organic samples … unless they have had centuries to release the gas. This is Hoover’s proof that the bacteria are not due to terrestrial contamination.

    “If someone can explain how it is possible to have a biological remain that has no nitrogen, or nitrogen below the detect ability limits that I have, in a time period as short as 150 years, then I would be very interested in hearing that,” Hoover said. “I’ve talked with many scientists about this and no one has been able to explain.”

    Also from the 2004 paper, Hoover states: “Evidence for possible microfossils in meteorites was previously reported in numerous papers by many scientists (Nagy, Claus, Timofeyev, Van Landingham, Palik, McKay, Rozanov, Hoover, etc.).”

    As to the claim that he is seeing things that are not there, Hoover noted in his 2010 paper that there is an overabundance of L-amino acids in the samples. In nature, life forms use L-amino acids exclusively, otherwise equal quantities of L-amino acids and D-amino acids are found.

    Source Criticism

    Another criticism of the news centers around the nature of the publication, Journal of Cosmology. Critics claim that the journal does not have the peer review standards of more well accepted publications. In fact, it is only a somewhat cosmic-looking website. There is no paper issue. For such an important discovery, a well-accepted, major publication like Science would normally be chosen, they say. An example they cite is that the 1996 discovery of bacteria in a meteorite from Mars was published in Science, the most esteemed scientific journal.

    Critics have been fair to note that observations about the Journal, or Fox News, are not to be considered as a disproof of the theory, but they seem like odd choices for publication, and do not lend credibility to Hoover’s argument.

    Dr. Rudy Schild, a scientist with the Harvard-Smithsonian’s Center for Astrophysics and the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cosmology, wrote: “Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5,000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis. No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough vetting, and never before in the history of science has the scientific community been given the opportunity to critically analyze an important research paper before it is published.”
    Interesting, but unfortunately science white papers are published in science journals. That is to say, no one needs peer review to have a book published or to write something on a website.

    Also, claiming that you are offering peer review AFTER publication has already occurred is ass-backwards. Why not do it like, you know, everyone else?

    From what I've been able to gather, the thing that most other scientists want to know are the things about methodology that would usually be routinely reported. For example, the author doesn't state how they were stored before he obtained them. He doesn't say how they were fractured. He says the tools were flame sterilized, but not what the tools were or how they were used. He also doesn't say how the surfaces may have been treated.

    It is also interesting to note that this type of meteor originates from comets and asteroids. It is true that some of these objects contain a lot of carbon-based material. That doesn't mean it was ever alive. Further, identifying those squiggles as bacteria fossils is a bit bold and brash; generally this sort of material is called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and even here on Earth that does not necessarily mean that it had biological origins, though that can also be the case.

    Bottom line, more bold and unsubstantiated claims, shoddy procedures, etc. That's the way it seems to me anyway.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  5. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,656
    Quote Originally Posted by coolwhip View Post
    "Actually, no, since Galileo was fully capable of actually DEMONSTRATING his claims. Unlike you."

    Exactly my point!

    Even if a flying saucer crashed into your house, you still wouldn't believe it.
    Sure I would. But unless the fellow left me his ray gun or something, I would still have no hard evidence, though of course I would then consider it as a fact on a personal level.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  6. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    3,386
    Scrogg,

    If you need verifiable scientific evidence to validate whether something is true or not then there is no proof of that car in front of you putting on his brakes unless you hit him.

    Most of our life is unverifiable.

  7. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Helena, Montana
    Posts
    2,155
    I think Scrog is trying to say without verifiable proof how can you convince anyone? If an individual has witnessed something then they most likely will believe that which they saw for themselves. If another individual or group choose to believe it without seeing it, they are acting on faith.

    I read through and don't see where he said they don't exist, just that their existence hasn't been proven. Seems logical to me.
    Don't worry zombies are looking for brains, you're safe...

  8. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    3,386
    What I cannot understand about the people that say there is no proof is well, are they also saying we shouldn’t investigate the topic. Are scientific institutions saying they want proof before they get interested in the topic? Why can’t science determine if something is very likely to be true rather than in black and white?

    We live our lives heavily relying on our eyesight. Most of our perceptions of life is based on our eyesight. People are not seeing common things in the sky like cars, boats, or building floating around, but they do see vehicles with striking similarities, disks and cigar shaped craft. Shapes that we cannot make fly, especially silently. They see them accelerate at speeds we cannot accomplish. We are also not reporting with any frequency seeing mythical things like dragons, unicorns, leprechauns or fairies. If these people are seeing things that are not there, why aren’t we seeing other things with absolute clarity like people in our house that are not there or cars in front of us that are not there?

    Why is man’s vision so fallible when seeing things we do not understand, but not otherwise?

  9. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Helena, Montana
    Posts
    2,155
    That is the million dollar question! Why isn't the scientific community exploring the question (or based on previous posts following "accepted" scientific practices)? Is it fear of ridicule or are others just wishing that there is truth to the reports and there isn't anything for the scientists to work with?

    I'm going with a little of both...
    Don't worry zombies are looking for brains, you're safe...

  10. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,656
    Quote Originally Posted by ControlsInMT View Post
    That is the million dollar question! Why isn't the scientific community exploring the question (or based on previous posts following "accepted" scientific practices)? Is it fear of ridicule or are others just wishing that there is truth to the reports and there isn't anything for the scientists to work with?

    I'm going with a little of both...
    Trust me, the scientific community would like nothing more than to study a number of things IF they were able to be. God, for example. Or alien life.

    Ok, I say to you, bring me something to study. Science doesn't deal with ideas as a topic of study (as we call that philosophy) nor does it deal with intangibles. It deals with facts that need explaining.

    What fact do we have about UFOs that can be presented to science? Again, hearsay ain't it. Because then science would spend a lot of time investigating a number of potentially ridiculous claims that would not be able to be confirmed by the normal standards of science.

    That's why science has standards. It's more or less in your face that apples fall to the ground, yes? There can be no argument. Facts are that which is self-evident, and not even believers of aliens inhabiting UFOs can make the claim that thier belief is self-evident.

    Steve Gould said it best; in science "fact" can only mean "demonstrated to such a degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional consent". Claims about UFOs and aliens are not close to this.

    Thus, as yet, there is nothing to study.

    Tell you guys what, my niece showed me an iPhone app that detects ghosts and spirits. Go ahead to the apple store and read some of the user reviews and comments, then tell me if you are compelled by those tales to believe in ghosts, or what evidence is now present with regards to ghosts that enable them to be a subject of scientific study.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  11. #89
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Helena, Montana
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Trust me, the scientific community would like nothing more than to study a number of things IF they were able to be. God, for example. Or alien life.

    What fact do we have about UFOs that can be presented to science? Again, hearsay ain't it. Because then science would spend a lot of time investigating a number of ridiculous claims that would not be able to be confirmed by the normal standards of science.

    Steve Gould said it best; in science "fact" can only mean "demonstrated to such a degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional consent". Claims about UFOs and aliens are not close to this.

    Thus, as yet, there is nothing to study.
    I agree completely. Not sure why some get so defensive when you ask to prove it, almost as bad as a politician when they say "trust me".
    Don't worry zombies are looking for brains, you're safe...

  12. #90
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    17,960
    Its like the liberals, even if you prove to them that Obama is an idiot, they will still vote for him.
    Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.

    Theodore Roosevelt

  13. #91
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    3,386
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Trust me, the scientific community would like nothing more than to study a number of things IF they were able to be. God, for example. Or alien life.

    Ok, I say to you, bring me something to study. Science doesn't deal with ideas as a topic of study nor does it deal with intangibles. It deals with facts that need explaining.
    So something cannot be a fact unless we can prove it first? And, if we cannot prove it then science is not interested in exploring it? Well, if that is so then why is science trying to defy gravity with harmonics. Is there proof that that can be accomplished in order to get them interested in it?

    What fact do we have about UFOs that can be presented to science?
    Countless multiple radar returns corroborated by multiple ground witnesses of aerial object defying our capabilities.

    Again, hearsay ain't it.
    You are misusing the term "hearsay". It is a legal term defined as: “Hearsay is the legal term for testimony in a court proceeding where the witness does not have direct knowledge of the fact asserted, but knows it only from being told by someone. In general the witness will make a statement such as, "Sally told me Tom was in town," as opposed to "I saw Tom in town," which is direct evidence.” Source - Wikipedia.

    Because then science would spend a lot of time investigating a number of ridiculous claims that would not be able to be confirmed by the normal standards of science.
    "Ridiculous" is your term. Science investigates and wastes their time studying a lot of things. But this one time they cannot spend the time or money. Bull.

    That's why science has standards. It's more or less in your face that apples fall to the ground, yes? There can be no argument. Facts are that which is self-evident, and not even believers of aliens inhabiting UFOs can make the claim that their belief is self-evident.
    Their assertion is not that aliens inhabit UFO’s. It is that something is flying in our skies that we, nor science, understands.

    Thus, as yet, there is nothing to study.
    You make it seem that science will take on anything that they can get their hands on. Not so. They get their funding largely from grants…money that can get cut off if they do not fall into lock-step with the norms of science. UFO's are taboo to them. They avoid it like the plague, not because there is nothing to study, but because of ridicule and funding.

    There are ruins all around the world they cannot explain. They throw out ridiculous claims that they were built with hammers and chisels to obtain fatnesses that exceed glass of our time and we accept it. Why. Because a scientist says it is so. Not to mention lifting huge stones without the benefit of wood in the area.

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event