Best UFO Evidence

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Xevious
Imagination is one of the most important elements of any intellectual persuit. Just how much imagination does it take when you sit and think about it, to piece togeather an extinct ecosystem in Paleontology? ... computer programmers, and musicians. ... The reason I chose these three examples is that they each also represent varying degrees of liberty one has in creativity.

In each of the examples you cited, there is one more commonality that they share. Each postulate is tested, remains testable, and can be used to predict the results of other problems. Even in the case of music, though the "test" is in the audience acceptance of the work. The predictability for "other problems" will be anticipating what an audience might continue to be receptive to.

A better analogy might be a 500-piece puzzle. As you put the puzzle together, you need to have some imagination to see the puzzles and anticipate where the pieces might fall together. But in the end, you can't force a piece to fit where you want it just because it was easier.

Originally posted by Xevious
A Paleontologist who said 20 years ago for example that a specimine of Compsognathus had feathers on it would have been highly controversial indeed, if not ridiculed. (Yes, shuch childish things happen in the ranks of Professional Scientists) The same paleontologist today, making the same claim, would recieve a far warmer review by his peers. Why such a dramatic shift in how one interprits some obscure markings inside of a limestone slab?

Simply put, this theory, while it did undergo some initial ridicule and is still held with some skepticism, withstood scrutiny by peers and provided plausible, testable hypotheses. It also created situations in which predictions could be made, namely more fossil record.

However, I do have an example of a scientific enterprise which has the same issue, and thus a precidence. It is called flourensics. In flourensics as you know, the goal is to use scientific methodology to determine all that can be factually obtained from a crime scene. However, for this to work the perpetrator of the crime must leave something behind which can be physically measured and observed. A criminal who is mindful
of this is fully capable of destroying evidence which would hint at
his crime, or implicate a differnt individual for the crime, or both. [/B][/QUOTE]

So are you saying that forensics is largely ineffective? I would think that there are many criminals who are mindful of getting caught (wear gloves, etc.), but still do. In fact, I know this to be true.

Originally posted by Xevious
Applying the same thinking to UFOlogy, where they hypothesis demands that the extraterrestrials are of a much more advanced culture and are perhaps intellectually superior to humans, it is really so difficult to think that if an intellectually superior species wanted it's presence to not be known that it would not be known?

Which is an example of the irrefutable hypothesis, making the entire study of ufo's a pseudoscientific pursuit and a wast of time. If you can never prove, why bother? If you can prove it, you must do so with the use of scientific method. Proving, however, doesn't imply (in this case) beyond all doubt. In science, proof deals more with probabilities and tenative evidence.

Originally posted by Xevious
Secondly it is as Slim stated: that many hoaxes have tainted the credibility of the whole phenomenon. There have been many hoaxes in science. The key difference is that the hoaxes in science are by and largely swepted under the rug, to be forgotten.

The difference is, these hoaxes were uncovered by peer review. Ufologists should scrutinize themselves mercilessly and uncover the hoaxes from withing to give their method more credibility.

 

[(Q)]

Orreman states:

I would like to introduce my humble website to this esteemed group and propose ,as modestly as possible, that I have taken a UFO photo that numerous front page articles believe represents the best evidence ever produced for the existence of aliens and UFOs.

While I’ll agree this may be a photo of UFO’s (Unidentified Flying Objects), it is a stretch of the imagination to consider it evidence of aliens.

Where are the aliens? Can you see them in the photo? Are they waving at you out of their windows? Do they even have windows? Which direction are the UFO’s moving? What do the aliens look like?

If you can answer these questions, I’ll give your photo some credibility.

But I think the fact of the matter is that you really, really want to believe these are aliens and have convinced yourself of such.

 

[SkinWalker]

I was late for a class, so I cut the last response short... here's the rest:

Originally posted by Xevious
By contrast, when a UFO hoax comes to light no one forgets it.

The real problem is that, very often, the people who won't let it drop turn out to be "ufologists." I've seen many ufo claims that have been thoroughly debunked to the point that ufo "researchers" themselves admit that the event was hoaxed, faked, or otherwise explainable re-emerge within the ufo community as if it never underwent scrutiny.

Originally posted by Xevious
Somehow, UFOlogy is held to a higher standard than much of mainstream science in this reguard.

I disagree. Mainstream science holds itself to very rigid and even brutal scrutiny. Hypotheses are tested and published in the peer reviewed journals, of which there are thousands in English alone, in their field (such as Nature -a journal of broad topic, or the Journal of Structural Geology -a more specific title). Once published, they undergo intense scrutiny by other scientists and researchers in that or related fields. If the methodology holds up, and the discussion or conclusion sections are relevant, the paper and it's hypothesis survives. If not, it needs revision or even abandonment.

Originally posted by Xevious
The only reason being of course, that those objecting to the arguments of UFOlogists find attacking credibility to be far more fruitful than refuting the above mentioned argument of how a superior species could cover it's tracks, or for that matter dealing with UFO cases which defy conventional explanations of any kind.

Both of which might make excellent papers, however, to the best of my knowledge, no one has written, "The possible means by which an advanced, extraterrestrial race might avoid detection by indigenous civilization."

I suspect the reason is that, without some pointed and specific evidence, any such paper would be anthropocentric. That is to say, we could only say how Man would accomplish such a feat. So the idea remains in the catagory of irrefutable hypothesis and therefore cannot be sufficiently tested. It doesn't mean that it couldn't be possible, but a hypothesis is useless in scientific method if it doesn't at least have the potential to be falsified. You can't prove it false, therefore it must be true doesn't hold up.

So in getting back to your comment: "UFOlogy is held to a higher standard than much of mainstream science." This is patently false. In fact, the real problem is that ufology is not held to standards as stringent as even the most rudimentary of mainstream sciences. The problems with ufology are many, but include:

• Lack of educated researchers
• Poor and/or inconsistent implementation of scientific method
• Reliance on irrefutable hypotheses
• Casual Approach to evidence and evidenciary proceedure
• Spurious similarities and correlations
• Use of scenario to explain correlations and events
• Shifting the burden of proof to other entities (i.e. skeptics, scientists, etc.)
• But mainly: Refusal to acknowledge the validity of alternate hypotheses

The latter is important. Ufologists complain endlessly that skeptics are not open-minded. But I believe it is the opposite which is actually true. Skeptics generally don't dismiss the idea of an alien craft as the source of a UFO, but rather suggest the probability of many other, more plausible, explanations that are actually simpler. An alien craft is actually more complex of a hypothesis than ufo pundits wish to admit (perhaps that would be a good thread to start).

But when skeptics (see my definition above) suggest other explanations, often the ufo pundit acts / responds irrationally. He/she may offer ad hominem comments, make broad claims of conspiratorial nature, etc., but, invariably, the alternative explanation(s) are rejected without any testing. Why?

 

[Xevious]

Ufologists complain endlessly that skeptics are not open-minded. But I believe it is the opposite which is actually true. Skeptics generally don't dismiss the idea of an alien craft as the source of a UFO, but rather suggest the probability of many other, more plausible, explanations that are actually simpler. An alien craft is actually more complex of a hypothesis than ufo pundits wish to admit (perhaps that would be a good thread to start).

But when skeptics (see my definition above) suggest other explanations, often the ufo pundit acts / responds irrationally. He/she may offer ad hominem comments, make broad claims of conspiratorial nature, etc., but, invariably, the alternative explanation(s) are rejected without any testing. Why?

Do you really think that just because one explanation is more "plausible" that you have no burdon of proof to bear? Let's take Orreman's UFO photograph just as an example. Keep in mind that I have already stated in this same thread that he has NOT satisfied the burdon of proof. It was stated by many skeptics that it was a flock of birds. Okay, do you have a close up of one of the odd shapes enlarged and compared to a drawing of a bird shown at a particular angle to show me? No? Okay, do you have a witness who saw the same objects from closer up? Okay, maybe you went to Australia the day after the incident and collected some bird droppings from the site in question. What? No? Oh, then you haven't satisfied the burdon of proof. That isn't my problem, I'm not the one making the claim. I'm just the skeptic at this point considering your explanation and deciding in the end that I cannot verify your findings. Appealing to plausibility my friend, is not the same as satisfying a burdon of proof. Even if the most outlandish, seemingly impossible hypothesis has ONE point of solid evidence in it's favor compared to a far more plausible hypothesis having NONE, it has satisfied more of the burdon of proof argument than the ladder and thus has a higher standing.

Which is an example of the irrefutable hypothesis, making the entire study of ufo's a pseudoscientific pursuit and a wast of time. If you can never prove, why bother? If you can prove it, you must do so with the use of scientific method. Proving, however, doesn't imply (in this case) beyond all doubt. In science, proof deals more with probabilities and tenative evidence.

I should remind you again of my argument in flourensics. In our criminal justice system, circumstancial evidence can be just as useful. No, flourinsics is not a fruitless venture; many times as many criminals are now brought to justice than there were before thanks to the efforts of this tireless group of scientific defectives. Indeed, the Jack the Ripper case has been cracked by flourensic science. So what do we do when the evidence has been destroyed or there is little to none? The Police take what we know (that some kind of event happened) and then we mark it in a big case file marked UNSOLVED. Then, we write what we do know and wait for another incident to occur, or for more details to happen.

I'm out of time, but I have responses for the points of lack of qualified scientists, shifting the burdon of proof, ect.

 

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Xevious
Do you really think that just because one explanation is more "plausible" that you have no burdon of proof to bear? ... Even if the most outlandish, seemingly impossible hypothesis has ONE point of solid evidence in it's favor compared to a far more plausible hypothesis having NONE, it has satisfied more of the burdon of proof argument than the ladder and thus has a higher standing.

Just to be sure, let's determine what we agree to be the characteristics of a good hypothesis. To be considered a "good" hypothesis, scientific method dictates that it must be testable, falsifiable, parsimonious, and fruitful.

Parsimonious refers to simplicity, and fruitful refers to the hypothesis' ability to provide new questions for further study.

A good hypothesis must also offer the ability to predict new observations.

With Orreman's photo, we should be able to find similarities in other photographs, which he states and finds. Unfortunately, the opposite must also hold true. We must also not be able to find similarities in photographs of known objects such as birds. Orreman didn't use this control in his methodology, so the hypothesis is flawed.

Originally posted by Xevious
I should remind you again of my argument in flourensics. In our criminal justice system, circumstancial evidence can be just as useful. No, flourinsics is not a fruitless venture; many times as many criminals are now brought to justice than there were before thanks to the efforts of this tireless group of scientific defectives.

Forensic science is still science. Even in court, one is not dealing with absolutes in discussing the truth. There is no possible way to be 100% certain of an event. One can only show probabilities. It is up to the jury and the judge to determine if the probabilities are in favor of the plantiff or defendent.

It is up to forensics specialists to present the evidence as they find it. Not to determine what happened. Even in forensics, they try to stay away from "scenarios" and instead just interpret specific evidence. For instance, a blood spatter is consistent with a particular type of blunt trauma; gun shot residue on a hand is consistent with that found on someone who has recently fired a handgun; a tire tread is consistent with the make/model of suspect's vehicle.

In each of these cases, the forensic specialist doesn't state that the suspect committed, or even probably committed, the crime charged. The forensic specialist can only say "the evidence is consistent with...," "the evidence was collected at....," etc.

In the case of ufo's, evidence cannot be said to be consistent with alien craft, consistent with alien abduction, consistent with paranormal events, etc., because none of these events have been scientifically documented. Therefore, the evidence must be talked about what it is not or cannot be. So when skeptics ask, "why can't this photo be of a flock of birds? Why can't the spike be the wing of another bird, concealed behind the one in the foreground with exception to the wing, which is visible as a spike?" what they are really doing is looking for plausible explanations in the absence of implausible.

What will create a plausible explanation in favor of ufo's being something more than merely unidentified but normal phenomena would be a definitive piece of evidence that doesn't lend itself to these questions. Photographs might not be enough, but clear, properly exposed photographs of an object would be interesting. Anecdotes will not be enough. An artifact will be needed.

But that won't happen according to ufologists. These 'visitors' are adept at being undetected. Its the purple dragon scenario.

Believe it or not, I'm a friend of the ufo researcher. I think there is definately something worth investigating. It might pan out to be something of substance or it might not. But the real problem lies in the lack of seriousness and credibility that "ufology" has earned. I say "earned" because of reasons that should be obvious by now. One look at the spurious claims, hoaxes, and cults associated with it will give you an idea.

Skeptics like me (and I'm not really that serious about the whole issue) or rather, skeptics much better than me, could help raise the bar a bit for ufologist by causing enough of them to get tired of the counter-arguments and do some real research.

An example of real research can be found at http://www.hessdalen.org/news/

 

[moementum7]

Wow.
You guys must have some serious fundamental beleifs based on an axis to whether or not there is or is not the reality of other life existing on or near our little ol' planet.
Am I wrong?
I know how much time,thought and energy you guys are putting into your thoughts and responses.
In no way is this a negative comment Skins,you know I love yah!
But I couldn't imagine spending so much time on something that I was only trying to prove didn't exist.
What are you gaining or holding onto by such expert skepticism if I may ask?
I am seriously curious.
Please,please,please do not take this as anything bad.
Your friend....me.

 

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by moementum7
But I couldn't imagine spending so much time on something that I was only trying to prove didn't exist.

I don't spend much time on it really. Most of the things I type are right off the top of my head (and it shows occasionally ). I'm a fast typist as well.

But I never attempted to prove anything didn't exist. My only contention is that efforts to prove that specific things did exist do not meet the minimum standards of science and that too many people accept the fantasies of others at face value without thinking critically.

Originally posted by moementum7
What are you gaining or holding onto by such expert skepticism if I may ask?
I am seriously curious.

Think about this: if the general public is willing to believe unfounded, pseudoscientific claims without critical thinking, won't they also be willing to accept the claims of a government or a politician without demanding logical proof? Some say this is an effect we have already seen. Illogical acceptance of unfounded ideas isn't just a perview of pseudoscience.... our freedoms could be at risk if people are willing to believe without critical, reasoned thought.

Originally posted by moementum7
Please,please,please do not take this as anything bad.
Your friend....me.

I thought it was a valid question... I've sat in the middle of one of my rants thinking the same thing <grin>.... why the hell do I bother? But if I can convince the lurker who doesn't post but reads without a strong opinion on one side or the other... then it's worth it.

That, and I also sort of committed myself when I pissed Slim off I had to prove I wasn't a troll.

As a final thought, it's also a good way to organize thoughts on subjects when you debate such things on internet forums...

 

[Xevious]

Skinwalker, I'll hand you a lot of what you've said. But, by now I hope you have realized that I'm not a blind believer. Even if my thinking might be flawed in your mind on some points, you and I both believe in applying the scientific method. Even if we disagree on some theoretetical principals, in practice if you've been on this forum long enough you will know that I've ended up on the same page as the skeptics when UFO photos have been posted time and time again.

Thanks for posting - keep at it.

 

[2inquisitive]

SkinWalker, there are several organizations proposing scientific
methods for the study of extraterrestrial probes (UFOs) now in
existence. One is SETV. They have developed a model to follow,
starting with a null hypothesis:

The SETV Hypothesis states:

Technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilizations have deployed interstellar exploratory probes and there is a zero probability that any functioning probes have reached our solar system and are detectable using exising terrestrial technologies.
_____________________________________________
The SETV model is not meant to directly prove the ETI probes exist. It has been devised to show indirectly, via hard data, that the converse is false thereby refuting the SETV null hypothesis.
_______________________________________________

SETV advocates building observational instruments in four phases,
used to collect unambiguous data that can be used to aid in the
falsification of the above null hypothesis. Is that more like what
you are looking for? An overview of the project can be found at:
http://www.setv.org/setv-xpmnt.html

 

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Xevious
But, by now I hope you have realized that I'm not a blind believer. Even if my thinking might be flawed in your mind on some points, you and I both believe in applying the scientific method.

On the contrary, I've found a lot of your posts refreshing... I see obvious bias from you toward the pro- side of somethings, just as you doubtless see some of my obvious bias toward the con- side. But, nevertheless, I think you look at things with a more skeptical eye than most.

I look forward to seeing more of your posts!

 

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by 2inquisitive
One is SETV. They have developed a model to follow,
starting with a null hypothesis:

I've seen the SETV investigations before... just this year, in fact, though I haven't had the chance to look deeper into their work. I was impressed with the serious nature of what I saw, though.

Thanks for the link... I'll have to take a closer look at it this weekend.

 

[orreman]

Slim was commenting about the consequence of failing to honestly examine UFO evidence and the answer is important to all. If the masses were to be swayed against the validity of medium/channelers like John Edwards , Praage and Fitzpatrick or great new age authors like Rampa, Castanada or Roberts then they will not believe the message that these important individuals bring to humanity. Knowing what awaits you on the other side can have a major impact on your atitude towards others as well as directly effect your immediate future.. For example metaphysics reveals that not only do we reincarnate but we often do it with the same individuals from the former life only the roles may be reversed to correct what ever characteristics the soul needs to work on. Belief in this "Unknown Reality" would bond even closer individuals in a group with a new quest for spiritual perfection ,if such a thing exists. Non belief has resulted in the terrible suicides of family members in the headlines and killings in the workplace. Would the suicide bomber really blow up the bus if he knew the 12 year old girl in the fourth row was his reincarnated grandfather working out his own karma from this continuing ancient rivalry.

As for the predictably lame attempt to discredit John Edwards in The "Septic" I mean "Skeptic" magazine there is a perfectly good reason that "He (Edwards) is so hot that his television show is about to make the jump to network television"-Michael Shermer. Thats because tens of millions of rational humans are quite capable for themselves to judge who is "Ludicrous" and what represents acceptable evidence of contact from the other side. To even suggest that Edwards bothers to follow what is said in pre-production, shows how badly these misguided skeptics are searching for anything to disprove what is obviously a geniune phenomena. This isnt the preacher who got caught with the receiver in his ear duping his followers out of their hard earned pay. They must not have seen the DOZENS of times that information gleaned from his readings could only be confirmed by telephone calls to relatives in distant areas of the nation.

Speaking of confirmation , in my as yet unpublished book "The Last in Line" mentioned in the San Diego Edition of the L.A.Times, I write about how right after my father"Crossed Over" when I was thirteen in 1971, our phone kept mysteriously ringing with no one on the other end. I remember mom resorting to blasting Dads police whistle into the receiver to no avail. Years later in my first bachelor pad someone kept ringing my doorbell but no one would be there. One time I opened the door so fast after it rang that no human could possibly have done it. As I stood there perplexed I suddenly remembered what I had recently read in the "Seth" material about how the spirit world can sometimes contact us through electromagnetic means. Thats when I realized in a flash of intuition that is was dad on the phone years ago and it was pop who was probably standing right in front of me in his spiritual guise and I tearfully acknowledged his presence and message which was that he survived. The doorball pranks stopped after that night.

So of course it was no surprise to hear John Edwards claim the very same thing on his program a decade later. It saddens me to read Shermer write" the reasons these so-called mediums are unethical and dangerous is that they are not helping anyone in what they are doing". AS IF HE IS. How many suicides has John averted by exposing the damage it creates for everyone in the family group. The one talking "twaddle" and who is clearly insulting the intelligence of humanity is Shermer and those like him who "Close their eyes and ignore the evidence"-Dr Robert Schock

Which brings us to Skin Walker and his claim that "The entire study of UFOs is a pseudoscientific pursuit and a waste of time". Taking our civilization into the its next phase, planetary contact and trade ,is certainly not a waste of time. Skin reminds me of Dr. Zahi Highass ,excuse me Hawass (director of Giza pyramid) who cannot accept clear evidence presented by Schock (Boston University) and Michael Anthony West that the Sphinx is thousands of years older than previously thought . "Its not good to argue with them then this theory will die"-Hawass To SkinWalkers credit he does bring an important viewpoint to this discussion although his lack of vision is disturbing. For example you claim my crop circle theory is "Ludicrous" and yet we know the hydrogen molecule emits a signal visable under a microscope and we saw in the movie"The Secret Life Of Plants" how Cleave Backster (Backster Research in San Diego) proved in a scientific experiment in the sixties how a plant,hooked up to a polygraph, successfully received the dying screams of go schrimp poured by a timer into boiling water. To seal the deal on my hypotheses we have the famous Seven second video that shows a crop circle being made in real time by the stalks being laid down as streaking orbs pass overhead.

Concerning my UFO photo, I did return 2 weeks later and photographed birds and planes in the same relative area that the objects were in. After enlarging the prints in my Omega C760 Color enlarger it was obvious that my UFO photo had ABSOLUTELY no resemblence to any known objects.

Rememeber to communicate, validate and appreciate-John Edwards

 

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by orreman
Which brings us to Skin Walker and his claim that "The entire study of UFOs is a pseudoscientific pursuit and a waste of time". Taking our civilization into the its next phase, planetary contact and trade ,is certainly not a waste of time.

No. I agree. However, I think hoping that a mythological and greatly hoaxed phenomenon will do it for us is an utter waste.

Originally posted by orreman
Skin reminds me of Dr. Zahi Highass ,excuse me Hawass (director of Giza pyramid) who cannot accept clear evidence presented by Schock (Boston University) and Michael Anthony West that the Sphinx is thousands of years older than previously thought .

That's because they are full of shit. I've read Shock and West's ideas and they don't add up. Why don't you tell us all why you give their claims credibility? What specific points does Shock make that suggests an older age? The degradation pattern seen on the limestone of the Sphinx's body and enclosure walls are consistent with a Fourth Dynasty date for this monument. So what reason is there to doubt that the Sphinx was carved as part of king Khafre's funerary complex?

Originally posted by orreman
To SkinWalkers credit he does bring an important viewpoint to this discussion although his lack of vision is disturbing.

Don't confuse critical thinking skills and a little bit of "bullshit detection" with "lack of vision."

Originally posted by orreman
For example you claim my crop circle theory is "Ludicrous" and yet we know the hydrogen molecule emits a signal visable under a microscope

Really? I'm not a botanist... so perhaps you could cite a reference that I can look up to read about this effect. Do other elements do the same thing? Does it occur only in diatomic molecules? In other words, can it occur with a single hydrogen or must it be a molecule? What is this signal? What wavelength?

Originally posted by orreman
and we saw in the movie"The Secret Life Of Plants" how Cleave Backster (Backster Research in San Diego) proved in a scientific experiment in the sixties how a plant,hooked up to a polygraph, successfully received the dying screams of go schrimp poured by a timer into boiling water.

These sloppy experiments were conducted by Cleve Backster and he published his research in the International Journal of Parapsychology under the title of Evidence of a Primary Perception in Plant Life vol. 10, no. 4, Winter 1968, pp. 329-348. Not exactly the most reputable journal of science... since they apparently accept just about anything that's tossed their way in pseudoscience and poor methodology.

Backster's claims were refuted by Horowitz, Lewis, and Gasteiger (1975), who demonstrated that Backster had not used proper controls in doing his study. When controls were used, no detection of plant reaction to thoughts or threats could be found. These researchers found that the cause of the polygraph contours could have been due to a number of factors, including static electricity, movement in the room, changes in humidity, etc.

Horowitz, K. A., D.C. Lewis, and E. L. Gasteiger. 1975. Plant primary perception. Science 189: 478-480.

Originally posted by orreman
Rememeber to communicate, validate and appreciate-John Edwards

Yeah.. right. You've spouted enough false information, its hard to tell what you have to say that might be worthwhile.

 

[orreman]

Your definition of "false information" windwalker cannot explain how numerous professional writers, photographers, editors and producers that have written thousands of words on my photo and theorys including 3 front page features. Are they disqualified like everyone else because they dont meet your rigid expectations of extensive scientific investigation. I dont think so. In fact with their reputations on the line many of them, aftering viewing the evidence in person, went farther out on a limb than I expected.

When the ancient Phrygian city of Troy was discovered it proved to everyone that what was once considered a myth (Trojan Wars) can indeed prove to be reality and so it will be for humankind VERY soon when one day, after contact we will look back and say "Yes they not only exist but they had Man's best interest in mind the whole time as we rid ourselves of disease, poverty, starvation and even death.

Revelations 21:1 New Heavens and New Earth. "Then I saw a new heavens and I saw a new earth. The former heavens and the former earth had passed away, and the sea was no longer. I also saw a new Jerusalem, the holy city, coming down out of heaven from God, beautiful as a bride prepared to meet her husband. I heard a loud voice from the throne cry out; "This is God's dwelling among men. He shall dwell with them and they shall be his people and he shall be their God who is always with them. He shall wipe every tear from their eyes, and there shall be no more death or mourning, crying out or in pain, for the former world has passed away". The One who sat on the throne said to me."See, I make all things new!"Then he said,"Write these matters down, for the words are trustworthy and true!".

 

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by orreman
Your definition of "false information" godwalker cannot explain how numerous professional writers, photographers, editors and producers that have written thousands of words on my photo and theorys including 3 front page features.

Perhaps they're gullible. Perhaps they know a story that will "sell." I'm tempted to remind you that "just because it's in print, doesn't make it true," but then I realized that you appear to believe a lot of stuff you read without question.

Originally posted by orreman
When the ancient Phrygian city of Troy was discovered it proved to everyone that what was once considered a myth (Trojan Wars) can indeed prove to be reality

If it were considered a myth, (and I don't believe it was considered as such any more than other events of early-historical record) it was one with much historical precedent. Homer's Iliad was but one of many written records of Troy and the Trojan wars. Many written records existed that supported the events in both fiction and non-fiction. In fact, Schliemann and Calvert's discovery in 1871 was a precursor for some of the modern archeological methodology. A methodology which has developed into a approach that follows a very strict scientific method.

Originally posted by orreman
and so it will be for humankind VERY soon when one day, after contact we will look back and say "Yes they not only exist but they had Man's best interest in mind the whole time as we rid ourselves of disease, poverty, starvation and even death.

Perhaps you are right. There just isn't enough evidence to support this hypothesis. So it remains a modern mythology.

Originally posted by orreman
Revelations 21:1 New Heavens and New Earth.

More mythology.

Your little rants and pseudonymic modifications don't dispell the fact that much of what you've stated here in this thread as fact actually hasn't panned out. Much of what you've told us is based on easily rebuked nonsense. I'm inclined to believe that there is something in all your information that is worthwile... I just don't trust you enough to accept any at face value.

Edgar Cayce was a fraud. Castenada was a poor excuse of a scientist turned sensationalist-for-hire. John Edwards continues to take advantage of hoping, grieving people willing to boost his ratings. The sphinx is not older than the Fourth Dynasty. And Cleve Backster appears to be incompetent due to his poor methodology and mentally unbalanced because of his wild hypothesis.

So what about the "signal" transmitted by hydrogen molecules? I'm curious for more information.

 

[orreman]

While I research for more info on the hydrogen molecules signal I recall Roberts writings seen on my CropCircleRevealed page where she(Seth)claims that "Molecular structures send out their own messages and unless you are tuned in to perceive them, they may be interpreted as static or meaningless noise". She continues to say that" molecules, as minute as they may be, carry their burden of consciousness" which may explain how aliens can glide through the air and walls and how they affect the wheat in crop circles. Of course we already know WindWalker has dismissed unfairly this writer and others who are currently playing a major role in God's preparation for the "New Earth".

Tonights History Channel episode of "The Bible Code" indicates a major earthquake in Los Angeles in 2010 and a asteroid impact in 2012 the same year the Mayans predicted the end of this world. Claiming, as you undoubtable will, that this Bible code is also "easily rebuked nonsense" you are the one "Mentally Unbalanced" by ignoring the BIG picture and the many contributors who are helping mankind understand unknown realities. Your missing still the point of John Edwards show as hundreds of non-actors have clearly gotten closure and crept out of the depths of grief and loss.

Over a decade ago a TV program showed hydrogen molecules sparking under an electron microscope. At least thats what I thought I saw. It may have been"Rutherford's "Gun" (atom smasher) where "When nitrogen gas was introduced the sparks resumed. Rutherford concluded that the alpha particles had collided with the nitrogen atoms, creating charged hydrogen atoms (protons), which were causing the sparks".

Dr Royal Rife of Point Loma in the thirties invented the multiwave oscilater, a device that apparantly successfully destroyed diseased cells by bombarding the molecules with a light wave spectrum that could be adjusted to each disease. I have numerous articles from his time "Celebrating the End of Disease". Unfortunately the major drug companies would have been put out of business so Rifes historic discovery was shelved. This is the kind of hypocrisy that has held mankind back much like SkinWalkers wholesale rejection of Metaphysics and the promise of a better way for humanity that it represents.

 

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by orreman
"Molecular structures send out their own messages and unless you are tuned in to perceive them, they may be interpreted as static or meaningless noise".

How does one calibrate oneself so that he/she is "tuned" to "persceive them?"

Originally posted by orreman
"She continues to say that" molecules, as minute as they may be, carry their burden of consciousness"

What does she define as consciousness? Is she suggesting that hydrogen is sentient? What about the other elements of the periodic table? How about the 10^28 or so atoms in the average human body? Are they sentient as well (or at least have a consciousness)? If just hydrogen, then I should point out many, if not most of these atoms are H.

Originally posted by orreman
"which may explain how aliens can glide through the air and walls and how they affect the wheat in crop circles.

Or it may just explain the delusions of one person who hasn't any physical evidence but relies on fantasy for explanation. This has been the failing of man probably since before standing upright.

Originally posted by orreman
"Of course we already know WindWalker has dismissed unfairly this writer and others who are currently playing a major role in God's preparation for the "New Earth".

At least you're more subtle than other "believers," but you still resort to ad hominem remarks rather than stick with addressing the issues. This is a commonality that I notice in pseudoscience buffs and "believers."

As to the "fairness" I've provided, I'd say I was more than fair. I've attempted to address each point of evidence that I can by providing counter evidence. Regardless of the veracity of the evidence, you stick to what you've already made you mind up about. My position can be changed merely by providing sufficient evidence. I've seen evidence that a person can convince an audience that he is speaking to their dead relatives. I've not seen evidence from John Edwards that he is nothing more than a fast talker and decent Cold Reader. In fact, I've read the counter arguments to his methods, which he refuses to address. It is possible that Edwards truly speaks to the dead, but my final question about him goes unanswered: why not speak with someone of fame and get information that could only have come from them? Jimmy Hoffa, famous poets & writers, Einstein... etc.

Originally posted by orreman
"Tonights History Channel episode of "The Bible Code"

Another thoroughly debunked hoax. As you so accurately predicted I would say. (perhaps you should have your own show?)

Originally posted by orreman
"indicates a major earthquake in Los Angeles in 2010 and a asteroid impact in 2012

Let me ask you this: in the year 2013, will you log on and let us know if you still believe in this stuff?

Originally posted by orreman
"you are the one "Mentally Unbalanced" by ignoring the BIG picture and the many contributors who are helping mankind understand unknown realities.

If any of these "contributors" had any credibility or veracity in their claims, I'm sure more people would listen.

Originally posted by orreman
"Your missing still the point of John Edwards show as hundreds of non-actors have clearly gotten closure and crept out of the depths of grief and loss.

Yeah? I'd like to see a case study done of each of these people to see if they really have "gotten closure." I'd also like to see the same independent researcher interview the "non-actors" that didn't make the final cut. IT'S TELEVISION! THEY ONLY SHOW THE STUFF THEY WANT!

Originally posted by orreman
"Over a decade ago a TV program showed hydrogen molecules sparking under an electron microscope. At least thats what I thought I saw. It may have been"Rutherford's "Gun" (atom smasher) where "When nitrogen gas was introduced the sparks resumed. Rutherford concluded that the alpha particles had collided with the nitrogen atoms, creating charged hydrogen atoms (protons), which were causing the sparks".

What you're describing sounds like the Geiger-Marsden alpha particle experiment. This is where a thin gold foil was bombarded with a beam of alpha particles. Around the chamber (it was in a vacuum) were zinc sulphide screens set up to detect the particles, which emitted "flashes" of light as they impacted. Hydrogen wasn't specifically tested, though the alpha particles may been from an H atom, I'm not sure about that part of the experiment. But the "Rutherford atom" was thought to explain this. Rutherford died in 1937, so I doubt it was he you saw on TV. Unless it was on John Edwards.

Originally posted by orreman
"Dr Royal Rife of Point Loma in the thirties invented the multiwave oscilater, a device that apparantly successfully destroyed diseased cells by bombarding the molecules with a light wave spectrum that could be adjusted to each disease.

This would be classic pseudoscience.

 

[orreman]

To answer your question SkinWalker about consciousness in molecules I'll first quote from the greatest source for truth in "pseudoscience" the Seth material as seen on my crop circle page; "atoms and molecules, minute as they may appear to you, also carry their burden of consciousness and responsibility. yet there is a portion of consciousness that can joyfully perceive in a manner that is not dictated by its nature; it can playfully perceive as a creative aspect of its being, without responsibility. in one manner of speaking the very air about you sings with its own joyfull consciousness. It does not know the same kind of burden of consciousness that often oppresses you. You are so frightened of death, in your terms, that you dare not turn your consciousness off for one second; for you fear that if you do, indeed, who will be there to turn it back on again?".

Now what was that about the air "singing"

Todays "Whats New" Netscape headline "PERFECT B-FLAT NOTE COMING FROM SPACE" Outer Space is singing in the form of a perfect B-flat note. A big black hole from the Perseus Cluster of galaxies located some 250 million light-years from Earth has been humming it for billions of years reports Reuters of new finding from NASA's orbiting Chandra X-Ray Observatory...The sound is 57 octaves below middle C compared to a piano that has 7 octaves. "The SINGING black hole is the ultimate bass".

June 23 1970 Seth, who is the acclaimed non-physical teacher who spoke through the late prolific writer Jane Roberts while she was in a trance, continues ; " True spirituality is a thing of joy and of the earth, and has nothing to do with fake adult dignity. it has nothing to do with long words and sorrowful faces. It HAS to do with the dance of consciousness that is within you, and with the sense of spiritual adventure that is within your hearts. It is not dependent on your youth, it is not dependent upon your body. It rings and sings through the universe, and your entire personality. The vitality of the universe is creativity and joy and love, and THAT is spirituality".

Seth must have had SkinWalker in mind when he said this; "In basic terms, civilization is dependent upon spontaneity and fulfillment of the individual. Your civilization is in sad straits. Not because you have allowed spontaneity or fulfillment to individuals, but because you have denied it, and because your institutions are based upon that premise".

SkinWalker, you have no evidence of"veracity" I do, and if 2013 rolls around I'll tell you the same thing I told my friends when the earth didnt flip on 5/5/2000 sooner or later our earth with change as drastically as the abductee was shown with "trees and earth flying up into the atmosphere". So we humans had better get our acts togeather.

 

[SkinWalker]

It's just too bad we can't wake up society to our self-destructive ways (btw, I am not being sarcastic) and possible doom without using the paranormal and pseudoscience.

Your underlying message about spirituality and the need for a societal epiphany rings true. I just don't think one needs to get it from a trance, alien abduction, or translating the complex math of crop circles.

We should be able to get it by critically reasoning and thinking about issues of society, politics, economics, and status. Instead, humans appear to be doomed to blindly following whatever light shines the brightest at any given moment... like moths to candles. Too many of us accept without question the voices of authority, spiritiuality, or science without a thought that they might be pseudoauthoritarian, pseudospiritual, and pseudoscientific. We disregard the notion that we might be unwilling pillars of someone else's platform of status.

As I said, your message has a ring of truth... it just seems clouded by too many flawed sources.

But then, I suppose there are those that would argue "what does the source matter if the message is true?"

 

[orreman]

To this day SkinWalker I question why a non-professional struggling artist would be the one to stumble upon these patterns. Maybe it was precisely because I wasnt restrained by traditional rational thinking that I was even able to conceive that the dots in the background of my scenic photo could possible be craft from outer space. You, along with a million others would have missed it completely(probably) and lost a golden opportunity to present evidence of UFOs to a skeptical but yearning populace.

Speaking of evidence this past Tuesday 9/9/03 the SciFi Channel aired "UFOs,The Best Evidence Ever Caught on Tape2" hosted by Jonathon Frakes. At one point UFO videographer Chris Miller captured a"Cluster"of orbs in a daylight video that looked remarkable like my own "Formation". Navel intelligence"had no idea what the objects were". The program also showed the same objects in Israel and Mexico. Does this prove my objects are authentic UFOs, no, but it ads support. The NASA UFO footage was the most amazing and convincing evidence that we are not alone with right angle turns that would have killed a human.

The paranormal will one day soon be the Very Normal as the pseudo is dropped from a very legitimate science that will eventually meet even SkinWalkers rigid requirements. Like moths to candles mankind will indeed be drawn to the shining light of truth that has many sources that all lead to a very certain conclusion; 1) Mankind is heading for Direct Contact with Aliens 2) "They" are closer to "Home" than we are and represent the best choice for our future.

The only"platform of status" I'm seeking is for a large contingent of humans to be chosen to survive the drastic Earth Changes that are nearly upon us (northridge earthquake yesterday) and the thoughts and actions of everyone is being viewed by unseen eyes wether you believe it or not. Maybe those"Rods" are emissaries from God. They were even captured on tape near my residence by KFMB 8 CBS by reporter Denise Myamoto.

Politics and economics are what got us in trouble in the first place. Money will be replaced by free trade not just between nations but planets as greed and corruption will be replaced by abundance and the end of disease and misery. This "Fantasy" will one day be ours.

Freedom lies In Being Bold.