HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in
Similar topics
UFO Magazine Blog
UFO Magazine Blog
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 
Rechercher Advanced Search
Latest topics
Top posters
onlychild
 
Ufofiend
 
davefair
 
glider
 
Lesley
 
free wheel
 
Jeremy Vaeni
 
mantle1958
 
jackgbowman
 
LakehurstNJwitness
 
October 2017
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    
CalendarCalendar
Social bookmarking
Social bookmarking Digg  Social bookmarking Delicious  Social bookmarking Reddit  Social bookmarking Stumbleupon  Social bookmarking Slashdot  Social bookmarking Yahoo  Social bookmarking Google  Social bookmarking Blinklist  Social bookmarking Blogmarks  Social bookmarking Technorati  

Bookmark and share the address of The UFO Magazine Forum on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of The UFO Magazine Forum on your social bookmarking website
Forum

Share | 
 

 Evidence vs. Proof

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
Mike Good
CE 1
avatar

Number of posts : 155
Location : Left Field, California
Registration date : 2009-03-12

PostSubject: Re: Evidence vs. Proof   Sat May 16, 2009 4:10 am

kidflash2008 wrote:
An excellent point, Mike. Scientists may not have the tools to measure the phenomena and prove it exists. What they can do is document that any phenomena does not respond to such measurements, and try to find some way to measure what is needed.

Yes, we cannot prove love exists, but science has found out where in the brain many such activities come from. Deja vu is one of those ideas that may not really exist, as it is more of a feeling than a reality.

Thanks Lloyd,

Good luck with finding ways to "measure" this stuff. I think part of the problem lies with the kind of assumptions you have here. They are common in our culture: "we cannot prove love exists, but science has found out where in the brain many such activities come from"

What you imply is that "love" is a product of the brain. This is a typical Cartesian concept that essentially puts Descartes before the horse. It presupposes the absolute ascendancy of matter - matter as the be all to end all - and that consciousness is nothing more than a byproduct of physical bio-processes. This is precisely 180 degrees from what science has proven through quantum physics: consciousness is primary - matter only exists as a potential that is actualized by consciousness.

Science and our cultural mindsets are still stuck in 20th century Newtonian concepts of the nature of reality. This hurdle must be vaulted before science can even talk rationally about these sorts of things.

I have a theory about deja vu. It is no "feeling". If you have ever had it happen to you (and I know few people who say they have not experienced it), it is much deeper than a feeling. It is a MEMORY. Why do you think deja vu is so confusing to us? How does one have a "memory" of a future event?

I suspect Deja vu is a demonstration of the unity of the quantum field. The quantum field exists apart from our concepts of space and time. I think that deja vu may be a memory experienced out of phase, through the connective tissue of the quantum field.

Consciousness is the lubricant of the quantum vacuum. It is the be all to end all - not matter. Deja vu is the mind grabbing a memory from our future. It is the universe trying to tell us that our old stale cultural concepts are misconceptions.

If we bring these "scientific" misconceptions to the table when discussing things from outside our normal reality (the UFO for instance), I am pretty sure we will continue to be frustrated and disappointed at the results.

kidflash2008 wrote:
I must agree with you on the treatment of ufology and many researchers by the scientific community. However, I think we bring such treatment and scorn upon ourselves by not policing and vetting many of the sources completely. Ufology has been fooled by hoaxers before, and will continue to be done so until we decide it is enough. How many UFO sites show the same tired videos on YouTube and proclaim them to be real? Even after many have shown they are CGI?

I will always be looking at the evidence to make the case for flying saucers and to prove extraterrestrials may explain some of the sightings. It may make me a Don Quixote of ufology chasing after windmills, but I know there is evidence out there that will prove it once and for all.

Goddess bless,

Lloyd

There certainly is a material element to the UFO. As I said earlier, if you produce a real UFO, preferably with a couple of UFO dudes inside, then science will accept the UFO as a reality. But we don't have no stinking UFOs and the people who appear to have them are not sharing. This is nothing but bad luck for budding Don Quixotes like you and all of the other rational materialist UFOlogists out there.

You want to bring the UFO to the current cultural mindset. That is the paradoxical problem the above paragraph elucidates. In 60 years of these shenanigans, the only fruit this methodology has borne is bitter. Welcome to the land of "cranks and weirdos".

Like the Cartesian misconception explained above, short of producing a UFO, the only way to progress in this game is to invert the present conundrum: bring the mindset to the UFO. It may not provide "proof" or convince others that we are anything but cranks and weirdos, but it will bring a better understanding.

For my money, that sure beats the hell out of blunting our misguided spear points on intransigent windmills.... What a Face

Cheers!! rabbit

Mike
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lesley
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 343
Location : Land of Enchantment
Registration date : 2009-03-08

PostSubject: Re: Evidence vs. Proof   Sat May 16, 2009 8:41 am

Mike Good wrote:
Quote :
There certainly is a material element to the UFO. As I said earlier, if you produce a real UFO, preferably with a couple of UFO dudes inside, then science will accept the UFO as a reality. But we don't have no stinking UFOs and the people who appear to have them are not sharing. This is nothing but bad luck for budding Don Quixotes like you and all of the other rational materialist UFOlogists out there.

Not only are those people not sharing, but most of the scientists work for them -- at least in some respect.

I hear the lack of scientists investigating UFOs blamed on different things, but the real reason is that they need to make a living and there is no real money in UFOs. There are zillions of scientists here in NM. It isn't that they don't believe strange things are flying around (at least the ones I know) it is more that they have to feed their families and don't have the extra time and money needed to investigate and they can't risk losing their "real" job.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://thedebrisfield.blogspot.com
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Evidence vs. Proof   Sat May 16, 2009 4:57 pm

Mike, just because I stated science has found where love is located in the brain does not make me think love is only a chemical reaction. There are far more mysteries to the brain than physical science can explain.

I also see where you are coming from if one of the phenomena is extradimensional or has a psychic explanation. Again, those are difficult to prove with anything physical.

My thoughts are to go with the ET type hypothesis and try to prove that first. Once it is accepted, then other ideas would be batted around.

Lesley, one reason why scientists do not touch ufology is the lack of policing in itself. Too many kooks are ruining the field with some of the wildest theories out there. No evidence or any thing to back them up except for their "sources" who they cannot identify for whatever reasons. There is no vetting process, and checking of facts seems to be unheard of.

Until another Dr J Allen Hynek type comes to the UFO field, I think there will be a lack of other names such as Dr Stephen Hawking coming to the fold.
Back to top Go down
Lesley
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 343
Location : Land of Enchantment
Registration date : 2009-03-08

PostSubject: Re: Evidence vs. Proof   Sat May 16, 2009 6:08 pm

kidflash2008 wrote:
Mike, just because I stated science has found where love is located in the brain does not make me think love is only a chemical reaction. There are far more mysteries to the brain than physical science can explain.

I also see where you are coming from if one of the phenomena is extradimensional or has a psychic explanation. Again, those are difficult to prove with anything physical.

My thoughts are to go with the ET type hypothesis and try to prove that first. Once it is accepted, then other ideas would be batted around.

Lesley, one reason why scientists do not touch ufology is the lack of policing in itself. Too many kooks are ruining the field with some of the wildest theories out there. No evidence or any thing to back them up except for their "sources" who they cannot identify for whatever reasons. There is no vetting process, and checking of facts seems to be unheard of.

Until another Dr J Allen Hynek type comes to the UFO field, I think there will be a lack of other names such as Dr Stephen Hawking coming to the fold.

I totally disagree with it being the lack of policing. I have talked to a lot of scientists (I know a lot of scientists and live with one!) and none of them have ever mentioned that. None of them care about that. There are people considered frauds and crazies in science too. Lots of scientists have told me that they would love to investigate UFOs if they could make enough money to quit their job so they had time to do it and if there was enough real evidence to investigate - which there isn't. Lots of photos and film, but not much else for a scientist to sink his/her teeth into. There are some that realize they would be considered nutty if they did, but they don't blame that on Ufology because they know that will always go with the territory, no matter what, you can't stop people from stating their views even if they sound crazy.

There is no way to police Ufology, it isn't Nazi Germany, people can say and publish what they want. Science can't even be policed and there are plenty of fringe scientists. As with Ufology, most people that are interested can easily figure what is reliable. That is not to say that I think fringe science is useless or even the fringe of ufology. I have often noticed that people with the "crazy" theories hit upon at least one thing in that theory that is worth investigating.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://thedebrisfield.blogspot.com
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Evidence vs. Proof   Sun May 17, 2009 6:36 pm

I agree with you that people should be able to publish whatever theories and stories they want to. I am one to hope that there is at least some type of vetting process to help expose the kooks and those in it for the money.

Maybe if some scientists actually went into the ufology field part time would there be some respect thrown into the corner.
Back to top Go down
Mike Good
CE 1
avatar

Number of posts : 155
Location : Left Field, California
Registration date : 2009-03-12

PostSubject: Re: Evidence vs. Proof   Mon May 18, 2009 11:36 am

kidflash2008 wrote:
Maybe if some scientists actually went into the ufology field part time would there be some respect thrown into the corner.

KF,

That already happened: guys like Stan Friedman, J. Allen Hynek, John Mack, Phil Imbrogno, Bruce Macabee and Jacques Vallee are all well respected scientists in their individual fields of study. I am sure there are many more but these are the ones that came off the top of my head.

So..... where's the respect? confused

Nice try, but a few scientists do not change the prevailing cultural mindset. It will take something more than that. Disclosure or an event 'the powers that be' cannot deny are the only things I can think of that will make that dog hunt.

Meanwhile, each of us can change our mindset anytime we want. We do not have to be victims of the prevailing status quo. We each choose whether or not we want to play that game. We do not need the culture to agree with us to validate ourselves.

Personally, I think that outside the box is the best place to be. That allows us to see beyond the cultural restrictions. The view from outside looking in gives us a broader perspective. That allows us not to be manipulated by the collective somnambulism.

I think it is better to be awake. How about you?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jocariah
CE 2
avatar

Number of posts : 212
Registration date : 2009-03-16

PostSubject: Re: Evidence vs. Proof   Mon May 18, 2009 12:42 pm

Mike Good...""Meanwhile, each of us can change our mindset anytime we want. We do not have to be victims of the prevailing status quo. We each choose whether or not we want to play that game. We do not need the culture to agree with us to validate ourselves.""

Excellent point, Mike

With regard to this matter, there is a preponderance of evidence.

People that say “what evidence” simply haven’t looked, and if they have looked don’t see it. And if they don’t see it after having looked, it’s because they DON’T want to see it.

And if they don’t want to see it, it doesn’t matter how much evidence there is…it won’t matter - it simply won't matter.

Why?

Because as I stated in my opening remarks here, “people don’t want to change their ‘worldview’”…..period! They have a vested interest NOT to change it.

,,,or as Mike stated..."each of us can change our mindset"

There again, it all goes back to our thought process.

Cheers
Jocariah

.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Evidence vs. Proof   Mon May 18, 2009 3:28 pm

While some of those names are respected, many skeptics are very disrespectful of Mr Friedman. I do not know what they think of Jacques Vallee, but I would not be surprised if it is negative. They should all be commended for taking on the subject at the cost of ridicule.

I agree it is good to think outside the box, but also have one foot in the box also.

I guess we will differ on what to look for in order to prove the phenomena exists. That is OK, as we all have the common goal of finding out what is going on. That is much better than ignoring the subject altogether.
Back to top Go down
LakehurstNJwitness
CE 2
avatar

Number of posts : 219
Registration date : 2009-03-26

PostSubject: Re: Evidence vs. Proof   Mon May 18, 2009 8:17 pm

Mike Good wrote:
kidflash2008 wrote:
Maybe if some scientists actually went into the ufology field part time would there be some respect thrown into the corner.

KF,

That already happened: guys like Stan Friedman, J. Allen Hynek, John Mack, Phil Imbrogno, Bruce Macabee and Jacques Vallee are all well respected scientists in their individual fields of study. I am sure there are many more but these are the ones that came off the top of my head.

So..... where's the respect? confused

Nice try, but a few scientists do not change the prevailing cultural mindset. It will take something more than that. Disclosure or an event 'the powers that be' cannot deny are the only things I can think of that will make that dog hunt.

Meanwhile, each of us can change our mindset anytime we want. We do not have to be victims of the prevailing status quo. We each choose whether or not we want to play that game. We do not need the culture to agree with us to validate ourselves.

Personally, I think that outside the box is the best place to be. That allows us to see beyond the cultural restrictions. The view from outside looking in gives us a broader perspective. That allows us not to be manipulated by the collective somnambulism.

I think it is better to be awake. How about you?


You basically just repeated the message of Christianity. Jesus taught similar principals, nobody asked mankind to think outside the box more than Jesus did , and he was ultimately crucified for it. All of his teachings were about letting go of the perceived safety net of living for this world and this life in the flesh, and stepping out in faith to live this life as a living sacrifice to him, as he was sacrificed for you. If you look at it honestly and think about the time in which he asked humanity to "think outside the box", you have to admit it was the single biggest message ever presented to humanity about thinking outside the box.

And just because two thousand years has passed since that day, it shouldn't diminish the act and the following it caused. I'm very happy to be following the one who asked that we think outside the box. Now that so many years has gone by people look at the change in mindset as ancient history .. and they find themselves back at square one looking for answers and thinking to themselves that there must be more to it than this , and like you they search to find something outside the norm of thinking and belief systems , but if you could stop and see the forest thru the trees you might realize that Jesus was exactly what you state you're looking for.

Do you see the similarities ?

Jocariah was posting about "End Times" earlier ... same thing ... been there, done that , its called christianity and we were the ones who made the term "End Times" fashionable. It's all about the Bible prophecies and Jesus' teachings. Jocariah's End Times message looked like it could've come from any christian preacher down the street .... but people reject the outside the box savior and they keep looking for the same things they're rejecting.

This is why religion is intertwined into the entire subject, you can try and seperate the two and sterilize the language to try and keep religion out of it, but in the end it keeps coming right back to where it started ... just as yours and Jocoriahs posts show...same message as christianity , different spin.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Evidence vs. Proof   Tue May 19, 2009 6:39 pm

LakehurstNJwitness I think their is a difference between religious faith and proving aliens are visiting Earth. Religion has to do with faith while proving an alien hypothesis has more to do with science. While there are many who have faith in their belief that aliens exist, I am one to be more logical in the manner. There are many cases out there that suggest we have been visited by aliens and the government is covering up the fact.

Others may want to go into what spiritual or religious beliefs they may have, but I am one to want to prove they are visiting us and have so in the past. I did not use any faith to come to the conclusion we have been visited, but the facts and evidence that is available. Now, I have to prove the theory, and that takes much more evidence than what is available so far.

It is true there are biblical scholars and archeologists out there who are looking for facts to back up the Bible, just as there are those who are looking for the evidence to back up the ET hypothesis.

In my spiritual journey I am also looking for knowledge, but it is not necessarily evidence. I hope I have shown a difference between the scientific method and faith.

Goddess bless,

Lloyd
Back to top Go down
rlee@orangeorb.net
New Member


Number of posts : 6
Location : Oregon
Registration date : 2009-03-11

PostSubject: Re: Evidence vs. Proof   Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:21 pm

LakehurstNJwitness wrote:
With all due respect , you're both being hypocritical in your responses to kidflash.

You want kidflash to "openly embrace and accept" something, yet the both of you do not "openly embrace and accept" christianity as you've made clear in your posts.
Infact you both resort to the same language when denouncing the christianity as a person uses when questioning UFOlogy ... "why should I believe in that?" ... "Its stuff that other people said happened" .... "it might be wrong" ... yada yada yada

You can't even embrace the God of the Bible , with all the eyewitness testimony from credible people ... yet you want everybody to embrace and accept your view on alien abductions ... do you see the hypocrisy ?

And if someone doesn't accept your view on the subject, you both resort to name-calling "ignorant" !

It's comical to say the least.

From my reading of those posts, I don't get the impression anyone is trying to force me to believe a specific thing; in fact, the refrain seems to be that the "answer" to the UFO/abduction etc. phenomena can be several different things. . .

As to relgions, in your case, Chrisitanity, for those that experience Chrisitianity and choose to believe it -- it is subjective. That is not a judgement, nor a negation of their beliefs; I am not marginalzing or trivializing. However, it is only a person's personal choice, based on their experience. To say that people throughout history, and all over the world, are Chrisitans based on their subjective experiences doesn't "prove" the so -called "truth" of Christianity (or any othe religion) -- what it does show, is the interpretation (among other things) of a supernatural, or "other" type of encounter, with the divine, or the metaphysical, etc.

Simply because a person says Chrisitanty is "the truth" it is far from proven, and there are as many people who have had different expeirences that "prove" to them Chrisitanity is not the truth, or the way. . . (this is a good time to define proof; see end of post)

It's always very dangerous when one states without question that their belief is the one and only truth. Taliban, anyone?

The ET (if it is ET) phenomena is complicated and many faceted. I've had my own direct experiences with this and yet, I can't say what it is. I don't know. I don't pretend to know. I have ideas, but that's based on my own personality, experience, research, etc. It isn't "the truth."

I do happen to believe there really are literal ETs out there, up there, and down here. . . among other things. However, I also know that it's just my opinon.

The messengers are about all right, they've been delivering their schtick to us for thousands of years. I believe much of that came in the guise of religions. Interpretation vs. reality behind the phenomena. In other words, who's behind the curtain?

As to proof, still a long way coming. If a UFO landed on the white house lawn, and it aired on CNN, I'd still want to know a loooooooooooot more before I say it's "proof." How do I know it wasn't staged, faked, a holographic projection, Krishna disguised as an ET, etc.?

Unless I have personally touched the UFO and gone inside and communicated with aliens --- and even then, I'd be a bit unsure. Beware the messenger -- yes, some really strange supernatural entity appeared and that's the truth, yes, it said it was Jesus Mary Krishna E-gat 9 from Moon Base 23, but how do I know they're telling me the truth?

And that is the big question . . . (one of 'em anyway.)
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://orangeorb.blogspot.com
free wheel
CE 3
avatar

Number of posts : 338
Location : UK
Registration date : 2009-09-06

PostSubject: Re: Evidence vs. Proof   Wed Sep 09, 2009 6:20 pm

Great post Orangeorb .
Yes , we truly decide which is right and which is illusion .
Very Happy
Back to top Go down
View user profile
onlychild
Keyholder for Area 51
avatar

Number of posts : 1019
Age : 68
Location : Texas
Registration date : 2009-10-15

PostSubject: Re: Evidence vs. Proof   Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:24 pm

Jocariah wrote:


We humans are too easily deceived.

Cheers
Jocariah

Rule of thumb: You cannot find something when you don't know what it is you are looking for.

We aren't deceived as much as we are ignorant of the historical context in which the UFO idea must be viewed. I will tell you this much - it isn't our fault, but we really need to wake up soon because this joke has carried on long enough. I have gone back 35,000 years in my study ... people really have NO clue.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Evidence vs. Proof   

Back to top Go down
 
Evidence vs. Proof
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2
 Similar topics
-
» Can Official Receipts be a proof that the project was completed? is it accepted?
» Proof of Spirit Life.
» youtube - proof wls works
» Largest Single Completed Contract Similar In Nature To The Contract To Be Bid
» Boilermate II replacement

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
The UFO Magazine Forum :: Aliens & UFOs :: Contactees-
Jump to: