NASA Moonwalker claims alien cover-up

[Hielor]

Mixing up science with belief is illogical. The one thing doesn't have anything to do with the other one. Science is a technique to gain and increase our knowledge-base. Belief is an individual psychological state.

People can claim the existence of aliens (like Nina Hagen or Edgar Mitchell does for example), god and other things all the time. But it has that much to do with science than an apple with mercury for example -> nothing.

With belief, you blindly accept that something is true without seeking the truth of it, and often refuse to accept any evidence that suggests otherwise. You don't think it needs to be proven, because it's self-evident (to you).

With science, you actually seek out to prove that the thing is true...

 

[simonpro]

Science is simply the study of the physical universe-- matter, energy, etc. If it all boils down, that's what we're left with.

Spirituality involves everything outside of science's reach. I do not say religion because religion is simply organized spirituality.

That sounds like a convienient way of avoiding the need for any proof of all this spiritual stuff.
Anyway, doesn't the bible talk about miracles? Those are in the physical universe and thus must be explorable through scientific method.

Can someone explian to me why a mod or someone hasn't cleaned up this thread to get it back on track, or just fully locked it? It's supposed to be about how an Apollo 14 astronaut claims there was an Alien.

Because it's well known that Mitchell is two slices short of a birthday cake, there's nothing much to discuss. He's been making this crazy stuff up for years, it's like the white noise in the background by now.

 

[ThatGuy]

I just want to throw my two bits into this conversation (of faith and science).

My religious background:
I grew up in a Catholic family. From kindergarten to 12th grade I have attended Catholic Schools. A religion based class was mandatory for each year. So my hope would be that from all of this I know a thing or two about the Catholic faith.

My Thoughts:
Many religions do say that if faith and science disagree, faith is right and science is wrong. The way I grew up does not. From my science classes, I learned that we did evolve from other life forms, more specifically, we share a common ancestor with other primates. In my religion classes we learned that the Catholic Bible says that God created us. We also learned that those stories were just that: stories. Many of the bible stories teach lessons, which is why they are there. They are not factual accounts, just stories with morals (like the Three Little Pigs). Another thing I learned about science in my religion classes is that the Catholic faith does not disregard science. It accepts it as fact.

Hielor, the situation that you gave is a good example of how God does not interfere in our lives. But my faith tells me that God lets us freely choose our actions. If he would interfere, it wouldn't really be free will. The choice would be: "Do as I say, or I will make you or I will kill you". My take on the "He is good" bit is that yes he is good, and he wants us to choose to be.

Personally, I look at everything from a scientific perspective. I see faith as a description of how to live your life and be a good person more than anything else. Most of the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament do not have to do with God. They deal with an individual's relationship to other humans.

I apologize if this does not flow very well or if something makes no sense. I've decided to stop fighting insomnia. If something I said is unclear please tell me. As I said, I just wanted to throw my thoughts in and this is strictly from my perspective.

 

[Urwumpe]

Anyway, doesn't the bible talk about miracles? Those are in the physical universe and thus must be explorable through scientific method.

Yes, but that is the dangerous point when you approach science with faith...people see what they want to see and ignore all evidence that violates their faith. Just look at how often Noah's Arc was (not) found, how Christians explain the dividing of the Red Sea and how the flooding of the world is now concentrated on the creation of the Black Sea (which really happened as rapid flood event, but, as we can see today, did not go back after 40 days).

The Bible is, especially in it's first books, a large collection of myths from the Mesopotamian mythology, with a single God replacing the many rivaling Gods of the Mesopotamian world. The Bible gets better when it deals with the realm of King David, but fails epically when you read the different stories about the life of Jesus. Or the un-life. Even if you concentrate only on the things that the four canon versions agree with, you will get serious trouble proving his existence.

You have the rulers of that time correct (Pontius Pilate did really exist, just like Herodes), but all actions of them claimed in the Bible are impossible to be proven by historic records.

1. And now as the ethnarchy of Archelaus was fallen into a Roman province, the other sons of Herod, Philip, and that Herod who was called Antipas, each of them took upon them the administration of their own tetrarchies; for when Salome died, she bequeathed to Julia, the wife of Augustus, both her toparchy, and Jamriga, as also her plantation of palm trees that were in Phasaelis. But when the Roman empire was translated to Tiberius, the son of Julia, upon the death of Augustus, who had reigned fifty-seven years, six months, and two days, both Herod and Philip continued in their tetrarchies; and the latter of them built the city Cesarea, at the fountains of Jordan, and in the region of Paneas; as also the city Julias, in the lower Gaulonitis. Herod also built the city Tiberius in Galilee, and in Perea [beyond Jordan] another that was also called Julias.
2. Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius, sent by night those images of Caesar that are called ensigns into Jerusalem. This excited a very among great tumult among the Jews when it was day; for those that were near them were astonished at the sight of them, as indications that their laws were trodden under foot; for those laws do not permit any sort of image to be brought into the city. Nay, besides the indignation which the citizens had themselves at this procedure, a vast number of people came running out of the country. These came zealously to Pilate to Cesarea, and besought him to carry those ensigns out of Jerusalem, and to preserve them their ancient laws inviolable; but upon Pilate's denial of their request, they fell 9 down prostrate upon the ground, and continued immovable in that posture for five days and as many nights.
3. On the next day Pilate sat upon his tribunal, in the open market-place, and called to him the multitude, as desirous to give them an answer; and then gave a signal to the soldiers, that they should all by agreement at once encompass the Jews with their weapons; so the band of soldiers stood round about the Jews in three ranks. The Jews were under the utmost consternation at that unexpected sight. Pilate also said to them that they should be cut in pieces, unless they would admit of Caesar's images, and gave intimation to the soldiers to draw their naked swords. Hereupon the Jews, as it were at one signal, fell down in vast numbers together, and exposed their necks bare, and cried out that they were sooner ready to be slain, than that their law should be transgressed. Hereupon Pilate was greatly surprised at their prodigious superstition, and gave order that the ensigns should be presently carried out of Jerusalem.
4. After this he raised another disturbance, by expending that sacred treasure which is called Corban 10 upon aqueducts, whereby he brought water from the distance of four hundred furlongs. At this the multitude had indignation; and when Pilate was come to Jerusalem, they came about his tribunal, and made a clamor at it. Now when he was apprized aforehand of this disturbance, he mixed his own soldiers in their armor with the multitude, and ordered them to conceal themselves under the habits of private men, and not indeed to use their swords, but with their staves to beat those that made the clamor. He then gave the signal from his tribunal [to do as he had bidden them]. Now the Jews were so sadly beaten, that many of them perished by the stripes they received, and many of them perished as trodden to death by themselves; by which means the multitude was astonished at the calamity of those that were slain, and held their peace.

The question is rather - do you need to take the Bible for historic fact for being a good Christian, or is being Christian about something else, a kind of desired behavior and ethic. You can indeed be a good Christian and scientist, when you have the discipline.

 

[jedidia]

Anyway, doesn't the bible talk about miracles? Those are in the physical universe and thus must be explorable through scientific method.

Since the definition of magic is an evident physical occurance without an evident physical reason, I'd say that you'd be hard pressed to explore a miracle scientifically, unless the one doing the miracle would have used physical principles to achieve it. In that case, however, you'd not call it a miracle anymore, would you?

 

[Urwumpe]

Since the definition of magic is an evident physical occurance without an evident physical reason, I'd say that you'd be hard pressed to explore a miracle scientifically, unless the one doing the miracle would have used physical principles to achieve it. In that case, however, you'd not call it a miracle anymore, would you?

Clarke's third law of prediction: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 

[Saturn V]

With science, you actually seek out to prove that the thing is true...

Which explains why another scientifically minded astronaut by the name of Jim Irwin spent the latter part of his life trying to find Noah's Ark.

Yes, this a clear illustration you are correct in that a faith-based concept can be neither proved or disproved (his inability to prove that it actually existed does not prove that it didn't), but it also illustrates my contention that science and faith/belief are not necessarily diametrically opposed.

The precepts of both sat far more comfortably on Irwin's shoulders than they did on Mitchell's. But that owes more to their personalities (Irwin being the more laid back of the two by all accounts), than the nature of the quandry.

By the same token, the opinions of others posted here neither anger me, nor change what I believe or accept. And I don't presume to force my opinion on anyone else. But the intelligent and well-spoken discourse over the preceeding 6 pages has been enlightening and entertaining. A gentlemen's disagreement if you will...

However, at this juncture, I'll bow out lest we begin repeating ourselves ad nauseum.

But thanks for the mental exercise. It's been a pleasure.

 

[eveningsky339]

That sounds like a convienient way of avoiding the need for any proof of all this spiritual stuff.
Anyway, doesn't the bible talk about miracles? Those are in the physical universe and thus must be explorable through scientific method.

It certainly seems that way, but it depends on how you view "proof". Is there scientific proof for the supernatural? Absolutely not. But are there "other forms" of proof? Yes.

Take, for example, my apartment. It used to be an old emergency room and I never gave much thought to the paranormal until moving in. Since I have, I have experienced countless things which I (or my neighbors for that matter) cannot explain via natural means.

Scientific evidence? No. Personal evidence? Yes. But not good enough for Bacon's scientific method.

There are some groups out there (eg TAPS) who claim that scientific instruments can detect the paranormal, but let's not touch that can of worms for now.

 

[Urwumpe]

It certainly seems that way, but it depends on how you view "proof". Is there scientific proof for the supernatural? Absolutely not. But are there "other forms" of proof? Yes

Stop right here and answer this question: Can a proof really be not scientific?

 

[jedidia]

Clarke's third law of prediction: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Unless you reach the same level, and when you find out it won't be magic anymore. Which leads to the popular method of explaining miracles either scientifically, if they can be explained, or, if they cannot, deny them. I however do believe that true miracles happened and happen.

Stop right here and answer this question: Can a proof really be not scientific?

This is a darn interesting question. It involves the problem of what exactly science is. For example, in psychology "proof" consists majorly of statistics. And, as you said yourself, one shouldn't trust a statistic he hasn't faked himself. Still, it's the only kind of "proof" that is possible for such a discipline (which is probably the major reason why psychologists are the group of scientists that have the hardest time agreeing with each other).

The other problem is "proof for who?" I have some few friends which I trust 100%. If someone of them told me of something that shouldn't be possible, I'll take that as proof over any other evidence. But their word can of course only be proof for me, because it hinges on our relationship, as well on their behaviour. It wouldn't do as proof for anyone else, but for me, it will outweigh practically all other proof, no matter how scientific. It's a subjective proof, or "personal proof", as eveningsky called it.
For an objective proof, I would agree with you that scientific proof is the only existing option. Statistics excluded.

 

[Urwumpe]

Even statistics can be evidence - if you read them properly and write them properly. which means: You have to say how you did the statistics. In psychology, you will often find statistics, that had been really done by asking a few friends and then do all necessary means to hide the fact that the statistic was based on less than one dozen people. (But luckily, also few good statistics, which did all kinds of stuff right.)

At the same time, in physics and engineering, you can have ten thousands of samples for making statistics with.

 

[Hielor]

Hielor, the situation that you gave is a good example of how God does not interfere in our lives. But my faith tells me that God lets us freely choose our actions. If he would interfere, it wouldn't really be free will. The choice would be: "Do as I say, or I will make you or I will kill you". My take on the "He is good" bit is that yes he is good, and he wants us to choose to be.

If God is forced to respect free will, then he is not all-powerful; if God respects the free will of the evil over that of the good, then he is not all-good.

Take, for example, my apartment. It used to be an old emergency room and I never gave much thought to the paranormal until moving in. Since I have, I have experienced countless things which I (or my neighbors for that matter) cannot explain via natural means.

Scientific evidence? No. Personal evidence? Yes. But not good enough for Bacon's scientific method.

Move someone into such an apartment and do not tell them its origin, and I can almost guarantee you that they will not experience such things. Moreover, we all experience odd things from time to time. If you go digging and find that your apartment used to be an old emergency room, that "confirms" your experiences and they become solid evidence--but if you go digging and find nothing, then you quietly let it slip away. It's the nature of the human mind.

 

[Ghostrider]

If God is forced to respect free will, then he is not all-powerful; if God respects the free will of the evil over that of the good, then he is not all-good.

This is a purely philosophical thingie, but if God has decided to follow rules She has formulated in order to have the Multiverse to function, then this doesn't affect Her omnipotence in any way.

 

[Hielor]

This is a purely philosophical thingie, but if God has decided to follow rules She has formulated in order to have the Multiverse to function, then this doesn't affect Her omnipotence in any way.

Which brings us to the second point: if God respects the free will of the evil over that of the good, then She is not all-good.

Moreover, a God which does not interfere with events in the mortal world is no different than no God at all.

 

[XLR82SPACE]

So... I'm back what have I missed the last 24?

Now, about those aliens Edgar claims to have seen, what is this "fireflys" seen out the window of the Mercury capsule over Australia??? Lets see who was that, maybe Neil? Its also documented in "The Right Stuff". Did they ever figure out to what that was all about?? What was the secret being kept from Jesse Marcell in Roswell? Pretty weird stuff if you ask me.

 

[eveningsky339]

Move someone into such an apartment and do not tell them its origin, and I can almost guarantee you that they will not experience such things. Moreover, we all experience odd things from time to time. If you go digging and find that your apartment used to be an old emergency room, that "confirms" your experiences and they become solid evidence--but if you go digging and find nothing, then you quietly let it slip away. It's the nature of the human mind.

This certainly happens all the time at "haunted" locations. But, when I see a light switch physical move to the "up" position or a locked door unlatch and open, I find it hard to successfully come up with natural explanations for such things.

(BTW-- my wife and I had no idea about this place's history prior to moving in.)

 

[XLR82SPACE]

Hey say what you will about the rest of me.... But I BELIEVE IN SPIRITS OF THE SUPERNATURAL. There is good reason for it, lets just leave it at that. Not sure if science has ever got to the bottom of it or not. I care less about science, I know first hand the boggie man is a real manifestation. For all of you skeptics out there, it just has not been time for your bell to be rung yet, but when it does you will know, so you can join the rank of all of the ones like me out there that get picked on by all of the "Sid the science kids" of this world.

 

[jedidia]

Which brings us to the second point: if God respects the free will of the evil over that of the good, then She is not all-good.

So what is she supposed to do? kill everyone? I guess you could say that then she wouldn't be all-good either.
It's also a problem that human ethics are a relatively short-lived and rapidly changing construct, so it is questionable if they are suited to judge an eternal being.

 

[simonpro]

If God is forced to respect free will, then he is not all-powerful; if God respects the free will of the evil over that of the good, then he is not all-good.

Perhaps it just does what it wants..
Perhaps it just does whatever makes ithappy, like throwing beachballs onto football pitches or making a bar run out of tasty snacks. Probably a whole lot more fun than sitting aroudn on a cloud somewhere being good all day long. That must get boring after an eternity.

 

[clive bradbury]

So... I'm back what have I missed the last 24?

Now, about those aliens Edgar claims to have seen, what is this "fireflys" seen out the window of the Mercury capsule over Australia??? Lets see who was that, maybe Neil? Its also documented in "The Right Stuff". Did they ever figure out to what that was all about??.

If you are to lend any credibility or respect to a comment you wish to place on these forums you really do have to start doing some basic research (oh, I forgot, you don't care about science, and believe in the bogey man).

I'll give you a short challenge - instead of just writing down the first rubbish you have read somewhere, take five minutes to research it - that is all it should take to establish the explanation of the mysterious 'fireflies'.