PDA

View Full Version : Astronaut: We've had visitors



The_Radiation_Specialist
2007-Oct-15, 06:00 AM
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/02/18/Neighborhoodtimes/Astronaut__We_ve_had_.shtml


Thus declared Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell on Saturday to more than 200 admirers.
"A few insiders know the truth . . . and are studying the bodies that have been discovered," said Mitchell, who was the sixth man to walk on the moon.
Mitchell, who landed on the moon with Alan B. Shepard, said a "cabal" of insiders stopped briefing presidents about extraterrestrials after President Kennedy.

mfumbesi
2007-Oct-15, 12:36 PM
He is very cryptic.
Why doesn't he just say, where the aliens were found, where did they come from, why is it being covered up, how much should we pay him, is he the appointed prophet...........
Sounds like a promotion to me.
Because he went to the moon and has a doctorate does not mean he is immune to becoming a woo woo.
Of course I could be wrong.

eburacum45
2007-Oct-15, 12:40 PM
We have discussed Mitchell's claims here before; he doesn't have, nor does he claim to have, first hand knowledge of any extraterrestrial encounters; he is only reporting what he remembers other people saying to him.

We don't know how accurate his memories are, or how accurate the information he claims he was given, or the motives of those people.
Basically, this is hearsay evidence, and doesn't prove very much at all.

Tog
2007-Oct-15, 12:53 PM
From Google moon (http://www.google.com/moon/): Apollo 14 Marker 1:


As they unfolded the MET, Mitchell dryly remarked, “We’ve had visitors again.” The backup crew for Apollo 14 had left the prime crew a present in the MET — a parody mission patch, seen here in this picture from the ALSJ. The backup crew had designed it themselves as an “alternative” to the real Apollo 14 patch. It depicted Wile E. Coyote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wile_E._Coyote_and_Road_Runner), who represented the prime crew, heading to the Moon only to find that the Roadrunner, representing the backup crew, had gotten there first. The patches were left in various places in the Apollo 14 spacecraft for Mitchell, Shepard, and Roosa to find during their mission.

Argos
2007-Oct-15, 01:24 PM
Because he went to the moon and has a doctorate does not mean he is immune to becoming a woo woo.
Of course I could be wrong.

No you´re not wrong. Anyone can enter a mind degenaration process.

Damburger
2007-Oct-15, 01:29 PM
Poor guy. He can't hang around with his fellow woo-woos because they all think he is part of the big evil government conspiracy. Bless.

The_Radiation_Specialist
2007-Oct-15, 01:41 PM
I'm surprised that a member of, probably America's most sane individuals, can be so out of his mind.

And why is this a "woo woo"? I'm not subscribing to his claims, but I don't see how this can be categorized along with Face-on-Mars and Apollo Hoax theories.

Damburger
2007-Oct-15, 01:47 PM
I'm surprised that a member of, probably America's most sane individuals, can be so out of his mind.

And why is this a "woo woo"? I'm not subscribing to his claims, but I don't see how this can be categorized along with Face-on-Mars and Apollo Hoax theories.

Well you could go either way on the greys-in-the-basement-in-roswell stuff, but when I read the expanding-conciousness stuff I began thinking the life support on Apollo 14 mustve malfunctioned.

R.A.F.
2007-Oct-15, 02:05 PM
...I don't see how this can be categorized along with Face-on-Mars and Apollo Hoax theories.

Both these claims (and the "aliens" claim) lack any supportive evidence whatsoever...that is how they can be "categorized" as the same.

R.A.F.
2007-Oct-15, 02:10 PM
Well you could go either way on the greys-in-the-basement-in-roswell stuff...

Can you explain what you mean by "go either way"??

The_Radiation_Specialist
2007-Oct-15, 02:17 PM
Both these claims (and the "aliens" claim) lack any supportive evidence whatsoever...that is how they can be "categorized" as the same.

You can prove they went to the moon, you have evidence to think the shapes on Mars are only a figment of imagination, but I don't think you can prove the aliens never visited.

Just my $ 0.02.

ToSeek
2007-Oct-15, 02:24 PM
Moved from "Life in Space" to "Conspiracy Theories", with a redirect.

Damburger
2007-Oct-15, 03:29 PM
Can you explain what you mean by "go either way"??

Despite lacking material evidence, little green men don't violate the laws of physics. Paranormal phenomena, by definition, do.

R.A.F.
2007-Oct-15, 03:35 PM
...I don't think you can prove the aliens never visited.

Of course not...science is not in the "business" of proving non-existance, however I don't see why that would make it different from other "woo" claims. (such as the Moon hoax)

Woo is woo

R.A.F.
2007-Oct-15, 03:43 PM
Despite lacking material evidence, little green men don't violate the laws of physics.

You've never heard of UFO's making high speed, right angle turns?

...and what do you mean, "despite lacking material evidence"?

I am unaware of any credble evidence indicating that aliens are "real".

Orion437
2007-Oct-15, 04:02 PM
No you´re not wrong. Anyone can enter a mind degenaration process.

Yes indeed, and he is not the only one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Mitchell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Cooper

To this day, aproximately 463 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut)astronauts of all nations are know as such, so it would be interesting how many others american astrounats share the same views as Mitchell and Cooper, if there is another ones.

And that´s not it, the degeneration process goes beyond nations too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Popovich

It seems that astrounauts have one of the highest ratio of "degeneration ufo process" of all professional working groups that you can imagine.

Sorry for my english.

R.A.F.
2007-Oct-15, 04:48 PM
It seems that astrounauts have one of the highest ratio of "degeneration ufo process" of all professional working groups that you can imagine.

If you're talking about belief in alien visitors, then I just don't see that a few "believers" in the astronaut corp constitutes a "high ratio".

Neverfly
2007-Oct-15, 05:26 PM
(snip)

Woo is woo

:D

Damburger
2007-Oct-15, 06:20 PM
Yes indeed, and he is not the only one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Mitchell

Two from the same flight? Was Alan Shepherd hogging the oxygen or something?

Edit: Oops, didn't notice you had posted the same guy.

jrkeller
2007-Oct-15, 07:14 PM
Ed Mitchell has been promoting this woo for a long time. Here's an interview (http://j_kidd.tripod.com/b/89.html) with him and four other astronauts when they were on Oprah. From 1991.



[At this point, questions were taken from the audience. A nervous young man asked the following question:- ]

MAN: Um yes. Do you feel that the Government hides anything from us? For example, you see all these stories about people that say they've been abducted and raped -- women that've been raped -- and they say that it's a real factual story and that tons of people have seen it...

OPRAH: By ETs? What paper was this is in?

MAN: Did you see that show (where) they said the lights were coming down and the police were out watching...? Do you think that the Government hides any of that?

DUKE: No, I don't. Not in NASA. We were completely open. We couldn't even have a private conversation without it being blasted out to the world. I remember John (Young) and I were talking and we had a problem with, uh, our microphone stuck open and he was cussing and it went out to everybody. No bleeps!

OPRAH: Ed, what do you say, you're shaking your head?

MITCHELL: Well, I agree with what Charlie is saying about the NASA program -- there was nothing at all hidden in that -- but I do believe that there's a lot more known about, uh, extra-terrestrial investigation than is available to the public right now; has been for a long time.

OPRAH: And why do you think it's kept from the public?

MITCHELL: Oh well, that's a long, long story. It goes back to World War II when all of that happened, and highly classified stuff.

ALDRIN: It makes for great book-selling...

MITCHELL: Yeah...



Buzz said it perfectly.

eburacum45
2007-Oct-15, 07:36 PM
It seems that astronauts have one of the highest ratio of "degeneration ufo process" of all professional working groups that you can imagine.

.
I understand that one or two other space-going individuals have beliefs along those lines too; however I suspect that the opposite to your statement is true, and the ratio of belief is a relatively low ratio. Three confirmed examples out of 463 is less than one percent; that is a quite low ratio if you ask me.

JayUtah
2007-Oct-15, 07:38 PM
Mitchell had extraordinary views even before being chosen as an Apollo astronaut. His more recent comments about the knowledge of government officials isn't really anything new and can't be dismissed as dementia. He has sanely discussed this claim with any who asked. Basically he has information from sources he considers reliable that the U.S. government has some secret knowledge of extraterrestrial activity. He hasn't shared the identity of the source or the nature and confidence of the information, and he understands if people aren't willing to accept that as evidence.

KaiYeves
2007-Oct-15, 10:28 PM
From Google moon: Apollo 14 Marker 1:
Yup. Something about logical explanations give me that warm, fuzzy feeling. Kinda like hugging your teddy bear to keep the closet monsters away.

NGCHunter
2007-Oct-16, 02:48 PM
Yes indeed, and he is not the only one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Mitchell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Cooper

To this day, aproximately 463 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut)astronauts of all nations are know as such, so it would be interesting how many others american astrounats share the same views as Mitchell and Cooper, if there is another ones.

And that´s not it, the degeneration process goes beyond nations too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Popovich

It seems that astrounauts have one of the highest ratio of "degeneration ufo process" of all professional working groups that you can imagine.

Sorry for my english.

I don't think it's fair to compare someone who honestly believes they saw an alien spacecraft to someone who suffers a real "degenerate" line of ufo thought and claims a conspiracy without any real evidence or even seeing anything themselves. Gordo's personal sighting may not be of value in a scientific sense, but I personally think it's reason enough to cut him some slack rather than categorize him as just another ufo degenerate. He had every opportunity to feed the nonsense when rumors started flying that he saw something during mercury, but he denied it instead. And while his memory of the "film" incident during gemini may make the story sound more incredible coming from him than it really was, once again this is a personal experience which contains a shred of truth; the pentagon did take the film from the gemini manned reconnisance experiment before he was even off the carrier, but it's not true that the pictures are still secret or hidden. I don't think he ever claimed that those photos were part of any alien conspiracy though - you know he would have if he had been truly a woo woo.

Daffy
2007-Oct-16, 05:25 PM
Well you could go either way on the greys-in-the-basement-in-roswell stuff, but when I read the expanding-conciousness stuff I began thinking the life support on Apollo 14 mustve malfunctioned.

I see nothing productive whatsoever in that comment.

You don't agree with him? Great; I don't either. But I have no evidence at all that he is brain damaged simply because his opinion differs from ours.

KaiYeves
2007-Oct-16, 09:21 PM
Give it up now!
W-E-A-T-H-E-R
B-A-L-O-O-N!
Roswell, Roswell!

SLF:JAQ SFDJS
2007-Oct-16, 10:16 PM
Roswell was not a top secret weather balloon. Give it up! They wouldn't need loads of flights out of Roswell to relocate a weather balloon.

Serenitude
2007-Oct-16, 10:35 PM
Roswell was not a top secret weather balloon. Give it up! They wouldn't need loads of flights out of Roswell to relocate a weather balloon.

Please produce any evidence you have to back up this statement.

Jim
2007-Oct-16, 10:45 PM
SLF:JAQ SFDJS, you have stopped participating in several previous threads with questions posed to you left unanswered. I sincerely hope that you will answer any and all pertinent questions put to you in the threads in which you are currently participating.

Serenitude has asked a question. Do you have evidence to support your claim? If so, please present it.

JayUtah
2007-Oct-16, 11:21 PM
I may be wrong, but I believe the Air Force explains the Roswell debris as having come from a novel radar target balloon, not from a weather balloon. While it may be extraordinary to marshall a search party for an ordinary weather balloon, it does not seem inappropriate to search for a special balloon and payload associated with secret radar research and lost in an accident.

KaiYeves
2007-Oct-17, 12:40 AM
Please produce any evidence you have to back up this statement.
Relax. That's just his way of saying that I'm a lousy cheerleader, which I already knew. ;-)

Neverfly
2007-Oct-17, 12:47 AM
KaiYeves I think he meant something more in depth than that:p

Roswell's incident, including reports, analysis and investigation of the Mogul train were discussed extensively and in great detail by Astrophotographer in this forum.

Thanks to Astrophotographer for his insightful posts and very educational discussion that he participated in by invitation to BAUT.

Im going to give an ETA in a moment after I find that thread.

KaiYeves
2007-Oct-17, 12:50 AM
Once more, I made a winkie. ;-)
Nobody notices the winkie.

Neverfly
2007-Oct-17, 12:54 AM
Try using this kind;)


OK my ETA:
This is Astrophotgraphers debut on BAUT. It includes everything you wanted to know about Roswell's crash and the investigation of the object in question.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/50850-roswell.html

SLF:JAQ SFDJS, the evidence you are looking can be found here;)

publius
2007-Oct-17, 01:15 AM
They say it was a Project MOGUL ballon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mogul

This is as a good a place as any to mention a good *non-UFO* conspiracy to explain Roswell. It struck me for that reason. The conspiracy goes the military was doing evil Dr. Mengele type experiments (due to ex-Nazis brought over) on human subjects, which subjects were the insane and retarded take from state institutions. It had the Roswell crash vehicle was some gruesome gondola where test subjects were taken up to altitude and exposed to low pressure, whatever.

Something went wrong and it crashed, scattering evidence of those gruesome experiments, which was the reason for the cover up.

That one was noteworthy because it didn't involve the usual alien suspects at all. :)

-Richard

Neverfly
2007-Oct-17, 01:25 AM
Publius, don't feed the trolls!:mad:

Obviousman
2007-Oct-17, 08:30 AM
Mitchell had extraordinary views even before being chosen as an Apollo astronaut. His more recent comments about the knowledge of government officials isn't really anything new and can't be dismissed as dementia. He has sanely discussed this claim with any who asked. Basically he has information from sources he considers reliable that the U.S. government has some secret knowledge of extraterrestrial activity. He hasn't shared the identity of the source or the nature and confidence of the information, and he understands if people aren't willing to accept that as evidence.

Well said.

eburacum45
2007-Oct-17, 07:27 PM
Is there any surprise that someone with a healthy curiosity about extraterrestrial life should want to become an astronaut back in the late Fifties/early Sixties? Back in those days the Rare Earth Hypothesis hadn't been conceived as such, and a good proportion of astronomers expected to find lichen on Mars.

That was a much more optimistic time with respect to the ET hypothesis, or so it seems to me; idealistic and intelligent people might go into the space program with a reasonable expectation of meeting aliens at some point.

Fazor
2007-Oct-17, 07:59 PM
That was a much more optimistic time with respect to the ET hypothesis, or so it seems to me; idealistic and intelligent people might go into the space program with a reasonable expectation of meeting aliens at some point.

Well, and that brings another good point; we seem to live under the impression that astronauts are somehow different than you and me. Yes, they tend to be on the upper end of the scholastic and physical spectrum. Yes they have trianing and experience that we don't have. But in the end, they're human too. Look at that recent "love triangle" fiasco. I got so sick and tired of hearing, "Their screening really should have caught that! Blah blah blah". What test do you have for predicting the unpredictable nature of human psychology? (edit: yes, there's utility in psych tests) People will be people, and I for one hope it will always remain that way, because the alternative is a race of pre-programmed non-thinking humanoids.

We all saw the "Itchy and Scratchy Land" episode...that only can end badly.

Brad_Smith
2007-Oct-20, 05:28 PM
By definition, who is a "woo-woo," really?

I applaud Dr. Mitchell for daring to look at other memes, other views. He's trying to unravel the Universe's mysteries in a different way. Science isn't always "exact" or all-knowing.

Plus some scientists have a habit of skewing things to prove their point. "Woo-woos" and "HBs" (and what the flip is HB?) are accused of this. In John Waller's book, Einstein's Luck, it's noted that Louis Pasteur ignored and even supressed experiments and facts that went against his theories.

Yes, you have your Matt Marriots, John Lears and Nancy Zetatalks. They talk and talk and talk and . . . that's it.

But you do have some people who are seriously and sincerely investigating the paranormal because they want to know what's out there. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Well. Marriot is annoying but not everyone is like him . . . . .

Neverfly
2007-Oct-20, 05:51 PM
By definition, who is a "woo-woo," really?

I applaud Dr. Mitchell for daring to look at other memes, other views. He's trying to unravel the Universe's mysteries in a different way. Science isn't always "exact" or all-knowing.

Plus some scientists have a habit of skewing things to prove their point. "Woo-woos" and "HBs" (and what the flip is HB?) are accused of this. In John Waller's book, Einstein's Luck, it's noted that Louis Pasteur ignored and even supressed experiments and facts that went against his theories.

Yes, you have your Matt Marriots, John Lears and Nancy Zetatalks. They talk and talk and talk and . . . that's it.

But you do have some people who are seriously and sincerely investigating the paranormal because they want to know what's out there. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Well. Marriot is annoying but not everyone is like him . . . . .

An HB is a Moon Hoax Believer, someone who says we never landed on the Moon.

Although I understand where you are comming from, I disagree.

Anyone, scientist or woo woo who ignores evidence or suprresses evidence in favor of their pet theory, is not behaving scientifically.

The paranormal may get investigation, but that is nothing new. Scientists and believers alike have investigated it for centuries, only to find out for themselves it has no substance.
Although it will be investigated, and I agree that it should be, it isn't because there is really anything special to find there so much as that it gives an edge against the charlatans.

Brad_Smith
2007-Oct-20, 06:06 PM
And it has no substance because . . . ?

Neverfly
2007-Oct-20, 06:11 PM
And it has no substance because . . . ?

Overwhelming evidence against it.

To be specific,
No psychic or telekinesis has ever been observed, documented or proven under scientific conditions.
Read the "psychics" thread (Misspelled "Phsychics" ) in off topic babbling.

It is the ignorance on the subject that allows the common person to think there may be substance there. Popular media plays on this by producing misleading books and documentaries that inform very little, but make lots of suggestions.
Gotta keep the moolah flowing in.

Brad_Smith
2007-Oct-20, 06:39 PM
A year ago, I did a series of articles about local ghost stories. People who recently moved to the area read them. I was contacted by e-mail to check out their house that was allegedly haunted. During the interview, I watch an empty drinking glass slide three feet across the table. No wires, no strings. No seismic activity. I was sitting at the table and the only other person in the house was walking back from the kitchen. The only other thing I noted was feeling very cold before the glass moved.

Now this is anecdotal evidence. I know that. But I saw it and I've done everything I can to debunk it. The table was made of solid wood, it was very sturdy. Solid floorboards. I looked for every possible way to debunk it. I can't.

Something made that glass move. And I was told that such things happened a lot in that house.

When I did those articles last year, many of those people wanted to keep their identities a secret. I honored that. The only people who used their real names were living in a house being converted into a B&B. One went on the record saying that having a haunted B&B wouldn't be bad for business.

But other people I talked to -- they merely told their stories and that was it. They didn't want their names known.

I know this. I know what I saw. I know that this is an old planet in an even older universe. It's arrogant to feel that we know everything about it.

But that's just me.

Neverfly
2007-Oct-20, 06:46 PM
See my sig line.

We don't know much.

But we can quantify what do know.
Eyes can easily be decieved.
Also, an investigator oftetimes gets "led" into the investigation into playing by the rules of the magician.

Just because you could not debunk it, because you saw it with your own eyes, doesn't prove anything to me.

Poor O'l Randi has been trying to get proof of paranormal ability for a long time. No winners yet. Many of these supposed psychics, like Sylvia Brown, won't allow a true and honest scientific examination from someone who knows the business.

There are plenty of peole that "saw" Uri Geller and could not debunk it either. He was still a charlatan and was proven to be such.

Brad_Smith
2007-Oct-20, 07:11 PM
I've tracked Geller and Browne's "careers." Even in some paranormal circles, they're not well liked. Of course, I think that Randi is just as bad as them.

But that's just me.

As I said, I had anecdotal evidence. Of course, even if I recorded it on digital, it would still be suspect, now wouldn't it? And it should be.

You mentioned how the media has "mislead" the public regarding the paranormal. The same can be made about science. I know one of the crime scene investigators and have reported on him. His biggest complaint is that shows like CSI have really distorted the public's view of forensics--which is true.

However, shows like CSI rarely focus on the fact that DNA matching is not infallible. A risk scholar at the Max Planck Institute, Gerd Gigerenzer, uncovered a number of incidents where DNA testing failed. Yes, human error is part of the problem. In the case of Josiah Suton, a lot of things went wrong (http://www.truthinjustice.org/sutton.htm).

My point is this: Science isn't always right, especially when strong agendas are called into play.

Fun chatting with you.

Brad_Smith
2007-Oct-20, 07:12 PM
And by the way--many people sent me pics of "orbs" last year. It was a dusty fall, last October . . . . ;)

Neverfly
2007-Oct-20, 07:16 PM
I've tracked Geller and Browne's "careers." Even in some paranormal circles, they're not well liked. Of course, I think that Randi is just as bad as them.

But that's just me.

As I said, I had anecdotal evidence. Of course, even if I recorded it on digital, it would still be suspect, now wouldn't it? And it should be.

You mentioned how the media has "mislead" the public regarding the paranormal. The same can be made about science. I know one of the crime scene investigators and have reported on him. His biggest complaint is that shows like CSI have really distorted the public's view of forensics--which is true.

However, shows like CSI rarely focus on the fact that DNA matching is not infallible. A risk scholar at the Max Planck Institute, Gerd Gigerenzer, uncovered a number of incidents where DNA testing failed. Yes, human error is part of the problem. In the case of Josiah Suton, a lot of things went wrong (http://www.truthinjustice.org/sutton.htm).

My point is this: Science isn't always right, especially when strong agendas are called into play.

Fun chatting with you.


Well the fact that the media is scientifically ignorant doesn't mean science is wrong for one.

Science is always right. It's just that sometimes we need to learn and understand it better.
As far as agendas and human motivation interferring, that is regretable. But it does not change the nature of the science.
The difference between the two (where you say the same can be said for science- it cannot) is the fact that in science there is a method with which to prove something. Not belief or faith or clamis... Evidence.
I can claim anything. But with science, it can be disproven or proven.

John Jones
2007-Oct-20, 07:27 PM
And it has no substance because . . . ?

Off the top of my head: Because there is little predictive value, not falsifiable, no good theoretical basis, not reproducible, and not much supporting evidence outside of anecdotes.

R.A.F.
2007-Oct-20, 07:47 PM
I've tracked Geller and Browne's "careers." Even in some paranormal circles, they're not well liked. Of course, I think that Randi is just as bad as them.

Hmmm....Browne Preys on grieving families for MONEY. Randi exposes her as a con artist.

How is Randi as "bad" as Browne???


But that's just me.

Yes...it is just you.


You mentioned how the media has "mislead" the public regarding the paranormal. The same can be made about science.

Examples?


I know one of the crime scene investigators and have reported on him. His biggest complaint is that shows like CSI have really distorted the public's view of forensics--which is true.

How is this relevant? A TV show inaccurately represents science and scientists, and this is somehow the "fault" of science and scientists?

That makes no sense.


However, shows like CSI rarely focus on the fact that DNA matching is not infallible.

Mistakes can happen, however that doesn't mean the the underlying science is wrong. Done properly, DNA matching IS infallable.


Science isn't always right, especially when strong agendas are called into play.

The method of science is not something that lends itself to "agendas".

You are seriously misrepresenting how science works...appearently because of your own "agendas".

Orion437
2007-Oct-20, 07:53 PM
My point is this: Science isn't always right, especially when strong agendas are called into play.


Science hasn´t to be right or wrong. It has no moral. It can be used to cure cancer or to develop and hidrogen bomb.

Van Rijn
2007-Oct-20, 08:53 PM
I've tracked Geller and Browne's "careers." Even in some paranormal circles, they're not well liked. Of course, I think that Randi is just as bad as them.


Like R.A.F., I'm curious about this. How is Randi bad? What is your complaint with him?




My point is this: Science isn't always right, especially when strong agendas are called into play.


Science is a process. Scientists can get things wrong, and sometimes do, but the solution is to continue the process: Use objective evidence, logic and math. Perform research under controlled conditions.

Brad_Smith
2007-Oct-21, 04:28 AM
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm

I heard about this some time ago.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/Randi_dogs.htm

Also on this Web site it has a nice rebutal to the "Randi Challenge."

Neverfly
2007-Oct-21, 05:08 AM
This really isn't the thread for this discussion.
Perhaps you can PM a Mod and ask them to move it to OTB?

Van Rijn
2007-Oct-21, 06:15 AM
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm

I heard about this some time ago.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/Randi_dogs.htm

Also on this Web site it has a nice rebutal to the "Randi Challenge."

Sorry, but this looks a bit like pointing to a moon hoax site complaining about the BA or Jay, with second hand statements about some events.

eburacum45
2007-Oct-21, 07:27 AM
That's right; I would caution any sceptic against the 'Skeptical Investigations' site, as it seems to be dedicated to proving skeptics wrong, and 'against the Mainstream' types like Puthoff and Sheldrake right.

By all means read the site, if you wish, but be aware of its agenda. Rather than 'investigating subjects in a sceptical fashion', it concentrates more on 'investigating annoying skeptics'.

Perhaps such 'scepticism against the sceptics' is a useful contribution to the debate; it should be, but at the end of the day it looks like most of the phenomena defended by 'Skeptical Investigations' are not worth defending.

Brad_Smith
2007-Oct-21, 09:43 AM
I was asked to give a reason why I didn't like Randi and why I thought he had an "agenda." I responded. And I feel that Randi is no different than Hoagland -- he has his own agenda and blind dogmatism.

I think my reaction is this: Not everyone who believes in UFOs or Cryptozoology is a "woo-woo." Now while I haven't gone thru every flipping thread here . . . I like this site because if I have a question about astronomy, I have some people I can talk to. Or if I want someone's opinion on some recent discovery -- I can find it here.

But yet I feel uncomfortable because of what I believe in -- and others such as myself -- I feel that we're lumped into one big category.

Do I believe that some UFOs might be extraterrestrial in origin? But due to Testor's Area-51 saucer model and Adobe Photoshop, I very skeptical of many photos I've seen

Alien abductions? Having experienced night terrors myself I don't believe in the whole alien abduction stories -- Whitley Strieber has some serious issues . . . . .

I watched every Apollo mission from beginning to end. We went there -- that I have no doubts about.

9/11? No conspiracy but after reading about Operation Northwoods proposed in the early 1960s, I can see how such conspiracy theories start.

JFK? Oswald did it and acted alone. Posner's Case Closed is a great book.

Majestic-12 papers? Hoax.

Ghosts? Yeah. I believe. But I've seen some great hoaxes and I've even ran into a few myself. But overall -- I believe.

Hoagland and his whole . . . "thing" . . . I think the guy believes it and he's off in the deep end . . . treading water with Randi, who is out there himself.

Zetatalk. Sigh. I tried interviewing some ZT groupie a while back. He e-mailed a "tip" and I gave it a shot. That's an hour out of my life I'll never get back . . . .

Bigfoot and what have you . . . yeah, very possible. New species of animal life are discovered now and then. I live in Bigfoot country. The Patterson hoax was filmed in the region (a 100 or so miles I think) and the Karuk Indians have many stories about the Big Guy. They even have a festival in his honor.

Ed Dames, Sylvia Browne, Geller, Sean David Morton . . . con artists. In fact, the UFO Watchdog has done a lot to expose Dames and Morton. www.ufowatchdog.com

Roswell. I don't think it happened with an alien craft. I think that they might have been testing some Nazi craft seized during or after the war. Germany was experimenting with a wide range of unusual and innovative aircraft.

So. Am I a woo-woo? I'm not. Neither is Dr. Mitchell, I feel. He's looking for answers about the Universe and he's taking a different path. More power to him.

R.A.F.
2007-Oct-21, 10:38 AM
I would caution any sceptic against the 'Skeptical Investigations' site...

One need look no further than noticing that Gary Schwartz, University of Arizona, (yes that Gary Schwartz) is listed as an "advisor" to the "Skeptical Investigations" site...

I have no idea what he would "advise" them on...except perhaps how to be creduous...he seems to have "cornered the market" on that. But skeptical??

Don't make me laugh.



I was asked to give a reason why I didn't like Randi and why I thought he had an "agenda." I responded.

I must have missed your "response"...all I saw was you linking to a "woo" site bashing Randi.

You were directly asked why you thought Randi was "as bad" as Browne and we want to hear in your own words why you think that...simply linking to a website isn't good enough, as this is a discussion board.

eburacum45
2007-Oct-21, 04:10 PM
Personally, I give somewhat more credit to UFO stories and the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis than ghost stories (and that isn't very much).
At least there is a remote possibility that real, physical aliens with high technology have come to our solar system and are playing silly games with us; I see no rational justification for ghosts at all.

The idea of disembodied, practically inconsequential entities floating about in the real world (as opposed to floating about in folk tales, which I really love) seems absurd to me.

KaiYeves
2007-Oct-21, 07:28 PM
There are plenty of peole that "saw" Uri Geller and could not debunk it either.
Even the best and brightest in the Marvel Bullpen got tricked.

Gillianren
2007-Oct-21, 08:08 PM
Bigfoot and what have you . . . yeah, very possible. New species of animal life are discovered now and then. I live in Bigfoot country. The Patterson hoax was filmed in the region (a 100 or so miles I think) and the Karuk Indians have many stories about the Big Guy. They even have a festival in his honor.

You must not have a very clear understanding of the concept of "breeding populations." There's not enough space in "bigfoot country" to support a breeding population of creatures as large as bigfoot is supposed to be. New species of animal life that are discovered are way smaller.

Neverfly
2007-Oct-21, 09:05 PM
And thus; the conspiracy of Little Foot is born...

Serenitude
2007-Oct-21, 09:50 PM
And thus; the conspiracy of Little Foot is born...

For some reason, this struck me as one of the funniest things I've ever read. I can't quit laughing :lol:

Noclevername
2007-Oct-21, 11:06 PM
What exactly is the definition of "Bigfoot Country"?

Follow-up question; could there be a nearly-extinct or extinct population of large hominids who once had a breeding population?


EDIT: Aaargh, yes I know I worded it badly. Ill fix it later

Gillianren
2007-Oct-21, 11:25 PM
"Bigfoot country" refers to the Pacific Northwest, that part of the world where people who don't know much about biology think bigfoot might live.

Van Rijn
2007-Oct-22, 12:09 AM
And thus; the conspiracy of Little Foot is born...

Sounds like something from Tolkien. Hobbits are supposed to have a way of not being seen . . . .

Noclevername
2007-Oct-22, 12:52 AM
"Bigfoot country" refers to the Pacific Northwest, that part of the world where people who don't know much about biology think bigfoot might live.

Does it encompass NW Canada or Alaska?

ADDED: Asian legends, Yeti and (I forget the Chinese version) also describe similar figures. Does this territory extend to both sides of the Bering Strait? All of them contain large areas of sparsely populated heavy forest, is the region(s) well enough explored to entirely rule out Bigfoots (Bigfeet? Bigfooti?)

Van Rijn
2007-Oct-22, 01:20 AM
I was asked to give a reason why I didn't like Randi and why I thought he had an "agenda." I responded. And I feel that Randi is no different than Hoagland -- he has his own agenda and blind dogmatism.


You were asked why you thought Randi was "bad" like Geller or Browne. You responded with a link. You didn't give a reason. This isn't any different from someone saying, "See this video," in response to a specific question, leaving the questioner to guess how it applies.

Now, for the record, I think Geller is bad because the evidence from a number of sources indicate he is a con artist, using tricks to fake "psychic powers." I appreciate Randi's expertise in trickery, and like how he has used it to expose Geller and others. He also has shown how some researchers have conducted insufficiently controlled "psychic" experiments.


I think my reaction is this: Not everyone who believes in UFOs or Cryptozoology is a "woo-woo."


If somebody says, "I can't prove it, but I believe [fill in here]," I'm not going to argue it. However, if they start talking about conspiracy theories to hide evidence, or point to badly done research to support their argument, that's another thing, and quickly moves into "woo-woo" territory.

Gillianren
2007-Oct-22, 02:36 AM
Does it encompass NW Canada or Alaska?

Don't know about Alaska; once I really thought about the practical nature of bigfoot, I stopped paying attention. But British Columbia, at least. However, a species of that size, even in the relatively unpopulated parts of the region, would leave definite signs of its presence that just don't exist.


ADDED: Asian legends, Yeti and (I forget the Chinese version) also describe similar figures. Does this territory extend to both sides of the Bering Strait? All of them contain large areas of sparsely populated heavy forest, is the region(s) well enough explored to entirely rule out Bigfoots (Bigfeet? Bigfooti?)

Yes. Yes, it is. Remember, no species exists in a vacuum. The population would have to be pretty sizable, and it would consume a lot of resources in order to keep up even the minimum breeding population. (Besides, the two species would have been separated for thousands of years, so we can't really consider one population in both locations.)

Van Rijn
2007-Oct-22, 02:54 AM
Asian legends, Yeti and (I forget the Chinese version) also describe similar figures.


Of course, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to come up with stories of humanoid species. That doesn't count the stories that actually were based on hermits or other such.

publius
2007-Oct-22, 03:00 AM
You can put Jane Goodall in the Bigfeet Believer category, actually. She said something about while back that suspects something like that exists, but admitted evidence was certainly lacking. She said the Native American stories of such a creature that go way back, and all describing similiar characteristics make her think there's something to it.

ETA:

That reminded of one the legendary Art Bell shows. A Texas character named "Bugs" spun a pretty tale tale of shooting two Bigfeet, a male and female in the Texas panhandle, burying them in a secret location. He said he feared being charged with murder (since the creatures were so human-like) or otherwise getting in trouble. He sent Art a map. :lol:

Somebody posted that interview on Youtube, it's long 12 parts, and the links to all of them are here, I just found:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/bugs.htm

Anyway, I don't think it would be illegal to kill a species that doesn't officially exist :) If you like this sort of tall tale yarn, the above is a good one.

-Richard