Why don't you believe? (@Non-Believers and Skeptics)

Originally posted by denver22
Do you know there is many who believe things that have been debunked many years ago
they will not look into the other side of things but will just say your blind your a sheep etc..

Why is it alot of people see something that defies what we see day to day and come to
an assumption that it has to be from another world?..

I say if one is open minded one will keep the option open especially the believers and such
that these craft could be man made..

A skeptic isn't a non believer that's a misinterpetuation..A skeptic looks at all angles first
what is so wrong with that?...

Why should one say it went to fast hey hey it's an alien ship etc.
One should keep an open "mind"...

I think it's funny how skeptics are called closed minds when they are the ones looking at "both sides".
where as the believer just seems to go with the alien concept only (most of the time)..

So we have the skeptic being the "most open minded it seems out of the two"

Funny that ironic...

So, where does your "open mind" lead you when discussing the Starchild skull?

Pladuim

Originally posted by LoveisanArt
When you experiment, observe, explore your thoughts and emotions you are auto-piloting your physical body to journey within your feelings and mind. How do I know these are not physical? Because they cannot be seen, heard, touched, felt, or smelled.. making them not apart of this physical realm.

Isn't it possible for those to be a part of the "physical realm" but, because of our limited knowledge of how the "physical realm" works, we are not able to point the connection between them and the "physical realm"?

Look its SO easy to let society shape reality for you and only believe what you have seen or experienced... its what you havent seen or experienced that you JUDGE and write off as non-existing.. this to is confusing! Its the things we cant see or havent experienced..(ETs, space tech, dimensions, potential of the mind) that we need to venture and look more closely at before saying they cannot exist.

You still don't get it.

I don't believe in "things", I believe in the possibility of things being real or not, so I never write anything off as non-existing, I just give them a "possibility rate" based on my own thoughts and experiences, the only things for which I have a real (or, more correctly, as close to real as I think it's possible) evidence.

Man would never of figured out the Earth has a curvature; if he did not travel to the "edge" of the Earth and realize it does not have an edge...

The Earth's curvature was calculated some 200 years BC by Eratosthenes, based on the different position of the Sun at local noon during the Summer solstice.

Man will never figure out other life forms existing, other realities existing, if he does not explore these fields to better understand what exactly reality is; and if it has more intelligent humaniod (or not) species in creation other then the Hu-man.

Then why are you apparently surprised when some people say that they don't believe in things that they haven't experienced? You are saying the same thing.

Originally posted by WiindWalker
Regardless of what he said. I am curious myself to know as to why you skeptics need to act this way?

Why sceptics need more than a "because I say so"?

Because I don't see any reason not to do it.

But if you can provide a good reason why I should accept blindly anything I am told, just present it.

Originally posted by bloodreviara
reply to post by Bleeeeep

 

Then by your own admission you can only be sure that you perceive and all
of your other claims are unfounded. to go from I perceive therefore god and
angels and aliens is a huge leap.

I feel that science is a better way to interact with the world as its
application in the real world is more beneficial to humanity than an abstract idea
that may or may not simply be assumption, my opinion is based on science
which has given us the technology to have this conversation, the ability to
travel in space, social sciences that have improved living conditions and
medicine that has saved countless lives over the course of history.

Again, you are mixing together percieved truth and absolute truth. I do not go from I percieve to therefor god. The way I seperate the two is, I know that all I know is, I percieve - everything else is what I think, and I think and I have faith that God exists, but I cannot be certain. I think and I have faith that if I open my door, the world will still be out there, but I cannot be certain. I think and I have faith that scientist have mapped the majority of the human genome, but I cannot be certain....you see where I'm going with this.

So my question to you: Why put your ?complete? faith in science when it has been proven wrong and some scientist has been shown to conceal their mistakes and lies. Why put your faith in science when they cannot explain everything that exists in our reality. Why champion the notion when there are things we percieve that science can not?

YAWN, don't worry about it sceptics, not too many of you ever want to debate the Starchild skull.

To all others "in the know", keep up the good work in getting the knowledge out there.

Moving on.....

Pladuim

oh my god, a saying used far too often. I will never believe in a single god. What created the universe? what created the creator?
Boom, head explodes. Luckily i don't have to live with religion and have to listen to anyone who believes in a god.
I leave them to it and if i'm proved wrong then i will hold my hands up. I believe there are aliens, others out there just like us. Universe is too vast to not contain other life.
Whose to say that the earth is hollow or flat! I've seen sweet F A.
Some people just need the comfort of believing in something and not feel alone.
I take comfort in aliens and their mystery. I will not die a happy man untill alien life is proved to us all.

Originally posted by Pladuim


So, where does your "open mind" lead you when discussing the Starchild skull?

Pladuim

congenital hydrocephalus. look it up...


remember be like a skeptic and look at "all avenues".... my freind

Originally posted by LoneCloudHopper2
This sort of case is rare, as entities are non-physical (and rarely manifest in a physical way.) There have been many cases, such as investigated by Ed and Lorraine Warren and others, where victims have been physically harmed by such beings. Also, many pictures, videos and audio recordings have been taken over the years by many researchers (and victims.) This is all that any researcher could possibly do. What else would you expect? This is the point to the OP; it seems that you have to see it for yourself in order to believe. All the evidence that is humanly possible to gather, and no matter how many witnesses see the same exact thing, no matter how credible they are, it is never enough to satisfy you.

Yes, in many unexplained cases there's physical evidence, I don't have a problem with that and I don't think any sceptic would. My problem is with accepting one theory without analysing and comparing it with other theories, and even worse when people, once that theory is accepted, all other theories are considered wrong because there's already a supposed explanation.

Is this truly a fair and honest approach to the truth? Asking for physical evidence of transparent, non-corporeal life forms is like asking for physical evidence of Pluto. All we have to go on are pictures and the word of those who have witnessed it through a telescope. How is this any different than pictures of ghosts, UFO's and other phenomena and the testimony of those who have witnessed these things?

As usual, I can only speak for myself, my problem is not with the things or events, I am more sceptical about the explanations than about the things or events themselves.

Honestly, is this about honesty, or is it about comfortable answers? I don't mean to sound negative here, but I am honestly wondering how many skeptics really want to know (or acknowledge) the truth.

I do want to know the truth, not just what someone tells me is the truth.

Originally posted by Pladuim
YAWN, don't worry about it sceptics, not too many of you ever want to debate the Starchild skull.

To all others "in the know", keep up the good work in getting the knowledge out there.

Moving on.....

Pladuim

ladies first.... twiddles thumbs... here give me a shout when you done looking
up congenital hydrocephalus....

Ill be here waiting for you ...

reply to post by Bleeeeep

So my question to you: Why put your ?complete? faith in science when it has been proven wrong and some scientist has been shown to conceal their mistakes and lies. Why put your faith in science when they cannot explain everything that exists in our reality. Why champion the notion when there are things we percieve that science can not?

Part of the methodology of science is that it continuously reviewing itself. If a theory is flawed, it will be replaced by another one. When scientists cheat by falsifying their data, they are usually caught out when someone attempts to repeat the experiment and fails to get the same result.

The problem with the sort of "spirituality" you seem to be espousing is that it is not self correcting, nor can its results be repeated by others. For example, you believe that UFOs are piloted by demons. What method do you use to test this hypothesis? Your own imagination? Other people, using precisely the same methodology might conclude that they are angels, humans from the future, disembodied beings from Andromeda, etc, etc. Do you modify your beliefs in response to these other researcher's results? Or do you simply continue to believe what you want to believe?

Meditation is the technique of examining the contents of one's mind. It's proper goal is to rid the mind of delusions. This is the opposite of fantasy and imagination. Many people use the word "meditation" to describe what is, in fact, day-dreaming. To use a Buddhist metaphor, the goal of meditation is to still the mind so that it is like a glassy mountain lake reflecting the Moon perfectly. If people cannot attain this state, the surface of the water, the mind, is disturbed by ripples and waves. Rather than reflect the Moon clearly, the light shimmers and dances. These sparkles are not reality, they are distractions and delusion. That is about as much as I have to say on that topic.

Originally posted by zidanelittle

Whose to say that the earth is hollow or flat! I've seen sweet F A.

Here you go just use google search here..

www.smarterthanthat.com/.../top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-f...

Go in you're backyard find two sticks

If you stick a stick in the ground, it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow:... But they don’t. This is because the earth is round, and not flat:

Originally posted by LoveisanArt
This is what I mainly BELIEVE when it comes to non believers of this nature. They are too busy focusing on the physical part of their Hu-man experience, ignoring the mind and anything beyond Earth that science hasnt shown us

I would prefer to use my time doing something else, but unfortunately, the way things are, I need to get money to buy food and medication to keep me alive, regardless of what may happen after I am dead.

Life makes more sense when you stop judging it so much, and you actually experience it.

I'm not judging it, I am trying to experience and understand it.

It goes to show how much we really know about OURselves, let alone other life forms in creation. The mind is a mysterious thing, we all have experiences in our head that "dont make sense" .. but according to who? The guy in the suit with a degree in psychology? uhhkaaay

I wont take his word for it, everything he knows came out of a book, photocopied and stored into the mind. Until he had enough information to make a career out of it..

I underlined that part to show that, what you are doing there, is being sceptical about the psychologist's opinion. That's exactly what I try to do with everything that is presented to me, like something that is supposed to be a starcraft (I am still waiting for someone to explain what a starcraft is supposed to be ) or from a different world.

To have a better opinion I need more information about it, and without a good opinion I cannot really accept or deny anything.

Do I know reality enough to stand to the fact that ETs do not exist?

One thing sceptics are usually accused of (by those that at least understand what a sceptic is) is that they do not state facts, they (we) just look at the facts other people present, so we should never say something like "X does not exist", some are even more comfortable saying "I don't even know if or how I exist".

People need to slow down in life. Pay more attention to their thoughts, feelings. Be more in the moment then thinking about tomorrow, yesterday, next month, 2012, when I turn 30... people need to balance their life; mentally, physically.. this to me is what being spiritual is all about. What being alive is about. Knowing yourself on the INside, and your outside.

People can be like that and be sceptic.

Are we not yet false for assuming there is no Extraterrestrial life or parrallel realities.. when we do not fully understand ourselves? Ignorance is BLISS!

Once more, stop assuming what other people think, no real sceptic will say that extraterrestrial life or parallel realities exist or not, at least without more information.

Originally posted by denver22

Originally posted by Pladuim


So, where does your "open mind" lead you when discussing the Starchild skull?

Pladuim

congenital hydrocephalus. look it up...


remember be like a skeptic and look at "all avenues".... my freind

My friend, from what I get, that "avenue" has already been taken by scientists and has been shown to be highly improbable.

www.starchildproject.com...

m.youtube.com...#/watch?v=_vz0-1xZr_U

Now what about the fibers found in the skull? Can you point out to me another skull with the same traits?

Pladuim

Originally posted by LoveisanArt
You do understand exactly what it is Im talking about.. its not about a personal belief; its about understanding out TRUE nature, to understand reality. Because reality is as broad as the individual likes it to be.

OK, how can we honestly know if our understanding of nature is the true one or not? How can you honestly say that you are right and all other people with a different understanding are wrong?

reply to post by Pladuim


Like a skeptic i look at both sides i see no proof it is an alien in the way people may percieve it
but alien in a way Now all that remains is to determine whether alien means “foreign to normal human genetics within the framework of that subject as it is currently understood,” or “definitely not from planet Earth”…. or something in between...

You misunderstand what a skeptic is.....my freind

But then......read this...alienresistance.org/AnAnalysisoftheGeneticsoftheSupposedStarchild... .

Originally posted by LoneCloudHopper2
I would ask a skeptic to imagine that a son or other beloved relative claims that he saw a woman murdered but when you follow him to the spot, there is no physical evidence. Do you assume him to be lying or delusional?

That's what happened with the two people I mentioned earlier that told me that they saw an UFO, I just had to take their word for it.

One of them was my grandmother, who only went to primary school and was barely able to read and write, the other one was someone I only knew some 20 years latter, in the company where I work.

I never start by thinking that they are lying or delusional, but that's something that is also possible, although the likeliness of it depends on how much I know about that person.

One thing that most people that do not like the way sceptics think ignore is what I usually think of first when someone tells me something out of the ordinary: were they mistaken? Things like optical illusions are known and can be experienced by anyone (with some people being more easily fooled by them than others), so the possibility that it was some kind of optical illusion or misunderstanding of what was seen always have more "weight" for me than thinking that they are lying or delusional.

But I always start by thinking that they are telling the truth as they understood it.

reply to post by Pladuim

But then our freind mr pye claims it's an adult now..

Revelations in this update: 1) though from a very short ‘humanoid’, THIS IS THE SKULL OF AN ADULT. 2) the thin-boned tough-boned i.e. fibre-reinforced tooth-enamel-like skull of this ‘starchild’ has a capacity of 1600cc, that’s 200cc MORE than a full-grown human adult. 3) it’s looking like the ‘eye’ of this thing is a FIXED EYE and the ‘outer lens’ we associate with The Grays, the black almond-shaped eye is actually some sort of lens giving 180 degree vision. Yes, Lloyd Pye is stating that the STARCHILD SKULL is actually ‘the skull of a Gray’ in this most recent interview with the AMMACH chaps — the plot (certainly) thickens. I just received an email from Lloyd Pye – through his mailing group (so no, not directed specifically towards me) regarding his most recent update on the ongoing Starchild skull analysis.”

lmao...

beforeitsnews.com/.../lloyd-pye-starchild-skull-update-9202012-243...

Mr pye is a fraud in my eyes using solvents and such destroying dna...
Do not put thy faith in extreamly clever charlatans...

reply to post by LoneCloudHopper2

I would ask a skeptic to imagine that a son or other beloved relative claims that he saw a woman murdered but when you follow him to the spot, there is no physical evidence. Do you assume him to be lying or delusional? What if he is both honest and not delusional? Again, honesty will point you in the right direction. There may be no answers to be found, but if you are dishonest with what you do know to be true, your view will be false.

A true skeptic would not assume either. They would remain open to both possibilities, as well as others (those aren't the only two explanations,) while pursuing evidence to see which hypothesis it supports. Ideally, with minimal (I say minimal because it is a fact of human nature that we all suffer from bias in one form or another, however limited) bias and a completely open mind. The skeptic does not assume. The skeptic does not make assertions without proof. As such, the skeptic cannot say, "You must be lying or delusional" unless there is proof of that. That would not be a rigorous or skeptical conclusion, but instead, merely an assumption.

If it were a trusted loved one, I would express to them that I believed they were telling the truth as they knew it. But I've experienced things as I knew it before myself, for which I either continue to lack explanation, or was simply wrong about.

Peace.

is showing is that there is DNA present. One could estimate the size of the pieces from the DNA “ladder” standard in the far right lane, but only if one knew beforehand which ladder standard was used, although it would probably be easy to figure it out. Note also that this DNA was not recovered directly from the ‘Starchild’ skull. An extract of genomic DNA would have made a smear, not discrete bands, and would have included very long pieces, not just the vague, dilute small stuff at the top of each column. These bands appear to have been generated by taking some DNA (from an unknown source) and running it through a PCR reaction that made millions of copies of the DNA. The fact that they got tight, definable bands tells me that they were using specific primers in this procedure. Thus, the DNA is of a known sequence! At least, the ends of the DNA in these bands must be identical to the primers used. What is in between might not be known perfectly. Let me give an example of what would be expected in this case. When I was studying coral genes, I managed to find what I was looking for in one species and I got the gene sequenced. I then wanted to look in a second species, but I did not want to go through all that work again. So, I made primers for the gene in the first species and used them in a PCR reaction on the second species, but I used a lower temperature in the reaction so the primers would be more likely to stick if they were not a perfect match. When I ran the PCR products out on a gel (like in the photo), I got beautiful bands. I then cut those bands out of the gel, cloned the DNA, and sent it out to be sequenced. When I got the sequence back, I learned that I had found a second gene that was not identical to my first gene, but was in the same gene family. I did not know the beginning and end sequence of the new gene because, by definition, it had to be identical to the primers I used. However, in between the primers was a brand new gene never seen before. Why did I go through that long description? To illustrate a point. If they got results like this for the ‘Starchild’ DNA, they are dealing with a known commodity or at least something within a known family of DNA sequences. A BLAST search should have identified it easily. Lastly, I find it strange that a geneticist would share raw data like this with the customer. It proves nothing.

reply to post by Pladuim

Originally posted by LoveisanArt

This is why it confuses me with people who do not belive in extraterrestrial life, multiple universes/dimensions .. you delete an aspect of reality - out of your perception OF reality. Therefore you shall not experience. WHY?

it threatens their self. the ego is threatened. it means they are no longer the king of the hill in the intellectual food chain and they don't even want to go there so they keep moving the goal posts that would signal the reality of the existence of others not like us. Bigfoot is a joke because we are intellectually superior (so we think), but these other guys are a horse of a different color and the existence of which can by default not be proven to them.