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

John MacNeil:
Who is the authority who can officially decide the elongated skulls are real?
The very scientists you wish you could be like but dis, instead, from Fog Island.
So I, and I'm sure everyone else, would like to know where the final authority lies, exactly.
Group consensus: formally, the very group of professional Scientists you're so sure are clueless idiots. Informally, it lies with your less-rigorously compelled, fellow SciForumers--none of whom have come to the defense of any of your ill-supported propositions.

You're suspecting another conspiracy right about now, aren't you? :rolleyes:
So, Q, since the dividend precludes the truth for the media then we can rule out the journals Nature, New Scientist et al. as being part of your peer review that you folks can fall back on later to try and buttress your failing argument. Since you, understandably, refrain from specifying exactly who has responsibility, so that you can arbitrarily jettison any which fail to uphold the Big Lie Theory, we'll content ourselves with whittling away at your support, which dialectally transfers belief away from your Big Lie Theory and towards my more rational realism.

The Darwinian Theory of Evolution states unequivocally that hominids first developed on this planet approximately 65 million year ago. As another huge nail in the coffin of the long dead evolution theory, here is evidence that proves hominids were on this planet hundreds of million of year ago. This evidence is supported by the irrefutable cat-scan, as required by Mr.G., and by other scientific procedures initiated by the leading world authority in their field. Re: Men As Old As Coal.


And, Mr.G., I am not daunted by having to hold up my end of the discussion by myself, thank you very much. And if you think I would ever wish to be associated with those scientists who religiously refrain from being truthful and who wholeheartedly endorse such an abomination as the Big Lie Theory, you are sadly mistaken.

hehe - thanks for the link - I had a good chuckle.

What's interesting though, is that you used the Smithsonian as support for your claims, without providing said evidence I might add, and now you produce the Ed Conrad link (still chuckling) who denounces the Smithsonian on grounds of lack of integrity.

You've got quite the sense of humor.
Yes. Your fringe ideas, and the community from which they are expressed, are just like the Beverly Hillbillies: folks, not unlike wannabe lottery winners, who wish the shear effort of wishing would only be the equivalent of others' educated, hard work.

You complain that professional Science ignores your camp's hypotheses. Why don't you also complain that professional baseball, professional wrestling, professional escort services, and professional plumbers also aren't returning your phone calls?

After all, the professions are usually about skills in addition to imagination. Everyone has an imagination. It's skills that separate the men from the boys.

Demonstrate your professional-level skills; answer James R's questions (James, right now, is working on his PhD in Physics. Surely, were you requiring surgery, even you would go to a graduated, certified Doctor, and not to a voodoo Shaman.).

Your credibility remains an open question. Demonstrate you know as much about Physics, including particle physics, as does James R.

Answer his questions.

You've had more than enough time since James R. first asked for clarification to Google search for the answers and cut'n'paste them into a knowledgeable-like response.

If you cannot divine from available sources the answers to his questions, how is anyone to be convinced that you can divine better than others the ultimate significance of a couple of misshappen skulls and the actual thoughts of Albert Einstein, whom you've never met, but claim to have read and drawn quite discordant conclusions from everyone else?

Answer the questions.
You guys are really so funny, Mr.G. You are exactly like the creationists when faced with the reality contradicting their faith based beliefs. You'll do anything, try any dodge, to avoid having to confront evidence that is staring you right in the face but which contradicts your phony theories.

Now.., I'm sure James is a good kid and I don't mean to belittle him in any way, but he really should read more about classical mechanics and get the silly notions of the Ultimate Creation Theory, Black Hole Theory, and those even stupider String Theories out of his head. Those theories are dead and buried, Mr.G. All the top scientists know that, and have known it for more than a decade, but the transition of knowledge hasn't filtered down to the junior levels yet. I said earlier that we could go back to discussing photon construction later on, but first we must regard other evidence and evaluate it in order to assemble our case. I don't know if you've had any training in law, but a good lawyer will present many facets of his evidence, so that they are regarded individually, before linking them all together with a summation. So I think insead of dodging every bit of evidence that is presented, you should attempt to logically refute the evidence, or agree that it is logical evidence.

Your view that you are successfully disputing the evidence that I present can only be a personal viewpoint. If you read over the previous posts, you'll notice that I have been presenting the logical viewpoint consistent with the classical mechanics of physics as it relates to the Unified Field Theory, and it has been you who has repeatedly refused to engage in the discussion.

From an objective viewpoint, it would appear that science is not defined properly for students of science. Essentially, science is the search for truth. If evidence is allowed to be ignored or purposely given a less than idealistic decription, then the science is not constructed on a sound foundation and eventually that will be found out. It would be impossible for it not to be so. If I am not convincing you that science dictates a logical interaction, as opposed to chaos, then that is perfectly fine. You have every right to believe whatever you wish to, but I believe it is encumbant on you to at least discuss the subject from a logical viewpoint, without resorting to emotionalism.
John MacNeil:

Evidence? What evidence? All you have is idle speculations--about invisible aliens, misshapen skulls, a vast science-wing conspiracy, and at least one dead person. Your speculations, based on 'evidence' and the lack thereof, are quite able to be interpreted in many ways other than how you've chosen to interpret them. Of course, you have the freedom to believe, think and say whatever you want. You even have the freedom to raise your own funds so you can conduct your own scientific reseach to prove to the world the "Truth", as you see it.

You're also free to continue your obituarial proclamations regarding formal Science's great theories: the Standard Cosmological Model, Quantum Mechanics, Evolution and Plate Tectonics, as long as you like. You may eventually find someone who actually finds your 'evidence' and 'truth' persuasive.

You're free to use logic to speak for your 'evidence' when it has so little to say by itself, or to correct the speaking 'evidence' if it is saying the wrong thing.

You're free to think that Science is the search for "Truth", even though it isn't. You're free to believe that Science has a preconceived notion of what it wants to find and purposely excludes from consideration whatever might be evidence for something for which Science isn't looking.

You're free to think and say whatever floats your boat. We're free to observe your bilge pump isn't working.
Mr. G.,

Why rant? All of the evidence that I've supplied is worthy of discussion. If you can't understand that, then you must have some type of mental block restricting your thought processes.

Here's a book by Col. Philip J. Corso called 'The Day After Roswell' c.1997. Why don't you go out and buy it and read it so you can get with reality?


In the book are documents pertaining to the subject by Lt. Gen. Arthur G. Trudeau and by Lt. Gen. N.F. Twining, Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force. The foreword to the book is written by the long serving U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond.

As I've mentioned before, the U.S. government has a gradual program of making the public aware of what's really going on, but that appears to have passed you by completely.
Just off topic, I use to Rant at Mr. G, But reading that last post.. I've got nothing but respect for the man.

Is it me or are "Scientologists" trying to creep into the Real science fields?
I wasn't saying you had to buy into anything, Mr.G. I'm mostly saying to at least discuss the evidence I present in a logical fashion. I'm not a person who believes in ghosts or fairy tales either, hence my rejection of the Ultimate Creation Theory.

As for the two links which you provided that are intended to claim Col. Corso's book as a hoax, neither one of them rings true. The first reference, to Stanton Friedman, atempted to give a renunciation but mostly questioned trivial particulars which have no bearing on the major substance of the book. Mr. Friedman complained about there not being an index, but he never mentioned General Twining's signed memo to Brig. General George Schulgen, Commanding General of the Army Air Forces, about the UFO's that Lieutenant General Twining's command was investigating. On the first page of that signed memo it states,

1. As requested by AC/AS-2 there is presented below the considered opinion of this Command concerning the so-called "Flying Discs". This opinion is based on interrogation report data furnished by AC/AS-2 and preliminary studies by personnel of T-2 and Aircraft Laboratory, Engineering Division T-3. This opinion was arrived at in a conference between personnel from the Air Institute of Technology, Intelligence T-2, Office, Chief of Enginering Division, and the Aircraft, Power Plant and Propeller Laboratories of Engineering Division T-3.

2. It is the opinion that;

a. The phenomena reported is something real and not visionary or ficticious.

b. There are objects probably approximating the shape of a disc, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as man-made aircraft.

c. There is a possibility that some of the incidents may be caused by natural phenomena, such as meteors.

d. The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and action which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely.

e. The apparent common description of the objects is as follows:

(1) Metallic or light reflecting surface.

(2) Absence of trail, except in a few instances when the object was apparently operating under high performance conditions.

(3) Circular or eliptical in shape, flat on bottom and domed on top.

(4) Several reports of well kept formation flights varying from three to nine objects.

(5) Normally no associated sound, except in three instances a substantial rumbling roar was noted.

(6) Level flight speeds normally above 300 knots are estimated.

Stanton Friedman makes no mention of the above signed memo or the other reports in the book by Lieutenant General Twining. Friedman's own book had just come out previous to Col. Corso's book, so his critique of the book cannot be without conflict of interest, especially since Col. Corso's book has a signed memo from the General in charge. And at the end, Friedman didn't denounce the book, he stated that "Time will tell."

The second site you referenced doesn't refute or mention the signed memo by General Twining either. Nor does it mention the other reports by General Twining. It is obviously just some guy's website which isn't even very good.

Perhaps you should read and assess the book yourself. It is definately an interesting account.
Last edited:
Perhaps you should read and assess the book yourself.
Perhaps I should experience, first-hand, suicide--for the insights believed by some to be worth it. :rolleyes:

Sorry. My bullshit filter cuts off my oxygen whenever it senses I might be accommodating such drivel.
<i>All of the evidence that I've supplied is worthy of discussion.</i>

Yet you refuse to discuss it.

If you want discussion, start by answering my questions. Stop avoiding them. That's how discussion works:

1. You put your view.
2. I ask you to clarify it.
3. You do so.
4. I then put my view, which may be different.
5. You ask for any clarification you need.
6. In light of our respective exchange of views, we revise and/or refine our positions.
7. If we are not yet in agreement, return to step 1.
8. Stop.

In this discussion, we haven't quite managed to get to step 3 yet. The ball's in your court.
The way you guys carry on a discussion, the ball's always been in my court, James. You seem to be hoping to win by hanging out behind the baseline. If you want to win, you have to go with the flow and you have to come to the net when that is required. You can't win by refusing to touch the ball.

Out of curiosity, since Mr.G. said you were studying for your Phd. in physics, how many, and which, books by Einstein were, or are, part of your curriculum?

And how many, and which ones, have you read?
The odd thing is, having been in the military with Secret and Crypto clearance, I know there are some veruy odd secrets out there, but I rarely believe them when I hear (or read) them.

I have read some papers by Einstein.

You have to realise that the theory of special relativity was written in 1905. That's almost 100 years ago. A lot has happened in physics and in relativity itself since then. People have found better ways of explaining things and solving problems than were available when Einstein wrote his theory down for the first time. Whilst going back to the source can be an interesting exercise from a historical point of view, it is often unnecessary in science. The litmus test for a scientific theory is whether it matches observation - not whether it is true to the vision of its founder. Modern relativity stacks up very well. In essence it has not changed in 100 years, but we understand it and its implications a lot better. Other people have expanded on Einstein's work. Einstein was the first word in relativity, but not the last by a long shot.