Re: UFOs use a new state of matter.
RichD
> >>>>> Barney and Betty Hill were privy to advanced
> >>>>> secrets, but never talked...
> >>>>
> >>>> How easily fooled you are, Rich.
> >>> Thanks, Sam, that made my day.
> >> You are welcome. Did you hear Joe Pyne interviewing
> >> Barney and Betty Hill on a call in radio program
> >> back in the 60s?
>
> > No, unfortunately, I was too busy tuning in
> > to Art Bell.... did I miss anything?
>
> I'm not sure Art Bell was on the air back then. I called in.. asked
> a question about sounds. Of course, the Hills couldn't come up with
> any sounds.
I'm surprised... it should be easy to gin up UFO
sounds... like a helicopter or something.
Or they could have said: in a vacuum,
no one can hear you scream...
> I don't know why people are so willing to believe these things.
Because it's more fun than boring old science...
wondering and speculating is more exciting than knowing.
Marvin Minsky once wrote an essay: "Why AI can
never win". His point was that certain tasks seemingly
require human intelligence, beyond machine capability...
like chess, for instance... until a program beats a chess
master, and people say "oh well, chess is obviously
simple, that's not real intelligence, just a trick."
It's the same type of thing - people want to believe
in unsolvable mysteries, they want unanswerable riddles.
Human nature, what can ya do?
http://www.michaelshermer.com/weird-things/
--
Rich
Wolf K
>> I don't know why people are so willing to believe these things.
>
> Because it's more fun than boring old science...
> wondering and speculating is more exciting than knowing.
Only if you don't know anything.
Hah!
Wolf K.
N
Well, privately No one would have believed in the last years of the
nineteenth century at all! maybe in that this world was being watched
keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as
mortal as his own? who knows? its like you know when that as men
busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised
and studied, ? huh? and only perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with
a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and
multiply in a drop of water. yeh?
Rich Grise
>
> It's the same type of thing - people want to believe in unsolvable
> mysteries, they want unanswerable riddles. Human nature, what can ya do?
>
> http://www.michaelshermer.com/weird-things/
Speaking of riddles, what does a woman say after she's been sexually
gratified?
(spoiler below)
v
v
v
v
v
(spoiler below)
v
v
v
v
v
(spoiler below)
v
v
v
v
v
(spoiler below)
v
v
v
v
v
(spoiler below)
v
v
v
v
v
I figured you wouldn't know.
;-)
Rich
N
"I've been watching your world from afar, I've been trying to be where
you are, and I've been secretly falling apart, you see, to me you're
strange and you're beautiful!" ?
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
The best argument against UFOs being spacecraft is that the technology
demonstrated in "contacts" is so utterly primitive.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
Wolf K
> Wolf K wrote:
>> RichD wrote:
>>> On Oct 16, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> I don't know why people are so willing to believe these things.
>>>
>>> Because it's more fun than boring old science...
>>> wondering and speculating is more exciting than knowing.
>> [...]
>>
>> Only if you don't know anything.
>
> The best argument against UFOs being spacecraft is that the technology
> demonstrated in "contacts" is so utterly primitive.
>
Which demonstrates the weak imaginations of those who are impressed by
these "mysteries."
wolf k.
john
wrote:
> Wolf K wrote:
> > RichD wrote:
> >> On Oct 16, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> I don't know why people are so willing to believe these things.
>
> >> Because it's more fun than boring old science...
> >> wondering and speculating is more exciting than knowing.
> > [...]
>
> > Only if you don't know anything.
>
> The best argument against UFOs being spacecraft is that the technology
> demonstrated in "contacts" is so utterly primitive.
>
his contact an unexposed film and then
*claimed* to receive it back days later
with an image exposed on it and
PUBLISHED those claims and that
image in a BOOK
and then TEN YEARS LATER an
explorer/archaeologist named Marcel Homet
dug up a 20,000 year old petroglyph with
virtually the same COMPLEX image ENGRAVED
on it, while excavating a tribe whose other
images depicted communication with
people who came from the sky?
(Sons of the Sun by Homet)
How does that happen in Dorkland?
john
Sam Wormley
> Oh, like when Adamski *claimed* to give
> his contact an unexposed film and then
> *claimed* to receive it back days later
> with an image exposed on it and
> PUBLISHED those claims and that
> image in a BOOK
> and then TEN YEARS LATER an
> explorer/archaeologist named Marcel Homet
> dug up a 20,000 year old petroglyph with
> virtually the same COMPLEX image ENGRAVED
> on it, while excavating a tribe whose other
> images depicted communication with
> people who came from the sky?
> (Sons of the Sun by Homet)
>
> How does that happen in Dorkland?
>
> john
>
(sigh)
john
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sam, what kind of proof do you need?
How does someone publish a complex drawing
10 years BEFORE it is unearthed?
Sam, what kind of proof do you need?
Sam, what kind of proof do you need?
Sam, what kind of proof do you need?
Sam, what kind of proof do you need?
You refuse to look at evidence
for things you don't believe in,
and you accept really, really, vague
evidence for things you
do believe in.
Really, man!!
Be a scientist!!
You need an OPEN mind.
john
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Next you'll be telling us the transistor was reverse engineered from
Roswell!
john
wrote:
Tell me how someone hoaxes publishes the
same complex diagram that will not be dug up
for ten years and in both appearances
it is connected with extraterrestrial humans?
john
Rich Grise
> On Oct 21, 3:36�pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
>> > On Oct 21, 1:18 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> >> john wrote:
>> >>> Oh, like when Adamski *claimed* to give
>> >>> his contact an unexposed film and then
>> >>> *claimed* to receive it back days later
>> >>> with an image exposed on it and
>> >>> PUBLISHED those claims and that
>> >>> image in a BOOK
>> >>> and then TEN YEARS LATER an
>> >>> explorer/archaeologist named Marcel Homet
>> >>> dug up a 20,000 year old petroglyph with
>> >>> virtually the same COMPLEX image ENGRAVED
>> >>> on it, while excavating a tribe whose other
>> >>> images depicted communication with
>> >>> people who came from the sky?
>> >>> (Sons of the Sun by Homet)
>> >>> How does that happen in Dorkland?
>>
>> > How does someone publish a complex drawing
>> > 10 years BEFORE it is unearthed?
>> > Sam, what kind of proof do you need?
>> > Sam, what kind of proof do you need?
>> > Sam, what kind of proof do you need?
>> > Sam, what kind of proof do you need?
>>
>> > You refuse to look at evidence
>> > for things you don't believe in,
>> > and you accept really, really, vague
>> > evidence for things you
>> > do believe in.
>> > Really, man!!
>> > Be a scientist!!
>> > You need an OPEN mind.
>>
>> Roswell!
>>
> No, we're not to 'next' yet, Dirk.
>
> Tell me how someone hoaxes publishes the
> same complex diagram that will not be dug up
> for ten years and in both appearances
> it is connected with extraterrestrial humans?
>
Hope This Helps!
Rich
Alan Morgan
john <veg...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>On Oct 21, 11:31=A0am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> Wolf K wrote:
>> > RichD wrote:
>> >> On Oct 16, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> > [...]
>>
>> >> Because it's more fun than boring old science...
>> >> wondering and speculating is more exciting than knowing.
>> > [...]
>>
>> > Only if you don't know anything.
>>
>> The best argument against UFOs being spacecraft is that the technology
>> demonstrated in "contacts" is so utterly primitive.
>>
>Oh, like when Adamski *claimed* to give
>his contact an unexposed film and then
>*claimed* to receive it back days later
>with an image exposed on it and
>PUBLISHED those claims and that
>image in a BOOK
>and then TEN YEARS LATER an
>explorer/archaeologist named Marcel Homet
>dug up a 20,000 year old petroglyph with
>virtually the same COMPLEX image ENGRAVED
>on it, while excavating a tribe whose other
>images depicted communication with
>people who came from the sky?
>(Sons of the Sun by Homet)
>
>How does that happen in Dorkland?
This was the same Adamski who claimed that the far side of the
moon had trees and mountains with snow-capped peaks? That he
had snacked on Venusian plants? That dude?
Homet was familiar with Adamski's claims and I can't find any
pictures of the petroglyph in question. Is it beyond the realm
of possibility that Homet faked the finding?
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
john
> In article <d5e0ec1d-8875-4194-bc82-f607b6992...@m13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Homet wrote a book and
supplied pictures of
all his 20,000 year old glyphs.
Written in stone, buddy.
john
Sam Wormley
>
> Tell me how someone hoaxes publishes the
> same complex diagram that will not be dug up
> for ten years and in both appearances
> it is connected with extraterrestrial humans?
>
> john
Pretty gullible, you are, John.
We have only your word for it that the alleged 20,000 year old
petroglyph is identical to some "unexposed film". Give us a
break, John. Have you any evidence? Of any kind?
john
archaeology, and author whose book containing his
pictures of all the petroglyphs I read back before computer fakery.
There were plenty of pictures- see "Sons of the Sun(?)
by Marcel Homet
I'm pretty sure he showed these rocks to others who would
probably be able to determine if he had just recently carved
them with his little scout knife.
I'm sure after the effort it takes getting to some
of those places in Brazil, he would be in good enough shape to do that
after supper. As would you, I'm sure.
john
Sam Wormley
>
> Homet wrote a book and
> supplied pictures of
> all his 20,000 year old glyphs.
> Written in stone, buddy.
> john
John, have you any idea how much out right fraud is published in books?
Sam Wormley
> Marcel Homet was a widely-travelled doctor of
> archaeology, and author whose book containing his
> pictures of all the petroglyphs I read back before computer fakery.
> There were plenty of pictures- see "Sons of the Sun(?)
> by Marcel Homet
> I'm pretty sure he showed these rocks to others who would
> probably be able to determine if he had just recently carved
> them with his little scout knife.
> I'm sure after the effort it takes getting to some
> of those places in Brazil, he would be in good enough shape to do that
> after supper. As would you, I'm sure.
>
> john
john
I think what Homet came up
with was pretty concrete, Sam.
Nobody disputes his finding these rocks.
Unfortunately they don't have a tour schedule, being
rather heavy, you know, so if you won't believe pictures or books
perhaps South America would be a good holiday for you?
john
Sam Wormley
> On Oct 21, 6:03 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> john wrote:
>>> Marcel Homet was a widely-travelled doctor of
>>> archaeology, and author whose book containing his
>>> pictures of all the petroglyphs I read back before computer fakery.
>>> There were plenty of pictures- see "Sons of the Sun(?)
>>> by Marcel Homet
>>> I'm pretty sure he showed these rocks to others who would
>>> probably be able to determine if he had just recently carved
>>> them with his little scout knife.
>>> I'm sure after the effort it takes getting to some
>>> of those places in Brazil, he would be in good enough shape to do that
>>> after supper. As would you, I'm sure.
>>> john
>> Right! http://ancientx.com/nm/anmviewer.asp?a=90
>
> I think what Homet came up
> with was pretty concrete, Sam.
> Nobody disputes his finding these rocks.
It's the interpretation that is in question, John!
john
> john wrote:
> > On Oct 21, 6:03 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> john wrote:
> >>> Marcel Homet was a widely-travelled doctor of
> >>> archaeology, and author whose book containing his
> >>> pictures of all the petroglyphs I read back before computer fakery.
> >>> There were plenty of pictures- see "Sons of the Sun(?)
> >>> by Marcel Homet
> >>> I'm pretty sure he showed these rocks to others who would
> >>> probably be able to determine if he had just recently carved
> >>> them with his little scout knife.
> >>> I'm sure after the effort it takes getting to some
> >>> of those places in Brazil, he would be in good enough shape to do that
> >>> after supper. As would you, I'm sure.
> >>> john
> >> Right! http://ancientx.com/nm/anmviewer.asp?a=90
>
> > I think what Homet came up
> > with was pretty concrete, Sam.
> > Nobody disputes his finding these rocks.
>
> It's the interpretation that is in question, John!
>
>
been trying to advance our scientific knowledge with
basically the same bunch of drawings
for 20,000 years.
Good luck. We're real slow.
john
Sam Wormley
> The interpretaion is this; extraterrestrial humans have
> been trying to advance our scientific knowledge with
> basically the same bunch of drawings
> for 20,000 years.
>
> Good luck. We're real slow.
>
> john
<shaking head> Scientific evidence? None!
john
What do you have against our planet
being just one of many containing
human beings, Sam?
If you find a blueberry bush in
a field do you say, "OMG!! This could
only happen once? Or do you
expect to find more blueberries?
I would think it comforting.
john
Sam Wormley
> On Oct 21, 7:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> john wrote:
>>> The interpretaion is this; extraterrestrial humans have
>>> been trying to advance our scientific knowledge with
>>> basically the same bunch of drawings
>>> for 20,000 years.
>>> Good luck. We're real slow.
>>> john
>> <shaking head> Scientific evidence? None!
>
> What do you have against our planet
> being just one of many containing
> human beings, Sam?
I have no problem embracing the possibility of live all over
the cosmos including other places in the solar system, and
look forward of EVIDENCE of live in other places.
The probability that other life had identical DNA as humans
is just about ZERO.
Evolutionary processed in different places produce different
life forms and species. Humans would not have survive on our
planet in many earlier epochs.
Relativity petty much prohibits advance technical civilization
(assuming such exist) from any reasonably fast travel even between
stars. Alien spacecraft, the probability, thereof, is just about
ZERO.
John, you have a tough time sorting science from science fiction
and speculation.
I'll bet that the cosmos is teaming with life... but it doesn't
visit here on spaceships. Perhaps microbial life on a meteor,
but not what you fantasize about. John.
john
In all the ages.
Why would we want such a bunch of liars to
travel off-planet, then?
Leave them to their fate.
john
john
http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2009/uk2009ci.shtml
This is a picture of a crop circle 2 months ago.
Nice, eh?
Does this contain any scientific information?
Is it from off-planet or from some force/intelligence on or within
the planet?
Browse through all the other pictures.
Pretty impressive work, no?
john
john
> Is this a fantasy?http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2009/uk2009ci.shtml
> This is a picture of a crop circle 2 months ago.
> Nice, eh?
> Does this contain any scientific information?
> Is it from off-planet or from some force/intelligence on or within
> the planet?
> Browse through all the other pictures.
> Pretty impressive work, no?
>
Let me interpret the above crop circle for you:
( http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2009/uk2009ci.shtml )
Two orthogonal rotations, one moving five times while
the other moves ten times.
And the tiny circles indicate that this arrangement repeats
at smaller scales.
What I been sayin', man.
john
john
> john wrote:
I need to make sure you
see this whole thing, Sam.
Sorry to repeat:
> > john- Hide quoted text -
Sam Wormley
john
>
Look at the sun's reflection off those circles.
They are perfectly alike.
Look from this other angle;
http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2009/uk2009ci.shtml#pic2
Every one shines like a frying pan's
bottom.
Sam, that field is not a billiard table, man, how does
a hoaxer do that?
john
Sam Wormley
Good Hoaxer fool a lot of people, John. Always have, and
always will.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
And he knew they were 20,000 years old because he carbon dated the rock????
Dragonblaze
[snip]
> Marcel Homet was a widely-travelled doctor of
> archaeology, and author whose book containing his
> pictures of all the petroglyphs I read back before computer fakery.
> There were plenty of pictures- see "Sons of the Sun(?)
> by Marcel Homet
> I'm pretty sure he showed these rocks to others who would
> probably be able to determine if he had just recently carved
> them with his little scout knife.
> I'm sure after the effort it takes getting to some
> of those places in Brazil, he would be in good enough shape to do that
> after supper. As would you, I'm sure.
Curious. A rather extensive search of journal databases - a few French
ones thrown in for a good measure - failed to reveal a single peer-
reviewed publication by Homet. Nor am I able to find any PhD of that
name in archaeology.
There is one Marcel Homet, a former SOE agent and topographer,
connected to a Portuguese university. That guy was born in 1897, and
would have been a bit too old for strenuous field archaeology in the
1960's.
Unless you can provide credentials for the guy, I will be forced to
suspect the writer was most likely a fraudster. There are many who
claim false credentials to advance their spurious hypotheses.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
If you want to see some real shit, google Roswell+transistor
J.A. Legris
Not only the circles. Look at those parallel lines in the rest of the
field. What hoaxer would have the technology to lay them out so
perfectly? Egads, do you think farmers are aliens? Might explain their
odd clothes and strange accents.
--
Joe
Curt Welch
>
> Tell me how someone hoaxes publishes the
> same complex diagram that will not be dug up
> for ten years and in both appearances
> it is connected with extraterrestrial humans?
>
> john
The fact that you need to be told, shows how clueless you are about
science.
The first post of yours I read worded it "almost the same complex drawing"
(or something like that). Now that people have doubted your belief, you
have switched to "the _same_ complex diagram" in a stupid attempt to defend
your own lack of understanding.
The answer is simply John. If you look at 1,000,000 drawings made by
people over thousands of years, you will see duplicates. Oh my god, I
drew a circle, and look, the guy 40,000 years ago drew a circle. Gee, that
must be proof of UFOs. Do you have any clue how totally stupid such an
argument is?
Ok, so everyone draws circles so you expect to be lots of duplication. So
lets draw a circle with a line in it. Not as many duplicates in those 1,
000,000 drawings we have collected over the years. The more complex the
drawing gets the less likely you will be able to find a duplicate. So we
have to think about how complex the drawing has to get before we expect not
to find any duplicates in every drawing anyone has ever found on the earth.
Now, from experience with such things, we know our drawing doesn't have to
be all that complex, before it becomes extremely hard to find a matching
drawing. Once you add a few more circles, lines, and a random strokes, the
drawing becomes so unique that you have never seen anything like it. And
from the fact that we have never seen anything like it, we tend to extend
that belief to the idea that "there is nothing like it". But we haven't
ourselves, taken the time to look at every one of the billions of drawings
available to be looked at. So in fact, we have no real clue how common our
"unique" drawing really is. Our instincts based on our highly limited
first-hand personal experience is VERY deceiving. In fact, if we had a
better picture search system, we would find that the drawing has to get far
more complex than we might expect before it really becomes unique in the
set of all pictures ever drawn by man over the past thousands of years.
So when we are are shown a match, in the set, we need to try and understand
the true odds of that match happening by chance and whether the odds are so
out of line, that we can truly justify the argument that it didn't happen
by chance. But how to you scientifically measure the odds of such a match?
Well, if you look at it and just use your personal instincts to produce a
measure of "seems far too complex to have happened by chance" our own
personal experience will bias our view, and make us believe the odds of it
happening by chance are far too small. But our own personal experience, is
far too limited in these data sets that include billions of examples. WE
have never personally searched such huge data sets and as such, our own
personal experience with small data sets will deceive us. What looks
"impossible" often isn't even usually when dealing with these large data
sets (the set of all drawings every made by any man).
But the effect I talked about above, the effect of trying to judge how
complex a drawing we have to draw, before the odds of finding a duplicate,
is only one of 3 statistical problems at work in your "science".
The next one comes from that fact that you are searching for a match to ANY
TWO pictures every drawn by man, vs picking one, and then trying to find a
match for that one, and no other. The statistics in these two cases is
VERY different.
Let me give an example. Lets say we generate a set of a million random 12
digit numbers. Then you make up a random 12 digit number. What are the
odds that the number you made up, is in the set of numbers we generated?
The odds are not very good. It's about 1 in a million. You can make up
lots of 12 digit numbers, and most of the ones you make up will not be in
the set.
But what if instead, you search the set, to see if there are any duplicates
in the set? Without formal training in this, you might think the odds of
someone being able to show you a duplicate, is the same as the odds of
someone making up a single random number, and then finding it in the set.
But it's not. It's not even close. The odds of there being at least one
duplicate in the exmaple I gave above, is highly likely. Almost certain.
(sorry I'm not going to bother to try and calculate the real odds right
now).
The reason is that you aren't just looking for one number in the set being
a duplicate with every other number, but instead, you are looking a million
numbers (every number in the set) being a duplicate with some other number
in the set. You are in effect, doing the "pick a number and see if it
matches something in the set", a million times, and then asking, did any of
those million numbers match one of the million numbers?
There's a well known parlor odds is always trick that takes advantage of
how far off our intuition is on these types of problems.
If you get a group of people together, and ask them all what their birthday
is, how many people do you think you need in the group, before the odds of
finding a duplicate becomes 50/50? (aka highly likely). Our intuition
makes us think we might need half of 365 or around 180 people before the
odds hit 50/50 that there will be a duplicate. In fact, once you get to 23
people, the odds of there being a duplicate becomes greater than 50/50.
This is known as the birthday paradox. Google it.
It's one of many demonstrations of how far off our intuition can be when
dealing with statistics of collisions in large data sets.
Ok, that's only two points I've made so far. Lets move on to the third.
How close do two drawings have to be, before you will start to say "look
they are the same!"? In the birthday paradox, or by pick a random number
example, there's no doubt as to whether there was a match or not.
But when comparing two drawings, (likely to include lots of noise), the
human mind will _try_ to find similarities. That's what it likes to do -
recognize common patterns. They don't have to be anywhere near exact
before we will start to similarities. Hell, we can see a circle and a
square as being "the same" if need be. You draw four small circles in a
square pattern (the circles fall at what would be the corner of a larger
square), and then see a second drawing of four squares, of approximately
the same relative size and spacing, and we think of the two drawings as
being "very similar", even though one was 4 circles, and one was 4 squares.
So, what happens when this natural tendency of the brain to make things
that are different, seem to be "the same" gets applied to a birthday
paradox problem? We have billions of drawings made by man over 100's of
thousands of years, and someone finds two drawings in the set that "seem"
very similar?
This ability to see drawings that are actually very different, as "the
same" creates a huge amplification effect on the statistics of what we
intuitively were already getting way wrong to begin with. It makes the
ability for two items from the set to "match" millions of times more
likely.
So, back to science. Are these two drawings (which you have not shared a
URL with us), that is such good proof for you, truly good scientific
evidence? To answer that, we have to actually calculate the true odds of
the match, instead of trusting some misguided, and known to be way off the
mark - personality intuition on this. If we can't accurately calculate the
odds, then it's not science, it's just crap which is of a type of
statistics we know for dead sure is highly7 deceptive to humans - a type of
problem that we intuitively get wrong every time.
To calculate the odds, we need to know the size of the set we are dealing
with. How many pictures were searched to find a duplicate? Your example
of course doesn't include this number. It can't. How many idiot UFO
"researches" went looking for duplicate pictures, found none, that we never
heard from? But without it, we can't calculate the odds. And without the
odds, we have no way of knowing whether our intuition of it being "highly
unlikely" is in the ball park, or like the birthday paradox, of no use to
science. Evidence that seems good to our intuition, often can be shown to
be worthless, with a little examination. This is such a well known problem
(the fact that human intuition in these matters is almost always wrong), is
why the tools of science has been created in the first place. They are
tools, to show us the truth, even when our intuition wants to make us
believe something else. What science has made it clear, is that
institution is NEVER to be trusted, when looking for the truth.
Real science, NEVER includes a measure of human intuition in it's
arguments.
Your example, is pure human intuition. What is the odds of those pictures
happening by chance? We can't calculate it because the data was not
collected in way that allows us to know the odds. But what we do know
about your "evidence" is that it's a type of evidence well known for
fooling human intuition, and it's just the type of evidence, anyone
actually trained in the scientific method, knows to stay far away from.
It's the WORST type of evidence you can have in science. It's the evidence
which is MOST LIKELY to fool you into believing crap. No matter how
unlikely to THINK the odds of those drawings happening by pure random
chance, you are probably way off the mark.
But now, let me take one step further in the errors you are making here.
In all the above, I was only talking about the odds of two pictures being
"the same" in the set of all pictures ever drawn by man. Your error goes
even further than that.
What we are dealing with, is the set of all possible proofs that
intelligent life from the rest of the universe visited us in the past.
Duplicate pictures are just one of many possible pieces of evidence for
that. If we are searching the set of all things that exist in the
universe, and looking for all things that might indicate a past visit,
duplicate pictures are just one of many. WE have now moved the birthday
paradox from the smaller set of finding duplicate pictures, to the larger
set of finding any sort of data that might support the result we wanted.
If we searched for 1000 types of evidence, but didn't find any examples in
the first 999 types of evidence we were looking for, but did find an
example in the "duplicate picture" evidence, then it again, makes the fact
that we found this duplicate picture evidence seem more special than it
really is. Hidden from us in this example, is the number of possible
effects searched where nothing was found. The picture can look like good
evidence, because we don't see the 1000 examples of "no evidence found to
support the claim" offsetting the one piece we did find by random chance.
So the same birthday paradox is not only at work in the set of all pictures
every drawn by man, but it's at work fooling us in the set of all possible
pieces of evidence to support a UFO theory.
The people that fall for this stuff, are always the people that haven't
been educated and trained in the finer points of basic science and the
statistics needed to create true evidence. You get sucked into believing,
something you either _want_ to believe, or fear is true. Either a desire
for it to be true, or a desire for it to be false, will bias our judgment
of the evidence. And if you don't know how to correctly evaluate the worth
of evidence, you can easily be tricked into believing the data is evidence,
when in fact, it's not evidence at all. It's nothing but a magic trick
allowing you to incorrectly rationalize your hopes and fears.
The fact that you are here, trying to argue your data as scientific
_evidence_ shows how totally clueless you are about science. No one how
has been educated in these matters, will give you a second though - ever.
If you want to be taken seriously, and if you want to know the truth about
what this sort of evidence tells us, go and get an education. What you
will find, is that we simply don't have any evidence yet one way or the
other, about the possibility of being visited by intelligent life forms
from elsewhere in the universe. The data you put forth is not evidence -
not even close - it's worse than evidence - it's type of data that is known
to mislead us and it's the just the type we must, as true seekers of the
truth, throw away first.
--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
cu...@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/
john
>
> - Show quoted text -
That has been in the past and will continue to
be the physicists' answer to any proofs
challenging their wild ideas:
really, really, GOOD hoaxers.
(Such open scientific minds!)
Admit it- no proof will change your mind.
Not pictures, not logic, not even seeing is believing.
john
john
>
> read more »
Did you look at the 2 pics?
john
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Jacques Vallee
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
http://www.humanityplus.org/learn/philosophy/faq#answer_19
The alleged ETs are just *too* primitive technologically.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?m=1
Alan Morgan
john <veg...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>On Oct 21, 4:54=A0pm, amor...@xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote:
>>
>> This was the same Adamski who claimed that the far side of the
>> moon had trees and mountains with snow-capped peaks? =A0That he
>> had snacked on Venusian plants? =A0That dude?
>>
>> Homet was familiar with Adamski's claims and I can't find any
>> pictures of the petroglyph in question. =A0Is it beyond the realm
>> of possibility that Homet faked the finding?
>
>Homet wrote a book and
>supplied pictures of
>all his 20,000 year old glyphs.
>Written in stone, buddy.
I'm unable to find pictures, as I said. All I've been able to find is
drawings of both Adamski's claim and Homet's petroglyph. I'm not claiming
that pictures don't exist.
I'm also wondering if he published these results earlier and Adamski
saw them. It's also possible that other petroglyphs were found prior
to Homet's find and Adamski consciously or unconsciously copied them.
And the far side of the moon still doesn't have forests and snow-capped
peaks.
Buddy.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
Alan Morgan
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Sam Wormley wrote:
>> john wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Homet wrote a book and
>>> supplied pictures of
>>> all his 20,000 year old glyphs.
>>> Written in stone, buddy.
>>> john
>>
>> John, have you any idea how much out right fraud is published in books?
>
>And he knew they were 20,000 years old because he carbon dated the rock????
I was wondering about that as well. Given that the only references on the
intertubes appear to be repeats of the same basic (heavily woo-woo) data it
looks like someone is going to have to dig up a dead-tree version of the
findings to resolve this question.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
john
> In article <7kanqnF37t2b...@mid.individual.net>,
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> john wrote:
>
> >>> Homet wrote a book and
> >>> supplied pictures of
> >>> all his 20,000 year old glyphs.
> >>> Written in stone, buddy.
> >>> john
>
> >> John, have you any idea how much out right fraud is published in books?
>
> >And he knew they were 20,000 years old because he carbon dated the rock????
>
> I was wondering about that as well. Given that the only references on the
> intertubes appear to be repeats of the same basic (heavily woo-woo) data it
> looks like someone is going to have to dig up a dead-tree version of the
> findings to resolve this question.
>
> Alan
> --
> Defendit numerus
How old is any of the glyph
stuff in South America?
Have you seen the Guatemala rock garden?
Columns that taper from several feet at the base
to a foot at the top 20 feet high: 40 wide by 20 deep
and so precisely-placed that they line up perfectly.
Maybe NASA did it 20 years ago, but I doubt it.
Makes no difference.
It wasn't unearthed in recent history until
*after* Adamski published the drawing
on it.
john
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Well, taking Adamski at face value, it seems those "aliens" are a bunch
of liars. I favour the Ultraterrestrial hypothesis, which puts UFOs etc
into the paranormal category. See Vallee, Passport to Magonia etc
RichD
> >It's the same type of thing - people want to
> >believe in unsolvable mysteries, they want
> >unanswerable riddles. Human nature, what
> >can ya do?
>
> >http://www.michaelshermer.com/weird-things/
>
> Speaking of riddles, what does a woman say after
> she's been sexually gratified?
>
> (spoiler below)
> v
> v
> v
> v
> v
> (spoiler below)
> v
> v
> v
> v
> v
> (spoiler below)
> v
> v
> v
> v
> v
> (spoiler below)
>
> I figured you wouldn't know.
Here's one that keeps me awake at
night: why do they put mirrors on elevator
ceilings?
--
Rich
RichD
> >>>I don't know why people are so willing to
> >>>believe these things.
>
> >> Because it's more fun than boring old science...
> >> wondering and speculating is more exciting
> >> than knowing.
> > [...]
>
> > Only if you don't know anything.
>
> The best argument against UFOs being spacecraft
> is that the technology demonstrated in
> "contacts" is so utterly primitive.
My favorite is how they manage to
navigate 10 million light years to
earth, then fly around to secretly
explore the planet in their cloaking
device, except they forget to turn
off the parking lights, and get spotted...
--
Rich
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>
> --
> Rich
>
>
Never watched Stone's movie, The Doors?
john
was by hand motions and "telepathy",
so maybe he wasn't that good at it.
Certainly whole other realities could
exist at different frequencies from ours,
if you admit we have one.
There is also the possibility of these being
visits from the future.
john
Michael A. Terrell
They're Democrats.
--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Adamski's case is typical of contactees and the BS they are fed.
There has not been a single instance of scientific, technological,
mathematical or philosophical insight from the "craft" or "aliens".
Where they have made pronouncements on the "unknown" they are invariably
shown to be wrong.
> Certainly whole other realities could
> exist at different frequencies from ours,
> if you admit we have one.
>
> There is also the possibility of these being
> visits from the future.
Then its a pretty scrappy future populated by second rate SciFi characters.
john
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
The point being, Humans in their present form won't be around in 100
years. Those "aliens" must be cosmic retards.
john
>
> - Show quoted text -
I know, and all that crap about
Cosmic consciousness and
love and such.
And the way they don't make sounds!!
They use telepathy. Retarded!!
Why, then, everyone would know the truth!
How stupid is that!
And the idea of using gravity screening to fall from one
place to another! Just dumb!
Thanks for clearing me up on that.
john
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
And let's not forget the anal probes and forced breeding programs.
> Why, then, everyone would know the truth!
> How stupid is that!
The truth being that they have more in common with poltergeists than
"aliens". And that they adapt to our (or Billybob's) expectations.
> And the idea of using gravity screening to fall from one
> place to another! Just dumb!
Yes, it is.
For reasons you would not understand.
E Z Peaces
> Here's one that keeps me awake at
> night: why do they put mirrors on elevator
> ceilings?
>
>
> --
> Rich
>
>
Security.
Zurab57
I don'tunderstend your language well. It's my 3-rd language. I only
want to solve puzzles sometimes.
john
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I know, and all that crap about
> > Cosmic consciousness and
> > love and such.
> > And the way they don't make sounds!!
> > They use telepathy. Retarded!!
>
> And let's not forget the anal probes and forced breeding programs.
>
> > Why, then, everyone would know the truth!
> > How stupid is that!
>
> The truth being that they have more in common with poltergeists than
> "aliens". And that they adapt to our (or Billybob's) expectations.
>
> > And the idea of using gravity screening to fall from one
> > place to another! Just dumb!
>
> Yes, it is.
> For reasons you would not understand.
>
> --
Wonderful.
Please explain it to us, Dirk.
john
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>>> I know, and all that crap about
>>> Cosmic consciousness and
>>> love and such.
>>> And the way they don't make sounds!!
>>> They use telepathy. Retarded!!
>> And let's not forget the anal probes and forced breeding programs.
>>
>>> Why, then, everyone would know the truth!
>>> How stupid is that!
>> The truth being that they have more in common with poltergeists than
>> "aliens". And that they adapt to our (or Billybob's) expectations.
>>
>>> And the idea of using gravity screening to fall from one
>>> place to another! Just dumb!
>> Yes, it is.
>> For reasons you would not understand.
>>
>> --
> But you do understand gravity??
> Wonderful.
> Please explain it to us, Dirk.
Not problem.
Here's GR, which currently explains every observation of gravitational
phenomena from time dilation in GPS satellites to energy loss in binary
neutron star systems. Not a single observation has falsified it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
Now,
Please explain the anal probes, implants and the alien forced breeding
programs with contactees ie "alien rape".
Then provide a critique of Vallee's hypothesis.
Rich Webb
Well, there's this recent one. http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3853
Granted, the cautious bet would be a systemic error. It's a good paper,
insofar as I'm qualified to judge (er, not very far, actually) but their
results are a 98% confidence level. Mythical-supernatural-entity-bless
experimentalists. Be interesting to see if independent observations find
anything.
--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Well, there are a few possible contradictions including different speeds
for very high energy gamma rays. However, there is not enough data
collected to be definitive and when GR has been in this situation before
it has always been vindicated. Wait and see.
Wolf K
> On Oct 21, 4:54 pm, amor...@xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote:
[...]
>> This was the same Adamski who claimed that the far side of the
>> had snacked on Venusian plants? That dude?
>>
>> Homet was familiar with Adamski's claims and I can't find any
>> of possibility that Homet faked the finding?
>>
>> --
>> Defendit numerus- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> supplied pictures of
> all his 20,000 year old glyphs.
> Written in stone, buddy.
> john
Where are the original field notes and photographs?
Just asking.
wolf k.
Wolf K
> On Oct 21, 4:48 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:10:40 -0700, john wrote:
[soneone wrote:]
>>>> Next you'll be telling us the transistor was reverse engineered from
>>>> Roswell!
>>> No, we're not to 'next' yet, Dirk.
>>> Tell me how someone hoaxes publishes the
>>> same complex diagram that will not be dug up
>>> for ten years and in both appearances
>>> it is connected with extraterrestrial humans?
>>
> Marcel Homet was a widely-travelled doctor of
> archaeology, and author whose book containing his
> pictures of all the petroglyphs I read back before computer fakery.
Even before digital imagery it was easy to fake photographs.
> There were plenty of pictures- see "Sons of the Sun(?)
> by Marcel Homet
> I'm pretty sure he showed these rocks to others who would
> probably be able to determine if he had just recently carved
> them with his little scout knife.
And which others were these? And why haven't they come forward and
tetsified to what they saw?
> I'm sure after the effort it takes getting to some
> of those places in Brazil, he would be in good enough shape to do that
> after supper. As would you, I'm sure.
>
> john
Weak sarcasm, weaker logic.
Wolf k.
Wolf K
[...]
> Is this a fantasy?
> http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2009/uk2009ci.shtml
> This is a picture of a crop circle 2 months ago.
> Nice, eh?
> Is it from off-planet or from some force/intelligence on or within
> the planet?
> Browse through all the other pictures.
> Pretty impressive work, no?
>
> john
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M6vP8-SbU0
http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Crop-Circle
etc and so on and so forth.
BTW, it's no accident that these crop circles show up in such numbers in
England. The Brits have a long tradition carefully constructed practical
jokes. When these joke take in earnest idots, the joke is even funnier.
I know, I half-Brit myself.
Heheh.
wolf k.
Wolf K
[...]
> Is this a fantasy?
> http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2009/uk2009ci.shtml
> This is a picture of a crop circle 2 months ago.
> Nice, eh?
> Does this contain any scientific information?
> Is it from off-planet or from some force/intelligence on or within
> the planet?
> Browse through all the other pictures.
> Pretty impressive work, no?
>
> john
PS: I've been to the Rollright Atones myself, many times, the first time
when I was 8 or 9 years old. Why do you think the hoaxers picked that
site in particular?
wolf k.
Wolf K
"invalid at invalid" made a joke. Allusive, elliptical, and obscure, but
it really is a joke.
Trust me.
;-)
wolf k.
Wolf K
> The biggest argument against the ET Hypothesis is Transhumanism.
> http://www.humanityplus.org/learn/philosophy/faq#answer_19
>
> The alleged ETs are just *too* primitive technologically.
> http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?m=1
>
Their technology is about the the level that a scientific illiterate is
able to imagine.
wolf k.
RichD
Missed that one, fortunately or unfortunately.
Who or what is Stone?
--
Rich
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Well, all they have to do is show an authenticated crop circle photo
with a Mandelbrot Set taken before (say) 1950.
Richard Heathfield
<623574b8-3948-495f...@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
RichD wrote:
<snip>
> Who or what is Stone?
The Stones are a family of authors (much like the Brontes, although
not as famous), the youngest and most celebrated of whom, Arthur J
Stone, wrote a horror novel that had a certain vogue in the 1970s and
which may have influenced the writers of cheap dial-a-vampire TV
genre renderings of the 1990s and 2000s. Stone's most famous novel
(and probably the most famous of /any/ Stone novel), it was full of
werewolves zombies and ghouls and ghasts and ghosts and vampires and
various other undead nasties and was, not surprisingly, entitled
"Blood!".
This family of authors is perhaps less well-known than it truly
deserves to be (for example, I can find no Wikipedia entry for /any/
of them) because they found it remarkably difficult to stick to
publishing deadlines. Some authors can (or could) get away with this,
such as Douglas Adams. But others can't. Publishers tend to have
limited attention spans, and will only wait for so long before
dismissing the absent manuscript from their minds and moving on to
something more profitable (i.e. present).
Even Arthur J suffered from this difficulty with deadlines; his copy
editor was the very soul of patience, but even she found the wait for
his novel to be filled with frustration. As she said at the time,
"it's like trying to get Blood out of a Stone".
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Before the Wright brothers flew there were a spate of airship sightings,
reflecting "ultramodern" technology (by 19th century standards).
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
george
wrote:
>
> Before the Wright brothers flew there were a spate of airship sightings,
> reflecting "ultramodern" technology (by 19th century standards).
>
And before that they had sightings of angels and priests floating about
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Exactly.
Whatever the phenomenon is, it tracks the expectations, hopes and fears
of the zeitgeist.
john
r u blind AND dumb?
those farmers couldn't draw that on a piece of
paper in a month if you gave them
all their own French curves.
The bent over centers are so
perfectly flat and at the same level
that they all reflect the sunlight
identically.
r u blind AND dumb???
YES
john
Sam Wormley
> On Oct 24, 4:58 pm, Wolf K <weki...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> BTW, it's no accident that these crop circles show up in such numbers in
>> England. The Brits have a long tradition carefully constructed practical
>> jokes. When these joke take in earnest idots, the joke is even funnier.
>> I know, I half-Brit myself.
>>
>> Heheh.
>>
>> wolf k.
>
> r u blind AND dumb?
> those farmers couldn't draw that on a piece of
> paper in a month if you gave them
> all their own French curves.
You would be surprised, John.
>
> The bent over centers are so
> perfectly flat and at the same level
> that they all reflect the sunlight
> identically.
Too bad you can't see the crop circles close up, John
each pixel on your display represent many centimeters.
john
the same, anyway. However easy it is to do that.
I'd like to see one up close.
I hear all the stems are exploded
(by heat/microwave?) at one point
and they lie over, but also, they are
whorled into each other in a regular
pattern. (secret board, rope AND comb
all on the foot somehow? Plus mini-torch?
And with a bluetooth and some serious
GPS?)
john
Nick
> Never watched Stone's movie, The Doors?
No. But as I like rockumentaries I have watched Door's movie, The
Stones.
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Albert van der Horst
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Wolf K wrote:
>> RichD wrote:
>>> On Oct 16, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> I don't know why people are so willing to believe these things.
>>>
>>> Because it's more fun than boring old science...
>>> wondering and speculating is more exciting than knowing.
>> [...]
>>
>> Only if you don't know anything.
>
>The best argument against UFOs being spacecraft is that the technology
>demonstrated in "contacts" is so utterly primitive.
One of the great jokes is that a spacecraft that has
conquered light years is to crash suddenly and fatally
at Rosswel US.
>Dirk
Groetjes Albert
--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Whatever...
The fact is that making crop circles has been a game for many years.
There was even a documentary on exactly how they are made, by whom, and
with the "crop circle experts" gusting about how only aliens could have
done it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> In article <7k8us7F...@mid.individual.net>,
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Wolf K wrote:
>>> RichD wrote:
>>>> On Oct 16, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> I don't know why people are so willing to believe these things.
>>>> Because it's more fun than boring old science...
>>>> wondering and speculating is more exciting than knowing.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Only if you don't know anything.
>> The best argument against UFOs being spacecraft is that the technology
>> demonstrated in "contacts" is so utterly primitive.
>
> One of the great jokes is that a spacecraft that has
> conquered light years is to crash suddenly and fatally
> at Rosswel US.
Not just Roswell - they drop out of the sky on a regular basis everywhere.
Wolf K
Gad, you're not only an idiot, you're an arrogant idiot.
What makes you think that the limits of your ability are the limits of
humankind?
wolf k.
john
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, I know any farmer could
do better than those, even, if they
just did it in the daylight.
I'd pay to see someone do that in a week, even.
Your trouble is QM has
completely inured your sense
of the ridiculous. So now, you can't
discern between the completely
impossible and the merely difficult.
john
E Z Peaces
> On Oct 24, 8:32 pm, E Z Peaces <c...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> RichD wrote:
>>> night: why do they put mirrors on elevator
>>> ceilings?
>>> Rich
>> Security.
>
> I don'tunderstend your language well. It's my 3-rd language. I only
> want to solve puzzles sometimes.
Security can mean safety or measures against criminal activity.
From the hall, an elevator could appear empty, but a criminal could be
in the corner by the door. A mirror could let a prospective passenger
or a passing cop see him.
Wolf K
And here I thought you were alluding to the erotic uses of ceiling
mirrors.... live and learn ;-)
wolf k.
RichD
> >>> Here's one that keeps me awake at
> >>> night: why do they put mirrors on elevator
> >>> ceilings?
>
>
> Security can mean safety or measures against criminal activity.
>
> From the hall, an elevator could appear empty, but a criminal
> could be in the corner by the door. A mirror could let a
> prospective passenger or a passing cop see him.
um, a mirror on the ceiling, interior to the elevator?
What laws of optics operate in your country?
--
Rich
Curt Welch
> On Oct 25, E Z Peaces <c...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > >>> Here's one that keeps me awake at
> > >>> night: why do they put mirrors on elevator
> > >>> ceilings?
> >
> > >> Security.
> >
> > Security can mean safety or measures against criminal activity.
> >
> > could be in the corner by the door. =A0A mirror could let a
> > prospective passenger or a passing cop see him.
>
> um, a mirror on the ceiling, interior to the elevator?
> What laws of optics operate in your country?
This is cross posted to rec.puzzles. Can't you solve it? :)
A convex security mirror attached to the ceiling would fit his description.
--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
cu...@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/
N
>
> - Show quoted text -
I like puzzles like that...would be nice to spend time on them...I've
got to quit soon I believe. I just got a local news broadcast that a
lady who was an aquaintance and died went in for a checkup and died, a
needle went straight thru her brain during a routine op..must have
died almost at once
Zurab57
Can you imagine just inversely: sound instead image, security instead
criminal and me in my bad. What does it mean? puzzle is quite
difficult: if you look wrom the window nothing is heard. So maiby it's
Gods will and nothing to do with it? Sorry hot too private post.
RichD
> > > >>> Here's one that keeps me awake at
> > > >>> night: why do they put mirrors on elevator
> > > >>> ceilings?
>
> > > >> Security.
>
> > > Security can mean safety or measures against criminal activity.
>
> > > prospective passenger or a passing cop see him.
>
> > um, a mirror on the ceiling, interior to the elevator?
> > What laws of optics operate in your country?
>
> This is cross posted to rec.puzzles. Can't you solve it? :)
> A convex security mirror attached to the ceiling would fit his description.
Clever.
But the mirrors are flat.
--
Rich
RichD
> > Never watched Stone's movie, The Doors?
>
> No. But as I like rockumentaries I have watched Door's
> movie, The Stones.
Now I'm confused... if you stone the Doors,
does that mean you adore the Stones?
--
Rich
E Z Peaces
The ones I've seen were convex, in corners or the center. Flat ceiling
mirrors would be for security against secretaries who might try to
smuggle documents in their low-cut blouses.