What's new

An Alleged 1953 UFO Crash and Burial Near Garrison, Utah

I highly recommend Joe Rogan's podcast with Bob Lazar. You can find the whole thing on YouTube.

The bearded guy is kind of annoying, but everything else is fascinating. Yes, even if Lazar is lying. He's still revealed a lot of things people said weren't true that have since be discovered to be truths
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, senators receive a classified briefing....

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/19/warner-classified-briefing-ufos-1544273

"Three more U.S. senators received a classified Pentagon briefing on Wednesday about a series of reported encounters by the Navy with unidentified aircraft, according to congressional and military officials — part of a growing number of requests from members of key oversight committees......

.....The interest in “unidentified aerial phenomenon” has grown since revelations in late 2017 that the Pentagon had set up a program to study the issue at the request of then-Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Officials interviewed multiple current and former sailors and aviators who claim to have encountered highly advanced aircraft that appeared to defy the laws of aerodynamics when they intruded on protected military airspace — some of which were captured on video and made public.

The Navy has played a prominent role in light of the testimony of F/A-18 pilots and other personnel operating with the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier battle group off California in 2004 and the USS Theodore Roosevelt in the Atlantic in 2015 and 2016.

“Navy officials did indeed meet with interested congressional members and staffers on Wednesday to provide a classified brief on efforts to understand and identify these threats to the safety and security of our aviators," spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Daniel Day said in a statement.

He said "follow-up discussions with other interested staffers" were also scheduled for Thursday. "Navy officials will continue to keep interested congressional members and staff informed. Given the classified nature of these discussions, we will not comment on the specific information provided in these Hill briefings.”
 
I highly recommend Joe Rogan's podcast with Bob Lazar. You can find the whole thing on YouTube.

The bearded guy is kind of annoying, but everything else is fascinating. Yes, even if Lazar is lying. He's still revealed a lot of things people said weren't true that have since be discovered to be truths

I listened to this again my bike ride to Moab yesterday.

@colton if you get a chance, listen to this and give your thoughts. You're an expert on physics so I trust you - does Lazar sound legit or like a clown?
 
All of this is absolute *****.

Lol, well perhaps. But I don't think the Navy pilots deserve to be dismissed summarily. But to each his own, of course.

I would say scientific materialism is the overarching paradigm of the scientific era, regardless of which scientific discipline we are talking about. And perhaps evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is the most prominent defender of this paradigm in the face of what scientific materialists sometimes derisively refer to as "woo". During his life, the esteemed Carl Sagan often played that role. There is even a Wikipedia group that is devoted to altering the pages of scientists who they regard as promoting subjects/attitudes that stray from scientific materialism. Rupert Sheldrake comes to mind as one scientist who has been attacked in this fashion, with derisive comments added to his Wikipedia entry. I often find anger to be an underlying attitude of such folks, and I gain nothing by engaging with them. They are entitled to subscribe to the dominant overarching paradigm of the scientific era.

But I'm not a fan of scientific materialism. I would much prefer to examine the frontiers of a different attitude toward reality, so I will delve into telepathy, psychokinesis, the nature of consciousness and the place of consciousness in the natural world, and many more etceteras. Is consciousness more fundamental then matter? I'm interested in questions like that, and I see some well known and respected thinkers of the past hundred plus years have also not been afraid to explore such areas. I myself have experienced "non-local consciousness" and see no reason why I would not want to understand the nature of such things. What should I be afraid of, nothing, that I can see. Someone once told me "don't be so open minded that your brain falls out!" Haha, fat chance.

Not a fan of scientific materialism, although I certainly respect the scientific method, and the good things that have resulted from the birth and development of modern science. Scientism, on the other hand, no, not a fan.

And as far as what these pilots and other Navy crew members have been seeing, and engaging at times, I see nothing at all wrong with trying to understand more. I've watched the first 4 episodes of the History Network's "Unidentified". So far, it's been entirely focused on tracking down any pilot or crewmember willing to talk about the 2004 and 2015-16 incidents. It's been interesting. I don't like the reality TV format, but, that's the genre these days. Don't think it helps credibility sandwiching the program between episodes of "Ancient Aliens", but, that's the History Network. I've enjoyed the conversations recorded with the Navy personel. And I see nothing wrong with the interest shown by members of Congress.
 
I often find anger to be an underlying attitude of such folks, and I gain nothing by engaging with them.

People say that about me a lot.

But I'm not a fan of scientific materialism.

There doesn't seem to be a broadly accepted definition of scientific materialism. How would you distinguish it from methodological naturalism?

Not a fan of scientific materialism, although I certainly respect the scientific method, and the good things that have resulted from the birth and development of modern science. Scientism, on the other hand, no, not a fan.

Is there a difference between scientific materialism and scientism?
 
People say that about me a lot.

Well, I don't know you, but haven't noticed that based on this forum. I guess people say that about me a lot as well, however.

There doesn't seem to be a broadly accepted definition of scientific materialism. How would you distinguish it from methodological naturalism?

Since I actually just had to look up "methodical naturalism", it's a new concept to me, and until or unless I study the concept, I'm at a loss to really answer your question. I do believe it is possible for humans to access both abilities and knowledge other then by the scientific method. I had an aunt, who was a nun, who in the days leading up to her death, levitated several times. We witnessed this. We were not hallucinating, we witnessed this. In fact, I believe there should surely be an rational explanation for this, and once found, it should not overturn science at all, but should instead constitute a learning opportunity where our understanding of the nature of reality, and our own nature, is concerned, but it's hardly a reproducible phenomenon, and only serves to hint at abilities not generally acknowledged by science. Studying such things should expand our understanding of reality. But, in general, all such phenomena are dismissed as impossible.

There was a Russian woman, who was filmed by Russian scientists demonstrating PK. I do not believe fakery was ever demonstrated to be taking place. There are several YouTube videos of this, so people can at least make some judgement of what they are seeing. There has to be a natural explanation for that ability, but many scientists place it, and other so-called "psychic abilities" over in the "woo" category. I think we do a disservice to the goal of better understanding the universe, and our own nature, by relegating all this to "woo", that it is somehow all fake and not worth looking at for one second, or worth trying to incorporate it into models of reality. I suspect this will change. But these are difficult to reproduce in a lab, or summon at will, and parapsychology, despite the existence of academic departments and institutes devoted to such studies, it's not exactly highly regarded, or generally accepted as worthy of any study at all.

Is there a difference between scientific materialism and scientism?

Well, I often have my own definitions for terms, and in the case of Scientism, I define it as the attitude that only through the scientific method can we learn anything fundamental about nature and the universe. I guess I see scientism as raising science to the status of a faith, but I would have to think about this more. There may not be a substantive difference in my mind between the two.

Scientific materialism excludes as at all worthy of study phenomena that could be studied, in fact are studied, if we think of disciplines like parapsychology, and scientism is a belief that science alone results in accurate pictures of nature and the universe.

I have just seen, or myself experienced, too many things that come under the heading of "psychic phenomena" to be as easily dismissive as they usually are by those who see it all as "woo", as utter nonsense. Experience won't allow me to do that. But I do believe such things point to a better understanding of our own nature, and perhaps the nature of consciousness and the influence of mind on the material universe, so, really, I see such phenomenon as not outside reality at all, but simply not yet incorporated into our understanding of reality. It's not that they threaten science at all, they just go against the philosophical grain of science, as it were. And since they are often experienced subjectively, and can't be reproduced at will in a lab, I can at least recognize that's a big handicap.
 
Scientific materialism excludes as at all worthy of study phenomena that could be studied, in fact are studied, if we think of disciplines like parapsychology, and scientism is a belief that science alone results in accurate pictures of nature and the universe.

While there are several skeptics who believe in some form of scientism, there are also many (including myself) who recognize the fundamental questions of worth, value, human rights, etc., can never have an answer in science.

I referred to methodological naturalism because I see science as a fundamentally material process of investigation. That means that, were you to posit some non-material phenomenon, science is basically unequipped to investigate it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
One does not have to apply the advice offered here, once again by Avi Loeb, Chair of the Harvard astronomy dept., to crashed UFOs, or things fighter pilots see that they cannot comprehend, but, since talk of dogmatism in science has been part of this conversation, I did think this short essay was a timely read.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...wants-more-scientists-to-think-like-children/

QUESTION: What is one thing wrong with the world that you would change, and why?

The one thing I would change about the world is to transform my colleagues in academia to kids all over again, so they would follow the sincere path of learning about the world.

We are born innocent and humble, wondering about the world around us and trying to figure it out, initially without even having a language to express our findings. There is no bigger privilege to being alive than this learning experience. As kids, we tolerate mistakes and take risks because these are inseparable from the process of expanding our knowledge base. These aspects make most childhoods exciting and authentic.

But somewhere along the way, when some of these same kids join academia and are accorded the privilege of tenure, they lose the traits of childhood innocence and unbounded curiosity. As senior professors, they can get attached to their egos and navigate in directions that maximize awards, honors, and affiliation with prestigious societies or organizations. To enhance their reputations, tenured professors often tend to create “echo chambers” of students and postdocs who study theses with references to their papers and conference contributions. The loud echo amplifies the mentor’s influence in the academic community.

Is there anything wrong in this progression from childhood curiosity to academic fame? By chasing self-interest, we often lose track of the real goal of academic pursuit: learning about the world. This conflict is apparent when the popular view advocated by authority is not aligned with the truth.

One inevitably makes mistakes and takes risks when exploring the unknown. Even Albert Einstein argued, toward the end of his career, for the lack of “spooky action at a distance” in quantum mechanics, and against the existence of black holes and gravitational waves. We now know from experiments that those assertions were wrong. But the benefit of science is that we learn by making mistakes. If we will not allow ourselves to venture into the unknown, by assuming that the future will always resemble the past based on our gut feelings, we will never make discoveries.

Research can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. By forecasting what we expect to find and using new data to justify prejudice, we will avoid creating new realities. Innovation demands risk-taking, sometimes contrary to our best academic instincts of enhancing our image within our community of scholars. Learning means giving a higher priority to the world around you than to yourself. Without the humble attitude of a child, innovation slows down and the efficiency of the academic pursuit of the truth grinds to a halt. We all become static museum items rather than dynamic innovators.

As Galileo reasoned after looking through his telescope, “in the sciences, the authority of a thousand is not worth as much as the humble reasoning of a single individual.” I would add the footnote that sometimes Mother Nature is kinder to innovative ideas than people are. When we study the world, there is a lot to worry about. But at the same time, there is a famous quote by Nachman of Breslov: “The whole world is nothing but a very narrow bridge, and the key is not to be fearful at all.”

The fundamental purpose of tenure is to enable individuals to take risks and venture into unexplored territories of knowledge without concern for the security of their jobs. Honors should be merely makeup on the face of academia, but they sometimes become an obsession.

Despite the notion that is often advanced by textbooks, our knowledge should be regarded as a small island in a vast ocean of ignorance. The most efficient way to add landmass to this island is by not being afraid of the consequences of originality, by being dedicated to the thrill of finding the truth irrespective of whether it boosts our ego or reputation as tenured professors.

We live for such a short period of time on one small planet out of a hundred-quintillion other habitable planets in the observable volume of the Universe. Let us not pretend that we are so special. Let us maintain some cosmic modesty and study the world sincerely, just like kids.

— ABRAHAM “AVI” LOEB
Frank B. Baird Jr. Professor of Science
Chair, Astronomy Department
 
Last edited:
I hate to share a Fox news clip with Tucker, but this isn't about them.

@colton what do you think about this guy's comments or credibility?



Lol @ all the people that deny UFOs and make fun of people who believe in them.
 
Back
Top