Why is sciforums traffic so low now?

[Magical Realist]

Although, my favourite from that thread was when you argued that a UFO had to be aerodynamic to fly through space.. Ah good times..

Lying doesn't suit you. I never said that. I said ufos are probably aerodynamic in order to fly thru planetary atmospheres. And it makes perfect sense. A Borg cube, while being perfectly suitable for space, wouldn't do well in earth's atmosphere. Too much air friction.

You mean like the evidence you posted of a UFO that was so compelling? You literally posted somethingthat was clearly fake and photoshopped and you claimed it was real, pitched a fit when someone pointed out it was in fact fake.

Another lie. Here was my actual response:"On further examination, maybe so. I noticed the boy's saucer pics are more stretched out, which I suppose could be done on photoshop. Good catch."

Dude, I would weep with joy if UFO's or ghosts or whatever else was real

Belief in ufos is not nearly so emotionally cathartic. Despite our assurance that they do indeed exist, there are more mysteries about their origin and purpose that remain frustratingly unresolved. So for me that ufos exist is about as exciting as the fact that dark matter exists or quantum entanglement exists. Same with ghosts and esp. It doesn't feed any spiritual need in me at all that these things are real. I get my spiritual food from other sources, like a summer thunderstorm, and a snowcapped mountain, and the Tao Te Ching, and a baby's laughter.

Until you have actual evidence, we aren't interested and would prefer you didn't post it.

All I do is post evidence. And then I go thru 20 pages of trolls flaming me and arguing that what I posted isn't evidence. Which is a total lie. Don't believe me? Peruse the massive "Why is the govt hiding its knowledge of ufos" thread. There's around 18 well-documented cases of ufo contact posted there, none for which any plausible alternative explanation has been offered.

It isn't traumatising. It is more disgust

Sounds very subjective to me. I used to be disgusted by calamari, until I tried it a few times.

 

[Kittamaru]

Haha. As Richard Dawkins observed, "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000ft and I'll show you a hypocrite.".

Not sure I get the implication there - is it that a cultural relativist would refuse to use an aircraft?

 

[rpenner]

It's that no cultural relativist would say it's OK to JUST have a local belief official certify the plane meets local cultural norms before being allowed to fly. You would want it checked by people who know stuff about flying in some verifiable absolute sense.

There is a fashionable salon philosophy called cultural relativism which holds, in its extreme form, that science has no more claim to truth than tribal myth: science is just the mythology favored by our modern Western tribe. I once was provoked by an anthropologist colleague into putting the point starkly, as follows: Suppose there is a tribe, I said, who believe that the moon is an old calabash tossed into the sky, hanging only just of reach above the treetops. Do you really claim that our scientific truth — that the moon is about a quarter of a million miles away and a quarter of the diameter of the Earth — is no more true than the tribe’s calabash? “Yes,” the anthropologist said. “We are just brought up in a culture than sees the world in another way. Neither is more true than the other.”

Show me a cultural relativist at thirty thousand feet and I’ll show you a hypocrite. Airplanes are built according to scientific principles and they work. They stay aloft and they get you to a chosen destination. Airplanes built to tribal or mythological specifications such as the dummy planes of the Cargo cults in jungle clearings or the bees-waxed wings of Icarus don’t. If you are flying to an international congress of anthropologists or literary critics, the reason you will probably get there — the reason you don’t plummet into a ploughed field — is that a lot of Western scientifically trained engineers have got their sums right. Western science, acting on good evidence that the moon orbits the Earth a quarter of a million miles away, using Western-designed computers and rockets, has succeeded in placing people on its surface. Tribal science, believing that the moon is just above the treetops, will never touch it outside of dreams.

River Out of Eden (1995, pp. 31-32)

Dawkins doesn't address the insane value system that made simply going to the moon a priority and his use of the qualification "Western" doesn't make sense except in the context that he was addressing a stated belief that valuing science (which belongs to all humans in equal share by my estimation) was imposing "Western" culture.

 

[Kittamaru]

It's that no cultural relativist would say it's OK to JUST have a local belief official certify the plane meets local cultural norms before being allowed to fly. You would want it checked by people who know stuff about flying in some verifiable absolute sense.

River Out of Eden (1995, pp. 31-32)

Dawkins doesn't address the insane value system that made simply going to the moon a priority and his use of the qualification "Western" doesn't make sense except in the context that he was addressing a stated belief that valuing science (which belongs to all humans in equal share by my estimation) was imposing "Western" culture.

oooh lol, fair enough

 

[krash661]

Bingo!

Has the traffic dropped for this site? Yes. It has and the reason I know it has is because over the better part of the last year or so, the staff had found ourselves in a situation where we were logging on to ban dozens of people an hour (my record was around 100+ pages of spam threads deleted and then moved in one sub-forum alone and I think it was over 60 spammers banned in one go and it took me about 2 hours to do and that was for just one sub-forum.. it took me several hours to clear the other equally spammed sub-forums, while trying to ban them as they were signing on at the same time). To wit, the numbers were so high at around this time last year, because we were getting in excess of a hundred new members a day, increasing site traffic and visitors, but these new members were spammers. Looking at other websites, who are seeing their number of visits shoot up, they also have severe spammer issues.

And we lost a lot of members during that period, simply because it had become nearly impossible to post at any given moment. Someone would start a thread and within about 30 seconds, that thread would be on the 30th page of the sub-forum it was posted on, simply because spammers would flood that sub-forum. We also lost some staff members from burn out because it had become absolutely insane.

Yes, we have lost actual members, but we have also gained new members. People come and go. We have all left for periods and then returned later. Real life, not being happy with the level of scientific discussion here at any given time, or dissatisfied with what people feel were the political leanings of those who post here (we have been accused of being leftist liberals by some and right wing fascists by others), to how we tolerate or do not tolerate people's personal beliefs, I could go on.. then returning and seeing how it is now going, rinse and repeat.

Do people want to see a jump by 34% to go back to last year's rate of visitors and new members? Sure, just remove the spam protection on this site. It will go up then, but you just won't be able to post anything in the sea of spam that will infest this site. I mean, if we are looking at just the numbers, that is your solution.

There is this expectation that we have to please everyone. We cannot. That would be an impossible task. What we can do is try and have an expectation for how people post, what they post and where and try and get people to be able to support their arguments. There are a variety of different subjects being discussed on this site, in the hope that there is something for everyone, and also in the hope of trying to keep the woo out of the science sub-forums and we also try to instill the need for supporting one's arguments throughout this forum. We are all individuals, with different opinions, beliefs, experiences, education, culture. We cannot please everyone. But we can expect that others post in good faith and be able to argue their points in good faith and be able to support their arguments or claims..

I wonder if moderators were paid and then more moderators were added-- i would put big money on the fact that this site would do a turn-a-round. there is a phrase that states: " a team, a company, or whatever, is only as good as the person running it."

 

[Yazata]

Here's a slightly modified version of something I posted on the 'what kind of evidence would satisfy me' thread, and it seems relevant here too:

My first post to that thread said that physical evidence, things such as live or deceased cryptozoological creatures, physical ufos whether crashed or landed, the ability to perform biological investigations on their occupants, would be the kind of thing that I might find convincing. (And given that I'm not qualified to perform those examinations, they would have to be performed by parties that I trust.)

But what about belief the other way? Does anything justify Sciforums' profound conviction that ufos ARE NOT alien spaceships? What kind of evidence supports that belief about the nature of reality? Wouldn't lack of a crashed saucer be just as good evidence of the reliability of the vehicles as evidence of their non-existence?

There's an obvious analogy with belief in God and I think that here too, agnosticism is more intellectually defensible than either belief or outright denial.

I'm still curious about the anger and hostility that the whole subject elicits among self-styled "skeptics", both here on Sciforums and in organizations like CSICOP. It reminds me of the hatred for religion that some of the "new atheists" wear on their sleeves.

 

[exchemist]

Not sure I get the implication there - is it that a cultural relativist would refuse to use an aircraft?

People who argue the methods of science are just another ritual or set of structured "stories about the world" don't really believe the cant they preach. If they did, they would not dare to fly.

 

[exchemist]

Here's a slightly modified version of something I posted on the 'what kind of evidence would satisfy me' thread, and it seems relevant here too:

My first post to that thread said that physical evidence, things such as live or deceased cryptozoological creatures, physical ufos whether crashed or landed, the ability to perform biological investigations on their occupants, would be the kind of thing that I might find convincing. (And given that I'm not qualified to perform those examinations, they would have to be performed by parties that I trust.)

But what about belief the other way? Does anything justify Sciforums' profound conviction that ufos ARE NOT alien spaceships? What kind of evidence supports that belief about the nature of reality? Wouldn't lack of a crashed saucer be just as good evidence of the reliability of the vehicles as evidence of their non-existence?

There's an obvious analogy with belief in God and I think that here too, agnosticism is more intellectually defensible than either belief or outright denial.

I'm still curious about the anger and hostility that the whole subject elicits among self-styled "skeptics", both here on Sciforums and in organizations like CSICOP. It reminds me of the hatred for religion that some of the "new atheists" wear on their sleeves.

I think you confuse irritation with hatred.

 

[Magical Realist]

But what about belief the other way? Does anything justify Sciforums' profound conviction that ufos ARE NOT alien spaceships? What kind of evidence supports that belief about the nature of reality? Wouldn't lack of a crashed saucer be just as good evidence of the reliability of the vehicles as evidence of their non-existence?

The only way the disbelievers in ufos would have a case is if they proved it impossible that intelligent non-human beings are visiting earth in advanced craft beyond our technology. That's the only way they could prove their point. Even if every ufo were proven to be swamp gas, or ball lightning, or a mass hallucination, there is no guarantee at all that one might appear tomorrow in the sky. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Which is why they all have conniption fits when confronted with the evidence and get overly emotional and angrily blame threads on this topic for the loss of forum traffic. Nobody likes their reality paradigm overturned.

 

[Kittamaru]

The only way the disbelievers in ufos would have a case is if they proved it impossible that intelligent non-human beings are visiting earth in advanced craft beyond our technology. That's the only way they could prove their point. Even if every ufo were proven to be swamp gas, or ball lightning, or a mass hallucination, there is no guarantee at all that one might appear tomorrow in the sky. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Which is why they all have conniption fits when confronted with the evidence and get overly emotional and angrily blame threads on this topic for the loss of forum traffic. Nobody likes their reality paradigm overturned.

MR - do you even hear yourself? "Even if every UFO were proven to be something mundane, there is no guarantee that one might appear tomorrow"... what does that even mean? Yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, that is true. However, absence of evidence against is also not evidence for something. By definition, all you have is conjecture and theory. As a result, there is insufficient evidence to claim any extraordinary facts...

Now, say it with me - "I don't know what that thing was"... c'mon, it's not a hard phrase!

 

[Daecon]

Here's a slightly modified version of something I posted on the 'what kind of evidence would satisfy me' thread, and it seems relevant here too:

My first post to that thread said that physical evidence, things such as live or deceased cryptozoological creatures, physical ufos whether crashed or landed, the ability to perform biological investigations on their occupants, would be the kind of thing that I might find convincing. (And given that I'm not qualified to perform those examinations, they would have to be performed by parties that I trust.)

But what about belief the other way? Does anything justify Sciforums' profound conviction that ufos ARE NOT alien spaceships? What kind of evidence supports that belief about the nature of reality? Wouldn't lack of a crashed saucer be just as good evidence of the reliability of the vehicles as evidence of their non-existence?

There's an obvious analogy with belief in God and I think that here too, agnosticism is more intellectually defensible than either belief or outright denial.

I'm still curious about the anger and hostility that the whole subject elicits among self-styled "skeptics", both here on Sciforums and in organizations like CSICOP. It reminds me of the hatred for religion that some of the "new atheists" wear on their sleeves.

Does anything justify the belief that UFO aren't conjoured up by wizards and are piloted by unicorns? Or that they aren't actually magic carpets piloted by Arabian street urchins with princesses along for the ride? Or...

 

[Billy T]

The only way the disbelievers in ufos would have a case is if they proved it impossible that intelligent non-human beings are visiting earth in advanced craft beyond our technology. That's the only way they could prove their point. ...

Negatives / non-existance can only be proved in tautologies, like mathematics.

The only burden of proof is on those who want to claim UFOs do exist. I believe that UFOs do not exist because space is so vast and it is extremely unlikely that some other society more advanced than our would have sent their UFO in this direction, several million years ago so it could be near earth now. There is nothing special or interesting about our star, the sun. There are billions of stars more interesting to visit, if your technology allows that.

 

[Magical Realist]

The only burden of proof is on those who want to claim UFOs do exist.

The proof is in the pudding. Thousands of cases of ufo encounters involving craft beyond our technology and witnessed with occupants exiting and entering said craft. There is more evidence for ufos than for ball lightning or earthquake lights, which are now totally accepted by science. You have only to look for yourself.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/

 

[Kittamaru]

The proof is in the pudding. Thousands of cases of ufo encounters involving craft beyond our technology and witnessed with occupants exiting and entering said craft. There is more evidence for ufos than for ball lightning or earthquake lights, which are now totally accepted by science. You have only to look for yourself.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/

And hundreds of years ago, people believed the rains were brought by Gods whom they had to sacrifice animals/people/etc to... it was a worldwide accepted thing. The Sun was a deity itself, as was the moon. The stars were the spirits of long passed ancestors.

Guess what - that doesn't make it truth - just because you cannot adequately explain something doesn't mean you get to make up fairy tales about it.

 

[Billy T]

The proof is in the pudding. Thousands of cases of ufo encounters involving craft beyond our technology and witnessed with occupants exiting and entering said craft. ...

What did these "occupants" look like? Was the entering and exiting done with the UFO on the ground? Or did a "hovering" UFO, let a ladder down?

None of the photographs in the 2000 to present section impressed me. Why is there not at least one clear photo illustrating a UFO, that looks to be more than a unexplained dot or blur in the sky?

 

[Magical Realist]

What did these "occupants" look like? Was the entering and exiting done with the UFO on the ground? Or did a "hovering" UFO, let a ladder down?

The occupants appear humanoid in uniforms or metallic suits and in many cases appear short, like around 4 feet tall. The occupants exit the craft after it has landed on the ground thru a hatch or a ramp. Review the humanoid encounter cases I gave you in that link.

 

[Magical Realist]

And hundreds of years ago, people believed the rains were brought by Gods whom they had to sacrifice animals/people/etc to... it was a worldwide accepted thing. The Sun was a deity itself, as was the moon. The stars were the spirits of long passed ancestors.

Guess what - that doesn't make it truth - just because you cannot adequately explain something doesn't mean you get to make up fairy tales about it.

Says the guy who believes in Bible stories like David and Goliath and Noah's Ark. lol!

 

[paddoboy]

Hmmm, perhaps the forum traffic is low because everyone has been scared away by the Alien space craft, Goblins, ghosts, Supernatural happenings, Bigfoots etc
Just saying.

 

[Kittamaru]

Says the guy who believes in Bible stories like David and Goliath and Noah's Ark. lol!

*shrug* At least there's physical evidence to support that those people actually existed - unlike your lil grey men.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ev...t-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533

The story of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood is one of the most famous from the Bible, and now an acclaimed underwater archaeologist thinks he has found proof that the biblical flood was actually based on real events.

In an interview with Christiane Amanpour for ABC News, Robert Ballard, one of the world's best-known underwater archaeologists, talked about his findings. His team is probing the depths of the Black Sea off the coast of Turkey in search of traces of an ancient civilization hidden underwater since the time of Noah.

Ballard's track record for finding the impossible is well known. In 1985, using a robotic submersible equipped with remote-controlled cameras, Ballard and his crew hunted down the world's most famous shipwreck, the Titanic.

Now Ballard is using even more advanced robotic technology to travel farther back in time. He is on a marine archeological mission that might support the story of Noah. He said some 12,000 years ago, much of the world was covered in ice.

"Where I live in Connecticut was ice a mile above my house, all the way back to the North Pole, about 15 million kilometers, that's a big ice cube," he said. "But then it started to melt. We're talking about the floods of our living history."

The water from the melting glaciers began to rush toward the world's oceans, Ballard said, causing floods all around the world.

"The questions is, was there a mother of all floods," Ballard said.

According to a controversial theory proposed by two Columbia University scientists, there really was one in the Black Sea region. They believe that the now-salty Black Sea was once an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland, until it was flooded by an enormous wall of water from the rising Mediterranean Sea. The force of the water was two hundred times that of Niagara Falls, sweeping away everything in its path.

Fascinated by the idea, Ballard and his team decided to investigate.

"We went in there to look for the flood," he said. "Not just a slow moving, advancing rise of sea level, but a really big flood that then stayed... The land that went under stayed under."

Four hundred feet below the surface, they unearthed an ancient shoreline, proof to Ballard that a catastrophic event did happen in the Black Sea. By carbon dating shells found along the shoreline, Ballard said he believes they have established a timeline for that catastrophic event, which he estimates happened around 5,000 BC. Some experts believe this was around the time when Noah's flood could have occurred.

"It probably was a bad day," Ballard said. "At some magic moment, it broke through and flooded this place violently, and a lot of real estate, 150,000 square kilometers of land, went under."

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideis...mon-exist-dig-refutes-naysayers/?mobile=false

In 1868, a stone tablet was discovered in Jordan. It was written by a Moabite king named Mesha, an enemy of Israel.

The stone dates to around 840 BC, less than 200 years after David and it provides the first known reference to the "House of David" outside the Bible.

"And 'House of David,' it means 'dynasty of David.' So we know that there was a guy called David, and he had a dynasty," Garfinkel said. "Okay, so now this is absolutely clear that David is not a mythological figure. So the mythological paradigm collapsed in one moment."

More than a hundred years later the same phrase, "House of David," turned up on another stone, this time in northern Israel.

It was written about 200 years after David's rule -- again, by one of Israel's enemies, Hazel, the king of Damascus. "He said, I killed 70 kings. I killed a king from Israel and a king from the House of David," Garfinkel explained.

One of David's greatest victories took place in the valley of Elah. This is where the young shepherd boy killed the giant Goliath, and it's one of the few places where you can still catch a glimpse of the Israel that David knew.

Nearby are the ruins of the Philistine city of Gath, the hometown of Goliath and the remains of the brook where David found the stone that killed him.

And high above the valley is a fortress that's thousands of years old to the local Bedouin. This place is still known as "Khirbet Daoud" or "David's Ruin." It's the only iron age city in Israel that's perfectly preserved and almost frozen in time.

"For us as archaeologists, this is one of the richest sites in Israel. This is like a biblical Pompeii," Garfinkel said.

Sadly for you, there is actually more physical and hands on evidence to support biblical stories than there is to support your bigfoot or ufo's... so, yeah. You should get off your high horse, cause it's looking more and more like a wretched ass rather than a prize stallion.

 

[Magical Realist]

Hmmm, perhaps the forum traffic is low because everyone has been scared away by the Alien space craft, Goblins, ghosts, Supernatural happenings, Bigfoots etc
Just saying.

If they're scared of fringe topics, they should stay out of the fringe forum. Just saying..