Originally Posted By: duendy
me))))))who says 'many of them [are] verifiably false'? and if you say 'many of them' do you mean you ae open to the idea tat the others are Unexplainable?
I'm feeling pretty patient today, so let's discuss. Who says many are false? Have you read project blue book? Even our famed Roswell crash was proven to be a balloon.
And my only problem with agreeing that some are "unexplainable" is that I feel like I'm walking into a trap; when I say something can't be explained, or hasen't been explained, I mean that I have heard of no means to explain a certain situation. Many others, such as the UFO believer, takes "unexplainable" and
instantly places the extraterrestrial/paranormal tag on it. In reality, to say something is enexplainable doesn't mean it's out-of-this-world, it just means that no one reporting or studying the thing/phenomenon/event can immediately explain it.
That all said, I'm sure there are reports of things that are "unexplained" and for simple reasons such as the video is too blurry to tell if the light on it is from a land vehicle or an air craft, or if the craft is legitimate or staged, or if the legitimate craft is military, commercial, or extraterrestrial.
Originally Posted By: duendy
me)))as i keep saying. maybe this impasse is precisley be caus of te ontological premise of materialistic science?
I've seen that you consider yourself a very "earthy" person, and believe in the whole harmony between things, such as Man and his conciousness, and things of that sort, am I correct in that? There is something to be said for people who care more for the planet and their own bodies than they do for national pride or corporate conglomorates, and they are just as valuable as citizens as the rest of us.
But there is a common theme amongst people who think "against the group" and that is one of anti-establishment. Duendy, please don't get angry with my assumptions of you, but they are mine to speak, and they mean no harm. Those who are anti-establishment seem to lean towards believeing next to nothing of what any large, established group says. In this case, duendy, it seems you are dead set against the rules scientific method applies to it's practice.
In all actuality, one would not have to break down the materials found on a supposed alien craft to be positive it was of alien origin. All you would have to do is look at it, I imagine, or watch it move to know that it wasn't from the creative mind of a Human Being. (of course, this is speculation, but I'd imagine that it would be the case) Of course, if we had the chance to take apart a craft and study it, we'd be able to tell certain things about it that the naked eye would not, such as possible scenarios as to
how the craft came from where it was to where it landed, but it would not require absolute
proof in the sense of a peer review and case study to know that it wasn't from Earth.
But this thing you call "materialistic science" isn't the devil you make it out to be. Simply put, the call for evidence is a sound one, and a neccissary one. If we simply allowed photos and videos which could be easily (or painstakingly) faked into the realm of scientific fact, that would be a foolish way to go about business. It would hinder the search for truth and understanding, wouldn't it? If we simply believed the woman who claimed she was abducted by aliens and had a scar on her leg to prove it, is it impossible to believe that our fascination with the stars would diminish as the mystery would be taken out of it? On top of that, we might never look into the psychological reasons, the pathology, behind someone who would lie about such an experience. We would be losing on two fronts, as I see it.
Originally Posted By: duendy
what i fear.....isssssss. that te powers that be will one day surpise d'youll WITH some kind of 'alien invasion.....which will be the ultimate 'ENEMY' that they have staged.....not meaning to change te subject. just tought i'd mention it
Is that a scenario you believe could happen? I'm curious to know the reason you would even speculate that.
me))))but i dont see why is HAS to be a 'singular issue'?....isn't tere diversity in te life we are familiar wit? so why shouldn't it be so for the pheonomena we aren't thgat familiar with?
You're right, as we broaden the scope from extraterrestrials to the entire paranormal field. My point, though, I admit, poorly thought out and executed, was that the large outcry on this board is that the UFO phenomenon is credited to one or more alien civilizations, nothing more, when in fact the UFO phenomenon has
many popular explanations by Johnny Believer, and the quest for truth in the matter (if what we know isn't the truth) is hindered in the fact that there isn't a singular front to the argument against what the government has told us. Basically, if everyone comes at this issue with 15 different "truths" as to what the UFOs are, you all just look like whackos.
Again, my point with my original statement was more of a negative commentary on the UFO believer, and not a well-concieved one at that.
me)))))))and how do you know this? explain reasons why it would be like you imagine it'd be?
Well, it is opinion, of course, and not fact. The world
could crumble at the news of alien visitors from Alpha Centrauri, but chances are that it won't.
I don't know...oil is going to run out eventually, and the admission of knowledge of an alien race visiting our planet would do nothing to our world's oil companies. If the current state of alien visitation is as the believers state, then we aren't gaining anything from their presence; in fact, their presence--if as postulated by some is true--then they are the ones doing the research, not us. If abductions and cattle mutalations are real in the sense that they are acts committed by extraterrestrials, then they are obviously experiments by this superior species, not an exchange of information between us.
When you pick up an ant, do you leave a calculator?
JD