Agape
7th July 2014, 08:49
Now , this is older article but must read in my opinion ...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/sagan-alien-abduction.html
Carl Sagan on Alien Abduction
Carl Sagan was captivated by the notion of life beyond Earth. Yet in this interview, conducted shortly before the well-known champion of science died in 1996, Sagan says that extraterrestrial intelligence is “a wonderful prospect, but requires the most severe and rigorous standards of evidence.” Sagan doubted that the various proponents of so-called “alien abduction” making headlines in the 1990s had met those scientific standards.
A WONDERFUL PROSPECT
NOVA: Speculate for a moment on the parts of human nature, the commonality of believing in abductions, or aliens anyway, and the part of human nature that wants to search for other life forms in the universe.
Carl Sagan: I personally have been captured by the notion of extraterrestrial life, and especially extraterrestrial intelligence, from childhood. It swept me up, and I've been involved in sending space craft to nearby planets to look for life and in the radio search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
It would be an absolutely transforming event in human history. But, the stakes are so high on whether it's true or false that we must demand the more rigorous standards of evidence—precisely because it's so exciting. That's the circumstance in which our hopes may dominate our skeptical scrutiny of the data. So, we have to be very careful. There have been a few instances in the [past]. We thought we found something, and it always turned out to be explicable.
So, a kind of skepticism is routinely applied to the radio search for extraterrestrial intelligence by its most fervent proponents. I do not see the alien abduction situation a similar rigorous application of scientific skepticism by its proponents. Instead, I see enormous acceptance at face value, and leading the witness, and all sorts of suggestions. Plus, the contamination by the general culture of this idea.
It seems to me there is a big difference between the two approaches to extraterrestrial intelligence, although I'm frequently written to [to] say how could I search for extraterrestrial intelligence and disbelieve that we're being visited. I don't see any contradiction at all. It's a wonderful prospect, but requires the most severe and rigorous standards of evidence.
Could you please comment on the part of the quality of the evidence that is put forward by these so-called "abduction proponents."
Well, it's almost entirely anecdote. Someone says something happened to them, and people can say anything. The fact that someone says something doesn't mean it's true. Doesn't mean they're lying, but it doesn't mean it's true.
To be taken seriously, you need physical evidence that can be examined at leisure by skeptical scientists: a scraping of the whole ship, and the discovery that it contains isotopic ratios that aren't present on Earth, chemical elements from the so-called island of stability, very heavy elements that don't exist on Earth. Or material of absolutely bizarre properties of many sorts—electrical conductivity or ductility. There are many things like that that would instantly give serious credence to an account.
But there's no scrapings, no interior photographs, no filched page from the captain's log book. All there are are stories. There are instances of disturbed soil, but I can disturb soil with a shovel. There are instances of people claiming to flash lights at UFOs and the UFOs flash back. But, pilots of airplanes can also flash back, especially if they think it would be a good joke to play on the UFO enthusiast. So, that does not constitute good evidence.
"Precisely because of human fallibility, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
A very interesting example of this sort of thing is the so-called crop circles in England in which wheat and rye and other grains—these beautiful immense circles appeared and then—this was in the '70s and '80s—and then over progressive years, more and more complex geometries. And there were lots of people who said that these were made by UFOs that were landing and that it was too complex or too highly mathematical to be a hoax.
And it turns out that two blokes in Southern England, at their regular bar one night, thought it would be a good idea to make a kind of hoax to see if they could lure in UFO enthusiasts. And they succeeded every time—every time an explanation was proferred: a peculiar kind of wind, they then made another one which contradicted that hypothesis. And they were very pleased when it was said that no human intelligence could do this. That gave them great satisfaction. And for 15 years, they succeeded in these nocturnal expeditions using rope and board—all the technology they needed.
And in their 60's, they finally confessed to the press with a demonstration of how it was done. And, of course, the confession received very little play in the media. And the claims of alien influence had received prominent exposure.
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS
I want you to comment on John Mack.
Many of the principle advocates of UFO abduction seem to want the validation of science without submitting to its rigorous standards of evidence. When John Mack talks about parallel universes or other dimensions, he's using scientific ideas. Those have long been in play in the physics and astronomy community. But, there is no evidence for them. He also criticizes the current paradigm that is the skeptical scientific method. But, this isn't validated. We don't believe it just out of prejudice; we believe it because it works.
In the absence of hard, physical evidence about alien abductions, what does science tell us about the plausibility of what these aliens are supposed to do?
Well, if you look at the advantages in human technology in just the last few hundred years, the Voyager spacecraft on its way to the stars, compared to what we knew in the time of Charlemagne, let's say, that's less than a thousand years. And the progress is simply stunning.
So, if you postulate the existence of highly technical civilizations, thousands, much less millions of years in our future, unless the hypothesis strongly contradicts known laws of physics, I think you have to say it's possible. So, travel at very high speeds between the stars, that's by no means out of the question. Walking through walls is a little tough for me—I don't see how it could be done. And the basic reading program idea of the alien abduction, the paradigm, they seem strangely backward in biology for all their advances in physics, if you take it seriously. Why are they doing breeding one-on-one at such a slow pace? Why not steal a few humans, sequence our DNA, look at variations and make whatever genetic engineering changes they want. We almost have the ability to do that. It seems naive in terms of molecular biology.
REASONABLE EXPLANATIONS
According to Hopkins and others, the main evidence for these stories—in the absence of other evidence—is the similarity of details. In your opinion, what other explanations might account for the similarity and the details of the stories or hallucinations of these abductees?
The culture contaminates. Movies, television programs, books, haunting pages of aliens, and television interviews with passionate abductees—all communicate to the widest possible community the alien abduction paradigm. So, it's not as if each abductee has been hermetically sealed from the outside world and has no input about what others are saying. It's all cross contaminated, and it has been for decades. I think that's the clearest evidence for it not being good evidence—that many people tell the same story.
If you could speak directly to the multitudes of people who believe they're going to bed and perhaps being abducted by aliens, what is it you would like to say to them?
If I were speaking to a group of abductees, I think the first thing I would do would be to tell them that I'm sure to many of them the pain that is expressed is genuine, that they're not just making this up. And it's very important to be compassionate. At the same time, I would stress that hallucinations are a human common place, and not a sign that you are crazy. And that absolutely clear hallucinations have occured to normal people, and it has a compelling feeling of reality, but it's generated in the head.
[I]Read the rest of article on the page ( I think I've unintentionally omitted some paragraphs ). http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/sagan-alien-abduction.html
Now ...the main point ... taking his statements at face value is very good ground to start from , of course . Every other SETI scientist today ..and the academic community at large keep almost precisely to what was said above .
Good as it sounds .... do I agree with it ? Yes in 95% of cases , bold NO for the rest . But you know , we all think about the same way when it comes to rationality and proofs .
Of course the reason why it does not let me sleep is because I've seen extremely advanced reality , entities and technologies back in 2002 in course of event that would match nothing, completely nothing in matters of 'human experience' . And I'm on the trail of thought on 'how to convey the data' to human science since then ,
and I do have some background in natural sciences and maths after all and know their reasoning too well to want to intimidate myself .
And there are many reasons WHY that event was of extraordinary importance .
....
Now let me tell you of something else ... the larger whole ... the 'tabu' of science and religions that ET life represents for most of human history ,
for fear that something would go tremendously wrong . For the fact itself that mankind is captured here by terrestrial gravity and living like a bunch of apes sometimes
and then some of them evolve to people of peace and others to barbarian hordes and fighters who pluck the world and natural resources , with great gusto .
It seems - and according to what I've seen - that this has been going on here since mankind came to existence and their 'starry evolution' is nothing than turning in loops .
Civilisations evolved and were subsequently destroyed . Various tribes inhabiting the globe had each very different character and gene 'twists' from the start and they could not always go well together .
This so called 21st century AD is very provisional number - 2014 years of human history - sounds like a success but if you look back you can't miss the millions of years whose records were lost and then you have people here telling you there are no records and ancestors were simple people, hunter-gatherrers brushing their stone tools ( most time of their history ) .
I've seen what I've seen that strongly contradicts this 'conventional claim' and I'm not alone on the 'theory' . Eventhough , I am not willing to swap real time observation for someones theories , in no case .
It makes me think though ... what is it that is truly imposing 'embargo' on willingness to acknowledge presence and origins of ET life , in humans , science in particular ,
it been a long held secret among occult societies of all sorts , beliefs , are the beliefs to blame for world wars ?
The fact is ... that many of the todays top notch scientists are descendants of generation who suffered through the nightmares of WWII . The whole absurdity of war ..which never ended .. the need to keep secrets . Not from any particular government in this case,
from everybody who could misuse any information that can be categorised , numbered , sold and used indeed .
Is the majority of scientific community - of those who have brains and knowledge to judge the situation - strongly against any sort of ET disclosure ? Knowing that they can keep the revelation away , long enough by boycotting it by their minds ?
The power of resistance ?
:hand:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/sagan-alien-abduction.html
Carl Sagan on Alien Abduction
Carl Sagan was captivated by the notion of life beyond Earth. Yet in this interview, conducted shortly before the well-known champion of science died in 1996, Sagan says that extraterrestrial intelligence is “a wonderful prospect, but requires the most severe and rigorous standards of evidence.” Sagan doubted that the various proponents of so-called “alien abduction” making headlines in the 1990s had met those scientific standards.
A WONDERFUL PROSPECT
NOVA: Speculate for a moment on the parts of human nature, the commonality of believing in abductions, or aliens anyway, and the part of human nature that wants to search for other life forms in the universe.
Carl Sagan: I personally have been captured by the notion of extraterrestrial life, and especially extraterrestrial intelligence, from childhood. It swept me up, and I've been involved in sending space craft to nearby planets to look for life and in the radio search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
It would be an absolutely transforming event in human history. But, the stakes are so high on whether it's true or false that we must demand the more rigorous standards of evidence—precisely because it's so exciting. That's the circumstance in which our hopes may dominate our skeptical scrutiny of the data. So, we have to be very careful. There have been a few instances in the [past]. We thought we found something, and it always turned out to be explicable.
So, a kind of skepticism is routinely applied to the radio search for extraterrestrial intelligence by its most fervent proponents. I do not see the alien abduction situation a similar rigorous application of scientific skepticism by its proponents. Instead, I see enormous acceptance at face value, and leading the witness, and all sorts of suggestions. Plus, the contamination by the general culture of this idea.
It seems to me there is a big difference between the two approaches to extraterrestrial intelligence, although I'm frequently written to [to] say how could I search for extraterrestrial intelligence and disbelieve that we're being visited. I don't see any contradiction at all. It's a wonderful prospect, but requires the most severe and rigorous standards of evidence.
Could you please comment on the part of the quality of the evidence that is put forward by these so-called "abduction proponents."
Well, it's almost entirely anecdote. Someone says something happened to them, and people can say anything. The fact that someone says something doesn't mean it's true. Doesn't mean they're lying, but it doesn't mean it's true.
To be taken seriously, you need physical evidence that can be examined at leisure by skeptical scientists: a scraping of the whole ship, and the discovery that it contains isotopic ratios that aren't present on Earth, chemical elements from the so-called island of stability, very heavy elements that don't exist on Earth. Or material of absolutely bizarre properties of many sorts—electrical conductivity or ductility. There are many things like that that would instantly give serious credence to an account.
But there's no scrapings, no interior photographs, no filched page from the captain's log book. All there are are stories. There are instances of disturbed soil, but I can disturb soil with a shovel. There are instances of people claiming to flash lights at UFOs and the UFOs flash back. But, pilots of airplanes can also flash back, especially if they think it would be a good joke to play on the UFO enthusiast. So, that does not constitute good evidence.
"Precisely because of human fallibility, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
A very interesting example of this sort of thing is the so-called crop circles in England in which wheat and rye and other grains—these beautiful immense circles appeared and then—this was in the '70s and '80s—and then over progressive years, more and more complex geometries. And there were lots of people who said that these were made by UFOs that were landing and that it was too complex or too highly mathematical to be a hoax.
And it turns out that two blokes in Southern England, at their regular bar one night, thought it would be a good idea to make a kind of hoax to see if they could lure in UFO enthusiasts. And they succeeded every time—every time an explanation was proferred: a peculiar kind of wind, they then made another one which contradicted that hypothesis. And they were very pleased when it was said that no human intelligence could do this. That gave them great satisfaction. And for 15 years, they succeeded in these nocturnal expeditions using rope and board—all the technology they needed.
And in their 60's, they finally confessed to the press with a demonstration of how it was done. And, of course, the confession received very little play in the media. And the claims of alien influence had received prominent exposure.
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS
I want you to comment on John Mack.
Many of the principle advocates of UFO abduction seem to want the validation of science without submitting to its rigorous standards of evidence. When John Mack talks about parallel universes or other dimensions, he's using scientific ideas. Those have long been in play in the physics and astronomy community. But, there is no evidence for them. He also criticizes the current paradigm that is the skeptical scientific method. But, this isn't validated. We don't believe it just out of prejudice; we believe it because it works.
In the absence of hard, physical evidence about alien abductions, what does science tell us about the plausibility of what these aliens are supposed to do?
Well, if you look at the advantages in human technology in just the last few hundred years, the Voyager spacecraft on its way to the stars, compared to what we knew in the time of Charlemagne, let's say, that's less than a thousand years. And the progress is simply stunning.
So, if you postulate the existence of highly technical civilizations, thousands, much less millions of years in our future, unless the hypothesis strongly contradicts known laws of physics, I think you have to say it's possible. So, travel at very high speeds between the stars, that's by no means out of the question. Walking through walls is a little tough for me—I don't see how it could be done. And the basic reading program idea of the alien abduction, the paradigm, they seem strangely backward in biology for all their advances in physics, if you take it seriously. Why are they doing breeding one-on-one at such a slow pace? Why not steal a few humans, sequence our DNA, look at variations and make whatever genetic engineering changes they want. We almost have the ability to do that. It seems naive in terms of molecular biology.
REASONABLE EXPLANATIONS
According to Hopkins and others, the main evidence for these stories—in the absence of other evidence—is the similarity of details. In your opinion, what other explanations might account for the similarity and the details of the stories or hallucinations of these abductees?
The culture contaminates. Movies, television programs, books, haunting pages of aliens, and television interviews with passionate abductees—all communicate to the widest possible community the alien abduction paradigm. So, it's not as if each abductee has been hermetically sealed from the outside world and has no input about what others are saying. It's all cross contaminated, and it has been for decades. I think that's the clearest evidence for it not being good evidence—that many people tell the same story.
If you could speak directly to the multitudes of people who believe they're going to bed and perhaps being abducted by aliens, what is it you would like to say to them?
If I were speaking to a group of abductees, I think the first thing I would do would be to tell them that I'm sure to many of them the pain that is expressed is genuine, that they're not just making this up. And it's very important to be compassionate. At the same time, I would stress that hallucinations are a human common place, and not a sign that you are crazy. And that absolutely clear hallucinations have occured to normal people, and it has a compelling feeling of reality, but it's generated in the head.
[I]Read the rest of article on the page ( I think I've unintentionally omitted some paragraphs ). http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/sagan-alien-abduction.html
Now ...the main point ... taking his statements at face value is very good ground to start from , of course . Every other SETI scientist today ..and the academic community at large keep almost precisely to what was said above .
Good as it sounds .... do I agree with it ? Yes in 95% of cases , bold NO for the rest . But you know , we all think about the same way when it comes to rationality and proofs .
Of course the reason why it does not let me sleep is because I've seen extremely advanced reality , entities and technologies back in 2002 in course of event that would match nothing, completely nothing in matters of 'human experience' . And I'm on the trail of thought on 'how to convey the data' to human science since then ,
and I do have some background in natural sciences and maths after all and know their reasoning too well to want to intimidate myself .
And there are many reasons WHY that event was of extraordinary importance .
....
Now let me tell you of something else ... the larger whole ... the 'tabu' of science and religions that ET life represents for most of human history ,
for fear that something would go tremendously wrong . For the fact itself that mankind is captured here by terrestrial gravity and living like a bunch of apes sometimes
and then some of them evolve to people of peace and others to barbarian hordes and fighters who pluck the world and natural resources , with great gusto .
It seems - and according to what I've seen - that this has been going on here since mankind came to existence and their 'starry evolution' is nothing than turning in loops .
Civilisations evolved and were subsequently destroyed . Various tribes inhabiting the globe had each very different character and gene 'twists' from the start and they could not always go well together .
This so called 21st century AD is very provisional number - 2014 years of human history - sounds like a success but if you look back you can't miss the millions of years whose records were lost and then you have people here telling you there are no records and ancestors were simple people, hunter-gatherrers brushing their stone tools ( most time of their history ) .
I've seen what I've seen that strongly contradicts this 'conventional claim' and I'm not alone on the 'theory' . Eventhough , I am not willing to swap real time observation for someones theories , in no case .
It makes me think though ... what is it that is truly imposing 'embargo' on willingness to acknowledge presence and origins of ET life , in humans , science in particular ,
it been a long held secret among occult societies of all sorts , beliefs , are the beliefs to blame for world wars ?
The fact is ... that many of the todays top notch scientists are descendants of generation who suffered through the nightmares of WWII . The whole absurdity of war ..which never ended .. the need to keep secrets . Not from any particular government in this case,
from everybody who could misuse any information that can be categorised , numbered , sold and used indeed .
Is the majority of scientific community - of those who have brains and knowledge to judge the situation - strongly against any sort of ET disclosure ? Knowing that they can keep the revelation away , long enough by boycotting it by their minds ?
The power of resistance ?
:hand: