Jump to content


Alien Intrusion

Movie

  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

Klaatu_Nicto #61 Posted Jan 20 2018 - 01:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 43963 battles
  • 7,587
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

The didn't mention Valee but they did mention John Mack who I had never heard of before.

 



Beesnest #62 Posted Jan 20 2018 - 12:07

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 6944 battles
  • 841
  • Member since:
    10-25-2015

View PostStriker_70, on Jan 19 2018 - 13:17, said:

 

Maybe you should do a bit more research on this topic before you make such dogmatic declarations. You're basing your conclusions off of a confirmatory bias, not scientific logic or evidence.

 

1) I keep pointing to evidence that's well-known to exist.  You may not have seen it, you may want to reject it, but others who have been studying this topic for decades have seen it.

 

2) I said nothing about a foregone conclusion.  You did.  In fact, I have repeatedly pointed out nobody knows what it is and that dismissing the ET hypothesis is an act of dogmatism, not science.

 

3) The pure speculation and conjecture is coming directly from you.  There is zero rational reason to suddenly disbelieve the National Atomic Testing Museum, the scientists which conducted tests on this material, and the multiple award winning investigative journalist which was given the material by the scientists. 

 

4) I agree with everything Dr. Kaku said in the video provided.  After all, he's taking a scientific stance on the issue.

 

 

 

Yes, of course, it must be me who needs to do more research.  Despite posting links to numerous (recent) Scientific articles that refute or diminish the case for extraterrestrial life.  Have you read any of those articles, and do you understand exactly what you are reading?  In those articles, Scientists are saying "there is no evidence of extraterrestrial life in both, our galaxy and in the universe".  If you have an issue with that, it is with those Scientists, not me.  Did you read the entire Wikipedia article about the SETI program?  I'll summarize it for you: Since its inception, the SETI program had not shed one iota of evidence that extraterrestrial life exists in the universe.  That's commensurate with the (Where is everybody?) question posed by the *outdated (*according to you) "Fermi Paradox".  Do you even know what qualifies as "Scientific Evidence"? 

 

You say you keep pointing to evidence that's well known to exist.  Well, what evidence is that?  The only evidence you've put forward is that people have seen something that they cannot explain.  That's not Scientific evidence of extraterrestrial life.  That's evidence that people have seen or experienced phenomenon that they cannot explain.  Stating what a scientists thinks "could be, should be or might be" and referring to it as evidence is implying a "foregone conclusion".  I wholeheartedly agree that people have seen something they can't explain, and inherent in that mindset, they tend to try and rationalize (or translate) the unexplainable into something that makes more sense to them.  Unfortunately, that's just normal human psychology and not scientific evidence.  Even you concede that people have seen things and "nobody knows what it is", but you're the one who jumps to the ET conclusion.  Do you know what a hypothesis is?  It's a "A proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations" OR "A message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence". Basically, it's an attempt to explain the unexplainable.  Until there is some type of proof to go along with it (apart from simply more unexplainable sightings), the hypothesis holds no water.  That's why Einstein's Quantum Theory and Theory of Relativity are so widely accepted.  They have been both, proven and their specific premises continue to be proven.  Implying that I'm dogmatic is tantamount to calling me a bigot, and this is the second time you've done it.  Yet I'm the only one whose posted links to Scientific articles that refute the probability of extraterrestrial life.  You post articles proving people have seen strange and unexplainable phenomenon (no scientific evidence mind you), but you call me, a bigot.  To me, that's laughable!:teethhappy:  

 

No, wrong again, no speculation or conjecture on my part,  See my previously posted Scientific articles (more than one, mind you) that there is no evidence of extraterrestrial life.  So, you see, it's not me saying it, it's the Scientists behind the respective articles.  Why don't you take up your bigotry accusations with them, hmmmm?  The only evidence that you've been persistently showing me, is evidence of how little you know about Science, Astronomy, and Astro-Physics.

I'm glad you agree with your single point of reference, (Dr. Kaku).  I never intended or expected to change your mind.  I could tell from your very first reference toward him that you're not really interested in what the rest of the Scientific community has to say.

By the way, here's yet another Scientific article for you to ignore: (but I'm the bigot) :facepalm:

Expectation of extraterrestrial life built more on optimism than evidence, study finds:


Edited by Beesnest, Jan 20 2018 - 12:33.


GeorgePreddy #63 Posted Jan 20 2018 - 12:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 14334 battles
  • 7,001
  • [L_LEG] L_LEG
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

View PostStriker_70, on Jan 11 2018 - 00:48, said:

 

So you close your eyes and ignore all possible evidence in order to come to the conclusion you already wanted to believe?  That's demonstrating a religious mindset, a confirmatory bias.

 

Apparently you edited your post, so I will edit mine in response. 

Spoiler

https://www.jdjourna...rea-51-exhibit/

 

Let's see...we have an unknown substance tested by science, originating from a UFO crash, which has iron atoms spaced differently from ordinary iron, does not reflect radar, has anti-gravitational properties, and also contains elements which mysteriously disappear in a vaccum...  And you believe it can't be evidence of extraterrestrial origination because the scientists admit they don't know what it is? 

 

All you have here is some things George Knapp "said", there is not even any article published in a legitimate scientific journal. There is NO HARD EVIDENCE HERE, only a "cool story" from a "reporter". SHOW ME THE MONEY.

 

You are the one who is closing his eyes to the FACT that there is no evidence. None, nada, zip... only a publicity stunt brought to us by one guy trying to "sell newspapers".



GeorgePreddy #64 Posted Jan 20 2018 - 13:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 14334 battles
  • 7,001
  • [L_LEG] L_LEG
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

View Postichi_kaiju, on Jan 17 2018 - 18:21, said:

 

​And I bet you believe in a god..show me one molecule of hard evidence.  Oh, wait you can't.  The bible is a fairy tale not truth or evidence so don't try to use it as your proof

 

Show me where I mentioned a god in any of my posts about this. No, I mention SCIENCE. All I want is scientific evidence. I actually believe there is a very high probability that life of some sort exists somewhere else in the universe.

 

All I am saying here is that there is not one quark of evidence that any life form alien to Earth has ever visited Earth. That's all.

 

Don't try to make this a religious argument, because it is not one from my perspective.



Striker_70 #65 Posted Jan 20 2018 - 13:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 18996 battles
  • 5,669
  • Member since:
    04-02-2013

View PostKlaatu_Nicto, on Jan 19 2018 - 18:04, said:

The didn't mention Valee but they did mention John Mack who I had never heard of before.

 

 

 

Makes sense, Dr. Mack's point of view regarding the abduction phenomenon was inspired by Dr. Vallee's research.



Striker_70 #66 Posted Jan 20 2018 - 14:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 18996 battles
  • 5,669
  • Member since:
    04-02-2013

View PostBeesnest, on Jan 20 2018 - 05:07, said:

 

Yes, of course, it must be me who needs to do more research.  Despite posting links to numerous (recent) Scientific articles that refute or diminish the case for extraterrestrial life.  Have you read any of those articles, and do you understand exactly what you are reading?  In those articles, Scientists are saying "there is no evidence of extraterrestrial life in both, our galaxy and in the universe".  If you have an issue with that, it is with those Scientists, not me.  Did you read the entire Wikipedia article about the SETI program?  I'll summarize it for you: Since its inception, the SETI program had not shed one iota of evidence that extraterrestrial life exists in the universe.  That's commensurate with the (Where is everybody?) question posed by the *outdated (*according to you) "Fermi Paradox".  Do you even know what qualifies as "Scientific Evidence"? 

 

You say you keep pointing to evidence that's well known to exist.  Well, what evidence is that?  The only evidence you've put forward is that people have seen something that they cannot explain.  That's not Scientific evidence of extraterrestrial life.  That's evidence that people have seen or experienced phenomenon that they cannot explain.  Stating what a scientists thinks "could be, should be or might be" and referring to it as evidence is implying a "foregone conclusion".  I wholeheartedly agree that people have seen something they can't explain, and inherent in that mindset, they tend to try and rationalize (or translate) the unexplainable into something that makes more sense to them.  Unfortunately, that's just normal human psychology and not scientific evidence.  Even you concede that people have seen things and "nobody knows what it is", but you're the one who jumps to the ET conclusion.  Do you know what a hypothesis is?  It's a "A proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations" OR "A message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence". Basically, it's an attempt to explain the unexplainable.  Until there is some type of proof to go along with it (apart from simply more unexplainable sightings), the hypothesis holds no water.  That's why Einstein's Quantum Theory and Theory of Relativity are so widely accepted.  They have been both, proven and their specific premises continue to be proven.  Implying that I'm dogmatic is tantamount to calling me a bigot, and this is the second time you've done it.  Yet I'm the only one whose posted links to Scientific articles that refute the probability of extraterrestrial life.  You post articles proving people have seen strange and unexplainable phenomenon (no scientific evidence mind you), but you call me, a bigot.  To me, that's laughable!:teethhappy:  

 

No, wrong again, no speculation or conjecture on my part,  See my previously posted Scientific articles (more than one, mind you) that there is no evidence of extraterrestrial life.  So, you see, it's not me saying it, it's the Scientists behind the respective articles.  Why don't you take up your bigotry accusations with them, hmmmm?  The only evidence that you've been persistently showing me, is evidence of how little you know about Science, Astronomy, and Astro-Physics.

I'm glad you agree with your single point of reference, (Dr. Kaku).  I never intended or expected to change your mind.  I could tell from your very first reference toward him that you're not really interested in what the rest of the Scientific community has to say.

By the way, here's yet another Scientific article for you to ignore: (but I'm the bigot) :facepalm:

Expectation of extraterrestrial life built more on optimism than evidence, study finds:

 

 

When your position is based in a confirmatory bias, yes that's a strong indication you need to do more research.  Including the fact that you keep trying to say I'm jumping to an ET conclusion when I never once said what the UFO evidence means.  Does that mean you're bigoted?  By your very own logic it does.  I just call it what it is, a confirmatory bias.

 

The links which you tout are great.  The problem is they're based entirety on guesses of what ETs would do, would they would look like, what type of planet they would inhabit, and how we would detect them.  It's in effect like searching for lions on planet earth by sending submarines into the ocean.  Since your search methodology doesn't produce any lions, you conclude there's no hard evidence of lions.

 

Then when someone tells you to check the plains of Africa, you refuse to do so because you found no hard evidence when you looked in the ocean.  Simply guessing that your methodology of ocean exploration is the best way to find evidence of lions doesn't make it so.   Saying "there's no hard evidence of lions" because you limited your search to the ocean is just plain silly.

 

That's why nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman calls SETI a "Silly Effort To Investigate".  Why limit yourself to radio waves when there is plenty of evidence that could indicate an ET presence is already visiting earth?  As Friedman points out, limiting your scope of research is not exactly the smartest approach to this issue.

 

These things were already written to you in other ways.  You were either not interpreting what was written correctly, or what was being written went over your head.  And that's fine.  Yet at the same time the conversation can never advance by not fully understanding the concepts being conveyed to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 



Striker_70 #67 Posted Jan 20 2018 - 15:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 18996 battles
  • 5,669
  • Member since:
    04-02-2013

View PostGeorgePreddy, on Jan 20 2018 - 05:57, said:

 

All you have here is some things George Knapp "said", there is not even any article published in a legitimate scientific journal. There is NO HARD EVIDENCE HERE, only a "cool story" from a "reporter". SHOW ME THE MONEY.

 

You are the one who is closing his eyes to the FACT that there is no evidence. None, nada, zip... only a publicity stunt brought to us by one guy trying to "sell newspapers".

 

^^ Oh the irony.  Let's see the evidence that the investigative journalist with over a dozen Emmy awards made it all up as a publicity stunt because he was trying to "sell newspapers".

 

This is what's known as a confirmatory bias.  You have jumped to a conclusion about all this and try to make everything which doesn't comply with your view into something that does. 

 

There's nothing scientific about that.

 

Meanwhile, those who are more interested in scientific discovery rather than closed minded concepts will see the evidence that shows this UFO crash happened, including all the Russian newspaper reports, and the CIA document which explains how the Russians set up the scientific investigation with China:

 

https://www.cia.gov/..._0000043370.pdf

 

Mr. Knapp, hearing about this, then flew to Russia, where he met with the scientists doing the investigation.  The scientists explained to him what they found and gave him a piece of the anomalous material from the UFO crash.  Here's a Russian reporter and author talking about the incident and study in more detail, with multiple images of the substance and the newspapers which reported on the incident:

 

Spoiler

 

Below is a report from the 90's regarding the same incident which is shorter and more to the point:

 

Spoiler

 

 

 


Edited by Striker_70, Jan 20 2018 - 15:45.


Beesnest #68 Posted Jan 20 2018 - 15:37

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 6944 battles
  • 841
  • Member since:
    10-25-2015

@Striker_70

You consistently make absolutely no sense in presenting your point.  There are plenty of scientific facts out there, but you ignore all the specifics that don't correlate with what you want to hear.  That's about as dogmatic and pointless as a person can get.  I have no other option but to assume, I'm trying to hold a logical, scientific, discussion with a teenager.  I sure hope that's the case.  That would explain a lot.  Either way, it is pointless to direct you to any further scientific facts since you seem to be invoking blind-faith (rather than rationale) in these ridiculous assumptions about ETs.  If science, through the decades of advancements has proven anything, it has proven that the once popular assumption that ETs exist, is nothing but just another Elvis sighting.  Good luck to you and your fantasies. :teethhappy:



Striker_70 #69 Posted Jan 20 2018 - 16:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 18996 battles
  • 5,669
  • Member since:
    04-02-2013

View PostBeesnest, on Jan 20 2018 - 08:37, said:

@Striker_70

You consistently make absolutely no sense in presenting your point.  There are plenty of scientific facts out there, but you ignore all the specifics that don't correlate with what you want to hear.  That's about as dogmatic and pointless as a person can get.  I have no other option but to assume, I'm trying to hold a logical, scientific, discussion with a teenager.  I sure hope that's the case.  That would explain a lot.  Either way, it is pointless to direct you to any further scientific facts since you seem to be invoking blind-faith (rather than rationale) in these ridiculous assumptions about ETs.  If science, through the decades of advancements has proven anything, it has proven that the once popular assumption that ETs exist, is nothing but just another Elvis sighting.  Good luck to you and your fantasies. :teethhappy:

 

It's amusing you say that you can't make sense of what I'm saying, then you act as if you know what I'm saying.  You can't have it both ways. 

 

The former is more likely correct, because you don't seem to have a clue what I'm pointing out.  And that's fine, it can be rectified with a little effort.

 

Your discussion is with someone harboring nearly 3 decades of research into the UFO topic, who adheres to scientific logic and discovery utilizing what's been tested to be an IQ of 147.  I'm sure it can be difficult to comprehend the concepts I'm conveying, but it's not impossible.  All that it requires is an open mind, rather than mistakenly acting like you're talking down to a dumb child who is ignoring science.

 

Blind faith is saying that the mountain of UFO evidence we have cannot possibly point to ETs because limited investigations like SETI have not yet detected the radio waves that they're looking for.  That's not only a blind faith, it's fallacious logic.  Just like Dr. Kaku points out, all that's being pointed out to you is that ETs have not been ruled out as an explanation.  Not only is it not ruled out, the French COMETA study concludes that ETs are the most plausible explanation available. 
 



Beesnest #70 Posted Jan 20 2018 - 16:09

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 6944 battles
  • 841
  • Member since:
    10-25-2015

View PostStriker_70, on Jan 20 2018 - 10:04, said:

 

It's amusing you say that you can't make sense of what I'm saying, then you act as if you know what I'm saying.  You can't have it both ways. 

 

The former is more likely correct, because you don't seem to have a clue what I'm pointing out.  And that's fine, it can be rectified with a little effort.

 

Your discussion is with someone harboring nearly 3 decades of research into the UFO topic, who adheres to scientific logic and discovery utilizing what's been tested to be an IQ of 147.  I'm sure it can be difficult to comprehend the concepts I'm conveying, but it's not impossible.  All that it requires is an open mind, rather than mistakenly acting like you're talking down to a dumb child who is ignoring science.

 

Blind faith is saying that the mountain of UFO evidence we have cannot possibly point to ETs because limited investigations like SETI have not yet detected the radio waves that they're looking for.  That's not only a blind faith, it's fallacious logic.  Just like Dr. Kaku points out, all that's being pointed out to you is that ETs have not been ruled out as an explanation.  Not only is it not ruled out, the French COMETA study concludes that ETs are the most plausible explanation available. 
 

 

Well, I guess that means your not a teenager?  Hmm, what other option does that leave?  By the way, you say you have a high IQ.  Did you know that having a high IQ does preclude one from having a propensity toward fantasy?  So, you boast of yourself in order to try and validate yourself.  That's also a normal process of the human psyche.  Again, Good luck.  The Unabomber had a high IQ also.

Edited by Beesnest, Jan 20 2018 - 16:18.


Striker_70 #71 Posted Jan 20 2018 - 16:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 18996 battles
  • 5,669
  • Member since:
    04-02-2013

View PostBeesnest, on Jan 20 2018 - 09:09, said:

 

Well, I guess that means your not a teenager?  Hmm, what other option does that leave?  By the way, you say you have a high IQ.  Did you know that having a high IQ does preclude one from having a propensity toward fantasy?  So, you boast of yourself in order to try and validate yourself.  That's also a normal process of the human psyche.  Again, Good luck.

 

I don't mind, but maybe you shouldn't have resorted to silly personal attacks in the first place if you don't want things like that to be revealed.  They are not necessary.  It's OK though, it happens.

 

Accusations of pure fantasy are easily disproved by the fact that the UFO phenomenon is unidentified.  They could indeed be ETs just as they could be something else.  Though in-depth studies like the COMETA report hypothesize that the most plausible explanation is the extraterrestrial hypothesis.  You may wish to claim they're all fantasizing because you don't want to believe it, but ironically that in itself would be result of your own personal fantasy.



Klaatu_Nicto #72 Posted Jan 21 2018 - 19:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 43963 battles
  • 7,587
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012


Trigger_Happy_Jax #73 Posted Yesterday, 12:09 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 32082 battles
  • 796
  • [STK-R] STK-R
  • Member since:
    08-24-2012

Block Quote

 ...Did you read the entire Wikipedia article about the SETI program?  I'll summarize it for you: Since its inception, the SETI program had not shed one iota of evidence that extraterrestrial life exists in the universe...

 

I don't know if wikipedia mentioned it or not, but actually the SETI program did have a confirmed hit back in the 1970's.  But later, they dismissed the find as a "false positive" with no explanation of how that happened.



Klaatu_Nicto #74 Posted Yesterday, 01:48 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 43963 battles
  • 7,587
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

Electromagnetic waves do not travel faster than the speed of light so the the earliest radio transmissions from earth could not be more than about 120 light years from earth.  I'm guessing electromagnetic wave transmission is a common first step for any developing intelligent species and I'm guessing most of the suns nearest us were born in the same stellar nursery and roughly the same age  So, unless they are very close, in space terms, and developed at about the same rate the human species developed, even if they are out there we would not hear them yet. 

 

Image of the night sky above Paranal on 21 July 2007, taken by ESO astronomer Yuri Beletsky. A wide band of stars and dust clouds, spanning more than 100 degrees on the sky, is seen. This is the Milky Way, the galaxy to which we belong. At the centre of the image, two bright objects are visible. The brightest is the planet Jupiter, while the other is the star Antares. Three of the four 8.2-m telescopes forming ESO's VLT are seen, with a laser beaming out from Yepun, Unit Telescope number 4. The laser points directly at the Galactic Centre. Also visible are three of the 1.8-m Auxiliary Telescopes used for interferometry. They show small light beams which are diodes located on the domes. The exposure time is 5 minutes and because the tracking was made on the stars, the telescopes are slightly blurred.

 

 

Our place in the galaxy. We're about 25,000 lights years to the south, in this image, from the center of our galaxy. As you can see, our electromagnetic waves have left a very small footprint in our galaxy and a mega-extremely very small foot print in the universe. It will be another 75,000 light years before our waves reach the far north in our galaxy and another 2.5 million light years before they reach our nearest neighbor, the Andromeda galaxy. 







Also tagged with Movie

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users