My last thread on UFO's

Trapped said:
Some say this, but the consensus is that meteorites play as the perfect time capsule. Some organisms on earth can take absolutely loads of radiation and are not effective. Tardigrades have been experimented on, they can pretty much survive outerspace.
Click to expand...

You won't get any arguments from me regarding the hardiness of some microbial life.
So far on Earth life has been found thriving in Ocean depths around "Black smokers" and Hydrothermal vents near temperatures in excess of boiling water, and also around spent nuclear fuel rods.
Could similar life be transported through outer space?? I don't see why not.
 
paddoboy said:
You won't get any arguments from me regarding the hardiness of some microbial life.
So far on Earth life has been found thriving in Ocean depths around "Black smokers" and Hydrothermal vents near temperatures in excess of boiling water, and also around spent nuclear fuel rods.
Could similar life be transported through outer space?? I don't see why not.
Click to expand...

I think we established, even though I am a believer, a number of sceptics agree with me on quite a few things. The only part myself and sceptics seem to disagree on, is the origin of the craft.

I hope over the last three chapter, which will be deleted in a few months, have at least provided strong evidence that the technology at times far exceeds our own.
 
If you want, I can post some others chapters which talk about photographic evidence, something sceptics think we lack, but we don't.
 
Russ_Watters said:
No, quite clearly the disagreement is about the existence of "craft".
Click to expand...

I meet seldom serious sceptics who would agree there is no craft. Most agree that there are craft in the sky. We have had a major paradigm shift with many sceptics. One such cases is that many seem to admit there is a cover-up. The real main objections lies in whether they are alien craft. Trust me, I am much more informed than you on this subject.
 
Trapped said:
I meet seldom serious sceptics who would agree there is no craft. Most agree that there are craft in the sky. We have had a major paradigm shift with many sceptics. One such cases is that many seem to admit there is a cover-up. The real main objections lies in whether they are alien craft.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if that's a joke, another Trap or if you're just getting tripped-up by your own misuse of the term "UFO" again, but no: virtually no "serious skeptics" agree that there are "craft".
Trust me, I am much more informed than you on this subject.
Click to expand...
You are very much more informed about conspiracy theory/crackpot nonsense than I am, but I certainly don't trust you and you should trust me when I say I understand skeptics better than you.
 
Russ_Watters said:
I'm not sure if that's a joke, another Trap or if you're just getting tripped-up by your own misuse of the term "UFO" again, but no: virtually no "serious skeptics" agree that there are "craft".
Click to expand...

You're wrong. The head of the sceptics commitee in New York admitted the consensus, there really was UFO's in the sky. The argument they make is that they are not ET.

By the way, this isn't some archaic investigation... these are the top sceptics speaking for the sceptic community, if you disagree with them, fine. You are completely entitled to.
 
Trust me, I am much more serious investigator, it is my job to know what sceptics are thinking. The difference is, sceptics do hardly no investigations objectively into the phenomenon. This is why we make better investigators than you lot.
 
Trapped said:
You're wrong. The head of the sceptics commitee in New York admitted the consensus, there really was UFO's in the sky. The argument they make is that they are not ET.
Click to expand...
Right: it is misuse of the term "UFO" -- but is it a "Trap", a trip or a joke?
[yawn]
Again: "UFO" does not necessarily mean "craft".
[/yawn]

I'd still love to see the actual quote though.
 
Trapped said:
Trust me, I am much more serious investigator, it is my job to know what sceptics are thinking. The difference is, sceptics do hardly no investigations objectively into the phenomenon. This is why we make better investigators than you lot.
Click to expand...
You've lost track of your own argument: Reread it and try again.
 
My statement was, you were wrong about your claim. Most sceptics actually admit there is a cover-up on UFO's.

Simple.

What they argue, is the origins.

Simple.

That should be the end of this discussion. I can't make it any clearer.
 
U. F. O. - Unidentified Flying OBJECT

UFOs doesn't specially mean a CRAFT. UFOs merely means the object has not been identified.

Trapped said:
Simple. What they argue, is the origins. Simple.
That should be the end of this discussion. I can't make it any clearer.
Click to expand...

If they have not established the IDENTITY, how "simple" is it to try to establish or argue the ORIGIN?

Can I make my question any clearer?
 
dumbest man on earth said:
U. F. O. - Unidentified Flying OBJECT

UFOs doesn't specially mean a CRAFT. UFOs merely means the object has not been identified.
Click to expand...

No I think your definition is wrong. There are plenty objects we see in the sky which cannot be identified which never suit the explanation of craft. Many objects in the sky for instance, are not flying.

An unidentified object, is often called flying. Hence the term, UFO. If something is ''flying'' then we must assume something is flying it. If something is merely travelling in airspace, then it isn't technically flying. to fly something, means an intelligent control.
 
Trapped said:
No I think your definition is wrong. There are plenty objects we see in the sky which cannot be identified which never suit the explanation of craft. Many objects in the sky for instance, are not flying.

An unidentified object, is often called flying. Hence the term, UFO. If something is ''flying'' then we must assume something is flying it. If something is merely travelling in airspace, then it isn't technically flying. to fly something, means an intelligent control.
Click to expand...




When we say a UFO, we mean any object, in the air, off the Earth, flying, hovering, or whatever...as long as we are unable to positively identify, it, it is a UFO......
The term "flying"in this instant, is not taken as being under the control of any Intelligence.
Similar to the BB theory....There was no big bang.
Just a sudden evolution of space and time.
The BB was a term of derision given by Freddy Hoyle who favoured Steady State.
Another example is a Black Hole...That term was coined just for conveniance sake, and the proper name for such an entity is a "Gravitationally Completely Collapsed Object"
 
A manhole cover ejected into the air after an explosion is also a UFO, until someone identifies it as a manhole cover.
It certainly isn't flying though.
 
In reference to the previous post, if I was to be politically correct, [which I don't] and keeping in mind how we have turkeys dissecting and deciphering posts word for word, and letter for letter, I would call it a "Person Hole" cover.
 
paddoboy said:
A manhole cover ejected into the air after an explosion is also a UFO, until someone identifies it as a manhole cover.
It certainly isn't flying though.
Click to expand...

That's right. The times when UFO's do not explain natural phenomenon, is when they do things natural phenomenon don't. Understand this please.

Many UFO's do things none of your conventional explanations can answer for.
 
Trapped said:
No I think your definition is wrong. There are plenty objects we see in the sky which cannot be identified which never suit the explanation of craft. Many objects in the sky for instance, are not flying.

An unidentified object, is often called flying. Hence the term, UFO. If something is ''flying'' then we must assume something is flying it. If something is merely travelling in airspace, then it isn't technically flying. to fly something, means an intelligent control.
Click to expand...

You are right, of course. You must "assume".

Any airplane "is merely traveling in airspace", you must assume "it isn't technically flying".

You are right, of course. You must "assume".

Myself, however, I prefer not to "assume" anything. I prefer to investigate or do research and then to conclude or decide.
If I were to "assume", I would have no proof of anything.

But...you are right, of course. You must "assume".
 
It's my feeling so far, no sceptics so far have moved on to even acknowledge there is even a real phenomenon. I can't stress how ... ridiculous this current thought among some sceptics are, even though the greater sceptics out there are already understanding this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top