Forum Index            

Cookies Consent Information
SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors

Join to post comments.
Share
Try These Selectors:
Best college values

Good jobs in gig economy

Right religion for you

Presidential candidates

Best US city for you

Know your philosophy

Landmark decisions
Is your name welcomed below? Then you can post here. Otherwise, click "Log In" to post!
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

Mystery solved.

Posted by Kairos 
Re: Mystery solved.
June 11, 2015 10:30PM
Quote
Indy!
Dick, first off - any air craft with blinking lights is an airplane. Those are standard air craft lights required by the FAA.

So now you've decided that the aircraft spotted during the Belgian UFO wave (you know, those UFOs with the flashing lights) were actually airplanes?

Good for you! That's a start anyway -- even if the reasoning behind your new belief is just as screwed up as the reasoning behind your old belief was. For example, just because the FAA requires that flights within the USA require aircraft lights that meet a particular standard does not mean that alien spacecraft cannot also have identical or similar or totally dissimilar aircraft lighting.



Quote

Secondly, the only people who are making this ludicrous argument that they don't want to be seen are you and Navy. And that... ahem... "knowledge" is based on a cartoon that was meant as a joke.

I never said that alien spacecraft in our atmosphere, if there were or are any, don't want to be seen. I said that either they are ambivalent about being seen or they are not. It's not a question of alien motivation. It's a logical point; one that you've failed to comprehend.
Re: Mystery solved.
June 11, 2015 10:56PM
Quote
latch33534
I do not get why people would dismiss all the evidence of ET's. Given that even with conservative figures in the equations there should be ET's visiting. With all the credible witnesses, trace evidence, and detections by machines to corroborate statements. I don't get that. It is not a court of law. There is a preponderance of evidence.

Good question, Latch. Just why exactly would scientists, who in some instances have dedicated their professional careers to the search for ET life, dismiss "all the credible witnesses, trace evidence, and detections by machines to corroborate statements" for the observation of ET life if that evidence was sound and convincing?

The most reasonable answer to this question is that the vast preponderance of evidence given for the phenomenon isn't sound and the little evidence that may be to some degree sound isn't convincing.

If it were, then you'd be reading about the discovery of ET life in reputable science journals instead of only on internet pseudo-science sites.
Re: Mystery solved.
June 12, 2015 01:23AM
You mean something like this, Dick?

[www.express.co.uk]
Re: Mystery solved.
June 12, 2015 02:34AM
Ponderer,

Waaaait a minute. Are you saying that by asking Latch to explain what UFO "trace evidence" is, that I'm ... what? Setting a trap? Somehow being unfair?

I understand trace evidence to mean a small physical sample. Are you saying that humans possess trace evidence of alien life or alien spaceships?
Re: Mystery solved.
June 12, 2015 06:45AM
Yes, Indy, that's exactly what I mean. Believe it or not, some folks accept that trash as actual evidence.
Re: Mystery solved.
June 12, 2015 08:23PM
So (now... finally) you agree there is life out there.
Re: Mystery solved.
June 12, 2015 10:04PM
What? Is your reading disorder rearing its ugly head again?

Also, you continue to conflate the probability that ET life exists (high) and the probability that intelligent ET life has been spotted visiting Earth (low).

Why after all this conversation do you continue to do this?
Re: Mystery solved.
June 13, 2015 09:26PM
Where did I do that? Oh that's right - in your vivid imagination. eye rolling smiley
Re: Mystery solved.
June 13, 2015 11:13PM
You do it right here:

Indy wrote: "So (now... finally) you agree there is life out there."

I have never, ever disputed the claim that it's probable that "life [is] out there."

Never.

In fact, I've stated many times that I believe that it's highly probable that ET life exists. Yet, you ignore this fact over and over and over again. And here you go and do it yet again in the quote above.

Why you are intellectually incapable of distinguishing between the separate questions . . .

1) "Is it probable that ET life exists?"

and

2) "Is it probable that some UFO is the result of ET intelligence?"

. . . ought to be a bit concerning for you, I would think.
Re: Mystery solved.
June 14, 2015 03:30AM
Let's try it again...

Quote
Dick
Why you are intellectually incapable of distinguishing between the separate questions . . .

1) "Is it probable that ET life exists?"

and

2) "Is it probable that some UFO is the result of ET intelligence?"

. . . ought to be a bit concerning for you, I would think.


Where did I do that? Oh that's right - in your vivid imagination. eye rolling smiley
Re: Mystery solved.
June 14, 2015 06:14AM
Quote
Indy!
Let's try it again...

Quote
Dick
Why you are intellectually incapable of distinguishing between the separate questions . . .

1) "Is it probable that ET life exists?"

and

2) "Is it probable that some UFO is the result of ET intelligence?"

. . . ought to be a bit concerning for you, I would think.


Where did I do that? Oh that's right - in your vivid imagination. eye rolling smiley

Again, you did so when you wrote: "So (now... finally) you agree there is life out there." 

When have I ever said or even implied that I believed ET life was nonexistent?
Re: Mystery solved.
June 17, 2015 09:35PM
We have all read or watched enough to know that the field is so muddied that we know that we don't know squat. [www.youtube.com] this one is better and cites evidence. Well is he lying? [www.youtube.com]
Re: Mystery solved.
June 17, 2015 11:18PM
We've already been over this. Stanton Friedman is a nutbag.
Re: Mystery solved.
June 17, 2015 11:32PM
Nutbag... nuclear physicist...

Friedman is one of these, but then again - so is Navy.
Re: Mystery solved.
June 18, 2015 12:04AM
"Nutbag ... nuclear physicist ..."

Nutbag.
Re: Mystery solved.
June 18, 2015 01:33AM
Quote
latch33534
We have all read or watched enough to know that the field is so muddied . . .

No, "the field" isn't muddied in the least. You have never read an article in any reputable science journal that unequivocally states intelligent ETs have been observed on earth or in Earth's atmosphere. Never. Not once.

I know this because I know no such article has ever been published. If you believe that I'm mistaken about this then try to find such an article yourself. Failing to uncover one should convince you that the field on this subject isn't muddied at all. Nothing could be clearer: there simply is no good evidece to support the claim that we've been visited by ETs.
Re: Mystery solved.
June 18, 2015 09:49PM
Since I don't know the man I can't say if he is a nutbag or not. What he does do is investigate and explain his findings in an articulate way. I could care less if he is a nutjob. I try and look at evidence that are claimed to be shown and not just dismiss it . I guess if you can't attack the evidence attack the source so you can feel better about dismissing it and feeling superior and flippant. There is enough evidence to muddy the waters that you can't just dismiss it.
Re: Mystery solved.
June 18, 2015 10:37PM
" I could care less if he is a nutjob."

You should. While we should be willing to consider information from all sources, there are only so many hours in a day. Time spent listening to Stanton Friedman would be better spent listening to reputable sources.

"I guess if you can't attack the evidence attack the source ..."

Fair enough.

"... so you can feel better about dismissing it and feeling superior and flippant."

Oops! You can't claim the moral high ground and then go thrashing about in the mud, Latch.

"There is enough evidence to muddy the waters that you can't just dismiss it."

I accept or dismiss evidence based on its veracity, not its volume. Otherwise I would simultaneously both believe in, and not believe in, ET visitation, Nessie, Sasquatch and a host of other controversial proposals.
Re: Mystery solved.
June 19, 2015 05:39AM
The man is a nuclear physicist - unlike Navy. That's Navy's problem with him. You have to understand, latch - Navy once claimed he knew more about outer space and identifying aircraft in flight than NASA astronauts. He's a bit hysterical at times and anyone with any REAL credentials like Friedman is a mortal threat to Navy - who's just winging the "facts" and hoping someone believes him because he said it in a paternalistic manner.
Re: Mystery solved.
June 19, 2015 08:21AM
"Navy once claimed he knew more about outer space and identifying aircraft in flight than NASA astronauts."

... and there it is! Once again, I've pushed Indy past his usual naughtiness right into telling blatant lies about me.

You make this waaaay too easy. smoking smiley
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login


This forum powered by Phorum

Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!