Why UFO's are man-made

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: 1point92AU

originally posted by: Gothmog
I will try and make this the last time I make this post

"The conspiracy is not to hide the existence of extraterrestrials . It is to make people believe in it so completely that they question nothing"
Fox Mulder - X Files - Patient X

What does that quote from a fictional character mean to you? What do you think the message is?

Pretty much what it says...
How did you miss it , that is the question.

I asked you to explain what it means (to you) because I don't believe you understand what it means.

So explain what you think it means.

a reply to: 1point92AU

Not only are we not "alone" the sheer magnitude of life of non-terrestrial origin is incalculable.

I don't doubt other intelligent life is out there, what I highly doubt though is that we've been visited by ET's from other star systems, because the probability of intelligent life evolving on a star close enough to detect our radio signals and then travel to us is tiny, as I show in my thread Probability of ET's visiting us. Even using the most optimistic estimations the chances are very small. It may be possible ET's happened to find our planet by chance but only if the galaxy is highly populated, however we don't see any signs of advanced civilizations populating the galaxy.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: 1point92AU

Not only are we not "alone" the sheer magnitude of life of non-terrestrial origin is incalculable.

I don't doubt other intelligent life is out there, what I highly doubt though is that we've been visited by ET's from other star systems, because the probability of intelligent life evolving on a star close enough to detect our radio signals and then travel to us is tiny, as I show in my thread Probability of ET's visiting us. Even using the most optimistic estimations the chances are very small. It may be possible ET's happened to find our planet by chance but only if the galaxy is highly populated, however we don't see any signs of advanced civilizations populating the galaxy.

I guess you missed the relevance of the statistics I posted and referencing the 116 year time frame multiple times.

If within 116 years we have been able to become a space faring civilization AND have already discovered 4,000 + habitable planets AND we've figured out how to send probes 13 billion miles from our home planet the logic is we will target habitable planets for exploration / colonization.

It has nothing to do with sending radio signals into space. We've been discovered by other non-terrestrial life just as we will someday discover and visit other habitable planets with life on them. We just got a really late start in the game. 14 billion years preceded us and we've managed to do what we have inside 116 years. Do you understand what I'm saying here?

We're most likely part of the 3rd or 4th iteration of life in the grand scheme of Universal life. Meaning we are way behind and at lest 3-4 other versions of life have long since preceded us.

a reply to: 1point92AU

14 billion years preceded us and we've managed to do what we have inside 116 years. Do you understand what I'm saying here?

Yes, but you don't seem to understand the idea that if intelligent life has been evolving in our galaxy for a long time before we got here there would be clear signs of highly advanced civilizations in our galaxy, especially if they were anywhere near close enough to reach us within a reasonable period of time, even traveling at multiple times the speed of light. Also we don't even know for sure if it's possible to reach or exceed the speed of light, the only semi-plausible method involves warping space-time.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: 1point92AU

14 billion years preceded us and we've managed to do what we have inside 116 years. Do you understand what I'm saying here?

Yes, but you don't seem to understand the idea that if intelligent life has been evolving in our galaxy for a long time before we got here there would be clear signs of highly advanced civilizations in our galaxy, especially if they were anywhere near close enough to reach us within a reasonable period of time, even traveling at multiple times the speed of light. Also we don't even know for sure if it's possible to reach or exceed the speed of light, the only semi-plausible method involves warping space-time.

You're still not understanding what I am trying to convey here and perhaps it's my error. In 116 years we evolved from feet on the Earth to unmanned space travel capabilities 13 billion miles from our planet. That in itself is a MASSIVE quantum leap in capability.

Imagine what we will be doing 1,000 years from now which will still pale in comparison to prior civilizations that have come before us countless times. You're not taking into account the brief hiccup in time we've existed relative to the ancient, ancient age of the Universe. We are still in the proverbial zygote stage of our development.

If you think there should or would be clear signs of highly advanced civilizations within our galaxy I would proffer you don't grasp the sheer magnitude of not only our galaxy but our Universe in general. Finding clear signs of highly advanced civilizations in our galaxy would be equal to finding a single grain of sand across all the world's beaches that had a special marking on it. We could look for an eternity and never find it. Yet it has always existed.

I've never understood the argument that if something has not been discovered then that itself is evidence it either doesn't or never existed. It is such a limiting train of thought.

a reply to: 1point92AU

Do you understand what I'm saying here?

I understand what you are doing and that merely is speculating probabilities that could be highly likely while with many unknowns still in place could also make that probability highly unlikely once more break through s are made and more knowledge is gained.

Its not hard to understand why you speculate the way you do if one reads some of your posts surrounding ET and UFOs.

Meaning we are way behind and at lest 3-4 other versions of life have long since preceded us.

Maybe, maybe not.

Maybe all other life has since become extinct and humanity is the sole intelligent space faring life in the universe.

You're still not understanding what I am trying to convey here and perhaps it's my error. In 116 years we evolved from feet on the Earth to unmanned space travel capabilities 13 billion miles from our planet. That in itself is a MASSIVE quantum leap in capability.

and its also a wild speculation that other intelligent life will evolve at the same rate as we have both biologically and technologically.

Imagine what we will be doing 1,000 years from now which will still pale in comparison to prior civilizations that have come before us countless times.

One could imagine a world like the movie Idiocrasy depicts or one could imagine the opposite and many in-between's.

Not only are we not "alone" the sheer magnitude of life of non-terrestrial origin is incalculable.

The reasons why its incalculable is not due to your beliefs and the reasons you posted about the age of the universe and how quick we technologically evolved but the lack of verified constants to use in calculations.

You are basing this on if we in 119 years have done this then other intelligent life should be ...........

Maybe other intelligent life does exist and in in our galactic neighborhood, maybe they have existed millions of year longer than we have yet have not or chosen not to evolve technologically at a pace us humans are and have.

To think other life does, is or has is wild speculation which is usually guided a person belief in the subject of ET.

The problem is everyone has been brainwashed by Hollywood.

a reply to: 1point92AU

I've never understood the argument that if something has not been discovered then that itself is evidence it either doesn't or never existed. It is such a limiting train of thought.

Its not what is said

but its just logic

until discovered its unknown

It could have never and never will exist or it could and does.

Until its discovered its either a belief or speculation based on what we do know and what could be due to what we know.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: 1point92AU

Meaning we are way behind and at lest 3-4 other versions of life have long since preceded us.

Maybe, maybe not.

Maybe all other life has since become extinct and humanity is the sole intelligent space faring life in the universe.

That's a valid point, however, one I feel I have a valid opposing point for consideration for you to take.

It's been estimated that 95% of all life to have ever lived on Earth has become extinct. Meaning all the life you can presently see around you is evolved from previous life forms. Meaning what you and I are witnessing is nothing more than a cycle of the evolution of biological life.

If this is true then it proves (theoretically) we (humans) are nothing more than part of the evolution of life in the Universe and therefore life occurs all across the Universe.

Here's another simple thought for consideration to lend to my theory we are nothing more than part of a never ending cycle.

The human body is comprised primarily of 4 elements:

- Oxygen
- Carbon
- Hydrogen
- Nitrogen

The 4 most abundant elements found throughout the Universe are:

- Oxygen
- Carbon
- Hydrogen
- Nitrogen

As I've mentioned previously we are really nothing more than a mathematical probability.

As I've also mentioned previously the real problem is everyone has been brain washed by Hollywood.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: 1point92AU

I've never understood the argument that if something has not been discovered then that itself is evidence it either doesn't or never existed. It is such a limiting train of thought.

Its not what is said

but its just logic

until discovered its unknown

It could have never and never will exist or it could and does.

Until its discovered its either a belief or speculation based on what we do know and what could be due to what we know.

That's both a logical and philosophical question. It's incorrect to say or think simply because something has not been discovered it could not or does not exist. There are always external and secondary factors of physical evidence we can point to and theorize about the existence of something that has yet to be discovered. It's how some of the planets in our solar system were first discovered. In theory based on perturbations in the orbits of known planets and then BOOM we discovered another planet based on that observation indirectly related to the as yet undiscovered planet.

The philosophical question is just a thought experiment. It's like when my philosophy teacher once asked our class, "If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?" After a few minutes of people making the expected comments of "well if no one is there to hear it then no" or "sound doesn't exist unless..." etc, etc.

I asked my teacher, "How do we know the forest exists in the first place?" He said, "exactly". It's a question that can only be answered with an equally and more ridiculous question. While I enjoy philosophy at times I find it irritating because it turns into a "who can come up with an equally more irritating and unanswerable question" contest.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

When you step back and look at the overall ET activities it becomes quite apparent the main agenda is some sort of social engineering program to change the way we think and behave

Can it really be any worse than the corporate media?



Here's a relevant interview with Dr Michael P Masters.

a reply to: 1point92AU

If you think there should or would be clear signs of highly advanced civilizations within our galaxy I would proffer you don't grasp the sheer magnitude of not only our galaxy but our Universe in general. Finding clear signs of highly advanced civilizations in our galaxy would be equal to finding a single grain of sand across all the world's beaches that had a special marking on it. We could look for an eternity and never find it. Yet it has always existed.

This is exactly why there's such a small chance of any ET's detecting out presence. A highly advanced interstellar species would be much easier to detect than us but I agree it would not be trivial, however I do think we would have detected something by now if they existed. The only real possibility I see for how they found us is that they looked for planets with signs of an atmosphere and liquid water on the surface, and when the technology was available they decided to visit those planets, and found us on one of them, then they hang around to study us but don't interfere with our progress so the study isn't compromised.

That doesn't really help explain things like why they are so similar to humans and why they are so concerned about the planet. There are multiple reasons I find it hard to put weight into the the idea ET's are just here to study us. All available evidence and logic indicates to me that there's a far higher probability we are being visited by future humans than aliens from another planet, as crazy as that may sound. The fact it does sound so outlandish on the surface is also the perfect cover, it's also not something people want to believe even if they can see the logic in it.

originally posted by: karl 12

Here's a relevant interview with Dr Michael P Masters.

Listening to that guy speak is a little creepy because he's either read my threads on this topic or there are very clear signs which both of us have picked up on. He says most of the same things I've been saying but takes an even more rigorous scientific approach than I did. One thing about their eyes though, I think it's highly probable they are wearing some sort of protective eye-wear which makes their eyes look bigger, and there is some sort of technology built into these "shades" which allows them to easily hypnotize people by looking into their eyes (something reported by abductees extremely often). I think they probably still have big eyes due to living in more lower light environments but I suspect we aren't seeing their real eyes.

a reply to: 1point92AU

It's been estimated that 95% of all life to have ever lived on Earth has become extinct. Meaning all the life you can presently see around you is evolved from previous life forms. Meaning what you and I are witnessing is nothing more than a cycle of the evolution of biological life. If this is true then it proves (theoretically) we (humans) are nothing more than part of the evolution of life in the Universe and therefore life occurs all across the Universe.

If that is true then you can only argue it proves humans are nothing more than part of the evolution of life on earth, not the universe.

If you would have said that 95% of all life in the universe has become extinct then you could say "the universe " for what you said it proves, but you are saying evolution on earth and the applying that to the whole universe.

That is what I was pointing out and saying is speculation at best, however its the only way we can speculate until we do find life else where and study it and see if it evolves in a similar fashion to life on earth.

I would speculate that even though we find planets in the right zones in solar systems, however, if the mass of the planet is different and gravity is more or less a factor than what it is on earth then evolution on such planets would differ than to what it is on earth.

As I've also mentioned previously the real problem is everyone has been brain washed by Hollywood.

Yes that is why we have charlatans that can make money of beliefs in Aliens by simply claiming they have insider knowledge.

Aliens life has been implanted into human societies minds for almost a 100 years by the many forms of media.

I have heard many say an opposing view and that aliens and UFOs has been depicted as mad mans interest and belief yet everywhere entertainment has depicted that its always shown that the mad man is correct and aliens do exist.

Hence why society has been programed for generations by many forms of media to believe in aliens and not as a crazy thing to believe in as some suggest media has done.

That's both a logical and philosophical question.

I didn't ask a question.

It's incorrect to say or think simply because something has not been discovered it could not or does not exist. There are always external and secondary factors of physical evidence we can point to and theorize about the existence of something that has yet to be discovered.

Yes about things undiscovered on earth, not intelligent life elsewhere in the universe though, what you call theorizing is more so a hypothesis or speculation when it comes to intelligent life and how it evolves else where not on earth.

That was the whole point of my initial reply.

It's how some of the planets in our solar system were first discovered. In theory based on perturbations in the orbits of known planets and then BOOM we discovered another planet based on that observation indirectly related to the as yet undiscovered planet.

Unless you want to say planets are living intelligent beings then that has nothing to do intelligent alien beings and what I was initially replying too, that being evolution of alien life and technology and the comparisons being made with evolution of earth life and human technology.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: 1point92AU

It's been estimated that 95% of all life to have ever lived on Earth has become extinct. Meaning all the life you can presently see around you is evolved from previous life forms. Meaning what you and I are witnessing is nothing more than a cycle of the evolution of biological life. If this is true then it proves (theoretically) we (humans) are nothing more than part of the evolution of life in the Universe and therefore life occurs all across the Universe.

If that is true then you can only argue it proves humans are nothing more than part of the evolution of life on earth, not the universe.

If you would have said that 95% of all life in the universe has become extinct then you could say "the universe " for what you said it proves, but you are saying evolution on earth and the applying that to the whole universe.

That is what I was pointing out and saying is speculation at best, however its the only way we can speculate until we do find life else where and study it and see if it evolves in a similar fashion to life on earth.

I would speculate that even though we find planets in the right zones in solar systems, however, if the mass of the planet is different and gravity is more or less a factor than what it is on earth then evolution on such planets would differ than to what it is on earth.

As I've also mentioned previously the real problem is everyone has been brain washed by Hollywood.

Yes that is why we have charlatans that can make money of beliefs in Aliens by simply claiming they have insider knowledge.

Aliens life has been implanted into human societies minds for almost a 100 years by the many forms of media.

I have heard many say an opposing view and that aliens and UFOs has been depicted as mad mans interest and belief yet everywhere entertainment has depicted that its always shown that the mad man is correct and aliens do exist.

Hence why society has been programed for generations by many forms of media to believe in aliens and not as a crazy thing to believe in as some suggest media has done.

That's both a logical and philosophical question.

I didn't ask a question.

It's incorrect to say or think simply because something has not been discovered it could not or does not exist. There are always external and secondary factors of physical evidence we can point to and theorize about the existence of something that has yet to be discovered.

Yes about things undiscovered on earth, not intelligent life elsewhere in the universe though, what you call theorizing is more so a hypothesis or speculation when it comes to intelligent life and how it evolves else where not on earth.

That was the whole point of my initial reply.

It's how some of the planets in our solar system were first discovered. In theory based on perturbations in the orbits of known planets and then BOOM we discovered another planet based on that observation indirectly related to the as yet undiscovered planet.

Unless you want to say planets are living intelligent beings then that has nothing to do intelligent alien beings and what I was initially replying too, that being evolution of alien life and technology and the comparisons being made with evolution of earth life and human technology.

You are not following any of the prior correlations I've already made with regards to the Universe. If the entire Universe is made up primarily of the same recurring 4 elements then what's happened / happening on Earth is going on Universally.

Some of the organic systems are "intelligent" while others are still in their rudimentary stage of evolution. Considering we are dealing with a 14.5 billion year old system (the Universe) and the fact the Earth is only 4 billion years old your theory makes no sense.

We've proven the 4 primary elements that make up organic life occur everywhere we look in the Universe. We've proven there are life supporting planets within our visible spectrum. And considering what we've identified is only one unbelievably tiny, microscopic, minute sliver of the Universe it's literally impossible to comprehend the vastness of organic life across the Universe.

You're argument amounts to this exceptionally well given example by Tyson. "It's like walking to the ocean and scooping up a cup of water and saying, there's no whales in the ocean. You need a much larger sample."

My sample is the Universe where I prove the elements exist everywhere to support life.

Your example is the cup of water from the ocean claiming no whales exist.

originally posted by: 1point92AU
My sample is the Universe where I prove the elements exist everywhere to support life.

Sure, the elements exist, but do they actually support other life? After all, you can toss a gallon of perfectly good, already constituted DNA into a big bucket and it won't do anything but rot. Just because you have all the elements, doesn't mean they are guaranteed to spontaneously spring to life somehow. Maybe it happened once. Maybe people get to hung up on the notion of cause and effect.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

Listening to that guy speak is a little creepy because he's either read my threads on this topic or there are very clear signs which both of us have picked up on.

Think the general concept has been floating around for quite a while mate but the professor goes into more detail about different aspects in this other interview - the vid posted above it featuring the late Marc Davenport also brings up some intriguing observations.

a reply to: 1point92AU

You are not following any of the prior correlations I've already made with regards to the Universe. If the entire Universe is made up primarily of the same recurring 4 elements then what's happened / happening on Earth is going on Universally.

actually I am.

and its still speculation what you are saying.

Because you are trying to use that to say intelligent life will evolve else where like it does here,

Yes the formation and evolution of celestial objects can be as you say however to apply that to how intelligent life will evolve is still just speculation based.

Your example is the cup of water from the ocean claiming no whales exist.

I gave no examples of anything

Just like I never asked a question when you said I did.

and

Considering we are dealing with a 14.5 billion year old system (the Universe) and the fact the Earth is only 4 billion years old your theory makes no sense.

I formulated no theory what so ever.

My sample is the Universe where I prove the elements exist everywhere to support life.

You have proven no such thing.

you have used knowledge gained because it seems you can read but at times cannot and say questions are asked, examples are given and theories are made when none are.

You're argument amounts to this exceptionally well given example by Tyson. "It's like walking to the ocean and scooping up a cup of water and saying, there's no whales in the ocean. You need a much larger sample."

Not sure what you think my argument is but I have said what I am replying too numerous times and am using everything available, that being your words.

and Its actually not really argument but simply an observation from my point of view, but of coarse its an argument to you because you believe you are correct and that your speculation is not speculation.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

You do understand when I use the word 'argument' I am referring to a conclusion one arrives at based upon supporting premises, right?

You are posing an argument. That is to say you have proffered a conclusion yet offer no supporting premises. Whether you intended to or not you created an argument. I'm giving you a counter argument and have provided supporting premises that are true. Therefore the conclusion is true. Since you have offered nothing more than opinion your argument is false.

If you want to offer an alternative conclusion that's fine. Just be sure to provide something that supports your conclusion.

originally posted by: 1point92AU
a reply to: InhaleExhale

You do understand when I use the word 'argument' I am referring to a conclusion one arrives at based upon supporting premises, right?

You are posing an argument. That is to say you have proffered a conclusion yet offer no supporting premises. Whether you intended to or not you created an argument. I'm giving you a counter argument and have provided supporting premises that are true. Therefore the conclusion is true. Since you have offered nothing more than opinion your argument is false.

If you want to offer an alternative conclusion that's fine. Just be sure to provide something that supports your conclusion.

WOW.

OK

You do understand when I use the word 'argument' I am referring to a conclusion one arrives at based upon supporting premises, right? You are posing an argument.

Just Wow.

I made no conclusions

didn't ask a question when you said I did

didn't pose a theory when you said I did and didn't give an example of anything when you said my example was like a cup of water.


You win whatever argument you are having, I have no clue what that argument is because as you explain in this reply why its an argument and that being about the conclusion I have made it just gets even weirder trying to get where the hell you coming from.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

Perhaps you're accustomed to people not challenging you to validate your arguments. You took it upon yourself to interject into my discussion with another poster. I went back and re-read your posts. You made 3 specific statements which clearly are nothing more than opinion and without anything to support them.

If you think is about "winning" then you are too emotional a person to have a discussion with and I would recommend you not participating.