Manmade Flying Saucers

I probably agree with that a lot of the time, but I think you can disprove a lot. Theres a lot of crap out there (the board) that once you analyse it you see it is crap. Of course the hard core people will believe the most unbelievable stuff before they believe the mundane true explanations.

christians for example.

And some sceptics...

Jesus christ.... It isn't hard to do a simple search on google...

First link on google for M2P2

www.geophys.washington.edu...

My gosh.... The site to the people working on it!!!

As I said...Look at space.com....

www.space.com...

www.space.com...

Already posted this for electrogravitics....

groups.yahoo.com...


I don't normally have the time to spoon feed skeptics.... If your interested in learning about something, you would take your time from debunking things and look into the claims...

Nothing I posted were claims of my own, but those of scientists who are working on these things. Non of these claims are unverfiable if you quite whining about links and look it up for yourself....

We seem to have some very lazy people on this board....

This link is in refrence to an earlier post I made on this thread regarding a fission engine that could reach mar's in two weeks... Although this engine currently does not exist, it is NOT because it is a concept idea, but more from lack of required hardware and fuel...

www.beyond2000.com...

Originally posted by TheBandit795
You can't prove anything on a forum like this. That's not possible. The other party might not accept whatever proof you have. He might try to rationalize it or something...

How come we still don't have the absolute proof? There are 2 possibilities:
- There are no "aliens" visiting Earth.
- There are "aliens" visiting Earth, and they want to remain stealthy. Since these "aliens" would be obviously more advanced than us, we can speculate that if they want to remain stealthy, they can do it. And if it is the case, the contact does not happen the way scientists (should I put the word in quotes?) predicted it. So their assumptions about what they would do, could do, should do, may be completly wrong.

What I suggest is to create an equation to evaluate the probability of different phenomenons to be true TOGETHER, independantly on our assumption of their plausibility- which is a completly different approach from the usual sceptics attitude.

For instance, that equation would esimate something like: What is the probability that UFO sightings are of non-human origin AND that crop circle are of non-human origin AND that animal mutilations are of non-human origin AND that abductions are of non-human origin AND that there is a cover-up. (The possibility of each of these phenomenons reinforce the probability of the whole)

But whatever we do, we should be true sceptics- sceptic of sceptic's arguments also.