Astronomers acknowledge the probability of ETI-UFOs

duendy said:
of for fks sake. dont troll me dude. speak yer mind. WHY aren't i very bright. have the guts to discuss...huh?
Click to expand...

Because you say really dumb things far too often? Because you are wantonly ignorant and deliberately choose to believe incredible stories from dubious sources, and ignore solid evidence from respectable sources?
 
But is this really evidence that she is not very bright? Have we independently determined, in a quantitative fashion, validated by repeatable experiments, that Duendy says dumb things too often. Can we demonstrate, within acceptable statistical variations, that she is wantonly ignorant? Is the credulity applied to questionable stories deliberate or accidental? How have we distinguished between the two? Is she ignoring solid evidence or merely discounting it?
Should we start a new thread to discuss this? Should we ****!
 
duendy said:
of for fks sake. dont troll me dude. speak yer mind. WHY aren't i very bright. have the guts to discuss...huh?
Click to expand...

lol, you troll me, i point out what a dipshit you are for doing so, then you accuse me of trolling.

that is why you aren't bright.

oh, and further, the real demonstration of your limited capacity is how you imply that it somehow takes "guts" to get involved in a flame war with a dumbass on the internet.

game over.
 
oh... and another reason you aren't very bright is because you presume your version of reality is applicable outside your head.

if you can read, you might notice I did not ask you to believe me - I simply stated my opinion, which is what seems to be rational to me.
 
wesmorris said:
oh... and another reason you aren't very bright is because you presume your version of reality is applicable outside your head.

if you can read, you might notice I did not ask you to believe me - I simply stated my opinion, which is what seems to be rational to me.
Click to expand...
dont u know what trollin is you warmongering mong??...it is when the other just comes with a fukin insult like u did you whaker shaker

look. you phlo and the rest of i matter-brains. if they were dynamite they wouldne blow yer frikkin computer caps off

but...seriously?

yeH SERIOUSLY. YOU KEEP GOIN ON ABOUT evidence. right. but your crtieria for evidence is sooo limited. sooo archaic. so behind the fukin times. so cryingly sad and ol;f fashioned is your apporaoach. that i cannot in any way be hurt by your manic dfensive comments. your broken record ad nauseum dmands. all ofwhich keep yu in your tate of denial

whay a sorry bunch you are. you who hang round here imagining you are keeping things real or you materialist reliion

you are measuring sticks. thats all yo are. you havelost any depth. will yu ever get it back...or better, KNOW it is there?? no. cause u wants to fukin measure it, you plonkers..hahahahahaha
 
phlogistician said:
There is plenty to explain that abduction experiences come from several mundane phenomena that we have discussed before, such as night terrors, seizures, temporal lobe epilepsy, hallucinations etc.
Click to expand...

quite misleading
perhaps intentional
the above mentioned symptoms are alleged to be probable causes in cases that have been examined
 
phlogistician said:
Duendy, you can't deny evidence, it stands on it's own.

meee)))))WHAT'evidence'??????????????
YOUR definition ofevidence no doubt right? , limited by yer little measureing stick.pssssst, it aint workin is it? whatchagonna do now?

There is NO evidence for alien abduction.

me))))you dont know that. to yu will say yo do. tis denial makies you feeel...comfort-able...ahhhhhhhhhh

There is plenty to explain that abduction experiences come from several mundane phenomena that we have discussed before, such as night terrors,

me)))))))oh my gawwwwd, yawn. yeah, night terrors. just chemicals huh? as it sys in your materialist bible no doubt. which you
BEEEELEIVE of course

seizures,

me))))))))explain 'seizures'

temporal lobe epilepsy,

me)))))))ohhh sweet jeeezus, what next. why yo got a BA of defensive tricks to keep ou feeling comfortable aint yo. so wouod yo suggest a prspn who reports an abducxtion has a scan for temporal lobe epliepsy then? what if they tell u to go fuk yourself?

hallucinations etc.

me))))))))wooooooo (no, not woo wooo), tat one covers a lot dont it. o yo keeptis muth till last? yo know when you'ce dragged th poor sod to have her brain checked out, and all clear you can say 'oh, you must have hallucinated it'....sheit man. you dont even understand consciousness as we keeps saying. wht arrogance. what a closed circuit mind . hardly scientific dont ya know

There is NOTHING to suggest that anybody who relates an abduction experience has been abducted. There is plenty of scientific evidence to demonstrate the difficulties of aliens getting to earth. But despite all these facts, YOU still deny the evidence. That is frikking priceless, duendy.
Click to expand...
'facts' are your downfall. the situation is tis. you only know measure. picture William Blakes painting of 'God' holding a measuring intstrument. he was trying to reveal the Newtonian demand that all reality is fundamental measureable and deterministic. that was friggin ages ago, and you and the boys are still stuck there....sheeesh!!!
 
duendy said:
in psychology theres a term called 'denial'----this is where yu'll are at who
B E L I E V E there is no evidence...!

your problem is your meaning of 'evidence'....but no. keep gin round nd round in circles. you knoooows ya loveit
Click to expand...


dont u know what trollin is you warmongering mong??...it is when the other just comes with a fukin insult like u did you whaker shaker
Click to expand...

I offer this evidence as to the lacking intellectual prowess of this chick.

I hadn't posted any insults, yet have been accused thereof by the person who is posting a ton of them directed at me.
 
Last edited:
Gustav said:
the above mentioned symptoms are alleged to be probable causes in cases that have been examined
Click to expand...
If you consult a dictionary (that's a large book explaining the meaning of words. The words are arranged in alphabetical order, for your convenience.) you will learn that alleged and demonstrated have different meanings. That difference is significant in this context.
 
JDawg said:
As has already been stated, the problem with ylooshi's thinking is the distances involved with the travel.JD
Click to expand...

Let me understand this comment here....

Because we can't get there from here, it must be impossible for 'Them' to get here from there...???? Is this what you're trying to say?

If so, then you must assume we are at the pinnacle of intelligence then right? That we will NEVER attain the technology to explore beyond our own Solar System... right?

One final question... Are you really this naive, or is it pure arrogance? :rolleyes:
 
No, the fact that the distances involved are so huge, that the aliens would travel here AND THEN, after travelling for years just do nothing spectacular.

So, duendy, if not facts and evidence, what else do we base conclusions on? You say our criteria for evidence is "constricted", but what do you mean by this? What exactly are we constricting, and could you give an example?
 
Communist Hamster said:
No, the fact that the distances involved are so huge, that the aliens would travel here AND THEN, after travelling for years just do nothing spectacular.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume they are travelling for 'YEARS'?? Oh, that's right.... because it would take US Years... :rolleyes:

In addition, just because the reasons for their possible visits aren't 'Spectacular' to YOU, doesn't mean that they haven't been here. Why must you speculate and conclude a possible spectacular reason for their visit instead of simply examining the evidence?

It's almost as if some of you people are trying to conjure up reasons for it to not be discussed. This logic being used here goes far beyond rediculous.
 
VRob said:
Why do you assume they are travelling for 'YEARS'?? Oh, that's right.... because it would take US Years... :rolleyes:

In addition, just because the reasons for their possible visits aren't 'Spectacular' to YOU, doesn't mean that they haven't been here. Why must you speculate and conclude a possible spectacular reason for their visit instead of simply examining the evidence?

It's almost as if some of you people are trying to conjure up reasons for it to not be discussed. This logic being used here goes far beyond rediculous.
Click to expand...
No, the laws of physics apply to "them" as well :rolleyes: Special relativity
rules the entire universe
edited for typo/srr
 
snake river rufus said:
No, the laws of physics apply to "them" as well :rolleyes: Special relativity
rules the entire universe
edited for typo/srr
Click to expand...

You are positive there is no way around this speed limit that might allow virtually instantaneous travel across huge distances? How can you be sure? I'd agree that as a species, our current comprehension of the universe definately implies a speed limit like that, but many have also hypothesized ways around it, with the wormholes and the exotic matter and the bizness.

I'm not saying that there is a way, only that we can't say for sure there isn't and if you're hypothesizing for the sake of argument that we could be visited, citing special relativity as a reason that is necessarily takes them years and years to get here is not necessary, as we cannot say what it is that remains to be discovered about travelling to the stars, etc. Special relativity is irrelevant in the matter of hypothecal advanced intellects, as it would seem logical to presume they may be able to find a way to get around it.
 
My unrequested opinion is that FTL travel is impossible, though I realise that relativity is merely the best approximation we have right now, subject to replacement at short notice. Even limited to subluminal travel, representatives of other stars may be present in our Solar System as tiny (or otherwise undetectable) automated probes - you never know! If FTL travel is possible the chances are higher.

But... I don't think that the presence of such an advanced civilisation is compatible with the concept of aliens as they are presented in popular media. I will say with confidence that organisms from another star are not capable of cross-breeding with us. They are not in the business of crop vandalism. They are not inclined to mutilate our cattle. They do not have a special interest in our anuses.
 
Last edited:
Maybe your ass just isn't sweet enough, did you ever think of that? I bet u didn't. Duendy has aliens all up in her ass, because it's tasty and good (and where she keeps her brains).

:p

(thinking of reeemer in baseketball, pardon)
 
My arse is plenty sweet thank you. In fact, now that you mention it, the lack of E.T. activity around my backside is one of the strongest lines of evidence against the existence of anally-obsessed aliens visiting our planet.
 
wesmorris said:
You are positive there is no way around this speed limit that might allow virtually instantaneous travel across huge distances? How can you be sure? I'd agree that as a species, our current comprehension of the universe definately implies a speed limit like that, but many have also hypothesized ways around it, with the wormholes and the exotic matter and the bizness.

I'm not saying that there is a way, only that we can't say for sure there isn't and if you're hypothesizing for the sake of argument that we could be visited, citing special relativity as a reason that is necessarily takes them years and years to get here is not necessary, as we cannot say what it is that remains to be discovered about travelling to the stars, etc. Special relativity is irrelevant in the matter of hypothecal advanced intellects, as it would seem logical to presume they may be able to find a way to get around it.
Click to expand...
There may be another means of travel (Worm holes etc) to move between places a great distance apart and arrive quickly. but any means of transportation that requires acceleration will be impossible. The faster an object comes to the speed of light (C) the more mass it gains and the more power is required to move it. At C at object requires an infinite amount of power because the object has aquired an infinite amount of mass
 
Yah, I'm aware of the theory... I was just saying your point was mistaken in the context of hypothetical beings and such. I think that's what VRob was trying to say and I agree with him on the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top