Case closed (to logic and rational thinking)

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Case closed (to logic and rational thinking)

Postby ryguy » Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:59 pm

simp wrote:You ask for evidence.. Evidence is what is evident.


No - when you're dealing with such phenomenon where observations and analysis is so difficult, the only evidence one should use to measure truth is evidence scientific evidence. It's the only thing that can stand up to hard scrutiny because scientific evidence from studies or scientific tests have to face a series of repeated/validated tests by multiple researchers.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... c+Evidence

Scientific evidence is evidence culled from a scientific procedure that helps the trier of fact understand evidence or determine facts at issue in a judicial proceeding. Under rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and similar state court rules of evidence, "a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education" may testify and offer opinions in court if "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." Article VII of the Federal Rules of Evidence contains other rules on Expert Testimony and scientific evidence. All states have rules on expert testimony and scientific evidence that are similar to the rules in article VII.


As to this:

Govt files show that it is clearly evident that craft under some form of intelligent control clearly not from this planet are somehow interacting with us. Seems thats the conclusion that Vallee et al is also making and lets face it they know more than the people on this forum


I would like to read any quote where Vallee states he believes the intelligent control is not from this planet? In fact in his past interviews he is deemed a "heretic among heretics" for the fact that he does not draw that conclusion (or at least hasn't in the past).

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/22/ufos- ... he-future/

"I'm convinced there's a phenomenon there, that there is a technology," Vallee told AOL News before heading to Saudi Arabia. "And I'm not kidding myself that we're going to discover a new form of propulsion tomorrow, just by looking at UFO patterns."

He explained that this is how he's always approached the mystery of UFOs.

"These things are real and they do something we don't understand, but if we're clever in watching and understanding the patterns, maybe we can learn something about physics that we didn't know before."


As others observed, I've often stated I like Vallee's control systems approach. I like the approach, but if the man is selling out in order to develop propulsion based on observations of the phenomenon, that's disappointing as hell.

A simple explanation of the control systems approach:

As others observed, I've often stated I like Vallee's control systems approach. I like the approach, that's all. This is a black-box approach to analyzing behavior of a device that's actually pretty simple, but it filters out noise.

1. Plug in "sensors" in specific parts of the system that you want to observe. In engineering this could be temperature, vacuum, audio, light levels, etc... but it's one element that you want to watch to see how it, and it alone, responds to different stimuli. I think a similar "element" with the UFO phenomenon would be how a particular researcher or group of researchers respond, how a domestic or foreign government responds, or how a segment of the research community responds. Or in the field during an observation, how the light levels, motion, etc, responds to observer behaviors (from thousands of anecdotal accounts, or personal experience if you're so lucky).

2. Insert "stimuli" into the black box. Ignore all other responses (for the time being), and only observe the response of the element that you are analyzing. The choice of what to observe is selected to confirm or disprove your hypothesis about what's "inside" the black box. In the case of anecdotal evidence, you'd have to filter your database of stories to only include observer behaviors that exhibit the stimulus, and then see if a pattern emerges in the observed response of the phenomenon.

3. Alter your input stimuli over a wide range, and observe and chart responses over that range.

4. From a comparison of the input/output response, you can often identify the unknown phenomenon when you compare it to known scientific phenomenon. The response of the system will often identify itself even if you don't originally know what it is.

Here's an extremely simple and rather stupid example, but it's the best I can do before my morning coffee...lol.

There's something inside a black box. You first do an audio feedback analysis - you hook up a microphone. Then shake the box, there's a soft brushing sound, like a soft paintbrush, against the sides. You poke a sharp instrument through the side of the box until it hits something, and you hear a high pitched meow and a hiss.

In this case it doesn't take very long to compare the responses of the "system" to known responses a cat would have to the same stimuli. You've just answered (as best one can) of what's inside the box without actually being able to open the box or see what's inside.

Obviously with a phenomenon with so many variables like UFOs, the process becomes insanely more complicated and time-consuming.

-Ryan
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension


Re: Case closed (to logic and rational thinking)

Postby nablator » Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:53 pm

Ryan,

Black box testing is a good idea when you have a black box to experiment on. It's not as if anyone (other than Steven Greer and Prophet Yahweh) had a way to attract ("vector") UFOs. Flashing lasers at UFOs is CSETI's way of investigating the phenomenon.

Passive experiments are already a major headache to setup and analyze. I don't know how many times UFO detection experiments were set up since Project Twinkle in 1951. Ray Stanford had one such project, maybe it was just for show in Arthur C. Clarke's documentary. A ring of flashing lights was supposed to attract flying saucers. :wink:

Such project are still undertaken, hoping to bring some useful hard scientific facts to the table, as the current involvement of the french official UFO bureau GEIPAN with Project Hessdalen shows. It certainly is extremely difficult to pinpoint 100% convincing anomalies, when what to expect is unknown. How to define what is anomalous, exactly, in a less than controlled environment?

Vallée claims that "the control system concept can be tested by a small group of people". He describes a possible way to do black box testing on UFOs, when pressed for answers by Jerome Clark:
We're assuming that there is a feedback mechanism involved in the operations of the control system; if you change the information that's carried back to that system, you might be able to infiltrate it through its own feedback.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc608.htm

That's still assuming there is a feedback mechanism, and that UFOs are actively trying to "control" witnesses. To me ascribing every high strangeness effect associated to UFOs, physical and psychical, to an unspecified "Higher Intelligence Agency" is an unnecessary assumption, a major bias, unless it can be tested (I don't see how) or falsified (I don't know how either).
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: Case closed (to logic and rational thinking)

Postby ryguy » Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:53 pm

nablator wrote:That's still assuming there is a feedback mechanism, and that UFOs are actively trying to "control" witnesses. To me ascribing every high strangeness effect associated to UFOs, physical and psychical, to an unspecified "Higher Intelligence Agency" is an unnecessary assumption, a major bias, unless it can be tested (I don't see how) or falsified (I don't know how either).


Absolutely - you have to make the assumption that there is a feedback mechanism. And I'd have to agree with you, anyone that doesn't believe there's such a mechanism that exists would be wasting his/her time with this approach.

The approach doesn't require that UFOs are trying to control witnesses - although I suppose that might be a feedback behavior one might uncover? The UFO phenomenon could simply be environmental artifacts completely independent of witnesses, in which case your "inputs" would be various weather/environmental factors, while your measured outputs would be luminosity of the object, flight behavior, etc... If you identify a pattern between inputs/outputs among thousands of accounts, you're one step closer to understanding the true nature of the phenomenon.

Agree with you 100% that assuming UFOs are related to a higher intelligence of any sort is not only an unnecessary bias, it's a rather silly assumption when there's no evidence to support it.

Your quote is a good one from Vallee:

...if you change the information that's carried back to that system, you might be able to infiltrate it through its own feedback.


When you consider if what Kit reported to us is true, that Vallee, Hal and Kit came up with a "core story" regarding the UFO phenomenon - or a common belief system regarding UFOs between the 3 men - then it begs the question, how much of Kit/Hal's actions that have been uncovered in recent years toward Ufologists/believers might be part of an effort to "infiltrate" the UFO phenomenon "through its own feedback"?

Motives aside, it's an interesting concept to consider.

-Ryan
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Case closed (to logic and rational thinking)

Postby nablator » Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:20 pm

ryguy wrote:Motives aside, it's an interesting concept to consider.

Yes it is! I'm still trying to wrap my mind around this concept... Really mind-boggling... but it would explain why Vallée is so secretive about what he means, exactly.

Another (simpler) way to interpret his sentence is that he has no idea how to test his hypothesis and just wants to sound profound and mysterious. If his latest co-written book Wonders in the Sky is any indication of the way his research is evolving, he has done a full circle, gone back to Magonia. I don't see any attempt to focus on some specific aspect, some critical data that other researchers may have missed, or any attempt to categorize or test anything. Quite the opposite. Everything is interpreted as a UFO, from Akhenaton's close encounter with the setting sun (yup that's a UFO) to Charlemagne's falling from his horse and seeing "36 chandelles" (36 candles? probably untranslatable idiom). Superficial analysis, refusal to apply Occam's razor (in Confrontations he states so explicitly) and confirmation bias are still deeply rooted in his investigation methodology, as is the case with most ufologists, so I don't believe he has any deep understanding or secret scientific investigation project going on. It's all make believe.

If you identify a pattern between inputs/outputs among thousands of accounts, you're one step closer to understanding the true nature of the phenomenon.

This is very tricky, a minefield. Collecting good quality data is extremely difficult, and separating hard facts from perception is often impossible.

Many have tried and failed to find a statistically meaningful, distinctive pattern from UFO databases (while convincing themselves that their attempts were successful). Vallée has been very successful in debunking statistical studies, such as the orthoteny hypothesis (Aimé Michel) and the sidereal time correlation. He may still be working on other, subtler means to get feedback from statistical data, but I doubt it. He would have published it already, if he had anything worth publishing.

Perceived reactions to the witness' actions are often not an indication of intelligence or purpose behind UFO behavior. A funny anecdote about my (wrong) interpretion: in a sighting I had a few years ago, while hiking in the hills of Provence, I managed to convince myself that a glowing orange ellipsoid flying perfectly horizontally was responding to my spotting it: it changed direction 180° and quickly disappeared behind a hill as soon as I started rummaging in my backpack to get my camera. The next day I found out what the UFO was: the zoomed photograph, with a better resolution than the human eye allows, showed the pilot (probably not an extraterrestrial being) hanging underneath what was clearly a paraglider. Without the photograph, I would still be convinced that I saw something out of the ordinary.
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: Case closed (to logic and rational thinking)

Postby Puppetburglar » Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:29 pm

When you consider if what Kit reported to us is true, that Vallee, Hal and Kit came up with a "core story" regarding the UFO phenomenon - or a common belief system regarding UFOs between the 3 men - then it begs the question, how much of Kit/Hal's actions that have been uncovered in recent years toward Ufologists/believers might be part of an effort to "infiltrate" the UFO phenomenon "through its own feedback"?

Motives aside, it's an interesting concept to consider.

-Ryan



It is indeed. That said, it is dubious to imply too much from it now, as the circles they have drawn may have painted them into a corner. Is that why Vallee seemed to jump ship years ago? But this, a person recently referenced in the Aviary section-

See the coauthor of the paper linked here (from 2003, but still referenced). http://www.gcf.org.sa/en/Speakers/DrJacques-Vallee/

It's not so much "what begins to emerge" as perhaps "what continues to flourish". But then again, these strains are aging quickly, and a kind of perservation may have set in. Who is only pretending to follow the money, who really is, and how honest are they with each other?

I continue to hope that Vallee is credible, but everyone must remain suspect, or a 'person of interest', if you will.
God is a comedian performing for an audience too afraid to laugh

Voltaire
User avatar
Puppetburglar
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:17 am

Re: Case closed (to logic and rational thinking)

Postby ryguy » Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:27 pm

As promised. I might not deliver quickly all the time, but I do deliver. :-)

Vallee wrote this to Dr. Christopher Green in 2006.

Date: Aug 17 2006 - 1:04pm

About once a week, I am contacted by somebody or other who is
doing a book, a movie or a documentary about UFOs. For the
record, here is my standard response to such requests:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I appreciate your inquiry and your interest in my work. I no longer
participate in public debates about unidentified aerial phenomena.

In the last 10 years or so, the subject has moved from a valid
scientific debate to a series of quasi-religious quarrels among
groups with extreme beliefs, often expressed in ways that are
offensive and counter-productive.

As a scientist, anything I could try to contribute would simply
be lost in the noise. I continue to have an interest in the subject,
driven by personal curiosity. I try to follow private research efforts,
but my association with this topic on the public stage is a page that
I have turned.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jacques Vallee
General Partner
EuroAmerica Capital
HYPERLINK "http://www.jacquesvallee.com/"www.jacquesvallee.com



Upcoming article will expand on this, and explore Vallee's activities throughout Ufology from 2008 to today in light of his comment above.

-Ryan
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Previous

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests

cron