where is the evidence for alien visitation?
- Thread starter mars13
- Start date
- Status
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
Gustav said:
Mmmmm... Well, that certainly proved me every colour of wrong, didn't it boys and girls..... ?
mr anonymous
In intelligence circles the purpose of an actual cover-up is to first and foremost cover-up what ever it is one wants further scrutiny to be deflected away from - really rather defeats the whole purpose of the exercise if first the group or organisation concerned a lets the world and his dog know all about whatever the incident was in the first place and then b proceeds to continue to allow the world and his dog to know for an absolute "fact" that steps are being made to suppress evidence of the entire initial event.
self serving rationale
give me an real life example that remotely resemble the events presented
show me that this scenario is not merely a hallucination conjured up in your devious mind to support a bogus premise.
you reason in typical muddled fashion
if a govt "lets the world and his dog know all", that implies they are control. only they are aware of the incident. they choose to disseminate or not
In merely responding "No" to questions along the lines of "Were objects of extraterrestrial origin retrieved from Roswell....", for but general example wholly because you brought the matter up, the US Military may not automatically and simply by default in answering in the negative be actually lying or indeed proceeding to actually be covering-up evidence of anything at all of the kind the specific line of question posited dictates.
stating the obvious
if compelling evidence of ufo/et is not present to give lie to the alleged cover up or denial, there no logical/evidentiary basis for disputing the denial of et
Wanting to cover-up the existence of the covert aerial surveillance device or else plane which may have gone somewhat array during testing and which direct evidence of its development and possession in the first place more than likely constitutes a severe breech of International Treaty - now that provides both means and more than adequate motive to want to suppress, hide and remove all further possibility of direct scrutiny away from prying eyes with the greatest degree of alacrity possible.
irrelevant but yet an acknowledgment of possible cover ups > slippery slope
That subsequent enquiry in to the matter centres predominantly around concerns as remotely far away directly from Military affairs direct as the term extraterrestrials is likely to get hardly hinders the process - moreover one could not un-entirely unreasonably venture if anything ensuring that such scrutiny into whatever enquiry remains subsequently exclusively within the terms of what didn't actually prove to be the case in the first place makes simple and straightforward sense.
brain on drugs
After all, if people want to ask about crashed UFO's and extraterrestrial bodies, let 'em. No one has to tell an out and out lie when directly questioned on the matter and politically no one has to face the embarrassment of being caught out actively conducting military activities mutually signed peace treaties prohibit the development of in the first place, but strategically need to be developed wholly on the QT.
umm...ok?
In intelligence circles the purpose of an actual cover-up is to first and foremost cover-up what ever it is one wants further scrutiny to be deflected away from - really rather defeats the whole purpose of the exercise if first the group or organisation concerned a lets the world and his dog know all about whatever the incident was in the first place and then b proceeds to continue to allow the world and his dog to know for an absolute "fact" that steps are being made to suppress evidence of the entire initial event.
self serving rationale
give me an real life example that remotely resemble the events presented
show me that this scenario is not merely a hallucination conjured up in your devious mind to support a bogus premise.
you reason in typical muddled fashion
if a govt "lets the world and his dog know all", that implies they are control. only they are aware of the incident. they choose to disseminate or not
In merely responding "No" to questions along the lines of "Were objects of extraterrestrial origin retrieved from Roswell....", for but general example wholly because you brought the matter up, the US Military may not automatically and simply by default in answering in the negative be actually lying or indeed proceeding to actually be covering-up evidence of anything at all of the kind the specific line of question posited dictates.
stating the obvious
if compelling evidence of ufo/et is not present to give lie to the alleged cover up or denial, there no logical/evidentiary basis for disputing the denial of et
Wanting to cover-up the existence of the covert aerial surveillance device or else plane which may have gone somewhat array during testing and which direct evidence of its development and possession in the first place more than likely constitutes a severe breech of International Treaty - now that provides both means and more than adequate motive to want to suppress, hide and remove all further possibility of direct scrutiny away from prying eyes with the greatest degree of alacrity possible.
irrelevant but yet an acknowledgment of possible cover ups > slippery slope
That subsequent enquiry in to the matter centres predominantly around concerns as remotely far away directly from Military affairs direct as the term extraterrestrials is likely to get hardly hinders the process - moreover one could not un-entirely unreasonably venture if anything ensuring that such scrutiny into whatever enquiry remains subsequently exclusively within the terms of what didn't actually prove to be the case in the first place makes simple and straightforward sense.
brain on drugs
After all, if people want to ask about crashed UFO's and extraterrestrial bodies, let 'em. No one has to tell an out and out lie when directly questioned on the matter and politically no one has to face the embarrassment of being caught out actively conducting military activities mutually signed peace treaties prohibit the development of in the first place, but strategically need to be developed wholly on the QT.
umm...ok?
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
Gustav said:
Em... Gustav old boy, and perish the very thought anyone, least of all my self, would ever dream of possibly holding a point of view even marginally contrary to mien Fuhrer's own but actually, neither myself nor JD, from what I gather, have at all even suggested for an instant that cover-ups on the part of the military don't occur.
The entire post you're quoting from states no position in the slightest bit contrary in any form.
What exactly are we supposed to be doing here, Gustav? When we accede to your demands, we're wrong - when we politely posit even just a very simple question, apparently we're twisting facts and hullucinating...
Why not just go the whole hog and, finally, get around to telling us what it is we should think and I promise, you have my very word, both myself and anyone else with an interest will do our absolute jolly best give it our very fullest consideration.
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
.... Would that be a "No" then?
Gustav,
If I may ask, what be your humble opinion on the matters discussed in this thread? Are you a believer in extraterrestrials? Or are you of the ilk that believes that what everyone sees is merely new planes driven by Americans? What, exactly, do you believe?
See, I stated my own thoughts on the matter, and I see no err in my opinion. If there is any evidence for alien visitation of our planet, it is no more conclusive than if I took a picture of my turds and told you that Spider Man broke into my house and squatted on my toilet.
Sure, you have shaky video, blurry pictures, fake video and pictures, testimony by both witnesses credible and not, some poor judgement by government officials throughout the world (and especially the American government in 1947) and kooks who will believe any conspiricy theory placed before them....what this all boils down to is two groups of individuals...
...those who believe, and those who do not. Within these groups, there are those who either believe or dont' believe for the right or the wrong reasons.
I say the people who will fight tooth and nail to sway the rest of us to the train of thought that aliens do visit us believe for the wrong reasons (see: Norval)...on the flip-side of that, the people who flat-out refuse to aknowledge the possibility that aliens may vist/have visited, are believing that for the wrong reasons.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I can no more say that aliens have visited this place than I can that they have not; there is no evidence that they have, that much I can say. Call the videos and pictures and testimony what you like, but it's not evidence. Of course, there is no evidence that they have not, other than ET's lack of presence here on Earth. The best I can do is say that it is highly unlikely that ET has been here, based on the fact that such a thing is disputed by officials who might know, and there is no conclusive evidence for their visitation.
Beyond that, I cannot say.
Again I pose the question, Gustav: What is YOUR view on this?
JD
If I may ask, what be your humble opinion on the matters discussed in this thread? Are you a believer in extraterrestrials? Or are you of the ilk that believes that what everyone sees is merely new planes driven by Americans? What, exactly, do you believe?
See, I stated my own thoughts on the matter, and I see no err in my opinion. If there is any evidence for alien visitation of our planet, it is no more conclusive than if I took a picture of my turds and told you that Spider Man broke into my house and squatted on my toilet.
Sure, you have shaky video, blurry pictures, fake video and pictures, testimony by both witnesses credible and not, some poor judgement by government officials throughout the world (and especially the American government in 1947) and kooks who will believe any conspiricy theory placed before them....what this all boils down to is two groups of individuals...
...those who believe, and those who do not. Within these groups, there are those who either believe or dont' believe for the right or the wrong reasons.
I say the people who will fight tooth and nail to sway the rest of us to the train of thought that aliens do visit us believe for the wrong reasons (see: Norval)...on the flip-side of that, the people who flat-out refuse to aknowledge the possibility that aliens may vist/have visited, are believing that for the wrong reasons.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I can no more say that aliens have visited this place than I can that they have not; there is no evidence that they have, that much I can say. Call the videos and pictures and testimony what you like, but it's not evidence. Of course, there is no evidence that they have not, other than ET's lack of presence here on Earth. The best I can do is say that it is highly unlikely that ET has been here, based on the fact that such a thing is disputed by officials who might know, and there is no conclusive evidence for their visitation.
Beyond that, I cannot say.
Again I pose the question, Gustav: What is YOUR view on this?
JD
let me jump in befo Gustav a mo........JDawg go check my last post again. there ISevidence aready......!there are for example implants taken out of abductees bodies that are not-knpwn to science, but hey guess what?,......pseudosceptics who have 'EVIDENCE' as their middle name do not een bother to investgate flickin evidence!...all the do do is demand it. yet dont do the leg work and look at the fuker!
what does this say to me? that you are in fear is what it says that you hide behind a facade, and this facade is that you are lookin at te evidence...which yo aint
you even ae not satisfied with the evidence of phots and videos and experts opinions that such and such a doumented piece of photographic or videographic EVIDENCE is authentic. you poo poo all that, efen though you most defo haven't gone to any lengths to really really investigate ALL of tat, dont investgate existing solid evidence like the implants. so what the hell Do wyou want if you dont make an effort? what?
also. to say to pople who HAVE had an abduction experience which hasleft them tramatized that they are making it up, 'mentally ill' etc is very very wrong indeed.
what does this say to me? that you are in fear is what it says that you hide behind a facade, and this facade is that you are lookin at te evidence...which yo aint
you even ae not satisfied with the evidence of phots and videos and experts opinions that such and such a doumented piece of photographic or videographic EVIDENCE is authentic. you poo poo all that, efen though you most defo haven't gone to any lengths to really really investigate ALL of tat, dont investgate existing solid evidence like the implants. so what the hell Do wyou want if you dont make an effort? what?
also. to say to pople who HAVE had an abduction experience which hasleft them tramatized that they are making it up, 'mentally ill' etc is very very wrong indeed.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
JDawg, I have to disagree with you. There is evidence for alien visits: it's just that it is for the most part very poor evidence, and is a very long way from constituting proof. This may seem like nitpicking, but I think the distinction is an important and useful one. It allows us to focus on the quality of the evidence - which is something that can often be quantified - rather than dropping into a 'yes it is', 'no it isn't dialogue'.
I think it also matches your suggestion that the two groups (pros and antis) contain those who either believe or dont' believe for the right or the wrong reasons. You get a matrix like this:
_________________________________Right_____________________Wrong
Believe in UFOs____________Find evidence persuasive__________Think there is proof
Do not believe in UFOs______Find evidence insufficient_________Believe there is no evidence
I think it also matches your suggestion that the two groups (pros and antis) contain those who either believe or dont' believe for the right or the wrong reasons. You get a matrix like this:
_________________________________Right_____________________Wrong
Believe in UFOs____________Find evidence persuasive__________Think there is proof
Do not believe in UFOs______Find evidence insufficient_________Believe there is no evidence
welllll, the ones i saw were like small black solid stones. the surgeon said that even asurgical knife wouldn't cut them. they have a weird membrane surrounding them. Where are they? I am gonnahave to re-watch docu. which is tapd to take notes. i have aleady said i will do tis sometim inthe future. then you can go and see Light,and bring back your findings.Light said:
Now this scene-with the surgeon- was a part of other scenes where people--real real people have claimed to be abducted. tell me Light. why should you disblieve them? ....right let me give you a brief description agin......a mum and her mum and two boys are are ridingnin a car driven by the younger mum.
As they cross the moors they see a very bright round object in te sky. it ends up hovering over their car. they all say they felt this deep relaxing love coming from the UFO which they also felt. Then they forget. they find out time is missing......we've heard this before haven't we??...in docu the younger mum is put under hypnosis and is very distressed remmberingcause she'd been worried for her two young boys. she says they were taken--all of them into a black space....so that' s brief encounter i give you. how would YOU respond to them telling you this, which for themhas left them utterly confused, and really traumatized.
Duendy,
A language is just a communication tool duendy. Even animals communicate.
Todays discussion...
I think you will find sceptics would love it if aliens were visiting.
Sure there are photos that have a lot more detail than the video but just maybe that is because they are easier to fake. Think about it..
Anyway if you know of better video footage I am keen to see it.
There are several possible explanations to abduction experiences such as sleep paralysis and our brains ability to create memories. These do not imply that the person is a liar or mentally ill.
You are just trying to paint the sceptics as rude and dismissive. Even if that were true it doesn't strengthen the evidence for abduction.
Blaming the invention of the written word for religious persecution is just ridiculous. I shouldn't even need to explain why.duendy yesterday said:
Which scientists think their language is superior to the written word? What would that have to do with what we are talking about anyway? Just more anti-science talk....duendy yesterday said:
A language is just a communication tool duendy. Even animals communicate.
Todays discussion...
Rubbish. This is something that gets thrown around a lot but no one seems to be able to produce any of these implants for testing.duendy said:
From my experience here the sceptics often know a lot more than the believers. The sceptics have looked at your evidence and it simply isn't good enough. To explain this away you accuse them of being afraid and ignoring the evidence......duendy said:
I think you will find sceptics would love it if aliens were visiting.You are kidding right? The shaky video of lights in the distance? .. ok.duendy said:
Sure there are photos that have a lot more detail than the video but just maybe that is because they are easier to fake. Think about it..
Anyway if you know of better video footage I am keen to see it.
Just because they are traumatised should everyone go along with whatever story they tell? Weren't you after the truth duendy?duendy said:
There are several possible explanations to abduction experiences such as sleep paralysis and our brains ability to create memories. These do not imply that the person is a liar or mentally ill.
You are just trying to paint the sceptics as rude and dismissive. Even if that were true it doesn't strengthen the evidence for abduction.
Last edited:
the assessments are on a case by case basis
with regards to the belgian flap...
i would say the objects sighted are more likely to be of et origin rather than manmade.
the opinion is based on inadequate info and as such is not a definitive statement
we can go into the specifics of the case if you want
i also find it probable that sentient life exists elsewhere in the universe
since i know of one spacefaring civ, it is not too much of a stretch to imagine other civs doing the same.
with regards to the belgian flap...
i would say the objects sighted are more likely to be of et origin rather than manmade.
the opinion is based on inadequate info and as such is not a definitive statement
we can go into the specifics of the case if you want
i also find it probable that sentient life exists elsewhere in the universe
since i know of one spacefaring civ, it is not too much of a stretch to imagine other civs doing the same.
- Status