But as with any alien related myth, there is always someone to give a much " less mysterious " explanation.

Even when those " less mysterious " explanations sound completely absurd.

I'm not saying that is the case with the Dogon legend.

I am kinda wondering what " explanation " they have come up with for the UFO sighting at O'Hare airport.

Oh yeah...I remember now..." weather phenomena ". Something that the weather did, punched a circular hole in the cloud cover that lasted until the wind pushed the clouds back in. :-)

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Tonight on Coast to Coast AM airing at 1am EST

Fri 4/27

Open Lines.




Free Streaming Radio courtesy of KFI in Los Angeles

Free Internet Stream for folks outside the US

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Doppelganger Robot
Prof. Hiroshi Ishiguro of Osaka University has unveiled a robotic doppelganger of himself. The replica, named Germinoid, has 50 sensors and motors implanted under its skin, which can be controlled by simple movements the Professor makes. For more, visit the Daily Mail.


Scientist unveils his doppelganger - a robot perfect in every detail, including his hair
Last updated at 21:05pm on 26th April 2007

Comments (7)

Japanese robotics expert Hiroshi Ishiguro has unveiled a robot doppelganger of himself.

Germinoid is a humanoid robot designed in his creator's image, down to the tiniest of details.

It sits on a chair and gazes around the room in a very human-like fashion, just like its creator.


The skin tone, the spectacles, and even the lengthy hairs on its head are the same as on Ishiguro, a senior researcher at ATR Intelligent Robotics and Communication Laboratories outside Kyoto.

Implanted beneath Geminoid's skin are 50 sensors and motors that can be controlled by simple movements Dr Ishiguro makes.

He can see through its 'eyes', talk through its internal speaker and shrug or scowl if prodded and poked. Compressed air forced through its body make Geminoid's chest rise and fall as if breathing.

"At first, you may feel strange about the android," said Dr Ishiguro.

"However, once you are drawn into a conversation, you will forget every difference and feel totally comfortable to speak with it and look it in the eyes."

Dr Ishiguro believes robots like Geminoid will in future allow people to be where they cannot be. Speaking through Geminoid, he says, has become natural, an extension of himself.

The development of humanoid robots has been hampered by what some roboticists call the "uncanny valley".

This describes a common feeling of revulsion people feel towards a robot that has some human characteristics, but is not yet human-looking enough to make people feel comfortable.

As technology improves to make humanoid robots more lifelike, roboticists expect them to become more acceptable.

The close similarity between Dr Ishiguro and his robotic replica has caused some curious psychological effects, he said.

"When the body of Geminoid is touched by somebody, I get very similar feelings of being touched," he said.

This week, British roboticists attacked a report commissioned by the government's chief science adviser, David King, which suggests the robots will one day have rights.

The report claimed that advances in artificial intelligence might lead future machines to demand rights and the opportunity to vote.

Scientists dismissed the report as poorly founded and a diversion from more pressing concerns, such as autonomous robots being developed and equipped with weapons.

Dr Ishiguro's previous work has involved developing video systems to analyse human behaviour, a technique that could help identify people who are planning to commit crimes. His team tested a network of cameras on a Kyoto underground station.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=450892&in_page_id=1965

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

MAJIC EYES ONLY:
Earth's Encounters with Extraterrestrial Technology
Ryan S. Wood
Foreword by Jim Marrs


MAJIC EYES ONLY is the most authoritative and comprehensive chronicle ever published on the subject of worldwide UFO crashes and subsequent military retrievals from 1897 to the present. The author guides the reader through 74 UFO crash incidents supported by compelling evidence in the form of official documents, eyewitnesses and in some cases physical evidence.

Since 1984, multiple sources have leaked, revealed or discovered some 3,500 pages of UFO documents, hundreds classified Top Secret and linked to Majestic-12. These MJ-12 documents, coupled with the Leonard Stringfield data and strong investigations by other case experts, provide a powerful core of UFO crash incidents.


more information visit >> http://www.majiceyesonly.com/

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

But as with any alien related myth, there is always someone to give a much " less mysterious " explanation.

Even when those " less mysterious " explanations sound completely absurd.

I'm not saying that is the case with the Dogon legend.

I am kinda wondering what " explanation " they have come up with for the UFO sighting at O'Hare airport.

Oh yeah...I remember now..." weather phenomena ". Something that the weather did, punched a circular hole in the cloud cover that lasted until the wind pushed the clouds back in. :-)

Well, you're cheating a little bit here, probably not intentionally of course. You can't set up strawmen by switching from one reported incident to another. Let's stick with the Dogon stories. One thing at a time, please.

As I stated earlier, It has been a long while since I saw/read/watched those explanations given about the veracity of the whole legend and its originations. I'm sure it's a subject that can be easily googled for the other explanations, ones that don't posit a history of alien visitations to the Dogon tribesmen by aliens. I recall there were others that went to visit and the stories they got from the tribe differed quite alot from those earlier and suspicious accounts.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

I was really amazed when I read this story about the Dogon tribe and their possible knowledge of the Sirius star system.

Astronomy

The Dogon are famous for their astronomical knowledge taught through oral tradition, dating back thousands of years, referencing the star system, Sirius. Sirius is the dog star. It is linked with the Egyptian goddess Isis. The astronomical information known by the Dogon since that time, was not discovered and verified until the 19th and 20th centuries, making one wonder how the Dogon came by this knowledge. Their oral traditions say it was given to them by the Nommo. The source of their information may date back to the time of the ancient Egyptian priests.

As the story goes ... in the late 1930s, four Dogon priests shared their most important secret tradition with two French anthropologists, Marcel Griaule and Germain Dieterlen after they had spent an apprenticeship of fifteen years living with the tribe. These were secret myths about the star Sirius, which is 8.6 light years from the Earth.

The Dogon priests said that Sirius had a companion star that was invisible to the human eye. They also stated that the star moved in a 50-year elliptical orbit around Sirius, that it was small and incredibly heavy, and that it rotated on its axis...

From Crystalinks.com

BTW there's more of this at the link, I copy/pasted some of it from a saved text file.

I recall seeing or reading a 'myth check' on this legend once. Sorry I can't refer you to it but there were some explanations of the story that were much less mysterious than the version where the Dogon had had contacts with aliens.

Hmm, in this case there is certain detailed information that makes me tilt more towards believer than skeptic.

Their references to the Sirius companion star being small, heavy and white (white dwarf) is intriguing. The hypothesis that the Dogon name for Sirius B, Po Tolo, is possibly referring to human creation, is even more strange.

---

Referring back to my own memory of all of these tales I don't believe that the initial stories brought back from visits to this Dogon tribe are credible. They are not especially incredible in light of the fact that the tribesmen themselves discounted them when later queried. If I remember properly, even the dates of these stories being conveyed to the ones they met earlier were incorrect.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

But as with any alien related myth, there is always someone to give a much " less mysterious " explanation.

Even when those " less mysterious " explanations sound completely absurd.

I'm not saying that is the case with the Dogon legend.

I am kinda wondering what " explanation " they have come up with for the UFO sighting at O'Hare airport.

Oh yeah...I remember now..." weather phenomena ". Something that the weather did, punched a circular hole in the cloud cover that lasted until the wind pushed the clouds back in. :-)

Well, you're cheating a little bit here, probably not intentionally of course. You can't set up strawmen by switching from one reported incident to another. Let's stick with the Dogon stories. One thing at a time, please.

As I stated earlier, It has been a long while since I saw/read/watched those explanations given about the veracity of the whole legend and its originations. I'm sure it's a subject that can be easily googled for the other explanations, ones that don't posit a history of alien visitations to the Dogon tribesmen by aliens. I recall there were others that went to visit and the stories they got from the tribe differed quite alot from those earlier and suspicious accounts.

You were correct in saying that drawing parallels between different reports was unintentional.

However, I do feel that the point is valid. The particular era doesn't matter all that much. There will always be someone who claims to be able to explain it all away.

What you say about the Dogon tribe is probably true. I haven't looked it up as of yet.It's entirely possible that the men who brought back the story heard something else and added their own interpretation to it. If one wasn't there, one simply doesn't know.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

You were correct in saying that drawing parallels between different reports was unintentional.

However, I do feel that the point is valid. The particular era doesn't matter all that much. There will always be someone who claims to be able to explain it all away.

What you say about the Dogon tribe is probably true. I haven't looked it up as of yet.It's entirely possible that the men who brought back the story heard something else and added their own interpretation to it. If one wasn't there, one simply doesn't know.

This is why I have always called you a skeptic. A philosophic skeptic is one that is too lenient with his standards of evidence, contrary to most laymen's understanding of the term.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

You were correct in saying that drawing parallels between different reports was unintentional.

However, I do feel that the point is valid. The particular era doesn't matter all that much. There will always be someone who claims to be able to explain it all away.

What you say about the Dogon tribe is probably true. I haven't looked it up as of yet.It's entirely possible that the men who brought back the story heard something else and added their own interpretation to it. If one wasn't there, one simply doesn't know.

This is why I have always called you a skeptic. A philosophic skeptic is one that is too lenient with his standards of evidence, contrary to most laymen's understanding of the term.

I don't think I am a skeptic by the definition. I do believe more than a normal skeptic would, I just don't lean heavily one way or the other.

To me, a skeptic will look at the evidence, and find some kind of explanation, no matter how flimsy it may seem. I don't really fit that definition because I won't accept flimsy " explanations ".

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Referring back to my own memory of all of these tales I don't believe that the initial stories brought back from visits to this Dogon tribe are credible. They are not especially incredible in light of the fact that the tribesmen themselves discounted them when later queried. If I remember properly, even the dates of these stories being conveyed to the ones they met earlier were incorrect.

Keep in mind that Griaule and Dieterlen spent many years actually living with the Dogon tribe. And that the knowledge about Sirius was considered to be a Dogon secret. Could it be that the Dogon provided that knowledge to Griaule and Dieterlen because they trusted them.

Before, if you were referring to one of the explanations that says that the Dogon probably learned about the existance of Sirius B from European visitors, then we have something to debate. Who were the European visitors that provided them with the knowledge?

---

I don't think I am a skeptic by the definition. I do believe more than a normal skeptic would, I just don't lean heavily one way or the other.

I would describe myself in the same way. I like to keep an open mind about things.

---

I don't think I am a skeptic by the definition. I do believe more than a normal skeptic would, I just don't lean heavily one way or the other.

I would describe myself in the same way. I like to keep an open mind about things.

A/C, leaning 'one way or the other' as you put it doesn't describe a rational approach to things.

If we may forget this particular Dogon example for the moment (as we have wandered a bit off topic) consider this.

We don't approach things that are spectacular by throwing up our hands once confronted by anectodal claims. If we were to do that then we'd all be in danger of many things....including dangerous idealogies or demagogues. It is safe to assume that most of us, especially the rational ones, do not want that. There are certain standards of epistemology. Those standards are established by the interaction of man and reality itself. They're not dictated by fears or wishes or whatnot. They are inherent in the relationship of man with his reality.

Ordinarily this is where some might feel compelled to insert philosophic apolgies. I won't do that, of course.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

A/C, leaning 'one way or the other' as you put it doesn't describe a rational approach to things.

A/C didn't put it that way, R/B. I did. :-)

As far as your statement....

I don't " throw my hands up " when presented with anecdotal evidence. Nor do I dismiss it out of hand. I bide my time and look into it. That's why I wouldn't consider myself a skeptic. If I am missing something in the definition of " skeptic ", let me know.

There are certain standards of epistemology. Those standards are established by the interaction of man and reality itself. They're not dictated by fears or wishes or whatnot. They are inherent in the relationship of man with his reality.

Robert, we ( you and I ) have been through this a couple of times previously. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you are saying. What, exactly, is irrational about not taking things at face value?? Is the fact that my reality may not completely coincide with your an irrational stance?

I feel that insisting on, and trying to impose your reality on everyone is somewhat irrational in and of itself. Just because someone doesn't see things the same doesn't necessarily make them irrational.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

A/C, leaning 'one way or the other' as you put it doesn't describe a rational approach to things.

A/C didn't put it that way, R/B. I did. :-)

As far as your statement....

I don't " throw my hands up " when presented with anecdotal evidence. Nor do I dismiss it out of hand. I bide my time and look into it. That's why I wouldn't consider myself a skeptic. If I am missing something in the definition of " skeptic ", let me know.

There are certain standards of epistemology. Those standards are established by the interaction of man and reality itself. They're not dictated by fears or wishes or whatnot. They are inherent in the relationship of man with his reality.

Robert, we ( you and I ) have been through this a couple of times previously. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you are saying. What, exactly, is irrational about not taking things at face value?? Is the fact that my reality may not completely coincide with your an irrational stance?

I feel that insisting on, and trying to impose your reality on everyone is somewhat irrational in and of itself. Just because someone doesn't see things the same doesn't necessarily make them irrational.

1. I have no ability to 'impose' reality on someone else. Reality does that for you. Those are laws of nature.

2. I'd suggest using these common sense ideas in regard to epistemology or 'how I know what's what' to be a good stepping stone. It leads to truth (correspondence to reality and facts) quite well.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

A/C, leaning 'one way or the other' as you put it doesn't describe a rational approach to things.

A/C didn't put it that way, R/B. I did. :-)

As far as your statement....

I don't " throw my hands up " when presented with anecdotal evidence. Nor do I dismiss it out of hand. I bide my time and look into it. That's why I wouldn't consider myself a skeptic. If I am missing something in the definition of " skeptic ", let me know.

There are certain standards of epistemology. Those standards are established by the interaction of man and reality itself. They're not dictated by fears or wishes or whatnot. They are inherent in the relationship of man with his reality.

Robert, we ( you and I ) have been through this a couple of times previously. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you are saying. What, exactly, is irrational about not taking things at face value?? Is the fact that my reality may not completely coincide with your an irrational stance?

I feel that insisting on, and trying to impose your reality on everyone is somewhat irrational in and of itself. Just because someone doesn't see things the same doesn't necessarily make them irrational.

1. I have no ability to 'impose' reality on someone else. Reality does that for you. Those are laws of nature.

2. I'd suggest using these common sense ideas in regard to epistemology or 'how I know what's what' to be a good stepping stone. It leads to truth (correspondence to reality and facts) quite well.

Because, of course, there is nothing that we don't know or can't find someone to tell us now is there? Everything falls into what we currently know.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Explain. Your last comment is confusing.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

My last comment is actually quite clear.

You said

2. I'd suggest using these common sense ideas in regard to epistemology or 'how I know what's what' to be a good stepping stone. It leads to truth (correspondence to reality and facts) quite well.

I know the sarcasm in my comment ( because I forgot to put in one of these ;-) ) may have gotten by others as well as you so I will clarify.

You maintain that that " common sense " and " how I know what's what " is a good stepping stone to the truth. That is true, but only to a point.

I maintain that truth can sometimes lie around the corners of what we presently know as " facts ". I also maintain that all of the " facts " as we know them, are not necessarily all of the " facts " that are there to be known.

As long as people are looking into things, there will always be more " facts " to be found.

I simply don't base my outlook on what is known now as the be all, end all. There are always new things to be discovered.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

That is PRECISELY why I call you a skeptic.

You hesitate to make a judgement until you have' all the 'facts'....even though those awaited facts are always unspecified and nebulous.

At some point you have to relent and claim WHAT IT IS you insist upon as fundamentally persuasive for truth.

You must take a stand, mate.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

The myth why men shave.

---

me@rescam.org