Why 'Evidence' Is Problematic

If you look at the Israeli physicist Avi Loeb, it isn't difficult to see him as completely sincere, completely honest, open-minded certainly - and apparently realistic.

Recently in an interview he said, something like: 'what we need is high pixilation, dense pixilation photographs, images - you know, where we can see, maybe, rivets, signs of technology...

San Francisco 1%-er's. You won't be allowed in
there - where they are having fun while some
thousands are homeless in the streets.
Not even Laura Ingraham would be allowed
in there now! 

'And like someone walking along a beach and finding old plastic bottles, we will be able to say for certain that we have the remnants of someone else's technology. And we have the technology in private hands now, to be able to search and to find it, if it is there to be found; and we happen to know it is there. The problem in the past, about governments releasing such information, had to do with the secrecy of the sensors that were being used. But we have that technology ourselves privately now, even better technology too.'

I mean you have to admire firstly the man's sincerity, and to the casual observer, his proposition is very rational and realistic.

Except it isn't.

And I will tell you why. ...He also said that 'witness accounts' or 'eye-witness accounts' do not constitute sufficiently testable evidence - but in saying that, he forgot who the actual subjects were, he was assuming were even able to distinguish facts from lies. And he leapt to an entirely problematic (in fact, it is an outright and demonstrably false) presumption, that all people have no hidden, malicious agendas, and are willing to expose 'truth' without politics.

When you look at, for instance, positive proponents of the 'ET Alien hypotheses' that are all over the place (and never really 'left town' since forever anyway!) - anyone can see that the 'narratives' and explanations are simply riddled with some bad thinking, some 'illogical thinking' (fallacious thinking), and occasionally there might be a tiny handful of people whose voices are actually mostly all virtually drowned out completely by the idiots.

So then, someone turns up with a really stunning 'piece' (it might even be lots of evidence! Would not make any difference at all) of 'evidence.'

What happens?

Actually does have an 'age statement' - blended
obviously, and is supposed to be of course.
I haven't had this one... ...yet.

You think, and I'm sure that there was at least one person here whose first inclination would be to say 1., no one ever will (come up with any actual hard evidence), and 2., the evidence doesn't stack up.

You see the problem is this:

Avi Loeb might be honest and direct and open and sincere, with no major 'ulterior motivation,' but what makes you suppose that his example reflects what everyone else is like?

There are many people for whom it would be completely against their interests if it ever should become the case that the general public found out about super advanced ET Aliens - both that such things are real, and more significantly, what such beings are all about.

And what makes anyone think that you cannot completely undermine good evidence, by being outright malicious for your own reasons, and rushing onto the scene, and spouting utter crap, making out that you are 'being honest/scientific/'skeptical' when you are actually, not - and literally using the exact same poor standards, or even non-existent standards, of 'logic' and rational thinking, literally interposing faulty logic, fallacious thinking across things to deliberately muddy the water, so to speak? In other words, to do what is nowadays called 'astro-turfing?' In other words, this is the symmetry argument for irrationality, and/or fallacious thinking.

Within a short time, the 'hard evidence' would become the same type of thing that science itself has become over the last fifty years - that is, political; aka 'Karl Popper' science. You literally cannot go to any top-research grant funded University anywhere in the world and not 'learn' Karl Popper-cult 'science.' It is just plain not science at all - it is Karl Popper-flavored 'academia' (and even that is a completely fraudulent misnomer) 'science.'

Snobs insist on
'Glencairns' these days.
But I like these too, and they are 
a completely
different experience to
the whole 'Glencairn' thing.

'Political' is just about who won the 'tussle,' not who was correct in the absolute.

'Remnants of technology' - like discarded coke bottles in the South African movie 'The Gods Must Be Crazy' presumes they (the Aliens) leave rubbish lying around... ...and in any case, it is not active functioning technology, as such. 'Advanced Alien technology' is something, that if 'possessed,' as in - has been granted to anyone - will simply be used by them without them really telling anyone else.

But here is the other problem simply no one will face honestly at all. Let's say that 'prophet Muhammad' really did encounter a 'being who came down from a light in the sky, and whose skin was strange, and different, glowing bronze or golden' and who gave 'Muhammad' something that allowed Muhammad to completely take over virtually the whole civilized world of the day.

No sooner had that actually happened, though, than that Muhammad started beheading people he didn't like, and in one case, caused an old woman to be torn asunder between two goaded horses.

So. Let's say that 'Muhammad' did receive 'unusual' knowledge and especially, power. But then, like all human beings who have power - it went straight to his head.

In his case, he claimed that he was only slaughtering people 'to save their souls (maybe) and the souls of those around them who they were influencing.' Well is that a good enough 'justification' for getting your way when you can? By killing people? ...Must have been a pretty sub-standard 'Alien' (if that's even what it was; but let's just say so for the point) that Muhammad encountered, in my view.

'Umar' (who was either the actual identity now called 'Muhammad' or else his nearest 'Caliph' - aka successor) - died of gangrene from being stabbed in the side, after three days although he had told his followers 'the angel Gabriel' was going to cure him, and that in any case, he would 'rise from the dead' (if he died) after three days. However he just died is what happened.

What makes it the case that any one of us, who, receiving some specialized knowledge and technology, from super advanced ET Aliens, would not ourselves succumb to what always gets the better of human nature?

Really though. What's the absolutely decisive answer to that?

Do you have one?

Well what is it?

Give me the hard evidence, that you really are a trust-able, trustworthy individual...

All of you 'skeptics' and atheists out there - you better hope like hell all of this 'ET Alien talk' is just rubbish.

...Which it ain't.

But it isn't quite 'game over' yet anyway though, and I'll tell you why.

'I like to do you slowly,' that's what Paul Keating said; not me. I never said it.

'Slowly' by the way, is how you sip whisky. It should take you about an hour to 'do' what is in that tumbler in the pic above. Yes, a whole hour.

And the evidence, of if the stuff is any good, depends on the people that you are drinking with.