That's what this forum is for. Yes I am avoiding your irrational and irrelevant responses to my original post which was a consise paragraph not like your rambliming assertions. I used the word ramble several times in my previous post and now you repeat the word in an attempt to use it against me. How orignial. Lol I'm trying to debate but in your paranoid zeal you are trying to expose folk like me????!!. Your fantasy enemies are people who simply disagree with you with reasoned thought and you see monsters and villians behind every rock. You are trully nutty.
they R so ! - - & Uoo know it Vader ! Seems I remember YOU getting trashed when YOU poo poo'd and laughed @ this Phenomena ---- so what's changed 4U Vader.? ............................... .................... Maybe YOU've your own little encounter with the cousins? .... Hard to deny these guys exist, once they've probed YOUR genome, Eh Vader ? ............................................................................................... did it hurt ? .
Correction: this Phenomenon "Phenomena" is the plural form (e.g., these Phenomena). Now, I'm not sure what you mean about my being "trashed" over poo-pooing and laughing at this stuff. Do you mean on the Field with Mr. telly2?
I'm curious, why do you do you think "this idea too greatly upsets their beliefs & conceptions for them to accept it without a great struggle, so you will, no doubt, not be alone with your fantastic ball lightning theory?" You apparently feel you know me well enough to think the idea of aliens would upset my beliefs and worldview. I'm not sure that's true. On one level, I would like the idea of aliens to be true since that would confirm that some sort of FTL travel is possible; therefore we could have it one day. But I do consider it, with our current knowledge, a fantastical idea, requiring extraordinary evidence. Instead, we're given zero evidence that connects to aliens. I simply cannot draw the conclusion that "lights in the sky" equals aliens. Meanwhile, you think the idea of ball lightening is absurd. It might be. There may be some other as yet unknown weather phenomena that explains it, however... ...seeing this in the air at an unknown distance would be a remarkable site. I'm not a military pilot, but I am a former military aircrewman, and distances, reflections, and lights are tricky at altitude. There have been many UFO videos posted in this and other similar threads, and none of them look like an actual physical object to me. If you think one does, pick it out and post it so I can see. Maybe I've missed one.
They've been here for millions of years....if this is the first time you are confronted with the possibility of UFO's, start your UFO discovery by watching History Channels Ancient Aliens, the evidence is compelling https://www.history.com/shows/ancient-aliens Also this extraordinary discovery about the maths and astrology that the pyramids are built on, if you want to make up your own mind on yay or nay then at least make an informed decision.
translation: Jean can't logically or factually or rationally discuss a topic that goes against her belief system, so she resorts to these childish antics.
Not really! I know there's a reality that we can't comprehend. Of course life exists elsewhere, but does that life fall within our own 3 dimensional existence and time as we know it? I doubt it! Travel from such far distances cannot be humanly possible. This means that it has to be unhuman, and by unhuman I mean something that is intangible and doesn't fall within the boundaries of our own tactile existence and knowledge. Man is very limited that way. Anyway my experiences have been many and varied - and they did include TV's and lights turning on. Poltergeist anyone?
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, especially because it left you for longer than necessary w/ some misconceptions that I can quickly put to rest. I do not feel I am yet close, to knowing you so well that I could even fully iterate your world view, much less predict how upsetting to it, would be any given new piece of information. I made the comment you asked about, simply from what I regarded as evidence that you had discounted any UFO evidence, in advance, added to the fact that the idea of extra-terrestrial life is, for a significant portion of people, too great a paradigm shift for their psyches to handle without trauma. Just look at how many grasp at increasingly ridiculous straws of hope, to avoid facing the reality that Joe Biden is our President, is staying our President, and was legitimately elected. Finding out that we have far more technologically-advanced, alien beings for neighbors, has got to rate a little bit higher on the shock meter (likewise, compared to accepting the concept that we are under attack by a virus that has newly-focused on humans, over which so many remain in denial). I have seen this reaction to the ET idea, by the way, in my own family, members of which cannot even listen to or watch any of the evidence without exaggerated, & ceaseless, vocal objections (the adult version of placing one's hands over one's ears & making nonsense noises to drown out what one wishes not to consider, or even hear & allow into one's thoughts). So don't take my educated guess personally; though it seemed a good bet; I certainly could have been wrong, in your case. However, ball-lightening was one of those things that the "science"-minded came up with, when they ran out of other plausible explanations; and there are others, even more exotic, and less-founded on any knowledge of their actual existence, than ball lightning. But for some, the speculation that, under the right conditions, some unidentified components of swamp gas must be capable of inducing group hallucinations, is an easier pill to swallow than that what appear to be alien spacecraft by any measure that would be taken for positive proof of an earthly aircraft, are actually just a silly mistake, that gets repeated by not just thousands but millions, over and over and over again, rather than something piloted by an unidentified life form. I do not contest the existence of ball lightning, though it is a much rarer occurrence, by all accounts, than could account for all the UFO sightings, for which ball-lightning is the last refuge of explanation-- of those who seem adamantly averse to commencing the conceptually-tumbling chain reaction, which ET in a spaceship is bound to begin. Please though, don't tell me that you do trust that image of ball-lightning that just happened to come along to slowly mosey across the train tracks, conveniently in front of where a camera had already been set up, on a tripod (notice, no shaking). To me, that is clearly a fraud. Kind of ironic, isn't it?
Some of us, apparently, more so than others. But thank you for such a fine example of both self-limiting conceptualizing, and specious argument: not possible by humans= only possible by the inhuman= must be intangible. Why could not something as tangible as you or me, have developed technological capabilities far beyond our own? Some reason from the Bible? It is interesting what being irrationally tied to a belief can do to even the greatest minds. I am referring not to Jeannette, but to Leonardo Da Vinci, who explained why the human soul, scientifically, must be inviolate, that is, cannot be broken into any smaller parts or fragments. His reasoning was that the soul, of course, is lighter than all else. So at death, when it is freed from its bodily anchor, it would, naturally begin to rise, above the Earth & into the cosmos. And the higher it would rise (presumably on its way to join God, in heaven), the more strongly violent the winds would become (as happens when one climbs a mountain). Da Vinci's argument culminated with the conclusion that, eventually, the soul must pass through winds so powerful that anything that could be broken apart, would be. Therefore, since we know that souls make it to heaven, intact, that proves that the soul is indivisible. Not his best work.
Well your objections to skepticism varies a bit from some of the others I've seen on this and other threads. You think it's a worldview issue; there is no room for aliens in my philosophy Horatio, therefore I reject all evidence of it. ET could probe me with his glowing finger and I would blame it on swamp gas. I've already explained my objections so if you won't accept what I'm telling you as to why I'm not a true believer (no actual evidence connecting lights in the sky to actual extraterrestrials), then it looks like you've decided to think what to you is the superior high ground; that you are oh so open minded and willing to accept a new, mind expanding worldview while I'm stuck in troglodyte land, and can't even conceptualize aliens except as border crossers looking to take our jaaaabs. Since you can't accept that there is a total lack of evidence connecting lights-in-the-sky to aliens, and...there is a total lack of evidence lights-in-the-sky to aliens, we really don't have a basis to discuss this issue since we couldn't agree on simply ground rules like quality of evidence. I'm not trying to dissuade you of your beliefs; you're welcome to them and I hope they provide you comfort as the idea seems to bring to others, but I'm not believing something fairly outrageous unless there is a lot of significant evidence of it, and so far that's a big fat zero.
Significant is a subjective term. So your view is subjective, not objective. Are you able to think critically and be specific? Oh yes, "outrageous" is an emotional response. Can you keep emotions out of this?
By the way I didn't say inhuman, I said unhuman. Inhuman has a bad connotation, unhuman means that they cannot be part of the physical world as we know it. Of course man can develop technological capabilities beyond our own. What I said or meant is that life as we know it cannot travel the immense distance from one planet to another. This doesn't mean that it does not exist, but it has to be a different form of existence. [/QUOTE] From what I know about Da Vinci, I wouldn't exactly say he was in a moral and spiritual position to know anything about the human soul. Now if you want true genius, I would say Nicola Tesla since he gave us just about everything we have and enjoy today. He's not well known though because he was above personal aggrandizement and didn't care when his patents were being stolen. He also tore up his contract with Westinghouse to help them out financially. Otherwise he would have been the richest man in the world today and instead he died a pauper and alone. The only thing he did care about was to give the world free electricity to end wars. Here's a Tesla quote: "Peace can only come as a natural consequence of universal enlightenment and merging of races, and we are still far from this blissful realization, because few indeed, will admit the reality that "God made man in His image" in which case all earth men are alike. There is in fact but one race, of many colors. Christ is but one person, yet he is of all people, so why do some people think themselves better than some other people?"
I noticed that too. It seems as if they're appearing from another dimension rather than being actual physical objects.
Man, that was one heap of convoluted BS you just shoveled. Why not try just analyzing the CONCRETE EVIDENCE that has been amassed, recorded and documented over 70 years and more and draw your conclusions with that? FTL is theoretically possible.....our own space program documents that the human aging process slows down slightly during long term space missions. Think about it. See, there is a world of events and experiences beyond your own that are real.
They actually got a little older than us Eartlings on the lunar missions. Clocks run slower in gravity fields, thus faster when you leave a gravity field; more so than they run slower at the speed of the lunar capsules. So in the end they got a tiny bit older instead of younger than us. Someone back then joked to the effect that they should apply for 20 nanoseconds of overtime.
One of the ASSUMPTIONS made about any potential occupants of alleged UFOs is that they must travel here from some other star. Perhaps they have always been here. History certainly suggests as much. When I interrogated some physicist friends of mine, some admitted that the idea of time travelers is actually a simpler explanation, than ETs. Time travel and FTL travel are closely connected. Currently, one is no more or less likely than the other. And the idea of time travelers avoids many of the complications of interstellar travel; not the least of which are "Why are they here?" and "How did they find us and get here so soon?". "Why would the look humanoid at all?" In short, Occam's Razor favors the time traveler explanation.
Speaking ONLY as "A Stranger In A Strange Land" everything - & I mean EVERYTHING is happening - everywhere & I mean EVERYWHERE ALL of the time & I mean ALL OF THE TIME & what WE perceive as reality is simply our personal FILTER that excludes & blanks out 99.99999 +ad infinitum % of the whole .......... like the infinite number pie - of that WHOLE REALITY That WHOLE REALITY -- of that ONE verse - the UNIVERSE ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.....,,,, ALL dimensions, time & space It is a # far smaller & far greater - than the PLANCK's Length & the creatures who are Observing YOU Now are constrained by those same Limitations in different ways & so we as people - speculate & try to comprehend .as they do - as puppy dogs & kitty cats no doubt do ,,,,,...........................,, see it all BUT the aliens are here - 11:16 What If (Tiny) Black Holes Are Everywhere?
Very cleverly put. Had you stopped there, I would have given your post a like. It also reminded me of what I'd forgotten. There was a clip from The Hill that I'd seen, that I'd wanted to attach, in which Sanger's guest talked about himself feeling similar to what you describe at the end of this quote, that he just can't get himself to accept the concept. He said something like, if they brought an alien up on stage & he started talking, he would still be thinking/saying, "This has got to be fake." So it would be anything but unusual, IF you were having difficulty digesting the concept (for the record, I believe an alien anal probing would be sufficient, to change your perspective). But I don't want to cause more ill-feelings, certainly not before I address the rest of your post, in which-- unlike your typically rational-minded assessments-- you seem not to be responding in a clear-headed fashion, but rather as IF, I had struck a nerve. But wait! Let me show you why I say that. Here is how your reply continues: Geez, it sounds like the guy you're responding to is being a real dick-wad. But, for kicks, let's look at my post, which brought on your castigating indictment, above: You know, Mike, I think we have a bigger disagreement than even over what constitutes evidence of extra-terrestrial contact (please note that evidence, & proof, are two different things, & I have only maintained there is very strong evidence): we can't agree on what it means to be an ass who won't admit the possibility of having erred. Because, in my book, the words, "I certainly could have been wrong, in your case," don't quite give me that impression. Granted, I did explain, in my post, why I had come to the conclusion to which I originally had (my educated guess) about your inability to accept the possibility of aliens, here on Earth, as having an influence on your bar for evidence worthy of consideration (which sounded, from your earlier description of being able to touch the ship, & so forth, like you were waiting for something more like definitive proof, before even granting its possibility). But maybe it was the lapse in time that caused you to regard my words out of their proper context (despite that I did quote your post, to which I was replying). So here is your request, to which I had the audacity to explain my line of thought: So, it seems to me, that you asked me about my thinking; I explained to you why I'd thought it was a, "good bet"-- not based on anything personal, or about your character, mind you, but only because I found your alternate theory to be a greater stretch than my theory**, and because of the odds, that is, the frequency of this type of non-acceptance-- but admitted that, in your case, that may not have been true; which you then somehow took to be me saying that I'm right, and you are not only wrong, but I don't take your word for your reasoning, either. Does that about sum it up? **this is our true disagreement: what constitutes credible evidence, for at least serious consideration, if not dictating a conclusion, in which I respect your right to your perspective, as much as you say you support my right to my own ideas (after, not subtly, implying that I was pompously conceited, for doing so).
I think your conflating what happens at a black hole as opposed to just leaving Earth's gravitational fields to a degree and acheiving a level of weightlessness. Here's a better explanation: In Space, Scott Kelly Aged Slower Than His Brother on Earth - And Here's Why (sciencealert.com)
Why wouldn't they look humanoid? It's a highly adaptable physique. To assume we are the ONLY creatures in the Universe that have evolved as sentient beings is absurd, given that our own science points to other suns with similar radiations and planets relating to them. Time travel fits that hubris. Occam's Razor doesn't fit everything ... nature shows that.
UFOs are real, they are here. They have an agenda. Most of them are operating clandestinely. One wonders why they are doing that? They are abducting humans, they are collecting sperm from males, ovum from females, and creating alien/human hybrids. Millions, from all walks of life, mostly from about the 50s onward, have been abducted. Why are they doing this? No one knows. I read a most amazing book, 'Walking Among Us', by the historian Dr. David Jacobs. It's an eye-opener. Think this is crazy? Read the book, then tell me.
Most people, who see a UFO, see it from afar. So, what does that leave most people with, a cell phone, at night, and a dot in the sky. You're not going to get a good photo with that. In my entire life, I have never seen a UFO. But, I was a professional photographer for a long time, so to get a good clear shot of a UFO, let's take a look at this. now, I study the subject, I am an amateur Ufologist, for what it's worth, What I do know about UFOs is that they are primarily interested in abducting humans and monitoring military and nuclear installations. So, you are rarely going to see one up close in the day time, they operate mostly in rural areas at night. They do this intentionally. they are operating clandestinely. They have an agenda. When they are prowling to abduct someone, they switch off neighboring humans ( I don't know how they do it, but they do it, somehow ) AND, they switch off ALL electronic devices. So, this idea that you are going to get a close up shot of a ufo with cell phone or even a decent SLR camera with a 35mm lens is not going to happen. The only way you are going to get a good close up shot of a UFO, given how they operate, is with a very expensive ( say about $12k ) super telephoto lens / digital SLR camera, with a camera body that can handle HIGH ISO range, over 100k ISO , cause there will be no flash that works at a distance. and you will be shooting at night. You will be using a tripod . So, I recommend Nikon D800/850 or a Canon 5D mark IV and with something like a Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM Lens. Now, having a range of lenses, say two or three cameras with tripods with three different ranges, 400mm, 600mm and 800mm, and a zoom, 24-200 on a 7d body ( crop factor, giving you an effective 125-300mm range ) ready to shoot, would be ideal, but your looking at $50k (guesstimating ) worth of gear, so who has that? So, you get your gear, and you go out to the desert, and you wait, and you might wait for years, and still not get anything. but, if you go to where they are known to be seen, in the desert near nuclear military silos, that's the best bet. If I had the gear, I'd be out there, right now. But, aliens are smart, if they see you out in the desert with all this gear, they are going to switch you off.This is why there are no decent photos of aliens. they don't want us to have them. They have telepathy, which is psychic radar, they can scan the landscape, and know you are there, what you are thinking and what you are up to, within a certain range, you can't hide from these mofos. But, with a super telephoto lens, you just might get lucky. Read 'Walking Among Us' by Dr, David Jacobs, and you'll understand what I'm talking about.
