Check this out !!! Re: Spots on Venus
timecycle,
BUT .... to see Buzz Aldrin now come out with similar claims.... this has made me requestion it...
For him to make such claims MAY help his publicity... but at the same time it may also damage it severely as well in my opinion....
I am not sure why you believe it would severely damage his publicity. His day is over. He will not be walking on the moon again, or anything close to that. He is not a scientist or engineer, so he will have no new breakthroughs that such people can have. In fact, given that he is getting older (and less relevant by the way our society works) you could actually claim that BECAUSE he loves publicity and sees himself as older and less relevant, that gives him MOTIVE to make the wild claims, just to remain relevant.
But I think you have also helped answer this issue yourself when you said:
All I will say is I certainly wouldnt have expected it or him to state such things as much as he likes publicity...
Again the general public could never really know the truth
So let's review here:
1) Buzz likes publicity.
2) He is getting older, and hence less relevant to garnering publicity.
3) If he DID lie about a wild claim, the public would never know the truth.
So... what is the DOWNSIDE to lying and getting more publicity? Heck, even if somehow someone were able to prove he was lying, even that (as we see in our society) garners lots of publicity. What is the old saying "there is no such thing as bad publicity"?
CAN I ASK... HAVE you as yet come across any other wilder statements than those made by John Lear
that have been made from Potential respected sources.....
if so you may help me save time trying to find other claims made by so called respected sources...
Lending any sort of creedance to a "respected source" is simply not a scientific approach to attempting to verify any claim they make as truth. This was the point I was making in my last post to you. Someone's status never EVER makes them any less likely to lie.
or have you found everything that you have researched to be hoaxs...
Again, the answer to this question of yours should be viewed to strongly highlight the difference in a casual approach and a scientific approach:
I immediately presume that ALL wild claims are false UNTIL there is evidence to support them.
Doing anything else would simply not be scientific at all. And at that point I would worry about MY reputation!
have you managed to find any real possible worthy truths ( ufo / et related) in all the research that you have done over the years ? PLease answer me that one !
I have found nothing that satisfies the following two criteria:
1) There is sufficient evidence to independently validate the claim.
2) In addition to the absence of evidence to validate, there exists some less-wild, more mundane explanation for what someone says they think they saw.
If more of the "amateur UFOlogists" would adhere to just these two principles, the domain of UFOlogy would not be the laughing stock that it is in the world of serious science. I mean, have you ever watched the UFO Hunters show and seen the lengths that Bill Birnes will go to state something is "conclusive evidence" when it clearly is nowhere near conclusive?
RMT
