Discovery Institute doesn’t believe in nuts&bolts aliens

I just have to go back to that one of the best examples among the early classic UFO encounters, the Nash-Fortenberry case, to ask for a credible alternate explanation for this specific encounter (that is, alternate to actual nuts-and-bolts material ETI). I think alternate "deep weird" or paranormal explanations will appear rather strained and violate Occam's Razor principle of parsimony that the simplest explanation is probably the correct one.

I'm going to post more cases in the UFO/UAP forum.

I don't know if it will convince you to abandon ETH, but I think it will be of interest to see how there are UFO/UAP type encounters far older than the classic cases you speak of.

I'm going to post more cases in the UFO/UAP forum.

I don't know if it will convince you to abandon ETH, but I think it will be of interest to see how there are UFO/UAP type encounters far older than the classic cases you speak of.

I would be interested in more "deep weird" apparently UFO-related cases. I have to notice that you still haven't furnished a plausible alternate explanation for this particular case.

I would be interested in more "deep weird" apparently UFO-related cases. I have to notice that you still haven't furnished a plausible alternate explanation for this particular case.

A plausible explanation for flying discs that glow, where no one actually sees an alien enter or leave the discs and no material from the disc is found?

I'd put it in the same class of phenomena that I mention in this thread here & here. An anomaly that matches patterns stretching far back.

Still not sure what makes these definite ET vehicles? Detection by radar?

Right, this is probably the essence of our disagreement.

If you think back to the days of the great physicists - Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein, etc. they more or less worked for themselves, advancing science and soaking up the glory for what they achieved. Often they funded their experiments themselves and they had an overpowering desire to get atthe truth.

Most of their experiments were also relatively simple by modern standards.

Now if you think of modern scientific collaborations, such as CERN, we see a vastly different situation. Physicists work in such establishments as one of a large team. Ultimately the funding comes from the general public, and it is seen as ESSENTIAL to drum up funding for yet more research.

If, for example, the LHC had not produced an important particle after all that money and effort, it would have been extremely hard to get money for an even bigger collider.

The number of raw collisions is 10^12 per second, and at this rate a great deal of filtering has to be performed just to squash the data into available computer storage.

As it is, nobody can reproduce the exact data processing that took place after the event. If the detectors contain flaws then these will not be revealed - at least as I understand it, maybe SBU will claim something else.

Perhaps the LHC effort should have been postponed until those volumes of data could be stored.

The other aspect of these large experiments, is that they only make sense if all the crew are utterly incorruptible. People are just coming face to face with the fact that a lot of science is wrong - often deliberately. This is most easily seen in the biological sciences, but is it reasonable to assume that physics is just too pure for people to cheat?

David

I am a bit staggered that nobody responded to my post - positively or negatively!

I don't believe that it is possible to believe experimental results from a machine that costs 8Bn$ to run - full stop!

The reason I say this is because nobody in charge of such a project could admit that all that money was spent and nothing was found - the political hit would be too great.

It is hard to say exactly when this expense-related uncertainties cuts in, but I'm sure it is a lot less than the cost of the LHC.

David

I am a bit staggered that nobody responded to my post - positively or negatively!

I don't believe that it is possible to believe experimental results from a machine that costs 8Bn$ to run - full stop!

The reason I say this is because nobody in charge of such a project could admit that all that money was spent and nothing was found - the political hit would be too great.

It is hard to say exactly when this expense-related uncertainties cuts in, but I'm sure it is a lot less than the cost of the LHC.

David

Well I'm not familiar enough with the collider data to say the degree to which it is flawed or not, but I do agree that it's amusing that there are billions to trillions of dollars dependent on ideas like psychic healing is impossible, this life is the only one, and you are your body with its varied flaws...

...but the skeptics like [to] say the comparatively tiny amount of money one gets from supporting the paranormal by writing a book means proponent advocates are compromised. Especially when skeptics have the same cottage industry going.

Well I'm not familiar enough with the collider data to say the degree to which it is flawed or not,

But my point is very broad. I would say that when people perform extremely expensive experiments using other people's money, then a positive outcome is almost assured regardless of the scientific truth.

David

I thought this would be a good place for this video:

Are 'SOME' UFOs Real Alien Ships? The Case Against Extraterrestrial UAP’s! (Opinion)

I thought this would be a good place for this video:

Are 'SOME' UFOs Real Alien Ships? The Case Against Extraterrestrial UAP’s! (Opinion)

While the whole thing is great, IMO the best part actually is showing how bizarre it would be if ET travelers made it here only to crash on a desert road, or if they don't crash they hover around and mutilate some cows in the off hours.

Where I would disagree is the more blanket dismissal that anomalous aspects like radar detection would be easily explained by greater investigation. This is a pretty big assumption, and it doesn't do justice to cases where there are visual sightings and radar.

I reject ETH but I think the data is better than he makes it sound, but worse than ETH advocates claim it to be.

While the whole thing is great, IMO the best part actually is showing how bizarre it would be if ET travelers made it here only to crash on a desert road, or if they don't crash they hover around and mutilate some cows in the off hours.

Where I would disagree is the more blanket dismissal that anomalous aspects like radar detection would be easily explained by greater investigation. This is a pretty big assumption, and it doesn't do justice to cases where there are visual sightings and radar.

I reject ETH but I think the data is better than he makes it sound, but worse than ETH advocates claim it to be.

I don't think we should rule out the possibility of finding normal things through greater investigation but I also wouldn't be certain that we can.