Sorry, I thought it would go to an other page,,,, LOL,,, grins sheepsishly
Aliens: The Motivations and Implications
- Thread starter crazymikey
- Start date
- Status
POST WAR REACTIONS:
The following is a summary of the main proponents of ANTI-UFO camp, designed as a hypothethical interview, with real questons and answers, and an accurate portrayal of the respective personalities and the arguments that have taken place.
Skinwalker:
Q: Now that Mikey has proven the existence of ETI, how do you feel?
A: Ha, proven! All he has done is spewed a lot of spurious and pseudoscientific claims.
Q: But Mikey has presented you more than 20 proofs that you have not dealt with?
A: All his proofs are a bunch of pseudoscientific dribble, anecdotes and untestfiable hypothesis. Such bullshit does not deserve my time.
Q: What does deserve your time?
A: That is a good question. I do not mean to blow my own trumpet, but I am working on a paper, that shows how the UFO/ETI is a post-axial religious movement, which I assure you, has been researched by the scientific method.
Q: What evidence do you have that UFO/ETI is a religious movement?
A: I know it is a religion. It has it's gods; its places of worship, it's anti-christs, and it's miracles. Logical deduction.
Q: Is that not a spurious claim?
A: No! You must be a pseudoscientist if you think that.
Q: What are UFO's doing in biblical artwork?
A: They're not UFO's; they are angels - the UFO are just icons!
Q: Why are flesh and blood Angels depicted as metallic, glowing, flying disks?
A: They just are!
Q: How do you explain the 1941 Los angeles UFO sighting?
A: It can't be real. Therefore it's not real. Fake. Media hoax!
Q: You often seem to immitate what Mikey says; does this mean you are going to immitate this post too?
A:
Thank you Skinwalker for your time.
Persol
Q: Now that Mikey has proven ETI exists, how do you feel?
A: What proof? There has been no evidence.
Q: Hasn't Mikey provided you more than 20 proofs, that you have not answered?
A: He does not answer my questions; so he has proven nothing!
Q: But aren't your questions just rehash of questions he's already answered?
A: No, he only claims to answer them!
Q: Why does Mikey call you a dunce?
A: He just insults me to avoid answering my questions.
Q: Why would 400+ NSA, NASA, CIA, UN, USAF, UA, high-brass members, claim ETI is in contact with the government?
A: They're not high-brass. People lie all the time. So are they.
Q: Why did you call the disclosure project a con?
A: Eye-witness testimony is false, and most of the so called witnesses, have been severely debunked, and others have been misrepresented.
Q: Yet, is not true, most of this so called "debunking" were just character assassination attempts against the witnesses?
A: So - it shows they cannot be trusted.
Q: Yet, these attempts do not prove anything?
A: It proves they are questionable, and cannot be trusted, and are most likely con artists and babyeaters!
Q: So more on this so called "debunking" Is it true you've only been able to "debunk" only 5% of the witnesses?
A: If 5% are unreliable, then it must mean they all are
Q: That means 95% of the witnesses could be telling the truth?
A: No! It means a bunch of people are being misrepresented. Most decent and honest people don't even want anything to do with it.
Q: Like?
A: Edgar Mitchell.
Q: Isn't Edgar Mitchell the astronaut who claims ETI are visiting us?
A: No comment!
Q: Why do you think television reporters bring studio lights to press conferences?
A: No comment!
Q: Why do you think press conferences are cheap and easy to hold?
A: All you need is a soapbox and a microphone!
Q: Ahem, why do you think PR releases do not require thought?
A: NO COMMENT!
Q: Why do you think 2 lines of sight are needed to triangulate the speed of an object?
A: 2 lines of site are needed to triangulate, otherwise it's not triangulating!
Q: Is it not basic Newtonian mechanics, that you can calculate the speed of an object by its change in position vector in the rate of time?
A: No! you need many lines of site to triangulate it!
Q: Are you saying Edmony Haley could not have calculated the velocity of the alleged UFO that he claimed was travelling at 9600 mph?
A: No! Not by himself! Plus, how could he have calculated it's Mach 15, before Mach was even invented!
Q: Isn't a Mach number just a conversion of a velocity?
A: NO COMMMMMMMENT!
Thank you Persol for your time.
(Q)
Now that Mikey has proven ETI, how do you feel?
A: He's proven nothing.
Q: Hasn't Mikey presented you more than 20 proofs?
A: He's a fanatical twit.
Q: That did not answer the question?
A: I don't need to answer the question because it's wrong.
Q: Soooo, what do you think explains UFO's?
A: Simple. They're weather baloons, and blimps and lights.
Q: Yet, is it not true, that they do not support the many cases?
A: No they've been explained already.
Q: Aren't many of those explanations, well, not explaining?
A: There is no need for more explanations. They have explained it. End of story.
Q: Why don't you believe in ETI?
A: It's ridiculous. Aliens? that's laugable.
Q: Yet aren't they very likely to exist?
A: They don't exist, and if they did, they can't get here. It's just a fantasy of fanatics like crazymikey.
Q: You consistently reply to Mikey's posts, with shall we say, negative and derogative feedback. Why do you do this?
A: The fanatics need to be abused, and insulted, they do not deserve any respects. They are a threat to the laws of science!
Q: You sound like you have respect for the laws of science?
A: Yes I do.
Q: Then why do you call the uniform laws of motion wrong?
A: No comment.
Thank you Q for your time.
Phlogistician
Q: Now that Mikey has proven the existence of ETI, how do you feel?
A: Everything is unsubstantiated.
Q: Why is it unsubstantiated?
A: He's just regurgitating without questioning the facts.
Q: What are the facts?
A: The facts are:
Abductions are sleep deprivation and sleep paralysis.
UFO's are all weather baloons, lights, meteorites and other mundane phenomena
Nothing travels faster than the speed light or breaks the laws of physics, and never will.
Q: Is that not regurgitating without question?
A: No, they have been explained by officials!
Q: What if the officials are lying or wrong?
A: The officials don't lie and are not wrong.
Q: Why do you think in a hypothetical future in 1 million years, we'd be using fusion power, have come to a full understanding of GUT, and have good education and healthcare for all?
A: I an extrapolating rationally.
Q: Is it a coincedence that your vision of a million year future is based on issues we are tackling today. Do you think it will take 1 million years to solve these issues?
A: We are close to discovering everything there is to know about science.
Q: Yet, according to leading scientists, commercial fusion power is expected in a few decades. Do you think we'll be using fusion power forever?
A: Why not? The sun's been using it for billions of years.
Q: How do you claim to be a scientist, yet do not know anything about anti-matter ?
A: I do know about anti-matter!
Q: Then why do you think we'll be using fusion in 1 million years, when anti-matter-matter reactions have the highest energy density of all reactions we know today.
A: No comment!
Q: Is it not true, there is also a vacuum energy.
A: Yes, vacuum energy exists, but it's completely unusable.
Q: Why do you say it's unusable?
A: We have seen from the Casimir effect that it's miniscule!
Q: Doesn't the Casimir effect only prove the existence of vacuum energy. It does not claim to measure it? Is it also not true, that according to calculations using Heisenburg uncertainty principle, this vacuum energy could be as much as 10^70 per cubic centimetre?
A: It will never be used!
Q: Not even in 1 million years?
A: Never, it breaks the laws of thermodynamics.
Q: What law would that be?
A: The conservation of energy. You cannot get more energy out of something than you put in.
Q: Yet, isn't the vacuum energy always been present? How does that break the laws then?
A: It's not usable! It never will be. It's nothing but a pipe dream.
Q: You claim to hold many degrees, and have been a scientist, and corresponded with government officials, met astronauts, and are now a software/computer engineer.
A: Yes.
Q: Then why did you quote a high-school physics formula: S = ut + 1/2at^2
A: It was simply to show the lack of scientific understanding of Mikey!
Q: Where did Mikey goof?
A: He said we could design a model to predict the motion of a ball without gravity, and that would fail on the moon.
Q: Was his point not, that in the first model gravity was not known, and hence why it would fail on the moon, because of different gravity - to illustrate that scientific models can predict the results of the observable universe, but, not the unobservable universe?
A: No, he got it wrong! I caught him out!
Q: Like you caught him out when he called "fighter planes", "jets"?
A: Yes, I debunked him there too. Jets were not even invented then!
Q: Mikey said he meant figher planes all long, and in fact, the source he was using, also called them fighter planes. Thus, would jets, not just be slang for figher planes?
A: No! I caught him out!
Q: How does it take away from the case, if they are jets or fighter planes
A: It does! If he can make such a HUGE mistake in calling a a fighter plane, a jet, then we can never trust anything he says again!
Q: Yet is it not true, he also referenced his source, so you can verify the information.
A: No comment.
Q: You have openly said: trying to prove new laws of science or physics, or current laws of physics, wrong, is fanatical and foolish. How does a scientist, who claims to hold many degrees, be so close-minded?
A: I am not being close-minded. I am being rational. We know the laws of physics and the universe as a whole. They cannot be broken.
Q: Why do you think it debunks Phill Schneider , because he claims to have rhyolitic-35 clearence level?
A: Rhyolitic is a geological term. He's a geologist. He's just using it because it sounds impressive.
Q: Does it not make sense a geologist would have a geologists clearence?What if he was using Monkeyballfordinner-35 clearence, would that have been more believable?
A: I know what government clearences should be like. I have had contacts with the government.
Q: You know government clearence codes, what proof do you have?
A: I just know.
Q: Are you expecting us to regurgiate without question?
A: No comment.
Q: Do you have any proof that you are a scientist?
A: I am a scientist!
Thank you Phlogisitician for your time.
WellcookedFetus
Q: Now that Mikey has proved ETI, how do you feel?
A: No one thinks so!
Q: He's presented you with over 20 proofs, why have you not answered them?
A: Because others have already done it. So I don't need too.
Q: Haven't the explanations of others been, shall we say, lacking?
A: I think they made good points.
Q: Do you think Persol's comments on "PR releases not requiring thought" to be a good point?
A: No comment.
Q: You did reply to Persol, saying his/her points were "good"
A: No comment
Q: What objections do you have to ETI?
A: Many. Why do they fly around erratically like drunken aliens! Why do they anally probe us. Why do they have contact with our government. Why do you look humanoid. I've asked Mikey, and he just ignores me.
Q: Do you expect to get a right or wrong answer?
A: Yes, because it's highly unlikely aliens would do that! So it obviously mean they don't really exist.
Q: Do you know for sure how a completely alien culture from another part in the universe, would look and behave?
A: I doubt they would behave like they do.
Q: Thus, is this not just an uneducated opinion? Or do you have evidence that aliens would be like you expect them to be?
A: No comment.
Thank you WellcookedFetus for your time.
Now you can see why they lost. None of them make sense
The following is a summary of the main proponents of ANTI-UFO camp, designed as a hypothethical interview, with real questons and answers, and an accurate portrayal of the respective personalities and the arguments that have taken place.
Skinwalker:
Q: Now that Mikey has proven the existence of ETI, how do you feel?
A: Ha, proven! All he has done is spewed a lot of spurious and pseudoscientific claims.
Q: But Mikey has presented you more than 20 proofs that you have not dealt with?
A: All his proofs are a bunch of pseudoscientific dribble, anecdotes and untestfiable hypothesis. Such bullshit does not deserve my time.
Q: What does deserve your time?
A: That is a good question. I do not mean to blow my own trumpet, but I am working on a paper, that shows how the UFO/ETI is a post-axial religious movement, which I assure you, has been researched by the scientific method.
Q: What evidence do you have that UFO/ETI is a religious movement?
A: I know it is a religion. It has it's gods; its places of worship, it's anti-christs, and it's miracles. Logical deduction.
Q: Is that not a spurious claim?
A: No! You must be a pseudoscientist if you think that.
Q: What are UFO's doing in biblical artwork?
A: They're not UFO's; they are angels - the UFO are just icons!
Q: Why are flesh and blood Angels depicted as metallic, glowing, flying disks?
A: They just are!
Q: How do you explain the 1941 Los angeles UFO sighting?
A: It can't be real. Therefore it's not real. Fake. Media hoax!
Q: You often seem to immitate what Mikey says; does this mean you are going to immitate this post too?
A:
Thank you Skinwalker for your time.
Persol
Q: Now that Mikey has proven ETI exists, how do you feel?
A: What proof? There has been no evidence.
Q: Hasn't Mikey provided you more than 20 proofs, that you have not answered?
A: He does not answer my questions; so he has proven nothing!
Q: But aren't your questions just rehash of questions he's already answered?
A: No, he only claims to answer them!
Q: Why does Mikey call you a dunce?
A: He just insults me to avoid answering my questions.
Q: Why would 400+ NSA, NASA, CIA, UN, USAF, UA, high-brass members, claim ETI is in contact with the government?
A: They're not high-brass. People lie all the time. So are they.
Q: Why did you call the disclosure project a con?
A: Eye-witness testimony is false, and most of the so called witnesses, have been severely debunked, and others have been misrepresented.
Q: Yet, is not true, most of this so called "debunking" were just character assassination attempts against the witnesses?
A: So - it shows they cannot be trusted.
Q: Yet, these attempts do not prove anything?
A: It proves they are questionable, and cannot be trusted, and are most likely con artists and babyeaters!
Q: So more on this so called "debunking" Is it true you've only been able to "debunk" only 5% of the witnesses?
A: If 5% are unreliable, then it must mean they all are
Q: That means 95% of the witnesses could be telling the truth?
A: No! It means a bunch of people are being misrepresented. Most decent and honest people don't even want anything to do with it.
Q: Like?
A: Edgar Mitchell.
Q: Isn't Edgar Mitchell the astronaut who claims ETI are visiting us?
A: No comment!
Q: Why do you think television reporters bring studio lights to press conferences?
A: No comment!
Q: Why do you think press conferences are cheap and easy to hold?
A: All you need is a soapbox and a microphone!
Q: Ahem, why do you think PR releases do not require thought?
A: NO COMMENT!
Q: Why do you think 2 lines of sight are needed to triangulate the speed of an object?
A: 2 lines of site are needed to triangulate, otherwise it's not triangulating!
Q: Is it not basic Newtonian mechanics, that you can calculate the speed of an object by its change in position vector in the rate of time?
A: No! you need many lines of site to triangulate it!
Q: Are you saying Edmony Haley could not have calculated the velocity of the alleged UFO that he claimed was travelling at 9600 mph?
A: No! Not by himself! Plus, how could he have calculated it's Mach 15, before Mach was even invented!
Q: Isn't a Mach number just a conversion of a velocity?
A: NO COMMMMMMMENT!
Thank you Persol for your time.
(Q)
Now that Mikey has proven ETI, how do you feel?
A: He's proven nothing.
Q: Hasn't Mikey presented you more than 20 proofs?
A: He's a fanatical twit.
Q: That did not answer the question?
A: I don't need to answer the question because it's wrong.
Q: Soooo, what do you think explains UFO's?
A: Simple. They're weather baloons, and blimps and lights.
Q: Yet, is it not true, that they do not support the many cases?
A: No they've been explained already.
Q: Aren't many of those explanations, well, not explaining?
A: There is no need for more explanations. They have explained it. End of story.
Q: Why don't you believe in ETI?
A: It's ridiculous. Aliens? that's laugable.
Q: Yet aren't they very likely to exist?
A: They don't exist, and if they did, they can't get here. It's just a fantasy of fanatics like crazymikey.
Q: You consistently reply to Mikey's posts, with shall we say, negative and derogative feedback. Why do you do this?
A: The fanatics need to be abused, and insulted, they do not deserve any respects. They are a threat to the laws of science!
Q: You sound like you have respect for the laws of science?
A: Yes I do.
Q: Then why do you call the uniform laws of motion wrong?
A: No comment.
Thank you Q for your time.
Phlogistician
Q: Now that Mikey has proven the existence of ETI, how do you feel?
A: Everything is unsubstantiated.
Q: Why is it unsubstantiated?
A: He's just regurgitating without questioning the facts.
Q: What are the facts?
A: The facts are:
Abductions are sleep deprivation and sleep paralysis.
UFO's are all weather baloons, lights, meteorites and other mundane phenomena
Nothing travels faster than the speed light or breaks the laws of physics, and never will.
Q: Is that not regurgitating without question?
A: No, they have been explained by officials!
Q: What if the officials are lying or wrong?
A: The officials don't lie and are not wrong.
Q: Why do you think in a hypothetical future in 1 million years, we'd be using fusion power, have come to a full understanding of GUT, and have good education and healthcare for all?
A: I an extrapolating rationally.
Q: Is it a coincedence that your vision of a million year future is based on issues we are tackling today. Do you think it will take 1 million years to solve these issues?
A: We are close to discovering everything there is to know about science.
Q: Yet, according to leading scientists, commercial fusion power is expected in a few decades. Do you think we'll be using fusion power forever?
A: Why not? The sun's been using it for billions of years.
Q: How do you claim to be a scientist, yet do not know anything about anti-matter ?
A: I do know about anti-matter!
Q: Then why do you think we'll be using fusion in 1 million years, when anti-matter-matter reactions have the highest energy density of all reactions we know today.
A: No comment!
Q: Is it not true, there is also a vacuum energy.
A: Yes, vacuum energy exists, but it's completely unusable.
Q: Why do you say it's unusable?
A: We have seen from the Casimir effect that it's miniscule!
Q: Doesn't the Casimir effect only prove the existence of vacuum energy. It does not claim to measure it? Is it also not true, that according to calculations using Heisenburg uncertainty principle, this vacuum energy could be as much as 10^70 per cubic centimetre?
A: It will never be used!
Q: Not even in 1 million years?
A: Never, it breaks the laws of thermodynamics.
Q: What law would that be?
A: The conservation of energy. You cannot get more energy out of something than you put in.
Q: Yet, isn't the vacuum energy always been present? How does that break the laws then?
A: It's not usable! It never will be. It's nothing but a pipe dream.
Q: You claim to hold many degrees, and have been a scientist, and corresponded with government officials, met astronauts, and are now a software/computer engineer.
A: Yes.
Q: Then why did you quote a high-school physics formula: S = ut + 1/2at^2
A: It was simply to show the lack of scientific understanding of Mikey!
Q: Where did Mikey goof?
A: He said we could design a model to predict the motion of a ball without gravity, and that would fail on the moon.
Q: Was his point not, that in the first model gravity was not known, and hence why it would fail on the moon, because of different gravity - to illustrate that scientific models can predict the results of the observable universe, but, not the unobservable universe?
A: No, he got it wrong! I caught him out!
Q: Like you caught him out when he called "fighter planes", "jets"?
A: Yes, I debunked him there too. Jets were not even invented then!
Q: Mikey said he meant figher planes all long, and in fact, the source he was using, also called them fighter planes. Thus, would jets, not just be slang for figher planes?
A: No! I caught him out!
Q: How does it take away from the case, if they are jets or fighter planes
A: It does! If he can make such a HUGE mistake in calling a a fighter plane, a jet, then we can never trust anything he says again!
Q: Yet is it not true, he also referenced his source, so you can verify the information.
A: No comment.
Q: You have openly said: trying to prove new laws of science or physics, or current laws of physics, wrong, is fanatical and foolish. How does a scientist, who claims to hold many degrees, be so close-minded?
A: I am not being close-minded. I am being rational. We know the laws of physics and the universe as a whole. They cannot be broken.
Q: Why do you think it debunks Phill Schneider , because he claims to have rhyolitic-35 clearence level?
A: Rhyolitic is a geological term. He's a geologist. He's just using it because it sounds impressive.
Q: Does it not make sense a geologist would have a geologists clearence?What if he was using Monkeyballfordinner-35 clearence, would that have been more believable?
A: I know what government clearences should be like. I have had contacts with the government.
Q: You know government clearence codes, what proof do you have?
A: I just know.
Q: Are you expecting us to regurgiate without question?
A: No comment.
Q: Do you have any proof that you are a scientist?
A: I am a scientist!
Thank you Phlogisitician for your time.
WellcookedFetus
Q: Now that Mikey has proved ETI, how do you feel?
A: No one thinks so!
Q: He's presented you with over 20 proofs, why have you not answered them?
A: Because others have already done it. So I don't need too.
Q: Haven't the explanations of others been, shall we say, lacking?
A: I think they made good points.
Q: Do you think Persol's comments on "PR releases not requiring thought" to be a good point?
A: No comment.
Q: You did reply to Persol, saying his/her points were "good"
A: No comment
Q: What objections do you have to ETI?
A: Many. Why do they fly around erratically like drunken aliens! Why do they anally probe us. Why do they have contact with our government. Why do you look humanoid. I've asked Mikey, and he just ignores me.
Q: Do you expect to get a right or wrong answer?
A: Yes, because it's highly unlikely aliens would do that! So it obviously mean they don't really exist.
Q: Do you know for sure how a completely alien culture from another part in the universe, would look and behave?
A: I doubt they would behave like they do.
Q: Thus, is this not just an uneducated opinion? Or do you have evidence that aliens would be like you expect them to be?
A: No comment.
Thank you WellcookedFetus for your time.
Now you can see why they lost. None of them make sense
Last edited:
Bleh. You're just pissed because he didn't have a pseudo-conversation with you!
Ha! I got first billing in crazymikey's pseudo-conversation! *flips a pseudo-finger at persol.
Nothing personal, Persol, just trying to live up to a certain Hereford's description that I'm a "rude and most distasteful thing." How she got the empirical evidence for the latter I'll not know.
Ha! I got first billing in crazymikey's pseudo-conversation! *flips a pseudo-finger at persol.
Nothing personal, Persol, just trying to live up to a certain Hereford's description that I'm a "rude and most distasteful thing." How she got the empirical evidence for the latter I'll not know.
larryhat said:
Thank you for sharing that with us Larry. I personally think the data is excellent, and I must congratulate you on your efforts. It really shows how global and widespread the UFO phenomenon is, although some here like to see these witnesses as cultists, delusionals or sadly mistaken. There have been millions of UFO's sightings the world over, and I am sure, trillions since early history.
Just wondering, have you, yourself, seen a UFO(a real one) ?
Mikey, that technique you have employed, is the well known and false 'straw man' angle. You build a persona for your protagonist with things they didn't say, and tear them down.
It's not a soild debating tactic, stick to the issues.
It's not a soild debating tactic, stick to the issues.
Well I'm not playing up to Mikey, but he wanted to have some realistic views on some of the content that he was outputting, thats the reason why my answers are being realistic. Mikey you should think of not viewing it as being something that is an insult to your understanding but something that is naturally a potential for the events you've outputted for discussion.
There are still many factors missing from a few pages back about the acceleration of technology, such as the demographics for the growth in human population, the change in how religion allowed science to occur without condemning it (Originally religion was slowing science down by condemning it.), The increase in the EQ rate of the worlds citizens (This increased with printing, press and eventually communications).
Now think of this Mikey, currently there isn't a computer system that can handle all of the processes the human brain does, this is because of the number of "switches" that would be necessary to mimic it. Now think of the worlds communication system as allowing the world to harmonise and get to the point of "Parallel Processing" data streams, this means with all the hundreds of thousands of scientific minds different angles of advances can occur on any given single subject.
This means that your not talking about a couple of guys in one lab, your talking about thousands of labs worldwide in near enough every field.
You could check out the following for the sorts of governing bodies that deal with global science and technology:
International Council of Science
Also Mikey from one post further up:
So the whole thread is just a game to you? *Poof!* there went your argument up in a cloud of smoke.
There are still many factors missing from a few pages back about the acceleration of technology, such as the demographics for the growth in human population, the change in how religion allowed science to occur without condemning it (Originally religion was slowing science down by condemning it.), The increase in the EQ rate of the worlds citizens (This increased with printing, press and eventually communications).
Now think of this Mikey, currently there isn't a computer system that can handle all of the processes the human brain does, this is because of the number of "switches" that would be necessary to mimic it. Now think of the worlds communication system as allowing the world to harmonise and get to the point of "Parallel Processing" data streams, this means with all the hundreds of thousands of scientific minds different angles of advances can occur on any given single subject.
This means that your not talking about a couple of guys in one lab, your talking about thousands of labs worldwide in near enough every field.
You could check out the following for the sorts of governing bodies that deal with global science and technology:
International Council of Science
Also Mikey from one post further up:
crazymikey said:
So the whole thread is just a game to you? *Poof!* there went your argument up in a cloud of smoke.
Last edited:
- Status