Just discovered Art Bell

Factual Questions
101

C3 said:

If you truly are interesting in “continuing a dialogue,” then when are you going to answer the questions that you asked us to post to you instead of continuing to insult us (like the “handle” comment)? Do I think you posted that as a troll? No, I don’t. But do I think you’ve been acting like you want to continue a dialogue? No, I don’t. So prove me wrong.

“It’s a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense.” – James Randi

102

Dave B:

Thank you for your courage to acknowledge my pilot comment.

You responded though with a “pilots can make mistakes too” comment and then backed it up with an ancedote about some pilots on the ground…well…

What I was trying to get at is this:

** These folks (commercial and military pilots) are usually stable types that have been tested for psychosis

** These folks are usually up in the atmosphere where these UFOs are and the pilots have pretty good visibilty via their cockpit windows

** These folks are usually better versed and experienced in aerodynamics as well as what to expect from man-made crafts

** These people risk their reputations and maybe even their continued employment by reporting some of these UFOs and should be taken seriously when they do report them

You can find several well documented accounts from pilots at the site: www.ufocenter.com

Anybody here want to tell me why accounts from pilots are equally as bogus as those reported by mere ground-based laymen?

Contestant #3

103

I know this is a bit off topic, but I feel the need to address this.

I know you said it was exagerated, which it was. BUT, there was plenty of hysteria surrounding that radio broadcast. I have read newspaper accounts from the day after it happened, that spoke of traffic jams, and disgruntled people. I can give you the cite if you like, it was from the Philadelphia Inquirer. They reprinted it this past October. Also, in all of Orson Welles biographies they mention how CBS switchboards were overloaded, with people calling to find out if it was a true newscast. This is also mentioned in three of the Orson Welles biographies I have read.
They mentioned that it was a fictional account three times during the show, but most people who heard War of the Worlds switched over during a lull of the Charlie McCarthy show. so they did not hear those annoucements.
I do agree that Orson Welles tended to exagerate the effect of the show in later years, but I don’t think it should be discounted how many people believed it. Radio had a profound power over people, it had a mark of authority, that doesn’t exist nowadays.

oh.
Contestant #3
sounds like science is found at.
http://www.npr.org/programs/

pat

104

Pat, thank you for being honest. It would have been easier (and probably more fun) to have just joined in on Contestant #3 bashing concerning “The war of the Worlds”…I appreciate the change in the tone of your past couple of notes…some kudos to DSC and PapaBear as well…

Also thanks for the link: (http://www.npr.org/programs) I have already visited and I’ll add it to my favorites. In fact, I’ve found two things that I’d like to share.

First, a brief description of one of the archived programs at that site:

“Noah talks with Peter Sturrock, Professor of Applied Physics at Stanford University. Professor Sturrock recently assembled a panel of scientists to review data from a collection of UFO sightings. This panel made the first independent review of UFO sightings since 1970 and concluded that a collection of alleged UFO sightings merit additional scientific study. Professor Sturrock believes that a lack of institutional support hinders study of UFOs.”

C3 comment: NO kidding…with the types of intellectual snobbishness that I’ve run accross out here, it’s easy to understand why there is a lack of institutional support for further study. Apparently, some “great minds” are already closed…

The second thing that I found out at that site that I’d like to share is apparently a comment sent to the site by a fifth-grade science teacher:

"I think that Truth is very, very difficult to put a finger on and say, “This is scientific fact.” That is the way I
teach science in my classroom and lead my students to think. It fosters creativity, problem-solving skills, and developing
an open mind. Besides that, my 5th graders are extremely intrigued by the unknown, the odd, and what is today thought of by most mainstream scientists as outright laughable. But to me these things are as close to the Truth, albeit little known Truth, as many of the other typical units and foster the kind of investigative thinking that is an integral part of the scientific method. These topics include:

The Face on Mars
Cryptozoological Critters: Bigfoot, Sea & Lake Monsters
UFOs
The Alien Abduction Phenomenon
Crop Circles
Mental Telepathy and Precognition
Spook Lights

A similar list of a hundred years ago probably included topics
like:

Artificial Intelligence
Life on Mars!
Supersonic Flight
…and so on.

Reality today, poppycock in the past."
C3: That’s exactly how I feel about it! I’m glad to see that there are teachers that understand the value of keeping an open mind and foster that in their students. From a fifth-grade teacher, to a Professor of Applied Physics at major university, I guess the spirit of discovery IS still alive!

Contestant #3

105
  1. I am not a “self-proclaimed “intellectual””.
  2. I did not call you a troll, I asked if you were a troll.
  3. Throughout this thread, you have shown a dislike for people that use facts and reasoning to separate fiction and truth. You have attacked people for being scientific and intellectual. You have repeatedly ignored facts presented before you, in favor of easily doctored photographs and hucksters selling made-up stories to the ignorant masses.

I dub thee TROLL!

“When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”
Hunter Thompson

106

C3 said:

Now will you return the favor and acknowledge (& respond to) all the other questions?

True on both accounts, BUT that doesn’t mean they don’t make mistakes. In addition to the one article I mentioned, I know there is a fairly famous case of several pilots saying a UFO was coming right at them, and that they were sure it was practically on top of them, when in fact it was a meteorite that was miles away (I wish I could think of the specific incident – I’ll do some searching). The fact remains that pilots are still humans and still make mistakes.

So what? That doesn’t mean what they say is automatically 100% correct.

I don’t believe anybody has said such accounts are “bogus.” But are they good enough evidence for alien visitation? The answer is simply “no.” People make mistakes, C3. The fact that some mistakes can be explained and others cannot does not mean the ones that cannot are “unexplainable.” Sometimes there just isn’t enough info about a given situation. That doesn’t automatically mean we’re being visited by aliens, though. Do you at least understand that?

Ok, I found some reference to the meteorite story above. Here is a quote summarizing it briefly (you can find the whole article at http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v04/n05/klass.html , but this was the only part related to that story).

"In June 1969, a number of airplane pilots in the St. Louis area reported seeing a squadron of strange, fast-moving unidentified craft. One pilot reported a near collision, others that the craft moved at angles, apparently avoiding collisions with the aircraft and thus showing signs of intelligent control.

The mystery was solved when Peoria Journal Star photographer Alan Harkrader shot a photo of the streaking “craft” some 200 miles away in Peoria, Illinois. The “craft” were later identified as chunks of meteors splitting apart — some 100,000 feet high in the sky.

The point to this occurrence, Philip J. Klass, co-founder of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and a UFO expert, told the audience at a Gateway Skeptics meeting in St. Louis is that the pilots have to know the object and its size before guessing the distance to it."

“It’s a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense.” – James Randi

107

More from C3:

This is a SCIENCE teacher? (And since when do they have specific fields in 5th grade? Every school I’ve been to or know of only has general teachers at least thru 5th.) This teacher needs to go back and re-study basic science again.

There is a difference between having an open mind and making it so open that your brain falls out…

There is nothing wrong with using these topics, which are typically of interest to students of that age, to teach science. The hard part is teaching the kids how to discern evidence from BS. Heck, there are many adults who still can’t do that (not to mention any names…).

“It’s a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense.” – James Randi

108

C3, I realize that you are apparently so busy that you haven’t yet had time to answer the questions I’ve (re)posted to you here, but in case you manage to find the time, here are some links you might find of interest. Several of them deal with problems of eyewitness sightings, others with ufology in general or some other topic that has come up here (such as sexual experiments). Some of the links go directly to the article, some to the full newsletter in which the article appeared. There are certainly a lot more articles than this out there, but these are the ones I am most familiar with.

The Illinois UFO Mania of 1897 http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n03/index.html

The Conspiratorial Superhighway http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05/n02/conspiratorial-superhighway.html

The Exeter File, Parts 1 & 2 http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v04/n09/exeter.html and http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v04/n10/exeter2.html

Crash Retrieval at Gatchelville http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v04/n10/exeter3.html

This One’s a Keeper http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v04/n08/keeper.html

What’s Smoo? http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v04/n03/smoo.html

Skybald: Some Comments on the Goodland, Kansas Double Abduction of November 7, 1989 http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v03/n11/skybald.html

The Curse of the Space Mummies http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v03/n05/index.html

The Eyes That Spoke http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v02/n07/index.html

The Eyes Still Speak http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n05/index.html

Spawn of Inseminoid http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v02/n05/index.html

The Alien Booger Menace http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v01/n06/index.html

The Saucer Error http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v01/n04/index.html

Pencil-Neck Aliens http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v01/n01/index.html

Is the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis Falsifialbe? http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v07/n01/index.html

Oh, and a couple about Bell (that is how this discussion started, after all) :
Peddling the Paranormal http://www.csicop.org/sb/9803/art-bell.html

Art Bell’s “Quickening” is Sickening http://www.csicop.org/sb/9712/baker.html

“It’s a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense.” – James Randi

109

Dave B:

I’ve already visited those two sites and I have already read about 2/3 of those articles already…seriously, man…the csicop and reall sites were already on my favorites list before today…

I don’t really feel as though we are making any real progress on the sub-topic of aliens and UFOs, in the same way that we came to “loggerheads” on the topic of the Art Bell show…

It seems to me that we are just really wrestling with semantics…

It should be obvious by now that I’m not saying (nor ever have) that ALL reports of UFOs are alien crafts…the gist of our differences on this are that I choose to (now read this carefully!) believe that “some” of these sightings “might” be extraterrestrial in origin, you (and the others) believe that “all” of them “probably” aren’t. We both hold our respective positions either “in spite of” (me), or “because of” (you and others) the “lack” of hard physical evidence…

There you go…that’s as true a paragraph as you’ll read today.

Frankly, I’ve tired of paging to the bottom of a 100+ post thread several times per day in order to answer attacks from 6 different people. I might reappear again in a new post concerning this or other topics of the Art Bell show as they interest me and I think they generate interesting electronic conversation.

'til then…

Contestant #3

110

C3 said:

Well, I’m certainly happy to hear that! (In case you didn’t already figure it out, it’s not a coincidence that I am David B and that David Bloomberg is the chairman of REALL.)

I very much disagree. We have repeatedly asked for evidence, and you have repeatedly neglected to provide it. Heck, you even asked us to repost the questions you hadn’t answered, and then when I did so, you are now ignoring them! I don’t think that’s just semantics, C3.

And I don’t think anybody here has ever implied that you said anything like that. We’re getting into straw man territory again.

A pretty accurate summary, I would say.

I’m glad you are at least admitting that much (the “in spite of” part).

You’ll have to forgive my feeling that this is somewhat of a coincidence – that you are tiring of this immediately after I have posted and reposted questions that you have steadfastly ignored. (And the bit about paging down to the bottom is not a really great excuse, I’m afraid, since most web browsers I’m aware of have a nice little bar on the side that you can slide all the way down to the bottom, ignoring all the earlier messages if you so choose.)

And, of course, in that new thread you won’t have to worry about answering all these questions we’ve posted to you here already…

“It’s a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense.” – James Randi

111

Well, Phil, I don’t claim to be a true believer, but I’ll take a crack at your 5 questions:

  1. Haven’t got a clue. Pretty far away, I’d imagine.
  2. Dunno. Convergent evolution? Occam’s Razor applied to evolution?
  3. This one’s easy: They use ESP. NO! Really! A guy on Art Bell said so!
    4)This one’s easy, too: Flubber! NO! Really! I read it on a website!
    5)Well, maybe they’re an old, decadent civilization, and like to give us “monkeys” proctological examinations?
    What! You don’t believe any of my statements? You are ALL intellectual snobs, and jerks and idiots!

Sorry, I couldn’t help but poke a little fun at C#3, after beating my head against his brick wall of obtuseness in the “Right to Keep And Bear Arms” thread.

And Slythe says:

Talk about the pot calling the kettle carbonized! !!SHEESH!!

<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>
“Try a Brillo Pad for the complexion problem.”

112

ExTank said:

Ah, so it’s not just this topic, eh? Is that why he was so eager to accuse us of believing in government conspiracies when it came to gun control? That way he can attack two groups he disagrees with at one time. <sigh>

Well, now I’m almost tempted to check in on that topic to see how he was acting there. Almost. :wink:

“It’s a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense.” – James Randi

113

F.Y.I. Ex-Tank is refering to the religious difference between us-I don’t belong to the church of the bang stick.
Contestant#3-the list you present of things that need further investigation is so silly as to defy description. Try reading something other than Fate magazine to find the true mysteries of the universe.

“When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”
Hunter Thompson

114

Dave, FYI, Slythe (and his trolling sidekick Contestant#3) is an idiot who has ignored every legal precedent and interpretation by learned legal scholars in denying that the Second Amendment allows “the people” the right to keep and bear arms.
Almost a half dozen people have told him that this is so, even people who have stated that they are against private ownership of firearms.
Later, when I indicated that an armed citizenry was what the Founding Fathers considered to be the “Fourth Branch” of the Government, the “final check and balance” as it were, Slythe indicated that I was a “paranoid, fear-obsessed idiot”. Go figger.
My jibe at Contestant #3 (DING! Thank you for playing!) was in retaliation (I’m petty at times, I admit it) to his sniping at my character after I called him on posting a piece of anti-gun propaganda couched in a song representing gun owners as red-necks, criminals, lunatics, etc., who just wanted to get a gun and shoot sum’thin’.
While I took no personal offense to the song, when I called C#3 on it as being unfairly misrepresentational and the sort of attack that pushes both sides further into their respective positions (as opposed to engaging in a dialog to reach a compromise), C#3 got snippy and started sniping my character instead of responding to my arguments. Sound familiar?
Oh, and both have rather flexible interpretations of the English language; their words mean what they want them to mean, regardless of what a dictionary says.
Your words mean nothing, your logic is flawed automatically because you can’t see what is perfectly obvious: that by being on the opposite side of an argument from them, you are ignorant, stupid, paranoid, and any other derogatory adjective they can think to heap on you.
Do yourself a favor: don’t lower yourself or wate your mental energies trying to argue or debate with either of them.
It’s the mental equivalent of that Road Runner cartoon where the coyote’s trying to use glue to trap the bird, but winds up getting various appendages stuck to the glue; you can eventually get unstuck, but the exasperation isn’t worth the trap in the first place.

<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>
“Beep Beep!”

115

Ok…OK…after 36 hours of inactivity I thought this frigging thread was dead, but then I see it increment to 113…so I toos aside restraint and wait for the page to load…scroll all the way down to the bottom and what do I find?

Crybaby ExTank…what a letdown!

Here he is sniffling about he’s been mistreated by me and Slythe…

In fact his is some of what he spewed:

EXTank: “Oh, and both have rather flexible interpretations of the English language; their words mean what they want them to mean, regardless of what a dictionary says.
Your words mean nothing, your logic is flawed automatically because you can’t see what is perfectly obvious: that by being on the opposite side of an argument from them, you are ignorant, stupid, paranoid, and any other derogatory adjective they can think to heap on you.”

How funny Extank! Not that I cherish the thought of defending Slythe, but here’s what you wrote to him in that “right to bear arms” thread:

ExTank: “Where in the fuck are you getting this from!?!?”

and

ExTank: “Slythe,the only reason I can posit for your continual blindness and ignorance is that you are insecure in your position”

and

ExTank: “Or maybe you’re just stupid.”

Get down off that high-horse Tank my boy…you are every bit as obnoxious and stubborn with your views as any of the rest of us out here and if you don’t believe that then there’s no hope for you!

Now…just because to caused me to waste my time on this, here you go you Ex-wargames wannabe:

Guns are neat, Guns are sweet, Guns the tool that makes ya cool.
Guns are fine, Guns are mine,Guns are things that Jesus brings.
Guns for loonies, Guns for cons,Guns for Moonies, Guns for moms.
Guns are fun for everyone, buy them up by the ton. Guns for me, Guns for you, Guns for nuts
and children too! Guns at home, Guns at work, Guns at play, Guns berserk!
Tons and tons of great big Guns are tons and tons of great big fun!
I’ve got Guns up my nose tween my ears and by my toes. I’m no fool I’m so cool I take Guns
to my school.
I take Guns in my car, to the store and to the bar. I got Guns in a drawer,in my pocket and
on the floor.
I got Guns on the wall, in my bed and in the hall.
Get a Gun and get it fast, shoot someone, it’s a blast!

Contestant #3

116

Ex-Tank, You have done me two great wrongs.

  1. Where, pray tell, did I call you a"paranoid, fear-obsessed idiot."?
  2. You are making me agree with Contestant #3! How the hell can I cultivate a good enemy if you do this to me?

“When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”
Hunter Thompson

117

ExTank said:

Wow! Deja vu all over again. He posts a straw man, and then when you correct him, he attacks with ad hominem. Amazingly predictable.

“It’s a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense.” – James Randi

118

There IS a place for all this bitching and moaning and personal animosity! I’m not going to waste my time downloading this thread anymore.

119

For anybody who is interested, Contestant #3 has taken his show on the road, and continued his arguments from ignorance and use of ad hominem attacks over in the “Water as a pre-requisite for life” thread.

Remember just a few days ago when he said in here that he didn’t even know what Occam’s Razor is? Well now he’s acting like an expert and throwing about the term as an attack on people who disagree with him.

“It’s a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense.” – James Randi

120

thats too bad that the thread had to go so wrong, i was enjoying exposing the lies and pseudoscience of Art Bell.
Oh well, I guess #3 would never have been convinced anyway.

pat

ps:
so, Occam’s Razor is going to go the way of paradigm, proactive and gestalt… everyone will use it at all times and the real meaning will be lost in some ooze.