The Disclosure Project
- Thread starter y2k
- Start date
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I have made my opinions clear in my post. Do you have comprehension difficulties? I am always ready to help out the intellectually disadvantaged. Just let me know which part of my post you felt was not a clearly stated opinion and I'll clarify it for you.
Once again you have posted illogical nonsense. You say will not stand for someone judging without expressing their opinion.
Point 1: What can you do to stop anyone making and posting judgements? Come. we should all be interested to hear.
Point 2: In this instance I have posted my opinions, so what are you prattling about.
Sometimes I think the simplest explanation is that you are genuinely thick.
Once again you have posted illogical nonsense. You say will not stand for someone judging without expressing their opinion.
Point 1: What can you do to stop anyone making and posting judgements? Come. we should all be interested to hear.
Point 2: In this instance I have posted my opinions, so what are you prattling about.
Sometimes I think the simplest explanation is that you are genuinely thick.
Ophiolite said:
let me make my positions clear
i find this observation oafish for the simple reason that a clear position based on bullshit is hardly a reason for commendation for whatever reason
i go around the board saying negroes are subhumans
oafy commends me for being clear on my position
oafishly ridiculous, ja?
Ophiolite said:
back the accusations up or i must dismiss as an attempt to start a flame war.
oafy imagines intellect thru usage of a thesaurus.
Ophiolite said:
funny that. look at skinwalker assert that there was no misinterpretation.....
SkinWalker said:
Ophiolite said:
a meaningless soundbite. tell me why?
Ophiolite said:
so? lets argue degrees
Ophiolite said:
who fucking does? document this.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I will answer the points raised in your last post, if and only if you agree to the following:
1) Remove all obscenities and personal attacks from the exchange.
2) Lay out your own positions in a clear, structured manner.
3) Clarify these when requested to do so, without resorting to personal comments.
4) Provide references for those statements you declare as fact rather than opinion
5) Concede that individuals with a reasonable education do not need to resort to a thesaurus to throw together a few apt words.
Otherwise, take a hike.
1) Remove all obscenities and personal attacks from the exchange.
2) Lay out your own positions in a clear, structured manner.
3) Clarify these when requested to do so, without resorting to personal comments.
4) Provide references for those statements you declare as fact rather than opinion
5) Concede that individuals with a reasonable education do not need to resort to a thesaurus to throw together a few apt words.
Otherwise, take a hike.
Ophiolite said:
watch in awe as i demolish yet another pathetic strawman
where do i assert that i intend to stop anyone from "making" and "posting"? follow the thread
qwerty: gustav, please
gustav: sorry qwerty, i reserve the right to voice my opinion on these judgements.
in original form...
Gustav said:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Do not be so coy. We all understand the difference between implicit and explicit.
I'll ask you one last question. You have only one chance to answer it, else I end this farcical conversation permanently. Divert from it in any way; avoid it; quote irrelevancies; whatever. A simple question. Make the answer as complex as you wish, but make it a direct answer.
Why do you feel so threatened by people?
I'll ask you one last question. You have only one chance to answer it, else I end this farcical conversation permanently. Divert from it in any way; avoid it; quote irrelevancies; whatever. A simple question. Make the answer as complex as you wish, but make it a direct answer.
Why do you feel so threatened by people?
Why?Ophiolite said:
I am at a loss to see why, in cases where no plausible conventional explanation is available, that people are willing to consider the non-human explanation last.Ophiolite said:
Do people even know when the ETH is the LAST explanation?
They seem to always be under the assumption that there's "just one more" prosaic explanation around the corner, that even when it appears that all other explanations have been exhausted, rest assured, we'll never have to use the ET conclusion, because there must be a "simpler" one around here somewhere.
Giambattista said:
I suggest you click the "report" button and request such review by the sciforums moderators. My representation of your statements in the thread mentioned above is to be defined as this: you recomended that another member, one who may have a potentially serious condition, take the pseudoscience approach and seek counsel from pseudoscientific individuals such as Hopkins and Leir, two apparent charlatans who take advantage of believers in UFO abductions.
Your advice there, while it did include seek professional help, was clearly inappropriate and irresponsible. Neither is a neurologist. Leir is a podiatrist -a foot doctor.
If you are offended because I chose to counter your bad advice with my comments, then the problem is your own. The member in question is a real person, not some fantasy discussion about hypothetical space aliens.
Ophiolite said:
no i dont!!!!
why do u think?!
because i want to be right. people don't believe the same things as me. if they're right, im wrong, so im worth nothing. i can't accept i could be wrong!!
believe me. ufos come from ethereal realm.
everybody wants to be a 'star' (ie. everybody wants to be the center, god, center of the universe, omnipresent)
you're all just big liars!!!!!!
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
A reasonable question. Let me answer it by making an important amendment to my original question. If you wish to ask why of the amended statement I shall answer.Giambattista said:
The cases where no obvious plausible conventional explanation is available, hardly constitute an automatic shoo-in for the alien hypothesis.
My perception is that the UFO enthusiast leaps on the alien explanation before the obvious plausible explanations have been exhausted. This angers me. The possibility that we shall recognise a surreptitious alien visitation is greatly diminished by the high background noise level of purportedly genuine sightings.Giambattista said:
This reminds me of something I was mulling over just a day ago. Three different instances a few years ago where, out of the blue, I just knew a certain event was going to happen.
Similar to deja vu, only instead of feeling that you have been there or done that before or that something is going to happen immediately, this was deja vu about a seemingly random event in the near future.
It struck me completely unawares, and the near-future event that I envisioned or was privy to was not something I was expecting, at all.
I happened to be working that evening, when I suddenly got the distinct impression that a certain person was going to call me on the telephone at work. I rarely got calls there, the "offending" parties being either my parents or close friends in those instances.
This person was neither a family member, nor a close friend. It was a co-worker. Furthermore, this person had NEVER called me on ANY telephone, period, prior to that time.
Yet, I had the overwhelming impression that indeed this person was going to call me. It was very much like the thought had been place in my head by something else. Again, similar to deja vu, or a strongly nostalgic feeling, this was something that had a subtle but tangible physical sensation. It was as if I could feel it in my body.
It was so strange, that I remember saying out loud to myself then and there that it felt completely weird, and I remember asking why do I feel this is going to happen. How could I be knowing this?
Within an hour, my sudden intuition proved 100% correct, to my complete amazement.
Now, remember, this feeling came out of nowhere, "told" me something was going to happen, and this something was not in any way an event that I could have predicted. The person was a co-worker, more of an acquaintance than a friend, and had never called me before. So no one can just dismiss it as something that happens all the time, and that it was actually an ordinary event that was misconstrued as being a prediction.
Like: a wife at home baking a pie. She's thinking about her husband at work. Shortly thereafter, the phone rings, and it's him! Oh, she predicted his phone call!
Hardly. What I had happen was not anything that I could have expected, and this was not a phone call from anyone who I spoke to on a regular basis, let alone someone who would call me on the phone, and yet the knowledge that he would call me gripped me very strongly, so strongly that it was really as if I could feel the sensation of "knowing" in my body.
Two other similar events, both involving this same person, happened within a year or so of that initial event. The last one, which I won't go into, was for all practical purposes, more astounding to me than the first.
This does not fall under the "ordinary occurence misconstrued as extraordinary" because none of these events were ordinary. The odds of them happening, (especially the final event, where I knew 2 hours in advance that I would see the person in question that evening completely randomly while driving my car) are, in themselves, fairly remote. But the fact that of all things, I would just "by chance" know such a thing well in advance, makes the odds much much greater. And the fact that all three instances involved the same person raises the odds yet again.
For the typical skeptic, the "ordinary occurence misconstrued as extraordinary" is probably not convincing enough, so they need something stronger to defeat the "irrational" belief in precognition. So, they pull something called the Law of Truly Large Numbers out of their collective asses.
This "Law" states that "with a large enough sample many odd coincidences are likely to happen."
Or in the words of psychologist David Myers (courtesy of the Skeptics Dictionary)
"That a particular specified event or coincidence will occur is very unlikely. That some astonishing unspecified events will occur is certain. That is why remarkable coincidences are noted in hindsight, not predicted with foresight."
Notice these two keywords "predicted" and "foresight". In all three "coincidences" I had foresight of the event before it happened, hardly what anyone could call HINDSIGHT! This was not noticing things AFTER they happened, but noticing them BEFORE they happened.
Beyond saying that it was a series of coincidences with extremely remote odds (rather than actual precognitive events), there is basically nothing else prosaic to say about it.
And I will state for the record that, in my informed opinion, and because I experienced this myself, the "law" of truly large numbers fails in this instance. It does not make sense as an explanation, especially when it is considered that other persons have had much stronger and even more outrageous examples of psychic premonitions. I believe it was Agitprop who PM'd me of an experience that equalled the impact of all three of those precognitive events in one package, more or less.
They say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
I say, "Extraordinary phenomena require extraordinary explanations!"
And also, they demand extraordinary investigations.
This also concerns the use and misuse of Occam's Razor.
If I charged that my experiences were strong evidence, if not outright proof of ESP, many skeptics would likely countercharge with the law of truly large numbers. If I asked them why they believe it was a virtually impossible series of coincidences, instead of actually knowing an future even psychically, they would support themselves with Occam's Razor, naturally.
First of all, Occam's Razor is not a scientific law. Just because something appears simpler, does not make it the correct assumption.
Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
Multiplied? How does Occam's Razor work when the chances/odds of something like ESP existing aren't known in the first place, but yet the evidence strongly points towards its existence? How can anyone say that, however remote, it MUST have been a coincidence?
Knowing that a pretty much random event is going to occur ahead of time is weird enough. To have three instances of it all revolve around the same person, place, or thing, is even weirder. That STRONGLY suggests some type of extra sensory perception.
Despite that, people are willing to discount it in favor of the extremely huge odds of such an event occuring just by chance.
And it's funny, but in the hands of many skeptics, it works very subjectively.
Since most hardcore skeptics are disbelievers in anything paranormal and everything science, they accept that life originated from scratch. Never mind that no one really knows the exact conditions on the very young earth. Never mind the fact the no one theory has succeeded in explaining abiogenesis. Apparently, a theory involving clay particles was recently demoted, or so I happened to have heard.
No one was there. No one saw any of this happen. Nonetheless, and despite the very great odds (which are disputable, indeed, and quite possibly unknowable) it is just assumed to have happened SOMEHOW. They will succeed, however improbable the idea may seem.
However, when it comes to ESP or extraterrestrials, the odds somehow ALWAYS work against such ideas.
There comes a point when I will no longer "pussyfoot" around the issue. I believe wholeheartedly that what I experienced was TRULY extrasensory perception. I knew a future event when I should not have, through supernatural means. And believe me, other people have had similar events, sometimes even more extraordinary than that.
Like I said before, extraordinary phenomena demand extraordinary explanations. I personally have enough evidence to convince me that what I experienced was of a psychic nature. No one has presented me with any evidence that it was not of a psychic nature. No one can disprove that the events were due to a chance occurence. No one can.
There comes a time (more for individuals than entire groups) when the arguments AGAINST such a phenomenon weaken and diminish to the point that accepting something like ESP becomes just as provable or disprovable as that it was all due to chance alone. If not LESS provable.
So, from now on, what I experienced WAS in fact, ESP, and I will continue to declare that because no one has presented me with any evidence strong enough to prove that ESP is phony.
Now, do I win Ophiolite's admiration for making a bold declaration of my feelings instead of just hinting at something and being indecisive?
Similar to deja vu, only instead of feeling that you have been there or done that before or that something is going to happen immediately, this was deja vu about a seemingly random event in the near future.
It struck me completely unawares, and the near-future event that I envisioned or was privy to was not something I was expecting, at all.
I happened to be working that evening, when I suddenly got the distinct impression that a certain person was going to call me on the telephone at work. I rarely got calls there, the "offending" parties being either my parents or close friends in those instances.
This person was neither a family member, nor a close friend. It was a co-worker. Furthermore, this person had NEVER called me on ANY telephone, period, prior to that time.
Yet, I had the overwhelming impression that indeed this person was going to call me. It was very much like the thought had been place in my head by something else. Again, similar to deja vu, or a strongly nostalgic feeling, this was something that had a subtle but tangible physical sensation. It was as if I could feel it in my body.
It was so strange, that I remember saying out loud to myself then and there that it felt completely weird, and I remember asking why do I feel this is going to happen. How could I be knowing this?
Within an hour, my sudden intuition proved 100% correct, to my complete amazement.
Now, remember, this feeling came out of nowhere, "told" me something was going to happen, and this something was not in any way an event that I could have predicted. The person was a co-worker, more of an acquaintance than a friend, and had never called me before. So no one can just dismiss it as something that happens all the time, and that it was actually an ordinary event that was misconstrued as being a prediction.
Like: a wife at home baking a pie. She's thinking about her husband at work. Shortly thereafter, the phone rings, and it's him! Oh, she predicted his phone call!
Hardly. What I had happen was not anything that I could have expected, and this was not a phone call from anyone who I spoke to on a regular basis, let alone someone who would call me on the phone, and yet the knowledge that he would call me gripped me very strongly, so strongly that it was really as if I could feel the sensation of "knowing" in my body.
Two other similar events, both involving this same person, happened within a year or so of that initial event. The last one, which I won't go into, was for all practical purposes, more astounding to me than the first.
This does not fall under the "ordinary occurence misconstrued as extraordinary" because none of these events were ordinary. The odds of them happening, (especially the final event, where I knew 2 hours in advance that I would see the person in question that evening completely randomly while driving my car) are, in themselves, fairly remote. But the fact that of all things, I would just "by chance" know such a thing well in advance, makes the odds much much greater. And the fact that all three instances involved the same person raises the odds yet again.
For the typical skeptic, the "ordinary occurence misconstrued as extraordinary" is probably not convincing enough, so they need something stronger to defeat the "irrational" belief in precognition. So, they pull something called the Law of Truly Large Numbers out of their collective asses.
This "Law" states that "with a large enough sample many odd coincidences are likely to happen."
Or in the words of psychologist David Myers (courtesy of the Skeptics Dictionary)
"That a particular specified event or coincidence will occur is very unlikely. That some astonishing unspecified events will occur is certain. That is why remarkable coincidences are noted in hindsight, not predicted with foresight."
Notice these two keywords "predicted" and "foresight". In all three "coincidences" I had foresight of the event before it happened, hardly what anyone could call HINDSIGHT! This was not noticing things AFTER they happened, but noticing them BEFORE they happened.
Beyond saying that it was a series of coincidences with extremely remote odds (rather than actual precognitive events), there is basically nothing else prosaic to say about it.
And I will state for the record that, in my informed opinion, and because I experienced this myself, the "law" of truly large numbers fails in this instance. It does not make sense as an explanation, especially when it is considered that other persons have had much stronger and even more outrageous examples of psychic premonitions. I believe it was Agitprop who PM'd me of an experience that equalled the impact of all three of those precognitive events in one package, more or less.
They say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
I say, "Extraordinary phenomena require extraordinary explanations!"
And also, they demand extraordinary investigations.
This also concerns the use and misuse of Occam's Razor.
If I charged that my experiences were strong evidence, if not outright proof of ESP, many skeptics would likely countercharge with the law of truly large numbers. If I asked them why they believe it was a virtually impossible series of coincidences, instead of actually knowing an future even psychically, they would support themselves with Occam's Razor, naturally.
First of all, Occam's Razor is not a scientific law. Just because something appears simpler, does not make it the correct assumption.
Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
Multiplied? How does Occam's Razor work when the chances/odds of something like ESP existing aren't known in the first place, but yet the evidence strongly points towards its existence? How can anyone say that, however remote, it MUST have been a coincidence?
Knowing that a pretty much random event is going to occur ahead of time is weird enough. To have three instances of it all revolve around the same person, place, or thing, is even weirder. That STRONGLY suggests some type of extra sensory perception.
Despite that, people are willing to discount it in favor of the extremely huge odds of such an event occuring just by chance.
And it's funny, but in the hands of many skeptics, it works very subjectively.
Since most hardcore skeptics are disbelievers in anything paranormal and everything science, they accept that life originated from scratch. Never mind that no one really knows the exact conditions on the very young earth. Never mind the fact the no one theory has succeeded in explaining abiogenesis. Apparently, a theory involving clay particles was recently demoted, or so I happened to have heard.
No one was there. No one saw any of this happen. Nonetheless, and despite the very great odds (which are disputable, indeed, and quite possibly unknowable) it is just assumed to have happened SOMEHOW. They will succeed, however improbable the idea may seem.
However, when it comes to ESP or extraterrestrials, the odds somehow ALWAYS work against such ideas.
There comes a point when I will no longer "pussyfoot" around the issue. I believe wholeheartedly that what I experienced was TRULY extrasensory perception. I knew a future event when I should not have, through supernatural means. And believe me, other people have had similar events, sometimes even more extraordinary than that.
Like I said before, extraordinary phenomena demand extraordinary explanations. I personally have enough evidence to convince me that what I experienced was of a psychic nature. No one has presented me with any evidence that it was not of a psychic nature. No one can disprove that the events were due to a chance occurence. No one can.
There comes a time (more for individuals than entire groups) when the arguments AGAINST such a phenomenon weaken and diminish to the point that accepting something like ESP becomes just as provable or disprovable as that it was all due to chance alone. If not LESS provable.
So, from now on, what I experienced WAS in fact, ESP, and I will continue to declare that because no one has presented me with any evidence strong enough to prove that ESP is phony.
Now, do I win Ophiolite's admiration for making a bold declaration of my feelings instead of just hinting at something and being indecisive?
SkinWalker said:
Why would I need to take anything to the moderators? Moderators are not necessary except in a very few instances.
Exactly what kind of counsel are you saying that I recommended Cuda obtain from pseudoscientific individuals such as Hopkins and Leir?
Actually, no it wasn't. Did you even read any of the responses there? If so, why didn't you address my rebuttal of your foolishness?
If you had read more, you would have seen that Cuda had ALREADY contacted Dr. Leir, Derrel Sims, AND David M. Jacobs, all WITHOUT my help and advice! How fancy!!!
You seem to be strongly implying with the phrase "may have a potentially serious condition", that I told him to seek medical advice from these "witchdoctors".
Again, I ask, exactly what kind of counsel are you saying that I recommended Cuda obtain from pseudoscientific individuals such as Hopkins and Leir?
In order to prove that I placed Cuda in danger somehow, you would have to prove that his life is already in danger from this "potentially serious condition". Last time I checked, and according to Cuda and his doctor, there is no immediate danger. Further, you need to prove that when I told him he should contact a serious researcher, that I was telling him to seek medical attention and diagnosis from this person, as well.
Other than that, which you insinuate but cannot prove, how could I POSSIBLY have put him in danger?
He already was reviewed by three doctors. He's a little antsy because they didn't tell him what the supposedly foreign objects were. He's even more nervous because of the highly unusual and mysterious conditions under which the problems began. He wants answers, and so far, there have been very few. That is why he wants yet another opinion.
However, as he stated, financial restrictions are impeding that.
And once again, may I mention that he already sought the advice of one of these "charlatans" before I mentioned anything.
The only reason I suggested any of them in the first place was the obvious interest that ufology in general would have, and secondly because if someone was serious about finding out what these things were, he may get the financial assistance he needs to get a proper diagnosis.
I believe he is telling the truth, and because his situation not only interests me, but perhaps disturbs me as it does him, I am also concerned for his well-being. I sincerely believe that because of the strange sighting, the very peculiar missing time, and the so-far baffling objects in his head, that there is a very real possibility that all are related, and that there may be alot more going on than meets the eye.
I asked him specifically, if you'd only care to read the thread, if my advice to him was in some way bad. He replied that in fact it wasn't.
It seems you are the only one here accusing me of wrongdoing.
So unless you can prove that I told him to seek medical advice from "woo-woo cretins" you have little but baseless accusations.
What did you think? That Whitley Strieber was going to put down his pen to pick up a scalpel and remove those objects all by his little lonesome? If not, then what? What harm could the interest of these persons do him, three of whom he already contacted of his own volition, well before I ever said anything at all? And where is the evidence of this harm, if it was real?
I'm willing to believe, if only you'd show me some concrete evidence.
I am only offended because you insist on accusing me of endangering this person when I have done no such thing. However, if you want to continue to make these baseless allegations that are spurious at best, then the problem, truly, is your own.SkinWalker said:
SkinWalker said:
The reality of this person is not in question. I have perhaps a small hint of doubt about the veracity of his story, but I think that's only reasonable, don't you?
But if he is sincere, then may he live long and prosper.
Ophiolite said:
Thanks!