Miles O'Brien let go because of the UFO segments he did on CNN

[fadedrose]

Because he showed a wormy thing on Mars that he wasn't supposed to...just heard this on a Toronto radio station, it'll be on till 1 am est.

http://www.cfrb.com/

[varkam]

1. If you heard it on the radio, it must be true!

:tinfoilhat:

[fadedrose]

3. The last day of the feature...

Miles was not on. The chief morning anchor did the segment...

I was curious about that.

This isn't a ufo/bigfoot station, it's a regular newstalk station. But as far as truth goes, it's hard to find anywhere - newspapers, tv, or radio.

[varkam]

5. There might be a reason for that...

maybe because it's pure speculation. There could be other reasons why Miles was not on. From what I understand, it appears that CNN was downsizing its science ops and O'Brien was on the chopping block, as well.

[cosmik debris]

2. Ooh! Ooh! He pissed off the Martian Over Lords!

Now he's in really big trouble!

[fadedrose]

4. My good ole buddy Cosmic...

I only posted this because the last thing I posted about the CNN - UFO feature seemed to have had over 1200 people look at it, and I thought that at least 14 of them might have had an interest in the possible "firing."

This was not meant for your truth only eyes/ears, Dear.

But, if you cared to find out, where would one look to find out if the radio station guests were telling the truth?

[cosmik debris]

7. How Pathetic!

You believe that because your post got 1200 views that 1200 people viewed it? That's sad. Especially since no one in that thread bought into your silly UFO scam. It was comedy relief in a more serious forum than you seem to be used to. This type of gossip really belongs in the Lounge.

And just for more laughs, a simple google search turned up several other reasons for the personnel action you mentioned. Did you notice that the person is still working for CNN, but in a different capacity?

[fadedrose]

9. I went to cnn.com

And Miles is still there, nice big picture and writeup.

Should have looked last night, but it was so late and I was so sleepy.

Anyway, the guy whose name I already forgot said that Miles was "let go." I wonder what he actually meant by that. He did go on to say that NASA was not thrilled with the worm thing that he paid so much attention to - http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2008/12/02/obrien.mars.worm.cnn?iref=videosearch

Every segment they did on CNN can be seen as well, I think, no time to look now.

Thanks for your criticisms.

(I went to see "The Day the Earth Stood Still," yesterday, and compared to the original one back in the 50's, with Michael Rennie and Patricia O'neal, it sucked)

I don't like the Lounge. People are too damned friendly there. :)

[cosmik debris]

10. Whether you like it or not,

TV gossip belongs in the lounge.

And I hope you have learned not to believe everything you hear on talk radio. (or CNN)

[salvorhardin]

11. A lot of us pro-science and rationality types have an interest in the O'Brien's firing

But that interest isn't because of the UFO feature. It's because CNN's execs deem fit to axe their entire science and technology reporting unit, and they admit it's not an economic decision rather an editorial one. Apparently CNN doesn't think science and technology reporting is an important enough topic to warrant a dedicated unit. That's boneheaded stupid. Science and technology are the lynchpins of modern society. Having a clear understanding of science and technology is necessary to forming a reasoned opinion on so many things that CNN's decision to axe it's sci-tech reporting unit belies CNN's execs' own poor understanding of what makes news or why we should care.

[fadedrose]

32. Just looked up Debris' links...

Seems like the News got out about Dec. 3 that O'Brien was being tossed out as science director, whatever. You may want to check out the links yourself and then write to the boneheads at CNN.


He had a 5-day skit on ufo's and for some reason CNN went ahead with canning him at the end of the 3rd day, I think. Gort'll fix 'em.

[moggie]

6. No, it's the Bene Gesserit!

The spice must flow!

[cosmik debris]

8. Here are some other opinions

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gpcgOyYZGHst1bKH8BA_fUWVJQwQD94RGMC81

http://www.jossip.com/jon-klein-finally-succeeds-in-removing-miles-obrien-20081204/

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/business/stories/2008/12/04/cnn.html

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1277293168

[fadedrose]

12. Thank you, Cosmik, got one for you

Have to start baking, no time to look at your links now, but I promise I will.

Here's one for you that shows the infamous info about O'Brien.

http://www.zshare.net/audio/52913820a16641a0/

Use the arrow to go to 4:00 minutes . . . it lasts about 2 min or so.

The link is a gift for skeptics...

[cosmik debris]

13. You started this thread by showing your gullibility

Now you confirm it by posting a link to the very gossip that got you into this mess.

In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you still seem to believe the only story that confirms your gossip.

Just because someone on the radio says that he was told something is not a very good reason to believe it.

Do you really want to go through the rest of your life with people thinking that you believe every silly thing you hear on the radio?

And remember, this is the skeptic's forum. Not the forum for people who believe every gossipy thing they hear on talk radio. You would be a lot more welcome (and look a lot less foolish) in the Lounge.

[varkam]

14. Didn't you read my first post? Dunce!

If it was on the radio, it has to be true!

[jberryhill]

15. I used to believe everything I heard on talk radio

The weird thing is that my radio wasn't even turned on!

[fadedrose]

16. Still haven't looked up the opinions you so kindly offered..

But I did read Heddi's post on Serendipity and thought it was very funny. I didn't understand the rally the troops stuff and the connection to The Lounge, so I went to the Lounge (that's the place you recommended me to) and read the post about The Secret...then I understood what it was all about.

To tell you the truth Debris, I like this group better. I originally thought the Lounge was a friendly place, but it isn't any friendlier than this place is and I could easily get into trouble there.

Anyway, the name of this group does have Pseudoscience in the subject title and I looked that word up to be sure I was in the right place, and it seems that I am. I'm allowed to post about astronomy, and junk like that as well as UFO's, and it's quite alright if you ridicule me or if you all think I am a fool.

[cosmik debris]

17. You don't seem to comprehend the difference

between being skeptical of pseudoscience and being a sucker for pseudoscience.

This is a group for people who doubt such nonsense as UFOs, not for people who fall for such clap trap.

I don't decide who can post here and who can't. But when you pretend that the moon rise is the same "near Michigan" as it is in Miami, you can expect to be called a fucking idiot. And when you repeat rumors your hear on talk radio, you can expect to be called a gullible fool.

As Skinner said, non-skeptics are welcome as long as they are not disruptive. So if you wish to post non-disruptive posts here, welcome. But if you are going to post crap pretending that UFOs are real, I will continue to call you a fucking idiot and a gullible fool. This is not the forum for your kind of stupidity.

This Group is for the discussion of issues related to skepticism, science and pseudoscience, and the role of rationalism in society. Non-skeptics are invited to participate, provided that they do so in a respectful, non-disruptive manner.

-Skinner

[fadedrose]

18. The day of the moon -

You can look it up somewhere if you don't trust me, but it was said on the news (oh-oh) that the moon was 14% larger than normal because of something I can't remember. That's why it looked so incredible, and I would think the size factor would have been important no matter where you were.

The 14% was not for Michigan, it was for earth.

[cosmik debris]

20. No, the moon stayed the same size.

Your perception of the moon may have changed, but the moon did not increase in size by 14%. And the apparent size of the moon is dependent on several factors such as density and clarity of the atmosphere, closeness to the horizon, as well as distance from Earth. The moon always appears larger when it is viewed closer to the horizon.

Here is what you said:

"Look due east - it's really beautiful...even in a daylight sky..."

Well, No. The moon is not due east from every point. Where I live it rose about 10 degrees north of due east and about an hour after your post.

"Right - but if you're on the E coast or near Michigan, it's pretty..
Just like the sun - I believe that's why we have time zones....no?"

No, the entire east coast is not like Michigan. In fact, some places have clouds when Michigan is clear. In fact, as I recall, North Carolina was mostly overcast that day.

And your concept of time zones is just too stupid for comment.

[fadedrose]

22. Giggling...

The moon APPEARED to be bigger, that's what made it so pretty.

I didn't expect that the moon would come down under the clouds so that everyone could see it, honest .....clouds should have told you not to bother looking.

Gonna use a word I never used before - apogee - don't know if I'm even using it right - no, I'm not using it right. Looked up apogee in Dictionary and it told me to look up perigee...but the moon's orbit brought it a bit closer to earth than on other passings...because of not the apogee, but the perigee.

Thank you. If you hadn't told me how ignorant I was, I would never have looked it up. Perigee - that's a nice moon, no matter where you are.

And depending on where you are the moon does not seem the same size, but the perigee would make it larger even it is smaller than other places...sort of.

I may need to lay down.

[cosmik debris]

26. You should have looked up syzygy as well.

[fadedrose]

27. syzygy

Looked it up. Seems that if the moon is between us and the sun in a straight line, the dictionary didn't say so, but wouldn't that be what gives us a lunar eclipse......< edited to say "solar" eclipse - and not the same from everywhere in the world either - some would see a partial, no?>

A straight line, a perfectly straight line, from the sun to the earth and then to the moon, seems like we wouldn't be able so see the moon at all.

Or did you mean the board game, SYZYGY?

Didn't find it relative to the perigee or the apogee.

Years ago I read a book called "The Jupiter Effect," where it told that the planets would line up in a straight line, and the author predicted cataclysm and catastrophes just before, during and right after the alignment. I think nothin' happened. That was to occur in 1988 I think.

The real reason I'm posting here is that every time I get disappointed in politics I get interested in UFOs. But neither seems to be a topic for here.

[cosmik debris]

28. This is where we need that emoticon

showing an idea going over someone's head so fast that it makes a "whooshing" sound.

There are two points of syzygy. One has the moon in the center, the other has the Earth in the center. When the Earth is at the center, you can stand with your back to the sunset and watch the moon rise. Also know as a full moon.

Since perigee and syzygy occurred at about the same time, it put on a big show.

[fadedrose]

29. I would have thought the opposite

I figured that if the earth was exactly between the sun and the moon (very briefly, that bugger of a moon moves fast, hm, so does the sun)..

how would the moon get the light from the sun if the earth is right there in the middle blocking out the sun? Seems like a perfect time to have a new moon, or no moon, regardless of apogee and perigee. Isn't that like the moon at a movie sitting behind you with a big hat and can't see the screen, I mean the sun? If that's not how when we have no moon, how do we get "no moon"? Where are the earth and sun when this happens?

But you're right in what happened, it was a lovely show..apparently IN MICHIGAN ONLY. This was a CONFIDENTIAL EYES ONLY occurrence for my state... since nobody here bothered to look out their window because they ALL knew their state wouldn't qualify (until the polar shift occurs, anyway, giggle).

I should end this topic because I do not want to disrupt. But I do like finding out stuff, and I learned a little bit today.

[cosmik debris]

30. You would have thought wrong.

The full moon always rises at sunset.

The new moon always rises at sunrise.

It can't work any other way.

Think about it.

[fadedrose]

19. UFOs are real, but nobody knows what they are

I have a strong curiosity but I wouldn't even bet a dollar that they are from outer space. I do worry that there seems to be a lack of curiosity as to what they REALLY are because they're not all the same, just as the people who see them are different from each other. I never saw one.

As it stands now, they are unidentified, and they seem to be flying, thus the name. My god, you can see high beams sometimes going back and forth in the sky and don't you usually find out what they are...I do....and it's usually a grand opening of some business and don't give them a second thought after that.

Gees, you make me think that what the more paranoid UFO fanciers classify as CIA debunkers actually exist but I am not ready to call you one or even admit that they are any more real than the UFOs they're claimed to debunk.

And I agree with you or somebody in this group who said that ridicule is okay in this type of format because of the skepticism in the title, but it shouldn't happen in the major discussion groups.

Ridicule away...

Oh, and I posted the internet radio link so that anyone who thought I didn't hear it correctly could hear it for themselves - not to confirm in any way that O'Brien was let go, but that it actually was on the air. So it wasn't true - but I was being truthful.

[cosmik debris]

21. UFOs are real???

How do you know that they are not hallucinations? You have absolutely no evidence to support that claim. That's why it makes you look like an idiot to post that crap in the skeptic's forum.

I don't understand why you are so anxious to look stupid, but you are definitely doing a great job of it.

[fadedrose]

23. Are you telling me that hallucinations aren't real?

They are real enough to the people having them. I never had any.

You think I'm going a great job? Thank you.

And if it's your job to make me look like an idiot, you're doing a great job too...

:)

[varkam]

24. Uh, that's the very definition of a hallucination.

Seeing or hearing something that isn't there (i.e. real).

[fadedrose]

25. I agree with you..

That's what it is alright, but the person having them THINKS they're real.

Generally it's caused by what? Fear, stress, fatigue, drugs, mental illness - there is a REAL cause of someone seeing something UNREAL, if someone cares to find it.

Hallucinations are real in the sense that someone is experiencing something unreal. Except for Catholics - then they're called visions.

[salvorhardin]

31. Often times seeing something that isn't real is a side-effect of a perfectly normal working brain

And hallucinations are not the only way that people can see things that aren't real (or hear, smell, taste, etc.).

This is something I don't think most people understand. Our brains, sensory and perceptual systems work in such a way that it's almost inevitable that at some point, some time in our lives we will all see something that isn't real.

[CanSocDem]

33. But....

"...it's almost inevitable that at some point, some time in our lives we will all see something that isn't real."

....how will we know?

Will we have to ask you? Will I have to go back to school?

.

[cosmik debris]

34. You will not know

Because most of what you see is delusion.

Most of us will apply critical thinking skills and determine the validity of our observation.

And by the way, you never answered my question. Are you unique in your world view, or are there others?

[CanSocDem]

35. Oh...it's YOU I have to ask.

Hmmmm....this could be difficult.

:shrug:

.

[cosmik debris]

36. You wouldn't have to ask anyone

If you had the critical thinking skills to determine for yourself what is real and what is your delusion.

Unfortunately those skills have eluded you.

You must get very lonely inside your solitary delusion.

[CanSocDem]

37. Thanks...I won't.

At least, no one around here.

I'll try and muddle through for another 30 or 40 years living in my delusion. Where will you be...still living at home???

.

[Orrex]

38. Depends on the context, to be honest

If you're seeing something without realistic precedent (such as a living tyrannosaur or a square with three sides), then you'd do well to suspect that you're either not seeing the thing correctly or else you're deluded about it in some way.

If you're seeing something unusual but not unnatural (a mime at a football game or a streaker running through the supermarket), you might still do well to ask someone else if they're seeing the same thing, if only to share a "did you see that?!?" moment together.

If you're seeing something commonplace (a dog taking a dump or a car with a flat tire) then it's probably not imperative that you seek further corroboration of what you've witnessed.


Of course, we can quibble about what does and does not constitute "rare" or "commonplace," but I think that we'd be generally in agreement about what's really real if we walked together down the street and took in the sights.

[CanSocDem]

39. Yer gonna be honest???

Just kiddin...!!


I just finished watching this film and I couldn't help thinking about this thread.

http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/12/26/watc... /

Here you have individuals who have survived an unspeakable "reality" and who have the ability to objectify the experience without being consumed by it.

The question is, how do these individuals survive?

I remembered this guy from your neighborhood...

http://www.eshomvalley.com/ed_morrell.html

Jack London wrote a book about him called The Star Rover that details the mental process required to change the "context" and survive, whatever you are enduring in life.

Anyway, like I said a few times, I've given up "enduring".....I'm now into changing my life.




.