From: J. Maynard Gelinas <j.maynard.gelinas.nul> Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 21:08:57 -0400 Archived: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 08:04:09 -0400 Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift? >From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 09:58:48 -0700 (PDT) >Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift? Mr. Friedman, I would like to offer a response and defense of the scientific establishment here. For while some of your criticisms are accurate, they are also infused with sarcasm belies a similar confirmation bias in your response. This is Kuhn playing itself out from both angles, without any reasonable common ground between the two sides. Yet neither you nor Dr. Shostak know the underlying reality here. Nor do I. >Obviously the SETI community is unwilling to spend any time >reviewing the enormous amount of evidence that aliens have >been visiting Earth for at least many decades if not millennia. >Super sentients: YES! Aliens: NO! is the motto here. Yes. Let's be clear, Dr Shostak and the scientific majority do not view a "preponderance of the evidence" in the form of witness testimony and unverified documents to be _science._ Real scientists limit their factual statements highly specific claims based on repeat observations of controlled phenomena. UFOs are most certainly not under controls, and repetitions are intermittent and rarely recorded by instruments. Professional scientists _should_ be highly skeptical. Further, since the phenomena doesn't fit within the scientific method for study, professional scientists are limited in what and how to perform quantifiable research. That the majority have concluded - wrongly - that because they can't controllably test the phenomena therefore it must not exist is regrettable. Much time has been wasted. But it is not _unreasonable_. The difference between your claims about Roswell and the statements by Dr. Shostak are very simple: he is speculating; nothing more. >It is clear from their books (which I have read) and their >articles and lectures which I have reviewed, that they >essentially never review the UFO evidence such as the 5 large >scale scientific studies, the many multiple witness radar visual >cases, the physical trace cases involving reports not only of >flying saucers on the ground, but the 15% of those cases >involving reports of humanoids.They know nothing about national >security. Where are these humanoids? I've never seen one. I saw a flying saucer once; I definitely believe my own eyes. But I've never seen a humanoid alien. And I've got to say, the speculative arguments made by evolutionary biologists _against_ the notion of so many reports of different bilateral bipedal aliens make a lot of sense. The Pre-Cambrian explosion is just one example of how weird the morphology of biological forms can take. Life found in and around hydrothermal vents are another example of life taking form and sustenance in ways that belie the notion of repeating bilateral bipedalism throughout the nearby galaxy. There is simply no reason to assume that life repeats form across environments in that manner. From my perspective, those scientists have a strong point. The UFO community offers nothing to refute these arguments but testimony from alleged witnesses. So, the division here is: informed speculation vs. unverified testimony. Who wins? >They also are unwilling to review the evidence of abductions. >I can find no reason to accept proclamations from radio >astronomers about the behavior of aliens, no less earthlings. >Of course the reason is obvious. >There is no need for listening for primitive signals from out >there using technology compatible with ours.If aliens are >visiting, as they surely are, SETI which is looking for signals >not looking for aliens, is out of business. They are truly >getting desperate. The collective rule is "Don't bother us with >the facts,our minds are made up." >How pathetic and irrational. I could not disagree more. The SETI scientists have used what technology was available to conduct a search you almost certainly _should_ approve of. Don't you want to find intelligent life outside Earth? He's trying! He has more money and resources than you, many smart scientists working very hard to determine new methods for search, and decades of negative findings behind him. I'm going to take a longshot guess that he's never seen a disc in broad daylight. Why should he take your word for it? Or anyone else's for that matter? And as for digging through FIOA documents and reading journalistic (Good) or historical (Nolan) accounts of the subject matter is simply not what that guy does for a living. From my perspective, his words are neither irrational nor pathetic. Further, his insight on the potential for machine cognition as a means for life in space fits the known UFO facts just as well as those claims about biological entities. That is, if one takes the conservative perspective of Kean - that one should focus only on those cases with multiple simultaneous witnesses, radar records, and other physical evidence, then evidence for biological bipeds flying these things becomes somewhat scant. I don't write this to personally insult you. I greatly admire the hard work you put in collecting testimony and FOIA documents. But I think your statements here show a belligerence toward traditional space science that works at odds to your stated purpose: to get to the bottom of this weird UFO mystery. Shostack probably isn't interested in UFOs, but he does want to find alien intelligence. In that regard, you both seek the same ends. -M Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp