i have sid frm te first..i dont even see you'll as sceptics, but pseudosceptics. reason? ther real definition of 'sceptic' is someone who keeps asking questions. you lost seem to cling to your answers, and not even be willing to explore, and wondershaman_ said:Duendy,
Blaming the invention of the written word for religious persecution is just ridiculous. I shouldn't even need to explain why.
me:f ourse i am not blaming the written word. i am blaming how it has been misused for control of peoples.
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....
me::i just meant that even scientists with a more precise language can misuse it for control and power.
A language is just a communication tool duendy. Even animals communicate.
me:
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.
me::shaman...do you even know the name of the surgeon I was speaking of??
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......
me::well all that is just words. why should I beliefe YOU?....you tempt me to say where the evidence?...hehe
You are kidding right? The shaky video of lights in the distance? .. ok.
me::you see. I see right there...you have conceptualized an image which simply isn't true. not ALL video footage of UFOs ARE blurry and shaky. i myself have seen unexplainable UFOs which were very clear.
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..
me::no. cause what you say is slack arsed to be quite frank. is tis a game to you shaman. do you take us for sloppy fools us 'oo woos' what phlo calls 'us'?.....what are the odds tat everyon of the more authentic photies have been faked? seriously..are you good at statistics?
Anyway if you know of better video footage I am keen to see it.
me:i surely wih i had access to a fuck off compure, cause i would be fukin bizy here i tell you
Just because they are traumatised should everyone go along with whatever story they tell? Weren't you after the truth duendy?
me::the truth? where does compassin come in to your truth. right you haveeyes and sense yeah. so you aren't just listening to the words.a lot is going on, cause this tale to you is also quite traumatic isn't it? if this is true it is pretty amazing.......and what if thess people are telling te truth, and your attitude is cold and sceptical. you make them feel worse. i am not on about obvious fakes. but when you feel that they are being real
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.
me::lik i said in te original post about tis......when watchin these people tell their experience it was really moving...then scene goes to mr expert psychologist who is the leader in tis filed of inquiry.....wellll it was fukin sad. he was also coming out with the most ludicrous explanations, like sleep paralysis..etc. This family were out in a car for fukys sake....!
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.
where is the evidence for alien visitation?
- Thread starter mars13
- Start date
- Status
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
Gustav said:yes
Oh, thank heavens for that - for a moment there I thought you were going to drivel on in the same interminable manner indefinately...
Like you?
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
Possibly, but without the charm....
Yet another dark alley in the maze, dawhlings, inviting you all with disdainful, I mean delicious hospitality, to depreciate, I mean focus, dawhlings, focus further with your silly trinky torch-lights, I mean utter brilliance, that which is none of your GodDamnBusiness. I mean that which is mysterious and pseudo, dawhlings, pseudo.
You are all hung up on obtaining concrete evidence. Proof. (Or Poof?) And. Why. Not. Or you're all pins and needles over indeterminable cover-ups to whet your hum-drum Machiavellian appetites. Both instances will however—evidence or cover ups—require a starting point: an alleged observation. This will have you, uh, determine— a word you might find more academically and, uh, ascetically appealing I think than mere "speculation"—will have you determine that an encounter has perhaps, no, might have perhaps been observed. "Might" because it must first be approved by your… what's the word… your majestic bottom lines (some smelly primitive ape thing, I think)—as if the Universe is dependent on your smelly bottom acumen. ::holler:: But that's another matter. ::tears::
Ah-hum. Yes. But getting back to the might have been observed thing.
Observed.
But dearests! In order to inaugurate a report, one must first be a bloody jolly witness! You know, comfortably on the sidelines? Like those foul foreign tourists with their silly cameras? Peering like slimy perverts about Buckingham Palace? Hoping for a glimpse of the one? Click click click. Oh! The blinds just parted! Quick! Did you catch that? Gracious!
Yeah, right.
Hence, you hum drum apes, CE1, CE2, CE3.
Simple.
But not so simple. Because it isn't CE1, CE2, or CE3 that matter—those are just tourists, remember? Collateral damage, as it were. Simpletons. It is the CE4 and CE5's who are the true beholders. But these hapless individuals don't describe themselves as tourists because they describe macabresque immersions. They. Are. In the. In. Side. Hardly in a position to click away at the million dollar pic you silly dawhlings are salivating for. And it would be analytically correct to assume that those closest to the phenomenon—abductees—are also, as they describe, closely monitored. And… muzzled.
Why is it that abductees, in their accounts, never deviate from the standard line? Shouldn't they, if they were loose mental cannons, project their imaginations beyond the typical abductee scenario? No. They don't.
But you have no fuckin' way to understand how to even begin to determine such an analytical survey. Stupid smelly acumen.
So you see, sweeties, you're fishing ghosts, I mean extrapolating the hum-drum, the irrelevant.
Carry on.
You are all hung up on obtaining concrete evidence. Proof. (Or Poof?) And. Why. Not. Or you're all pins and needles over indeterminable cover-ups to whet your hum-drum Machiavellian appetites. Both instances will however—evidence or cover ups—require a starting point: an alleged observation. This will have you, uh, determine— a word you might find more academically and, uh, ascetically appealing I think than mere "speculation"—will have you determine that an encounter has perhaps, no, might have perhaps been observed. "Might" because it must first be approved by your… what's the word… your majestic bottom lines (some smelly primitive ape thing, I think)—as if the Universe is dependent on your smelly bottom acumen. ::holler:: But that's another matter. ::tears::
Ah-hum. Yes. But getting back to the might have been observed thing.
Observed.
But dearests! In order to inaugurate a report, one must first be a bloody jolly witness! You know, comfortably on the sidelines? Like those foul foreign tourists with their silly cameras? Peering like slimy perverts about Buckingham Palace? Hoping for a glimpse of the one? Click click click. Oh! The blinds just parted! Quick! Did you catch that? Gracious!
Yeah, right.
Hence, you hum drum apes, CE1, CE2, CE3.
Simple.
But not so simple. Because it isn't CE1, CE2, or CE3 that matter—those are just tourists, remember? Collateral damage, as it were. Simpletons. It is the CE4 and CE5's who are the true beholders. But these hapless individuals don't describe themselves as tourists because they describe macabresque immersions. They. Are. In the. In. Side. Hardly in a position to click away at the million dollar pic you silly dawhlings are salivating for. And it would be analytically correct to assume that those closest to the phenomenon—abductees—are also, as they describe, closely monitored. And… muzzled.
Why is it that abductees, in their accounts, never deviate from the standard line? Shouldn't they, if they were loose mental cannons, project their imaginations beyond the typical abductee scenario? No. They don't.
But you have no fuckin' way to understand how to even begin to determine such an analytical survey. Stupid smelly acumen.
So you see, sweeties, you're fishing ghosts, I mean extrapolating the hum-drum, the irrelevant.
Carry on.
Last edited:
Duendy,
Remember we were discussing this baffling statement.. "he written word has been one of THE most insidious inventions of man that has in man ways DIMINISHED human intelligence."
Ah I see you are clinging to the idea that "there are so many ufo photos that they can't all be fakes!! That would be impossible!!"
I have never used the term 'woo woo'.
From wikipedia. -
" Religious or Scientific skepticism - a scientific, or practical, position in which one questions the veracity of extraordinary claims, and seeks to disprove them using the scientific method. "
I have seen a lot of that in this forum.
So blame religion and those in power, not the invention of the written word.duendy said:
Remember we were discussing this baffling statement.. "he written word has been one of THE most insidious inventions of man that has in man ways DIMINISHED human intelligence."
Good, you have a lead on some physical evidence. What was the surgeons name?duendy said:
I would like to see this footage you speak of.duendy said:
The point I was trying to make is that there are plenty of broad daylight photos that show a craft with detail. Yet we seem be to unable to get the same on video footage. Doesn't that seem a bit suspicious? Nowadays everone has a camera.duendy said:
Ah I see you are clinging to the idea that "there are so many ufo photos that they can't all be fakes!! That would be impossible!!"
I have never used the term 'woo woo'.
So you are not interested in the truth....duendy said:
Psuedosceptics is just a derogatory term that believers use for people who don't agree with them.duendy said:
No.duendy said:
From wikipedia. -
" Religious or Scientific skepticism - a scientific, or practical, position in which one questions the veracity of extraordinary claims, and seeks to disprove them using the scientific method. "
I have seen a lot of that in this forum.
Sceptics are after the truth. They don't believe in something just because it would make life seem more interesting.duendy said:
you assume we the 'woo woos' DO believe in someting. i have said again and again, i am exploring about tis. cause i see the danger of totally believing in someting. so tats what i do...looking for clues, etc. but in you lost i just see fundamentalism for sciencism. you rush for absurdexplanations to quickly explain away. it is a fukin sham to see, but you dont see it cause you'll are ironically blind to what your doing. but we can see itshaman_ said:Duendy,
So blame religion and those in power, not the invention of the written word.
Remember we were discussing this baffling statement.. "he written word has been one of THE most insidious inventions of man that has in man ways DIMINISHED human intelligence."
me::i stick with what i say! you believe what you wanna
Good, you have a lead on some physical evidence. What was the surgeons name?
me::errr i was pointing uout how you 'sceptics' here operate...? you had totally discounted a man and hi evidence even before you even knew his name or had seen the evidence. you had just assumed it MUST be false. That attitude very much illustrated what the actual surgeon said in te docu.........ie., tat sceptics knew everything about him, yet not a one had even bothered to loook at the evidence.....you did one better, shaman!....Be patient, i will get you his name when i re-watch the tape
I would like to see this footage you speak of.
me::what of te non blurry clear video UFO footage? well i canna pluck it out of te air can i. and i KNOW you distrust my 'anecdotal' evidence about this. i mean...i might have false-memory syndrome bla bla. and anotere ting shaman. IF you are as interested in all this as you think you are...how comes you have never seen what i am speaking off? you must lead a sheltered life dude.
In te docu. before te last one which was about UFOs there is a very famous video footage of a FLEET of shiny white UFOs passing over the Whitehouse, DC, at night.......totlly baffling the presenter of the docu. te film was taken many years back.....i have seen clear footage of UFOs in Mexico city whch was on a docu., and have seen UFOs -in a programme-...trhat formed a formation in te sky, not moving, and te crafts are unexplinale....all very clear, not blurry and shaky. the latter is all in YOUR mind
The point I was trying to make is that there are plenty of broad daylight photos that show a craft with detail. Yet we seem be to unable to get the same on video footage. Doesn't that seem a bit suspicious? Nowadays everone has a camera.
me::it is simply not true and only exists in your head. you need to get out more. be more aware of UFO progs...whatever
Ah I see you are clinging to the idea that "there are so many ufo photos that they can't all be fakes!! That would be impossible!!"
me::yes, impossible!
I have never used the term 'woo woo'.
me::it doesn't matter. you still treat us same. like you undermine our integrity to even see...to even know, etc
So you are not interested in the truth....
me:
Psuedosceptics is just a derogatory term that believers use for people who don't agree with them.
me::no i used it as i did for a reason. people who enjoy wearing blinkers, and feeling superior, whe really their arrogance is transparent
No.
From wikipedia. -
" Religious or Scientific skepticism - a scientific, or practical, position in which one questions the veracity of extraordinary claims, and seeks to disprove them using the scientific method.
me
'
me::dont like te last bit. it sounds sinister, and defo not wanting to find out, but rather to bash with the 'scientific method'....whih becomes blind dogma
"
I have seen a lot of that in this forum.
Sceptics are after the truth. They don't believe in something just because it would make life seem more interesting.
/sigh Fine.duendy said:
If only you analysed the evidence as closely as you analysed sceptics ....duendy said:
I have not discounted anything. From the research I have done, no one has produced an implant yet. If you have new evidence then I am interested.
I have seen a lot of footage over the years. Possibly more than you. I have yet to see any that were particularly convincing. As I said I am always interested in seeing more if you find some.duendy said:
The mexican footage you speak of, is that the encounter from last year?
I assure you I read a lot of ufo webpages (and anomalist.com, forteantimes ect) on a regular basis.duendy said:
Anyway you understand the point I was making though don't you? Even If you choose not to agree. Again, I am interested if you know of footage that will prove me wrong.
I see the believers wearing blinkers. The more interesting alien explanation always has to be the correct one.duendy said:
No it is sorting the hoaxes,misunderstandings ect from the genuine.duendy said:
Scientific method is the opposite of dogma. Your poor understanding of science is evident again....duendy said:
As am I. I am just a lot more critical of what I read.duendy said:
What absurd explanations have I rushed to?duendy said:
Last edited:
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
imagination is now evidence?
shaman_ said:/sigh Fine.
me::you sigh, cuase you didn't/dont understand. cause you haven't researched about the negative aspects of the introductin of the phonetic alphabet. i have studied about it.
If only you analysed the evidence as closely as you analysed sceptics ....
me::but you DONT shaman. it is all wordds, words words words with you, and you trip yourself up all the time. i tripped you up by exposin all your 'knowingness' when you didn't even know the surgeons name, etc., i was talkin about. How can you claim to be a scientist if you dont even bother to even know what the evidence is being talked about.......?? have a fearful feeling you wont get this?
I have not discounted anything. From the research I have done, no one has produced an implant yet. If you have new evidence then I am interested.
me::like said again.....wheni watch video i'll give you his name. then we will sit back while you give one of your quick explanations to explain it away...cause thats 'science' init?...haveing said that. ifyou CAN explain it, i will listen. But also would wanna contact the surgeon to verify your claims.....
I have seen a lot of footage over the years. Possibly more than you. I have yet to see any that were particularly convincing. As I said I am always interested in seeing more if you find some.
The mexican footage you speak of, is that the encounter from last year?
me:: well i dont believe you....hows YOU like that? huh? are you listening. how do you like not being believed? yet you will do this on people who have had amazing and traumtic experences. i bet yu will feel pissed off me saying this wont you? you are gonna really really explian me wrong right?...only my reasons for sayingit are more reasonable than yours blindly discounting somepeople you've never even heard or met etc.,... that THEIRexperience is false memory syndrome or some such psychobablle meant to undermine peoples integrity.........so. The reason i dont believe you is that IF as you say you have seen 'SO much' footage, you COULDN@T havemissed what i have seen. for the liklihood of that isn'r reasonable. so i dont believe you.
you even have to ask when the Mexico city event occured. when any proper UFologist/sceptic would know the main event was in 1991 at time of eclipse...tripped agin dudey?
I assure you I read a lot of ufo webpages (and anomalist.com, forteantimes ect) on a regular basis.
me::well it aint done you much good has it?
Anyway you understand the point I was making though don't you? Even If you choose not to agree. Again, I am interested if you know of footage that will prove me wrong.
me::but you shouldna have to ask. it is existing. i have no means to foreward you quicktime movies so what then?...i cant be your ears eyes and savvy about finding tis stuff. i have and othrs have. why not you?
I see the believers wearing blinkers. The more interesting alien explanation always has to be the correct one.
me::maybe you are projecting your blinkers ono everyone else you donna agree with?...and you dont listen. i am explorin 2 fronts. i am not just thinking that 'ETs' may be involved, but that also man-made secret technology may be involved, etc...ie., which would also include UFOs. so my view is wider. not blinkered
No it is sorting the hoaxes,misunderstandings ect from the genuine.
and how do you do that? you are listening to psychology too much. and repeating parrot fashion what they are saying. you have no clue about the political role of psychology do you. or do you?
Scientific method is the opposite of dogma. Your poor understanding of science is evident again....
me:;we ar talkin bout the combination of sceintific method and HUMANS mate. and usually that means some form of dogma. i am seeing it direct with you lot. you HIDEbeHINDyour scientific method. everytting is minced through it. all human integrity is minced thru your tacky little test-set...which you obviously dont even know how to USE. you abuse even that tool
As am I. I am just a lot more critical of what I read.
me::i don
part 2---i couldn't type past thatpoint
ok. this is important shaman. your last question was wondering :what absurd explanations have I rushed to"?
right...how long i got??
alright. let us focus on the family i spoke of who claimed they were abducted.
i saw them and they seemed real. a mum hewr mum and her two young sons all had this experience.
After they have told of teir experience, we get in front of us the psychologist....thee he is, andwears glasses that make his eyes seem relly tiny. somehow tis fits
he starts orating. he claims that tis familiy driving in the middle of the day across the moors, a mum her mum and two sons all got ...wait for it, 'false memory syndrom'.......hahaha. bet you dont see funny side of this shaman
we are expected to buy the withering sham of an explanation? no me bro
But YOU repeated it didn't you in last post?parrot fashion. yeah. you have NEVER met this family and listened to them. you have NEVER even seen the programme i refer to. yet you repeat the psychoshit of the psychologist. now THATSamazin ....and you have the audacity to call this bolloks science?....no. what your science is is the sciencism of explaining away. EVEN being afraid to LOOK
ok. this is important shaman. your last question was wondering :what absurd explanations have I rushed to"?
right...how long i got??
alright. let us focus on the family i spoke of who claimed they were abducted.
i saw them and they seemed real. a mum hewr mum and her two young sons all had this experience.
After they have told of teir experience, we get in front of us the psychologist....thee he is, andwears glasses that make his eyes seem relly tiny. somehow tis fits
he starts orating. he claims that tis familiy driving in the middle of the day across the moors, a mum her mum and two sons all got ...wait for it, 'false memory syndrom'.......hahaha. bet you dont see funny side of this shaman
we are expected to buy the withering sham of an explanation? no me bro
But YOU repeated it didn't you in last post?parrot fashion. yeah. you have NEVER met this family and listened to them. you have NEVER even seen the programme i refer to. yet you repeat the psychoshit of the psychologist. now THATSamazin ....and you have the audacity to call this bolloks science?....no. what your science is is the sciencism of explaining away. EVEN being afraid to LOOK
No I sighed because it was not worth arguing about. It was a ridicluous statement, your attempts to explain it were pathetic and the subject had moved on.duendy said:
lol You have got to be joking. How have I tripped myself up once? You claim there is physical evidence of alien abduction and because I haven't seen the tv show you actually claim that as some sort of victory? lol Are you that desparate to attack sceptics because they make you feel foolish? I think... yes.duendy said:
Actually I don't claim to be a scientist. Please read the posts more carefully. Are you saying I don't know anything about the evidence because I didn't see your amazing tv show?duendy said:
You seem to have this simplistic attitude that if you have done the research you will believe everything....
lol It does not bother me at all.duendy said:
I have probably seen what you have seen. I am not as quick to believe as you are... Don't you get that?duendy said:
Again, I haven't discounted anything. I have suggested other explanations for abductions. I have not insulted any of these people. You are refusing any exlanation other than aliens. Who is blindly discounting here?
Oh yer tripped up again.duendy said:
Your arguments are becoming more deperate duendy.There has been more than one sighting in mexico you realise. There was an interesting one last year that got a lot of coverage. Maybe you should do some research.
Because I am not gullible?duendy said:
Again, I have seen plenty duendy. The evidence has not been very impressive at all.duendy said:
You know you can forward links for all this fantastic evidence that you have seen?
Oh because you have two fantastic theories that you are working on then you could not possibly have blinkers on. ok.duendy said:
What are you talking about?duendy said:
Yes yes more anti science talk. Perhaps you could show show me how to use scientific method as you appear to have a good understanding of science.....duendy said:
Well its a forum there is no time limit.duendy said:
It is hard to make sense of that ramble. Again more rubbish about me being afraid...duendy said:
I said there are other explanations for abductions and that we should explore them. I have not made any comment on some case you saw on a tv show once.
Last edited:
snake river rufus said:
It depends on how accurately your intellect can read, interpret, and translate.
It also depends on how cooperative your reason will be to adjust to the fertile grounds where your imagination is allowed to roam freely.
And it most certainly depends on the extent of your acreage, whether it's located in the cosmos or in the pantry.
I suspect you -- like most here -- are imaginatively illiterate. But then again, I doubt yours is very distinct.
its te ones that defy your explain-away theories i'm interested in...i dont think you know how absurd you explain-awayers sound. that is one of the things i'm trying to communicate to youshaman_ said:No I sighed because it was not worth arguing about. It was a ridicluous statement, your attempts to explain it were pathetic and the subject had moved on.
me::as is your understanding capacity. but i spose te subjec's superflous right now...so move on
lol You have got to be joking. How have I tripped myself up once? You claim there is physical evidence of alien abduction and because I haven't seen the tv show you actually claim that as some sort of victory? lol Are you that desparate to attack sceptics because they make you feel foolish? I think... yes.
me::ME seem foolish? from someone who judges a person and evidence bfore evidence is seen and man's name knoooown..??
i wont lol....to cruel
Actually I don't claim to be a scientist. Please read the posts more carefully. Are you saying I don't know anything about the evidence because I didn't see your amazing tv show?
me:
You seem to have this simplistic attitude that if you have done the research you will believe everything....
me:: well...it helps to research what yer going on about dont it?
lol It does not bother me at all.
me::me saying 'i dont believe you'? ...have YOU ever had what is a BIG experience?
I have probably seen what you have seen. I am not as quick to believe as you are... Don't you get that?
me::stop trying to be behind my eyes. you dont know me, to you think ya do
Again, I haven't discounted anything. I have suggested other explanations for abductions. I have not insulted any of these people. You are refusing any exlanation other than aliens. Who is blindly discounting here?
me::first you listen! what you do is explain away even beforeyou have heard tem SAY anythin!....that aint cooool
Oh yer tripped up again.
me::my only desperation is trying to get through to you .....but i'll live. donna worry
There has been more than one sighting in mexico you realise. There was an interesting one last year that got a lot of coverage. Maybe you should do some research.
me::sources please?
Because I am not gullible?
me::but you buy all the psychobabboe dont you.....even before hearing and seeing evidence?...that aint gullible....?
Again, I have seen plenty duendy. The evidence has not been very impressive at all.
me::not even ONE........????????
You know you can forward links for all this fantastic evidence that you have seen?
me::i know how to foreward links. but am sure thy'd be wasted on you. as you are blindfolded and have thingsin yer ears
Oh because you have two fantastic theories that you are working on then you could not possibly have blinkers on. ok.
me::i am workin on being suuuper unblinkered like yer precious sel sir
What are you talking about?
me::exactly!
Yes yes more anti science talk. Perhaps you could show show me how to use scientific method as you appear to have a good understanding of science.....
me::yet you admit to not being a scientist....hmmmmmm?
Well its a forum there is no time limit.
me::i suddenly thought.....'blue moon'
It is hard to make sense of that ramble. Again more rubbish about me being afraid...
me::well how else to explain you entrenched attitude that even experts in this field dont have??...
I said there are other explanations for abductions and that we should explore them. I have not made any comment on some case you saw on a tv show once.
its not so much i 'believe'..its just i m flabbergasted at your ridiculous ad hoc explanations for stuff that dont fit you expalnations.........it is lol
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
duendy said:
.... And, prerish the thought, anyone could ever accuse a person with a similar disposition to your own regarding the subject of anything even remotely the same.
That never happens, does it...?
You have yet to prove me wrong regarding the implants. Just saying that you saw one on a tv show does not prove me wrong.duendy said:
You missed or ignored my point. I have done the research and I am sceptical. You assume that anyone who has done the research would be a believer.duendy said:
Like a sighting or a paranormal experience? No. So what?duendy said:
Are you slow? I have not made any assessment on some case you saw on a tv show once.duendy said:
http://www.rense.com/general52/deff.htm It was the most publicised sighting last year.duendy said:
Remember you made this comment "you even have to ask when the Mexico city event occured. when any proper UFologist/sceptic would know the main event was in 1991 at time of eclipse...tripped agin dudey?" Maybe it applies to you.
duendy said:
What evidence haven't I seen? Show me. Oh wait you are still talking about some tv show you saw once.
Does all your evidence for abductions come from this tv show?
That is a pathetic excuse. Present your amazing evidence or shut up.duendy said:
You don't mean ufo experts do you?duendy said:
What is absurd is that you discard any explanation other than space aliens.duendy said:
Last edited:
shaman_ said:You have yet to prove me wrong regarding the implants. Just saying that you saw one on a tv show does not prove me wrong.
me::look...roll yer peepers any more and they'll roll down yer cheeks!
i saw the programme and implants, you haven't...........YET......yeah. yet you were quick to judge BEFORE yo have even seen it. THAT is what am pointing you....sheeesh. get me?
You missed or ignored my point. I have done the research and I am sceptical. You assume that anyone who has done the research would be a believer.
me:;oh we know you are dear. and i dontassume that. i Do though expext less shoddiness
Like a sighting or a paranormal experience? No. So what?
me::so what?....a BIG what. if yo ainthad sex...and try to explain it, whats that?
what i was gettin at is that you are quick to give some explanation for people who have had amazing and truamatic expriences, withut listening and being humble. so i asked how would YOU like it if some pople undermined YOUR experience...patronizing you that you cant remember right or see right or are 'mentally ill' etc. obviously you haven't had this experience which explains your lck of empathy
Are you slow? I have not made any assessment on some case you saw on a tv show once.
me::well thats how i read it before
http://www.rense.com/general52/deff.htm It was the most publicised sighting last year.
Remember you made this comment "you even have to ask when the Mexico city event occured. when any proper UFologist/sceptic would know the main event was in 1991 at time of eclipse...tripped agin dudey?" Maybe it applies to you.
me::i have no problem with tis. i asked you source not to make out i am right, but outt of general interest as i wasn't aware of it......let me ask you then. what is your explanation as to what happened to those pilots?
What evidence haven't I seen? Show me. Oh wait you are still talking about some tv show you saw once.
me::i cant show you the fukin show can i? what do you wanna?
Does all your evidence for abductions come from this tv show?
me::get real. does it ek as like. i have abduction reports older than YOU!
That is a pathetic excuse. Present your amazing evidence or shut up.
me::ahhhhhh....same to you. you 'evidence'-head
You don't mean ufo experts do you?
me::who aren't as entrenched as yours truly?...well even the sceptics on tat show sowed much more maturity than you are....at present
What is absurd is that you discard any explanation other than space aliens.
shhhhheit....didn't you hear i also am explorin that UFOs can be man-made too
i am also aware of 'earth lights' and other natural phenomena.....
so be careful assuming you know what i mean about this. which ya keeps doin
But what you are pointing out is rubbish. I have not been quick to judge anything.duendy said:
My comment was that there are no implants that have been analysed and found to to be 'unknown to science' as you put it. Again, if you have evidence otherwise then show me or shut up.
Shoddiness? haha You aren't even able to use the quotes properly. Your posts are often a mad ramble!duendy said:
Again you say I have been 'quick' to analyse. What have I analysed?duendy said:
I have already explained to you once that sleep paralysis and false memories do not mean that someone is mentally ill.
Who have I been patronizing to? Who's experience have I undermined?
I don't have a lack of empathy, I just don't instantly believe space aliens are the answer like you do.
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/campeche.htmlduendy said:
So stop referring to it!duendy said:
How old are you duendy? (just curious)duendy said:
duendy said:
Yes I am very immature... I think some of the ufo sightings are man made.duendy said:
I still want to know which "absurd explanations" have I rushed to and which "ridiculous ad hoc explanations " I have used.duendy said:
Last edited:
- Status