Neil deGrasse Tyson's flawed logic

It was my hobby when I wasn't busy running two companies. LOL!

I wasn't with MUFON. I was strictly independent and loosely associated with a large groups of scientists. But I think most people in the field volunteer their time.

I was always careful to NEVER posit any hypothesis or explanations for events that seemed inexplicable in prosaic terms. I simply gathered the information, filtered out the most credible evidence, often I would contact people involved, and then report the information. If a prosaic explanation was likely, I would state that. There were about 200 Ph.Ds who would have loved to catch me making a crackpot argument, but I never tried to explain anything. I just said, here is the best evidence, you decide if it's all nonsense. And man that sure pissed a lot of people off!!! LOL! They didn't like what I was saying but they couldn't find any factual errors. They wanted to look good by shooting me down. But in over ten years, nobody ever could. I never slipped up and said something I couldn't defend.

I have read Streiber and take him with a grain of salt like I do most alleged abductees. I avoid cases where there was nothing but one person telling a story. Walton is the big exception to this rule because he had witnesses who passed lie detector tests.

If I had to bet my life one way or the other, after over 30 years of research, I would bet aliens are here and have been for a very long time. I don't know if they are time travelers or transdimensional or from another planet, or some combination, but one of those must be true...if I had to bet my life on it either way.

 

There is zero black and white evidence. There are tons of what I call 'grey evidence'.

Whether or not the grey evidence, in its vastness, constitutes 'credible' is debatable.

Tyson should know enough about photography to not utter a statement with a false premise, that if aliens were coming, we should have proof via cell phone footage.

Cell phone footage is in abundance, and none of it proves anything.

 

The challenge is to explain the highly credible UFO events. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks explains them. Tyson is just plain ignorant about the subject or he is intentionally deceptive.

You really can't blame him. He is a pop science celebrity. If he takes on UFOs in a serious way, his career would be over.

 

Here is a fun challenge: Name something that would be proof of alien visitations; something that couldn't be faked.

 

I have yet to see anything compelling regardless of its color.

We agree there. Tyson is out of line and out of his lane. He needs to stick to the science.

 

to what extent, depth, robustness, length of time, etc., have you surveyed the field? What have your looked at?

 

Explain Iran 76

 

Then explain the Malmstrom AFB missile event

 

Not very far. I view space aliens on our or around our planet to be a virtual impossibiity. The lack of concrete evidence backs up my disinterest in the subject.

 

In other words, you don't know anything about the subject.

Typical. And typical republican - plenty of opinions but no knowledge.

 

Neither do you. And the proof is on you as well.

 

I have posted reams of information about it. "And the proof is on you as well" isn't even a sentence. Care to try in legible English?

Tell us all about Iran 76 and how you explain it.

 

When all else fails, there is always the personal insult. You were able to read my incomplete sentence as well as this complete one. And how does one prove a negative? Explain the logic, please.

Again, what is Iran 76? What am I supposed to explain?[/quote]

 

There are no black and white (meaning 'incontrovertible') evidence but there is evidence of what I call 'grey evidence' (evidence which heightens the plausibility and probability), there are tons of that kind of evidence.

Curiosity and interest would lead you to the vast repertoire of that kind of evidence. But, waiting for an alien to land on your front lawn and take a selfie with you, that's just not going to happen. Why? The aliens don't want humans to have incontrovertible evidence, they are operating clandestinely, and what evidence we do have is due to the nature of physics in which absolutes are unobtainable, perfection is impossible, and despite their ability to cloak their space crafts and erase our memories when they do encounter us, flickerings of their presence does get through, in one way or the other, but it's not the kind of evidence that would satisfy a "give me absolute proof or give me nothing" scientist.

MOreover, your view that it is impossible or even 'virtually impossible' is derived from the poverty of man's imagination and knowledge. I say that by comparing what is known to what can be known. We've only scratched the surface. Mankind has only recently poked his head into space, he is a veritable newborn babe in the cosmology of things, and he's still riding around on rocket technology that was discovered 100 years ago. Hell, he's still driving around the streets on technology that was discovered in the late 19th century. For any human to declare practical interstellar ( though probably non linear ) travel as 'virtually impossible' is, well, how can anyone possibly say such a thing to project onto an advance race of beings who are, perhaps, one million years ahead of us?

 

I don't believe he's talking about single photographs.

If there is a real incident, one could expect numerous photos of the incident from cell phones, area surveillance cameras, car cameras, etc.

As for camera quality, let's remember that a commercial motion picture got filmed on a Apple cell phone.

Instead, we have grainy photos of events that have terrestrial explanations.

 

Not necessarily, see below.

Cellphones are primarily designed for portraits, where time isn't of the essence. Even with improved lenses and high ISO capabilities of Apple cell phones, they are not designed to shoot sports, low light, and it is that kind of capable camera one would need for shooting on the fly UAPs. The Apple cannot match that of a Canon 5d mark IV and a Canon series L F/2.8 24-200mm (or the 600mm for distance shooting) lens (or the Nikon equivalent ) which would be heavy and impractical to carry aboard a military jet and even then, can an Apple user control aperture, shutter speed, film speed (ISO) ? Even if you could, it would be done via a cumbersome slow action screen menu, noting that for this type of shooting, time IS of the essence, whereas the Canon and Nikon can adjust these values from mechanical dials on the fly and done while looking through the lens (a dSLR's TTL system) seeing what the camera sees. Sometimes the programmed settings aren't what is needed and that is why pros prefer cameras where the shooter can manually adjust these values.

As explained above, it is why the best can be had is from cell phones at a distance.

Testimonies garnered from hundreds of hypnotherapist's sessions on abductees tell the same story on a number of details, and the pertinent one here is that many abductees had set up video cameras to record their abductions. After retrieving the data cartridge after the abduction was over, all that was shown as the abductee getting up and turning it up, doing it while sleepwalking, or the camera was switched off for unexplained reasons. It happened in each and every case. Moreover, we have testimonies form pilots asserting that when they got close to a ufo, their instruments go haywire. We have testimonies from abductees who were abducted while driving their car, being psychically controlled to pull over, whereupon their vehicle quit, and wouldn't restart, and other electronic devices, such as cameras, etc., were also disabled whilst the vehicle was enveloped in a beam of light.

Moreover, we have additional testimony which reveals that aliens have technology that can selectively reveal their presence, say, if there is a crowd, to persons A, B and C, but not persons X, Y and Z, via neurological engagement ( the term used by Dr. David Jacobs). this would discount your assumption that "If there is a real incident, one could expect numerous photos of the incident from cell phones, area surveillance cameras, car cameras..."

Like I said, not necessarily.

So, one of the following is true.

1. Everyone is making it up and/or having the same mass hallucination in which the details the same.
2. Everyone is telling the truth, or rather, to the best of their recollection, and from there I would therefore conclude that aliens are on a clandestine mission and do not want humans to have conclusive proof.

Moreover, their UAP light ray beams do not work well at a distance for switching off electronic devices, (based on empirical evidence) hence the many photos by cell phones of UAPs which are done at a fairly long distance are nothing more than fuzzy dots on a photo but nothing is shot up close.

Take your pick. I'm inclined to go with door #2 but #1 could be correct. I don't see how so many people can be having the same hallucination right down to nuts and bolts details. That is why I"m inclined to do with #2. Yes, hypnotherapy testimony is not all that reliable, we know this, but there are compelling exceptions, as noted, above. It's not conclusive proof, what I call 'black and white' evidence, it is what I call 'grey' evidence, which is evidence that may increase the plausibility or likelihood, even though it's not incontrovertibly conclusive.

 

The only thing that would be absolute proof is if one alien craft made an appearance where they revealed their presence to masses of people, on Television, in coordination with science and military personal.

It is my belief that they are not going to reveal themselves unless:

1. There is a catastrophic climate event

2. A massive nuclear launch by any of the major super powers.

In which they would make themselves known via a massive intervention. They couldn't stop #1, but they could stop #2, probably.

In short, they are waiting for the aggregate consciousness in mankind to raise up to a higher level, we are too unwise, violent, etc.

In the meantime, they are operating clandestinely and abducting humans, performing medical treatment, experiments ( no one knows what they are doing and what their agenda is, but alien/human hybrids is part of the agenda).

 

What you suggest CAN be known is like dreaming of unicorns. You can't compare that to what we know.

Those dreams are not a justification for believing aliens are flying around Earth.

 

two things:

1. Your 'unicorns' comparison is absurd. Comparing what is known to what can be known is a reasonable proposition. How so? The universe is so infinitely vast and the human mind is so infinitesimally small compared to it and ever so knew to the subject, what are the odds we are any where near knowing what can be known about it?

given our cosmic nubile-ness, I find it reasonable to deduce that we are veritable babes in the cosmic woods on the subject, and your notion of 'unicorns' doesn't ring true or even remotely true. Sure, it's speculation, either way, but your way doesn't seem quite right. Even if I were a scientist who knew a lot about physics, I'd still assert that being humble about the universe is better than being arrogant about it. You confuse my valid assessment as an indictment, nay, that is far from the truth, it's a statement of humility, as one should be, about the vast universe. scientist or layman. To be otherwise is to be arrogant.

2. Your usage of the phraseology, 'believing aliens are flying around the Earth' has most certainly an unscientific and disparaging color to it, which suggests you are biased against the possibility of alien visitation. I note that it isn't the first time you've used that characterization.

 

I don't believe that ALL of them are lying, though there is no question that many certainly are.

But, as we see with tic-tac, etc., even honest professionals end up with fuzzy blobs and get fooled.

One of the problems is that these UFOlogists are searching for confirmation of their beliefs rather than looking for explanations of visual phenomena.

So, we see stuff like the belief that the physics we know is irrelevant! Once physics is irrelevant, all that remains is dreams.

 

Not to mention the Maelstrom and Rendlesham Forest incidents.

 

The size of the universe is not a relevant issue in terms of the physics we know, as there is no reason to believe that physics is different someplace other than Earth.

Declaring physics to be irrelevant is NOT a statement of humility.

Your premise is to disqualify physics - a wonderful way of freeing the imagination so you can call anything "evidence".

So, why are you now worried about being unscientific?

Or, are there PARTS of physics that you accept while eliminating other parts?

 

That is your opinion. I disagree, because I have more confidence in Dr. David Jacobs, Prof John Mack who have the skills and integrity to exclude the disengenuous.

You don't know that they were 'fooled', that's an assumption.

Maybe some are, I'm not nor are those whom I have confidence in are.

No one I know of and trust is making that claim, so it's a mystery to me why you make the point.

 

I used the size of the universe as a metaphor.

Please provide the quote where I assert physics is irrelevant.

You can't, because I didn't assert it.

False, I didn't disqualify physics. You are making stuff up.

No, this is a claim you have made about yourself, to be a person of science.

So, when you do, and engage in unscientific rhetoric, I'm going to call you out on it.

I'm not a scientist, but even there, I strive to avoid using emotive negative language which, writ large, has no scientific value.

I do not reject any part.

I do reject any claim that practical interstellar travel is impossible, because I do believe that statement is not scientific, it's arrogance.

But, if we stated:

Due to our current knowledge of physics, we do not have the technology for practical interstellar travel, but, perhaps in the future,
we might acquire the technology.

Not only would that be truer than your statement, it would reflect a more humble position.

Humility is always a good thing. Humility does not reject physics on any level. Humility is not science, per se, it's an approach to science.

 

You repeatedly claim that what we know about physics is too miniscule to be considered.