how its possible?

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

agreed

a reply to: Assemble

the comisc trickster is obviously not a creature, so no it din't evolve from anything

a reply to: james1947

your opinion

originally posted by: Assemble
If you can free your mind from the false theory, you might be able to consider something else than ETH.

Be more than happy to, right after you show me something better; demonstrably better, and with science!

Until then I will stick with what science currently knows, and of course the scientific methods, procedure, etc. that have gone into supporting the currently held theories.

And, I'll be sticking with ETH since I can demonstrate a very high probability that it is correct!

When y'all can do better, let me know...

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: james1947

your opinion

Yes, my opinion...however, if ya want I can make it my professional opinion as well; Vallee in this paper I read referred to "databases", several distinct ones...I've seen databases from that era...I've been a database administrator as well as a software and data architect for more than 20 years...the databases Vallee used to reach his conclusions were, by standards 20 years ago, primative. The ability to properly correlate data was seriously limited, as well as issues with data relations and searching.

Anyway, that is still only my opinion as a computer scientist, software architect, and, data scientist/architect...

I just don't feel that he could have come to the conclusions he given the data he had available at the time.

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: KKLOCO

or as keel once said we need to tune into the superspectrum

I just realized how "new age" that statement is...perhaps we should throw in a little Baba Ram Dass?

I sort of rejected most to all of the "New Age" crap way back in the day...given that it was all just a rehash of ancient teachings and wisdom...

I guess just "Be Here Now".

originally posted by: james1947

originally posted by: turbonium1
Evidence doesn't matter anymore, sadly.

Fortunately that's not universally true...

For instance; I would truly like to see any evidence that suggests IDH.

Since creation has only been through intelligent design, while not one, single creation, has been through purely random chance.

It hardly would suggest the most complex creation known to exist, is dumb luck....!


Again, the evidence we have, shows it is intelligent design, NOT random chance.


But, as I mentioned earlier, evidence does not matter to 'science', for some odd reason..

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: abe froman

How is it possible with all the expert skeptic testimony that people still believe in the phenomena at all?

because all skeptics to have ever existed only made very shallow theories about the UFO phenomena, some think its swamp gas, others think its ball lightning, and yet others think they are natural coronal emissions or air ionization
the only skeptic wich i agree mostly with is martin S. kottemeyer, he thinks that UFOs have a purely psychosocial origin, he had the correct data but reached the wrong conclusion

I love your threads and they are filled with tales that support the ETH.

wait, what?!
you are kidding, right?
the cases i show here on ATS are impossible under the ETH paradigm

Aliens, as far fetched as they may be, still seem closer to reality than ghosts,goblins,and elves.

oh, please! don't use the "too weird" excuse, if people in history used it, we would still think that earth is flat and is the center of the universe!

The term 'swamp gas' was used once, just once yet everyone who wants to knock anything said by someone who doesn't agree with their theory throws it out there - sound familiar?

The world was fairly much known to be a sphere for millennia - you may have been brought up on flawed educational material that suggests otherwise, but maybe that's the point.

You seem to be coming to your own conclusions and deciding they are right because they suit how your view. Nothing wrong with that, we all do it every day, but at any objective level it's nothing more than your opinion which you are perfectly entitled to hold..... doesn't actually mean anything more than that.

a reply to: james1947

are you saying there aren't modern databases?
albert rosales and patrick gross prove that you are wrong

a reply to: james1947

LOL, you have a entire page in your website describing some weird magick crap that i can't even begin to understand
yet i am the one spreading new agey woo here?
LOL

originally posted by: turbonium1

Since creation has only been through intelligent design, while not one, single creation, has been through purely random chance.

It hardly would suggest the most complex creation known to exist, is dumb luck....!

Again, the evidence we have, shows it is intelligent design, NOT random chance.

But, as I mentioned earlier, evidence does not matter to 'science', for some odd reason..

Well, I would agree with you that the Universe is not the product of random chance...I've actually seen the math on that one. I would however, question your assertion that there has been more than one "creation". And, I would even more vehemently argue against "intelligent design", as there isn't any more evidence of intelligent design than there is for random chance.

Science is actually ALL ABOUT the evidence, without evidence, and the ability to repeat the collection of that evidence, science has nothing. I would invite you to read this article on the scientific method.

a reply to: turbonium1

i frankly don't have a formed opinion on this subject, mostly because there is as much evidence for evolution as there is for intelligent design, and both make sense to me
so in the end, who knows?

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: james1947

are you saying there aren't modern databases?
albert rosales and patrick gross prove that you are wrong

Show it...don't say it!!!

I haven't any idea who you are referring to, but, I invite you or them to show me how I'm wrong!!!!!

Please.

ETA: to be clear...I'm not talking about some collection of text data that is in some sort of semi-organized format. I'm talking about a real SQL based relational database...you know one that can, or is capable of, relating data elements of one record to another, or support complex searches to extract "semi-specific" data. It is these kind elements (of the database) that will allow for such activities as "data mining" and other such useful activities.

a reply to: uncommitted

The term 'swamp gas' was used once, just once yet everyone who wants to knock anything said by someone who doesn't agree with their theory throws it out there - sound familiar?

i was just giving a hypothetical example, and in the only case that explanation was actually used, hynek was right, the description gave by the college girls and the police officers was identical to marsh gas (there was a possible UFO landing that day, but the other sightings, were indeed just swamp gas, possibly misidentified by paranoid witnesses)

The world was fairly much known to be a sphere for millennia - you may have been brought up on flawed educational material that suggests otherwise, but maybe that's the point.

[citation needed]

You seem to be coming to your own conclusions and deciding they are right because they suit how your view. Nothing wrong with that, we all do it every day, but at any objective level it's nothing more than your opinion which you are perfectly entitled to hold..... doesn't actually mean anything more than that.

i did my research, have you?

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: james1947

LOL, you have a entire page in your website describing some weird magick crap that i can't even begin to understand
yet i am the one spreading new agey woo here?
LOL

Which page is that?

Everything you read on one of my pages is supported with several millennia of either esoteric thought, or science!

a reply to: james1947

patrick gross database of CE3 sightings can be found here: ufologie.patrickgross.org...
albert rosales made his database into a serie of E-books wich can be bought by searching for "humanoids : the others amongst us" in book buying websites

a reply to: james1947

suuuurrrreee they are

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: james1947

suuuurrrreee they are

You are invited to do the research and determine the reality for yourself...you got 40 years?
So...again, which page?

To save time/space: Neither of those gentlemen have published a database! Mr. Gross' bit of work is probably the best, but it was published as a flat text file, useless... (unable to perform data mining, or complex search)

Your other guy...well let me just say that you cant publish a proper database on paper! (again no search capabilities, no data mining)

Neither of these two examples would qualify as a serious database. IF I were to attempt to work them into some sort of research project; the very first thing I would have to do is convert them into something real...at a cost of $1000's and many weeks...this make that work virtually useless. (again just my professional opinion).

a reply to: james1947

database
/ˈdeɪtəbeɪs/Submit
noun
a structured set of data held in a computer, especially one that is accessible in various ways.
"a database covering nine million workers"

looks like a database to me, guess not everyone can afford thousands of $$$ to make it acceptable enough to you?

a reply to: james1947

why do you want to build such a database anyways?
by removing everthing from a case and leaving only the basics, you take out the charm of the case