terryforsythe
Major Contributor
"I don't have a leader."
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
All About UFO's
- Thread starter Ron Texas
- Start date
"I don't have a leader."
terryforsythe
Major Contributor
They probably wouldn't. If NHI is here, they already know that crazy, destructive apes run most governments and militaries.
Last edited:
sam_adams
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2019
- Messages
- 1,510
- Likes
- 3,818
I don't have a 'leader'. Maybe if I lived in North Korea.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2021
- Messages
- 1,273
- Likes
- 1,079
Cause and effect unclear, one can make obvious and less obvious hypothesis as to why that is. The most common is, once we started letting off nukes, it drew the attention of our cosmic neighbors to pay closer attention to the violent monkeys who just massively increased the probability they would destroy the planet and themselves. They are regularly spotted around nuclear related locations and facilities. Personally, having watched his lengthy interviews, I always found USAF First Lieutenant Robert Salas (ret) credible. The other officer from another silo confirmed it, and as expected, USAF and others denied the event and did their best to suppress his version various ways:US super power status was unequivocal after the nukes were dropped, and the UFO phenomenon became widespread, for some reason, centered at the US
My dog could have been construed as my leader as I sang to his tune, and wherever he went, I followed
Testable in theory, or in practice?
Thinking about it now, I had a cat that very much dictated the agenda.
It should be obvious now...or any time in my lifetime (1960-) ....that it's always possible to dredge up contrarian scientists who tilt against the consensus of data. Rarely, they are right; sometimes, useful; often, harmless*. Sometimes, not. Some of us surely remember Peter Duesberg, the guy who said HIV doesn't cause AIDS?
Speaking of not, the Republican Party in my country (USA! USA!) have made a practice of such dredging, when they need 'expert witnesses' for a subcommittee meeting, or someone to write fossil-fuel-industry-friendly recommendations about climate change, or to sit on a revised Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to advise against vaccination.
Not always, but too often, these aren't scientists practicing in the field they're weighing in on. They are 'outsiders' and a certain mindset thinks that's always a plus...forgetting how far, far more often 'outsiders' are simply uninformed ....and 'cranks' turn out to be just...cranks, rather than prophets ahead of their time.
*sometimes, famous for good science they did....until they went 'emeritus'**. I already mentioned Linus Pauling.
**wink wink to the Jack Vance fans here. I've actually seen the term used occasionally online
I watched some of this. I think they saw a cloud formation. You can get odd-looking isolated clouds in otherwise clear skies. It was six miles away and thousands of feet in elevation from their location.
Nothing he says in his description rules that explanation out. They did not even see it move. They did not even observe it through field glasses.
None of them reported it until one (or two?) years later after they left the service. Then he's surprised that he was not taken seriously when he did?
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 15,801
- Likes
- 35,692
I think about Duesberg a lot in the context of this thread.
In fact, pretty sure he's come up before.
Actually it's potentially (?) interesting to compare Duesberg to Stan Prusiner at UCSF, who (somewhat) similarly seemed to be off the rails (my postdoc advisor, who ended up at UCSF after his time in Charm City, referred to him as Stan the Charlatan
), but ended up being right -- or at least on the right track.I vividly remember Duesberg's logic from a long article in Science (the front section, not the peer-reviewed stuff) back in the day. Something along the lines of We test for the presence of HIV antibodies... if a person's made antibodies, it means that their immune system has won. (words to that effect) He thought, it seemed, that a test for antibodies for a putative causal agent for immunodeficiency was hilariously incongruous.
"Are you that stupid?"
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 15,801
- Likes
- 35,692
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 15,801
- Likes
- 35,692
Not sure what testable in theory means.
This does remind me of an observation by the late, redoubtable Prof. Saul Roseman* at Johns Hopkins in a biochemistry lecture.
Again, a paraphrase (best I can do... it was a while back): The problem with biology is that there's only one kind. There's no theoretical biology.
Obviously, this isn't quite true, but his point was, and still is, well taken.
Only one genetic code (with a few asterisks, but, you get the idea). The unit operations of biology are rather impressively highly conserved -- even if the Central Dogma (of molecular biology) was amusingly short-sighted.
The Central Dogma worked great -- 'til retroviruses were stumbled upon... and then prions.
... and there's that whole posttranslational modification thing, especially (but not exclusively) in eukaryotes.
Good thing, too. Helped put food on our family table.
________________
* For a variety of reasons (some of which I've commented on elsewhere), Roseman's philosophy and approach have been hugely influential on mine.
(don't start on me about the mouth pipeting and the lack of PPE... it was a different time
)You may have a theory about what lies in the core of Pluto.Not sure what testable in theory means.
It's not very practical to test, is it?
Ditto any theory that involves measuring distances beyond what we can measure.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 15,801
- Likes
- 35,692
Out of deference to the there's so much we don't understand about physics motif in this thread...
J. B. Sumner at Harvard was quite literally thought to be insane when he stated that he had crystallized an enzyme (urease from jack bean).
The notion that proteins, let alone enzymes, had a distinct and specific molecular structure was heretical at the time.
But, he didn't make any Youtube videos. He just generated data, published papers, and gave his peers testable hypothesis.
J. B. Sumner at Harvard was quite literally thought to be insane when he stated that he had crystallized an enzyme (urease from jack bean).
The notion that proteins, let alone enzymes, had a distinct and specific molecular structure was heretical at the time.
But, he didn't make any Youtube videos. He just generated data, published papers, and gave his peers testable hypothesis.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 15,801
- Likes
- 35,692
So that is the beauty of science.
We have theories about the core of this planet.
The trick is to extrapolate from the unobservable to the observable; from the untestable to the testable.
1) that's what science is all about.
2) that's where models come in.
Archimedes tested buoyancy in his bathtub, e.g.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 15,801
- Likes
- 35,692
Similar threads
- Locked
