Honestly, What More Proof Do We Really Need?

reply to post by Jezus


Uh, bad logic there.
The entire field has a long history of lying and hoaxes. Many for profit.
Kinda similar to buying the title to the Brooklyn Bridge. Or helping out a Nigerian Prince.
So, you are saying, just because ONE game of three card monty was fixed, I shouldn't assume EVERY game is fixed AND I should keep putting money down?

Originally posted by OldDragger
The entire field has a long history of lying and hoaxes.

You are just repeating yourself...

Originally posted by Jezus
Pointing out the fakes doesn't disprove the thousands of unexplainable cases.

The Day Before Disclosure - FULL documentary
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is illogical and extremely naive to believe that explaining some specific cases some how negates thousands of other cases.

reply to post by Jezus


Pull my finger.
No really.

reply to post by Jezus


I had already posted a link to the FULL version. Not split into chunks

The Day Before Disclosure
vimeo.com...

And their other video covering crop circles, which to me give undeniable evidence to some kind of ET involvement when you see how they are truly created..

www.o-fu-online.net...

enjoy!

We have 70 sextillion possible planets to choose from in the known Universe, we are merely a wipper snapper in comparitive age to the rest of the universe Drake Equation , and yet we still have had no Apparent contact Fermi Paradox, I mean why would they? Do we have exotic elements in our little corner of the celestial arm? maybe our Solar System is considered a depleted barren sector of the milkyway with one tiny planet filled with backward Apes.
E.T: Ok this ship costs 100 gazillion quarnts to build and 200 gazillion to run lets make a trip to a craphole. (TO GET SHOT AT)
Thats one reason why.......
Then there's the other reason and a view I happen to believe.......when a race becomes highly developed they obviously learn the limits of the Physical Universe and what lies beyond the known limits and how to travel to it.
Given the choice what would you do?.......Stay within the limits or strive to go beyond.

The only ET visitors we will get will have two possible outcomes:
1. Slavery "ah look one of those new ape slaves, it even thinks its' intelligent...ah bless their little hairy heads". Taking all our Precious's" along with them.

Humans are Gollum, Hobbitses are ET's. Just a observation. Humans are so much like Gollum it isn't funny.
2. To save us from ourselves is a more likely from a civilization that has stepped beyond the limits of the Known Universe.

I'll go with 2 for now.

"There isn't any other life outside our solar system" doesn't really work, it's all in the numbers. Just because on this planet humans have only just started to leave its surfice an analogy Humans Toe Dippers, ET Divers.
ET is there, they're just swimming about under the water where we can't see them or go to.

I do not know if you guys have ever seen the documentary "Ufo the greatest story ever denied" (2006), especially at 1:26:45. The people in this doc are goverment officials from nasa, apollo, etc. I recommend you watch it from start to finish, it is very interesting and has hard facts!

Also between 20th and 30th minute of the video, there are some strong facts.

Google video - Ufo greatest story ever denied (2006)

I think I am going to get a job with Nasa or a MIB job
that way I could actually see the REAL side of sightings..
Cuz,... Nobody every really sees anything, but orbs or lanterns

reply to post by Lil Drummerboy


You dont have to go so far, watch the video i posted one comment above your's. It is facts from nasa and other institutions.

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by Pinke

 

you might think cases where military jets have chased and in some cases attempted to shoot down u.f.o's means nothing and is unscientific to include, but i believe it has to be counted. the same as u.f.o's being captured on radar, i am not talking about what joe bloggs said, a individual, or just a handful of what can be dismissed as loonies, however you ignore ALL the evidence and decide instead to concentrate on a small portion of evidence (eye witness) that can be easily dismissed. proving my point about what i was saying.

if science means ignoring evidence because it dos'nt fit your belief then i was misled at school.

I don't really know what you're talking about since I don't do what you say I'm doing.

If anything I encourage people to look outside the history channel crap and do their own investigation into all the evidence. I'm yet to find anything that would survive a deterministic test, and I've found very few cases without a mundane explanation.

From what I can tell you may be assuming that if it can't be explained then it must be smoke and therefore there must be fire. I would be interested to see your idea of a convincing case. Perhaps make a new thread and I will be happy to investigate it with you, but you can't tell me what I do or don't do until you've seen me do it.

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by Jay-morris

 

Now who creates hoaxes?
Who deliberatly sets out to lie? To spread false information?
Who creates fake videos, photos, and stories?

Would that be...debunkers?

How many people make money in this field with books, DVD's, lectures etc.
How many of those people are debunkers as opposed to selling to "believers"?
Who has a vested interest in the alien/UFO field?
Let's be honest here!

edit on 5-10-2010 by OldDragger because: (no reason given)

Can't you see that your belief system is clouding your judgment? I guess you can't see it

De-bunkers and hardcore believers are all the same Actually, i put them in the same group. You might think you are being logical and scientific, but you are not, far from it.

Yes, we all know that this subject is riddled with money grabbers,hoaxers etc, but that does not mean this is the case for all cases. Basically, you rmind is made up, so you are the worst person to get opinions from when it comes to a ufo case.

Quite sad really because you could most prob get more out of this subject if your belief was not getting in the way

Originally posted by Jay-morris
Quite sad really because you could most prob get more out of this subject if your belief was not getting in the way

For some people this is a bit true ...

I guess my issue is why does this always have to turn into some kind of alleged battle of the absolutes? How come someone can't suggest some points about critical thinking without having their entire approach thrown in a basket?

It seems people are all too eager to want to place people in one of the two camps rather than really just take the good out of their posts or offer up some information. There aren't that many pure 'debunkers' or 'believers' around here, but people talk like it's religion. 'Oh only people who worship authority would believe X, Y or Z.'

Give me a case to look at or something. I'll go read it.

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by Jay-morris
Quite sad really because you could most prob get more out of this subject if your belief was not getting in the way

For some people this is a bit true ...

I guess my issue is why does this always have to turn into some kind of alleged battle of the absolutes? How come someone can't suggest some points about critical thinking without having their entire approach thrown in a basket?

It seems people are all too eager to want to place people in one of the two camps rather than really just take the good out of their posts or offer up some information. There aren't that many pure 'debunkers' or 'believers' around here, but people talk like it's religion. 'Oh only people who worship authority would believe X, Y or Z.'

Give me a case to look at or something. I'll go read it.

Sometimes it just has to be said. You read alot of what the clueless de-bunkers write on here, and they are clearly running on belief, but the thing that annoys me is, they are always bringing up this "belief factor" to the believers. They don't even realise they are doing the same thing, but they think thats ok because they are a skeptic and scientific. Well, thats not good enough in my eyes.

There are some really good skeptics on here, who always put good arguments to alot of cases, and we need these people in this subject. But whe we get the de-bunkers, who only care about de-bunking, then i will feel the need to say something.

Its always important to know who the good skeptics are, as they bring alot to the subject.

reply to post by Jay-morris


You're right to a degree and I think at times its hard to tell the difference. When I meet a skeptical post that I don't like I generally take the information out of it they've given and I apply it to what I know, and I see if it helps.

Believer or skeptic, if the post is just an opinion or includes no new information I discard it really. Though I do feel the need at times to have people review their logic. The phrase in this thread ...

'The evidence for X is overwhelming. There is just so much of it!'

It can be applied to so many things that I think even the OP would say are not possible or are untrue. It's often the argument used by persons with no real point or evidence to lay down.

One well laid out case is all it takes to make me review my beliefs on a subject.

reply to post by OldDragger


are you even familiar with the concept of disinformation?

reply to post by Pinke


this is what i have been trying to explain for quite some time, you will never find the evidence by looking at one specific case alone. i believe the difference between some non-believers and some believers is some focus on each case individually and don't really see the evidence as it can all just be dismissed as poppycock, or lying people etc. others focus on the bigger picture and take into account what all the evidence means, and then come to the conclusion they are real or it is a higher possibility that they could be e.t. compared to other options.

the thing that leads me to believe the e.t. possibility is very likely is because if you look at how governments have reacted to them being in their airspace it is clear they don't know where they came from either. look at all cases and it becomes clear that a lot of powerful governments were all suspecting eachother but all acted as though it is'nt their technology, so who's is it if it is'nt theirs. not proof but a big indication. that's not counting any public encounters or other cases.

it is impossible for anyone to go away and link you one case that will change your view, its all the cases that start to tell their story and give of a pattern that makes you understand not all people are lying.

of course it would help if you saw something yourself, but you have no control over that, but i'm keeping my fingers crossed for you.

I think what Phage... (forgive me for being so bold, please?)... and many here
are looking at, is some here see TV programmes that are shown on certain
channels as factual investigations that display a total truth.
Alas, the screen in the corner of your room is for entertainment... it's always
been that way.
Whether it's a news channel or a 'History' channel, somebody-somewhere is
trying to make money through ratings.

I recently watched a History Channel programme on Area 51 and along with the
'shaky-camera-indicates-realism' and the 'clues-of the-next-segment-before-the
-commercials' ploys, the producer of the programme was constantly urging me
-as a viewer to feel a hidden story underneath.

How many times do you see footage in one of these types of programmes, whether
it's about a Lake Monster or Ufos, where the camera is trained on the observer as
they cry out "Oh Lordy!... I see it, I see it!" and the camera angle again is positioned
to imply to the viewer that a realism is involved?
It's not until later, when a rational explanation is given and even then, enough room
is left to the imagination of the 'want-to-believe' viewer.
It's showbiz... and it's been around a long time.

Personally, I would switch off that darn box and browse the catalogues for a nice dress.
But heh... that's just me.

Originally posted by DreamerOracle
"We have 70 sextillion possible planets to choose from in the known Universe, we are merely a wipper snapper in comparitive age to the rest of the universe Drake Equation , and yet we still have had no Apparent contact Fermi Paradox, I mean why would they?"

I absolutely concur, we likely have nothing they want. Anything they can find here I ams ure they find in abundance somewhere else and without the hassle of hairless apes. I do not think slavery would be my first thoguht but it is a suggestion. However I would hope that any one as advanced as space faring civilizations likely are would be bit more advanced in terms of morals and ethics. Would you really see any reason to enslave an ant colony to do your bidding? How would you explain human construction to them? We have more in common with those ants than we would likely have with a civilization thousands likely millions of years ahead of us. I just hope we would be able to recognize them for what they were. I mean I certainly don't think an ant understands the internal combustion engine and never will. Just my thoughts.

Originally posted by DreamerOracle
We have 70 sextillion possible planets to choose from in the known Universe, we are merely a wipper snapper in comparitive age to the rest of the universe Drake Equation , and yet we still have had no Apparent contact Fermi Paradox, I mean why would they?

The simple answer is that there HAS been contact and in fact LOTS of contact.

When people are ready to go to terms with the information that is already available we might hope of establishing a better connection.

reply to post by Jezus

I also believe and know there have been Visitors, their purpose I cannot say. I merely wished to point out the numbers to the skeptics. Also to offer explinations for the lack of teaming life forms within our Universe.....As we perceive. May I add lifeforms that are able to communicate as opposed to Extremafiles/Microbial.