Skepfeeds-The Best Skeptical blogs of the day

Holy crap, mass UFO sightings predicted for 2012…and beyond!

Posted in Skepdude by Skepdude on March 12, 2009

What is this fascination with the year 2012? Why is it that all kind of weirdos are latching on to it for dear life? Some say the world is supposed to end on 12/2012. Some say that mass UFO sightings over majorly visible areas will occur in 2011-2012 and beyond.

There is converging objective predictive evidence, expert opinion, exopolitical policy analysis, and extraterrestrial contactee communications supporting a hypothesis that large scale “wild card” event(s), involving mass extraterrestrial (UFO) sightings or landings over major urban or other visible centers on the planet for peaceful purposes may occur during the period leading up to 2011-12 or beyond.

Holy shit, somebody call Will Smith! Oh wait a minute, they’re saying “for peaceful purposes”. Well then somebody call Tom Cruise, he knows a thing or two about Xenu, or is Xenu supposed to be violent? I don’t know it all sounds like crap to me. Converging, Objective, Predictive Evidence. Now that is impressive evidence. I’m getting a little confused about the whole predictive portion of it though, I did not know evidence can be predictive. I guess we can make inferences based on the evidence available, but I must admit it’s the first time I hear the term. Oh and the objective portion doesn’t seem to apply either. I’ll give them the converging I guess,  great (and not so great) minds think alike.

Mass UFO sightings folks, over major urban areas. They’re not talking about a light here and a light there, they’re talking Independence Day like sightings. Tell you what I’ll believe it when I see it, but I won’t hold my breath. My own sources of converging, objective, predictive evidence tell me that this is a load of bullshit. And who are these experts whose opinion is converging so unanimously one might ask? I don’t know, let’s read through the rest of this article to see if we get a clue.

In future studies, John Petersen author of ‘Out of The Blue – How to Anticipate Big Future Surprises’ defines “wild card” events as “Low Probability, High Impact events that, were they to occur, would severely impact the human condition.  A low probability event does not mean, however, that the event cannot be identified and predicted within the parameters of scientific research or expert-based opinion”.

Well I guess, Mr. Peterson here is one such expert. Aparently he’s an expert on the future, after all he conducts “future studies”. Now what the hell is a “future study” and just how do you go about conducting a study about the future? I don’t know, I guess we’d have to read this book of his to figure it out, but I personally got better things to do with my money. Furthermore, for 5 bucks I can get a tarod card reading down the block and I’m sure I’ll get information that is just as accurate, that is to say not that accurate at all.

Exopolitics as the science of relations between human civilization and other intelligent civilizations in the Universe, draws on a number of data sources in arriving at conclusions or operating hypotheses about “wild card” events like mass extraterrestrial (UFO) sightings or landings over human urban centers.   Assuming it is not a “false flag” event created by a human military intelligence power, an authentic worldwide extraterrestrial (UFO) mass sighting or landing, when and if it would occur, would severely impact the human condition.   Extraterrestrial civilizations are stakeholders in the arena of our solar system and the galaxies, and the creation of such a “wild card” mass event is within their power.

Exopolitics huh? Sounds soo exotic don’t it? The problem is that the word exopolitics is not coming up at Instead what I am getting is a certain Exopolitics Institute. Well I guess they’re not mainstream yet. Either that or some sort of conspiracy is keeping them in the shadows. Nevertheless, what does the EI do?

Exopolitics Institute (ExoInst) is a UFO research organization that was founded by Dr. Michael E. Salla in April 7, 2005 and is headquartered in Kealakekua, Hawaii. The Exopolitics Institute supports study into the key actors, institutions, and political processes concerning extraterrestrial life. It comprises leading exopolitics researchers, educators, and activists from around the world, such as Alfred Webre, James Gilliland, and Dr. Carol Rosin.

Wow, pretty advanced stuff no? They study, no they support study into the “key actors, institutions, and political processes concerning extraterrestrial life.” So let me get this straight, we don’t even know that there is extraterrestrial life, we don’t know how advanced it would be even if it existed, we know nothing about their culture and traditions, yet we are studying their political processes? Am I the only one who thinks there’s something wrong with this picture? This is like studying the political system of Atlantis, in other words a useless, ridiculous adventure in fantasy! But maybe they “study” how our political system would react to UFO contact, but even then, this amounts to nothing more than a guessing game. Who the hell knows how humans will react under such circumstances, especially since you don’t know what the circumstances will be!

Exopolitics, like other sciences, can draws upon diverse data sources in reaching conclusions about “wild card” events.   Exopolitical data sources can include reports from extraterrestrial contactees with ethical extraterrestrial civilizations; policy analysis of relations between leading human military space powers (such as the United States) and ethical extraterrestrial civilizations now visiting earth; “” analysis using compilations of internet spiders; and even reports of reverse speech analysis of major announcements by significant human leaders, such as U.S. president Barack Obama.   Each of these involves “identifying and predicting an event within the parameters of scientific research or expert-based opinion”.

Well for starters they need to start drawing on the power of Microsoft Word’s check spelling engine (can draws??? What is this 2nd grade?). But no no, they draw on reports from “extraterrestrial contactees with ethical extraterrestrial civilizations”. God damn it, not only they know there is alien life, not only they know it is advanced enough to come to Earth, but they also know they are ethical. Aren’t we lucky not to have contacted an unethical alien society? I guess humans are alone in that respect! Aren’t these aliens starting to sound like the all-loving paternalistic God of the holy book, if he had lived up to his hype that is?

In this sense, the exopolitical study of a “wild card” extraterrestrial (UFO) mass landing is functionally similar to a futurist’s study of the UFO mass landing “wild card” event.  The only difference is that mainstream futurists do not yet include a “UFO mass landing” in their menu of significant “wild card” events because mainstream futurology paradigm excludes the existence the extraterrestrial presence, most probably because of the effect of the 1953 CIA Robertson panel, which excluded extraterrestrial affairs from public discourse under penalty of professional ridicule.

In other words our nonsense is even more nonsensical than yours. Ha ha, shove it futurists! You suck!

I can’t continue no more, the stupid is giving me a headache. Mass alien landings, exopolitics, future studies, reverse speech identification, aaaahhhh, I’m done! Go read the rest of this monstrosity on your own, you lazy bums. My head burns….IT BURNS!


Tagged with: , , ,

The most massive scientific fraud ever?

Posted in Respectful Insolence by Skepdude on March 12, 2009

Science as it is practiced today relies on a fair measure of trust. Part of the reason is that the culture of science values openness, hypothesis testing, and vigorous debate. The general assumption is that most scientists are honest and, although we all generally try to present our data in the most favorable light possible, we do not blatantly lie about it or make it up. Of course, we are also all human, and none of us is immune to the temptation to leave out that inconvenient bit of data that doesn’t fit with our hypothesis or to cherry pick the absolutely best-looking blot for use in our grant applications or scientific manuscripts. However, scientists value their reputation among other scientists, and there’s no quicker way to seriously damage one’s reputation than to engage in dodgy behavior with data, and there’s no quicker way to destroy it utterly than to “make shit up.”

True, opposing these forces are the need to “publish or perish” in order to remain funded, advance academically, and become tenured, a pressure that can be particularly intense among basic scientists, who will basically lose their jobs and very likely their academic careers if they cannot cover 50% or more of their salaries through grants. I always remember that I’m fortunate in that, even if I failed utterly to renew all my grants and burn through whatever bridge funds my university might give me, I’d be unlikely to be fired, as I could just go back to operating full time. Indeed, I’d even be likely to generate more income for my department by doing surgery than I could through research. Clinician-scientists are in general a drag on the finances of an academic department.

Despite the pressures, however, I’m still left scratching my head over this recently revealed massive scientific fraud, as reported in Anesthesiology News, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. A bunch of you sent it in to me, and when that happens, I usually conclude that I’d best comment on it. First, the fraud: