Gustav said:
Do my ramblings count as "topic drift"?
The Disclosure Project
- Thread starter y2k
- Start date
Do my ramblings count as "topic drift"?
c7ityi_ said:
It probably is a doctored video. I saw an analysis of it once. Forget what happened! Perhaps I'll look it up.
c7ityi_ said:
What? :bugeye: You're weird, c7ityi_. How do you pronounce your name, anyway?
Ophiolite said:
The ship is having trouble staying on course as it is. We don't need puffs from YOUR direction.
Only kidding, Oafy. Huff and puff all you want...
Not sure if someone was asking for this video...well here it is anyways.
Disclosure Project.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1166743665260900218&q=UFOs
Disclosure Project.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1166743665260900218&q=UFOs
Thanks, moe. I'm watching it now.
I'm getting nude later! Wink wink!
I'm getting nude later! Wink wink!
Giambattista said:
I'm not weird, I'm the same as you. My name pronounched c h a o s. You forgot.
The UFO's are the same things people have seen thousands of years: elves, demons, angels, ghosts etc. They come from the Astral Light (memory of the world), they're projections from the multilayered mind of Gaia, of which our own minds are one facet. The phenomenon molds itself to conform to the culture and time in which it appears. Like an 'alien' said: 'We refuse to be your answer. Just when you think you have us pinned down, we'll tell you something else. No one belief system can encompass all of reality in a complex universe'.
'You should believe in us -- but not too much.'
From Skin.."That isn't what I meant to imply and, if this is what you inferred, I freely retract that sentiment. I mean to say that most people who have an active (rather than passing) interest in UFOs have deficits in their ability to process information objectively."
Ouch.
That statement is garbage.
Basically what your saying is that anyone who even remotely begins to actively pursue this issue to any degree is already dysfunctional.
Wow.
Ok, upon further reflection of your statement, I think I know what you mean.
This statement would be directed to those who have not had any personal experience, to those who "want" to believe, in spite of having never actualy seeing or experiencing an extra-ordinary event first hand.
Gotcha.
Yes, I agree.
The inability to be objective and open minded without falling into habitual premature conclusions happens to "believers" on both sides of the fence.
I can make this statement to both sides...you already know, dont you.
Ouch.
That statement is garbage.
Basically what your saying is that anyone who even remotely begins to actively pursue this issue to any degree is already dysfunctional.
Wow.
Ok, upon further reflection of your statement, I think I know what you mean.
This statement would be directed to those who have not had any personal experience, to those who "want" to believe, in spite of having never actualy seeing or experiencing an extra-ordinary event first hand.
Gotcha.
Yes, I agree.
The inability to be objective and open minded without falling into habitual premature conclusions happens to "believers" on both sides of the fence.
I can make this statement to both sides...you already know, dont you.
Last edited:
hmmmmm i see clues. consciousness isTHE clue. as 'chaos' says--refelctinfg ideas of Jacques Vallee, there is some kind ofomnijective (David Bohm) reality which is interdimensions
we are indocrinatedin 3Dism----te 'cult of pnly-3Dism'----?
you've heardof that famous example of 2D pewople encountering a 3 D object in their vicinity? they will see a 3D sphere in 'slices' from smaller to biggerand then goingback to small
so whats happeningwith us is may similr but we are encountering something interdimensional. itis'our' attitude that makes accepting andlearningaboutnit an impasse. like itwould be for 2Dians if yus told me itwas a sphere
we are indocrinatedin 3Dism----te 'cult of pnly-3Dism'----?
you've heardof that famous example of 2D pewople encountering a 3 D object in their vicinity? they will see a 3D sphere in 'slices' from smaller to biggerand then goingback to small
so whats happeningwith us is may similr but we are encountering something interdimensional. itis'our' attitude that makes accepting andlearningaboutnit an impasse. like itwould be for 2Dians if yus told me itwas a sphere
I'm going to tell tell you about an alien abduction.
There was a woman who was abducted by aliens, and she got into their Motherfucking spaceship. She was scared, like most people are when they are abducted by aliens. The aliens took of her clothes and then one alien came close to her and said: 'What you need is a good Fuck!'
She said it was the best orgasm she had ever had.
btw, good post, Gustav
There was a woman who was abducted by aliens, and she got into their Motherfucking spaceship. She was scared, like most people are when they are abducted by aliens. The aliens took of her clothes and then one alien came close to her and said: 'What you need is a good Fuck!'
She said it was the best orgasm she had ever had.
btw, good post, Gustav
heliocentric said:
I was surprised that of all the people that called me on this statement, none bothered to point out that I have an "interest" in UFOs as well. And I maintain that it affects my objectivity. That I think many, if not most, of the UFO claims are bunk is something that I allow to influence my perspective. But I try to be aware of this bias when considering the individual UFO claim. Few of those that profess a belief that UFOs are a genuine phenomenon (beyond the "it's-flying-and-I-can't-identify-it" explanation), the people that like to think of themselves as "ufologists," seem to genuinely be able to use critical thought or objectivity. This is evident in the very nature of their "reports" and arguments. Prosaic and mundane explanations are routinely dismissed in favor of the space alien hypothesis. Case in point is your dismissal of the oil well explanation of the Campeche, Mexico sighting. This explanation was well-thought out and the logic sound, yet the UFO believer dismisses it with simplistic justifications that include the routine rhetoric that "oil wells don't fly to altitudes of X." This rebuttal is both un-informed and juvenile in its value, since the detailed explanation that included the oil wells at Campeche clearly gave the reason why they would seem as high as they were." The patent dismissal of such explanations comes not from objectivity but from hope and desire. The space alien hypothesis, it would seem, strokes the same place in the human mind as the god hypothesis.
heliocentric said:
I agree with this statement to a point, and indeed, I would also suggest that this would apply to both sides of the UFO debate. However, there are those such as yourself and moementum7 who present reasoned and clear arguments for their position (except when they rely on the rhetoric of the UFO community as above), which constantly reminds me not to rely on these stereotypes.
heliocentric said:
Here's the example I was thinking of
But there are others as well.
There are others. If you want another copy of the report, I have it in both pdf and Word. PM me with your email address and I'd be happy to forward it to you.
heliocentric said:
I disagree, but unless one of us is willing to amass a collection of reports and look at their characteristics, demonstrating one side of this argument or the other would be moot indeed. However, I think even you must agree that many (in my opinion, most) reports include assumptions like "it was something not of this Earth" or "the movements were not like any terrestrial craft."
heliocentric said:
With this point I strongly disagree. Perhaps its my age and the fact that I remember all too well the science fiction movies and television shows that portrayed aliens nearly exactly the way modern lore and mythology does. UFOs and aliens have been very much, perhaps even more, a part of public imagination and fiction in the 1950s and 1960s than they were during X-Files. I used the X-Files as a modern analog since this is a very recognizable form of pop-culture today, even after its cancellation years ago. But early science fiction depictions of UFOs and aliens were a craze and flooded comic books, movies, and television shows.
heliocentric said:
Which could be argued, very effectively, are rip-offs of some fictive account already established by science fiction. http://www.magicdragon.com/UltimateSF/timeline1960.html#50sFilms
heliocentric said:
Then you are dismissing this possibility? Is this objective?
heliocentric said:
Indeed these were good photos. Such that, those experienced with military maneuvers (myself included) recognized the very nature of the objects. Illumination rounds. An assertion that was confirmed by those involved in the exercise that occurred in the military range that was just beyond the mountain where the flares became obscured from view in Phoenix. Other sightings were planes, as confirmed –again- by those involved in the exercise as well as a ground-based observer (a amateur astronomer) whose observation was completely ignored by the popular media, perhaps because it de-sensationalized the event. This was discussed at length in another thread here if you're willing to search for it.
But that still doesn't imply that the quantity or quality of UFO images has increased. In the 1970s and 1980s UFO images were far more common (again, I'm speaking from my memory of the period). Lately, the number of images has decreased considerably. But again, this is a point that someone would need to objectively quantify before it can be laid to rest. Until then, we simply disagree on the point. I haven't the time to collect UFO image data at this time, perhaps you do.
heliocentric said:
Your point is well taken. I have an idea on a way to demonstrate that assertion, perhaps if I get the time I'll implement it.
Gustav said:mmmm
battista!
looks like it is you that is in combat mode
nicely done
Light whined about the Pseudoscience forum and its resident nutters even being visible alongside the rest of the forum. When I saw his comments in "The Purpose of the Pseudoscience sub-forum" and remembering well his arrogant know-it-all attitude in the crop circle discussion, I was tempted to say something about it.
I just want to know where he gets off declaring that persons like myself know the "bare minimum" when he himself is making his own proclamations which have little truth or substance. Myself and another both asked him the same question: how many crop circles has he personally investigated? Has he performed tests on the plant material, or the the soils, found in the circles? Is he a specialist in that area which would allow him to make such sweeping statements dismissing the entire thing as a thoroughly debunked phenomenon?
For such a self-righteous defender of the scientific method, he didn't seem eager to say anymore after that. Why? Let me guess: because he was so right, that he didn't need to waste further precious time with a woowoo that will never be able to grasp more than the most elementary concepts?
I REALLY REALLY REALLY want to know what qualifies him to make the overconfident, self-assured, misleading, and quite uninformed declarations that he did, while throwing out insults towards people like myself who "believe such garbage", not bothering to respond further, and then lamenting the "idiots" who frequent this part of the forum.
It is clear that Light is a hypocrite.
His unrestrained epithets towards people who believe there very well may be something in crop circles and elsewhere that science can't readily account for, and his simultaneous ignorance about that subject really gets my goat and leaves mysterious puncture wounds.
Light and his folly should serve as an example of what happens not only when you think you know more than you do, but you insult people because of it. It is one thing to misread something or to make assumptions based on impartial data, but the insulting is the part that I personally abhor.
The chickens were all accounted for, but there were only eggs...
And where is that bulwark of reason?
VERY hot air.
Gustav said:what what
i am done praising your ass
move along
Actually, I did feel kind of guilty. See, I've never known much about the Disclosure Project, so I haven't much to say about it one way or the other.
I'm great at moving sideways in conversations. I get sidetracked easily.
Oh, well, I suppose in a roundabout way, everything I've said has something to do with "disclosure"...