Why still denying it?

Originally posted by UnknownKnower
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Or D.) they are showing themselves and have been covered up.
Or E.) They are advanced but not advanced enough to completely keep themselves hidden.

Your possibilities are just as likely as those. To say it's stupid, thinking aliens have visited us, is the real stupid thing. Aliens may be visiting us every day and they may very well be hiding themselves but you cannot deny the fact that people all around the world in multiple time periods have seen SOMETHING that cannot be explained even to this day. And that something just so happens to fit what we could think of as aliens. Some very well educated and smart people have reported seeing aliens so what can you say about that? Were they just imagining it when it is very clear that they weren't? Are they looney or stupid like you claim they are? I think not.

D) Could the government cover up the fact Airplanes are in the sky? It's not possible to cover up UFO's landing in New York? If they showed themselves it would be impossible to deny it.
E) We are advanced enough to be completely hidden. As I showed you we are starting to hide events from time itself, yet a race that makes us look like cavemen without the knowledge of fire or the wheel are incapable of it?

As I stated, you will just jump on illogical possibilities and deny logic. That's why it's pointless to have a logical debate with someone like you.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

I would never call anyone stupid. I would certainly say the human mind has the capability to see things which are not there. Even large groups of people are subject to this...

And to completely misjudge what they are seeing. Especially as a group.

A true story which I have posted a couple of times before:


While walking down to the beach one fine summer day I came upon a group of people looking up with their hands shading their eyes from the Sun and pointing at the sky. I looked up but couldn't see anything. As I got closer to them I could hear comments; "It's huge!", "Look how fast it's going!"

Really curious now, I asked what they were looking at. One of them said, "It's a UFO. Look, right there." I looked. I saw. A black toy balloon about 10" in diameter and maybe 100' in the air, drifting with the wind.

An object isolated in the sky, with no points of reference, can fool the eye. The observers had made the assumption that this was a very large object. Going from that assumption, because it looked so small, it must be very high in the sky. From there, its motion must be very fast instead of just drifting with the wind, the way balloons do. As a group, they had come to the wrong conclusion about what they were looking at. Their excited chatter feeding the illusion.

I said, "Um, I think it's a balloon." There was an immediate, "Yeah, right. Look how big it is." But then there were some abashed giggles as the observers' perspective changed. The group dispersed as the balloon passed under a cloud, making it obvious what was being seen.

And the same thing can happen with "trained observers". If an airplane pilot is trying to identify an airplane he can probably do a good job of it but if it isn't an airplane, if it's a meteorological or astronomical phenomenon with which he has had no prior experience, all bets are off. It happens.



There are also some interesting phenomena which can occur after the fact.

Loftus and Palmer argue that two kinds of information go into a person's memory of a complex event. The first is the information obtained from perceiving the event, and the second is the other information supplied to us after the event. Over time, information from these two sources may be integrated in such a way that we are unable to tell from which source some specific detail is recalled. All we have is one 'memory'. This argument is called the reconstructive hypothesis.

www.holah.co.uk...

Individual eyewitness recall reports were gathered from witnesses (29 undergraduates) who were later put into 4 groups to discuss and reach a consensus on a description of a simulated crime they had witnessed. Groups gave more complete reports but at the price of a significant increase in errors of commission (the fabrication of details under group pressure). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

psycnet.apa.org...

It was found that individuals tend to agree in their testimony following group discussion, and are liable to change their original replies to bring themselves into agreement with group leaders' recall.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Originally posted by UnknownKnower
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Heres a possibly answer. Though I dont think youll accept it. There are multiple species of aliens therefor certain ones will go faster and be seen and others will not.

I accept it. Eyewitnesses talk about the same ship going slow and then zooming so fast they cant keep up.

They could be just as different from each other as we are from them. Perhaps there are VERY advanced beings and not so advanced beings. Possibly only a little more than us. I only say more than us because they have obviously, if real, been visiting us and have good enough technology to do so.

As I already explained we have advanced cloaking technologies and we cant even begin to imagine how they visit us. So no, they are not only a little more advanced, if they can get here they are advanced beyond anything our smartest minds can even imagine.

Originally posted by signalfire
It never ceases to amaze me that we live on a planet where religions based on ancient stories (hardly facts) can be 'believed' by the majority but information based on millions of sightings, hundreds of radar returns and ubiquitous photographs, documented by governments who have admitted to withholding of information and incredible levels of redaction is somehow 'imaginary' and the people interested in simply investigating these sightings and occurrences are subject to ridicule.

We can't deal with reality until we know what it is, and it's not in your bible which was written by people to whom a plow was high-tech, who had no clue what electricity, germs or earthquakes were (except when neatly explained away as 'the gods being angry').

However, reality very well may be in the millions of government documents that are now sitting in archives covered in black magic marker. Your tax money paid for this information, and you are not being allowed to make use of it, and you are lied to about its content. Is this a government you can be proud of? Trust?

Wow, that's a lot of evidence. Show me some that is irrefutable, what you can't? Nice claims too bad it can't be backed up with facts.

reply to post by Phage


I don't see how your example relates to trained pilots seeing other objects flying alongside their craft, making maneuvers, showing up on radar, and then out run the aircrafts in a matter of seconds.

The example you've shown is a couple of civilians on the ground making some mistakes, which of course is ONE example of a bad sighting.

What about the case brought up during the UFO citizen hearing? 3 pilots seeing the same object? This contradicts your experiment where people remembered different things.

There are hundreds of thousands of sightings.

I guess you'll discredit the entire documents released by the FBI without even reading them right? Something to do with pilots being inexperienced with natural phenomenon?

www.ufocasebook.com...

reply to post by peashooter


So they want to be seen so they allow themselves to be seen, sometimes, sort of, by a select few, so we know they are there, but we don't actually know. If they want to be seen why aren't they parking over Manhattan?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Did you go over the FBI files? There's lots of them.

"Why don't they park themselves over at Manhattan?" Thanks for the good laugh

Look around at the horrible things people do to each other, let me ask you this, why don't you park yourself in the middle of a zoo with the animals and try to talk to them? See how well it goes?

(I think even animals behave better than some of humans do, look at all the violent crime that happens on a daily basis)

reply to post by Phage


Great story, and is exactly what I have been talking about. If they had never heard of UFO's and only knew balloons they would have been very unlikely to see anything other than a balloon. The human mind has an amazing ability to see what is not there. I wouldn't want it any other way though.

reply to post by peashooter


Secret military vehicles would be a much more plausible explanation if there was anything there at all.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Secret military vehicles? If you do a bit more searching you'll find that many instances it's the military called to scramble jets to intercept the object because the military does not have anything flying in the area.

Military chasing their own military vehicles which can defy physics and disappear from view?

Hate to burst your bubbles but a couple of bad "sightings" does not discredit the hundreds of thousands of

photos, documents, witness testimonies, pilot reports, government reports, videos, radar records, flight data records.

All of these are "not valid" because of a couple people down the street got excited over a balloon?

Come on, at least try to hide the skeptical attitude.

Originally posted by peashooter
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Did you go over the FBI files? There's lots of them.

"Why don't they park themselves over at Manhattan?" Thanks for the good laugh

Look around at the horrible things people do to each other, let me ask you this, why don't you park yourself in the middle of a zoo with the animals and try to talk to them? See how well it goes?

Glad you asked, last time I was at the zoo I can guarantee you the animals knew I was there. So why don't we know they are there? If they want to remain hidden why haven't they? You can't have it both ways. You can't say they wont reveal themselves because we are animals and they don't want to be seen, and then say we have lots of sightings. Which is it?

reply to post by peashooter

I didn't say it did, did I?

But I've also pointed out that throwing all sightings into one big bucket and waving it around as evidence of something in particular is pointless. You do that and you end up with a bucket of crap because there is a lot of nonsense and blatant hoaxes in that bucket. A lot of misidentifications and radar angels in that bucket.

You have to look at each case and consider it on its merits.

Come on, at least try to hide the skeptical attitude.

You think there is something wrong with being skeptical? I don't. Why should I hide it?

Originally posted by peashooter
Hate to burst your bubbles but a couple of bad "sightings" does not discredit the hundreds of thousands of

photos, documents, witness testimonies, pilot reports, government reports, videos, radar records, flight data records.

All of these are "not valid" because of a couple people down the street got excited over a balloon?

Come on, at least try to hide the skeptical attitude.

Which is it? We have tons of evidence because they don't care if we see them, or we are animals in a zoo so they won't show themselves? Pick one.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Huh? did we ever hide our faces from the animals in the zoo?

Here's a better example "you're sitting on a helicopter flying through the forests observing the wildlife, or watching footage from an unmanned drone also observing the wildlife"

Either one the animals have no idea what the object is, or the purpose of the object that is in the air, and there is not much they can do to bring the object down.

Originally posted by peashooter
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Huh? did we ever hide our faces from the animals in the zoo?

Here's a better example "you're sitting on a helicopter flying through the forests observing the wildlife, or watching footage from an unmanned drone also observing the wildlife"

Either one the animals have no idea what the object is, or the purpose of the object that is in the air, and there is not much they can do to bring the object down.

edit on 11-6-2013 by peashooter because: (no reason given)

Why do they have to bring it down. There is no doubt it's there. I never said we had to bring a UFO down. Every scenario you give it's 100% known by animals objects are there and it's not debatable. If they all had smartphones we'd have a billion videos with no doubt the objects exist.

How does that compare with we have zero actual evidence other than people saying "I saw something"? So if we are not hiding from the zoo animals, why aren't the UFO's parked over Manhattan to observe us?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


We do have videos, many of course faked, therefore you would not want to look for evidence based only on video.

May I ask again what actual evidence are you looking for? If you are truly interested and you dig around on the topic there are many things you can find. By far the most reliable are documents from trusted organizations or individuals such the government/pilots. I've said this before but there are some still asking for evidence, aside from an object crash landing in the field I think that's about as best as you'll get. Search up ufo citizen hearing 2013 on youtube, watch them with an open mind.

reply to post by peashooter


There is not one single video you can look at that is real and say damn that was definitely from another planet. There's nothing. Show me the best video you got. I showed you thousands of people claiming they witnessed things that 100% are known to have not occurred. There is no evidence there as the human mind can be tricked.

Reports have existed for centuries, yet then they were fairies and leprechauns who accounted for periods of missing time and abductions. Nothing has changed except our "perception" of the same phenomena. Why? The media and it's science fiction stories. This has steered the phenomena away from leprechauns and fairies and to extraterrestrials and space aliens. Likewise, the folklore several centuries ago was not science fiction but rather leprechauns and fairies, and so this phenomena was perceived as such. Then the lights zipping through the air were fairy lights, today they are perceived as alien space craft. Then the baby was abducted by the fairies, today the babies are abducted by aliens. Then people had sex with incubus and succubus, today people have sex with aliens. 

With Christ no longer freeing our minds, our minds are falling right back into superstitions. We see our "secular science" moving into being used to support mysticism which is none other than science and occultism once again blending together. The largest occult branded entity known as NASA and its Freemasonic connections give the indoctrinated populace the "evidence",  just like a trusted parent provides the presents tagged "from Santa" on Christmas morning - both convince the kids that lies are real.

The mind can be influenced to perceive a different reality, particularly if that different reality is made very very attractive. There is no difference between fairies and leprechauns of three centuries ago and aliens of today. But yet, someone already convinced of extraterrestrials visiting Earth will jump up and down and say it isn't so. Why? Because they can't let go of the delusion created for them. All of their hopes and dreams have been set, and to accept alternately means that those hopes and dreams were for nought. And like children on Christmas morning, they cannot see nor do they want to believe that their parents manufacture evidence which makes them believe a lie. 

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


I'm just a guy interested in topics so I have no right to claim they are all from another planet.

But if I were to pick a video here it is