Drones

[Taunton Blue Genie]

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.