UFO/ET Phenomenon

[ResistETIntervention]

[pwagen] Again, which of the reports prove the samples are of extra terrestrial origin. Not "some radiometric results could indicate", but PROVES it. You said it yourself, now explain to everyone else.

Pwagen, have you read any scientific papers? Scientists do not state or imply that “I have proven this theory,” or “This theory is, thus, proven (in a way that it will never be modified or disproved in the future).” No scientific theory is ever stated as proven that way. Also, when scientists have a new finding, they do not claim that “I have a new finding which is an absolute truth that nobody can ever dispute now or in the future.” As you and all the other members here must know, science is an evolving field, a changing field. It changes, not in an accumulative way necessarily, but in ways that, sometimes, old theories are completely discarded in favor of new theories. So, scientific theories are either generally accepted as likely or plausible by the contemporary people in the field or rejected and discarded. That is the reason that there are never scientific theorems, but only scientific theories. It seems that the only way you’d accept the reality of the phenomenon is by actually seeing before you some extraterrestrial beings or extraterrestrial spaceships – come to think of it, I think some of you might even reject that as a proof. It’s quite mindboggling. However, I certainly hope that none of you would see either of them up close, for it could mean that you were abducted.

 

No laboratories will ever provide a report that states that “We proved that this sample contains extraterrestrial substances.” They will take a vague stance from which they can bail out, if need be, particularly if the tests involve sensitive issues such as substances of extraterrestrial origin. In fact, that is precisely what New Mexico Tech did. The following is a quote from “The Aliens and the Scalpel” (Leir, 160)

 

 

The second statement had to do with a comparison to meteorites. They [New Mexico Tech] thought this was the most likely material for these fragments to have come from. On the other hand, there was a problem with the nickel-iron ratio. It seems that most meteorites contain between 6 and 10 percent nickel. They also stated that no meteorites contain less than five percent nickel and to resolve this discrepancy they deduced that these specimens could be just fragments of meteorites.

 

I [Dr. Leir] was astounded by this revelation and knew I had to do something to help clarify the issue. Both Derrel and I knew that our patients did not step on a meteorite or hit one with the back of their hand.

 

I called the lab and talked with the individual who wrote the report. I told him I was going to tell him something that he might find shocking. With that warning, I said that the samples were obtained from the human body through a surgical procedure.

 

As a result of that, the metallurgist rendered an additional opinion which would ultimately prove to have little merit. The final letter of opinion contained an additional general statement responding to the fact that I’d said these samples were obtained from the human body. It stated that an iron-silver mixture imbedded into the body could cause a calcification reaction. It also stated that medicine and dentistry has used ceramic materials for many years. Unfortunately, the metallurgist’s biological opinions did not hold water. In actual fact, no ceramic materials at all are used today because of the tremendous inflammatory reaction which occurs when they are instilled into the body. There were many biological findings which the author of the report did not know about our cases. One was the complete lack of any inflammatory reaction. Also he did not know that the specimens were covered by a strange, gray, dense biological membrane. Last of all, there was no evidence of a portal of entry.

 

 

Do you see the difficulties in attempting to establish scientific evidence of the UFO/ET phenomenon? Any prestigious organizations would attempt to withdraw and refuse to associate themselves to the phenomenon, even when the results were obtained by them themselves.

 

 

[by swansont] This points to the underlying problem: you have a null hypothesis that ET visits are real, which is the opposite of science. Science does not proceed by assuming something is true and then looking only for evidence that supports the idea.

No, the underlying problem is your null hypothesis that Extraterrestrial “visits” are NOT real. I don’t know what “opposite of science” means, but your claim that the extraterrestrial “visits” are not occurring, despite six decades of evidence of many sightings including even extraterrestrial spaceships and many people’s abduction incidences including those followed by the appearance of sudden scars or implants in their bodies which cannot be explained away, seems to fit your phrase. How can “the Extraterrestrial Intervention is occurring" be a null hypothesis? Unfortunately, it is a reality.

 

The first step of scientific method is to observe and hypothesize, so it would not have been scientifically incorrect for you to have made such hypothesis. Yet, I didn’t make the assumption that ET was visiting when I first sighted the three-colored lights in the night sky. Do you think it was that simple? I sought answers voraciously because I, too, did not believe that extraterrestrial visits were possible. Researchers have gathered data upon data upon data regarding the UFO/ET phenomenon particularly in the past six decades. I assure you lack of data is not the issue with people’s denial of the UFO/ET phenomenon as reality. Scientists do not actually require proof, but only general acceptance in the field with what they know so far. If you’re scientifically inclined at all, you’d know this.

 

 

[by swansont] But I'll humor you for the moment and say this: since when has an NDA kept people from talking about really important things? Nobody has ever leaked classified information?

Air force officers have come forward to provide their testimonies after their retirement from military service when the non-disclosure agreements were no longer in effect. As “Split Infinity” has mentioned, yes, information regarding the phenomenon has been leaked.

 

 

[by swansont] Astronomers manage to do science without bringing stars into the lab. People study earthquakes without bringing them into the lab.

Yes, so again, how do you propose studies can be done on objects that jump around in the sky, move vertically up and down on a straight line, remain stationary, attain a superluminal speed, separate into several vehicles from one or vice versa, and are able to maneuver in various ways. Some UFOs were spotted by air force officers navigating in the sky, who attempted to launch missiles at the target (when they suspected them as non-human vehicles) and failed to do so because the launch functionalities were deactivated apparently by the navigators of the UFOs. Astronomers can study stars that are relatively stationary or moving slowly enough for them to observe because their objects do not disappear at their whim. Geologists can study earthquakes by visiting the epicenters after the effect. They cannot take their objects into the lab, so they take themselves to the objects. How would scientists go about studying such erratic objects? They can neither take the objects into the lab, nor can they take themselves to the objects. By the way, there are reasons that neither astronomers nor geologists, for example, know everything about what they study. Also, it is purported that there are those who have not only studied crashed extraterrestrial vehicles but also worked on reverse engineering from them.

 

 

[by swansont ] You want the rules regarding the rigor of the process to be ignored. That's special treatment.

I’ll ask you the same question I asked another member here. What do you propose that people who have sightings or abduction experiences do so that they are not accused of ignoring “the rules regarding the rigor of the process”? I cannot personally do any experiments on abductees, for example, and laymen without the access to the necessary devices and facilities cannot be expected to attempt to observe and record videos of UFOs. Also, there have been many videos/photographs obtained in such manner by those whom you might call reliable sources, even in this thread. However, what have you gained from the evidence? Your stance is still that you don’t jump to conclusion that extraterrestrials are visiting us. There are scientists who have attained strong, physical evidence of the abduction by extraterrestrials. Yet, because you have already assumed that the UFO/ET phenomenon is not real, you are refusing to even bother to do any searching for the results of researches, data, and evidence that are already available out there. You’re taking an easy way out of this; sit there and make various accusations and denigrate me for raising awareness here, without doing any research. That’s asking for special treatment. I already have done research, came to a conclusion that this is a real event, and even came to make peace with myself regarding it.

 

There was a member named “Split Infinity” who claimed to know without a doubt that UFO/ET phenomenon is real, but I didn’t see anyone accusing him/her of not providing evidence to that effect. S/he’s very much mistaken about the existence of benevolent of extraterrestrials willing to help humanity fight other extraterrestrials present in our world currently. However, s/he did state that UFO/ET phenomenon is definitely occurring, which is true.

 

 

[by swansont] Ophiolite addressed this above. You could also put cameras in place to watch people who get repeatedly abducted, and/or put GPS transponders on them to track their movements. I can anticipate the excuses when these don't pan out, though.

Swansont, swansont, swansont,….. You’re a dangerous person. You could mislead human beings to accept RFID chip to be implanted in them to track them down. No way in the world should anyone agree to such invasion of privacy. Also, what would GPS transponders do for abductees anyway? You don’t think such devices can be deactivated, if these sinister ETs chose to do so? They can even deactivate nuclear missiles targeted at them before they were launched. You can see that there is much to learn about the ET Intervention and much to prepare for the future that will be unlike the past. Yet, you guys are bogged down by your ambivalence in accepting the reality of their “visiting.”

 

 

[by swansont] I gave you variables, which is an equation. Now if you make a mistake in the calculation, then that means the math is wrong, but it doesn't stop being math just because someone can't use a calculator. To borrow a phrase, I don't think nonmathematical means what you think it means.

If you just say your equation is A = BCDE, then, it can be an equation as long as the equality holds true for values you substitute for the variables. You can substitute values for A, B, C, and D, and solve for E, for example. However, you were speaking of a formula called “Drake’s Equation.” Variables in the “equation” represent certain quantities. The reasons that it isn’t scientific or mathematical were explained factor by factor in one of the posts above.

 

 

[by swansont] Here's the thing: I am one of your 5-10% who have sighted a UFO. End of September, 2004, when I was driving into work, over Washington DC. I even took pictures from my moving car. Dark + moving means a longer exposure, so it's blurry. But it was a quite vivid sight.

No, that is not my statistics, but it seems higher than that in my experience of speaking with people on the street.

 

 

[by swansont] Here's what I didn't do: claim this was an ET, just because I couldn't figure out what it was. I went into work and got on the internet and identified the UFO. It was a blimp being tested by the army. But I couldn't tell it was a blimp when I saw it. I couldn't tell how big it was, because I didn't know how close it was it looked far away, which would mean it was huge, but in reality I was only a mile or two away. Weirdly lit.

That’s very unscientific of you, isn’t it? What might be a blimp? You trusted the source without seeking any “proof”? That’s jumping to conclusion, I’d say. You want to believe the source if it says it is not a UFO because that gives you comfort that ETs are not present in the world and physics theories you uphold dearly would still seem to be valid. It is your preference that gets in the way of seeing the reality. I’m passed that stage.

 

 

[by swansont] The author's claims overstate the results in the appendix of the book. Pure and simple.

You only read the appendix and drew a conclusion without reading the whole background and people’s interactions and experiences in the book. I’d call that jumping to conclusion as well.

 

 

[by swansont] I think you would have to exclude scientists from the group who "knows" this. Making and testing models are an integral part of science.

A middle school student made scientific models of atoms, volcano, and soil erosion. What does that prove? Testing models help people understand scientific hypothesis. And yes, testing models are an integral part of science, but again, it doesn’t prove anything. Neither does prediction or elimination. By the way, testing models, prediction, and elimination are all done with the assumption of certain results, that is, you make a conclusion and seek evidence for it through such methods. They may help establish a theory with more certainty or less, but none of them prove anything. In fact, no scientific theories have been definitely proven with absolutely no further need for investigation or modification. When a statement is proved, no new theories or statements should be able to disprove it and there cannot be even a single counterexample. That is not the case in science.

 

 

[by Klaynos] Still with the jumping from may possible be of extra terrestrial origins to it was manufactured by EBEs. Even if it contained metal that you could prove matched meteorites would not mean it wasn't forged on earth after impact. Just look at inuit cutlery.

I may not have understood your statement, but from what I understood, I’m going to ask again, if some devices were manufactured out of meteorites by whomever, why did they end up in people’s bodies suddenly after they get up from their sleep? WHO put them in their bodies while they were sleeping? How about the strange, grayish biological substance covering the implants, which apparently rendered no inflammations in their bodies? How about the fact that there were no entry wounds? How do you explain those?

 

 

[by Ophiolite] Of course I didn't. That was a separate clause that has a connection with the first part and with reality only in your mind.

I’m sorry, what?

 

 

[by Ophiolite] Of course I do not expect you to have access to that equipment.

Then nobody but people with direct access to such information is capable of carrying out any investigation that “meets the threshold of being scientific.” So why are people in the thread making such fuss over the statement? Focus on the fact that the Extraterrestrial Intervention is occurring in the world and there do exist a vast amount of data and evidence regarding it. Also, from what I can tell, you guys would still retort with “some lights or some strange aerial vehicles do not imply extraterrestrial visitation,” even if you were presented with videos/photos taken by what you might call reliable sources with such equipment.

 

 

[by Ophiolite] Well, I have demonstrated that, in principle, it is possible. Would this be expensive? Yes, but very likely considerably less than the large Hadron collider or the ISS.

 

Will you please have the decency to admit that your statement was wrong?

 

Further, your statement regarding models and predictions not being part of science is, as pointed out by SwansonT, pure nonsense. Models and predictions are integral to the scientific method. Your statement confirms, if confirmation were needed, that you have no idea of the scientific method.

One of the ways in which this is evident is your sloppy writing. (I say it is sloppy - the less flattering interpretation is that it is deliberately deceptive.) Here is an example:

You guys sought proofs from me specifically, didn’t you? Did you think I might perhaps have access to such equipment and access to satellites or even people in general might? These are the questions you should pose astronomers. Those are some of the people who would belong to that “except” part in my statement.

 

 

[by swansont] Do you understand that unique isotopes and a different isotope ratio are radically different things? Radically different. Do you understand that faced with such carelessness in writing (or such syncism) it becomes almost mandatory to doubt anything you say?

Please see my response above to your previous post.

 

 

[by swansont] Science seeks to separate itself from such twaddle. Science demands objective data and rigor. You must be "that tall" to get in the door.

This is a statement that is made by a person who accepts models, predictions, and eliminations as a proof. Then you must feel like about an inch tall and should have no trouble “getting in the door.”

 

 

[by PeterJ] As Moontanman said, it's a shame that discussions of this fascinating topic have to always descend into such arguments. Surely we're not talking about what would be a scientific approach to these phenomena, but just what would be a common sense and sane approach. it cannot be sane to make assumptions and call them facts. End of.

Yes, it is a shame, indeed. However, I do not regard the UFO/ET phenomenon was a fascinating topic, but the greatest event in human history with a potentially very grave consequence. There are people who have done some in-depth researching to attain proofs and answers regarding the phenomenon, and then there are those who haven’t done much researching and simply decided that the phenomenon is not occurring. Which one is a “sane” approach with common sense?

 

 

[by Moontanmn] I think it is reasonable to assert that our technology has passed the point that if we wanted to we could search for such craft/colonies inside our solar system. Such objects would have to radiate in the infra red quite strongly, assuming they use power and the laws of physics aren't being violated.

Please note that theories and laws of physics have and can be changed or even be discarded.

 

 

[by Moontanmn] But blathering on endlessly about such things as abductions and fairies and elves are never going to be productive...

I think fairies and elves entered the conversation as a joke. However, abduction by extraterrestrial beings is real and merits looking further in depth into the subject, so that the discussion can be more productive.

 

 

[by ydoaPs] So, they wrote that it is inconclusive that it is consistent with extraterrestrial origin? That sums up to a result of a whopping nothing. Since we don't have any examples of extraterrestrial tech, we can't say what their tech is like, so anything is consistent with it. Likewise, any material is consistent with extraterrestrial material.

 

Note that the report wasn't "It is possible, but not conclusively proven, that both the RR3 and 007KT samples show some isotopic ratios inconsistent with a terrestrial origin". That's better, but still not anything to write home about, since it explicitly says the results are inconclusive. So, what you want is a report that says "It is conclusively proven that both the RR3 and 007KT samples show some isotopic ratios inconsistent with a terrestrial origin". Once you get that, let us know. Actually, once you get that, make sure the person publishes their report so they can collect their Nobel prize.

 

As has been said above, your reading of that is incredibly overblown.

I expected this precise question. I’m surprised it didn’t come up sooner. Please see my response to swansont at the beginning of this post.

 

 

[by ydoaPs] This huge bright light moved silently for a bit and then broke up into several smaller bright lights which moved silently and then disappeared as suddenly as the initial light appeared. So, what was the bright like I saw? Most likely a meteor that broke up.

So you drew a conclusion without any scientific evidence? You guys seem to think that any conclusion drawn about UFOs are acceptable as long as the conclusion denies that they are extraterrestrial spaceships, even if they were observed up close from a distance of a few yards. You even jumped to a conclusion that your sighting was “most likely a meteor that broke up.” A lot of jumping to conclusions…

 

 

[by ydoaPs] BUT IT WAS SILENT, you say. Well, that just means it was probably farther away than it appeared (meaning it was even more impressively large and moving even more impressively quickly).

You’re now drawing a conclusion about my sighting? Is there anything that you guys don’t jump to conclusion about without investigating? This was in the mountain. The thick beam of light was going towards the ground silently into the mountain where I was driving down from. It seemed that it was no farther away from where I saw than the spherical one was. So your speculation doesn’t hold.

 

 

[by ydoaPs] Going from "oooh, look at that light in the sky" to "IT MUST BE ALIENS" without any further evidence is never a warranted jump.

Have you not read what I have written about implants found in abductees’ bodies immediately after their abduction experiences? Don’t fool yourself without knowing

anything about me or what I have done to try to find answers.

 

 

[by Ophiolite] We now have two persons on this thread who have seen UFOs and yet have avoided jumping to a concussion. Add me for a third. I've seen at least a handful. Most were identified before they went out of sight. The ones that were not differed only in minor detail to the ones that were identified. In short, nothing to see here; move along.

Actually, all you guys have done is jumping to conclusions (or maybe even to concussion). Why would you even bother to call them UFOs if most were identified before they went out of sight? Then they are not unidentified flying objects. Jumping to conclusion that there is no possibility that they are extraterrestrial spaceships is far more absurd than drawing an inevitable conclusion that they are because of the erratic manners these objects are capable of maneuvering. However, why are you guys even trying to prove or rather request proofs that strangely behaving lights in the sky are extraterrestrial spaceships? There are many people who have sighted extraterrestrial spaceships up close and there are many people who have been abducted by extraterrestrial beings and were returned with implants in their bodies. Why do you disregard the strong evidence in favor of discussing about those that may or may not be, or even definitely not UFOs in your experiences? Wasn’t this the tactic Neil deGrasse used in the clip in this thread?

 

Edited March 23, 2013 by ResistETIntervention

[pwagen]

Pwagen, have you read any scientific papers? Scientists do not state or imply that “I have proven this theory,” or “This theory is, thus, proven (in a way that it will never be modified or disproved in the future).” No scientific theory is ever stated as proven that way.

 

“The Aliens and the Scalpel” is a book written by Dr. Roger Leir, a surgeon who has been extracting implants from abductees. When these implants were sent to independent laboratories, the results of their analysis proved to be of extraterrestrial nature.

I guess you're right. It's not science.

[ResistETIntervention]

I guess you're right. It's not science.

What's not science? The laboratory results? If it's not clear which meaning of the word "prove" I used where, please let me know.

 

Definition of "prove" (according to Webster's New World College Dictionary)

(vt.)

1) to test by experiment, a standard, etc.; subject to a testing process; try out

2) to establish as true; demonstrate to be a fact

3) to establish the validity or authenticity of (esp. a will)

4) to show (oneslef) to be capable, dependable, etc.

5) [Archaic] to experience; learn or know by experience

6) to test or verify the correctness of

7) Printing to take a proof of (type, etc.)

 

(vi.)

1) to be found to shown by experience or trial; turn out to be

2) [Archaic] to make trial

Edited March 23, 2013 by ResistETIntervention

[Moontanman]

Ok let's say you are in fact correct, EBE's are visiting us, abducting us in their sleep, we can't fight them because they can control our own weapons to the point of making them useless...

 

What does this admission of yes they are here get us? What can we do about such powerful foes?

[swansont]

 

No laboratories will ever provide a report that states that “We proved that this sample contains extraterrestrial substances.” They will take a vague stance from which they can bail out, if need be, particularly if the tests involve sensitive issues such as substances of extraterrestrial origin. In fact, that is precisely what New Mexico Tech did. The following is a quote from “The Aliens and the Scalpel” (Leir, 160)

 

No, I expect they will word it such as they word discovery of martian meteorites. The lab reports probably do not include the phrase "I doubt that there is any extraterrestrial origin with this material" or draw the firm conclusion from an analysis that says "it is possible"(p 222). Also, the labs were clearly testing to see if these were meteorites, which is not the same as saying it's extraterrestrial metallurgy.

 

No, the underlying problem is your null hypothesis that Extraterrestrial “visits” are NOT real.

No, that's what a scientific approach demands. If you assume the conclusion and then look for evidence that fits, that's crackpottery.

I don’t know what “opposite of science” means, but your claim that the extraterrestrial “visits” are not occurring, despite six decades of evidence of many sightings including even extraterrestrial spaceships and many people’s abduction incidences including those followed by the appearance of sudden scars or implants in their bodies which cannot be explained away, seems to fit your phrase. How can “the Extraterrestrial Intervention is occurring" be a null hypothesis? Unfortunately, it is a reality.

 

The first step of scientific method is to observe and hypothesize, so it would not have been scientifically incorrect for you to have made such hypothesis.

My hypothesis is that it's a combination of eyes being tricked, overactive imaginations and a disdain for scientific rigor. You've confirmed part of that.

 

Yet, I didn’t make the assumption that ET was visiting when I first sighted the three-colored lights in the night sky. Do you think it was that simple? I sought answers voraciously because I, too, did not believe that extraterrestrial visits were possible. Researchers have gathered data upon data upon data regarding the UFO/ET phenomenon particularly in the past six decades. I assure you lack of data is not the issue with people’s denial of the UFO/ET phenomenon as reality. Scientists do not actually require proof, but only general acceptance in the field with what they know so far. If you’re scientifically inclined at all, you’d know this.

I think we're past the point where you can hope to lecture anyone on what proper scientific protocols are.

 

People saw Elvis after they died. That didn't make him alive.

Yes, so again, how do you propose studies can be done on objects that jump around in the sky, move vertically up and down on a straight line, remain stationary, attain a superluminal speed, separate into several vehicles from one or vice versa, and are able to maneuver in various ways. Some UFOs were spotted by air force officers navigating in the sky, who attempted to launch missiles at the target (when they suspected them as non-human vehicles) and failed to do so because the launch functionalities were deactivated apparently by the navigators of the UFOs. Astronomers can study stars that are relatively stationary or moving slowly enough for them to observe because their objects do not disappear at their whim. Geologists can study earthquakes by visiting the epicenters after the effect. They cannot take their objects into the lab, so they take themselves to the objects. How would scientists go about studying such erratic objects? They can neither take the objects into the lab, nor can they take themselves to the objects. By the way, there are reasons that neither astronomers nor geologists, for example, know everything about what they study. Also, it is purported that there are those who have not only studied crashed extraterrestrial vehicles but also worked on reverse engineering from them.

Geologists visit epicenters? No, earthquake epicenters are well underground. They have a network of sensors that collect data that they can study. They don't rely on eyewitnesses to tell them how violent the quake was.

I’ll ask you the same question I asked another member here. What do you propose that people who have sightings or abduction experiences do so that they are not accused of ignoring “the rules regarding the rigor of the process”? I cannot personally do any experiments on abductees, for example, and laymen without the access to the necessary devices and facilities cannot be expected to attempt to observe and record videos of UFOs. Also, there have been many videos/photographs obtained in such manner by those whom you might call reliable sources, even in this thread. However, what have you gained from the evidence? Your stance is still that you don’t jump to conclusion that extraterrestrials are visiting us. There are scientists who have attained strong, physical evidence of the abduction by extraterrestrials.

Strong physical evidence? Why aren't you posting it?

There was a member named “Split Infinity” who claimed to know without a doubt that UFO/ET phenomenon is real, but I didn’t see anyone accusing him/her of not providing evidence to that effect. S/he’s very much mistaken about the existence of benevolent of extraterrestrials willing to help humanity fight other extraterrestrials present in our world currently. However, s/he did state that UFO/ET phenomenon is definitely occurring, which is true.

I have been responding to you. That someone else is failing to obey the rules is not an excuse for you not to.

 

Swansont, swansont, swansont,….. You’re a dangerous person. You could mislead human beings to accept RFID chip to be implanted in them to track them down. No way in the world should anyone agree to such invasion of privacy. Also, what would GPS transponders do for abductees anyway? You don’t think such devices can be deactivated, if these sinister ETs chose to do so? They can even deactivate nuclear missiles targeted at them before they were launched. You can see that there is much to learn about the ET Intervention and much to prepare for the future that will be unlike the past. Yet, you guys are bogged down by your ambivalence in accepting the reality of their “visiting.”

Convenient excuses for not doing science. And I have to point out I anticipated your excuse.

 

The thing is, if aliens can do all these things, how can they ever have been spotted, ever?

 

If you just say your equation is A = BCDE, then, it can be an equation as long as the equality holds true for values you substitute for the variables. You can substitute values for A, B, C, and D, and solve for E, for example. However, you were speaking of a formula called “Drake’s Equation.” Variables in the “equation” represent certain quantities. The reasons that it isn’t scientific or mathematical were explained factor by factor in one of the posts above.

Can you point out the post to me, the one where you explained all of this?

That’s very unscientific of you, isn’t it? What might be a blimp? You trusted the source without seeking any “proof”? That’s jumping to conclusion, I’d say. You want to believe the source if it says it is not a UFO because that gives you comfort that ETs are not present in the world and physics theories you uphold dearly would still seem to be valid. It is your preference that gets in the way of seeing the reality. I’m passed that stage.

No, multiple news stories and seeing the blimp in daylight was enough proof for me.

You only read the appendix and drew a conclusion without reading the whole background and people’s interactions and experiences in the book. I’d call that jumping to conclusion as well.

The appendix had the tests results, and you had quoted what was claimed in the book. They don't match up.

A middle school student made scientific models of atoms, volcano, and soil erosion. What does that prove? Testing models help people understand scientific hypothesis. And yes, testing models are an integral part of science, but again, it doesn’t prove anything. Neither does prediction or elimination. By the way, testing models, prediction, and elimination are all done with the assumption of certain results, that is, you make a conclusion and seek evidence for it through such methods. They may help establish a theory with more certainty or less, but none of them prove anything.

You have quite a bit to learn about science.

In fact, no scientific theories have been definitely proven with absolutely no further need for investigation or modification. When a statement is proved, no new theories or statements should be able to disprove it and there cannot be even a single counterexample. That is not the case in science.

Nobody has claimed that establishing a theory makes it immune from further testing. Theories are continually tested. Valid contradictions of theories do cause them to be modified or abandoned.

[SplitInfinity]

Ok let's say you are in fact correct, EBE's are visiting us, abducting us in their sleep, we can't fight them because they can control our own weapons to the point of making them useless...

 

What does this admission of yes they are here get us? What can we do about such powerful foes?

 

We have only the smallest...but useful...amount of leverage as it applies to influencing a specific race...but a significant race...of E.T.

 

 

Some here have asked to keep this debate scientific in it's nature. Well...let's examime that request as well as look at what defines the use of the Scientific Method.

 

The Scientific Method is specific to first form a hypothesis that is derived from data collected by Observation, Association, Calculation, Deduction and Determination of Logic. After this a Theory maybe formulated using Experimentation and Data Association which allows one to develop a Theory based on a logical premise.

 

Once a Theory....if data presents itself repeatedly through experimentation or determination to the point that a form of Application...be that application the result of an experiment or act...such as everytime a person boils water using applied heat or an decrease in atmospheric preasure...the result is liquid water changing it's state to water vapor. Using a closed system we see how 100% of the water boiled off returns as liquid water as it is condensed thus we know that the original Theory...adding heat or preasure to liquid water only changes waters STATE...and it DOES NOT change H2O into seperate gases of Hydrogen and Oxygen but rather applied heat or a decrease in Atm. Pressure ONLY changes the state of liquid H2O into Water Vapor....as all that is happening is the Water Molecules are being forced farther apart....once a Theory is proved repeatedly as this example has been.....it becomes a FACT.

 

Now let's apply the Scientific Method to the Hypothesis we developed as a combination of huge numbers of reported visual sightings of Airborn Craft that exhibited flight characteristics that are IMPOSSIBLE using a form of Propulsion as well as impossible in our Atmosphere without burning up or breaking up. Many eye witnesses, videos, Government Documentation, Astronaut and Cosmonaut testimony and even a publication given to all Fire and Police Depts. in the United States by FEMA that describes and details how First Responders are to act and properly respond in the event of encountering by their responce a Alien Craft crash site as well as how this publication details how First Responders must protect themselves as well as the public by taking into account such a downed crafts possible Radiation threat as well as how to contain and limit possible Biological Hazzards inherent to such events.

 

Even if we only had the eye witnesses...it would be easy to formulate a working Theory as far as the existence of E.T.

 

Earlier I posted about how during the early 1950's and again in the early 1960's there were massive E.T. flyovers of Washington DC. There are hundreds of documented by News Papers and other media news groups...interviews of high ranking members of the U.S. Military, Government, Police and Fire officials, Civil Defense and even members of the Joint Chiefs who upon being interviewed stated to the public...Not to worry as the daily overflying craft that could not be downed by U.S. Jet Fighters...WERE NOT SOVIET! Evidentally....the general population of the U.S. was in a state of panic thinking that Soviet Aircraft were and could flyover Washington DC uncontested and there was nothing the U.S. Military could do about it. The Newspapers in the U.S. and especially from the DC area ran headlines such as...Military Brass..."They're Not Russian!" People were much less alarmed being told by the Government and Military that..."Yes...we cannot shoot them down but there is nothing to fear as they are not Soviet Aircraft."

 

All this is well documented in both old Newspaper headlines, TV transcripts and a variety of certain officials memoirs

 

Now given all this data...a person using the Scientific Method would have MORE than enough reason using logic to create a strong Theory that would NOT be using the existence of E.T. as a possibility of conclusion to this Theory...but rather there is more than enough data for the creation of Theories using E.T.'s existence as a reality of fact to ask questions of why, how and where such entities are going, from or doing.

 

In a court of law such verifiable evidence such as eye witnesses, Government and other Officials documentation and of course...what would present as strong as proof of whether ANYTHING existed as to the U.S. Military performing Military actions specific to any reality or entities ongoing actions over U.S. Airspace?

 

Split Infinity

[swansont]

 

Now let's apply the Scientific Method to the Hypothesis we developed as a combination of huge numbers of reported visual sightings of Airborn Craft that exhibited flight characteristics that are IMPOSSIBLE using a form of Propulsion as well as impossible in our Atmosphere without burning up or breaking up.

 

Then you conclude you did not observe a craft, but observed something else.

 

There are lots of things that cannot be observed in a lab. You can't, for example, recreate a star in a lab. So how do we know fusion is what drives stars? You break the system down and test smaller components of it. You do fusion reactions but do not require they be self-sustaining, and measure cross-sections of interactions, to see if your model of fusion works.

 

You have to have a testable model somewhere in the picture if you want this to be scientific.

 

You can go to a show and see a magician make a lady disappear. You don't just conclude that magic works, you know that it's impossible and realize that there's a trick to it. It doesn't matter if there were 500 people in the audience that saw it happen. That doesn't lend credibility to the conclusion that magic is real. That's not how science is done.

[SplitInfinity]

Then you conclude you did not observe a craft, but observed something else.

 

There are lots of things that cannot be observed in a lab. You can't, for example, recreate a star in a lab. So how do we know fusion is what drives stars? You break the system down and test smaller components of it. You do fusion reactions but do not require they be self-sustaining, and measure cross-sections of interactions, to see if your model of fusion works.

 

You have to have a testable model somewhere in the picture if you want this to be scientific.

 

You can go to a show and see a magician make a lady disappear. You don't just conclude that magic works, you know that it's impossible and realize that there's a trick to it. It doesn't matter if there were 500 people in the audience that saw it happen. That doesn't lend credibility to the conclusion that magic is real. That's not how science is done.

 

Your first statement...which assumes that a airborn craft was not observed...is a statement not based in logic as just because it is impossible for an airborn craft to move at such speeds, acceleration and changing directions using a form of propulsion as well as it being impossible for a craft to do this in our atmosphere without burning up...does not mean an airborn craft could not exist or be viewed moving in such a manner if it was using a Gravitic Drive thus it would be observed by position to be in our atmosphere but infact it would be traveling out of normal Space/Time without the hinderance of inertia or the friction of atmosphere.

 

Fusion can be observed in a Lab...just for not very long. LOL! As far as why we know Fusion exists in Stars...that is what a Spectrometer is for!

 

I would have to say...if you are going to post replies such as these and call them reasons specific to debunk my posts....you had better try harder.

 

Split Infinity

[ACG52]

 

does not mean an airborn craft could not exist or be viewed moving in such a manner if it was using a Gravitic Drive thus it would be observed by position to be in our atmosphere but infact it would be traveling out of normal Space/Time without the hinderance of inertia or the friction of atmosphere.

The only thing superluminal is the level of crackpot idiocy embodied in this thread.

[SplitInfinity]

The only thing superluminal is the level of crackpot idiocy embodied in this thread.

 

So...AC...I would just LOVE...for you to tell me using some proof of Physics...what it is exactly that you are stating is crackpot idiocy as far as the statement you have quoted that I was the author of?

 

Since I am fairy good at the Physics of our Universal Space/Time Geometry as well as understanding some of Quantum Mechanics...you had better bring your A game...that is if you do not wish to be embarassed.

 

Split Infinity

[ACG52]

There's really no point in trying to argue rationally with a UFO nut.

 

It's like trying to argue with a 9/11 conspiracy nut.

[SplitInfinity]

There's really no point in trying to argue rationally with a UFO nut.

 

It's like trying to argue with a 9/11 conspiracy nut.

 

Wow! You have embarrased yourself to a greater degree than I could have imagined.

 

Here's the thing...if you make a statment and can back it up...I will have respect for it and you.

 

If you can't...as it is obvious this is the case here...you just look ignorant...and worse....

 

Split Infinity

[Bignose]

Since I am fairy good at the Physics of our Universal Space/Time Geometry as well as understanding some of Quantum Mechanics...you had better bring your A game...that is if you do not wish to be embarassed.

Defend the continual use of the word 'superluminal' implying travelling faster than the speed of list. With your 'fairly good Physics', you should know that our theories do not allow anything to travel faster than the speed of light. And furthermore, there has never been a confirmed measured instance of anything moving faster than the speed of light.

 

Extraordinary evidence will be needed to support this extraordinary claim. If you have that evidence, I'd start preparing your Nobel speech now. Otherwise, admit that 'superluminal' claims just aren't supported here.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Bignose

[SplitInfinity]

Defend the continual use of the word 'superluminal' implying travelling faster than the speed of list. With your 'fairly good Physics', you should know that our theories do not allow anything to travel faster than the speed of light. And furthermore, there has never been a confirmed measured instance of anything moving faster than the speed of light.

 

Extraordinary evidence will be needed to support this extraordinary claim. If you have that evidence, I'd start preparing your Nobel speech now. Otherwise, admit that 'superluminal' claims just aren't supported here.

 

Uh...I NEVER defended, posted, referenced or even thought about talking about Superluminal ANYTHING.

 

This just shows me how little attention you have paid to what is posted here as well as your ability to make assumptions about members.

 

Split Infinity

 

Defend the continual use of the word 'superluminal' implying travelling faster than the speed of list. With your 'fairly good Physics', you should know that our theories do not allow anything to travel faster than the speed of light. And furthermore, there has never been a confirmed measured instance of anything moving faster than the speed of light.

 

Extraordinary evidence will be needed to support this extraordinary claim. If you have that evidence, I'd start preparing your Nobel speech now. Otherwise, admit that 'superluminal' claims just aren't supported here.

 

Also...as far as any craft that would be Interstellar in it's nature...any form of propulsion would mean it would take extremely long periods of time to traverse the vast distances involved. The logical solve to this is to Fold Space/Time.

 

To be able to Warp or Fold Space/Time to the extent needed to make Interstellar travel viable specifically to travel between solar Systems in a timely fashion...a very large amount of Energy would have to be created and directionally focused to represent Mass as the Particles in an Atomic Nucleus that account for Mass...Protons and Neutrons...are completely comprised of Quantum particle/wave Forms. Thus if one understood the UFT or Unified Field Theory...Matter and Energy would be and are interchangeable.

 

Since there is not enough Antimatter in our Universe to generate the needed energy to represent Mass to Fold Space/Time sufficiently for this method of Travel...an Element with an Atomic Number not currently on the Periodic Table with an Atomic Number of around 115 when used as a source of Matter in a Matter/Antimatter reaction...Element 115 is said to generate what is the little known effect called the Strong Force of Gravity.

 

This Strong Force is specific to the creation of a Multiversal Energy Cascade which is a result of 115 interacting with Antimatter and causing Energy Generaton in many Divergent Universal States connected to our Universal Reality....thus Energy Generation is multiplied many times and as it is focused Warping or the Folding of Space/Time allows a Craft to Jump in a One Dimensional Expression of extreme Gravitic Effect. Basically...the craft FALLS from point A to point B without any constraint of Time or Distance as all points of position are the same point One Dimensionally.

 

This allows travel without propulsion as well as without issues such as Inertia.

 

Split Infinity

[ACG52]

 

To be able to Warp or Fold Space/Time to the extent needed to make Interstellar travel viable specifically to travel between solar Systems in a timely fashion...a very large amount of Energy would have to be created and directionally focused to represent Mass as the Particles in an Atomic Nucleus that account for Mass...Protons and Neutrons...are completely comprised of Quantum particle/wave Forms. Thus if one understood the UFT or Unified Field Theory...Matter and Energy would be and are interchangeable.

 

Since there is not enough Antimatter in our Universe to generate the needed energy to represent Mass to Fold Space/Time sufficiently for this method of Travel...an Element with an Atomic Number not currently on the Periodic Table with an Atomic Number of around 115 when used as a source of Matter in a Matter/Antimatter reaction...Element 115 is said to generate what is the little known effect called the Strong Force of Gravity.

 

This Strong Force is specific to the creation of a Multiversal Energy Cascade which is a result of 115 interacting with Antimatter and causing Energy Generaton in many Divergent Universal States connected to our Universal Reality....thus Energy Generation is multiplied many times and as it is focused Warping or the Folding of Space/Time allows a Craft to Jump in a One Dimensional Expression of extreme Gravitic Effect. Basically...the craft FALLS from point A to point B without any constraint of Time or Distance as all points of position are the same point One Dimensionally.

 

This allows travel without propulsion as well as without issues such as Inertia.

Nonsensical word salad. This is garbage.

[SplitInfinity]

 

 

 

Nonsensical word salad. This is garbage.

 

You seem to LOVE to label posts as garbage or make other other derogatory statements but yet you seem to refuse to specify what exactly you object to and why.

 

As far as this last post is concerned...is it the concept of UFT or perhaps the statement about the amount of Antimatter in the Universe?

 

Perhaps you could state an intelligent objection?

 

Split Infinity

[pwagen]

Since there is not enough Antimatter in our Universe to generate the needed energy to represent Mass to Fold Space/Time sufficiently for this method of Travel...an Element with an Atomic Number not currently on the Periodic Table with an Atomic Number of around 115 when used as a source of Matter in a Matter/Antimatter reaction...Element 115 is said to generate what is the little known effect called the Strong Force of Gravity.

No, it's not.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununpentium

 

You can't say you're "fairly good at physics" and then bring up conspiracy theories from before the element was actually created.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materials_science_in_science_fiction

 

I'm guessing that your original ideas stem from the use of "element 115". Thus, they have nothing to do with reality.

[SplitInfinity]

No, it's not.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununpentium

 

You can't say you're "fairly good at physics" and then bring up conspiracy theories from before the element was actually created.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materials_science_in_science_fiction

 

I'm guessing that your original ideas stem from the use of "element 115". Thus, they have nothing to do with reality.

 

If you took notice...I stated an Element with an Atomic Number AROUND 115. There are at least 4 known isotopes of 115 and more are theorized to exist.

 

I will admit to using an improper association as it pertains to using AROUND 115...as this is the Atomic Number and is not associated with Atomic Mass which details Proton and Neutron totals in an average to all Isotopse....but the sentiment was there in that the actual isotopse is currently unknown.

 

Also...knowledge of the Periodic table is more specific to Chemistry so your observation as far as my statement obout my understanding of Physics is moot.

 

The thing about my posting about E.T. and whatever knowledge that I might have specific to it...is based upon a Reality. If you feel there is no evidence to support the existence of E.T...perhaps you should watch the videos that document the interviews of Astronauts such as Mitchell, Gordan Cooper and many others.

 

These Astronauts are Men that have absolutely EVERYTHING to loose and NOTHING to gain by speaking out and confirming the existence of E.T. as well as their statements detailing involvement of various U.S. Agencies and Groups as it pertains to E.T.

 

I would think YOU would have a hard time discrediting the testimony of these Men...these Astronauts. Then again perhaps you prefer to live in the dark with your head in the sand.

 

Split Infinity

[pwagen]

If you took notice...I stated an Element with an Atomic Number AROUND 115. There are at least 4 known isotopes of 115 and more are theorized to exist.

 

I will admit to using an improper association as it pertains to using AROUND 115...as this is the Atomic Number and is not associated with Atomic Mass which details Proton and Neutron totals in an average to all Isotopse....but the sentiment was there in that the actual isotopse is currently unknown.

Unknown, so we don't really know anything about them and any theorizing about them generating the "strong force of gravity" (something that you seem to have made up just now), is meaningless?

 

Also...knowledge of the Periodic table is more specific to Chemistry so your observation as far as my statement obout my understanding of Physics is moot.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know physicists don't need to know anything about elements. After all, we could just as well shoot cans of beer down the LHC, just as we do hydrogen atoms.

 

Also, I don't really care which discipline use which tool. "Element 115" doesn't have the characteristics you ascribe to it, outside of conspiracy theorist internet sites. And you should have at least tried to find that out before spouting nonsense.

 

The thing about my posting about E.T. and whatever knowledge that I might have specific to it...is based upon a Reality. If you feel there is no evidence to support the existence of E.T...perhaps you should watch the videos that document the interviews of Astronauts such as Mitchell, Gordan Cooper and many others.

We've been through this whole deal with anecdotal evidence one too many times already, don't you think?

[SplitInfinity]

Unknown, so we don't really know anything about them and any theorizing about them generating the "strong force of gravity" (something that you seem to have made up just now), is meaningless?

 

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know physicists don't need to know anything about elements. After all, we could just as well shoot cans of beer down the LHC, just as we do hydrogen atoms.

 

Also, I don't really care which discipline use which tool. "Element 115" doesn't have the characteristics you ascribe to it, outside of conspiracy theorist internet sites. And you should have at least tried to find that out before spouting nonsense.

 

We've been through this whole deal with anecdotal evidence one too many times already, don't you think?

 

I did not just makeup the Strong Force of Gravity theory nor do I really agree with the way that term is used.

 

First of all...although Gravity is labeled the weak Force and the term Force of Gravity is used...Gravity is NOT A FORCE. A Force is defined by the Interaction of Quantum Fields. This is so for Magnetism and Electromagnetism...Kinetic Energy Transfer...but in the case of Gravity...it is an Expression of One Dimensionality.

 

There is absolutely ZERO Quantum Field Interaction in Gravitational Effect.

 

And if I were you I wouldn't use the LHC or those working on it or with it as an example of Intelligence of Physicists and Engineers as a Multimillion Euro Baguette Error has quite possibly made them the Poster Boy's of Incompetence. So as for your statement about shooting beer cans...nothing they would do would surprise me.

 

I also think it's extremely funny that you would use the words...anecdotal evidence...as it applies to Astronauts detailing out the existence of E.T.

 

Unreal.

 

Split Infinity

[pwagen]

I did not just makeup the Strong Force of Gravity theory nor do I really agree with the way that term is used.

I can't find anything about it, but feel free to direct me to more information.

First of all...although Gravity is labeled the weak Force and the term Force of Gravity is used...Gravity is NOT A FORCE. A Force is defined by the Interaction of Quantum Fields. This is so for Magnetism and Electromagnetism...Kinetic Energy Transfer...but in the case of Gravity...it is an Expression of One Dimensionality.

 

There is absolutely ZERO Quantum Field Interaction in Gravitational Effect.

 

From here:

It is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces, such that the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtualgravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons.

Care to explain the discrepancy between that and what you're saying?

 

And if I were you I wouldn't use the LHC or those working on it or with it as an example of Intelligence of Physicists and Engineers as a Multimillion Euro Baguette Error has quite possibly made them the Poster Boy's of Incompetence. So as for your statement about shooting beer cans...nothing they would do would surprise me.

The LHC was built to test different theories, but primarily with the aim of finding the Higg's Boson. Seeing as they're making progress in doing just that, how is that a sign of incompetence? Because it took longer than a week to get the results?

I also think it's extremely funny that you would use the words...anecdotal evidence...as it applies to Astronauts detailing out the existence of E.T.

The same rules applies to everyone. Just because they're astronauts doesn't mean they're infallible. Eye-witness accounts, even from someone in space, is next to useless. While they were having these encounters, did ground control pick up on anything tangible?

[swansont]

Your first statement...which assumes that a airborn craft was not observed...is a statement not based in logic as just because it is impossible for an airborn craft to move at such speeds, acceleration and changing directions using a form of propulsion as well as it being impossible for a craft to do this in our atmosphere without burning up...does not mean an airborn craft could not exist or be viewed moving in such a manner if it was using a Gravitic Drive thus it would be observed by position to be in our atmosphere but infact it would be traveling out of normal Space/Time without the hinderance of inertia or the friction of atmosphere.

 

If you are going to hypothesize with science fiction, or magic, then we've left the realm of science. Remember, after hypothesis comes testing. You can;t skip testing and go straight to conclusion, as I've pointed out before.

 

 

Fusion can be observed in a Lab...just for not very long. LOL!

 

Wow, that's technically not even appeal to ridicule, it's flat out denialism. Proudly being ignorant of scientific results is not really a badge to wear proudly.

 

As far as why we know Fusion exists in Stars...that is what a Spectrometer is for!

 

Perhaps you could expound on why you think a spectrometer indicates fusion.

 

I would have to say...if you are going to post replies such as these and call them reasons specific to debunk my posts....you had better try harder.

 

Split Infinity

 

Yes, yes, I know. 'tis but a scratch. Only a flesh wound. You've had worse.

 

I did not just makeup the Strong Force of Gravity theory nor do I really agree with the way that term is used.

 

But you did use it, and without directing anyone to what it is, or give an indication of who did make it up. So cough it up. Where's the science behind this strong force of gravity that's a special property of element 115, or thereabouts?

[Moontanman]

All this talk about element 115 has a source and the source is not extraterrestrial, Bob Lazar started that particular little idea.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lazar

 

For the propulsion of the studied vehicles, Bob Lazar claims that the atomic Element 115 served as a nuclear fuel. Element 115 (temporarily named"ununpentium" (symbol Uup)) reportedly provided an energy source which would produce anti-gravity effects under proton bombardment, along with antimatterfor energy production. As the intense strong nuclear force field of Element 115's nucleus would be properly amplified, the resulting large-scale gravitational effect would be a distortion or warp of space-time that would, in effect, greatly shorten the distance and travel time to a destination.^[12]

 

 

^{I'm not in the mood to rehash Lazar's horse feathers but he also stated that humans were GM being that aliens created out of Homo erectus to mine gold for them, he claimed the info was available and he was required to read it when he worked at area 51...}

[swansont]

All this talk about element 115 has a source and the source is not extraterrestrial, Bob Lazar started that particular little idea.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lazar

 

IOW, it's a crackpot claim being used to buttress other crackpot claims. Got it.

[Moontanman]

IOW, it's a crackpot claim being used to buttress other crackpot claims. Got it.

 

 

Indeed...