An Alleged 1953 UFO Crash and Burial Near Garrison, Utah

[One Brow]

But in the climate that @Red was discussing it would lead respected scientists who even had evidence to not attempt to publish for fear of having their reputations ruined by the establishment. Only those who don't care about that would attempt to publish, and likely would be scientists with less to lose and possibly less resources as a result. How can we see they aspect, those who stay silent because of worry about damage to their reputations by the establishment. Or even perhaps professional suppression within their circles preempting any attempts at publication?

The consensus understanding (for example, on "Clovis First") didn't just pop up arbitrarily. It was built on the evidence and the best attempts to understand the evidence. If you want to overturn the consensus, you need to gather enough evidence that it shifts the current paradigm. Rarely can you find that much in a single decade, much less a single paper.

What you can do is publish a paper that presents evidence/interpretations which do not fit comfortably within the current paradigm. There is no particular danger there. You and other researchers will typically take up this evidence and use it to either further disrupt the paradigm or to reinforce it. Over time, the paradigm shifts.

It's also true that young researchers are typically more accepting of changing the paradigms, and that older researchers have the political power. That doesn't mean the young researchers are putting their careers in danger by pushing on the paradigm, it means they have to have their ducks in a row and solid evidence.

Just about every science paper I have read has a section about how the research fits in, or does not, with current understanding, and suggestions for future inquiry. I don't think anyone has their reputations ruined for doing that.

 

[LogGrad98]

The consensus understanding (for example, on "Clovis First") didn't just pop up arbitrarily. It was built on the evidence and the best attempts to understand the evidence. If you want to overturn the consensus, you need to gather enough evidence that it shifts the current paradigm. Rarely can you find that much in a single decade, much less a single paper.

What you can do is publish a paper that presents evidence/interpretations which do not fit comfortably within the current paradigm. There is no particular danger there. You and other researchers will typically take up this evidence and use it to either further disrupt the paradigm or to reinforce it. Over time, the paradigm shifts.

It's also true that young researchers are typically more accepting of changing the paradigms, and that older researchers have the political power. That doesn't mean the young researchers are putting their careers in danger by pushing on the paradigm, it means they have to have their ducks in a row and solid evidence.

Just about every science paper I have read has a section about how the research fits in, or does not, with current understanding, and suggestions for future inquiry. I don't think anyone has their reputations ruined for doing that.

If that last part is true then how does it fit in with what red posted?

 

[One Brow]

If that last part is true then how does it fit in with what red posted?

I assume you mean the quoted part, "Best have tenure before one rocks the orthodox vessel."

Compare, "Just about every science paper I have read has a section about how the research fits in, or does not, with current understanding, and suggestions for future inquiry. I don't think anyone has their reputations ruined for doing that."

You can note how the result of a specific experiment, or a new archaeological find, does not match the current understanding without saying the current paradigm needs changing. Among other things, new findings need to be confirmed.

 

[babe]

https://skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php

It's not that climate change deniers can't get published, it's that they don't bring a lot of evidence.

Got any stats on the number of grant proposals sent in that begin with expressions about the need to carefully verify the extraordinary claims being made in promoting global warming scenarios????

Or what percentage of those get funded????

Or the number of papers sent in on that side of the question???

Or the number that get published???

I'm personally happy to have stuff to read, on whichever side of an issue, but I have to go wandering out into the woods to find "the other side" on this one....

 

[babe]

Joseph Smith.... and Moses.... had extraordinary tales about "seeing" God somehow. I look at these accounts for some kind of principle which would be required operative if the tales are true. JS spoke about "conduits" of light, and images materializing within walled roofed floored spaces, or a grove of trees. Moses alledgedly went up on a mountain that had a lot going on in terms of clouds and light and sound, heard by the camp of Israel.

I mentioned holographs as able to explain apparirtions of craft doing right angle turns as immense speeds, literally the speed of light. Beams or light phenomena are common to almost all Judeo-Christian accounts of "God". It suggests to me the possibility of other dimensions being involved.... wormholes maybe.....

Lots of scientifically questionable, but theoretically plausible stuff. Not so different from most accounts of UFOs....

I "believe" in some unproven stuff, pending actual proof...… God brought Adam and Eve (maybe some others) here from another world..... probably includes most life forms in theory.... gives us much more time to imagine either intelligence or chance working wonders..... the "chance" I'd called systematically structured to favor life development....

 

[Archie Moses]

Joseph Smith.... and Moses.... had extraordinary tales about "seeing" God somehow. I look at these accounts for some kind of principle which would be required operative if the tales are true. JS spoke about "conduits" of light, and images materializing within walled roofed floored spaces, or a grove of trees. Moses alledgedly went up on a mountain that had a lot going on in terms of clouds and light and sound, heard by the camp of Israel.

I mentioned holographs as able to explain apparirtions of craft doing right angle turns as immense speeds, literally the speed of light. Beams or light phenomena are common to almost all Judeo-Christian accounts of "God". It suggests to me the possibility of other dimensions being involved.... wormholes maybe.....

Lots of scientifically questionable, but theoretically plausible stuff. Not so different from most accounts of UFOs....

I "believe" in some unproven stuff, pending actual proof...… God brought Adam and Eve (maybe some others) here from another world..... probably includes most life forms in theory.... gives us much more time to imagine either intelligence or chance working wonders..... the "chance" I'd called systematically structured to favor life development....

There's an episode of Ancient Aliens on that and more. Wasn't the most convincing one.

 

[Red]

I assume you mean the quoted part, "Best have tenure before one rocks the orthodox vessel."

The recent case of Avi Loeb, chair of the Astronomy Dept. at Harvard is an interesting example of this "rule of thumb". I had posted an article of an interview here, but I can't remember which thread it was in, in which Loeb stated that it was his position that professors with tenure actually should regard themselves as having the responsibility of proposing new ideas that they would be unable to do were they not to have that tenure.

Interestingly enough, he had become embroiled in controversy for suggesting that a curious asteroid that had arrived from outside our solar system, the first such object ever detected, might in fact be an artificial alien probe. Wish I could find the article I had posted here at the time, but he basically said it was "safe" for him to propose this idea. These two articles touch on the response his particular "extraordinary" claim set off at the time:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2...bout-aliens/NLyI5P1SKlgAFSoixNB66O/story.html

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...-his-theory/QuWB4VTpYg8LkDvSUaxcPO/story.html

Found it:

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/how-oumuamua-mystery-shook-search-space-aliens-ncna950991

"Loeb shrugs off the reflexive dismissals, but partly embraces that last critique, saying his lofty academic position actually obligates him to be a pot-stirrer: “I can say these things other people can’t because I have tenure at Harvard. The whole idea of getting tenure is to allow you to be free in your mind. I used the opportunity of Oumuamua to make a statement.”

 

[Red]

So anyway, I watched the first installment of the History Network series that revolves around the Pentagon program set up to study unidentified aerial vehicles, and the concerns of Navy pilots, etc., and of course it's the ubiquitous reality TV format, which to me actually diminishes the credibility of a subject that one wants taken seriously, but that's American television, and why I prefer British TV, lol. And I do think the recent interviews have all seemed like promos for that television series.

@Archie Moses, you might appreciate the take offered by "red pill junkie". I don't know his real name, I only know him as a writer for The Daily Grail, and a resident of Mexico City.
I've always appreciated his take on many anomalous phenomena. This essay was written before the first episode of the History Network's The Unidentified aired last Friday:

https://www.dailygrail.com/2019/06/...ming-is-the-world-prepared-does-it-even-care/

 

[One Brow]

The recent case of Avi Loeb, chair of the Astronomy Dept. at Harvard is an interesting example of this "rule of thumb". I had posted an article of an interview here, but I can't remember which thread it was in, in which Loeb stated that it was his position that professors with tenure actually should regard themselves as having the responsibility of proposing new ideas that they would be unable to do were they not to have that tenure.

A view from another physicist:

https://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2019/06/05/dark-matter-anomaly-resolved/

One of the features of science is that there is always a tension going on. We have standard paradigms that most scientists work within but on occasion a new result will turn up that seems to be violate the boundaries of that paradigm. What does one do then? Reject the paradigm and its associated underlying theory? Seasoned scientists know not to do that because throwing out a paradigm is not something to be undertaken lightly since good theories are hard to come by. What they do is treat the discrepant event as an anomaly meriting further study.

The community as a whole then falls into three camps: one group tries to see if the anomaly can be brought back into conformity with the paradigm by new experiments/observations and theoretical calculations. A second group takes more seriously the possibility that this might be a real effect that requires a new paradigm to accommodate and looks to see if they can find one that fits the bill. The third group, the largest by far, consists of those who are not working in that field and are thus not using that paradigm but are aware of the existence of the anomaly. They watch with interest from the sidelines to see how things fall out.

 

[Red]

Kind of like no scientist in the current scientific climate will ever publish anything against anthropomorphic climate change or decrying the speculative climate Doomsday scenarios. Those cherished paradigms must be protected.

I've been thinking about this, @LogGrad98, and it was not my intention to ignore your reply. But, not being a climate scientist, and not following the debate there as closely as I've followed the peopling of the Americas debate, I'm not in the best position to judge the strength of the anthropomorphic paradigm, or any "power plays" associated with it.

At any rate, what would a "paradigm shift" look like in climate science? "Anthropomorphic climate change is not happening, and there are no dire scenarios in store for humanity or life on Earth"? When I see global warming deniers funded by fossil fuel interests, I have indeed come to see the deniers as playing politics, more then practicing science. But, I am not really in as educated a position as I would like.

A view from another physicist:

Yeah, I think, especially when research challenges things that are perceived as fundamental to a particular scientific discipline, that that is when we we see most clearly what is there all along, namely that the scientific method is in the hands of human beings, after all. I've long felt that it can't possibly hurt to make a course or courses centered around Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a part of any scientist's training.

Just from the perspective of my own interest in the peopling of the Americas, I've witnessed, from the position of that 3rd group your quote describes, how exceedingly acrimonious the decades long struggle to challenge the Clovis First paradigm has been. Since I was never directly involved, and had no reputation to lose, it was easy for me to say "why do so many people get so bent out of shape by sites that suggest earlier arrivals of humans?" It was almost as if by not actually working in the field, it was easier to see some challenging research was simply not getting a fair hearing. It pissed me off!

The story of the Bluefish Caves site in the Yukon is a great example of an archaeologist whose reputation and work was beat into the ground, to the actual detriment to progress in American archaeology, only to be vindicated eventually. This is what happens, sometimes, when humans are involved. Science is a contact sport!

And this concerned only figuring out when the Americas were first settled. Not exactly something that's going to shake society to its core. But aliens patrolling the Earth? That's another order of paradigm shift altogether....

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...bluefish-caves-scientific-progress-180962410/

 

[Red]

@Archie Moses, yesterday's edition of the News Briefs on the Daily Grail included a couple of investigative looks. The first is a brief look at Luis Elizondo, who may not have been the director of the Pentagon study he claimed to have been:

http://ufotrail.blogspot.com/2019/06/ttsa-and-uncritical-reporters-wilting.html

And the second is a very long look at Tom Delonge and his story of the origins of the TTSA. Is the whole thing a government operation, and, if so, for what purpose? Plenty of good reason to be skeptical about Delonge's group, especially with all those ex-government intelligence types sitting on the board.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...academy-describes-a-government-info-operation

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

The popular observation that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" has been referred to as the "Sagan standard", as Carl Sagan popularized it as much as anyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard

It's a bit misleading, since extraordinary claims simply require evidence sufficient to prove those claims. The evidence need not be extraordinary, and labeling a claim itself as extraordinary is a subjective excercise to some degree:

"The aphorism has been criticized both for its apparent support of "orthodoxy" by raising the evidential standard for claims which are outside current social consensus, and for introducing subjectivity and ambiguity in determining what merits an "extraordinary claim". David Deming writes: "science does not contemplate two types of evidence. The misuse of ECREE ["extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"] to suppress innovation and maintain orthodoxy should be avoided as it must inevitably retard the scientific goal of establishing reliable knowledge."[2]

Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence. They simply require evidence that is sufficient to demonstrate the claim is correct.

Further, what is extraordinary in the eyes of consensus scientific opinion at one time, is not always seen as such at a later time. In our own lifetime, the "Clovis First" paradigm of American prehistory has finally fallen by the wayside, but that paradigm ruled American prehistory for generations. Claims of pre-Clovis prehistoric sites could lead to being ostracized. Best have tenure before one rocks the orthodox vessel. The evidence for pre-Clovis dates for the Monte Verde, Chile site was solid right from the start. But those dates were rejected, not because the claim lacked "extraordinary" evidence, but because it went against the orthodoxy of the time. In other words, the rejection of the claims was itself unscientific. Thomas Kuhn's seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, explained how science can advance grudgingly, so to speak. The old guard protects its cherished paradigms, and, as has been said, sometimes "science advances one funeral at a time."

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61539.The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

Well said. You are correct, requiring "extra-ordinary" evidence is perhaps overstating it as a general rule. It does depend, however, on what constitutes "extra-ordinary." For example, does requiring a p-value of .01, with 95% confidence level constitute 'extra-ordinary' evidence? If not 'extra-ordinary', then at least pretty damned high level of evidence.

That said, the context of your argument refers to actual scientific processes with actual clear decision rules or at least established processes for ferreting out psuedo-science BS. The context for this discussion is not legitimate scientific enquiry but people making extra-ordinary claims about supernatural phenomena, most of which are not renderable to scientific testing (e.g., can't prove a negative, can't 'prove' UFOs or ghosts don't exist ), and are based on unreliable sources of evidence (e.g., human perception/interpretation) that also can't be tested objectively.

So, yeah, if someone IS making extra-ordinary claims about supernatural phenomena, which cannot be tested objectively using scientific methods (your frame of reference above), then they damned well better provide me extra-ordinary evidence if they want me to believe it.

 

[Archie Moses]

I highly recommend Joe Rogan's podcast with Bob Lazar. You can find the whole thing on YouTube.

The bearded guy is kind of annoying, but everything else is fascinating. Yes, even if Lazar is lying. He's still revealed a lot of things people said weren't true that have since be discovered to be truths

 

[Red]

Meanwhile, senators receive a classified briefing....

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/19/warner-classified-briefing-ufos-1544273

"Three more U.S. senators received a classified Pentagon briefing on Wednesday about a series of reported encounters by the Navy with unidentified aircraft, according to congressional and military officials — part of a growing number of requests from members of key oversight committees......

.....The interest in “unidentified aerial phenomenon” has grown since revelations in late 2017 that the Pentagon had set up a program to study the issue at the request of then-Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Officials interviewed multiple current and former sailors and aviators who claim to have encountered highly advanced aircraft that appeared to defy the laws of aerodynamics when they intruded on protected military airspace — some of which were captured on video and made public.

The Navy has played a prominent role in light of the testimony of F/A-18 pilots and other personnel operating with the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier battle group off California in 2004 and the USS Theodore Roosevelt in the Atlantic in 2015 and 2016.

“Navy officials did indeed meet with interested congressional members and staffers on Wednesday to provide a classified brief on efforts to understand and identify these threats to the safety and security of our aviators," spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Daniel Day said in a statement.

He said "follow-up discussions with other interested staffers" were also scheduled for Thursday. "Navy officials will continue to keep interested congressional members and staff informed. Given the classified nature of these discussions, we will not comment on the specific information provided in these Hill briefings.”

 

[Archie Moses]

I highly recommend Joe Rogan's podcast with Bob Lazar. You can find the whole thing on YouTube.

The bearded guy is kind of annoying, but everything else is fascinating. Yes, even if Lazar is lying. He's still revealed a lot of things people said weren't true that have since be discovered to be truths

I listened to this again my bike ride to Moab yesterday.

@colton if you get a chance, listen to this and give your thoughts. You're an expert on physics so I trust you - does Lazar sound legit or like a clown?

 

[Rubashov]

All of this is absolute *****.

 

[LogGrad98]

All of this is absolute *****.

You give this thread 5 stars?

 

[Red]

All of this is absolute *****.

Lol, well perhaps. But I don't think the Navy pilots deserve to be dismissed summarily. But to each his own, of course.

I would say scientific materialism is the overarching paradigm of the scientific era, regardless of which scientific discipline we are talking about. And perhaps evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is the most prominent defender of this paradigm in the face of what scientific materialists sometimes derisively refer to as "woo". During his life, the esteemed Carl Sagan often played that role. There is even a Wikipedia group that is devoted to altering the pages of scientists who they regard as promoting subjects/attitudes that stray from scientific materialism. Rupert Sheldrake comes to mind as one scientist who has been attacked in this fashion, with derisive comments added to his Wikipedia entry. I often find anger to be an underlying attitude of such folks, and I gain nothing by engaging with them. They are entitled to subscribe to the dominant overarching paradigm of the scientific era.

But I'm not a fan of scientific materialism. I would much prefer to examine the frontiers of a different attitude toward reality, so I will delve into telepathy, psychokinesis, the nature of consciousness and the place of consciousness in the natural world, and many more etceteras. Is consciousness more fundamental then matter? I'm interested in questions like that, and I see some well known and respected thinkers of the past hundred plus years have also not been afraid to explore such areas. I myself have experienced "non-local consciousness" and see no reason why I would not want to understand the nature of such things. What should I be afraid of, nothing, that I can see. Someone once told me "don't be so open minded that your brain falls out!" Haha, fat chance.

Not a fan of scientific materialism, although I certainly respect the scientific method, and the good things that have resulted from the birth and development of modern science. Scientism, on the other hand, no, not a fan.

And as far as what these pilots and other Navy crew members have been seeing, and engaging at times, I see nothing at all wrong with trying to understand more. I've watched the first 4 episodes of the History Network's "Unidentified". So far, it's been entirely focused on tracking down any pilot or crewmember willing to talk about the 2004 and 2015-16 incidents. It's been interesting. I don't like the reality TV format, but, that's the genre these days. Don't think it helps credibility sandwiching the program between episodes of "Ancient Aliens", but, that's the History Network. I've enjoyed the conversations recorded with the Navy personel. And I see nothing wrong with the interest shown by members of Congress.

 

[One Brow]

I often find anger to be an underlying attitude of such folks, and I gain nothing by engaging with them.

People say that about me a lot.

But I'm not a fan of scientific materialism.

There doesn't seem to be a broadly accepted definition of scientific materialism. How would you distinguish it from methodological naturalism?

Not a fan of scientific materialism, although I certainly respect the scientific method, and the good things that have resulted from the birth and development of modern science. Scientism, on the other hand, no, not a fan.

Is there a difference between scientific materialism and scientism?

 

[Rubashov]

You give this thread 5 stars?

Man Aliens have the technology to come all this way then they crash in the middle of the desert? Cause you know they didn't put parking sensors on their intergalactic space ship. Bollocks!!!