Exopoliticians reaching out to Presidential candidates.

A study of the political relations between humanity and ET

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed May 30, 2007 5:02 am

David,
David Griffin wrote:Ray - I appreciate you are an engineer and so you'll think some of the language used in the Webre discussion is a bit dippy


Not just dippy... technically inaccurate (and thus misleading). The best example (and the one which will raise the ire of all control systems engineers and pretty much most scientists) is the flippant use of the words "positive feedback loop with the extraterrestrial cultures." I guess since Mr. Webre is a lawyer, and not a scientist, he should be given a free pass for using words incorrectly. But were you aware (perhaps not) that a "positive feedback loop" is actually UNSTABILIZING (and therefore a "bad thing")? This is an often misused analogy for this reason: Negative feedback (the norm) allows you to subtract the feedback (knowledge of a given state) from the desired goal state, thus forming an "error signal" which is used to drive you closer to your stated goal (see edit below). I realize that you may say that I am "missing the point" with such a highly technical assessment. But I assure you I am not. What I am pointing out to you is this sort of definitively a-scientific (i.e. not speaking in the proper language of science) is one more item that will cause scientific people to be immediately turned off... it is not good for your marketing ploys. And I can tell from the "entertainment flavor" of the packaging of this interview that you are concerned about the marketing value.

I gritted my teeth and listened to 10 minutes of it (including the gratuitous "sound bite" introduction) before I couldn't take anymore. Quite frankly, there is nothing of any sort of "hard value" here IMO. Sure, there is a LOT of "feel good" talk, and that may very well draw-in the New Agers who are non-scientific in their thinking. And I must also be honest and say: While Alfred may indeed be a "nice guy", he is just not anywhere near a "riveting presenter". You need a "Tony Robbins" sort of personality to really draw people in. His struggling to get words/ideas out is distracting to me, and I have an ability to focus.

Question: Is there EVER going to be a time when we will NOT be directed to a long video and/or audio? It really is not as effective as you may think in getting your message out to people. You will find that the most highly rated videos on YouTube are those that last on the order of several MINUTES.... not the ones that stretch into an hour or more.

Just my honest criticism... I have seen nothing that is going to attract many people in the sciences, more like frustrate them and turn them off...especially when you are using scientific terms with different (misappropriated?) meanings. Again, nothing personal, but I am still not seeing anything terribly unique, or earth-shattering, or of greater value than what many authors on these topics have already spoken of.

but the first few questions asked relates to what you keep going on about above with re the definition of exopolitics.


Again, being honest: I didn't get it. Maybe I gave up before he finally got it out. Or maybe I didn't get it because all I was hearing was lots of "dippy" sayings with little tangible meaning? I think I understand the basic premise of ExoPo, and I still have problems with it. But perhaps, instead of sending me off to another video/audio, perhaps you (personally) can "correct me" in where you think I am misunderstanding ExoPo? To use a term that Steve mentioned "I don't suffer fools gladly". Get me to the REAL POINT, and get me around all the happy nonsense, fluffy words, and feel-good propaganda. This stuff is even more tedious than Dan Smith's ravings... and those are also pretty tedious, but his thoughts are somehow interesting. :shock:

Ray

EDIT: I thought I would provide evidence for the point I am making that "positive feedback loop" is not the kind of PR verbiage you want to use for your movement:

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

For a simple example, imagine an ecosystem with only one species and an unlimited amount of food. The population will grow at a rate proportional to the current population, which leads to positive feedback. This has a de-stabilizing effect, so left unchecked, does not result in homeostasis. In some cases (if not controlled by negative feedback), a positive feedback loop can run out of control, and can result in the collapse of the system. This is called vicious circle, or in Latin circulus vitiosus.


Indeed, many things in UFOlogy (and also in ExoPo, I would submit) can succumb to the "vicious circle". :)
Last edited by You Can Call Me Ray on Wed May 30, 2007 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA


Postby Access Denied » Wed May 30, 2007 5:45 am

David Griffin wrote:Now I should really be asking for some definitive evidence that this whole phenomena is a man made process. If you can put that little item in an envelope I'll happily print my address here. :P

Using your standard of evidence then I suppose this ought to suffice?

Plasma Laser: UFO Maker?
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/05/p ... er_uf.html

Can I also interest you in some cheap Hawaiian real estate?

“Real Estate for the Future”
http://www.petroglyphs.com/loihi/

Personally, excluding misidentifications (of terrestrial craft or otherwise) and hoaxes, my money’s on (until further definitive evidentiary notice) heretofore undiscovered rare atmospheric phenomena (e.g. plasma or optical, James McDonald's et. al. early objections notwitstanding) either due to natural causes or perhaps even as a result of our ability to introduce unnatural “stuff” into the atmosphere and environment (hmm… now remind me again when did we start playing around with stuff like high power RF and nuclear fission?… nah) or maybe as the result of some sort of “incoming” (cosmically speaking) energy source… or?

Then again, maybe we’ve been under robotic observation and a positive “ripe sapient being” detection signal has just gotten back to the Galactic Farmer’s Network so now they’re on their way en masse to feast on our tender juicy little brains as we speak…

[cue The Twilight Zone theme]

EDIT: P.S. Excellent post Ray!
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby ryguy » Wed May 30, 2007 4:55 pm

David Griffin wrote: I mean Lear in the context of a pilot of a famous jet - not as the way out lunar conspirator you think he is.


lol...that's funny. I work in Aerospace (yes, I actually have a day job, imagine that) - I know who Lear was before he tumbled down the wrong rabbit hole - thanks. I also know that his rediculous calculations for the true gravity on the moon (as only one example) is terribly flawed. And even when he is confronted with the formulas and evidence that his calculations are wrong - he does what most believers do when confronted with evidence of their psychosis. He tries to explain it away. It's easier to do than to face the truth and suffer a nervous breakdown I suppose. (I can give you the link to where this exchange took place between Lear and I on ATS...it was kind of comical toward the end, actually.)

I think I'm being pretty brave facing all you lot on my own. Don't see many others here coming to help. I reckon you've banned any IP address not referred by the James Randi "Education" Forum.


No idea what you're spouting off about here. Only Steve and I have access to the ban list. Are you claiming to have seen it? After reading your claim here, I just went back to double-check - it's a very, very short list of prior trolls, troublemakers who tried to wreak havoc with the forum, or a few who came here only to self-promote. So unless you can point to someone who has been banned without just cause - I suggest you avoid trying to get a "jab" in by making intentionally misleading and untrue statements about us.

I'm aware that most people here will write off the whole interview when the term 'indigo' gets mentioned [or even Mars!] - such is the desire to lazily dismiss anything not presentable in a bona fide government lab - preferably in 3d solid-ness format with a label on saying "proper evidence".


It's much more lazy to simply accept a claim, without taking the time to verify as much of that claim as is possible, before accepting any ounce of it as true.

Bare in mind we already gave you a piece of saucer.


Who's "we"? What piece of saucer? I've been up to my shoulders in a project at home over the weekend, so if I missed something here - I'd appreciate a repost or link to it.

-Ry
---
"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

Postby David Griffin » Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:23 pm

We're truly at loggerheads here. Not only the minutia but on our whole approach to the subject on a wider level. You take things pretty personally for people who run a forum. I feel I have to put parenthesis around every comment when I post to justify the points I'm trying to get over.

There's also a strange gap in belief and how we all see it. I think most of you are far more addicted to believing than you assume. This whole area is layered in a prankster-like humour but I don't get a sense of this reflected in what's been written.

Interesting anyway.

I'm off to listen to the Dan Smith interview.
User avatar
David Griffin
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 4:24 pm
Location: UK Midlands

Postby David Griffin » Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:14 pm

Again, being honest: I didn't get it. Maybe I gave up before he finally got it out. Or maybe I didn't get it because all I was hearing was lots of "dippy" sayings with little tangible meaning? I think I understand the basic premise of ExoPo, and I still have problems with it. But perhaps, instead of sending me off to another video/audio, perhaps you (personally) can "correct me" in where you think I am misunderstanding ExoPo? To use a term that Steve mentioned "I don't suffer fools gladly". Get me to the REAL POINT, and get me around all the happy nonsense, fluffy words, and feel-good propaganda. This stuff is even more tedious than Dan Smith's ravings... and those are also pretty tedious, but his thoughts are somehow interesting.
Ray



:P --> On the Dan Smith comment. I'm listening to him now. I quite like his meanderings - I've listened to all the OMCast ones as well. See one man's 'dippy' is anothers profound, life-shifting poetry (making no judgement on what constitutes either). All this stuff says to me is that disclosure is not in any one person's or event groups hands - it's just a process. I always say that a UFO could land - be on the front of every paper and nothing much would change - such is the state of current global consciousness.

On the definition thing Ray - all I was trying to say is that exopolitics isn't about putting proof on a plate. It works precisely because it avoids this approach. Instead it is, as we suggested in the audio, a dynamic interplay of elements. It's only by pulling data and experience from these varied areas that we can possibly get to grips with this subject. I personally don't see how it can be any different.

Put it this way - if you got a piece of saucer and could prove this much - then what? Would this be enough to deal with the issues at hand? It wouldn't - it may make a lot of people excited for a while but nothing much more would happen. It doesn't help hugely with helping us deal with who we are and what we're facing. That's what this thread / topic area should be about and I think until it is - my role here is minimal.
User avatar
David Griffin
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 4:24 pm
Location: UK Midlands

Postby ryguy » Sat Jun 09, 2007 1:40 am

David Griffin wrote:You take things pretty personally for people who run a forum. I feel I have to put parenthesis around every comment when I post to justify the points I'm trying to get over.


We certainly do. After you've been put through what we've been put through, and had some pretty nasty, hurtful, untrue, dispicable, completely incorrect things said about us - you'd probably understand a tad better why we don't tolerate that kind of nonsense. If you want to make an invalid assumption about us, as a group, do it elsewhere. But you aren't going to do it here without being corrected, as you should be. Because yes, I've personally put a lot of time, effort, and resources into this research. It isn't about a forum - it's about the search - it's about the research, and yes, I take it damn personally.

There's also a strange gap in belief and how we all see it. I think most of you are far more addicted to believing than you assume. This whole area is layered in a prankster-like humour but I don't get a sense of this reflected in what's been written.


It's about cleaning out the closet. And this particular closet is chock-full of decades-old skeletons. Since you don't bother looking for evidence, I'm sure you wouldn't understand. But if you were more interested in real-life facts rather than drug-induced hallucinogenic remote-viewed "evidence" of life below the surface of mars (as one example) - you might realize the reality of "this whole area". But based on your general discription of exopolitics, and your Mike Horn - style approach to questions about the claimed "facts" (where's that piece of saucer again?) - it's pretty clear exopolitics is based on a foundation of fog. I find that very unfortunate. When people start shrugging off the importance of verifying facts - you open doors for the "pranksters" to take you for a ride, and you don't even know it.

Interesting anyway.


You can say that again.

-Ry
---
"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

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:14 pm

David,

We're truly at loggerheads here.


I would submit that you are at least 50% responsible for this, in that you have made some pretty large statements and claims and then offered absolutely nothing of value to back them. I'd say perhaps more than 50% because you should understand that anywhere you go and make such claims where critical thinkers hang out, you should expect such a loggerheads.

I always say that a UFO could land - be on the front of every paper and nothing much would change - such is the state of current global consciousness.


You can say that, but it would certainly not be true. As evidence for this just look at an opposing situation: Would you honestly say that "nothing much has changed" in our world since man landed on the moon?

On the definition thing Ray - all I was trying to say is that exopolitics isn't about putting proof on a plate.


You have made that abundantly clear in virtually all of your posts here, and in your strong claims that you have not supported. So what do you think that audio actually added to your message? On top of not backing your claims (those 100% numbers, remember them?), you also completely ignore (and never address) the salient points that myself and others have put to you. Avoiding the issues does not make for riveting (nor convincing) debate, now does it? Let me make some statements about the elusive definition of exopolitics... whenever you are ready to firm it up, I am happy to listen:

1) Exopolitics has little (if anything) to do with realpolitik as long as it does not deal in facts, and merely repeats lofty ideals with little substantive principles that can be easily grasped by reasonable people.
2) I (and others) have made the point before that a movement that does not have a foundation in facts and evidence is nothing more than a new religious movement. Could you please address this, instead of ignoring it? How do you (and the other ExoPos) distinguish yourself from a religion if you do not base your principles on extant, verifiable facts?
3) The Western model of society is clearly based on two fundamental social functions: LAW and GOVERNMENT, in that order. Our politics derive from these two functions. If a government is to show that a person or persons have violated the law, it MUST do so with veridical facts. Given that your movement appropriates the world "politics" can you please explain to me how it parallels our Western understanding of politics as I have just laid out (i.e. what, if any, veridical FACTS is your movement based upon?)?
4) In general, there are two primary foundations for what people choose to believe: Facts and emotion. As explained above, law would be dysfunctional (if not heretical) without facts as its basis. I would suggest that you, and people like you, use nothing but emotion as a foundation for your beliefs. This has been shown to be troublesome in our history of civilization.

It works precisely because it avoids this approach.


What do you mean by "works"? What about ExoPo "works"? From what I have seen (and I have reviewed a lot of your movements activities) I have seen absolutely no evidence for it "working", unless you mean it has culled a bunch of people who are not worried about veridical evidence to support your movement... IOW, people who use emotions as their worldview foundation.

Instead it is, as we suggested in the audio, a dynamic interplay of elements.


These are meaningless "fluff" words. In reality (where I live, not sure about you) ALL systems of our cosmos are a dynamic interplay of elements! In fact, this is the primary understanding of Systems Theory and the cornerstone of my profession as a systems engineer. So your attempt to use these words to set ExoPo apart as something unique will not work. In fact, I would suggest that you look into Systems Theory because it is more appropriate to these words you use than ExoPo. Systems Theory is a science that deals with the facts of dynamical, interacting (and non-linear) systems.

It's only by pulling data and experience from these varied areas that we can possibly get to grips with this subject. I personally don't see how it can be any different.


Fine. And you will note that several of us have been asking for DATA to support your claims. Since you have agreed (above) that any movement which is to be accepted as real requires data, perhaps you will cease sending us to meaningless video and audio streams, and provide some data? Short of that, could you engage in a real debate and address the points you have left by the wayside?

Put it this way - if you got a piece of saucer and could prove this much - then what? Would this be enough to deal with the issues at hand?


It would advance knowledge, and you know it. This is a preposterous strawman that you setup here, David, and I will simply NOT let you get away with it! The analogy to this shallow statement is "let's say that Enrico Fermi showed that one could split atoms and release energy - then what? Would this be enough to make it practical?" Sounds pretty silly when you look at your statement in a historical context, doesn't it?

It wouldn't - it may make a lot of people excited for a while but nothing much more would happen. It doesn't help hugely with helping us deal with who we are and what we're facing.


This conclusion is certainly not supported by history, and as such I would suggest that this is a prime example of how you use emotion as the basis for your beliefs. In REALITY (what this site is about) you can make NO believeable conclusions about what would happen if a real piece of saucer was presented for public (scientific) scrutiny. You just can't. So once again I put forth the evaluation that you use such thinly disguised emotional statements as a means to try and "sell" your beliefs to others. But I am telling you it won't work with those of us who understand that the scientific method has been responsible for our advance out of the dark ages. THAT is reality, David.

That's what this thread / topic area should be about and I think until it is - my role here is minimal.


Sorry, but the subject matter of the overall forum trumps anything that you think this thread/topic should be about. This forum is about reality. History has well-established that reality can only be arrived at with facts. Facts that all who wish to understand reality can examine for themselves.

I had high hopes of having a real, substantive discussion with you about ExoPo when you showed up. But I am afraid it is now reduced to you making wild claims and then not being able to support them, and as a last resort you simply want all of us to "just believe and then we can move on." There's a bunch of guys hiding in caves these days who use this same tactic to control their minions. We are a bit more sophisticated than to fall for that, thank you very much.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Postby David Griffin » Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:58 pm

This forum is about reality...



"The border between the Real and the Unreal is not fixed, but just marks the last place where rival gangs of shamans fought each other to a standstill." - R.A. Wilson, as quoted in 'The Cosmic Trigger', 'Reality is What You Can Get Away With'. New Falcon Press.


--
User avatar
David Griffin
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 4:24 pm
Location: UK Midlands

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:15 pm

And so, are you telling me that our discussion is reduced to nothing more than trading quotes from others? So be it.

“Reality is determined not by what scientists or anyone else says or believes but by what the evidence reveals to us”

- Alan Hale

"Reality does not conform to the ideal, but confirms it."

- Gustav Flaubert

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

- P.K. Dick

"I believe that the moment is near when by a procedure of active paranoiac thought, it will be possible to systematize confusion and contribute to the total discrediting of the world of reality."

- Salvador Dali

It would seem Mr. Dali predicted the rise of ExoPo! :)

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Postby Max » Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:31 pm

Exquisite.

I'm staying out of this one.

!. Ray is doing a brilliant job.

2. I'm enjoying the heck out of being a spectator! :)
View my Blog

You can't photoshop logic.
User avatar
Max
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:45 pm

Previous

Google

Return to Exopolitics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests

cron