Proof for ETI: Part 2
- Thread starter crazymikey
- Start date
- Status
Q, you keep asking for "hard evidence." I would like you to provide hard evidence confirming the existence of elephants, sure I've seen some pictures that could be something, sure I've heard people, even highly respected people and world leaders claim they have seen them firsthand, I've heard scientists explain in highly rational terms that elephants could exist, I've even heard that the government has some elephants trapped in cages, but all of that is just wild speculation as far as I'm concerned...So, Q, could you please produce some hard evidence if you expect me to believe in such a ridiculous creature as an elephant.
So, Q, could you please produce some hard evidence if you expect me to believe in such a ridiculous creature as an elephant.
I'm sorry you are unable to leave the confines of your house and make a trip to the zoo. Ask your mommy, she might take you there after school.
Very dumb post, grover.
I'm sorry you are unable to leave the confines of your house and make a trip to the zoo. Ask your mommy, she might take you there after school.
Very dumb post, grover.
How in the hell do you know? Cause they haven't been proven yet?
Some of us, who rather enjoy thinking, tend to reason out why aliens are not visiting earth. As well, we tend to seek evidence as opposed to testimonials.
Others like yourself, tend to believe whatever they want to believe and whatever anyone tells them to believe, regardless of the lack of evidence and the requirement to reason.
Some of us, who rather enjoy thinking, tend to reason out why aliens are not visiting earth. As well, we tend to seek evidence as opposed to testimonials.
Others like yourself, tend to believe whatever they want to believe and whatever anyone tells them to believe, regardless of the lack of evidence and the requirement to reason.
Roswell 1947
Here it is friends. The mother of UFO folklore and conspiracies. Interesting that word, "conspiracy" a legitimate word, yet just the mention of the dreaded word "conspiracy" provokes the thoughts of paranoia, delusion, wild claims and fraud. Yet, conspiracies are happening all the time, in particular, in politics, or governments. For instance, consider the recent Enron scandal. Some are so complex, and ingeniously devised and maintained that it becomes incredibly difficult to expose them. While some are so obvious, exposing them, only requires a shred of common sense. The Roswell UFO crash is one of those obvious conspiricies. In fact, it is so obviois, that any sensible person given the data and records would see the conspiracy from a light years distance(metaphor)
That is exactly what I'm going to do. We are not going to get bogged down in the particulars, or some unnecessary descriptions. The Roswell case is well documented and you can easily read up on it. We are going to anaylse the facts head on.
Introduction:
In 1947, in early July, during a thunder storm, a flying saucer has been alleged to have crashed in the Desert of Roswell, New Mexico, containing aliens bodies.
1: Initial claims:
in early July, Mac Brazel heard an explosion nearby mingled in a thunderstorm . The next day, Mac and his small friend, 7 year old neighbour boy, Dee, set out to for their daily routine in their fields. What they discovered, was about to write history. Scattered throughout the field, 100 feet wide, and a quarter mile long, were some kind of unknown shiny metallic debris. Mac took some of this debris and retreated home. The debris was peculiar, it was thin like tin foil, extremely light weight, and had some unknown inscriptions, hieroglyphic like. Later that afternoon, Mac took this strange debris with him to Dee's parents, Floyd, and Loretta. They were also baffled by this strange material, so much so, that they tried to test it by attempting to cut it with a knife and burning it with a match. The material was completely unaffected.
Mac took a sample of this debris to Chaves County Sheriff's Office and spoke to George Wilcox. In turn, George Wilcox contacted Roswell Army Air Field, Major Jesse A. Marcel, who was an intelligence officer. Meanwhile, the news of mysterious debris was circulating in the community, that it even attracted the attention of a radio station KGFL, who interviewed Mac over the phone.
Marcel met and interviewed Mac at the Sheriff's office, where he examined the debris. He reported the results to Colonel William H. Blanchard back at Roswell Army Base, who ordered a further investigation.
Marcel and Marc, together with Army Counter Intelligence Corps officer Sheridan Cavitt went to investigate the site:
When Marcel returned with the debris to Colonel Blanchard, he was orderd to load the debris on a B-29, and flying with it to Wright Field in Ohio, stopping on the way at Carswell AAFB in Ft. Worth, Texas. Colonel Walter Haut was given an order from Col. Blanchard to write a press release stating that the RAAF had in its possession a "crashed saucer."
2: The new claims
4 hours later, the story was retracted, and it was "identified" as a weather baloon, and even Marcel, the guy who initially investigated it, changed his account, and said on oath that it was a weather baloon.
Mac, the rancher, who initially discovered the debris was put under house arrest and detained at Roswell army air field. He claims to have been treated badly, prohibited from talking to anyone about it, or using a phone, and intensively questioned and intimidated. Later, he was released for a press conference, where Mac changed his stoy dramatically: He stated that some weeks later, on July 4th, he, his wife, and two children drove out to the debris field, and collected some samples. Among the collection were gray rubber strips, tinfoil, a type of heavy paper, and small wooden sticks. He was then escorted by the military to KGFL radio station, where he repeated the new account. Frank Joyce, interuptted in the broadcast, asking him why he had changed his story. Mac said in a distressed tone "It'll go hard on me" (One year later, Mac left Rosewell.)
Armed guards, and riflemen were deployed around the crash site area, and flights arrived from Washington with more forces.
Walt Whitmore Sr., the owner of KGFL Radio in Roswell, was ordered not to release the interview he had done with Mac earlier.
Military officials visited all the media offices, to which the origial press release was sent out to, Roswell, Santa Fe, Albuqerque to obtain copies of it. They also confiscated a wire-recording of an interview with Mac.
The case had been closed as quickly as it started.
Now let's analyse this story. I am of course, talking to the sensible people.
1: Mac, see's unknown material, he shows to the Sherrif.
2: The Sherrif see's the material, and reports it to Marcell an intelligent officer.
3: Marcell, sees material, and reports it to Colonel Blanchard, commander of the air base and whose previously been involved in the first atomic strike.
4: Marcell, along with, officer Sheridan Cavitt, Army Counter Intelligence Corps examine the crash site and recover the debris
5: Marcell reports back to Colonel Blanchard and Blanchard orders a press release saying, "Crashed saucer recovered"
6: 4 hours later, the story is retracted, and it's called a weather baloon and sworn on oath by Marcell.
So we're suppose to swallow, that all these people, including intelligence officers, and an airbase commander, who handeled this material first hand, cannot tell the difference between a weather baloon and a crashed flying saucer? And they expect us to be foolish enough to believe this? (They are right about a lot of the skeptics)
This is a weather baloon:
If you set light to it - it would burn.
If you try to cut it - it would cut
If you hit it with a sledge hammer - it would dent
If you try it rip it - it would crease
Further more if a weather baloon exploded, a force called air resistance, would not allow pieces of it to scatter all over hundred feet wide and quarter of a miles long. Unless of course its "crash" was followed by a twister.
Nonetheless, let's assume it was a weather baloon, a rather special weather baloon. This is what happend later for a "weather baloon"
1: Putting Mac Brazal under house arrest. Escorting him by military to a press conference, and then to KGFL radio.
2: Deployment of armed guards, and rifelmen all over the area. More arriving from washington by planes.
3: Confiscating copies of the original press release and interviews with Mac from every media organization who got it.
For what, a bloody weather baloon? If you have just a 1 brain-cell bullshit detector you'll see how this "weather baloon" story reeks of utter bullshit. No surprise, that approx 500 first and second hand eye witnesses ranging from common people to high ranking military officers have come forward and testified that it was not a weather baloon. What's most shocking is, what they have told us how they were given death threats, and generally terrorized and monitored,for ever speaking about the "the weather baloon" again.
Marcell in 1978 revealed the truth in an interview, where he said, it was NOT a weather baloon(no surprise, really) And also said how he had been given a stern warning not to talk about the crash to anyone.
His testimony:
"When we arrived at the crash site, it was amazing to see the vast amount of area it covered."
"...it scattered over an area of about three quarters of a mile long, I would say, and fairly wide, several hundred feet wide. "It was definitely not a weather or tracking device, nor was it any sort of plane or missile."
"I don't know what it was, but it certainly wasn't anything built by us and it most certainly wasn't any weather balloon."
"...small beams about three eighths or a half inch square with some sort of hieroglyphics on them that nobody could decipher. These looked something like balsa wood, and were about the same weight, except that they were not wood at all. They were very hard, although flexible, and would not burn at all. There was a great deal of an unusual parchment-like substance which was brown in color and extremely strong, and great number of small pieces of a metal like tinfoil, except that it wasn't tinfoil. I was interested in electronics and kept looking for something that resembled instruments or electronic equipment, but I didn't find anything.
"...Cavitt, I think, found a black, metallic-looking box several inches square. As there was no apparent way to open this, and since it didn't appear to be an instrument package of any sort, we threw it in with the rest of the stuff." "It had little numbers with symbols that we had to call hieroglyphics because I could not understand them. They were pink and purple. They looked like they were painted on. I even took my cigarette lighter and tried to burn the material we found that resembled parchment and balsa, but it would not burn , wouldn't even smoke," "...the pieces of metal that we brought back were so thin, just like the tinfoil in a pack of cigarettes," "...you could not tear or cut it either. We even tried making a dent in it with a sixteen-pound sledgehammer, and there was still no dent in it." Having rode to the site in two vehicles, Marcel sent Cavitt back to the base with his Jeep full of the material, and Marcel took his Buick, and stopped by his house to show his wife and son his amazing find.
Brigadier General Thomas DuBose, the chief of staff of the Eighth Air Force, after many years of silence also came forward "It was a cover story. The whole balloon part of it. That was the part of the story we were told to give to the public and news and that was it." There can be NO doubt that the orders to cover-up the saucer story came from our Chief Executive.
CONCLUSION:
It's obvious this was not a weather baloon. Approx 500 witnesses, including 6 generals, do not put their careers, and in some cases, life on the line, for weather baloons! Nor, does the army wreck havoc on civillians for a weather baloon.
Who is foolish enough to believe it was a weather baloon now?
Here it is friends. The mother of UFO folklore and conspiracies. Interesting that word, "conspiracy" a legitimate word, yet just the mention of the dreaded word "conspiracy" provokes the thoughts of paranoia, delusion, wild claims and fraud. Yet, conspiracies are happening all the time, in particular, in politics, or governments. For instance, consider the recent Enron scandal. Some are so complex, and ingeniously devised and maintained that it becomes incredibly difficult to expose them. While some are so obvious, exposing them, only requires a shred of common sense. The Roswell UFO crash is one of those obvious conspiricies. In fact, it is so obviois, that any sensible person given the data and records would see the conspiracy from a light years distance(metaphor)
That is exactly what I'm going to do. We are not going to get bogged down in the particulars, or some unnecessary descriptions. The Roswell case is well documented and you can easily read up on it. We are going to anaylse the facts head on.
Introduction:
In 1947, in early July, during a thunder storm, a flying saucer has been alleged to have crashed in the Desert of Roswell, New Mexico, containing aliens bodies.
1: Initial claims:
in early July, Mac Brazel heard an explosion nearby mingled in a thunderstorm . The next day, Mac and his small friend, 7 year old neighbour boy, Dee, set out to for their daily routine in their fields. What they discovered, was about to write history. Scattered throughout the field, 100 feet wide, and a quarter mile long, were some kind of unknown shiny metallic debris. Mac took some of this debris and retreated home. The debris was peculiar, it was thin like tin foil, extremely light weight, and had some unknown inscriptions, hieroglyphic like. Later that afternoon, Mac took this strange debris with him to Dee's parents, Floyd, and Loretta. They were also baffled by this strange material, so much so, that they tried to test it by attempting to cut it with a knife and burning it with a match. The material was completely unaffected.
Mac took a sample of this debris to Chaves County Sheriff's Office and spoke to George Wilcox. In turn, George Wilcox contacted Roswell Army Air Field, Major Jesse A. Marcel, who was an intelligence officer. Meanwhile, the news of mysterious debris was circulating in the community, that it even attracted the attention of a radio station KGFL, who interviewed Mac over the phone.
Marcel met and interviewed Mac at the Sheriff's office, where he examined the debris. He reported the results to Colonel William H. Blanchard back at Roswell Army Base, who ordered a further investigation.
Marcel and Marc, together with Army Counter Intelligence Corps officer Sheridan Cavitt went to investigate the site:
When Marcel returned with the debris to Colonel Blanchard, he was orderd to load the debris on a B-29, and flying with it to Wright Field in Ohio, stopping on the way at Carswell AAFB in Ft. Worth, Texas. Colonel Walter Haut was given an order from Col. Blanchard to write a press release stating that the RAAF had in its possession a "crashed saucer."
2: The new claims
4 hours later, the story was retracted, and it was "identified" as a weather baloon, and even Marcel, the guy who initially investigated it, changed his account, and said on oath that it was a weather baloon.
Mac, the rancher, who initially discovered the debris was put under house arrest and detained at Roswell army air field. He claims to have been treated badly, prohibited from talking to anyone about it, or using a phone, and intensively questioned and intimidated. Later, he was released for a press conference, where Mac changed his stoy dramatically: He stated that some weeks later, on July 4th, he, his wife, and two children drove out to the debris field, and collected some samples. Among the collection were gray rubber strips, tinfoil, a type of heavy paper, and small wooden sticks. He was then escorted by the military to KGFL radio station, where he repeated the new account. Frank Joyce, interuptted in the broadcast, asking him why he had changed his story. Mac said in a distressed tone "It'll go hard on me" (One year later, Mac left Rosewell.)
Armed guards, and riflemen were deployed around the crash site area, and flights arrived from Washington with more forces.
Walt Whitmore Sr., the owner of KGFL Radio in Roswell, was ordered not to release the interview he had done with Mac earlier.
Military officials visited all the media offices, to which the origial press release was sent out to, Roswell, Santa Fe, Albuqerque to obtain copies of it. They also confiscated a wire-recording of an interview with Mac.
The case had been closed as quickly as it started.
Now let's analyse this story. I am of course, talking to the sensible people.
1: Mac, see's unknown material, he shows to the Sherrif.
2: The Sherrif see's the material, and reports it to Marcell an intelligent officer.
3: Marcell, sees material, and reports it to Colonel Blanchard, commander of the air base and whose previously been involved in the first atomic strike.
4: Marcell, along with, officer Sheridan Cavitt, Army Counter Intelligence Corps examine the crash site and recover the debris
5: Marcell reports back to Colonel Blanchard and Blanchard orders a press release saying, "Crashed saucer recovered"
6: 4 hours later, the story is retracted, and it's called a weather baloon and sworn on oath by Marcell.
So we're suppose to swallow, that all these people, including intelligence officers, and an airbase commander, who handeled this material first hand, cannot tell the difference between a weather baloon and a crashed flying saucer? And they expect us to be foolish enough to believe this? (They are right about a lot of the skeptics)
This is a weather baloon:
If you set light to it - it would burn.
If you try to cut it - it would cut
If you hit it with a sledge hammer - it would dent
If you try it rip it - it would crease
Further more if a weather baloon exploded, a force called air resistance, would not allow pieces of it to scatter all over hundred feet wide and quarter of a miles long. Unless of course its "crash" was followed by a twister.
Nonetheless, let's assume it was a weather baloon, a rather special weather baloon. This is what happend later for a "weather baloon"
1: Putting Mac Brazal under house arrest. Escorting him by military to a press conference, and then to KGFL radio.
2: Deployment of armed guards, and rifelmen all over the area. More arriving from washington by planes.
3: Confiscating copies of the original press release and interviews with Mac from every media organization who got it.
For what, a bloody weather baloon? If you have just a 1 brain-cell bullshit detector you'll see how this "weather baloon" story reeks of utter bullshit. No surprise, that approx 500 first and second hand eye witnesses ranging from common people to high ranking military officers have come forward and testified that it was not a weather baloon. What's most shocking is, what they have told us how they were given death threats, and generally terrorized and monitored,for ever speaking about the "the weather baloon" again.
Marcell in 1978 revealed the truth in an interview, where he said, it was NOT a weather baloon(no surprise, really) And also said how he had been given a stern warning not to talk about the crash to anyone.
His testimony:
"When we arrived at the crash site, it was amazing to see the vast amount of area it covered."
"...it scattered over an area of about three quarters of a mile long, I would say, and fairly wide, several hundred feet wide. "It was definitely not a weather or tracking device, nor was it any sort of plane or missile."
"I don't know what it was, but it certainly wasn't anything built by us and it most certainly wasn't any weather balloon."
"...small beams about three eighths or a half inch square with some sort of hieroglyphics on them that nobody could decipher. These looked something like balsa wood, and were about the same weight, except that they were not wood at all. They were very hard, although flexible, and would not burn at all. There was a great deal of an unusual parchment-like substance which was brown in color and extremely strong, and great number of small pieces of a metal like tinfoil, except that it wasn't tinfoil. I was interested in electronics and kept looking for something that resembled instruments or electronic equipment, but I didn't find anything.
"...Cavitt, I think, found a black, metallic-looking box several inches square. As there was no apparent way to open this, and since it didn't appear to be an instrument package of any sort, we threw it in with the rest of the stuff." "It had little numbers with symbols that we had to call hieroglyphics because I could not understand them. They were pink and purple. They looked like they were painted on. I even took my cigarette lighter and tried to burn the material we found that resembled parchment and balsa, but it would not burn , wouldn't even smoke," "...the pieces of metal that we brought back were so thin, just like the tinfoil in a pack of cigarettes," "...you could not tear or cut it either. We even tried making a dent in it with a sixteen-pound sledgehammer, and there was still no dent in it." Having rode to the site in two vehicles, Marcel sent Cavitt back to the base with his Jeep full of the material, and Marcel took his Buick, and stopped by his house to show his wife and son his amazing find.
Brigadier General Thomas DuBose, the chief of staff of the Eighth Air Force, after many years of silence also came forward "It was a cover story. The whole balloon part of it. That was the part of the story we were told to give to the public and news and that was it." There can be NO doubt that the orders to cover-up the saucer story came from our Chief Executive.
CONCLUSION:
It's obvious this was not a weather baloon. Approx 500 witnesses, including 6 generals, do not put their careers, and in some cases, life on the line, for weather baloons! Nor, does the army wreck havoc on civillians for a weather baloon.
Who is foolish enough to believe it was a weather baloon now?
Last edited:
Hey lads, please ignore Q's posts, he's what I call, and even in Skeptical circles, a stupid skeptic. Even skeptics would not give his comments a glance. He's just too ignorant and, well, I do not want to sound harsh, but he's quite slow.
Nebuchadnezzaar
Registered Senior Member
PS, any thought of aliens is just a waste of time...
If they are here then there IS a conspiracy to cover it up and you're not part of it, so ner. AND that conspiracy involves forces so powerful that they can even allow lay people like you to post messages about their existence all over the place, and they still don't care. In short, if your right, there aint nothing you can do about except try to seek as much attention towards yourself so that when they decide to say, "We have landed, you can say I told you so." and everyone else won't care because they'll be too busy thinking about the aliens. Seriously what are you trying to prove? If you claim this is science, what can you prove, and what will it achieve? what is your purpose or goal in this matter? I see nothing logical or rational in it. just pure stupidity.
If they are here then there IS a conspiracy to cover it up and you're not part of it, so ner. AND that conspiracy involves forces so powerful that they can even allow lay people like you to post messages about their existence all over the place, and they still don't care. In short, if your right, there aint nothing you can do about except try to seek as much attention towards yourself so that when they decide to say, "We have landed, you can say I told you so." and everyone else won't care because they'll be too busy thinking about the aliens. Seriously what are you trying to prove? If you claim this is science, what can you prove, and what will it achieve? what is your purpose or goal in this matter? I see nothing logical or rational in it. just pure stupidity.
coolmacguy
Registered Senior Member
Typical reply. The debunkers' tactics never change. If they can't refute the facts, they feel the need to scream their proclamations even louder.
It really serves no purpose but to show how weak their position is.
They can't rely on the substance of their argument, instead they are forced to depend on the way they present it.
It really serves no purpose but to show how weak their position is.
They can't rely on the substance of their argument, instead they are forced to depend on the way they present it.
Not that typical coolmacguy, now he's really starting to become desperate, they all are, but that was super desperate. Although I would appreciate a moderator edits his post, as it's quite an eye sore.
Nebu, first of all, your attitude is all wrong:
A lot of your immature posts on this topic have been a waste of time. I believe even others have pointed out how ignorant and immature your attitude is.
Now, why do they let the information surface online:
Because they can't go around censoring all web sites that contain this information, and all forums, where this information is discussed. Also, the audience for UFO Phenonema, is a very small percentage of the internet population. They know, we cannot cause any damage to them. Further more, today, they have a more lax attitude to ETI and UFO awareness, because of it's assimilation in our pop culture. Thirdly, they know, there are immature ridiculers like you who will always shoot the issue down. Well I got news for you. This time you can't - and we can all see how much that is hurting you
Nebu, first of all, your attitude is all wrong:
A lot of your immature posts on this topic have been a waste of time. I believe even others have pointed out how ignorant and immature your attitude is.
Now, why do they let the information surface online:
Because they can't go around censoring all web sites that contain this information, and all forums, where this information is discussed. Also, the audience for UFO Phenonema, is a very small percentage of the internet population. They know, we cannot cause any damage to them. Further more, today, they have a more lax attitude to ETI and UFO awareness, because of it's assimilation in our pop culture. Thirdly, they know, there are immature ridiculers like you who will always shoot the issue down. Well I got news for you. This time you can't - and we can all see how much that is hurting you
Last edited:
crazymikey said:
Yep, you are debunked because you obviously aren't critical of anything to a good enough degree. As soon as I read your post, and you said 'jets' in the context of an event which occurred in 1942, my alarm bells went off. It was an anomoly, and as someone who is supposed to be able to differentiate between mundane terrestrial occurrences and extraterrestrial ones, one you should have spotted immediately.
It's all about the ability to think critically, and write accurately. If you use thoughtless disposable terms, that probably goes for the rest of your content too.
We don't need to do Roswell later, it's been thoroughly done. It was a balloon.
Phlogisitician, despite how much you've been shamed for making that point, it really does tell us a lot about your mentality, that you continue to preach it. In fact you know yourself how much of a fool you've made of yourself, so you're hopelessly trying to psychologically project your malfunction onto me, which is now making you look border-line retarded. I think this display is enough to not take you seriously. This will be my last response to you on this matter in fact. I have no time to entertain your stupidity.
P.S For someone who talks about critical thinking, and yet tries to throw away all the text written by someone, for calling a fighter plane, a "jet" which mind you, meant figher plane all along. Yet, at the same time swallows the weather baloon explanation offered for Roswell as the gospel truth when it was initially called a flying saucer You're a joke.
P.S For someone who talks about critical thinking, and yet tries to throw away all the text written by someone, for calling a fighter plane, a "jet" which mind you, meant figher plane all along. Yet, at the same time swallows the weather baloon explanation offered for Roswell as the gospel truth when it was initially called a flying saucer
You're a joke.
Last edited:
"shamed for making that point"?
I don't feel ashamed. Nobody else has said I'm shamed. Just you, whch shows all we have is your ego coming out. This always happens to believers once they are hard pressed. Congratulations for exhibiting the expected response.
You can carry on being the stereotypical follower, or you could actually put up some evidence.
Choice is yours, you may choose not to respond to my posts, but I'll keep replying to yours. Of course, if you want to just deliver monologues uncontested, why come to a discussion forum? Why not just stand on a soapbox on a street corner and spout like a manic street preacher?
I don't feel ashamed. Nobody else has said I'm shamed. Just you, whch shows all we have is your ego coming out. This always happens to believers once they are hard pressed. Congratulations for exhibiting the expected response.
You can carry on being the stereotypical follower, or you could actually put up some evidence.
Choice is yours, you may choose not to respond to my posts, but I'll keep replying to yours. Of course, if you want to just deliver monologues uncontested, why come to a discussion forum? Why not just stand on a soapbox on a street corner and spout like a manic street preacher?
MORE PROOF FOR WHY THE "SKEPTICAL ARGUMENTS" ARE ILLOGICAL
I've already proven how illogical and stupid the "skeptical" arguments are. To be technically correct, it is not the skeptical arguments, it's the stupid skeptical arguments. Lemming for instance, has been the sole skeptic, to be more or less true to the role. Skepticism literally means to - inquire and investigate.
However, at the same time, we have the pseudo - pathological skeptics lile Skinwalker, Persol, Nebuchadnezzaar, phlogistician, Q, amongst others, who are neither inquiring or investigating, in fact they're employing every logical fallacy in the book. A real skeptic would feel ashamed being associated with them.
However, in all fields, we have the pseudo propanents. We have to only seperate the chaff from the corn and throw it away.
Some of those most common fallacies I have already proven.
1: Ad Hominem - (Against the man)
This is the most abused fallacy.
Examples of this here:
"And in fact, other nutters here have done a far better job at arguing ETI than you.
You're not even in their league. Give it up.
- Q
"
"I'm sorry you are unable to leave the confines of your house and make a trip to the zoo. Ask your mommy, she might take you there after school.
Very dumb post, grover.
-Q"
"Yep, you are debunked because you obviously aren't critical of anything to a good enough degree. As soon as I read your post, and you said 'jets' in the context of an event which occurred in 1942, my alarm bells went off. It was an anomoly, and as someone who is supposed to be able to differentiate between mundane terrestrial occurrences and extraterrestrial ones, one you should have spotted immediately.
It's all about the ability to think critically, and write accurately. If you use thoughtless disposable terms, that probably goes for the rest of your content too.
- Phlogistician"
"But this is what the UFO/ETI cultists are good at: providing spurious evidence and spurious correlations in attempt to justify claims that have no testability or phyiscal evidence that can be measured or examined. They're also proficient at accusing the "skeptics" of being on the government payroll.
- Skinwalker"
"lemme guess, you're either:
a) An American
b) Very lonely, and have few friends
c) Studying philosphy at Uni for the first time
d) On lots of drugs
f) Haven't had sex in months/years
f) Surf the internet looking for interesting stuff too much, and in the process avoid the real world
g) All of the above
- Nebuchadnezzaar"
All statements are rejected because they violate not only common decency -but logic.
2: Comparing Apples to oranges - unfair compairson
"Sounds just like people who have seen God/Jesus/Bigfoot/Elvis/the Jersey Devil/whatever.
- Persol"
"The same thing that people who see bigfoot and Elvis have to gain. For WHATEVER reason, people make claims that will get ridicule. They do it anyway.
- Persol"
" If not, then you have nothing. The Disclosure Project, as Persol has throrougly pointed out, is but a collection of believers of various hierarchical positions and strata within various societies espousing their beliefs and their "testimony" in much the same way as religious devotees and cult followers do. In fact, it seems fairly clear to me that the UFO/ETI movement is but a loosely defined cult movement with various sects.
But back to the anecdotal "proofs:" humans have a long history of bearing witness to the supernatural and testifying to the importance of the metaphysical. But when it comes to falsifiability, they all fall into the same category. They cannot be falsified. Therefore, they remain in the realm of pseudoscience and baloney. I'm speaking of religious "miracles" and the belief in astrology as two examples. Both of these beliefs have people in various "high-ranking" positions within societies (Reagan reportedly used astrologers, though I don't have a reference to cite). The "rank" of a believer is insufficient to provide credibility by itself.
- Skinwalker"
" Their fanatical devotion has created the same belief structure found in the archaic stage of Religious Development as outlined by Bellah (1964). The UFO/ETI cult has priests, prophets, sacrifices (albeit those of personal wealth in the form of time, money, prestige, social-standing in the non-UFO/ETI realm), and the distinction between men and gods (the ETI). World-rejection and salvation are themes more present at the historic stage, according to Bellah, but are also seen as motifs in the UFO/ETI cult
- Skinwalker"
"I find that I actually laughed out loud in checking the author of one of your "abstracts."
One of the first things I do in bibliographical research on a topic is to see what else an author has published, so I noticed that there was an author with a PhD: Richard F. Haines. In looking at the usual places, academic databases like Ebsco Host, etc. I could only find a sociologist in London and it looked like the wrong Haines. So I tried google instead so I could figure out what discipline the PhD was in then go back to the right database....
The very first google link gives me the guy:http://4dreamland.com/host/hainsbio.html This link itself points to the good doctor's CD-ROM, which can be had for $54.95 if you act now.
- Skinwalker "
" While I did use a root of the word fanatic in this thread, I'm sure I didn't say "they're all fanatics." What I am saying is that people have always held fantastic beliefs of the supernatural and metaphysical throughout history ?and en masse. Whole populations once believed that gods like Hera and Zeuss ruled the cosmos and many claimed to see mythical beings such as centaurs and minotaurs in support of these beliefs. Large numbers of people they're witnesses to miracles ranging from faith healings to appearances of the virgin mother and various patron saints. People even share the belief that they've witnessed chupacabras in the southwest and Mexico.
- Skinwalker"
All statements are rejected because they violate logic.
3: Incorrect application of the philosophy "extraordinary proof requires extraordinary evidence" and denial of evidence. This is the 2nd most common fallacy:
"What evidence? You've yet to present any
- Skinwalker"
"Well see... that's the funny part. You haven't presented any evidence, only claims. How exactly are we supposed to investigate these?
- Persol"
"The doubt in the case of ET is overwhelming considering there is no hard evidence to justify any claims of ET.
- Q"
"No they are very logical, and sane. Aliens have not made contact with earth because there is no hard evidence anywhere that they have. NO REAL EVIDENCE, see above.
- Nebuchadnezzaar"
All statemets are rejected because they violate logic. Also note the irony here, when they are provided evidence, they dismiss it, and then again reiterate like parrots - "there is no evidence"
4: Incorrect application of Occam's Razor
"Like Roswell, this 'UFO' was just another balloon, except this one had a flare slung underneath it, rather than a Geiger counter
- phlogistician"
"We don't need to do Roswell later, it's been thoroughly done. It was a balloon.
- phlogistician"
Amongst the miscellanious claims of neon lights, baloons, delusions etc
All statements are rejected because they violate logic.
In other words, whatever has been said against ETI so far, 99% of it can be rejected. This is why I said none of the proofs and arguments in favour of ETI have been succesfully refuted.
Now, we are going to actually reference to an article on skeptcism:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/objectivity/bogusskepticism.htm
A skeptic web site, that proves how bogus these skeptics are.
1. The Skeptic has reached her skeptical opinion not after careful research and examination of the claim, but simply based on media reports and other forms of second-hand knowledge.
- This applies to all, but mostly applies to phlogistician and Persol. Who do not investigate, but instead parrot information from another site or investigation as the gospel truth, because of their inability and unwillingness to investigate.
Using information from another web site as a source, or reference, is reasonable. What's not reasonable is parroting the conclusions and results of others.
2. Making uncontrolled criticisms. A criticism is uncontrolled if the same criticism could equally be applied to accepted science.
- This applies to all that dismiss FTL, zero point physics, string theory, anti-gravity, purporting that they are being scientific, when in fact, those areas are recognized and valid science.
3. 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.
This applies to all those pseudo skeptics already mentioned. They say they want evidence to prove it, yet when they are given evidence, they say it is unproven. Because they are incapable and unwilling to investigate the claims, they simply dismiss them. Which means, we just dismiss them, for their obvious stupidity.
4. Evidence of refutal is anecdotal or otherwise scientifically worthless. Pseudoskeptics tend to accept conventional "explanations" for unconventional phenomena very easily, no matter how weak, contrived or far-fetched. A good historical example is the rejection of the crop circle phenomenon.
This applies to all aforementioned pseudo skeptics. They display an absolute lack of independent thinking and just swallow and regurgitate any conventional explanation without testing it. Any written and oral evidence, including data of studies from reliable sources is dismissed as anedotal. In other words no amount of evidence will suffice. Yet, notice the hypocrisy. They will accept anecdotal evidence or data in scientific text books, or journals, or even in a media publication.
When they ask for physical evidence, they literally are asking for physical evidence. A stupid and impossible demand for us.
5. The Skeptic rejects a discovery or invention merely because it has been believed for a long time that such a thing as the claimed discovery or invention is impossible.
This applies too all those anti-cold fusion, anti-free energy, and anti-antigravity proponents.
6. The Skeptic claims that the claimed effect contradicts the "laws of nature" (and therefore has to be wrong, since the Skeptic and the scientific community he presumes to represent have of course already complete knowledge of the laws of nature).
This applies to all those pseudo skeptics who think interstellar travel is impossible because our laws of nature do not allow it. In fact, this is the most telling fallacy. They are willing to accept ETI's existence, but are not willing to accept ETI is capable of interstellar travel.
7. The Skeptic believes in scientific mob rule. "In Science, the Majority Consensus is Always Right".
Yet, any scientific discovery is always made against the majority consensus.
CONCLUSION:
Although it was obvious all the time, the "skeptics" were being irrational. I feel, it was my duty to seperate these pseudo skeptics from real skepticism, as they are marring the name of skepticism. A field that I respect.
Skinwalker, Persol, Nebuchadnezzaar, phlogistician, Q, and amongst others whose names I cannot recall, are guilty of being consistenly stupid, and thus I urge anyone who thinks they are rational minded, to discard all their points and ignore them from now on. These are very dishonest people, who are not here to investigate the truth, but to annoy us and incite personality wars. Like children in pre-school.
That does not mean, I do not want skepticism. If you have doubts about the proofs and evidence provided thus far, make then known in a sensible manner that stimulates intellectual discussion. I just don't want stupidity, especially stupidity that is self-legitimized
I've already proven how illogical and stupid the "skeptical" arguments are. To be technically correct, it is not the skeptical arguments, it's the stupid skeptical arguments. Lemming for instance, has been the sole skeptic, to be more or less true to the role. Skepticism literally means to - inquire and investigate.
However, at the same time, we have the pseudo - pathological skeptics lile Skinwalker, Persol, Nebuchadnezzaar, phlogistician, Q, amongst others, who are neither inquiring or investigating, in fact they're employing every logical fallacy in the book. A real skeptic would feel ashamed being associated with them.
However, in all fields, we have the pseudo propanents. We have to only seperate the chaff from the corn and throw it away.
Some of those most common fallacies I have already proven.
1: Ad Hominem - (Against the man)
This is the most abused fallacy.
Examples of this here:
"And in fact, other nutters here have done a far better job at arguing ETI than you.
You're not even in their league. Give it up.
- Q
"
"I'm sorry you are unable to leave the confines of your house and make a trip to the zoo. Ask your mommy, she might take you there after school.
Very dumb post, grover.
-Q"
"Yep, you are debunked because you obviously aren't critical of anything to a good enough degree. As soon as I read your post, and you said 'jets' in the context of an event which occurred in 1942, my alarm bells went off. It was an anomoly, and as someone who is supposed to be able to differentiate between mundane terrestrial occurrences and extraterrestrial ones, one you should have spotted immediately.
It's all about the ability to think critically, and write accurately. If you use thoughtless disposable terms, that probably goes for the rest of your content too.
- Phlogistician"
"But this is what the UFO/ETI cultists are good at: providing spurious evidence and spurious correlations in attempt to justify claims that have no testability or phyiscal evidence that can be measured or examined. They're also proficient at accusing the "skeptics" of being on the government payroll.
- Skinwalker"
"lemme guess, you're either:
a) An American
b) Very lonely, and have few friends
c) Studying philosphy at Uni for the first time
d) On lots of drugs
f) Haven't had sex in months/years
f) Surf the internet looking for interesting stuff too much, and in the process avoid the real world
g) All of the above
- Nebuchadnezzaar"
All statements are rejected because they violate not only common decency -but logic.
2: Comparing Apples to oranges - unfair compairson
"Sounds just like people who have seen God/Jesus/Bigfoot/Elvis/the Jersey Devil/whatever.
- Persol"
"The same thing that people who see bigfoot and Elvis have to gain. For WHATEVER reason, people make claims that will get ridicule. They do it anyway.
- Persol"
" If not, then you have nothing. The Disclosure Project, as Persol has throrougly pointed out, is but a collection of believers of various hierarchical positions and strata within various societies espousing their beliefs and their "testimony" in much the same way as religious devotees and cult followers do. In fact, it seems fairly clear to me that the UFO/ETI movement is but a loosely defined cult movement with various sects.
But back to the anecdotal "proofs:" humans have a long history of bearing witness to the supernatural and testifying to the importance of the metaphysical. But when it comes to falsifiability, they all fall into the same category. They cannot be falsified. Therefore, they remain in the realm of pseudoscience and baloney. I'm speaking of religious "miracles" and the belief in astrology as two examples. Both of these beliefs have people in various "high-ranking" positions within societies (Reagan reportedly used astrologers, though I don't have a reference to cite). The "rank" of a believer is insufficient to provide credibility by itself.
- Skinwalker"
" Their fanatical devotion has created the same belief structure found in the archaic stage of Religious Development as outlined by Bellah (1964). The UFO/ETI cult has priests, prophets, sacrifices (albeit those of personal wealth in the form of time, money, prestige, social-standing in the non-UFO/ETI realm), and the distinction between men and gods (the ETI). World-rejection and salvation are themes more present at the historic stage, according to Bellah, but are also seen as motifs in the UFO/ETI cult
- Skinwalker"
"I find that I actually laughed out loud in checking the author of one of your "abstracts."
One of the first things I do in bibliographical research on a topic is to see what else an author has published, so I noticed that there was an author with a PhD: Richard F. Haines. In looking at the usual places, academic databases like Ebsco Host, etc. I could only find a sociologist in London and it looked like the wrong Haines. So I tried google instead so I could figure out what discipline the PhD was in then go back to the right database....
The very first google link gives me the guy:http://4dreamland.com/host/hainsbio.html This link itself points to the good doctor's CD-ROM, which can be had for $54.95 if you act now.
- Skinwalker "
" While I did use a root of the word fanatic in this thread, I'm sure I didn't say "they're all fanatics." What I am saying is that people have always held fantastic beliefs of the supernatural and metaphysical throughout history ?and en masse. Whole populations once believed that gods like Hera and Zeuss ruled the cosmos and many claimed to see mythical beings such as centaurs and minotaurs in support of these beliefs. Large numbers of people they're witnesses to miracles ranging from faith healings to appearances of the virgin mother and various patron saints. People even share the belief that they've witnessed chupacabras in the southwest and Mexico.
- Skinwalker"
All statements are rejected because they violate logic.
3: Incorrect application of the philosophy "extraordinary proof requires extraordinary evidence" and denial of evidence. This is the 2nd most common fallacy:
"What evidence? You've yet to present any
- Skinwalker"
"Well see... that's the funny part. You haven't presented any evidence, only claims. How exactly are we supposed to investigate these?
- Persol"
"The doubt in the case of ET is overwhelming considering there is no hard evidence to justify any claims of ET.
- Q"
"No they are very logical, and sane. Aliens have not made contact with earth because there is no hard evidence anywhere that they have. NO REAL EVIDENCE, see above.
- Nebuchadnezzaar"
All statemets are rejected because they violate logic. Also note the irony here, when they are provided evidence, they dismiss it, and then again reiterate like parrots - "there is no evidence"
4: Incorrect application of Occam's Razor
"Like Roswell, this 'UFO' was just another balloon, except this one had a flare slung underneath it, rather than a Geiger counter
- phlogistician"
"We don't need to do Roswell later, it's been thoroughly done. It was a balloon.
- phlogistician"
Amongst the miscellanious claims of neon lights, baloons, delusions etc
All statements are rejected because they violate logic.
In other words, whatever has been said against ETI so far, 99% of it can be rejected. This is why I said none of the proofs and arguments in favour of ETI have been succesfully refuted.
Now, we are going to actually reference to an article on skeptcism:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/objectivity/bogusskepticism.htm
A skeptic web site, that proves how bogus these skeptics are.
1. The Skeptic has reached her skeptical opinion not after careful research and examination of the claim, but simply based on media reports and other forms of second-hand knowledge.
- This applies to all, but mostly applies to phlogistician and Persol. Who do not investigate, but instead parrot information from another site or investigation as the gospel truth, because of their inability and unwillingness to investigate.
Using information from another web site as a source, or reference, is reasonable. What's not reasonable is parroting the conclusions and results of others.
2. Making uncontrolled criticisms. A criticism is uncontrolled if the same criticism could equally be applied to accepted science.
- This applies to all that dismiss FTL, zero point physics, string theory, anti-gravity, purporting that they are being scientific, when in fact, those areas are recognized and valid science.
3. 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.
This applies to all those pseudo skeptics already mentioned. They say they want evidence to prove it, yet when they are given evidence, they say it is unproven. Because they are incapable and unwilling to investigate the claims, they simply dismiss them. Which means, we just dismiss them, for their obvious stupidity.
4. Evidence of refutal is anecdotal or otherwise scientifically worthless. Pseudoskeptics tend to accept conventional "explanations" for unconventional phenomena very easily, no matter how weak, contrived or far-fetched. A good historical example is the rejection of the crop circle phenomenon.
This applies to all aforementioned pseudo skeptics. They display an absolute lack of independent thinking and just swallow and regurgitate any conventional explanation without testing it. Any written and oral evidence, including data of studies from reliable sources is dismissed as anedotal. In other words no amount of evidence will suffice. Yet, notice the hypocrisy. They will accept anecdotal evidence or data in scientific text books, or journals, or even in a media publication.
When they ask for physical evidence, they literally are asking for physical evidence. A stupid and impossible demand for us.
5. The Skeptic rejects a discovery or invention merely because it has been believed for a long time that such a thing as the claimed discovery or invention is impossible.
This applies too all those anti-cold fusion, anti-free energy, and anti-antigravity proponents.
6. The Skeptic claims that the claimed effect contradicts the "laws of nature" (and therefore has to be wrong, since the Skeptic and the scientific community he presumes to represent have of course already complete knowledge of the laws of nature).
This applies to all those pseudo skeptics who think interstellar travel is impossible because our laws of nature do not allow it. In fact, this is the most telling fallacy. They are willing to accept ETI's existence, but are not willing to accept ETI is capable of interstellar travel.
7. The Skeptic believes in scientific mob rule. "In Science, the Majority Consensus is Always Right".
Yet, any scientific discovery is always made against the majority consensus.
CONCLUSION:
Although it was obvious all the time, the "skeptics" were being irrational. I feel, it was my duty to seperate these pseudo skeptics from real skepticism, as they are marring the name of skepticism. A field that I respect.
Skinwalker, Persol, Nebuchadnezzaar, phlogistician, Q, and amongst others whose names I cannot recall, are guilty of being consistenly stupid, and thus I urge anyone who thinks they are rational minded, to discard all their points and ignore them from now on. These are very dishonest people, who are not here to investigate the truth, but to annoy us and incite personality wars. Like children in pre-school.
That does not mean, I do not want skepticism. If you have doubts about the proofs and evidence provided thus far, make then known in a sensible manner that stimulates intellectual discussion. I just don't want stupidity, especially stupidity that is self-legitimized
Last edited:
Since mikeys said im following the lines of a skeptic(thankyou mikey) i might aswell join the conversation so....
First off, im not sure if it was you who posted this mikey but somebody said 'was mary artificially inseminated by aliens' i find the simplest explanation to be the most likely, if she existed (as i dont believe she or jesus did, at least not in the capacity they have been claimed to. I believe the bible to be fake but thats a different topic) the simplest explanation for a virgin birth, is she wasnt a virgin(maybe it wasnt josephs and he assumed she was a virgin because he didnt do it with her?), i find either possibility simpler than her being artificially inseminated by aliens.(but good theory all the same)
Secondly the paintings you provided(unless i missed one) all date from 1300 onwards, so the depiction of a UFO in the painting has been added from somewhere around that date, and at the artists discretion. Perhaps meaning that people have needed/wanted ET beings to visit from 1300, although because it was widely painted doesnt mean anything actually visited, paintings are a creative outlet and simple random shapes can be made to seem like whatever you want them to, besides, if i believed paintings then picasso had some funny friends.
Thirdly i'd just like to ask how intelligent they really are, if they've studied us for 40000 years then they clearly arnt hostile or trying to enslave us, so after all this studying you would expect them to realise the reason humans panic at the thought of aliens is only because they are scared they are here to wipe us out, if they've been around for as long as you say and not done anything then we wouldnt be scared.
P.S. If you really believe this to be true and you have enough to prove it then kindly stop bringing the topic up in 'pseudoscience' as pseudo means fake and unexplained, if you believe you've explained it and its real then please start this topic again in the science section and put your money where your mouth is so to speak. Other than that i shall bid you good day and leave you to it, and hope the discussion continues and the character attacks stop.
) i might aswell join the conversation so....First off, im not sure if it was you who posted this mikey but somebody said 'was mary artificially inseminated by aliens' i find the simplest explanation to be the most likely, if she existed (as i dont believe she or jesus did, at least not in the capacity they have been claimed to. I believe the bible to be fake but thats a different topic) the simplest explanation for a virgin birth, is she wasnt a virgin(maybe it wasnt josephs and he assumed she was a virgin because he didnt do it with her?), i find either possibility simpler than her being artificially inseminated by aliens.(but good theory all the same)
Secondly the paintings you provided(unless i missed one) all date from 1300 onwards, so the depiction of a UFO in the painting has been added from somewhere around that date, and at the artists discretion. Perhaps meaning that people have needed/wanted ET beings to visit from 1300, although because it was widely painted doesnt mean anything actually visited, paintings are a creative outlet and simple random shapes can be made to seem like whatever you want them to, besides, if i believed paintings then picasso had some funny friends.
Thirdly i'd just like to ask how intelligent they really are, if they've studied us for 40000 years then they clearly arnt hostile or trying to enslave us, so after all this studying you would expect them to realise the reason humans panic at the thought of aliens is only because they are scared they are here to wipe us out, if they've been around for as long as you say and not done anything then we wouldnt be scared.
P.S. If you really believe this to be true and you have enough to prove it then kindly stop bringing the topic up in 'pseudoscience' as pseudo means fake and unexplained, if you believe you've explained it and its real then please start this topic again in the science section and put your money where your mouth is so to speak. Other than that i shall bid you good day and leave you to it, and hope the discussion continues and the character attacks stop.
OK, just a quickie. Dictionary definition of a skeptic is not somebody who will 'inquire and investigate' but someone who is an adherant or advocate of skepticism, which is an attitude of doubt, incredulity, the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain, the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic.
So your opening gambit of drawing the debate about skeptics has been outed as a straw man. You have set up a false definition of the word to suit your needs, in an attempt to judge us by your own standards.
You then use this false premise to launch an ad-hom against your detractors. This is in itself hypocritical.
You do admit however, that there is no physical evidence, but call that a 'stupid demand'. It's only stupid because you can't satisfy it!
You reject other's statements they 'violate logic'. No. What you forget is that the majority of your detractors are trained scientists, well versed in the formation and testing of hypotheses, and the gathering and examination of data. This is a logical pursuit. When we use a logical approach to analyse the suposed ET phenomenon, we end up with too many interdependant unproveable prerequisites that violate our current understanding of physics. If somehow these problems had been solved by aliens, it then adds further questions to the motivation of the ETs coming here, and anybodies ability to cover that up. Then, you have the gall to mention Occam's razor! How can you do that, in good faith, when there are so many things that have to be invented to explain away the holes in the ET hypothesis?
You say we are talking about a field we haven't researched. Wrong, many of us have done research, and found evidence to the contary of yours. Being scientists, and this contrary evidence backing up estabished scientific principles, what are we to do?
Let's compare what the sides have:
Skeptics have. Good testable, predicatable scientific models of how the Universe works. Evidence that many UFO sightings are mundane and misreported. Explanations and hypotheses for many other sightings.
Believers have a bunch of unproveable interrelated hypotheses. No testable models, no physical evidence, and flawed eye witness reports.
But you draw the conclusion that skeptics are being irrational? Now that is illogical!
But you are good fun.
So your opening gambit of drawing the debate about skeptics has been outed as a straw man. You have set up a false definition of the word to suit your needs, in an attempt to judge us by your own standards.
You then use this false premise to launch an ad-hom against your detractors. This is in itself hypocritical.
You do admit however, that there is no physical evidence, but call that a 'stupid demand'. It's only stupid because you can't satisfy it!
You reject other's statements they 'violate logic'. No. What you forget is that the majority of your detractors are trained scientists, well versed in the formation and testing of hypotheses, and the gathering and examination of data. This is a logical pursuit. When we use a logical approach to analyse the suposed ET phenomenon, we end up with too many interdependant unproveable prerequisites that violate our current understanding of physics. If somehow these problems had been solved by aliens, it then adds further questions to the motivation of the ETs coming here, and anybodies ability to cover that up. Then, you have the gall to mention Occam's razor! How can you do that, in good faith, when there are so many things that have to be invented to explain away the holes in the ET hypothesis?
You say we are talking about a field we haven't researched. Wrong, many of us have done research, and found evidence to the contary of yours. Being scientists, and this contrary evidence backing up estabished scientific principles, what are we to do?
Let's compare what the sides have:
Skeptics have. Good testable, predicatable scientific models of how the Universe works. Evidence that many UFO sightings are mundane and misreported. Explanations and hypotheses for many other sightings.
Believers have a bunch of unproveable interrelated hypotheses. No testable models, no physical evidence, and flawed eye witness reports.
But you draw the conclusion that skeptics are being irrational? Now that is illogical!
But you are good fun.
Thanks for the reply, Lemming3k:
I am mentioning your name, because you have been the most willing to engage in discussion, although that does not necessarily imply, your points are strong.
Lemming, it's unreasonable to assume in the 13th century and prior we would be conjouring UFO and ETI in the absence of the knowledge of flight, aerodynamics, space travel, extra-solar planets, space biology, rockertry and any other stimulus to allow the fabrication of this.It is also very absurd, that from 40,000 years, in every time period, there would be identical descriptions, if it was merely a fabrication. It is thus incontrovertiable proof of the existence of UFO's and ETI.
The presence of UFO's in the paintings from 13th century and onwards are certainly not an optical or perceptive illusion. Their presence is clearly defined, in some cases, we even see beams originating from them. Remember, as well as being recorded pictographically, they were also recorded historically from as early as the dawn of man.
I do believe, Mary and Jesus were real personalities, as there are historical records of their existence.
I do not concur, that this forum, is fake science. If you noted, I have already brought the issue forth, of having it renamed. If I had started this thread in the science forum, it would be have been deleted, or moved to this forum, as wrongly, ETI and UFO's have been clumped into this category of pseudoscience.
However, if the moderators feel this topic is now "eligible" for mainstream discussion, then I would not mind, if it is moved there. However, Lemming, there is little chance, that will happen.
I am mentioning your name, because you have been the most willing to engage in discussion, although that does not necessarily imply, your points are strong.
Lemming, it's unreasonable to assume in the 13th century and prior we would be conjouring UFO and ETI in the absence of the knowledge of flight, aerodynamics, space travel, extra-solar planets, space biology, rockertry and any other stimulus to allow the fabrication of this.It is also very absurd, that from 40,000 years, in every time period, there would be identical descriptions, if it was merely a fabrication. It is thus incontrovertiable proof of the existence of UFO's and ETI.
The presence of UFO's in the paintings from 13th century and onwards are certainly not an optical or perceptive illusion. Their presence is clearly defined, in some cases, we even see beams originating from them. Remember, as well as being recorded pictographically, they were also recorded historically from as early as the dawn of man.
I do believe, Mary and Jesus were real personalities, as there are historical records of their existence.
I do not concur, that this forum, is fake science. If you noted, I have already brought the issue forth, of having it renamed. If I had started this thread in the science forum, it would be have been deleted, or moved to this forum, as wrongly, ETI and UFO's have been clumped into this category of pseudoscience.
However, if the moderators feel this topic is now "eligible" for mainstream discussion, then I would not mind, if it is moved there. However, Lemming, there is little chance, that will happen.
Nebuchadnezzaar
Registered Senior Member
coolmacguy said:
If you had read the entire thread you would notice i've written the same thing twice and nobody has bothered to answer me. So out of frustration of the dodging of my post i thought it necessary to put it in everyone's face, though i doubt anyone will honestly answer it. Only ridicule it because what else could you possibly have to say to a post like that? i'm quite proud of myself.
Last edited by a moderator:
phlogistician said:
Actually no. This is going to be a quickie. You have a very fundamentalist and purist attitude to the definitions of words, and that is your prime dysfunction, and why you consistently make a fool out of youself.
Skepticism is derived from The Greek word skeptikoi means seekers or inquirers. Socrates, who claimed that the only thing he knew was that he knew nothing, frequently said "Skepteon," meaning we must investigate this.
So it's your opening gambit that has been false. In other words, the skepticism you practice, is pseudo skepticism.
No, clueless, I admit that I cannot provide literal physical evidence. If I were to satify that, I would need to be allied with ETI, and need your home address.
That's hilarious coming from you. You have not formed or tested any hypothesis, or gathered any data to support your hypothesis, or disprove the ETI hypothesis or any of my arguments.
What you call a logical pursuit has been proven to be illogical, not only by me, but even by the doctorine of skepticism. You are a pseudo skeptic, wether you admit it, or not.
Here's are some fine example of you testing hypothesis and gathering data skills.
"Yep, you are debunked because you obviously aren't critical of anything to a good enough degree. As soon as I read your post, and you said 'jets' in the context of an event which occurred in 1942, my alarm bells went off. It was an anomoly, and as someone who is supposed to be able to differentiate between mundane terrestrial occurrences and extraterrestrial ones, one you should have spotted immediately."
"We don't need to do Roswell later, it's been thoroughly done. It was a balloon."
"Like Roswell, this 'UFO' was just another balloon, except this one had a flare slung underneath it, rather than a Geiger counter. "
I am in awe of your skills. Tell me, which pre-school did you attend, to acquire such sharp skills?
What research? No good just telling me you did. It's obvious you haven't. As for "many" - what research?
And it's interesting how you call yourself a scientist, yet practice psuedoscience. A scientist will investigate and test claims, not launch ad-hominems and spout unsubstantiated nosense. Im sorry, but im very skeptical, that you are a true scientist.
Predictable scientific models of how the OBSERVABLE universe works. Do you comprehend? No. e.g I know if I drop a ball from the a height, it will fall. I can theorize a model to predict it's motion, velocity, and time taken to fall in the OBSERVABLE universe. However, if I dropped the ball on the moon, my model will fail. Why? because of course, a force, previously unknown to me, called gravity.
I know if I turn or shove magnet in a coil, it will cause an electrical current. I can theorize a model to predict how much eletricity will be produced in the OBSERAVLE universe. However if I knew the quantum principle of how this electricity is produced and modified. My model may fail.
ETI technology and interstellar travel are not fully explainable by accepted scientific models of the OBSERVABLE universe. This does not mean they are not possible, it means they are not possible in the observable universe. Much like a ball falling at a different acceleration is not possible in the OBSERVABLE universe prior to the discovery of gravity.
However of course, "scientist" should you not be aware, the cutting-edge of physics, supports interstellar travel and ETI technologies. More on this later.
Yet, you are still unable to come up with a sensible argument to refute my proofs, "baloon" boy
No, I have drawn the conclusion that you, and the others, in other words, pseudo skeptics, are illogical. Pay attention. Skepticism itself is not illogical, it's a respectable field empowered by logic. Now, please excuse me, but I would be rather direct my attention to the main topic, rather than waste my time debating your logical fallacies.
Last edited:
crazymikey said:
You post THAT and question _my_ scientific ability?
Gravity applies everywhere. On the Earth, the Moon, the greater Universe. The equation for the fall of that ball is;
s=ut+1/2at^2
And contrary to your assertion that it fails on the Moon, actually yields more accurate results, as there is no resistance to the movement of the ball, as there is no atmosphere, and the simple equation ignores air resistance!
I think you need to spend more time on your analogy. Just like spewing out the word 'jets' you have come up with something hasty, and incorrect.
As to your definition of skepticism, I won't be bound by your narrow and convenient viewpoint. It is not up to me to disprove your claims. They are your claims, and therefore up to you to prove, with whatever evidence you can muster. My role is to debunk that evidence. Again, you say 'jets' were scrambled to intercept a UFO in 1942, I know then you haven't done your research well enough, to know that wasn't the exact case, or it was sloppy prose.
Well, sloppy prose doesn't make for convincing evidence. Hard evidence does. Without that to stand on, the rest is just an overly complicated interdependant house of cards. All facets of ET are hard enough to swallow (ftl travel, abductions, HUGE govt conspiracies) without them all being interwoven. try proving ONE point, rather than tackling them all.
- Status