From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:04:56 +0100 Archived: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:55:56 -0400 Subject: Re: Bluff And Double-Bluff? >From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:21:18 +0100 >Subject: Re: Bluff And Double-Bluff? >From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul> >Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:44:07 +0100 >Subject: Bluff And Double-Bluff? >>Should we be suspicious of the extremely simplistic and even >>childish interpretations of the actions and motives of beings >>perceived in some sightings and probably all C.E. situations? <snip> >Ray, there's a hidden assumption in your line of thinking that >seems to be present in nearly all discussion of this and related >issues. We know for sure that if ET (or extra-dimensional, or >whatever - it makes little difference) entities are involved, >then they must possess a technology far in advance of our own. >We then extrapolate from this, quite unjustifiably, that this >must mean that this technology is somehow fault-free or >foolproof. <snip> >So, my suggestion is that what we may be experiencing is the >outline of a typical Kilgore Trout scenario: the autopilot is >broken, the machine is still flying, the flight path is absurdly >and repetitively erratic, and we are reduced to the condition of >headless chickens in our pathetic attempts to interpret it. Gerald, your point is a nice one, which I didn't include for brevity's sake, and is covered by James P Hogan in his book. Although he never expresses a personal opinion, several of the debates or controversies in 'Kicking The Sacred Cow' - origin of life on earth/what really drives evolutio/has Earth life been manipulated by external forces/are there signs of 'intervention' in the wider universe/and can statistical analysis give a definitive answer to that question - all contain that question or perceived dichotomy, some as a central point. That is, should we expect 'perfection' in _any_ examples of life or even mechanisms. On that point Hogan asks "Do you think our computers or jet planes are actually 'perfect'? Or even perfectible?" (paraphrased). Saving the best for last (or nearly last) Hogan features the work of William Dembski in analyzing universal evidence to find sure-fire evidence of 'intervention', most likely from alien intelligences (but seen as an open door for creationists). It's outlined here: http://www.designinference.com/desinf.htm The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities. As always Hogan gives the opposing views, and, as almost always in our modern 'consensus' driven sciences (the consensus has always been wrong in the past - but no-one seems to recall that fact), it takes the form of misrepresentation, corrupt pressures (amounting to blackmail) and downright lies and threats. Summed up here: http://www.discovery.org/a/532 The Lynching Of Bill Dembski. [Deja vu: that hypocrisy of mainstream science is eerily a repeat of the Velikovsky affair - where luminaries like Sagan indulged in fake statistics and wild misrepresentation to try to discredit Velikovsky, and the establishment went so far as getting honest editors fired by threatening publishers with withdrawal of future business. Maybe see www.perceptions.couk.com/subindex.html#hubris for details of Sagan's over-reaching.] Did Dembski find the evidence he was seeking? I.e. has there been 'intervention' here on Earth or in the wider universe? Well, that depends on the weighting you give to his 'signs of intelligence' or the 'unlikelihood threshold' adopted to classify such signs. (I tend to think he has - but that's only a personal impression.) Again from a personal perspective - i.e not a ufologist, just an arm's-length observer - and considering all the data (that is, stuff that Dembski couldn't consider because it hasn't been published in the journals) such as the NASA and Russian near- space photos and films, I think there's overwhelming evidence of a panoply of external life, and that we see (are usually allowed to see) only the simplest - such as the 'test probes' and 'electricity feeders' seen below the atmosphere, and the 'intelligent transport vehicles' seen above the atmosphere, arriving and departing from and to outer space. Those we only glimpse - the 1/60th of a second superfast entities discovered by Martyn Stubbs - might be a sign of the 'slips' or imperfections of (some of) the real intelligences at work. And that might change Dembski's tentative conclusion into a rock-firm discovery. Repeat: I think that all appearances are deceptive and that _any_ C.E event (and many a sighting) is a double - or even treble - bluff (or higher). Cheers Ray D 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