'No evidence' for extraterrestrials, says White House,....

[Reiku]

@Mister --



Yes, I have, up until my last post that is. One might even say that I've been polite.



You mean the evidence you were obliged by Sciforum rules to produce? Next time should I just immediately report you for not supporting your statements of truth rather than giving you a chance to defend yourself?



No, you didn't, but you did need to support your assertions under Sciforums rules. However other than the two links you gave me, both of which already have adequate explanations and thus don't count as evidence of ETs, you haven't provided me with shit.

You've made some claims and that's it. I can make claims too you know, in fact, so can anyone. So why should I take your claims any more seriously than Deepak Chopra's or Kent Hovind's?



Whether you think about it or not doesn't change the fact that you need to support your assertion with evidence, that's how science works. You need to do the work to support your claims and fulfill your burden of proof. End of discussion.

Either provide the evidence or admit that you can't support your claims and that they're merely your opinion. There is a third option, you can continue on this path and I can report you, but those are really your only options.



Wait, you still want me to do your damn work for you? Are you the laziest SOB on the face of the planet?!? It's your claim, you back it up.



Well that's simple enough. It was a practical joke. Humans do this sort of thing all the time.



So show us this fucking evidence already. You claim you have the evidence? Well I'm calling your bluff.

Do you really not understand, I am not obliged to say anything on the subject? Do you really think anyone really cares if I did or not? In light of how much the UFO culture is shunned upon, I doubt anyone apart from yourself would have really cared.

Honestly-speaking, you are simply wanting to waste more of my time. And not only that, come out with elaborate stories on why certain events took place in the UFO history. For instance, I find this a real gem:

''Well that's simple enough. It was a practical joke. Humans do this sort of thing all the time.''

Do you even realize the consequences of such an action? For their jobs? For their livelihoods? In fact, let us not even go down that road. You seem to have completely ignored my statement on the special agent Guy Hottel's informant who was in the Military Circle that there really was UFO's recovered that day.

This kind of behaviour you are displaying and like so many do, is similar to simply burrying your head in the sand and ignoring all the evidence. What about eye-witness statement of a saucer-like shaped craft crashing just outside the New Mexico ranch? Do they not have any say in the matter? These where honest, hard-working men no doubt who witnessed this event - there is essentially a big difference between a weather balloon and a saucer shaped craft.

''No, you didn't, but you did need to support your assertions under Sciforums rules. ''

There are many cases above which are pretty well known to the community.

''Wait, you still want me to do your damn work for you? ''

What work? I said if you disagreed with anything I said, you could cross-reference it yourself. It's a quick google search. Surely not all the cases above will warrant a google search----- are you saying you are completely in the dark with each and every case mentioned? There are some famous cases in there and if you have never heard of them, I'd advise you to go investigate the UFO culture so you may in the future, have a better grasp of any conversation on said subject.

 

[Reiku]

''So show us this fucking evidence already. You claim you have the evidence? Well I'm calling your bluff. ''

You've never seen the Guy Hottel Memorandum??? You should check back on the posts here. Some one was kind enough to scan it on sciforums. I don't bluff.

 

[Reiku]

You know, you're very defensive for someone who supposedly believes what they're spewing. If you don't care enough about your topic to back it up, exactly why did you decide to talk about it in the first place?

Actually, I feel no need to back something up with references simply because I am so confident in my statements. So confident, that I leave it to the competent viewer to investigate these facts.

It does not help me doing absolutely all the work. I want to see readers make their own revelations on their own investigation concerning the matters I have brought forth. Believe it or not, but it is for the better sake of the reader that I am so defensive.

 

[Stryder]

No I am not... well... Yes I am human, but that is beside the point. I am using a well known principle of quantum mechanics, that being the laws of physics do not change anywhere for anyone. Do you understand this principle?

It would mean aliens would be subject to the same physical laws. This is so close to the truth, I don't know where you extracted your belief from.

Please note the principle you refer to is based upon "our observations", as the old adage states:

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

I mean you might rush to some unknown quadrant of the universe, break out a slide ruler and state "The physics here is the same as it is over there", however at the end of the day you are the same observer that compared these two points of the universe, not two different ones with no method of communicating the observations between one another.

How do you think you could make a double-blind experiment to prove physics is the same, considering you would require an observer that is beyond our observational field to aid in conducting it.

 

[Reiku]

Please note the principle you refer to is based upon "our observations", as the old adage states:

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

I mean you might rush to some unknown quadrant of the universe, break out a slide ruler and state "The physics here is the same as it is over there", however at the end of the day you are the same observer that compared these two points of the universe, not two different ones with no method of communicating the observations between one another.

How do you think you could make a double-blind experiment to prove physics is the same, considering you would require an observer that is beyond our observational field to aid in conducting it.

Maybe you don't trust humanities ability to measure science. But you cannot question that quantum mechanics will not be the same for aliens. That creates a poor understanding of the subject itself.

 

[Reiku]

For aliens, an electron is still an electron, albeit no doubt they have another name for it. It will still run through wires. They will be aware of the gravitational force, electomagnetic, strong and weak forces. They will still measure the same the laws in their corner of the universe. No doubt, they would be likely way ahead of us with many concepts, but the primitive science for them would be the stuff we are making breakthrough's on.

 

[Stryder]

Maybe you don't trust humanities ability to measure science. But you cannot question that quantum mechanics will not be the same for aliens. That creates a poor understanding of the subject itself.

Actually no, the argument I am implying is that for aliens to exist it would require the observation that physics can be different.
Stating that physics is the same everywhere in the universe implies a system that is built from the same composites under the same rules, which actually points more to emulation theory being accurate.

As I've stated if Emulation theory is accurate, then that means it's all built by one civilisation which rules out others.

(Just to broaden on this, Our Civilisation wouldn't produce another lesser civilisation to become potential slaves or be seen as lessers, nor would it produce an equal or greater civilisation due to the basis of Darwinistic Survival and making sure that we aren't in competition with a potential dominant species.)

 

[Reiku]

Actually no, the argument I am implying is that for aliens to exist it would require the observation that physics can be different.
Stating that physics is the same everywhere in the universe implies a system that is built from the same composites under the same rules, which actually points more to emulation theory being accurate.

As I've stated if Emulation theory is accurate, then that means it's all built by one civilisation which rules out others.

(Just to broaden on this, Our Civilisation wouldn't produce another lesser civilisation to become potential slaves or be seen as lessers, nor would it produce an equal or greater civilisation due to the basis of Darwinistic Survival and making sure that we aren't in competition with a potential dominant species.)

And aliens would have had to begin with the same primitive laws we began dealing with. Sure, I understand they will have different principles and most likely a different interpretation of the science we call ''physics'' - but the bottom line is that the dynamics will need to be the same. No doubt they have moved on sufficiently from the day that we call present knowledge on physics.

 

[The Esotericist]

(Just to broaden on this, Our Civilisation wouldn't produce another lesser civilisation to become potential slaves or be seen as lessers, nor would it produce an equal or greater civilisation due to the basis of Darwinistic Survival and making sure that we aren't in competition with a potential dominant species.)

Why not? :shrug: All your points have led me to conclude that your narrow minded boxed in view of the cosmos only mean that humanity lacks wisdom, and cannot even fathom the motivation of a supremely wise and advanced civilization. IMO your ignorance is only superseded by your arrogance.

Why wouldn't we create life, in the hopes that it would evolve to a state of consciousness equal to or greater than our own? Restricting it when it looks like it is becoming dangerous, and giving it freedom to grow and develop when it looks like it is blossoming in a beneficial and fruitful way? And should things grow and go totally wrong? Well, perhaps we would just wipe the whole planet out with. . .say, a great flood and start all over. What do you say about that?

 

[Reiku]

Why not? :shrug: All your points have led me to conclude that your narrow minded boxed in view of the cosmos only mean that humanity lacks wisdom, and cannot even fathom the motivation of a supremely wise and advanced civilization. IMO your ignorance is only superseded by your arrogance.

Why wouldn't we create life, in the hopes that it would evolve to a state of consciousness equal to or greater than our own? Restricting it when it looks like it is becoming dangerous, and giving it freedom to grow and develop when it looks like it is blossoming in a beneficial and fruitful way? And should things grow and go totally wrong? Well, perhaps we would just wipe the whole planet out with. . .say, a great flood and start all over. What do you say about that?

He's obviously never seen ''I Robot''

I think it is definately one of the tasts of bioscientists to create life in the lab. Of course, we are god and we will have the ability to destroy it at any time, but for the sake of scientific discourse, I very much believe we will be intent on watching this life grow and evolve.

It is afterall the pinnacle of modern understanding of evolution, proving this absolutely would be very important.

 

[Reiku]

I just deleted my post by accident... thank god I made a copy of it below in response to Phlog

 

[Reiku]

Also, speaking about the Pheonix lights, if anyone has actually studied the available video evidence of the event, one can clearly see that the lights are not decending on the horizon. They are pretty much even throughout the whole hour and a half.

It is quite clear the Military fabricated that story, hoping that uneducated American's would not question their word.

 

[phlogistician]

Hey Phlog, there are serious problems on the methodologies of such a theory. Though it can be noted that the CIA officially stated that the Military embraced the UFO phenomenon to keep under wraps the secret air technologies they had been developing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wLQvQ9mFck&feature=related

Oh dear. I mentioned credibility, and you linked to a video that features Bob Lazar.

Really dude, you need to work on your discernment. That vid declares Lazar to be an MIT graduate. There's no record of him attending MIT, let alone graduating. He can't provide his degree certificate, name one fellow student, show a picture in a yearbook, listing in a phone book, or even recall the name of a lecturer (He gave the name Hohsfield as an MIT lecturer, but that turned out to be a guy from the college Lazar attended, not an MIT lecturer.).

So, Lazar is full of shit, and you need to find something credible to offer.

 

[Reiku]

Oh dear. I mentioned credibility, and you linked to a video that features Bob Lazar.

Really dude, you need to work on your discernment. That vid declares Lazar to be an MIT graduate. There's no record of him attending MIT, let alone graduating. He can't provide his degree certificate, name one fellow student, show a picture in a yearbook, listing in a phone book, or even recall the name of a lecturer (He gave the name Hohsfield as an MIT lecturer, but that turned out to be a guy from the college Lazar attended, not an MIT lecturer.).

So, Lazar is full of shit, and you need to find something credible to offer.

I wasn't talking about Bob Lazar. :bugeye: I don't even believe in his claims, so stop evading my questions and posing this as something else. Can you answer my questions?

 

[Reiku]

Oh dear. I mentioned credibility, and you linked to a video that features Bob Lazar.

Really dude, you need to work on your discernment. That vid declares Lazar to be an MIT graduate. There's no record of him attending MIT, let alone graduating. He can't provide his degree certificate, name one fellow student, show a picture in a yearbook, listing in a phone book, or even recall the name of a lecturer (He gave the name Hohsfield as an MIT lecturer, but that turned out to be a guy from the college Lazar attended, not an MIT lecturer.).

So, Lazar is full of shit, and you need to find something credible to offer.

I was talking about the official CIA statement on UFO's which is mentioned in this documentary. Not only that, but you've ignored the better part of my post, let me highlight it for you:

Now, without even mentioning the Guy Hottel Memorandum, or other witness accounts that momentous day, could you explain to me if the Military was going to use a UFO ''explanation'' to account for the crash, why did they retract the statement almost immediately? Surely if they were going to use a UFO explanation to wash away their activities, they would have held onto this lie for much longer?

This doesn't make sense. So many people today are taking the CIA statement as them ''back-tracking'' again on the existence of alien technology. Many people simply don't believe that the Military would go originally to such extreems as to say it was a ''UFO'' that was possibly from another planet.

Here is another thing to consider, if indeed the UFO's are their own technologies, why are they displaying them often in view of hundreds of witnesses? This isn't keeping it low key at all and would seem to destroy the initial purpose that they seem to be saying they initiated in the first place. So many cases don't match up, such as the Pheonix Lights; why would the military shoot flares (at a remarkably low altitude) right above the town of Pheonix? Why would they have several orbs flying low over washington? These aren't products of their technologies... lol... they'd love to have you believe that but this is not the case.

The fact these objects are seen directly by hundreds of people, just defeats any secretive purposes. They might as well have a big arrow pointing at them saying ''here we are''.

 

[Reiku]

I just deleted by accident the original post in response to Phlog, but I copied it thankfully above. Concerning the pheonix lights:

So many cases don't match up, such as the Pheonix Lights; why would the military shoot flares (at a remarkably low altitude) right above the town of Pheonix?

The pheonix lights could not have been flares. Study the video evidence for yourself through this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5KtsZ5rIjo

The lights do not decend on the horizon. Flares are subject to falling due to gravity. This would be noticable as well considering how low the altitude was. The medical doctor also caught a picture of orbs two years preceeding the Pheonix light case with remarkable overtones.

 

[Reiku]

Along the same lines, testimony it couldn't have been flares

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb3pTOv886Y&feature=related

 

[phlogistician]

I wasn't talking about Bob Lazar. :bugeye: I don't even believe in his claims, so stop evading my questions and posing this as something else. Can you answer my questions?

I stopped watching the vid when they introduced Lazar. If that's their level of fact checking the rest is probably bullshit and not worth wasting my time on.

You need credible sources.

 

[phlogistician]

Along the same lines, testimony it couldn't have been flares

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb3pTOv886Y&feature=related

A documentary made by the woman that wrote (and profited) from a book?

Quote:

"it seemed an intelligent presence was staring back"

when eye witnesses come out with crap like that, you know they are delusional.

Sounds to me like she saw a formation of chinese lanterns. Here's a vid I took of chinese lanterns:

http://youtu.be/h_Djd8kJ6n8

Please, you need some discernment.

 

[Stryder]

He's obviously never seen ''I Robot''

I think it is definately one of the tasts of bioscientists to create life in the lab. Of course, we are god and we will have the ability to destroy it at any time, but for the sake of scientific discourse, I very much believe we will be intent on watching this life grow and evolve.

It is afterall the pinnacle of modern understanding of evolution, proving this absolutely would be very important.

Reflcetion on the BBC article: Could a robot be conscious?

That entry pretty much covers a position on life evolving as "How to make an inanimate object animate".