Posted on 06/24/2006 9:27:30 AM PDT by BenLurkin
Pop culture has changed how ufology is seen, and the carnival barker types have indeed run with ball and make up the game as they went along. The basic behavior of UFO's in the sky hasn't changed. But beyond that, are you seriously saying that as a study of something yields information, the study should remain static? The test of science is primarily repeatability, but in new study it takes a while for the transients in the data to settle out. Ufology is much younger than most sciences, I would even grant you that it is merely a proto-science in search of foucs.
There has been a great deal of noise in the signal, as it were.
"There are valid studies, mostly in the field of psychology."
Not funny. And not necessarily true for all of such studies. The recent bunch of articles on "Sleep Paralysis" as a source of abduction reports has been unscientific in the extreme, but pop culture has embraced it uncritically.
That's the sad part: Science tends to debunk Ufology by proclamation, and trends to foolishness in doing so.
True, though. It's about the only branch of science that will look at the phenomenon.
"True, though. It's about the only branch of science that will look at the phenomenon."
That is why ufology exists. The "establishment" sciences do have better things to do. And I mean that - astronomers provide validation data to physicists, physicists flow it down to engineering researchers, and that improves the world. Biologists down to doctors and medical suppliers, and so on.
Ufology will continue on it's own, trying to figure out what is what with the things in the sky. For my part, as an engineer, I find it important to figure out what might make such a vehicle work, in such cases as it may be a vehicle. Assuming they are physical, then they aren't magic, and we can build them ourselves.
It isn't a bad side pursuit. :)
First, they aren't magic. Reasoning by similarity (magic) is not the way engineers make progress. If Watt reasoned by similarity he wouldn't have seen the relation between a horse and a steam kettle. Now, if somebody wants to build an FTL ship, he needs to find something other than electric, magnetic, or gravitational forces to drive it. That's where physicists work, looking for signs of something going on where everybody has been looking but seeing nothing. Nothing propelled by EM can exceed the speed of light, it's not in the cards. But, ordinary matter could exceed c even though it has electrons and protons and therefore EM effects. Electrons and protons are not EM phenomena even though they exhibit EM phenomena under certain circumstances; something else could possibly drive them to FTL speeds and possibly very easily. The mass, time and length problems are specific to EM phenomena. The math used is that of solid state mechanics--very strange if you think about it.
"First, they aren't magic."
Exactly.
As for your whole paragraph, I completely agree. I find it encouraging that the FTL community is slowly gaining respectability, as humans tend to be able to figure out ways of doing things, if they can wrap their minds around the required concepts.
Some physicists have had basic problems with relativity all along. Ives and Bridgman have been the most coherent. It's not really the relativity to which they object, but the application. It's not easy to work in tensors and quaternions, although both are in common enough use thanks to computers, but deciding when to apply them and what to apply them to requires something more of the understanding than blindly saying laws are valid in all frames, because they aren't necessarily.
"... deciding when to apply [appropriate calculation] and what to apply them to requires something more of the understanding than blindly saying laws are valid in all frames, because they aren't necessarily."
I've been hearing that a lot more lately. A lot of physicists ascribed limitations to Einstein's work that he never proscribed.
I KNOW what I saw!
If so, then it was identified. Not a UFO.
Did anyone listen to C2CAM last night?
Anyone remember any more details besides the below?
It was a replay with Dr Greer.
He cited the 4,000 cases of tangible, objective LANDING TRACES. These are the sorts of things where the ground is baked; has heightened magnetic readins. Ground and plants seem to have been baked by microwaves or some such.
And, one case of 100's if not 1,000's of houseflies kind of blasted or merged or some such into the side of a tree facing the landing site.
Well put.
Thanks for the ping Las Vegas Dave.
I said: It is the height of arrogance to believe we are the only form of intelligent life in the uinverse.
Unfortunately, you do not fall under that category.
Bugger off, you pompous jerk.
And you are so full of crap your eyes are brown.
Crop circles. Alien abductions. Filmed sightings. Either millions of people throughout history (including Ezekiel) are wrong and just little ol' you are right, or you are just a git who needs to be hit with a clue-by-four.
Having seen one myself, it's obvious which side I fall on.
You are being totally subjective. Watch what you call people.
Whatever the phenomenon is, they aren't angels.
Exactly how am I being subjective?
Who here is telling people who have had their own personal experiences with UFOs they did not see what they saw? Here's a hint: It was not me.
You want my respect? Quit implying people are liars or loons because they have experienced something you have not and maybe you'll get some.
UFO movie trailer (17:59 min. long)
Based upon what I saw, looks like a history of the UFO phenomena from 1940's to Apollo landing to present day sightings. (There is a photo of a what appears to be a structure on the Moon, the last minute of the 18 min. trailer.)
CLICK HERE: UFO, The greatest story ever denied (17:59 minute long trailer) (Note: Quicktime did not work for me but Windows Media did.)
CLICK HERE: UFO (1:29 minute long trailer-Windows Media)
If you want on or off of the UFO ping list, please ping KevinDavis or LasVegasDave.
I have the video, "NASA's Secret Transmissions: The Smoking Gun". I highly recommend it. It definitely shows life forms in outer space. Some very tiny -- which fly into the U.S. spacecraft. Very interesting.
http://theufostore.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=T&Product_Code=VSF00054
Where may I buy a copy of this new video by Jose Escamilla?
Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.