Kevin Day, Navy UFO Contact After-Effects |403|

In a sense, my work Of Pretend Sleep and Authentic Dreams (Ethical Skepticism and the future of Science) is being developed as a liaison between this mindset and the metaphysical reality you cite which surrounds it. Instead of pretending that I know the answers which reside therein, I am rather - coaxing those who might be unduly swayed by this fake form of conditioning (citification) - those who realize that they must discipline their philosophy first before they pretend to seek answers.

The work we face is about focusing on probative critical path, over reliable ignoratio elenchi. The latter can be developed but tends to oversimplify the playingfield and a priori constrain outcomes - but the former is a valued treasure. One should seek it, nurture it, and work to increase its reliability as science. That is what a scientist does. Not this methodical cynicism conceit which rules our academia today.
link added :)
Of Pretend Sleep and Authentic Dreams (Ethical Skepticism and the future of Science)
 
Greetings everyone! I am not a scientist (my degree was in psychology). But I do have a serious interest in this topic. I am quite the amateur when it comes to ufology -- yet it's clear to me the evidence disclosed in this case points to a real mystery. However, poor analysis is common among the mainstream, like found here:
. What a waste of time!

Does eyewitness testimony and a cagey government imply new laws of physics can be discovered? Not until the data is fused together. It's the eyewitness testimony and their authenticity combined with the videos that make this a genuine mystery. Yet when you listen to Tyson, all we get are mocking giggles for even asking the question we are all asking here.

Are we on the same page? For example, I think the Aguadilla infrared video has been shown to most likely not be an alien craft but in fact two wedding lanterns. I think analysis beats a team of experts at the SCU: https://www.metabunk.org/aguadilla-infrared-footage-of-ufos-hot-air-wedding-lanterns.t8952/.

What I would have loved to hear Tyson say is that its fairly obvious that the USS Nimitz tic tac ufo is most likely an alien craft and not a foreign nations technology. The only other rational option is a disinformation campaign. I don't claim to know that is true, just that it is the only other option on the table. Aliens or lies. But no one is going to believe until the raw data from various sensors is released.

One thing I will say in Tyson's favor: he has the right attitude when it comes to NDE's: experiencers need to ask better questions to jesus and the aliens! :) Why can't he apply that same attitude here, rather than giggling? When he says 'i'm cool with that!' that is quite hypocritical, right?
 
Last edited:
Greetings everyone! I am not a scientist (my degree was in psychology). But I do have a serious interest in this topic. I am quite the amateur when it comes to ufology -- yet it's clear to me the evidence disclosed in this case points to a real mystery. However, poor analysis is common among the mainstream, like found here:
. What a waste of time!

Does eyewitness testimony and a cagey government imply new laws of physics can be discovered? Not until the data is fused together. It's the eyewitness testimony and their authenticity combined with the videos that make this a genuine mystery. Yet when you listen to Tyson, all we get are mocking giggles for even asking the question we are all asking here.

Are we on the same page? For example, I think the Aguadilla infrared video has been shown to most likely not be an alien craft but in fact two wedding lanterns. I think analysis beats a team of experts at the SCU: https://www.metabunk.org/aguadilla-infrared-footage-of-ufos-hot-air-wedding-lanterns.t8952/.

What I would have loved to hear Tyson say is that its fairly obvious that the USS Nimitz tic tac ufo is most likely an alien craft and not a foreign nations technology. The only other rational option is a disinformation campaign. I don't claim to know that is true, just that it is the only other option on the table. Aliens or lies. But no one is going to believe until the raw data from various sensors is released.

One thing I will say in Tyson's favor: he has the right attitude when it comes to NDE's: experiencers need to ask better questions to jesus and the aliens! :) Why can't he apply that same attitude here, rather than giggling? When he says 'i'm cool with that!' that is quite hypocritical, right?

I don’t find the opinion of guys like that to be relevant in the slightest. They are peddling their beliefs and assumptions as per the mainstream fundamentalist agenda. They know very little about the phenomenon. They haven’t listened to hundreds of people tell their stories. They haven’t attended conferences where there are hundreds of brilliant speakers and experiencers.They don’t know the evidence. They don’t understand that the phenomena correlates with spiritual experiences, NDEs, Out of body experiences etc. If you want to learn about UFOs, there are actual experts in the area who do know a lot about the phenomenon. Guys like Jacques Vallee (my favorite), Richard Dolan, Grant Cameron etc.

I don’t think it’s possible to look at ALL the evidence and conclude that the phenomenon isn’t real unless you’re in a serious state of denial due to your beliefs and desires.
 
I don’t find the opinion of guys like that to be relevant in the slightest. They are peddling their beliefs and assumptions as per the mainstream fundamentalist agenda. They know very little about the phenomenon. They haven’t listened to hundreds of people tell their stories. They haven’t attended conferences where there are hundreds of brilliant speakers and experiencers.They don’t know the evidence. They don’t understand that the phenomena correlates with spiritual experiences, NDEs, Out of body experiences etc. If you want to learn about UFOs, there are actual experts in the area who do know a lot about the phenomenon. Guys like Jacques Vallee (my favorite), Richard Dolan, Grant Cameron etc.

I don’t think it’s possible to look at ALL the evidence and conclude that the phenomenon isn’t real unless you’re in a serious state of denial due to your beliefs and desires.
I am a skeptic and try to withhold judgement, except in ironic cases like that. Truth is Tyson didn't want to disrespect our military to claim deceit. Tyson has books to sell, and who knows what kind of consulting he might be involved in.

This is a fun link: https://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/uap_atflir

As for it being relevant: one can hope he is more like Sam Parnia than Randi the magician. Wouldn't it be neat if he could consult on a citizen project to detect ufo's? There is such a project btw...
 
Last edited:
  • This is just amateurish bullshit.
  • These are the arrogations characteristic of a teenager.
  • ...you want someone to do the work for you and bring you proof on a silver platter. That is not skepticism - it is doltish and Pollyanna.
  • This childish game of 'bring me proof now, bring me proof now'... is at its end. Either converse with me like an adult, and with an understanding of how syllogism and critical path work, or you will be placed on 'ignore'.

Let me see if I have this right.

After categorizing me as a doltish Pollyanna exhibiting the arrogations characteristic of a teenager who wants someone to do the work for them while they engage in amateurish bullshit, you want me to converse with you like an adult?

Look, I honestly don't bear you any ill will but I also don't just accept everything someone says on the internet as gospel. If I did I wouldn't ask any questions. This subject is certainly big and weird enough for a large spectrum of opinions and we are each entitled to our own.
 
After categorizing me as a doltish Pollyanna exhibiting the arrogations characteristic of a teenager who wants someone to do the work for them while they engage in amateurish bullshit, you want me to converse with you like an adult?

Yes - hopefully you finally will.

For example:

I also don't just accept everything someone says on the internet as gospel

This is now the fourth time you have made this point. You use this truism like it is an argument - it is not an argument - and is rather a couched condemnation of the person you are engaging in discussion. That and your other responses were smug, purposed insults (along with having another account which went dormant almost a year ago, the same timeframe as did yours, suddenly resurrect to 'like' your posts each time amazingly within 2 minutes after you log off). It is childish.

Can you understand that you should expect adult professionals to get irritated when you troll them like that?

If you are ready to now sincerely and honestly converse on the actual subject - a first synopsis of my thoughts can be found here: http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/what-is-the-goal-of-the-deep-state.4238/#post-128233
 
Last edited:
One should seek it, nurture it, and work to increase its reliability as science. That is what a scientist does.
There's that old saying - he who writes the minutes determines history - that should warn us of the danger of letting any one 'authority' prevail. I want to add another -he who defines ideas shapes thought and influences culture. We have largely let the materialists define what science is. My Oxford dictionary app says that science is essentially an inquiry into the "physical and natural world' -and yet the root of the word comes from the Latin with a meaning the dictionary renders as to 'know'. Implicit here is an invalidation of the metaphysical as a field meriting disciplined inquiry that yields valued knowledge.

You make that distinction powerfully, but I wanted to spell it out laboriously to press the point that its one thing to repudiate the materialist premise but another to cleanse one's mind of the sticky influences of what has been a very successful strategy. Proper science is disciplined inquiry that dares go beyond the boundaries of belief and presumption - and nothing more. Its not into anything defined, but into anything that arouses curiosity, interest or concern.

Inquiry into the nature of ET is a proper scientific inquiry if it is systematic and disciplined. If we value proper science we must assert meaning, and be prepared to defend our political position - for that is what it is. Materialism is not a philosophical position, but a political one. It is certainly not a worthy foundation for any kind of science.

The dismissal of the metaphysical as being subjective and therefore a matter of opinion or belief - and beyond evidence - and hence not scientific - is manipulative bollocks. That is an opinion - one predicated in ignorance, sustained in arrogance, and defended in fear.
 
You make that distinction powerfully, but I wanted to spell it out laboriously

Be cautious, this upsets the TLDR crowd. This too, being one of the dangers we face - addiction to the simpleton, is killing our asymmetrical knowledge quotient. Leaving us vulnerable to the easy, the celebrity and their one-liners.

Inquiry into the nature of ET is a proper scientific inquiry if it is systematic and disciplined. If we value proper science we must assert meaning, and be prepared to defend our political position - for that is what it is. Materialism is not a philosophical position, but a political one. It is certainly not a worthy foundation for any kind of science.

The dismissal of the metaphysical as being subjective and therefore a matter of opinion or belief - and beyond evidence - and hence not scientific - is manipulative bollocks. That is an opinion - one predicated in ignorance, sustained in arrogance, and defended in fear.

Dead on correct, as usual.

Fear of the forest renders one expert in tree bark.
 
Last edited:
Fear of the forest renders one expert in tree bark.

And the glorious ecosystem of the forest is not only not acknowledged, it is not even imagined. Worse, it is denied - and those who assert its presence and value are 'the enemy' of science and reason.

The presumption that rational information is some kind of magical silver bullet that explodes in our brains to create knowledge that enlightens us and brings wisdom is such a persistent delusion. We have to talk about the head/heart balance to even begin to comprehend that 'science' is not a purely rational endeavour.

It takes only a cursory exploration of an honest history of science to grasp that the great scientists were mostly deeply religious and immensely passionate. And many of the great discoveries and insights did not come about through intellectual rigorous and plodding, but through inspiration and freaky chance.

The famous, and probably entirely invented, story of Archimedes in the bath tub perfectly illustrates this point (as does Newton). I am a firm believer that the head serves the heart, and to do so it must be disciplined and enriched with ideas and knowledge. The resistance to Quantum science is, I think, a demonstration of this, when you explore the character of the people who developed the idea and that of those who resisted.

Data isn't information, information isn't knowledge and knowledge isn't wisdom. Indeed wisdom is not valued. It has been much touted that we operate in a 'knowledge economy', which is BS - an opinion economy is closer to reality. How would it be to operate in a wisdom economy? I see the 'proper' scientist as standing on the knowledge/wisdom boundary. That may be because I am infected with the old 'natural philosophy' romance of the 'prescientific' age - which really only means the pre-materialistic age - and when psyche (soul) was converted into mind.

This was when intellect, as the instrument of reason, replaced the soul, as the instrument of reason - and when knowledge replaced wisdom as the highest attribute of human consciousness. I particularly esteem books by Australian Sociologist, John Carroll, on this theme - Ego & Soul and The Wreck of Western Culture in particular on this theme.
 
And the glorious ecosystem of the forest is not only not acknowledged, it is not even imagined. Worse, it is denied - and those who assert its presence and value are 'the enemy' of science and reason.

The presumption that rational information is some kind of magical silver bullet that explodes in our brains to create knowledge that enlightens us and brings wisdom is such a persistent delusion. We have to talk about the head/heart balance to even begin to comprehend that 'science' is not a purely rational endeavour.

It takes only a cursory exploration of an honest history of science to grasp that the great scientists were mostly deeply religious and immensely passionate. And many of the great discoveries and insights did not come about through intellectual rigorous and plodding, but through inspiration and freaky chance.

The famous, and probably entirely invented, story of Archimedes in the bath tub perfectly illustrates this point (as does Newton). I am a firm believer that the head serves the heart, and to do so it must be disciplined and enriched with ideas and knowledge. The resistance to Quantum science is, I think, a demonstration of this, when you explore the character of the people who developed the idea and that of those who resisted.

Data isn't information, information isn't knowledge and knowledge isn't wisdom. Indeed wisdom is not valued. It has been much touted that we operate in a 'knowledge economy', which is BS - an opinion economy is closer to reality. How would it be to operate in a wisdom economy? I see the 'proper' scientist as standing on the knowledge/wisdom boundary. That may be because I am infected with the old 'natural philosophy' romance of the 'prescientific' age - which really only means the pre-materialistic age - and when psyche (soul) was converted into mind.

This was when intellect, as the instrument of reason, replaced the soul, as the instrument of reason - and when knowledge replaced wisdom as the highest attribute of human consciousness. I particularly esteem books by Australian Sociologist, John Carroll, on this theme - Ego & Soul and The Wreck of Western Culture in particular on this theme.

Great Stuff Michael
There are a few cracks in the facade like the new laws in Kiwi giving legal person-hood to rivers, or whatever the legal status is
 
Greetings everyone! I am not a scientist (my degree was in psychology). But I do have a serious interest in this topic. I am quite the amateur when it comes to ufology -- yet it's clear to me the evidence disclosed in this case points to a real mystery.
Welcome Superqualia!

I hope you will also find ways to apply your psychology experience here. Do you use that degree in your job? Have you read about past life hypnosis - I wonder if you have any thoughts on this - maybe in another thread, to avoid derailing this one.

BTW is there a concept of a super-qualia, as distinct from ordinary qualia?

David
 
That and your other responses were smug, purposed insults (along with having another account which went dormant almost a year ago, the same timeframe as did yours, suddenly resurrect to 'like' your posts each time amazingly within 2 minutes after you log off). It is childish.

Ok. I don't mind insults up to a certain point but making false accusations about me and my behavior on these forums is another matter altogether so let me be clear:
  1. At no time have I ever behaved in these forums in the way you've suggested.
  2. I have never had nor created any account other than the one I'm currently using.
  3. I have certainly never 'liked' my own posts in these forums.
I must admit however, that I do find it slightly amusing that once again you are making claims without citing evidence to substantiate them.
 
Ok. I don't mind insults up to a certain point but making false accusations about me and my behavior on these forums is another matter altogether so let me be clear:
  1. At no time have I ever behaved in these forums in the way you've suggested.
  2. I have never had nor created any account other than the one I'm currently using.
  3. I have certainly never 'liked' my own posts in these forums.
I must admit however, that I do find it slightly amusing that once again you are making claims without citing evidence to substantiate them.

1. Bulloney. You implied that I was a liar right off the bat - and for no good reason. And then got all smug, when an honest victim reacted negatively to that. What a surprise!! How dare him!

2. & 3. You have assumed the wrong context of the word 'having'. Exactly as I thought you would react - guilt context assumption.

Get used to people who push back when you insult them, and are hard on you when you dwell in rhetoric and smug one-upping. Those tend to be honest people - who see through and don't cow-tow to your bullshit. You could learn something.

Ignoring you both.
 
Last edited:
I understand that you want to ignore me and that's fine. In the interest of extending an olive branch, however late, I wanted to let you know that I read your post about the deep state and thought it was well reasoned.
 
Great Stuff Michael
There are a few cracks in the facade like the new laws in Kiwi giving legal person-hood to rivers, or whatever the legal status is

Yes. That's a huge philosophical step. Its a pity the idea has been quietly ignored elsewhere. How it may play out in the real world of the Kiwis is hard to judge. Do you have any news?
 
Now that we can get back on topic. Earlier someone posted a question speculating whether or not this base of intelligence, with purview over Kevin Day's type of observational data, is held by prima facia intelligence services, or another group. It was a fair, on topic, and honest question which deserved an answer.

(An answer we never got to because ... you will notice after many decades of research, the same thing happens every time this is discussed. Fake skeptics patrol the topic to attempt to derail the discussion, attack actual witnesses and professionals, toss around worn out and false axioms, and enforce the resulting contrathetic impasse).

Our job is to break that impasse, not put on displays of how 'skeptic' we are.

The reasons I believe that our our defense/military intelligence services, are very likely not the repository of this study and knowledge base (despite having conducted some work on it in the past), are deductive in nature. A summary (this requires a book to be fairly addressed - apologies I cannot tender a book here) can be found here (rather than copy and paste the whole post):

Rationale Behind Why a New Intelligence Structure was Long Ago Mandated Controlling This Topic

Now that Kevin has dealt with groups on the periphery of such agency - I am curious Kevin - despite this being a non-disclosed (not the same thing as classified) 'congressional project' - where do you believe/guess/intuit that the repository of knowledge currently resides?
 
Last edited:
/sməɡ/
adjective
  1. having or showing an excessive pride in oneself or one's achievements.
Interesting.

To whom is this directed Silence? I have not done this... I simply defended myself and stayed OFF the topic of my achievements - despite being prodded repeatedly to do so. The conversants in this thread were having a positive and fun discussion with Kevin Day. And a person stepped in and smugly attacked and fixated upon those persons speaking with the guest.

They derailed a great discussion and ran off the guest, just to get their jollies (the process of smugness). It is that simple.

However you seem very much self-satisfied in this derailing and person-fixated post of yours.... defend it.

smug.png

P.S. Oh geez... Sadly, am engaging with a troll, just looked at his last 20 posts... 15 quickly feature unprompted insults to the thread participants. My mistake. Ignore.

Back to positive focus on the subject!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top