Drones

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Re: Drones

Wow. And I guess your mind was already made up before you started watching it

Why do you always make such silly remarks? If something isn't that convincing it doesn't mean that the person concerned has a closed mind.
Anyone with any intelligence should want to find the truth regarding anything rather than having a preconceived idea that one wishes to illogically hang onto. If so called 'evidence' isn't convincing then there's no need to make ad hominem remarks even if it is in humour.
That is truthpaste's way of perceiving things.

[stevo]

Re: Drones

Why do you always make such silly remarks?

Hmmm. I think there have been two occasions when I have commented on the fact that you were quick to dismiss a paranormal event. But 'always...silly'?

In the case of Beatriz Villaroell's paper, you say the evidence isn't convincing. But if you only watched the first 15 minutes of the video then you wouldn't have heard all the evidence, so how can you form an opinion on whether it's convincing or not? That is characteristic of a closed mind.

I'll summarise:

* Over 300,000 photographic plates taken in the pre-Sputnik (1949 - 1957) era were analysed.

* Over 100,000 transients were identified

* There was a statistically significant correlation on the number of transients found on dates when nuclear testing was known to have taken place or dates where there were mass reports of UFO sightings (e.g. Washington DC 1952)

* The transients were typically observed outside of Earth's shadow indicating that the object's brightness was caused by the sun's reflection

* The magnitude of the brightness was too high for these objects to be natural i.e., a rocky surface.



Most folk on here when discussing anything paranormal say they will follow the science. In this case, a scientist has followed the scientific method and put forward a paper for peer review. However, it probably won't get peer reviewed - not because the evidence is uncompelling but because of the stigma attached to the subject. This is the exact opposite of what scientists should be doing, which is to follow the data.

But this is typical of modern science. Take Brian Cox for instance. Obviously a very clever chap. He says his hero is Galileo Galilei because spent the rest of his life under house arrest for daring to stand up to the Catholic Church and tell them they were wrong. Yet Cox scoffs at the idea of alien visitations and rules out the possibility by applying our current understanding of physics (such arrogance!). He will say it's not possible due to the vast distances involved and citing other theories such as the Fermi paradox. It sounds to me like his mind is fairly closed on the subject.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Re: Drones

Hmmm. I think there have been two occasions when I have commented on the fact that you were quick to dismiss a paranormal event. But 'always...silly'?

In the case of Beatriz Villaroell's paper, you say the evidence isn't convincing. But if you only watched the first 15 minutes of the video then you wouldn't have heard all the evidence, so how can you form an opinion on whether it's convincing or not? That is characteristic of a closed mind.

I'll summarise:

* Over 300,000 photographic plates taken in the pre-Sputnik (1949 - 1957) era were analysed.

* Over 100,000 transients were identified

* There was a statistically significant correlation on the number of transients found on dates when nuclear testing was known to have taken place or dates where there were mass reports of UFO sightings (e.g. Washington DC 1952)

* The transients were typically observed outside of Earth's shadow indicating that the object's brightness was caused by the sun's reflection

* The magnitude of the brightness was too high for these objects to be natural i.e., a rocky surface.



Most folk on here when discussing anything paranormal say they will follow the science. In this case, a scientist has followed the scientific method and put forward a paper for peer review. However, it probably won't get peer reviewed - not because the evidence is uncompelling but because of the stigma attached to the subject. This is the exact opposite of what scientists should be doing, which is to follow the data.

But this is typical of modern science. Take Brian Cox for instance. Obviously a very clever chap. He says his hero is Galileo Galilei because spent the rest of his life under house arrest for daring to stand up to the Catholic Church and tell them they were wrong. Yet Cox scoffs at the idea of alien visitations and rules out the possibility by applying our current understanding of physics (such arrogance!). He will say it's not possible due to the vast distances involved and citing other theories such as the Fermi paradox. It sounds to me like his mind is fairly closed on the subject.

Your remarks were silly as they were effectively ad hominem i.e. accusing me of having a closed mind because I wasn't totally convinved of claims made in some videos you linked to.

As for your comment about the paranormal and science, the latter is, by definition, about information and data that can be determined which may prove hypotheses and predict events. It's about knowledge and any sensible scientist knows that there are things we don't yet know. Scientists, being human beings, may have different opinions about different things that may currently lie outside the data currently available (just as they didn't the past) and that is logical.

As for Brian Cox's opinion about alien visitations, I have read some of his books and I wouldn't associate him with 'arrogance' at all. He belongs. He was a huge admirer of Richard Feynman, who delighted in occasionally being proved wrong in his scientific career - as it meant that something had been learned rather than something incorrect being held onto merely for egotistical reasons.

As for your comment 'In this case, a scientist has followed the scientific method and put forward a paper for peer review. However, it probably won't get peer reviewed - not because the evidence is uncompelling but because of the stigma attached to the subject.'
Can you quote the scientific paper she published and which would have been subjected to peer review as opposed to the published reports concerned? I would certainly be interested in the peer reviews wherever they point. (I don't buy your comment about reviews not being made due to the subject matter being a 'stigma).

P.S. You seemed to buy into the subterranian pyramid stuff quite recently and I am not aware of a paper being published on that subject yet. From what I know, the theory seems fanciful and not sustained by meaningful data but, as ever, I would think otherwise it if were subjected to analysis by a wide range of experts in the foeld rather than just watching videos. One doesn't want to be gullible and accept everything that does the rounds after all.

[stevo]

Re: Drones

Your remarks were silly as they were effectively ad hominem i.e. accusing me of having a closed mind because I wasn't totally convinved of claims made in some videos you linked to.

That was due to the fact that you didn't watch the whole video and therefore not take on board all the evidence and quickly made up your mind.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394040040_Aligned_multiple-transient_events_in_the_First_Palomar_Sky_Survey

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-6347224/v1

Regarding the pyramid structures, I'm not aware of any paper either. However, the team have developed their own patented solution and I'm guessing they want to keep the details of that under wraps at least for the time being. But that was an interesting case because when they made an announcement, people were quick to debunk it saying SAR can't penetrate levels that deep. But if anyone spent more than two minutes looking into their claims, they would have seen that the team weren't claiming that SAR was being used in that way at all - instead using SAR to detect acoustic vibrations rising to the surface of the Giza plateau. And it was the differences in those acoustic vibrations that suggested differences in the structure below the pyramid. They have used this technology to map out tunnels under mountain ranges, which we know are there. So, there is some credence to all this.

Next week I think we should discuss Materialism vs Idealism. That should be even more fun.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Re: Drones

That was due to the fact that you didn't watch the whole video and therefore not take on board all the evidence and quickly made up your mind.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394040040_Aligned_multiple-transient_events_in_the_First_Palomar_Sky_Survey

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-6347224/v1

Regarding the pyramid structures, I'm not aware of any paper either. However, the team have developed their own patented solution and I'm guessing they want to keep the details of that under wraps at least for the time being. But that was an interesting case because when they made an announcement, people were quick to debunk it saying SAR can't penetrate levels that deep. But if anyone spent more than two minutes looking into their claims, they would have seen that the team weren't claiming that SAR was being used in that way at all - instead using SAR to detect acoustic vibrations rising to the surface of the Giza plateau. And it was the differences in those acoustic vibrations that suggested differences in the structure below the pyramid. They have used this technology to map out tunnels under mountain ranges, which we know are there. So, there is some credence to all this.

Next week I think we should discuss Materialism vs Idealism. That should be even more fun.

What is a 'patented solution'?
Patents tend to pertain to invented technology that is original and which receives protection from those wishing to copy or use it for a specified period. From my time working in the field of Intellectual Property, I can't recalling it having a role in ancient historical discoveries.
Has the team concerned submitted and eventually had approved a patent of some description in the course of their research and specifically relating to technology they developed? If so, what relevance is that pattern to publishing historical evidence? And what is the specific information that you base your 'guessing' on?

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Re: Drones

I doubt anyone here is keeping track (or has even heard) of the Buga sphere story - a metallic sphere that was filmed flying around Buga, Columbia earliewr this year before hitting a powerline and descending to the ground. It was captured and has been analysed by scientists in Mexico. Plenty about this on YouTube and is covered by the usual tabloids who are not afraid to report on this kind of thing. Since, other spheres have been captured on video elsewhere in Columbia and even China.

https://www.unilad.com/technology/space/mexico-scientists-ufo-sphere-theory-discovery-891649-20250610

https://unidentifiedphenomena.com/topics/buga-ufo-sphere/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/ufo-sphere-scientists-uncover-incredible-35368085

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-14794379/sphere-shaped-UFO-new-details-proves-real.html

https://youtu.be/3w8vMou9jZg?si=4wYOVKQzGKsjbrqB

Anyway, a major press conference on this subject is scheduled for tomorrow:

https://youtu.be/J7YTP0rnb8M?si=0Wn-vJ-NMdsWx6Eh

And whilst I'm here, some updates on the Nazca mummies

https://youtu.be/Pd5gyYNnxWY?si=uGTa6UFTqcWSbybK

Written just last year, John McDowell (and not his son, the lawyer) stated in correspondence and regarding supposed 'obfuscation' about the mummies:

Thank you for the information you have provided. I am especially grateful for the attached images. Please give me a little more information about yourself and why you have an interest in these "Nazca Mummies."

None of us (Dr. Caruso, Dr. Rodriguez or I) who traveled to Peru to examine some of the "Nazca Mummies" have ever claimed or stated in any way what these specimens (specifically the images you have attached to this email) actually are. We were more interested in the "humanoid", larger bodies and did not spend much—if any time--with the smaller, "doll-like" entities. To my knowledge, none of us have stated anything in the public domain about these specific entities as shown in your email attachments. In fact, I do not believe that any of us said anything about the specimens represented in the images you have provided.

Please understand that we know the "Nazca Mummies" you have sent images of were never living entities composed of the hard tissues of one and only one "species." It would be foolish to state that these "bodies" could represent individuals that could have been alive let alone capable of walking, flying or swimming. Please do not infer that we said otherwise.

As I have said publicly, Jaime Maussan never at any point tried to influence our opinions nor would we allow him, or his associates to influence in any way our very limited evaluations of the entities that we examined during our short time in Peru. As I have clearly stated in multiple forums, we want to work with any reputable organization or individual(s) to determine what any and all of the "Nazca Mummies" actually are. Further know that we are all aware of hoaxes that have been perpetrated on well-meaning "scientists" in the past.

As any reputable, competent scientist would do, we maintain a high level of skepticism regarding the "Nazca Mummies."
John McDowe

P.S. I will be flying over what are referred to as the 'Nazca Lines' (symbols carved into the terrain) myself in November.

[stevo]

Re: Drones

What is a 'patented solution'?
Patents tend to pertain to invented technology that is original and which receives protection from those wishing to copy or use it for a specified period. From my time working in the field of Intellectual Property, I can't recalling it having a role in ancient historical discoveries.
Has the team concerned submitted and eventually had approved a patent of some description in the course of their research and specifically relating to technology they developed? If so, what relevance is that pattern to publishing historical evidence? And what is the specific information that you base your 'guessing' on?

Is invented technology not a type of solution? Semantics. Anyway, perhaps their solution isn't patented, but proprietary and that was just an assumption on my part. But their unique use of SAR technology to analyse micro movements generated by background seismic waves to generate 3D tomographic images is a solution devised by that team.

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/20/5231

[stevo]

Re: Drones

Please understand that we know the "Nazca Mummies" you have sent images of were never living entities composed of the hard tissues of one and only one "species." It would be foolish to state that these "bodies" could represent individuals that could have been alive let alone capable of walking, flying or swimming. Please do not infer that we said otherwise.

As any reputable, competent scientist would do, we maintain a high level of skepticism regarding the "Nazca Mummies."
John McDowe[/I]

I don't know who John McDowell is and what this is in response to. Can you send a link? He says he knows these mummies were never living entities without expanding further. I'm hoping this information can be found elsewhere.

If they are faked, then they are fakes that are thousands of years old, which in itself is worthy of investigation. IIRC, about 15% of the DNA retrieved from those bodies is still unknown.

BTW, scepticism is a good thing, it means keeping an open mind as opposed to outrightly rejecting something until proven to be true.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Re: Drones

Is invented technology not a type of solution? Semantics. Anyway, perhaps their solution isn't patented, but proprietary and that was just an assumption on my part. But their unique use of SAR technology to analyse micro movements generated by background seismic waves to generate 3D tomographic images is a solution devised by that team.

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/20/5231

Semantics? If you use a term perhaps it would help if it meant something.
If no patent is involved then what does that mean about what you were 'guessing' about?
And what is now the actual reason why have the claims not been officially published in a scientific paper that can be peer reviewed?

[stevo]

Re: Drones

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Re: Drones

I don't know who John McDowell is and what this is in response to. Can you send a link? He says he knows these mummies were never living entities without expanding further. I'm hoping this information can be found elsewhere.

If they are faked, then they are fakes that are thousands of years old, which in itself is worthy of investigation. IIRC, about 15% of the DNA retrieved from those bodies is still unknown.

BTW, scepticism is a good thing, it means keeping an open mind as opposed to outrightly rejecting something until proven to be true.

John McDowell is the father of Josh McDowell, who is mentioned in one of the videos you posted.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Re: Drones

Semantics? If you use a term perhaps it would help if it meant something.
If no patent is involved then what does that mean about what you were 'guessing' about?
And what is now the actual reason why have the claims not been officially published in a scientific paper that can be peer reviewed?

No specific answers from you then.

[stevo]

Re: Drones

No specific answers from you then.

I'm sorry. I've just lost all interest in this conversation. You're focussing on the side issues of peer reviews (or lack of) rather than the topic of conversation yourself. Besides, the peer review system is heavily flawed. As someone who has worked in a Russell Group University for 34 years, I know how research is funded. And for both research grants and and peer review, good luck trying to get something published that challenges the agreed narratives. The odds are stacked against you from the start.

The last thing I'll say on this topic is that the widely anticipated Jesse Michel's video covering the Nazca mummies that I posted above was released yesterday. Interestingly, John McDowell is featured in that who clearly isn't dismissing this whole subject.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Re: Drones

I'm sorry. I've just lost all interest in this conversation. You're focussing on the side issues of peer reviews (or lack of) rather than the topic of conversation yourself. Besides, the peer review system is heavily flawed. As someone who has worked in a Russell Group University for 34 years, I know how research is funded. And for both research grants and and peer review, good luck trying to get something published that challenges the agreed narratives. The odds are stacked against you from the start.

The last thing I'll say on this topic is that the widely anticipated Jesse Michel's video covering the Nazca mummies that I posted above was released yesterday. Interestingly, John McDowell is featured in that who clearly isn't dismissing this whole subject.

I am trying to take into account peer review as the view of experts in the field, a field that I am no expert in myself, hold some gravitas regarding scientific theories and data.

Just swallowing whole online videos is not my bag - and I remember you posting a link not so long ago by someone who was an experienced hoaxer.

If you post links and videos on here you should be prepared to accept searching questions about the subject matter concerned (and most posters ignore them!).

Good science should be open to scrutiny by all and sundry.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Re: Drones

Most posters ignore your drones and extra-terrestrial stuff, I meant.