Here is the paper referenced in the video I posted. Published in the magazine Astrobiology and available to download as a PDF to peruse at our leisure.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Ok if you’re not up on Bayesian analysis (as I am not) you will find this a bit heavy going but I just read as closely as I can and glean what I can from such publications. (Lots of pretty charts anyway!) The utility of scientific papers is that they must not merely state their conclusions but describe the methodology by which they arrived at their conclusions. (Imagine if politicians and the clergy had to do that!)
Interesting to learn from these latest videos that ATLAS/3I will be visible in binoculars and small scopes at its closest approach to Earth in December. I had been under the impression that it would not be visible. (Perhaps they simply meant it would not be visible to the naked eye.)
As a lifelong aficionado I do possess binocs and scopes. I will make an effort to observe. Because of its proximity to the sun it will be visible shortly before sunrise only for a limited time. How utterly rude it would be not to acknowledge a guest who has traveled so far!
It’s not a fake quotation, it’s the position you are broadcasting.
Think about how you are coming across. That’s what people are hearing.
Robert:
Avi Loeb? I disagree with Avi Loeb but I agree with David Spergel, NASA, and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Somebody actually got $10 million dollars together to actually go looking for pharaoh’s arm under the Red Sea?
Robert disagrees because scholars like Hoffmeier cannot explain why the account is in the Torah.
There are exact words you say and correct inferences to what you say.
Steefen is, I am given to understand, a quondam newspaper editor. He obviously understands the importance of both clearly distinguishing a direct quotation from a paraphrase and of quoting accurately and paraphrasing without mischaracterization.
Oh, wait, that Steefen, the one who habitually does none of those things–yeah, nevermind.
According to The Guardian reviewer Adrian Horton, “As IndieWire put it, The Age of Disclosure presents ‘the most convincing argument you can make without showing any actual evidence’.”
It never fails.
I quite enjoyed this from Daniel Fienberg’s ** you do not have permission to see this link **
“My problem with The Age of Disclosure isn’t the lack of opposing voices. It’s that there couldn’t be experts debunking anything here. Nothing is proven, and thus nothing can be refuted. If somebody insists, without evidence, that there’s an underground bunker somewhere with a thousand alien bodies and 50 alien spacecraft, it’s impossible for anybody to refute, because what are they going to say? “No there isn’t.” Or “Well, you just don’t have the clearance to know.” If someone insists, without evidence, that people they can’t name were killed to keep certain things they can’t say secret, what are you going to say?”
Hey Steefen this here thread is concerned with the question of aliens and religious beliefs. You already created another thread about dead Egyptians at the bottom of the Red Sea. Could you keep that stuff, videos & comments, over in its proper thread please?
That would be super helpful. The way it’s going now I’m afraid I’ll start conflating one conspiracy with another, and it’ll all turn into a grand conspiracy involving all the usual suspects. This way it’ll be easier to separately weigh each for their lack of evidence.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)