The Disclosure Project

[qwerty mob]

 

[Light]

did u guys know that nazi's were supposed to have built ufo's? a model called Haunebu flying at speeds of 7000km/h or so. the nazi's also landed on the moon and built a base there. hitler escaped to antarctic and joined with a subterranean dinosauroid master race (reptils). there are pictures of rockets flying saucers and aliens.

Gee, I wonder why I am completely underwhelmed?

 

[Agitprop]

You're welcome to the compliment, it was indeed good work.

Here again, I believe you may be thinking that all research is neatly compartmentalized and all under the direction/control of some governmental agency. That's simply not the case - and besides that there are many governments in the world. Surely they could not all keep all of their people silent all of the time. And there are still a good many independent researchers who are free to investigate using their on time and money.

If you think about it for a minute, it's pretty much unbelievable that all this time could have gone by without someone somewhere bringing something out. (The fringe groups notwithstanding.) Military secrets have been made public, time and again secret government deals have been exposed and the list goes on. Just exactly how could everyone in the whole world with any credibility be kept completely silent for over 60 years? That's a little hard for anyone to accept if they just think about it.

Yes, I'm aware of Icke (and his background as a sports reporter) and I've even visited his site a few times just as a humorous diversion. And even though he may be a little cracked, he's just in the game of selling his books, making appearances at his "seminars" - it all boils down to making money.

Light, I've been looking at conspiracies of all kinds for the last 30 years and have a pretty good basic understanding of how they work. The idea that someone somewhere is going to blow the whistle and the whole house of cards will collapse is the wrong model.

Instead of viewing it this way, look at consensus reality as a giant foam nerf ball that can absorb the shock of disclosure and simply bounce back to it's previous shape. People's belief systems are remarkably resilient. A nerf ball can sit outside in all kinds of inclement weather and remain pretty much unchanged, but for the subtle wearing action of time. And that is what will alter our world and universal view...Time.

There are plenty of reliable witnesses, witnesses who are or were insiders. That's not the problem. The problem is the resiliency of a belief system that automatically strips the credible of credibility when they testify, and then claims that no credible people have testified. Nerf logic.

 

[Light]

Light, I've been looking at conspiracies of all kinds for the last 30 years and have a pretty good basic understanding of how they work. The idea that someone somewhere is going to blow the whistle and the whole house of cards will collapse is the wrong model.

Instead of viewing it this way, look at consensus reality as a giant foam nerf ball that can absorb the shock of disclosure and simply bounce back to it's previous shape. People's belief systems are remarkably resilient. A nerf ball can sit outside in all kinds of inclement weather and remain pretty much unchanged, but for the subtle wearing action of time. And that is what will alter our world and universal view...Time.

There are plenty of reliable witnesses, witnesses who are or were insiders. That's not the problem. The problem is the resiliency of a belief system that automatically strips the credible of credibility when they testify, and then claims that no credible people have testified. Nerf logic.

Nerf - ah, NICE story!

Yes, but you see the problem is simply this - the people that you mentioned bring nothing with them BUT their story. No bits of physical evidence they could have smuggled out, no documentation, no nothing.

Would you simply take someone's word that they had found Atlantis? And leave it at that?

As Carl Sagan is famous for having said, "Extraordinary claims require extradordinary proof" so does this subject. But all you ever get is just talk and more talk.

 

[qwerty mob]

Would you simply take someone's word that they had found Atlantis? And leave it at that?

Heh- happens all the time; just gotta let 'em go, man, 'cause they're gone...

 

[Agitprop]

Nerf - ah, NICE story!

Yes, but you see the problem is simply this - the people that you mentioned bring nothing with them BUT their story. No bits of physical evidence they could have smuggled out, no documentation, no nothing.

Would you simply take someone's word that they had found Atlantis? And leave it at that?

As Carl Sagan is famous for having said, "Extraordinary claims require extradordinary proof" so does this subject. But all you ever get is just talk and more talk.

I've explained the kinds of political constraints that would prevent physical evidence from entering the public domain. I admit I'm using reason here, not science. A grounding in reason has to preceed any scientific debate, particularly one that is entwined with political considerations. I actually agree with Sagan that extraordinary proof is required, IF it can be acquired. If it can't, then witness testimony has little merit, for you.

I've witnessed the political interferance some credible researchers and their instititutional backers face, and would love to tell you more but hesitate to on a public forum.

Would I believe in what? Someone telling me they found Atlantis? Please. You aren't dealing with a starry eyed juvenile here, nor someone who wants to be saved by space brothers. I'm interested in the politics of scientific controversies. If anything, I'm more interested in politics and am currently not involved in anything related to ufos.

 

[Giambattista]

Dam Giam, thought I knew a little about the ufo phenomena, but I have never seen these photos you are talking about.
I'll google them.
Good posts.

i agree
polite, cautious, reasonable and eminently rational. battista rocks!

Thank you both! I try my best.

About the pictures, you refer to the so-called scoop marks? Or the Trent UFO photos? BOTH?

As for polite, I can't say too many kind things about Clancy's spurious ideas. I PERSONALLY have had sleep paralysis on numerous occasions, and it sometimes includes an impending feeling of being watched or approached. I do not see, though, how that translates into very detailed and complex abduction memories complete with physical marks, with possible exterior witnesses (neighbors reporting weird lights or objects in the vicinity), or these such scenarios being recalled WITHOUT any regression, OR paralysis involved.... I don't know how she makes that connection.

All she has is a theory. It works best if someone is highly suggestible, has had some type of traumatic waking nightmare, and undergoes suggestive hypnosis to recover hidden memories. If those conditions aren't met, her whole theory begins to come apart very quickly. As far as I know, the actual mechanism that "creates" these false memories is only being guessed at.

She was formerly researching repressed child abuse memories. She was tired of being accused of "supporting" child molesters because she denied the repressed traumatic memory models, more or less. She got angry letters from all sorts of people. And these aren't just victims or overly emotional and concerned citizens, but also other psychaitrists/psychologists with EQUAL credentials. It must be firmly kept in mind that repressed/fabricated memories are not an open and shut case, by any stretch of the imagination. There is alot of contention surrounding false memory syndrome. Here, an excerpt from a law firm's website :

Recovered memory cases are facing new and substantial pre-trial hurdles, sometimes leading to dismissal orders and summary judgment decisions that deny victims their day in court. At the heart of the problem is the largely contrived controversy around "false memory syndrome" and the alleged unreliability of "repressed" memories.

While public debate about so-called false memories has been raging for years, increasing numbers of trial and appellate court decisions involving this issue are just now being issued. These decisions reflect significant lack of uniformity among the courts, not only in the results but also in the reasoning and even in the context within which the memory issues are analyzed.

The typical defense strategy in these cases is to file pre-trial motions challenging the reliability, and hence admissibility, of expert testimony regarding recovered memories. In some cases, these motions are filed as early as the preliminary injunction stage. Reliability issues are also raised in motions to dismiss and for summary judgment.

Usually, the defense also seeks to offer its own "expert" testimony to counter the plaintiff's scientific evidence that the mind can avoid or repress traumatic information and then recall it years later.

Further on it states:

False memory syndrome. This simply does not exist as a recognized medical condition. The phrase was coined by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, an organization formed to provide legal and emotional support to those accused of sexual abuse.

www.smith-lawfirm.com/Murphy_Memory_Article.html

From an article about Clancy:

Clancy knows all about false memories; they got her into studying abductees in the first place. When she arrived at Harvard to work on a Ph.D. in 1996, she was fascinated by the political, legal, and social impacts of people who suddenly recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse. Using standard laboratory tests, she found that women who reported recovering such memories were more likely to remember things that never happened than women who always remembered such abuse.

That result, however, does not prove whether or not the woman with recovered memories had actually been sexually abused. Clancy then got the idea that she could get a better scientific grip on false memories by studying people who recovered memories of events that could not, in her mind, have possibly happened, i.e., being abducted by aliens.

Here is another website with many links about FMS (false memory syndrome) and the controversy around it. It especially concentrates on discrediting the FMS Foundation.

While fabricated or distorted memories are certainly proven to exist, they must not be used in a one-size-fits-all approach to something like alien abduction, especially in the cases where a person was conscious during the experience, or may have other witnesses, etc.

As a conspiratorial side note, the False Memory Syndrome Foundation has had some very hefty accusations of being a front for mind control cover-ups.

 

[Giambattista]

Interesting ive found the same lack of objectivity in ufo critics, underneath the layers of skepticism useally lies a firm and unshakable believe that anyone involved in ufos just by virtue of the fact that theyd be interested in such a thing must be intellectually inferior and incapable.
Its amazing how many times ive openly debated with people critiquing ufo data to find that the problem goes way beyond the data itself and extends to the entire ufo community or just anyone expressing an interest. Such people can never truely approach the subject with an unbiased objective mindset because theres far too many preconceived notions, stereotypes, and presumptions to get in the way of rational thought.

Yes.
Isn't it also very amazing how many times a skeptical explanation requires a watering-down of the details, in order for the explanation to fit just so? Do they do it because of the expectation that because the simplest explanation is usually (USUALLY, mind you) the correct one, that SIMPLIFYING the details of a witness's report is also usually the correct method of reaching Occam's Peak?

A perfect example of this would be Rendlesham Forest/Bentwaters AFB. Using the lighthouse as the explanation for the event works if you discount the testimony of at least one of the persons, who I believe in his report noted that the light/object was visible ALONG WITH the lighthouse, clearly demonstrating that the object in question was distinct from the lighthouse.

Or better yet, that the lighthouse could cause the senior officer (Lt. Col. Halt) and other soldiers on watch to report things like this:

Halt:We just _______ the first night _______ we've seen. We're about 150 or 200 yards from the sight. The woods are just deadly calm. There is no doubt about it, there's some type of strange flashing red light ahead.

Soldier:There, it's yellow.

Halt:I saw a yellow tinge in it too. Weird, it, it appears that he may be moving it this way? It's brighter than it has been.

Soldier: Yellow.

Halt:It's coming this way!, it's definitely coming this way. Pieces of it are shooting off. There is no doubt about it, this is...weird. It is definitely...

Soldier:Two lights, one light to the right, one light to the left.

Just a trick of the light through some dense fog? How about multiple lights?

Halt:We passed the Farmer's house and crossed into the next field, and now we have multiple sightings, of up to 5 lights with a similar shape and all. But they seem to be steady now, rather than a pulsating or glow with a red flash.

Now, I'm confused! Where is this notion of the lighthouse as the singular "cure" for this obvious woo-woo follyfest coming from? Perhaps from THIS statement:

Halt: O.K., we're looking at the thing, we're probably about 2 to 300 yards away, it looks like an eye winking at you. It's still moving from side to side, and when you put the starscope on it, it, it sort of has a hollow center, a, a, dark center. It's, It's, you know, like the pupil of an eye looking at you, winking. And the flash is so bright to the starscope that, a, it almost burns your eye.

Winking = sweeping light from the tower, right? Which of course equals lighthouse.

Halt: 0305, we see strange strobe like flashes to the, rather sporadic but there's definitely something, some kind of phenomena.

So it wasn't five lights, but only one flashing light. EXACTLY what you would expect from a lighthouse. I guess a lighthouse MUST be "some kind of phenomena" to cause all that commotion for nothing, eh?
So, the smug skeptic says "SO SORRY, you hopeful (-ly pathetic) woo-woos who have deficits in their ability to process information objectively. I know you WANT to believe."

But wait...

Halt: 0305, at about 10 degrees horizon, directly North, we've got two strange objects, uh, half-moon shaped, dancing about colored lights on them. At, uh, what I would guess to be about 5 to 10 miles out, maybe less. The half-moons are now turning full circles. It's as though there was an eclipse or something there for a minute or two.

Halt:0315, now we've got an object about 10 degrees directly South. 10 degrees off the horizon. And the ones to the North are moving. One's moving away from us.

Soldier: They're moving out fast!

Soldier: This one on the right is heading away too!

There must have been multiple, mobilized lighthouses then. Capable of this:

Halt: And they're both heading North. Here he comes from the South, he's heading toward us now. Now we're observing what appears to be a beam coming down to the ground. This is unreal.

Halt: 330, or 0330 and the objects are still in the sky although the one that's South looks like it's losing a little bit of altitude. We're turning around, heading back towards the base. The object to the, the object to the South is still beaming down lights to the ground.

The lighthouse(s) beam(s) is(are) being bent by a gravitational bubble, I'm assuming. Or should I say, I'm hopeful that hypothetical/theoretical science is going to win out over the woo-woos and their fantastical alien delusions.
Oh well!

Most people that possess an active interest (as opposed to passive) in UFOs are deficient, mentally? I'm in special a klass, then?

Philip Klass, anyone? Now there's a man who could truly say "I never saw a skeptical explanation I didn't like."

 

[Giambattista]

... or revise, in case it sounded too hokey the first time around. OI!!!

 

[Giambattista]

But you only covered the two extremes and didn't mention the huge number of us who are in the middle. Most of this group would be willing to believe in the UFO/alien connection if there were only some evidence. Any at all.

Hmm... very curious indeed. I seem to recall a discussion where you were anything BUT a moderate, middle-of-the-road person.

Allow me to dimonstrate.

After asking a few questions about physical effects on plants in crop circles, I get a response from you that goes a little something like this:

OK, that's about enough of this foolishness! Time for me to take off my obligatory professor's suit and tie and put on my marine biologist's working clothes - jeans and white T-shirt.

This isn't so much directed at you, Giambattista, as it is the people who have written the kinds of things you've read and repeated here.

This is what happens all too often when people with just a bare minimum of scientific knowledge (and the right impressive words) take it upon themselves to talk about things of which they really know nothing at all!

Biological changes?? Mutations?!?! How stupid can people actually be? Such things cannot occur just overnight (the time it takes for a crop circle to appear)! And mutations in particular!! Do not these idiots understand that for mutations to appear would require the seeds to mature, sprout and produce new plants (another generation)? And that takes weeks if not months. In other words such observations have never been made.

"Effects of microwave radiation" is another pile of rubbish. Do you even have a clue what the effects of microwave radiation are on a living plant? Obviously not in the least. Here's what would really happen: the plants would wilt and become somewhat dehydrated. Period.

This whole topic belongs in a pseudo-science forum and has no place here in the General Science and Technology forum.

In response to your comment about mutations, there is this from TruthSeeker:

That's silly, Light. Have you ever heard of "cancer"? :bugeye:

You insist that cancer is merely runaway cell growth.

I offered a clear rebuttal to your assertion that mutations in plants take a generation to present themselves.

I also posted a quote about crop circle research done by Levengood.

In this example, we see that Levengood is not the only one noticing a change:

Node cracking and reorientation
Bruce Rideout, a psychologist with a biology degree who teaches at Ursinus College in Collegeville, Pennsylvania, studied plants from Linfield and Limerick, Pennsylvania, formations northwest of Philadelphia in May 1992. Dr Rideout discovered node splitting or cracking in affected plants and a peculiar and angled reorientation of the growth nodes - the places on plants where leaves and stems branch. Dr Levengood has observed those same changes in reproductive and germination tissue from England crops.

Or how about the iron spheres?

A strange brown "glaze" covering plants within a British formation was the subject of Levengood and John A. Burke's 1995 paper in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. The material was a pure iron that had been embedded in the plants while the iron was still molten. Tiny iron spheres were also found in the soil.

In 1999, British investigator Ronald Ashby examined the glaze through optical and scanning electron microscopes. He determined that intense heat had been involved -- iron melts at about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit -- administered in millisecond bursts. "After exhaustive inquiry, there is no mundane explanation for the glaze" he concluded.

After a dramatic show of righteous indignation over a supposed "attack" on your religion of science, you confidently declare that "In other words such observations have never been made."

After I provide evidence that indeed, such observations HAVE been made, which are not all "media hype" as you asserted, you suddenly become quite scarce. Was that on purpose? Or did you feel that you were "too good" to even stoop down to the woowoo's level and debate something with someone who has "just a bare minimum of scientific knowledge"?

And mind yourself, Mr. Light, that Levengood's research has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I just KNOW you love the sound of peer-review... errm... that is, perhaps, as long as it's working in YOUR favor, eh?
And mind yourself once more, Mr. Light, that your hasty declarations about mutations were VERY unbecoming for someone with a background in biology, if indeed you do have one. Perhaps that is why the heated exchange in the crop circle thread was so short?

 

[Giambattista]

In the MIDDLE???

I voted "something else" because even the crackpots are entitled to some space where they can gather and discuss stupid, impossible and unrealistic things. Something similar to the cesspool but more like a voluntary insane asylum.

I've absolutely no interest in those people or their various "theories" (better and more accurately described as garbage). I also wish there was option that could block the whole thing from even appearing on the "newest post" listing - which is what I use to see what's being discussed. Many of the other categories have interesting things in them but I'd rather this one be invisible to me. Instead, I have to sort out the nutcases one by one and put them on an ignore list.

Ahh, well. That's just wishful thinking on my part but it would enhance the quality of my visits here. Go ahead and give them their space - and I'll just keep eliminating idiots as I encounter them. (And I'll also admit that my thought about "even a blind squirrel finding an occasional nut" still isn't enough reason to pay any attention to most of them.)

Well, well, well, you very "in the middle" yet, grossly overconfident pseudo-skeptic in a thoughtful, open-minded person's skins!
After witnessing a flurry of angry words (your words) over the absence of rational thought in my (and other's) posts concerning such things as crop circles, and making several errant comments yourself about crop circle research in general, you have the gall to puff out your chest and belch the kind of arrogant, haughty disdain that you just displayed in the quote above?

How interesting.

 

[Giambattista]

That was enough posting!

Sorry I had to take off my obligatory bishop's outfit and become slightly impo-light.

And now, I'm taking off all my clothes....

HELLO, BOYS! I'm nude here. I just waitin for you to come up n see me, here. I'm all alone, and I want to talk with you. Now! Hee hee.

Bye bye!!!

 

[heliocentric]

Instead of viewing it this way, look at consensus reality as a giant foam nerf ball that can absorb the shock of disclosure and simply bounce back to it's previous shape. People's belief systems are remarkably resilient. A nerf ball can sit outside in all kinds of inclement weather and remain pretty much unchanged, but for the subtle wearing action of time. And that is what will alter our world and universal view...Time.

Thats probably the most intelligent assessment of the ufo impact on society ive heard. Youre absolutely right peoples ideas of reality are incredibly resilient, with the right amount of ignorance, and looking the other way its amazing what can actually occur with relatively little fuss.
One of the frequnet misconseptions about ufos i frequently come across is the the believe 'there is barely any footage out there, and the stuff that is is too grainy to make out whats going on'.
The ufo footage shot on various nasa missions (some of which are clearly craft) in itself should be enough for a public enquiry, but as it stands ignoring whats there seems to be the prevelant way to deal with what needs to be examined and explained. I dont really see this attitude changing much either, so yes i think youre right it will take time and a critical mass of data to build up before we can uncover what and where these esoteric craft in our skies are comming from.

 

[heliocentric]

Yes.
A perfect example of this would be Rendlesham Forest/Bentwaters AFB. Using the lighthouse as the explanation for the event works if you discount the testimony of at least one of the persons, who I believe in his report noted that the light/object was visible ALONG WITH the lighthouse, clearly demonstrating that the object in question was distinct from the lighthouse.

That actually reminds me of the 'skeptic' explaination for the ufos filmed by the mexican airforce, apparently they were really oil flares out in the ocean, how on earth oil flares can visibly move and change velocity (as can be seen in the videos) noone seems to have quite explained yet. Although as long as occam's razor is being used (even if the explaination doesnt fit) i guess thats all that matters.
Seriously; people need to be far more careful in reducing phenomenon down to a 'known cause' its in using this line of reasoning that ive actually come across some of the most pseudo-scientific and completely barmy explainations out there. Oh well such is the need to reduce everything down to something prosaic and bengin...

 

[Communist Hamster]

did u guys know that nazi's were supposed to have built ufo's? a model called Haunebu flying at speeds of 7000km/h or so. the nazi's also landed on the moon and built a base there. hitler escaped to antarctic and joined with a subterranean dinosauroid master race (reptils). there are pictures of rockets flying saucers and aliens.

Gee, I wonder why I am completely underwhelmed?

That's one of my favourite conspiracy themes (WW2 Axis space travel) due to sheer implausibility.

 

[c7ityi_]

at least i had never heard about it before and it might be true cuz hitler had lots of money and maybe he learned some paranormal things from blavatsky.

anyway, has anyone else seen this video where there are some ufo's flying over a field and in only 2 seconds a crop circle thingy is formed? it's real and looks really cool! it's not just a simple circle but a big dot and around the big dot there appears 6 other dots and.... like
acube

no wait i found the pic:

it happened at oliver's castle, uk, 1996.
and the vid http://www.alfredolissoni.com/images/oliver.mpg
but the one i had wasnt b&w..

actually maybe the video is fake, dunno about the crop circle itself though. the point is that ufo's are living things and they come from an "imaginal" realm which is real and they make crop circles. collective unconscious.

for example.... visions of unhealthy looking beings, grays... who sometimes claim to come from a dying planet.. who examine captives and take genetic material to create a hybrid species mean 'WE are the sick ones, and ... we, as a species living on planet earth,.... are in need of regeneration.

 

[Giambattista]

That actually reminds me of the 'skeptic' explaination for the ufos filmed by the mexican airforce, apparently they were really oil flares out in the ocean, how on earth oil flares can visibly move and change velocity (as can be seen in the videos) noone seems to have quite explained yet. Although as long as occam's razor is being used (even if the explaination doesnt fit) i guess thats all that matters.

The Mexican case was interesting. The infrared objects COULD have been flares, however there were at least 3 objects that showed up on radar, which would imply that SOMETHING was near the plane. Also take into account the fact that they were experienced with this particular route and had not encountered anything like it before, so unless in that one instance there was some unusual atmospheric clarity, I don't know why this would have been something new to them. To the point that the government resorted to asking Jaime Maussan's "expert" opinion!

For what it's worth, someone analysed the infrared video, and the objects all have a definite spherical shape, not an abstract, "random" shape that one would expect with a large open flame. However, I'm curious as to whether or not an infrared camera such as the one they had aboard the plane has the resolution to show a target's shape from such a distance.

Seriously; people need to be far more careful in reducing phenomenon down to a 'known cause' its in using this line of reasoning that ive actually come across some of the most pseudo-scientific and completely barmy explainations out there. Oh well such is the need to reduce everything down to something prosaic and bengin...

Very well put, sir/madam. They have a need, nay, an ADDICTION, to arriving at an "acceptable" down-to-earth conclusion, which means basically anything as long as it rules out aliens or some type of non-human intelligence. In their pursuit of feeding this addiction, they will conveniently simplify the facts of a sighting beyond what is reasonable and/or latch onto one facet of the sighting and magnify magnify MAGNIFY that one detail in order to obscure the rest of the details that don't fit into their own version of the puzzle.

 

[Gustav]

We have no doubt at all that people have seen "things", in fact many of us have seen them as well. But it's that tremendous leap from unidentified to alien - automatically - that we object to.

i personally have never seen anything that befuddled, just birds/planse/natural phenoms and no superman. that probably goes for the majority of humans

The term 'Ufo' from what ive seen is still generally applied in the same manner as it ever was, if something is in flight and it cant be attributed to a known craft, animal, or light source than people will employ the term 'ufo'. You cant really point to visual associations of ufos (such as enlarged alien heads) as if these images soley encompass what people are 'really' talking about when they mention a ufo.
If you do choose to assume that by saying 'ufo' someone is talking about aliens then youve got a pretty high chance of being incorrect enough of the time to not make it worth making that assumption.

i think the term ufo is almost always used by professionals when ignorant of an object's exact specs. for instance it could be known to be a plane and still be unidentified as make and model is not known. or perhaps if it is a friendly or enemy. a ufo is also a bogey. the term probably is radar traffic control speak

ever hear an ornithoolgist refer to a bird as a ufo?
a meteorologist refer to a cell as a ufo?
i doubt it

the term ufo passed into popular parlance only to serve as a reference to an alien craft.

 

[Gustav]

That's true - excelent work.

But you only covered the two extremes and didn't mention the huge number of us who are in the middle. Most of this group would be willing to believe in the UFO/alien connection if there were only some evidence. Any at all.?

why is it that we members of sciforums that post in pseudo have to represent some larger body and perhaps speak for it?could we not simply consider what is actually been said by the individual aka his opinion?

look how heliocentric wonders who skinwalker is talking about.....
look how skinwalker ignores heliocentric and raises a strawman by appealing to some nebulous authority

skinwalker: The semantics of your argument don't wash and aren't accepted by anyone with a critical and objective viewpoint”

heliocentric: Meaning you?

skinwalker: The space alien believer with a bit of intellectual aptitude will, however, use this semantic argument to distract from the overall woo-woo nature of the space alien hypothesis.

heliocentric: meaning me?

ridiculous
then we have topic drift
suddenly the disclosure project is the same as the raelian cult and perhaps even a goblin like

what's with you scifori pseudos and these aimless rants?
pathetic

 

[Giambattista]

Dear Light,

Where DO you get off?

You brushed aside my comments about physical and biological characteristics/anomalies on plants found within crop circles as the ramblings of someone who knows the bare minimum of science and just the right vocabulary to pass it off as real science. Your knowledge of crop circles was clearly lacking, as evidenced in your denial that "these things have never been observed." Despite your ignorance of the subject, you proceeded to shake your finger at me, speaking as if I was an intellectual toddler. Apparently considering oneself a bastion of rationalism and good science (and insulting others who don't "fit the bill") doesn't require one to actually know what they're talking about. I believe they're called pseudoskeptics.

After witnessing your very uninformed OPINIONS ("it's all pseudoscientific bullsh** " is definitely opinion, not fact), and after I provided adequate answers to them, you very suddenly became quiet. And time passed, and there were NO MORE responses from "Professor" Light in the crop circle forum. You pummeled me with some shallow, ill-conceived notions, and then apparently you "won" by not responding further.

And mutations in particular!! Do not these idiots understand that for mutations to appear would require the seeds to mature, sprout and produce new plants (another generation)?

Did you read the interesting response I gave about colchicine and cannabis?

Go ahead and give them their space - and I'll just keep eliminating idiots as I encounter them.

Who's an idiot, Light? If you're trying to eliminate someone (like, Giovanni B., perhaps) you're not doing a very good job.

I'd really like to see you answer this and my two other posts to you earlier in this very thread. Read all three of them. They're quite excellent.
I'd like to know just WHO is the idiot, and what justification you have to be calling people names when you ain't lookin' so hot yourself.