On "Non-Supernatural Intelligent Design": Viable Epistemology/Probative Science Tool?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Mr. G, Aug 18, 2002.

  1. ted_roe Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    32
    Q

    The next paragraph reads:

    "Anyway, I am not offering proof, I don't know. But I know better than to say "definately not". "

    I think my position has been clear throughout. You can dissect any portion of any paragraph or sentence and twist it however it pleases you but taken in context, my comments stand. I think you will have a harder time proving that we are pro ET than I will have proving that we are not certain....

    In our review of the various efforts to determine the sources of UAP it is clear that the definitive work has not been done and all possibilities remain open. Again, while not all UAP are ET, those who believe that no UAP are ET should look much closer at the information from credible sources.......I am not offering proof, I don't know. But I know better than to say "definitely not".
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,853
    ted

    I think my position has been clear throughout.You can dissect any portion of any paragraph or sentence and twist it however it pleases you but taken in context, my comments stand.

    I have not twisted your words. You made a claim that UAP are ET. Those are your words. Therefore, your claim clearly places your position in that of having proven ET exists.

    Please provide the evidence, if not, admit your claim has no credibility.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,180
    John MacNeil:
    From your own post of 08-27-02 at 05:56 AM on page 2....

    "There is abundant evidence of unexplained markings and happenings on this planet that no scientist can explain, and so it is only logical to think that someone smart is instrumental in arranging the sequence of events. That means, that since our planetary science is incapable of providing description for the unexplained events, the people who are responsible must come from some other planet."

    ....and your post of 08-30-02 at 01:28 AM same page....

    "The evidence for people from other planets having visited this planet is voluminous...."

    ....and your post of 08-31-02 at 07:54 PM on page 3....

    "Aliens....may have been instrumental in bringing different species of us humans to this planet."

    Whenever you repeat, or allude to, your claim that aliens are responsible for homo sapiens existing on Earth, or that aliens have crashed on Earth, or aliens have flown their spaceships through Earth's atmosphere, I shall remind you that the only uncontestable evidence that can prove aliens have been to Earth is a real alien or a real, alien-origined artifact.

    The purpose of periodically refering back to your aliens claims that you've tendered since the earliest pages of this discussion is to remind you that still you have not produced alien-proving evidence to support such claims. What you think Einstein might have thought is mostly off-topic and I am permitted to move the discussion back on-topic, even if it diverts you from your diversions.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ted_roe Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    32
    Q

    I think I have been as clear as I could be. What is it about " I am not offering proof, I don't know. But I know better than to say "definitely not"." that you don't understand? And why are you so devoted to attacking me by citing incomplete commentary taken out of context? Why not take it to a higher level and discuss some of the complete thoughts I am entertaining?

    The fact is that for two years I have been working inside an organization that has developed a terrific amount of information about UAP, and I have some questions and commentary that I would like to bounce off of others. This is a free forum and I feel it is an ideal opportunity to ask some peripheral questions that I have around this topic.... I shouldn't have to feel like I am walking on eggs and that any two words I use can be isolated from their context and interpreted as meaning things that are clearly not consistent with my overall premis.

    I notice that you are not offering any commentary on any topic other than criticism.... where are your original thoughts? Why not put yourself on the line to defend your position rather than snipe at others around you while offering no useful commentary...And by the way, have you actually read any of our technical reports or reviewed our website?

    Obviously you have some opinions about this topic, lets hear them Q - but be careful of the words you choose....
     
  8. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,853
    ted

    I think I have been as clear as I could be.

    Yes, quite clear. You have not denied your claim that UAP are ET. Therefore I can only conclude you firmly believe that ET exists. I am interested to see your evidence confirming your beliefs.

    And why are you so devoted to attacking me by citing incomplete commentary taken out of context?

    I am not attacking you,. I am attacking your claim which btw was not taken out of context. You claimed UPA are ET.

    Why not take it to a higher level and discuss some of the complete thoughts I am entertaining?

    First, show some evidence supporting your claim, then we can discuss your so-called complete thoughts.

    I shouldn't have to feel like I am walking on eggs and that any two words I use can be isolated from their context and interpreted as meaning things that are clearly not consistent with my overall premis

    Actually, I am beginning to suspect your claim that UAP are ET *IS* consistent with your overall premise. More to come on that later.

    I notice that you are not offering any commentary on any topic other than criticism.... where are your original thoughts?

    Please don't skirt the issue. Either support your claim or admit it is nothing but hot air.

    Why not put yourself on the line to defend your position rather than snipe at others around you while offering no useful commentary

    My commentary would be quite useful if I could show your organization is little more than a front for UFO cranks. Are you a betting man ?

    And by the way, have you actually read any of our technical reports or reviewed our website?

    Yes I have. For example:

    P. O. Box 140, Boulder Creek, CA 95006 USA

    Your website claims the above as your business office. It is in fact, a post office box. Your business address does not exist anywhere on the website. For all we know, NARCAP could be a one man operation in a basement suite. A good website designer can make anyone look like a viable corporation.

    but be careful of the words you choose....

    I see you're beginning to understand my point.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    If we are to conduct ourselves with proper adherence to scientific principles, then our object should be to study the physical and the phenomenal from an objective viewpoint. Personal preferences for pre-established hypotheses should not impede objective analysis.

    I don't agree with creationism or evolutionism because neither satisfactorily explain the existent state of matter and systems as we have come to know them. Therefore it is incumbant on us to have the facility to entertain other hypotheses without having to endure ridicule.

    And, Mr.G., if you would ever read my posts in context, you will find in the last one that I said I haven't presented any evidence of intelligent intervention,...yet. Therefore you should restrict yourself to discussing the evidence that I have presented, since you continuously claim I am the one who must present evidence, which refutes evolutionism and ultimate creationism. If you keep jumping to conclusions of what you think my future argument is going to be, without ever addressing the evidence in the order of my presenting it, how can you claim to be engaging in the discussion objectively?
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2002
  10. ted_roe Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    32
    Q

    OK Q, you are right, my word choice was wrong, I do not claim that either my organization nor I have any evidence to support a claim that UAP are ET. Further that was not my intention. I intended to suggest that there is no certainty to the idea that no UAP are ET. Of course you know that, and are simply feeding your ego....you admitted that you understood what I intended...

    I said "While not all UAP are ET, those who believe that no UAP are ET should look much closer at the information from credible sources...." My point is that there is no basis for a certainty that no UAP represent incursions by ET. "

    and you replied,
    "Yeah, I got the point"

    As an administrator, not a scientist, I find the work we are doing, and particularily some of the data around this type of case profile very exciting. The potential relationship between these phenomena we are studying and this debate is intriguing and I appreciate an opportunity to explore it. I do stand by our reports and supporting casefiles that some UAP demonstrate traits of intelligence and technology, though those cases are only a portion of the types of UAP reports we work with. Additionally I will tell you that some of our staff are certain that UAP do not represent ET, ever. Myself and others aren't so certain, and some of our group are more than adament that these things are ET....it is a simple demographic fact. That has nothing to do with our mission or our position as an organization with respect to this debate. Our official position is.... that UAP are a threat to aviation safety and whatever their characteristics, the threat should be mitigated. We don't feel the threat is particularly widespread, it is more like windshear or birdstrikes, but we feel the aviation community needs to look closer at the data.

    As for your insults to myself, staff and organization, I won't waste my time.

    So lets hear what you have to say, Q. About the thread, you know, nonsupernatural design: viable epistemology.... or are you bent on further criticism?
     
  11. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,853
    ted

    I do not claim that either my organization nor I have any evidence to support a claim that UAP are ET

    Thank you, now we're getting somewhere. Let's move on to other claims:

    As an administrator, not a scientist...Additionally I will tell you that some of our staff are certain that UAP do not represent ET, ever. Myself and others aren't so certain, and some of our group are more than adament that these things are ET....it is a simple demographic fact.

    Allow me to point out the very obvious. Your organization appears to represent safety in aviation according to your mission statement:

    To help enhance aviation safety in the USA by better understanding the nature and potential effects of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) upon ground and airborne systems, piloting, and cockpit/aircrew procedures.

    I find that specious at best. If your organization actually was in the business of aviation safety, it would by no means infer in any way, shape or form, anything to do with ET. IMO, your organization is dedicated to infer the existence of ET:

    ..and UFO conspiracies:

    As for your insults to myself, staff and organization, I won't waste my time.

    I suspected as much. Cranks and crackpots are usually under the delusion they're being attacked. I see no staff nor any organization. I see one individual disguising himself as some sort of pseudo-safety board for aviation in an attempt to perpetuate UFO quackery.

    Any organization representing aviation safety that wished to remain credible would focus their entire campaign on terrestrial evidence and phenomena, and would never imply what you and NARCAP advocate.
     
  12. ted_roe Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    32
    Q

    Believe what you want Q, our advisory staff includes the Branch Chief of the Aviation Safety Program at NASA Ames Research Center, Brian Smith - he is quoted directly on our homepage and our chief scientist is the former chief of the Space and Human Factors office at NASA Ames, Dr. Richard Haines.... I think they are both concerned about the relationship between unidentified aerial phenomena and aviation safety.... as is the Director of the NASA ASRS, Linda Connell who is on record in this regard. And don't think they aren't aware of the case profiles of UAP incidents.

    Any study of a relationship between unidentified aerial phenomena and aviation safety is incomplete if it does not review all existing data. That would include Project Blue Book and other sources commonly identified with "Ufology".

    With respect to conspiracy theories, JANAP 146 was the issue that Capt. Killian was up against. It was used to contain all pilot reports of unusual observations. There was no satellite coverage of the Soviet Union at that time and the military used the commercial pilots of Canada, England and the US as forward observation corps to look for anything unusual. Along with reports of Russian bombers and unidentified aircraft pilots also reported unusual aerial phenomena. For its part the Air Force didn't look that closely at many of the reports, and did its best to keep any reports through CIRVIS out of the media -usually with threats of fines and prison and dismissive cover stories. The practice continues today....

    Regarding the rest of my staff, a somewhat complete list is posted on the site.

    Your opinion regarding whether or not an organization that was seriously interested in aviation safety would examine ufo reports and incidents is simply that, a misinformed opinion. The fact is that whether or not some UAP might be described as craft by witnesses does not immediately disqualify the observation. Especially when it is supported by multiple witnesses and radar data. The key is to review those events which are categorized as UAP incidents for all available data and develop base metrics regarding frequency of occurance, etc.

    And be advised that there are other, official organizations whose mission is identical to ours, CEFAA for example - through the Air Technical School of the Chilean Air Force or an even better example is SEPRA of CNES the French Space agency. SEPRA gathers UAP data across all aviation and police beuracracies in France. Their case files and concerns parallel ours in most regards.
    So when do we get back to the thread, Q?
     
  13. ted_roe Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    32
    Q

    "Any organization representing aviation safety that wished to remain credible would focus their entire campaign on terrestrial evidence and phenomena, and would never imply what you and NARCAP advocate."

    Apparently you missed the half of the homepage devoted to so-called "earthlights" and the technical reports at www.itacomm.net and www.hessdalen.org .......:bugeye:
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,334
    John,

    <i>Einstein does deserve to be put on a pedestal. He was a mental giant compared to all those other scientists that you named, James.</i>

    To take just one of those names: Neils Bohr had frequent disputes with Einstein, and almost always was shown to be correct (whilst Einstein was wrong).

    <i>In his lifetime he was never accorded the respect which he deserved, and yet he was the most famous person of his times. He received one Nobel Prize, for his description of the photoelectric effect, but he never received a nobel for either his special or general theory of relativity, both of which are foundation theory of modern science.</i>

    Do you know why, John? I suggest you do a bit of research.

    <i>His Unified Field Theory was never given a mathematical completion, but he stated often enough that what he believed was that the universe was a complete system and not the result of chaos.</i>

    Lots of people have made similar statements and have similarly failed to produce a unified theory.

    <i>...no scientific evidence agrees with the Ultimate Creation Theory.</i>

    The big bang theory is supported by a wealth of scientific evidence. Your undestanding of that theory and the evidence which supports it has been shown to be shakey at best.
     
  15. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,853
    ted

    Any study of a relationship between unidentified aerial phenomena and aviation safety is incomplete if it does not review all existing data.

    Good point. However, your organization does not do that. From your Executive Study:

    This paper addresses the question of whether there is reliable data demonstrating a significant relationship between aviation safety in America today and unidentified aerial phenomena [UAP] (also called unidentified flying objects [UFO] or flying saucers).

    http://www.narcap.org/reports/airsafety.htm

    All references cited are UFO related. There is nothing on aviation safety, nothing on meteorological phenomena, nothing on terrestrial crafts and phenomena. Every reference cited has the same agenda, to perpetuate UFO/ET nonsense. The use of the term airsafety in the above URL is deceptively misleading since the page contains little relevancy to air safety.

    And be advised that there are other, official organizations whose mission is identical to ours

    Of course there are others. Did you think you were the first here to present clandestine UFOlogy ?

    So when do we get back to the thread, Q?

    I am on the thread, didn't you notice. I am questioning you and your organizations credibility. And the more I read your website and responses to this thread, the more I'm convinced your organization has no legitimate credibility with air safety at all and is more concerned with the propagation of UFO/ET conspiracy theories.

    That is simply my opinion. And don't worry, I won't let the cat out of the bag.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,180
    I wonder how many NTSB and FAA investigators attend UFO conferences and sell close-encounter books for $$?
     
  17. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,180
    So, ted_roe:

    Why doesn't your web site list all the NARCAP personnel it claims to have enlisted in various capacities? You know: Dept. heads. Advisory committee members. Field experts, etc. Phone numbers, media contacts, funding sources (you know, private sources--like you and the good Doctor). And being an educational not-for-profit, although more work than most people want to assume in support of their personal causes, in-and-of-itself does not automatically convey credibility to it's directors. Just ask the IRS. They eat 501(c)(3)'s and (c)(4)'s for breakfast.

    Google searches reveal only yourself (associated only with NARCAP and UFO conferences), and Dr. Haines (a psychologist, and an ex-NASA "non-rocket scientist" employee who writes close-encounter books for profit and hocks them at UFO conferences and on the Web).

    What's really going on with NARCAP? UAP <> UFO because you'll get no respect? As if no one knows that UAP = UFO?

    This is planet Earth, you know: home of some intelligent life forms.
     
  18. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    The same question could be asked of you, Mr.G. You post here all the time and don't list your name. How do we know you are not an emissary for the Vatican or some other religious organization?
     
  19. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,180
    John. You're not ted. Why are you being so defensive? Oh, yeah. I hit close to your home, too.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    You are the one who is coming off as defensive, Mr.G. The person who invented the Ultimate Creation Theory was a catholic priest and you continuously defend that theory to the exclusion of all others. You dismiss or ignore all evidence that I, or anyone else, present without giving it any scientific rebuttal, while continually calling for more evidence. You display no scientific curiosity. What you do, is behave very similar to religious fanatics in the way you won't entertain any idea that opposes your iconoclastic agenda. If you wish to give yourself and your view credibility, then change your 'web' name to your real name, or don't require such clarification from others.
     
  21. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,180
    I'm not claiming authority. I am Mr. G because that's what my students used to call me. It doesn't bother me that that's not enough information for you.

    ted_roe is claiming authority. I'm questioning that authority. That bothers you. I find that rather interesting.
    As interesting as you being bothered by my questioning your authority.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2002
  22. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,853
    How do we know you (Mr.G) are not an emissary for the Vatican or some other religious organization?

    Forgive me, Father G, for I have not sinned.

    I have used rationale and reasoning to smite my oppressors and cast out those who would have me believe in little green men. And as I walk through the valley of conspiracies, I shall fear no UFOlogists. Surely intelligence and logic shall follow me all the days of my life. For thine is the wisdom, the savvy and the aplomb. Amen.
     
  23. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,180
    Let's call and find out.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page