Proof for ETI: Part 2

[(Q)]

Not all researchers can repeat others experiments succesfully, especially when there is a consipiracy to withhold the information.

The information is available to anyone who wishes to reproduce the experiment, which has not been reproduced thus far. That should tell you something.

NASA is NOT working on anti-gravity technology. They inadvertently gave funding to a firm in Ohio back in 2000 to produce a gravity shield. It was money wasted.

Enterprisemission is a well-known crank site. Nice try though.

 

[Persol]

Nasa is also "working" on anti-gravity technology - in fact, it's Podkletnov's experiment, and they are trying to take credit for it!

Link please?

What do you think causes electricity, magnatism and gravity? They are caused from the fluctuation in the quantum vacuum. You see you are not aware of how much energy there is in this vacuum, because your point of zero is far higher than the energy beneath it.

Do you get all your science out of magazines? This is as of yet an unsupported theory. One of many... all of which could be wrong. This is in no way a substantiated statement.

Basically, you're waiting for the craft to come out, and if it does, next you will want is ETI to come out - otherwise you're not wrong - catch 22 situation

That's not a catch 22... that's evidence creep. I also think we've made it perfectly clear that a craft alone doesn't spell ET.

You are slipping further and further into believing just about anything. Very disturbing.

 

[crazymikey]

Link please?

I provided one already; anyway - http://www.enterprisemission.com/anti-grav.htm

Do you get all your science out of magazines? This is as of yet an unsupported theory. One of many... all of which could be wrong. This is in no way a substantiated statement.

Actually no ,I learn my science from cutting/edge physics from real physicists, as well as studying it. ZPE, vacuum energy, and electrogravitonics are widely accepted. You can do the research to verify it for yourself.

Please be more thoughtful before you condemn something as unsubstantiated. It's the only thing you ever say. To it reads like this: "I don't know about it, so it's unsubstantiated"

That's not a catch 22... that's evidence creep. I also think we've made it perfectly clear that a craft alone doesn't spell ET.

Actually it is a catch 22 situation. He wants it proven to him before he can investigate it much like yourself.

In other words it's like this - whatever is proven, is possible. When you see anti-gravity aircraft publically flying - it's proven, but ETI is not. When you see material produced like that of Roswell debris - it's proven, but ETI is not. When you see FTL - it's proven, but ETI is not. When you see advanced mind control technology - it's proven, but ETI is not. Irrespective that ETI is the common denominator.

So I just suggest you wait for ETI to be disclosed, because this thread is to investigate it, and you don't want to investigate it, you just want it all given to you on a sliver platter. I on the other hand, do not need to see ETI, to know they exist, because I can think independently.

 

[SkinWalker]

I provided one already; anyway - http://www.enterprisemission.com/anti-grav.htm

The counter-site: http://badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/index.html

Phil Plait dispells much or all of Hoagland's pseudoscience nonsense.

Actually it is a catch 22 situation. He wants it proven to him before he can investigate it much like yourself.

Burden of Proof Fallacy: pseudoscience proponent makes wild claim then condemns those who question said claim for not investigating. Usually followed by a "silver platter" comment.

When you see material produced like that of Roswell debris - it's proven, but ETI is not. When you see FTL - it's proven, but ETI is not. When you see advanced mind control technology - it's proven, but ETI is not. Irrespective that ETI is the common denominator.

I found it difficult to follow what you were trying to say there. I infer that you are saying improbable things are proven when proven? And that ETI is common to each of these speculative fantasies that may one day be proven to be neither speculative nor fantasy?

this thread is to investigate it, and you don't want to investigate it, you just want it all given to you on a sliver platter.

Threads in SciForums are for discussion and the OT poster should beware what they start if they fear criticism. I think one can assume that a pseudoscience forum on board dedicated to the sciences is where the nature and problems of pseudoscientific thinking are discussed as well as exposure of those that pass off research as being "scientific" that actually is taking advantage of the public-at-large's ignorance to scientific method. Such as the hype about psychotropic drugs causing teenagers who are prescribed to commit suicide (small sample size, biased sample, etc.).

Instead, this forum is overrun by wild and fantastic fantasizers looking for peer validation on "Science Board." I suggest visiting www.grahamhancock.com or www.atlantisrising.com for that kind of ego stroking and peer acceptance.

I on the other hand, do not need to see ETI, to know they exist, because I can think independently.

Interesting. I had a friend say the same thing to me today. Only he used the word "god" instead of "ETI." It looks to me (this is only my opinion) that all your thinking is done by Greer, Hoagland, and a multitude of other UFO cult-followers.

 

[Faulty]

Actually it is a catch 22 situation. He wants it proven to him before he can investigate it

Hey Crazymikey, when did I ever say I was going to investigate it? I'm in no catch 22 situation. I just want it proven to me before I accept it.

 

[Faulty]

Crazymikey, you say that the vacuum energy is like unknowingly standing on a hill and only realising it when you look down. This is exactly my point. Where is down? Where is the low ground of decreased energy potential if the vacuum energy is ubiquitous throughout the universe?

 

[crazymikey]

The counter-site: http://badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/index.html

Phil Plait dispells much or all of Hoagland's pseudoscience nonsense.

Wrong counter-site. I was only suppose to shows NASA's experiments with anti-gravity, the rest(face on Mars etc) is irrelavant.

Here is another link: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992611 (counter that )

Burden of Proof Fallacy: pseudoscience proponent makes wild claim then condemns those who question said claim for not investigating. Usually followed by a "silver platter" comment.

Actually no, again you call the wrong argument.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations....sskepticism.htm

The Pseudoskeptical Catch-22: "unconventional claims have to be proved before they can be investigated!" This way, of course, they will never be investigated or proved.

I found it difficult to follow what you were trying to say there. I infer that you are saying improbable things are proven when proven? And that ETI is common to each of these speculative fantasies that may one day be proven to be neither speculative nor fantasy?

You see, that you actually call these speculative fantasies, despite being provided evidence of their existence, must mean you are just ignorant.

Threads in SciForums are for discussion and the OT poster should beware what they start if they fear criticism. I think one can assume that a pseudoscience forum on board dedicated to the sciences is where the nature and problems of pseudoscientific thinking are discussed as well as exposure of those that pass off research as being "scientific" that actually is taking advantage of the public-at-large's ignorance to scientific method. Such as the hype about psychotropic drugs causing teenagers who are prescribed to commit suicide (small sample size, biased sample, etc.).

I am not taking about Sciforums broadly. I am talking about these "Proof for ETI" theads. If the skeptics want it to be proven before investigated or want "physical evidence" Then they might as well not post in these threads.

Instead, this forum is overrun by wild and fantastic fantasizers looking for peer validation on "Science Board." I suggest visiting www.grahamhancock.com or www.atlantisrising.com for that kind of ego stroking and peer acceptance.

Actually no, if you are referring to me, I don't need validation of some pseudo skeptics or forum members. I am only making them more aware of the ETI/UFO reality, so that they understand, it is a serious science.

I already have validation from serious well known scientists and researchers. It doesn't matter if the skeptics, who are not even scientists or versed in these sciences, agree

Interesting. I had a friend say the same thing to me today. Only he used the word "god" instead of "ETI." It looks to me (this is only my opinion) that all your thinking is done by Greer, Hoagland, and a multitude of other UFO cult-followers.

To be honest, I don't even know who Hoagland is. I do what everyone should be doing, I test the claims, and come to my own conclusions. How much independent thinking have you done to come to your conclusions, all you seem to do, is directly quote from other web sites and consider it debunked. Most of the time, the sites you quote, don't even have anything to do with the matter - which is very funny.

 

[crazymikey]

Crazymikey, you say that the vacuum energy is like unknowingly standing on a hill and only realising it when you look down. This is exactly my point. Where is down? Where is the low ground of decreased energy potential if the vacuum energy is ubiquitous throughout the universe?

Ok, I'll explain it like this.

Chemical and molecular energy

Your Zero point reference

Electrical energy

Atomic energy

Sub-atomic energy

Field energy

Unknown

Now looking down, means exploiting the binding energy of matter. From our zero point reference, chemical and molecular energy seems to be the greatest energy available. Until we can exploit eletrical energy from electrons, and atomic energy by splitting the atom, which previously was our zero-point.

Hence we already know, that our zero-point reference is wrong. Similarily, as we continue look down this energy well, the levels of energy available increase by powers of 10. If we exploit the energy of sub-atomic particles we yeild even greater output of energy than nuclear binding energies. Now a vacuum completely seemingly devoid of energy and matter is also binded by an unknown binding energy - because it's a state of existence - otherwise our universe would not exist.

Now according to the Heisenbergs uncertainty particle, that it is impossible to know both the momentum and the position of a particle, a true vacuum, where these particles come to stand-still, violates this principle, as we can now measure both its momentum and position perfectly. Therefore the vacuum cannot be devoid of energy, and by Einstein's equation, E= mc^2, it follows the vacuum energy produces particles that appear and disappear in intervals of planks constant.

This vacuum energy has been empirically verified:

1: Lambs shift - detected by a frequency alteration in the light emitted by an excited atom
2: Casimir effect - in a state of vacuum, two metal plates, pushed close enough, move closer to each other
3: Higgs bosons - in a state of complete vacuum, a spark of electrcity

There is absolutely no doubt that the vacuum energy exists. Yet, can we exploit it? The funny thing is, we are always exploiting it, without even knowing. How do you generate an electrical current from a magnetic field, where is this energy coming from - it's coming from somewhere. In other words we can modify a magnetic field into an electrical field, and an electrical field into a gravitational field - shown by the Biefield brown effect - which further means we can produce free energy by using inertial fields. This is not violating the laws of thermodynamics, because the energy we are are extracting was always there.

So the vacuum energy field exists, and, we can also access its energies. Free, clean, abundant energy for humanity, that the governments are so far denying us, and sadly, you are indirectly helping them

 

[SkinWalker]

Wrong counter-site. I was only suppose to shows NASA's experiments with anti-gravity, the rest(face on Mars etc) is irrelavant.

The point is, anything Hoagland has to say cannot be trusted since he has demonstrated a propensity to deceive in the past.

Here is another link: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992611 (counter that )

Sure. Did you ever stop to wonder why Podkletnov never published. He was scheduled to do so in at least two British peer-reviewed journals but it never happened.

In addition, Hathaway, Cleveland & Bao (2003) attempted to duplicate Podkletnov's experiments as he outlined in his unpublished paper and his published work in 1992 in Physica C and came to the following conclusions:

1. No weight modification or gravity-like force has been detected to the 0.001% level.
2. The method of detection of ??Josephson junctions?? internal to the superconducting disks needs to be clarified because the initial tests performed did not conclusively detect their existence.
3. The ability to achieve true AC Meissner levitation at 100 kHz was not successful because of the large size and weight of the disks used in the
   experiments. Apparently, the magnetic field intensity of the solenoid assembly proved to be too weak. Therefore, either greater power levels are required (greater than 1 kW), or the coil design needs to be optimized.

Not only did they review his methodology in setting up their own experiment, they also consulted Podkletnov to design their own.

It would seem that Podkletnov was in err, considering the inability for his hypothesis to be replicated.

Actually no, again you call the wrong argument.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations....sskepticism.htm

Your link was broken, but the skepticalinvestigations.org site has always seemed like a pseudoscience site to me. Regardless, I stand by my premise. You chose to present fantastic claims in a public forum, therefore the burdon of proof is on you. Period. It's your claim. I say it's all poppycock. Prove me wrong.

Which you have yet to do. All you've actually done is provide a bunch of pseudoscience shit in the form of a bunch of "believers" re-affirming their faiths, talk about "radar reports" without citing a reference to a single one that can be examined, spouting garbage about "ancient astronauts" who hovered over the Mid East at the time of Christ and posed for paintings long enough for artists a full millenium later to capture, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

Investigation into UFO/ETI is a waste of time since the supernatural and metaphysical cannot be falsified.

The Pseudoskeptical Catch-22: "unconventional claims have to be proved before they can be investigated!" This way, of course, they will never be investigated or proved.

I don't know who you're quoting there, but a claim's convention is irrelevant to the scientific method. It is either testable or it is not. To date, your UFO/ETI claims are untestable, non-repeatable, and non-falisifiable. Therefore, they are clearly pseudoscientific.

You see, that you actually call these speculative fantasies, despite being provided evidence of their existence, must mean you are just ignorant.

You've demonstrated no evidence.

Evidence is not simply some text on a screen that says: "this is evidence."
Evidence is testable, repeatable, and potentially falsifiable. NONE of the dribble you've offered up fits that bill.

There is no "mountains of evidence." Just mountains of crap.

I am not taking about Sciforums broadly. I am talking about these "Proof for ETI" theads. If the skeptics want it to be proven before investigated or want "physical evidence" Then they might as well not post in these threads.

Bleh. More pseudoscience rhetoric.

You are the one that has said, "proven," "proof," and "mountains of evidence." The skeptics have only pointed out how wrong you are, then you say, "but I'm investigating...... blah, blah...."

If you post in public, it should be discussed in public. As to your "investigation," I've only seen where you've cut and pasted from other pseudoscience sources. That's not conducting and "investigation," it's creating and anthology.

Perhaps the titles of your threads should have been "Anthologies of UFO/ETI Lore."

I am only making them more aware of the ETI/UFO reality, so that they understand, it is a serious science.

Ha! Yeah, that's successful. So far, you've only appealed to your fellow UFO/ETI cult members. The Science Board members don't appear to have changed their positions. I'm not including myself in that latter category. Compared to Goofyfish, WellCookedFetus, Persol, Q, and others, I'm just a visitor to SciForums. But I recognize it is "science" forums with a place to discuss "pseudoscience" from the perspective of real science.

If your topic is real or serious science, then you've posted in the wrong forum. Perhaps you should go to the Astronomy, Exobiology, and Cosmology forum. Post your "proof" there.

I already have validation from serious well known scientists and researchers.

Name two.

It doesn't matter if the skeptics, who are not even scientists or versed in these sciences, agree

Oh, I'm well versed in this field. Anthropology. I'm making it a life's work to study why people believe and their archaeological records. You should see my field notes on this site

To be honest, I don't even know who Hoagland is. I do what everyone should be doing, I test the claims, and come to my own conclusions.

And you'd think if you actually did test claims instead of talking about testing claims, you'd know who Hoagland was and that Podkletov's fanciful ideas are... well... fanciful.

How much independent thinking have you done to come to your conclusions, all you seem to do, is directly quote from other web sites and consider it debunked.

You really haven't followed my posts very closely then. For I routinely cite primary, peer-reviewed sources rather than lean on mere websites. I do, however, recognize that one such as yourself has limited access to scholarly journals, and therefore attempt to provide secondary sources of reputable credibility, such as the link above.

Most of the time, the sites you quote, don't even have anything to do with the matter - which is very funny.

Most of the time, you appear to lack the critical thinking ability and logical reasoning to figure out what these citations allude to - which is not particularly funny considering the steady decline in our nation's educational / technical status, particularly with regard to the sciences.

Reference

Hathaway, G.; Cleveland, B.; and Bao, Y. (2003). Gravity modification experiment using a rotating superconducting disk and radio frequency fields. Physica C vol. 385 pp. 488?500

 

[2inquisitive]

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0209/0209051.pdf
Skinwalker, you may want to read this paper published in the Journal J. Low Temp.
Physics in 2003. It is Podkletnov's latest research paper, VERY interesting. I have
given this link before, but you must have missed it. I even gave link in Physics and
Math forum. No one has disputed the claims.

 

[crazymikey]

You are pathetic(yet hilarious) sometimes Skinwalker. You violate every logic in the book, often misunderstand what is being said to you, and quote from web sites in interests of debunking, when it has nothing to do with the matter.

The point is, anything Hoagland has to say cannot be trusted since he has demonstrated a propensity to deceive in the past.

The point is, I don't even know who Hoagland was. I quoted the web site to show NASA and it's anti-gravity experiments, not to show Hoagland's theories of face on Mars. In fact, I did not even read that far.

Sure. Did you ever stop to wonder why Podkletnov never published. He was scheduled to do so in at least two British peer-reviewed journals but it never happened.

In addition, Hathaway, Cleveland & Bao (2003) attempted to duplicate Podkletnov's experiments as he outlined in his unpublished paper and his published work in 1992 in Physica C and came to the following conclusions:

1. No weight modification or gravity-like force has been detected to the 0.001% level.
2. The method of detection of ??Josephson junctions?? internal to the superconducting disks needs to be clarified because the initial tests performed did not conclusively detect their existence.
3. The ability to achieve true AC Meissner levitation at 100 kHz was not successful because of the large size and weight of the disks used in the
   experiments. Apparently, the magnetic field intensity of the solenoid assembly proved to be too weak. Therefore, either greater power levels are required (greater than 1 kW), or the coil design needs to be optimized.

Not only did they review his methodology in setting up their own experiment, they also consulted Podkletnov to design their own.

It would seem that Podkletnov was in err, considering the inability for his hypothesis to be replicated.

So let me get this straight - because x,y,z could not replicate Podkletnov's experiments, it must mean, Podkletnov is wrong?

If Podletnov was in error, Boeing, BAE, NASA and other aerospace firms all arounsd the world, would not be knocking at his door and pumping capitol into anti-gravity technology, and nor would Moscow be so possesive of his technology.

So it would seem that Podkletnov was not in error.

Your link was broken, but the skepticalinvestigations.org site has always seemed like a pseudoscience site to me. Regardless, I stand by my premise. You chose to present fantastic claims in a public forum, therefore the burdon of proof is on you. Period. It's your claim. I say it's all poppycock. Prove me wrong.

ROFL! So it is psuedoscience, as is everything else, you don't agree, because it shows you up? In fact it's a pro-skeptic site. I don't mean to offend, but those were some very childish comments.

Which you have yet to do. All you've actually done is provide a bunch of pseudoscience shit in the form of a bunch of "believers" re-affirming their faiths, talk about "radar reports" without citing a reference to a single one that can be examined, spouting garbage about "ancient astronauts" who hovered over the Mid East at the time of Christ and posed for paintings long enough for artists a full millenium later to capture, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

Pseudoscience shit? You've returned to roots it seems. You know the irony of this, you are not even a scientist - yet you so loudly proclaim everything that does not conform with your view of reality, as pseudoscience.

Investigation into UFO/ETI is a waste of time since the supernatural and metaphysical cannot be falsified.

If it is a waste of time - then don't post in this topic. Why are you wasting your time discussing it? What motivates you to post here, with no issue whatsoever, but only so you can put us down? What kind of human being are you?

I don't know who you're quoting there, but a claim's convention is irrelevant to the scientific method. It is either testable or it is not. To date, your UFO/ETI claims are untestable, non-repeatable, and non-falisifiable. Therefore, they are clearly pseudoscientific.

To date, you have not provided a single sensible argument that states your case. All you have done is condemn ETI/UFO as some cultist/fanatic movement, and in this post, you really have over-stepped the line - by calling it shit. You should be thankful, that despite your obnoxious attitude, and non-issue, I am still addressing your post as politely as I can.

You've demonstrated no evidence.

Really? We are on page 400+ since the start of these topics.

There is no "mountains of evidence." Just mountains of crap.

I guess your perception is identical to that.

Bleh. More pseudoscience rhetoric.

You are the one that has said, "proven," "proof," and "mountains of evidence." The skeptics have only pointed out how wrong you are, then you say, "but I'm investigating...... blah, blah...."



Perhaps the titles of your threads should have been "Anthologies of UFO/ETI Lore."



Ha! Yeah, that's successful. So far, you've only appealed to your fellow UFO/ETI cult members. The Science Board members don't appear to have changed their positions. I'm not including myself in that latter category. Compared to Goofyfish, WellCookedFetus, Persol, Q, and others, I'm just a visitor to SciForums. But I recognize it is "science" forums with a place to discuss "pseudoscience" from the perspective of real science.

If your topic is real or serious science, then you've posted in the wrong forum. Perhaps you should go to the Astronomy, Exobiology, and Cosmology forum. Post your "proof" there.



Name two.



Oh, I'm well versed in this field. Anthropology. I'm making it a life's work to study why people believe and their archaeological records. You should see my field notes on this site



And you'd think if you actually did test claims instead of talking about testing claims, you'd know who Hoagland was and that Podkletov's fanciful ideas are... well... fanciful.



You really haven't followed my posts very closely then. For I routinely cite primary, peer-reviewed sources rather than lean on mere websites. I do, however, recognize that one such as yourself has limited access to scholarly journals, and therefore attempt to provide secondary sources of reputable credibility, such as the link above.



Most of the time, you appear to lack the critical thinking ability and logical reasoning to figure out what these citations allude to - which is not particularly funny considering the steady decline in our nation's educational / technical status, particularly with regard to the sciences.

Reference

Hathaway, G.; Cleveland, B.; and Bao, Y. (2003). Gravity modification experiment using a rotating superconducting disk and radio frequency fields. Physica C vol. 385 pp. 488?500

This was a really childish and unnecessary post. You sound like an obnoxious man whose up-his-own-ass with no respect for others, and no interest in anything that does not conform with your your views. So please feel free to not post in these "shit" topics.

 

[SkinWalker]

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0209/0209051.pdf
Skinwalker, you may want to read this paper published in the Journal J. Low Temp. Physics in 2003. It is Podkletnov's latest research paper, VERY interesting.

Hathaway, et al attempted to replicate Podkletov's published research in the 1990's, not his experiment in J. Low Temp Physics. In fact, in the latter article (and I'm looking at the print version which put the article dead last in the journal for August) appears unrelated to Hathaway, et al's experiment. At any rate, I'd suggest reading the Physica C paper.

 

[crazymikey]

As promised: How I see human civilization in 1 million years. Well, it is difficult to extrapolate, when we already have technologies hundreds of thousands of years in advance of us, -courtesy ETI. So I will try my best to project 1 million ahead of those, and indulge myself in complete wild science fantasy:

Energy generation and production:

We would have access to an infinite energy source in the order of 10^100 by tapping the energy of virtual matter and the cosmos itself. This energy would be so powerful, as I said before, like tapping the power of God. It could annihilate universes or create universes.

Society:

Society would not exist as it does today. We would have evolved into a collective super intelligence integrated with cybernetic intelligence - due to neural reprogramming and genetic manipulation, we would have eliminated our negative emotions and thoughts and become a very warm socieity.

Education: Learning new information would be instantaneous due to the interconnected super intelligence.

Healthcare: With enhanced genetics and mind abilities, we would have self-automated health systems to combat viral infections and bodily malfunctions.

Biology: We would be greatly enhanced and have perfect aesthestic features. Wewould possess remarkable strength and intelligence, as well as advanced mind abilities to enable quantum effects. Life spans would be dramatically enhanced, with possible near immortality. We will also have the ability to interchange between matter and energy.

Communications: Communications will be instantanteous, irrespective of distance, by interconnecting the super-intelligence to the universal field.

Computing and artificial intelligence: The entire planet will be run by a super powerful quantum computer system that will regulate and monitor weather, temperature, humidity, as well as interconnect with the super-intelligence.
Using advanced holographic technology, we will be able to create alternate realities superimposed on our own - an extension of matrix level technology.

We will also experiment by creating entire holographic universes, and creating real holographic species - an extension of AI.

Warfare: Warfare may not be necessary for internal conflicts, as internal conflicts should not arise due to the super-intelligence network and eradication of negative emotions. However, there may exist possible threats from hostile ET civilizations.

Defence systems would utilize powerful force fields to withstand extreme energy weapons as well as systems to detect hostile activity across light years.

Beam Weapons with energy yields of 10^100 using virtual matter technology to completely wipe out planets.

Another very advanced weapons system would be invisible energy pulse computers, engineered at the quantum level to penetrate enemy planets or installations that then release sudden bursts of energy causing widepsread destruction - an extension of nanotechnology.

Space: We would have mapped out billions of light years of space by connecting to the universal field, as well as access higher dimensions and other time lines. We would have contact with billions of extraterrestrial civilizations and frequently journey in space seeking new civilizations. We will also have the technology to create our own planets and life. We will spend a lot of our efforts in helping other civilizations evolve.

Propulsion and transport: Propulsion will not be needed. Near instantenouos travel across billions of light years will be possible by manipulating the universal field.

Habitation and Environment: We would have colonized space, our oceans, and sub-terran lands as well as other planets, some that we have created ourselves.

Entertainment and life: How do you imagine human life to be from childhood to old age.
Human life will be a part of an intergalactic intelligence that is designed to act the role of God - and our role will be to create universes and life and help it along.

Advanced science and physics:

Advanced sciences and physics concepts from hereon would be to completely take on non-physical sentinent form, create spiritual dimensions, and be able to develop the mind to such levels, that any technology can be replicated at will - e.g. instantly teleporting to other universes at will, unleashing vast energy at will, and have complete mastery of spacetime; in other words, the technology to become gods.

 

[SkinWalker]

What's all that got to do with Proof of ETI? There is a correlation, however. Its all speculation.

So let me get this straight - because x,y,z could not replicate Podkletnov's experiments, it must mean, Podkletnov is wrong?

It means it is likely that Podkletov was in err.

If Podletnov was in error, Boeing, BAE, NASA and other aerospace firms all arounsd the world, would not be knocking at his door and pumping capitol into anti-gravity technology, and nor would Moscow be so possesive of his technology.

I see no evidence of either. But it stands to reason that an interest would exist that should be protected until such time as the hypothesis could be supported or refuted.

In addition, I never said that I disbelieved Podkletov's hypothesis or his methodology. I merely pointed out the work that others had done to test it. You, being the one who "tests all claims" can surely appreciate, even thank me, for that.

So it would seem that Podkletnov was not in error.

It would seem that until such time as he can revise his experiment and republish, that he is.

ROFL! So it is psuedoscience, as is everything else, you don't agree, because it shows you up? In fact it's a pro-skeptic site. I don't mean to offend, but those were some very childish comments.

The only thing that offends me about you is the baloney you pass off as "science." Like I said, the link you provided was broken, but the last time I looked at skepticalinvestigations.org (if it's the same site), it appeared to be a "pseudo-skeptic" site that had an agenda of passing itself off as a skeptic site, but one that justified pseudoscientific rationale. It's been a while since I looked at it, perhaps I'll visit again. I may have been wrong.

Pseudoscience shit? You've returned to roots it seems. You know the irony of this, you are not even a scientist - yet you so loudly proclaim everything that does not conform with your view of reality, as pseudoscience.

My position has never changed. But the pseudoscientific bulemia that you spout needs an opposing voice. Whether or not mine is effective is irrelevant, it's the attempt that is important. And its not my view of reality, its opposition to scientific method and logical positivism that is pseudoscience. Your methodology has been lacking from the outset and you refuse to revise. A distinct characteristic of pseudoscience.

If your claim(s) truly are valid or serious, why not post in the Astronomy, exobiology, and cosmology forum?

If it is a waste of time - then don't post in this topic. Why are you wasting your time discussing it? What motivates you to post here, with no issue whatsoever, but only so you can put us down? What kind of human being are you?

I'm a compassionate one. I have compassion for the lay-person who reads dribble like yours without a counter-argument because those that can don't believe it's worth their time to debate kooks on pseudoscience. Investigation of UFO/ETI (in the manner you attempt) is a waste of time. Refuting pseudoscientists never is.

To date, you have not provided a single sensible argument that states your case. All you have done is condemn ETI/UFO as some cultist/fanatic movement, and in this post, you really have over-stepped the line - by calling it shit.

It's apparent that you do not actually read the things I post, as I have effectively refuted each and every one of your wild claims. As have others. Yet you continue to press on, as if in some fantasy world, engaging in pseudoscientific bulemia.

You should be thankful, that despite your obnoxious attitude, and non-issue, I am still addressing your post as politely as I can.

Personally, I could care less how you address me. That would only reflect on you. I take full responsibility for any comment I make and, when wrong, will gladly make correction offer apology. I have yet to see where any of the "claims" you've made amount to more that shit. At least one can measure shit.

Really? We are on page 400+ since the start of these topics.

See above comment.

This was a really childish and unnecessary post. You sound like an obnoxious man whose up-his-own-ass with no respect for others, and no interest in anything that does not conform with your your views.

An expected response from a pseudoscientific proponent. Attack the the motives and attempt to attack the opponent.

So please feel free to not post in these "shit" topics.

Feel free to put me on your "ignore list." Because if you are making wild claims, it's likely that I'll question them.

 

[crazymikey]

Skinwalker,

I am not sure what I can gain with a discussion with you. You never seem to say anything new, it's always the same - "no evidence", "pseudoscience proponents", "UFO/ETI cults" it's almost as if you have zero intelligence and memory. I would appreciate you halt doing this, as it only detracts from the topic, and real reason - I'm getting bored of you.

 

[FieryIce]

I will reiterate.

Stop to think for a second, CrazyMikey, there is a say I have heard in relation to miltary and underlings of any sort, "I don't pay you to think".
Some thought processes will not match the humans thought processes. Don't forget humans use only a fraction of their brains at present, thus we humans were created with future potential, not necessarily the same applies to ETI.

 

[crazymikey]

Je ne comprend pas Fiery

 

[FieryIce]

You don't understand Mikey.
You don't understand why you are bored with SkinWalker, I just posted some reasons why.

 

[crazymikey]

Je capiche now

 

[FieryIce]

bien